Should Prosthetics be Allowed in Athletics

Group 63

The world is heading towards achieving equality and empowering those with disabilities in all aspects of life, including in sport. Allowing disabled athletes to compete in the Olympic Games – as opposed to the Paralympics – raises a number of issues within ethics and engineering. This article aims to discuss the potential benefits and associated problems with the aforementioned.

Paralympians should be able to compete in the Olympic Games

A recent poll conducted by the BBC suggested that the general public was in favour of a combined Olympic and Paralympic Games. Not allowing the merger would be considered against the view of the majority; from a utilitarian standpoint, this would be considered immoral [2]. A separate games would enforce the belief of some that these athletes are inferior or unworthy of participating, which would oppose the opinion of the public.

The Paralympics starts after the Olympics, leading to a lower audience size. TV broadcasting is biased towards the Olympics, with minimal coverage of the Paralympics. It can be argued that Paralympic athletes deserve to have a larger platform to showcase their effective ‘superhuman’ ability, just as able bodied athletes are able to.

It appears that it’s intuitively more acceptable to allow disabled athletes to participate in a sporting event if they wished to. However, this reasoning is solely based on an informal framework that focuses mainly on the common sense and intuition of an individual, both of which can be easily opposed to as they can differ based on background and personal beliefs [3].

For top level athletes, able-bodied or not, it is common for the sport they participate in to be their main source of income. This income usually comes in one of two-forms, firstly from prize money for placing in a sporting event, for example for the IAAF World Championships in 2017 held in London 1st Place would earn $60,000. Secondly athletes can earn an income from sponsorship deals with companies and brands which is arguably the more attractive of the two as the performance of the athlete on the day does not affect their pay.

Unfortunately disabled athletes tend to earn less from both sponsorship and prize money, for example in the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic games the difference in winning a gold medal for Team USA was $20,000. When it comes to sponsors it is fairly easy to understand that a company would be willing to offer an athlete that receives better sport coverage and a higher view count better sponsorship deals, leading to a lower earning potential for disabled athletes. From a solely financial standpoint, disabled athletes should be able to compete in fully abled events as it would give them the opportunity to earn a better standard of living.

Paralympians should not be able to compete in the Olympic Games

To allow an athlete within a certain category of disability to compete against able-bodied athletes with the use of prosthetics is to say that the prosthetic does not provide an advantage nor a hindrance on the athlete’s ability to perform in said event. If this cannot be proved then is it not unfair on one party or the other to be competing against each other? If this fairness can be proved, and a disabled athlete is allowed to compete, should all athletes within this category with access to the same prosthetics not have to compete against able-bodied athletes to promote an egalitarian society within track and field? Using the statistics from the 2016 men’s 100m sprint event in both the Paralympics and Olympics, based on the gold medal times across all levels of disability, not a single athlete from the paralympics would have progressed through Round 1 and only 4 athletes recorded a time fast enough to pass through the preliminary rounds. Given this information, having able-bodied and disabled athletes competing against one another would rob disabled athletes of the opportunity to compete on a world stage and the sponsorship, prize money and publicity associated with this.

Using performance enhancing drugs in sport is still a prevalent issue to date, since the International Association of Athletics Federation became the first international sports federation to ban doping in 1928. PEDs are not a guarantee of winning an event; there are other influencing factors in performance: the biomechanics of the athlete during the event, the efficacy of the training and nutritional interventions undertaken etc. Nevertheless, PEDs have been banned from the Olympic Games as they offer physiological advantage which would otherwise not be possible naturally.

The use of prosthetic limbs is synonymous with the use of PEDs – it is not a guarantee of performance. Prosthetic limbs should be viewed as an avenue through which performance can be increased. In the Bruggemann study on Oscar Pistorius’ prosthetic limbs, the positive work produced by the prosthetic running blades was found to be three times higher than the human ankle joint during a maximum sprint. Simultaneously, Pistorius could run more efficiently than his able bodied counterparts, with 25% less energy expenditure. This shows the clear biomechanical advantage of the use of prosthetic limbs. The fastest 100 m sprint time is still held by Usain Bolt (9.58s compared to Paralympic Games time of 10.85s, by Jonnie Peacock). Evidently, despite the mechanical advantage, able bodied sprinters are generally still faster; this could change with constant technological advances, so the question of when to stop allowing technology from influencing sport is then raised.

Conclusion:

Allowing disabled and able-bodied athletes to compete alongside each other will always be controversial. Despite the income disparity – largely due to the audience size between the Paralympic and Olympic Games – Paralympians are still at an advantage when comparing the potential funding received based on performance merit alone if competing against able-bodied athletes. Combining the issue of biomechanical advantage between the two types of athlete, and ever-changing technology (leading to more efficient prosthetic limbs) creates a larger issue from both an ethical and engineering perspective. Could it be morally acceptable to hold an inclusive Olympics, allowing disabled athletes to compete alongside, rather than against their able-bodied counterparts?

