Amputee athlete barred from able events for technical aids.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Fox Sports on MSN

Amputee sprinter ruled ineligible for Olympics

MONTE CARLO, Monaco (AP) - All his life, Oscar Pistorius has confronted obstacles. The double-amputee sprinter from South Africa now faces another one — a decision barring him from the Olympics.

Track and field's governing body ruled Monday he is ineligible to compete this summer in Beijing — or any other sanctioned able-bodied competitions — because his "Cheetah" racing blades are "technical aids" that give him a clear advantage.

The IAAF ruled on Monday that Oscar Pistorius cannot participate in the Beijing Olympics. (Andrew Medichini / Associated Press)

"An athlete using this prosthetic blade has a demonstrable mechanical advantage (more than 30 percent) when compared to someone not using the blade," the International Association of Athletics Federations said.

Pistorius had long learned not to consider his artificial legs a hindrance, even refusing to park his car in a spot for the disabled.

His manager, Peet Van Zyl, called the IAAF ruling a "huge blow." Van Zyl spoke briefly with Pistorius, saying he "could hear from his voice that he is disappointed."

"He has been competing in South African able-bodied competition for the past three years," Van Zyl said. "At this stage it looks like he is out of any able-bodied event."

The 21-year-old runner said last week he would appeal "to the highest levels" if the ruling went against him. He could take his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. The International Olympic Committee said it "respects" the IAAF decision.

"This decision has nothing to do with Oscar Pistorius' athletic merits. What is important is to ensure fair competition," the IOC said in a statement.

South Africa's national track and field federation says it is bound by IAAF rules and must keep Pistorius from some national races he has entered for several years.

"If we had our rules and our own competition it would be easier," South Africa federation president Leonard Chuene said. "It is a huge problem."

Pistorius finished second in the 400 meters at the South African national championships last year against able-bodied runners.

The IAAF based its decision on a study in Germany by professor Gert-Peter Brueggemann. He found several indicators the Cheetah blades provided an unfair edge.

The federation said Pistorius had been allowed to compete in some able-bodied events until now because his case was unique and such artificial protheses had not been properly studied.

"Now we have the science," IAAF spokesman Nick Davies said.

No one directly questioned the findings of Brueggemann. The producer of Pistorius' Cheetahs and the International Paralympic Committee said more tests should be undertaken.

The ruling does not affect his eligibility for Paralympic events, in which he was a gold medalist in Athens in 2004. Pistorius has set world records in the 100, 200 and 400 in Paralympic events.

The runner worked with Brueggemann in Cologne for two days of testing in November. The goal was to learn how the j-shaped carbon-fiber extensions to his amputated legs differed from the legs of fully abled runners.

Brueggemann found that Pistorius was able to run at the same speed as able-bodied runners on about a quarter less energy. The professor said that once the runners hit a certain stride, athletes with artificial limbs needed less additional energy than other athletes.

The professor determined that the returned energy from the prosthetic blade is "close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting." The IAAF adopted a rule last summer prohibiting "technical aids" deemed to give an athlete an advantage.

Pistorius was born without fibulas — the long, thin outer bone between the knee and ankle — and was 11 months old when his legs were amputated below the knee. He began running competitively four years ago to treat a rugby injury, and nine months later won the 200 meters at the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens.

Pistorius competed in the 400 at two international-level able-bodied meets in 2007. He finished second in a B race at a Golden League meet in Rome on July 13 and, two days later was disqualified for running out of his lane in Sheffield, England.

[Darth Fanboy]

Brueggemann found that Pistorius was able to run at the same speed as able-bodied runners on about a quarter less energy. The professor said that once the runners hit a certain stride, athletes with artificial limbs needed less additional energy than other athletes.

One could make the argument that this guy hasn't exactly broken a lot of world records with these things, but unless the IOC wants to devise some kind of loophole for these type of athletes then this study shows that his artificial limbs given him an unfair competitive advantage. It's a bummer, but what can he do aside from find leg replacements that don't work as well?

[Darth Wong]

Brueggemann found that Pistorius was able to run at the same speed as able-bodied runners on about a quarter less energy. The professor said that once the runners hit a certain stride, athletes with artificial limbs needed less additional energy than other athletes.

One could make the argument that this guy hasn't exactly broken a lot of world records with these things, but unless the IOC wants to devise some kind of loophole for these type of athletes then this study shows that his artificial limbs given him an unfair competitive advantage. It's a bummer, but what can he do aside from find leg replacements that don't work as well?

