Obviously, former Olympic hero-turned-loudmouth Michael Johnson read my piece yesterday on the difficulties presented by intersex Olympians such as South Africa's trackster Caster Semenya, and he wanted to further prove my point about the ambiguities of "fairness" in competition.
Speaking with the London Telegraph, Johnson made the always popular move of speaking out against a double-amputee, South African (what is it about these people, by the way? Why do they face us with such difficult questions?) Olympic hero/cheater Oscar Pistorius. Pistorius, also known as "Blade Runner," lost the lower part of both legs when he was a boy. He has now qualified for the Olympics while running on prosthetic limbs.
| Related: Caster Semenya, Intersex Athletes & Gender Policing At The Olympics |
Johnson said the false limbs give Pistorius an "unfair advantage," which re-opens the can of worms I opened and slurped up, one worm at a time yesterday: What the hell does it actually mean to be fair or unfair, when it comes to competition?
"I consider Oscar a friend of mine, but he knows I am against him running," Johnson said. "Because this is not about Oscar; it's not about him as an individual, it is about the rules you will make and put in place for the sport which will apply to anyone, and not just Oscar."
From here, we can all react one of two ways:
- Rules? The guys has no friggin' legs, and Michael Johnson wants to talk about rules? Oscar Pistorius is a hero, and Johnson is a jerk. OR,
- Pistorius, though admirable, should not be on the same competitve field as "normal" athletes who are making use of only what the Good Lord gave 'em (plus whatever supplements, medical technology and ungodly training tactics their good fortune provides them with).
Pistorius has already won gold in the Paralympics, but his dream has always been to compete alongside "able-bodied" athletes, and has been doing so since 2007. He failed to qualify for the 2008 games in Beijing, but made it for 2012. In 2008, the
Court of Arbitration for Sport overruled a prior decision and declared that Pistorius' carbon fiber blades did not give him an unfair advantage.
Pistorius is full of courage and good ol' fashioned Olympic inspiration. But I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that Pistorius, with his fake limbs, was ruled elligible while 100 percent "natural" Caster Semenya was forced to undergo treatment to change her hormone levels.
Consider what an Italian competitor said about Semenya, who was ruled to be too manly to compete with women, after Semenya beat her in competition:
"These kind of people should not run with us."
Couldn't a competitor not say the exact same thing about Pistorius and his "kind"? The question about Pistorius is whether or not the blades give him an unfair advantage - but fair or unfair, the reality is Pistorius is different, advantage or no.
As we covered yesterday, these questions of fairness are impossible to answer. But what we see here in the cases of Semenya and Pistorius is a clear double standard.
In Pistorius, we see a narrative that suggests courage, inspiration, overcoming the odds. In Semenya, we see a something that makes us uncomfortable: too masculine to be a woman, not nearly masculine enough to be a man. A weirdo. A freak. Stuck in between.
Of course, Pistorius is all of those things, too: Not able-bodied enough to compete with the "normal" athletes without an artificial device. Too able-bodied to keep competing and winning against other less-than-able-bodied runners. A weirdo. A freak. Stuck in between.
But Caster Semenya, or, more accurately - the idea of Caster Semenya - is too jarring and disrupting to our delicate sense of gender labeling. She is unsettling, not inspiring. Pistorius doesn't pose those problems. So he can run, blades and all, while Semenya is forced to become less natural, more artificial.
What to do? What to do...
--
Follow on Ology: Bison Messink | 2012 Olympics
Follow on Twitter: @BisonMessink | @OlogySports
Comments (1)