Bibliography:

[2] Zalta EN, Nodelman U, Allen C, Anderson RL, 2014, THe History of Utilitarianism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, page 1.

[3] Poel, I. and Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering. 1st ed. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

74 thoughts on “Should Prosthetics be Allowed in Athletics

  1. This is an interesting topic which is very different from lots of others on the page – well done on being creative. It is saddening that in the 21st century, athletes with disabilities do not have the same financial potential as those who compete in the mainstream Olympics, and it is good to see that attention is being placed on this issue and a number of options considered.

    My mind is not made up on the two options, but taking a scenario where the separation remained, I think it is vital for our society to become more accepting of and enthusiastic about athletes with disabilities. Perhaps integration into one competition? (eg men’s 100 m followed by para men’s 100 m, in a similar way to how men’s and women’s sports are both held in the same competition) or an increase in spending and publicity for the Paralympic games – the impressive Olympic opening ceremonies draw in huge numbers of viewers, so why not extend the same to disabled athletes who have overcome physical adversities?

    1. We were also shocked by how vast the pay gap is!

      It is an interesting thought that by combining the games in a more fluid fashion that it could be a better platform to challenge societies conception of those with a disability.

      The issue I see with increasing the spending of the Paralympics is that unfortunately for it to be ‘worth’ it for the organisers audiences would need to be larger. This leads to the conundrum that in order for more funding more people need to be watching but more people may only watch if the coverage is better which costs more!

      A difficult dilemma but one that could be solved through combining the games!!

  2. I completely agree with having separate events for Olympians and Paralympians. It’s clear that prosthetics offer a fundamental difference and advantage, plus Paralympians wouldn’t even be able to compete with able bodied athletes anyway. On the whole, it’s the same as saying men and women should compete in the same sporting events. There are fundamental biological and physical differences (between Olympians and Paralympians, and between men and women), that means it is both illogical and pointless to have a combined competition.

  3. The argument made here is that disabled athletes would not be able to compete with able-bodied athletes if they were allowed to participate in the Olympics. Surely, that is their choice to make? If a disabled athlete is happy to compete in the main Olympics and thinks he/she can win, why is it banned for them to participate? The Paralympics can remain as they are, with an option for disabled athletes to compete in the normal Olympics as well.

    This then opens up the avenue of why do we need to split male and female competitions. Maybe we don’t. Women would be at a disadvantage but those women who want to participate in the combined Olympics could be allowed to do so.

    1. An issue with lesser-able bodied athletes competing is that the use of prosthetics can theoretically be giving the athlete an advantage due to the materials offering more ‘bounce’ to a stride, which is where the comparison with using performance. enhancing drugs (PEDs) comes from.

      A possible solution to this could be a no restriction games? One in which the athletes are not checked or tested for PEDs but this brings a morality issue into play of whether promoting these games would be promoting drug use but it would allow for all athletes to compete regardless of whether they were using a prosthetic that aided their running more so than a conventional leg.

  4. The biggest flaw with this plan is that Paralympic athletes can modify their bodies to be better than those able bodied. It is an impossible task for regulators to modify Paralympic athlete’s prosthetics to give a normal amount of advantage.

    One solution would simply be to allow able bodied athletes to modify their own bodies, creating a high technology Olympic games without any handicaps. Performance enhancing drugs could be encouraged and body modifications such as new limbs made from advanced materials which could replace out-of-date human limbs. Not only would this push prosthetic limb advancements but also it would also mean that records could be broken at each games.

    1. A very interesting point and one that had been considered briefly but consider the effect of altitude on an athlete when thinking about setting a new record every games.

      It is currently not banned or prohibited but records set at altitude are normally accompanied with an ‘A’, this is because at altitude there is generally less air resistance so the athletes are able to jump higher and run faster. Therefore an addition to your proposal could be something like an ‘E’ for enhanced next to the record?

  5. What are PEDs?
    Can you define the acronym please?
    Also I made a slight edit to your article, since I couldn’t tell if it was $60000 or $600000? So I added a comma so I could tell if it was $600,000 or $60,000.

    This is an interesting article. There are currently two categories in the Olympics, which are gender based, so why not have a third based on defined ‘able-ness’?
    For me, the Olympics and similar events are about people who had some natural difference anyway. Disabled athletes also have a natural difference. An Olympic athlete can, and has always been able to, run faster than me. Similarly, disabled athletes are much more gifted than me in their chosen sport, again because they have some natural talent that their training, ambition and determination has honed.

    The Olympics are about recognising and rewarding exceptional people. Isn’t that also what the Paralympics is about too? So, we should combine the two.

    What are the utilitarianism arguments against? How does Kant’s theory (Duty Ethics) and the other two theories inform the debate?

    1. PEDs are performance enhancing drugs and thank you for the edit.

      It would most definitely be an interesting concept to have the third ‘able-ness’ category running alongside the current gender based categories although we mustn’t forget that there are also male and female categories in the Paralympics as well.