This case was probably not decided on its own merits alone. The IOC would be looking at setting a precedent: if, in the future, cybernetic limb replacements become so effective that world records are shattered with their assistance, it would turn the Olympics into a farce. We might as well just put the sprinters on motorcycles.

Mind you, the Olympics arguably became a farce a long time ago, when "female rhythmic gymnastics dance" became a popular medal event and everyone accepted the importance of "style" points in supposedly athletic competitions without protest, but this would make it even worse.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Does anyone know what kind of energy output these things can really increase? I've never heard of them being "better" than any body part.

[Sea Skimmer]

The article spells it right out, these things act like springs and return energy to the runner much more efficiently then a human ankle does. They are not increasing energy output, only changing how it’s used to provide an advantage.

[Broomstick]

Well, I had a long post that screwed up and posted to another thread, and now that it's locked I can't easily copy and paste it, but Pablo did it for me.

And I thank Pabalo very very much for being so kind as to do it for me.

I put this in SLAM because it deals with the advancing technology of prosthetics as well as how we define athletes and disability. If someone feels strongly it should be moved please contact a moderator

Oscar Pistorius is a double amputee runner now barred from the Olympics:

MANCHESTER, England, May 14 — As Oscar Pistorius of South Africa crouched in the starting blocks for the 200 meters on Sunday, the small crowd turned its attention to the sprinter who calls himself the fastest man on no legs.

Pistorius, left, won the 200-meter race at the Paralympic World Cup. He wants to compete in the 2008 Olympics.

Pistorius wants to be the first amputee runner to compete in the Olympics. But despite his ascendance, he is facing resistance from track and field’s world governing body, which is seeking to bar him on the grounds that the technology of his prosthetics may give him an unfair advantage over sprinters using their natural legs.

His first strides were choppy Sunday, a necessary accommodation to sprinting on a pair of j-shaped blades made of carbon fiber and known as Cheetahs. Pistorius was born without the fibula in his lower legs and with other defects in his feet. He had both legs amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old. At 20, his coach says, he is like a five-speed engine with no second gear.

Yet Pistorius is also a searing talent who has begun erasing the lines between abled and disabled, raising philosophical questions: What should an athlete look like? Where should limits be placed on technology to balance fair play with the right to compete? Would the nature of sport be altered if athletes using artificial limbs could run faster or jump higher than the best athletes using their natural limbs?

Once at full speed Sunday, Pistorius handily won the 100 and 200 meters here at the Paralympic World Cup, an international competition for disabled athletes. A cold, rainy afternoon tempered his performances, but his victories came decisively and kept him aimed toward his goal of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, even though international track officials seek to block his entrance.

Since March, Pistorius has delivered startling record performances for disabled athletes at 100 meters (10.91 seconds), 200 meters (21.58 seconds) and 400 meters (46.34 seconds). Those times do not meet Olympic qualifying standards for men, but the Beijing Games are still 15 months away. Already, Pistorius is fast enough that his marks would have won gold medals in equivalent women’s races at the 2004 Athens Olympics.

Pistorius’s time of 46.56 in the 400 earned him a second-place finish in March against able-bodied runners at the South African national championships. This seemingly makes him a candidate for the Olympic 4x400-meter relay should South Africa qualify as one of the world’s 16 fastest teams.

“I don’t see myself as disabled,” said the blond, spiky-haired Pistorius, a former rugby and water polo player who declines to park in spaces reserved for the disabled. “There’s nothing I can’t do that able-bodied athletes can do.”

An Equalizer or an Edge?

Still, the question persists: Do prosthetic legs simply level the playing field for Pistorius, compensating for his disability, or do they give him an inequitable edge via what some call techno-doping?

Experts say there have been limited scientific studies on the biomechanics of amputee runners, especially those missing both legs. And because Pistorius lost his legs as an infant, his speed on carbon-fiber legs cannot be compared with his speed on natural legs.

Track and field’s world governing body, based in Monaco and known by the initials I.A.A.F., has recently prohibited the use of technological aids like springs and wheels, disqualifying Pistorius from events that it sanctions. A final ruling is expected in August.

The International Olympic Committee allows governing bodies to make their own eligibility rules, though it can intervene. Since 2004, for example, transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics.

“With all due respect, we cannot accept something that provides advantages,” said Elio Locatelli of Italy, the director of development for the I.A.A.F., urging Pistorius to concentrate on the Paralympics that will follow the Olympics in Beijing. “It affects the purity of sport. Next will be another device where people can fly with something on their back.”

