This paper discusses the predicament of Oscar Pistorius. He is a Paralympic gold medallist who wishes to participate in the Olympics in Beijing in 2008. Following a brief introductory section, the paper discusses the arguments that could be, and have been, deployed against his participation in the Olympics, should he make the qualifying time for his chosen event (400m). The next section discusses a more hypothetical argument based upon a specific understanding of the fair opportunity rule. According to this, there may be a case for allowing Pistorius to compete even if he should fail to make the official qualifying time. The final part of the paper reviews the situation at the time of writing and offers some assessment of the strategy of the IAAF in responding to it. It is argued below that the proper focus for assessment of Pistorius's eligibility to compete should not be on whether his blades lead to his having an unfair advantage over his competitors, but instead should focus on whether what he does counts as running.

Olympic style games were first held for athletes with disabilities in Rome in 1960. Today the Paralympic Games (parallel Olympics) feature competition for athletes from six disability groups, including amputee, visually impaired, and spinal cord injury. Olympic hosts, both summer and winter, are now contractually obliged to organize the Paralympics in the same venue. The size and popularity of the games have grown exponentially since their inception, but they remain largely separate from the Olympics themselves. Recently, a very successful Paralympic athlete from South Africa, Oscar Pistorius, made it clear that despite his double below-the-knee amputation he wanted to compete in his event (400 m) at the Olympics. Initially, however, Oscar Pistorius was prohibited from competing at any International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) competition on grounds of fairness. On the basis of biomechanical and physiological evidence, the IAAF argued that his highly specialized prosthetic limbs gave him an advantage and were therefore in contravention of Rule 144.2. This rule forbids the use of any technical device (such as prosthetic limbs) that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device. This decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport following an appeal by Pistorius. Using this case as an example, the aim of this paper is to highlight the empirical and ethical difficulties associated with the application of the principle of fairness in sport. In particular, we discuss both the complexity of identifying the nature and size of athletic advantage and the basis for determining its validity. Moreover, we explore how similar difficulties arise when attempting to establish criteria for “relevant athletic performance”. We argue that reasonable rules and norms for competition are not simply inferred from the principle of fairness. Such rules and norms should result from careful judgements informed by scientific, conceptual, and ethical evidence, and be guided by the standards of excellence that best characterize the sport in question.

Jako třetí text jsme zvolili mnohem novější článek, jehož prvním autorem je jeden z nejvýznamnějších světových filosofů sportu současnosti Mike McNamee. Tento text z roku 2021 již není věnován přímo případu Pistoria, ale ukazuje na současné problémy "koncepce spravedlnosti" i v kontextu paralympijského sportu.

McNamee, M., Parnell, R. & Vanlandewijck, Y. (2021).  Fairness, technology and the ethics of Paralympic sport classification. European Journal of Sport Science, 21(11), 1510-1517.

 

Fairness in sport is a widely shared meritocratic norm. Its application is usually restricted to equality of opportunity to compete for victory. Paralympic sports lay down a further challenge in that equality of opportunity must be shaped by considerations of fairness, evidenced by the development of discrete competition categories to construct fair and meaningful contests. In this article, we extend these philosophical ideas to consider how Fair Equality of Opportunity might operate in the context of Paralympic sports classification. We articulate three conceptions of fairness relevant to these sports: (i) background fairness; (ii) procedural fairness; and (iii) stakes fairness. We critically review the International Paralympic Committee’s Policy on Sport Equipment in relation to the first two conceptions and argue that greater clarification, theorization and rule modification is required if physical prowess, as opposed to equipment technology, is to be assured as the dominant determinant of Paralympic athletic success.

1) Uvedené odkazy z oblasti filosofie sportu ukazují, že pokud chceme pojmy jako "férovost ve sportu" "spravedlivá soutěž" či "rovné příležitosti" uchopit na filosofické úrovni, může se nám leccos jevit jako mnohem složitější, než těm, kdo sedí u obrazovky a "se vším jsou rychle hotovi".

Všichni zřejmě do jisté míry laicky vnímáme, že "rovné příležitosti" představuji ve sportu jakýsi uměle vytvořený konstrukt (nikdo na tom není na vstupu stejně - někdo má rychlejší vlákna, jiný má výhodu v somatotypu, další třeba v tělesné výšce). Přesto potřebu zachování tohoto principu vyrazně vnímáme a jeho porušení chápeme jako poškozování toho, co sport činí sportem.   

2) "Případ Pistorius" se zjevil jako konkrétní problém, který zahýbal sportovním, konkrétně atletickým světem, a dříve než mohl být zcela vyřešen, zase zmizel. Za to může jiný příběh Pistoriova života, který se začal odehrávat v roce 2013. Na tomto příběhu je založena i tato kapitola našeho materiálu.

3) Lze to vnímat i tak, že svět sportu dostal jakýsi oddechový čas, aby podobné problémy začal intenzivněji řešit, protože dříve či později přijde "nový Pistorius" (jakkoli se nejspíš bude jmenovat jinak).