Others have questioned the governing body’s motivation.

“I pose a question” for the I.A.A.F., said Robert Gailey, an associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami Medical School, who has studied amputee runners. “Are they looking at not having an unfair advantage? Or are they discriminating because of the purity of the Olympics, because they don’t want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn’t have the perfect body wins, what does that say about the image of man?”

You know, I have to wonder about that - do we have fragile egos that can't cope with the idea that a less-than-perfect human being might be able to out compete the able-bodied in a particular area?

According to Gailey, a prosthetic leg returns only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent, providing much more spring.

“There is no science that he has an advantage, only that he is competing at a disadvantage,” Gailey, who has served as an official in disabled sports, said of Pistorius.

Foremost among the I.A.A.F.’s concerns is that Pistorius’s prosthetic limbs may make him taller than he would have been on natural legs and may unfairly lengthen his stride, allowing him to lower his best times by several seconds in the past three years, while most elite sprinters improve by hundredths of a second.

If the length of the prosthetic is an issue I can't help but wonder if there can't be an adjustment made in length, thereby resolving this issue.

“The rule book says a foot has to be in contact with the starting block,” Leon Fleiser, a general manager of the South African Olympic Committee, said. “What is the definition of a foot? Is a prosthetic device a foot, or is it an actual foot?”

I.A.A.F. officials have also expressed concern that Pistorius could topple over, obstructing others or injuring himself and fellow competitors. Some also fear that, without limits on technological aids, able-bodied runners could begin wearing carbon-fiber plates or other unsuitably springy devices in their shoes.

This is a bug-a-boo always brought up with the disabled wish to do something physical - "they might get HURT!!!" As if no able-bodied person had ever fallen down while running!

I know a paraplegic woman who races Ferraris. Officials tried to bar her at one point, expressing concern that she might be in a terrible accident and get hurt. She retorted that she had ALREADY been in a terrible accident, that's why she now used a wheelchair to get around, and that hadn't even been on a race track. Since she was well aware of the risk of Major Accident in Motor Vehicle and Possible Aftermath could she please get back to racing? And yes, it does wound the ego of able-bodied young men when she wheels up to claim a trophy after the race but she maintains that is THERE problem. (Also once added a snarky comment that if they used wheels 24/7 to get around like she does maybe they could learn to drive as well as her, too)

Among ethicists, Pistorius’s success has spurred talk of “transhumans” and “cyborgs.” Some note that athletes already modify themselves in a number of ways, including baseball sluggers who undergo laser eye surgery to enhance their vision and pitchers who have elbow reconstruction using sturdier ligaments from elsewhere in the body. At least three disabled athletes have competed in the Summer Olympics: George Eyser, an American, won a gold medal in gymnastics while competing on a wooden leg at the 1904 Games in St. Louis; Neroli Fairhall, a paraplegic from New Zealand, competed in archery in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles; and Marla Runyan, a legally blind runner from the United States, competed in the 1,500 meters at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. But Pistorius would be the first amputee to compete in a track event, international officials said.

I know about Marla Runyan - I didn't know about the other two, particularly the gold medal gymnast. So there is precedent for the disabled competing against the able-bodied in the Olympics.

A sobering question was posed recently on the Web site of the Connecticut-based Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. “Given the arms race nature of competition,” will technological advantages cause “athletes to do something as seemingly radical as having their healthy natural limbs replaced by artificial ones?” wrote George Dvorsky, a member of the institute’s board of directors. “Is it self-mutilation when you’re getting a better limb?”

Limits and Accommodations

Historically, the I.A.A.F. has placed limits on devices that assist athletes. It prohibits an array of performance-enhancing drugs. And it does not allow wheelchair athletes into the Olympic marathon, given that wheels provide a clear advantage in speed.

But the governing body has also embraced technological advances. For instance, it permits athletes to sleep in tent-like devices designed to simulate high altitude and increase oxygen-carrying capacity.

As disabled athletes improve their performances, the I.A.A.F. is certain to be faced with more decisions about accommodating them. Last February, Jeff Skiba, who has one leg amputated below the knee, competed in the high jump at the United States indoor track and field championships.

Some I.A.A.F. officials say Pistorius’s application should not be treated dismissively. Although he would not be considered a medal candidate, his appearance at the Beijing Games could provide an inspiring story.

Oh, great - and if the guy running wins but isn't allowed a medal that's going to look really good, isn't it?

“There is no real grounds to say he should not be allowed to compete” in the Olympics, said Juan Manuel Alonso of Spain, who heads the I.A.A.F.’s medical and antidoping commission. “We’d like to have more information and biomechanical studies.”

His own fear, Pistorius said, is that the governing body, which has not contacted him, will ban him on supposition, not science.

“I think they’re afraid to do the research,” Pistorius, a business student at the University of Pretoria, said. “They’re afraid of what they’re going to find, that I don’t have an advantage and they’ll have to let me compete.”

Pistorius, whose stated height is 6 feet 1 ¼ inches while wearing his sprinting prosthetics, says that the devices are within an allowed range determined by the length of his thighs. The peak length of his stride, he said, is 9 feet, not 13 feet as some I.A.A.F. officials suggest.

There are many disadvantages to sprinting on carbon-fiber legs, Pistorius and his coach said. After a cumbersome start, he needs about 30 meters to gain his rhythm. His knees do not flex as readily, limiting his power output. His grip can be unsure in the rain. And when he runs into a headwind or grows fatigued, he must fight rotational forces that turn his prosthetic devices sideways, said Ampie Louw, who coaches Pistorius.

“The I.A.A.F. has got no clue about disabled sport,” said Louw, who has coached Pistorius since 2003.

Insufficient credit is given to Pistorius’s resolve in the weight room and on the track, Louw said, describing one intense workout that requires him to run 350 meters in 42 seconds; 300 meters in 34.6 seconds; 200 meters in 22 seconds and 150 meters in 15.4 seconds. “The kid is a born champion,” Louw said. “He doesn’t settle for second best.”

Having worn prosthetics since infancy, Pistorius did not have to adjust to artificial legs after he began competing, as many disabled athletes do. He won a gold medal in the 200 at the 2004 Paralympics in Athens.

“These have always been my legs,” he said. “I train harder than other guys, eat better, sleep better and wake up thinking about athletics. I think that’s probably why I’m a bit of an exception.”

One who is attempting to broaden the definition of an Olympic athlete.

“You have two competing issues — fair competition and basic human rights to compete,” said Angela Schneider, a sports ethicist at the University of Western Ontario and a 1984 Olympic silver medalist in rowing.

The I.A.A.F. must objectively define when prosthetic devices “go from therapy to enhancement,” Schneider said. The danger of acting hastily, she said, is “you deny a guy’s struggle against all odds — one of the fundamental principles of the Olympics.”

I feel this raises interesting questions of just how good prosthetics are, how far an athlete might go to win, what exactly is fair play, and probably a bunch of other stuff, too

The article spells it right out, these things act like springs and return energy to the runner much more efficiently then a human ankle does. They are not increasing energy output, only changing how it’s used to provide an advantage.

They are also a marked DISadvantage on the early part of the run - videos I've seen of this guy makes it clear that his initial acceleration is behind that of the other athletes and he has to catch up. The muscle effort is clearly different as well - when people with natural legs run muscles from their toes to their hips contribute to the effort, in his case he's missing a significant portion of them and I'm not sure if springs entirely make up the difference. I'm not sure what, exactly, would make for a balanced competition. We certainly don't penalize one runner for being taller/longer legged than another, although that is clearly an advantage as well.

If the length of his prosthetics are an issue is there a way to shorten them to make the competition more fair?

The article I quoted in the link seems to imply the case for "these give him an advantage" isn't quite so cute and dried. In some ways they're an advantage, in others they seem to be a detriment. Certainly, they are different than natural legs. A parallel might be drawn between wheelchair times in the Boston marathon vs. running times - apparently the wheelchair times are better and the two competitions are judged separately. In other marathons the reverse might be true - a lot depends on the uphill vs downhill stretches of the course and the roughness of the terrain.

Apparently disabled athletes have participated in the regular Olympics before, and have even won on occasion. Maybe this is like vision correction - athletes are permitted to wear glasses/contacts to bring their vision up to 20/20 in competitions such as target shooting and archery, but their visual aids are carefully examined to make sure they aren't correcting to better than that. Perhaps in the case of amputee runners their prosthetics have be adjusted to work as well as, but not better, than human legs.

[bilateralrope]

As I see it the prosthetics can fall into 3 categories:

1 - Not good enough for someone using them to be able to compete.

2 - Good enough to provide a clear advantage, with the extreme case having them being so good as to make it impossible for people without them to win.

3 - Somewhere between 1 and 2 where they allow fair competition between people with them and people without them.

Now obviously group 1 prosthetics aren't going to be an issue, so I'll ignore them. So the problem comes in deciding if a specific prosthetic is too good or not. But how would you go about deciding what prosthetics are acceptable ?

Using Broomstick's example is there any reason why they should use 20/20 vision as the cutoff instead of being a bit higher or lower ?

Then once you have established rules about what is acceptable or not, how would you go about testing it ?

For vision correction this seems simple enough to measure. But in the case of the article above how would you go about seeing if the limbs meet your rules ?

And what would you do about people trying to lawyer their way around your rules ?

If it was my choice I'd go for the simpler option of simply banning the prosthetics. There are plenty of people who are unable to compete simply because they weren't lucky enough with their health. Should he really be any difference just because technology can fix his problems ?

[Broomstick]

Using Broomstick's example is there any reason why they should use 20/20 vision as the cutoff instead of being a bit higher or lower ?

Other than it being the accepted standard for vision for virtually any situation, no. In fact, some people are blessed through pure chance and have better than normal 20/20 vision and are allowed to compete in such events without being required to use devices to reduce their vision to normal levels. One could determine a different standard and allow everyone to correct their vision to that standard and perhaps justify it as truly leveling the playing field.

For vision correction this seems simple enough to measure. But in the case of the article above how would you go about seeing if the limbs meet your rules ?

We would have to develop such standards and rules.

And what would you do about people trying to lawyer their way around your rules ?

Same thing we do now - keep refining the rules.

If it was my choice I'd go for the simpler option of simply banning the prosthetics. There are plenty of people who are unable to compete simply because they weren't lucky enough with their health. Should he really be any difference just because technology can fix his problems?

I suppose it depends in part on what you consider a "prosthetic". As an example, my uncorrected vision is so poor that I can not read even large text for more than a few minutes without eyestrain, yet with technology my vision can be brought up to standard and allow me to engage in some very intensely visual activities such as flying airplanes. Eyeglasses/contacts/eye surgery are such an accepted technology/prosthetic as to no longer be considered such a big deal and in only a very, very few areas are they restricted or banned, and even there the restrictions have loosened considerably in my lifetime.

In, say, 1900 there would have been no question about someone with an artificial leg participating in a running event - it would have been laughable, the technology was such that you almost had to be an athlete just to walk with such a leg. Now, though, there have been such advances in prosthetic legs that they really are starting to approach the utility of natural legs. The alternative to banning prosthetics is to have standards that such legs could duplicate the capabilities of meat legs without giving unfair advantage, just we allow people with poor vision to correct it to a normal standard but not beyond it.

Outside of competition you are, of course, allowed to use whatever sort of visual augmentation you desire to achieve a goal (the glasses I use for flying actually correct my vision to slightly farsighted, for example, because it's more important I see other airplanes in the sky than be able to comfortably read fine print). And if you want to strap on pogo sticks to your leg stumps you're welcome to do that after the official race is over.

Right now, prosthetics are just at the point of becoming serious competition to pure meat. We'll have to develop the ground rules. Like I said, if his prosthetics are too long then they'll have to be shortened. If there is something else to be adjusted, well, adjust it. Either that or accept that even if prosthetic runs have better world record times than meat runs they will continue to be separate competitions. If that does become the case someone will STILL have to establish standards for what is and isn't allowable in prosthetic running unless they want it to become more about who can buy the best technology than who has the best training and skill.

[bilateralrope]

Using Broomstick's example is there any reason why they should use 20/20 vision as the cutoff instead of being a bit higher or lower ?

Other than it being the accepted standard for vision for virtually any situation, no. In fact, some people are blessed through pure chance and have better than normal 20/20 vision and are allowed to compete in such events without being required to use devices to reduce their vision to normal levels. One could determine a different standard and allow everyone to correct their vision to that standard and perhaps justify it as truly leveling the playing field.

I can imagine the outcry if they attempted to level the playing field in this way.

For vision correction this seems simple enough to measure. But in the case of the article above how would you go about seeing if the limbs meet your rules ?

We would have to develop such standards and rules.

Do you have any idea how one would develop such a standard while trying to take future prosthetic technology into account ?

Not to mentioned the extra cost involved in testing people. Wouldn't this testing require specialised machinery ?

And what would you do about people trying to lawyer their way around your rules ?

Same thing we do now - keep refining the rules.

This isn't really a big issue. Just another cost involved in allowing people with prosthetics to compete.

If it was my choice I'd go for the simpler option of simply banning the prosthetics. There are plenty of people who are unable to compete simply because they weren't lucky enough with their health. Should he really be any difference just because technology can fix his problems?

I suppose it depends in part on what you consider a "prosthetic".

Lets use technical aids as the term instead so that we can include things like glasses, clothing, etc. Then I think we can get us down to asking three questions of the aid:

1 - Would an average competitor at this level of this sport be able to easily afford the aid ?

2 - What advantage does it provide ?

If its a cheap way for an advantage, I'll allow it because everyone will quickly start using it. If its expensive the I'll only care if it gives an advantage over the cheap options.
For your target shooting example how much would it cost to produce lenses that allow vision up to the limits of the eyes capacity compared to the cost of a typical set of lenses ?

3 - What harm will be inflicted on a healthy intact human who uses this ?

Too much harm and its banned. In the article here we are talking about an aid which would require a healthy person to have their legs removed for them to use it. But corrective lenses can be simply removed without harm.

In, say, 1900 there would have been no question about someone with an artificial leg participating in a running event - it would have been laughable, the technology was such that you almost had to be an athlete just to walk with such a leg. Now, though, there have been such advances in prosthetic legs that they really are starting to approach the utility of natural legs. The alternative to banning prosthetics is to have standards that such legs could duplicate the capabilities of meat legs without giving unfair advantage, just we allow people with poor vision to correct it to a normal standard but not beyond it.

What I'm looking for is some method to fairly decide the standard.

Then imagine someone with one of these aids winning, followed by a scandal accusing your rules of giving the winner an unfair advantage.

Outside of competition you are, of course, allowed to use whatever sort of visual augmentation you desire to achieve a goal

Agreed.

Right now, prosthetics are just at the point of becoming serious competition to pure meat. We'll have to develop the ground rules. Like I said, if his prosthetics are too long then they'll have to be shortened. If there is something else to be adjusted, well, adjust it. Either that or accept that even if prosthetic runs have better world record times than meat runs they will continue to be separate competitions. If that does become the case someone will STILL have to establish standards for what is and isn't allowable in prosthetic running unless they want it to become more about who can buy the best technology than who has the best training and skill.

Although for the officials involved if they block people with artificial limbs from competing then they problem of the standards stops being their problem.

[Broomstick]

For vision correction this seems simple enough to measure. But in the case of the article above how would you go about seeing if the limbs meet your rules ?

We would have to develop such standards and rules.

Do you have any idea how one would develop such a standard while trying to take future prosthetic technology into account ?

The only thing I can think of would be something along the lines of "allowable spring-back of component X is Y" or or saying that the length of limb must be proportional to what the natural limb would have been.

Not to mentioned the extra cost involved in testing people. Wouldn't this testing require specialised machinery ?

Probably, but Olympic athletes are already tested on some very sophisticated machinery. For examples, runners already get computer analyzed gait analysis.

Sports such as golf and tennis, which require "technical aids" to play at all, have already confronted these issues with carbon-fiber technology for clubs and rackets. It's a surmountable issue.

Lets use technical aids as the term instead so that we can include things like glasses, clothing, etc. Then I think we can get us down to asking three questions of the aid:

1 - Would an average competitor at this level of this sport be able to easily afford the aid ?

With prosthetic limbs there is also the issue that even after the person retires from competition they will need this "technical aid". These aren't running shoes, after all, they're limbs, and they cost a lot more than shoes. Someone who is already an amputee will need one (or two) anyway, but an able-bodied person who uses such an aid will be incurring life-long expenses and medical issues.

2 - What advantage does it provide ?

Apparently that's still being debated.

For your target shooting example how much would it cost to produce lenses that allow vision up to the limits of the eyes capacity compared to the cost of a typical set of lenses ?

Interesting questions - "typical lenses" vary considerably in price anyway. It could be anywhere from a few bucks to thousands of dollars.

Too much harm and its banned. In the article here we are talking about an aid which would require a healthy person to have their legs removed for them to use it. But corrective lenses can be simply removed without harm.

And I think that's an important distinction. I've already seen statements such as "is it harm if you end up with a better leg?" You have to ask "better in what sense?" I think there is a segment of the population that would sacrifice their natural feet for a gold medal.

Although for the officials involved if they block people with artificial limbs from competing then they problem of the standards stops being their problem.

Either that, or separate out the runners into another category - I would think it very funny if runners in the Paralympics started consistently besting runner times in the regular Olympics. To some extent, disabled sports already do this, with separate categories for below and above knee amputees as an example. I would expect that group to sort out the issues about technical aids giving advantages or disadvantages.