      This could possibly be fixed by having a single category open to all but this then leads onto the issue of athletes missing out more so than they do currently.

      Which Kant’s theories would dispute due to the ‘correct’ moral action would have been completed regardless of the final outcome, this is an interesting point to make but I would have to disagree that it can be used in this context as we must look to the future and how this decision could effect the athletes in the long run especially as competing is a source of income for them

  6. This is a very interesting article indeed.

    As someone who regularly takes part in sports, which dont necessarily have set categories for gender or age etc I can’t see that allowing able or disables athletes to compete in the same event would much of a step!

    The financial differences for the athletes is something I had assumed which is a shame especially as these athletes spend such huge amounts of time training and competing so allowing the disabled athletes compete at the same time as abled athletes could make such a difference

  7. My largest concern with this is that there may be a loss of identity for the disabled athletes?

    From what I’ve watched they always seem to be so proud that they are a Paralympic athlete and I just wonder that combining the two may take this away from them?

    Thats why I think the plan of integrating the two together is a much better idea that pushing for one games. All in all a great idea that I could definitely see happening!

  8. Putting aside the ableist, semantic argument of using the terms ‘disabled’ vs. ‘handicapped’ vs. ‘differently abled’ vs. ‘crippled’ vs. , I believe that ‘disabled’ people should be permitted to participate in the Olympics.

    Accessible toilets are commonly thought of as disabled-exclusive. Disabled-friendly is not the same as disabled-exclusive. the analogy of accessible toilets can be extrapolated to the Olympics. A disabled-friendly Olympics would be different from the disabled-exclusive Paralympics. Allowing ostensibly ‘disabled’ athletes to take part with ‘abled’ ones will normalise stigmatised disabilities and socioculturally prove that only the sky is the limit in sports.

  9. I really appreciate the frank nature of this article and the choice of such a difficult topic is very refreshing to read. The for and against articles do contrast each other extremely well and after reading I do find myself with a moral dilemma regarding this topic!

    I’ve played sports my entire life (as an able bodied athlete) but I had never before given much thought to how difficult getting into sport can be for some people. Furthermore to this I had not considered how even more difficult this may be for those who are disabled.

    Therefore I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow everyone to compete in the same event if they are good enough! I know for sure that there’s a 15 year old who could run track faster than me so why shouldn’t he/she be allowed to compete ahead of me because the current rules are so restrictive!

  10. Such a different article from the rest on this website and an incredibly important one too!

    This is even more important now with Varsity currently taking place and from my memory this is the only year where a disabled athletes sport was featured and it makes me wonder if the issue is due to funding given to the university for sports is not being made available for our lesser abled fellow students because it isn’t as attractive as say Football which has received such a huge pedestal this year!

  11. This article raises several key considerations for the convergence of the olympic and paralympic games into one entity. The argument is surely one of standardisation, and whether this can or cant be achieved. It is alluded to in the article with the mention of PED’s, which are banned specifically because they would preferentially confer an unfair advantage to the athlete choosing to use these PED’s. I would ask, assuming this “equality” was to be enforced, what regulatory measures would be enabled in order to assume a level of fairness and standardisation.
    What is the opinion of the paralympians as regards this issue, and what would such a measure say as to the integrity of a sporting event which abolishes centuries old rules in favour of new rules for a new global society.
    The article makes mention of an important factor, which is that of reduced sporting attention for the paralympic games. This reduced attention is surely a reflection of public perception as to the importance/insignificance of such an event with respect purely to atheltic entertainment capacity, and not the participating individuals. This public perception is surely the strongest indicator promoting the seperation of the paralympics and the olympics. Why would you force an issue which the public have made clear their stance through their levels of engagement.
    Very interesting read !

  12. I am unsure about this issue simply because if joint games were held, what regulations would be put into place to ensure that the event would be as fair as possible for all athletes. It would be incredibly difficult to quantify how much a prosthetic either hinders or improves an athletes ability ,in comparison to a biological limb, and thus I am unsure as to what restrictions would be put on the mechanical properties of the prosthetic limbs. Also if there were advantages to having prosthetic limbs in certain sporting events, would athletes without disabilities be justified in using mechanical augmentation?

  13. Personally, I don’t agree that athletes with prosthetic limbs should compete side-by-side with able-bodied athletes: I think the “prosthetic” nature of some of the disabled athletes confuses our ability to accurately and fairly represent what a “competition” actually is, as a disabled athlete may require a completely different set of skills to that of an able-bodied athlete and vice-versa. Thus (in my eyes) its unfair to have them “compete” together as there can be no way to guarantee an level playing field.

    Further, institutions such as the Paralympics are, as your article points out, excellent ways of showcasing and supporting disabled athletes and ensuring that there is and remains a global audience on which they can perform; even if more disabled athletes were to compete in able-bodied events they would be marginalised in a system that by-and-large still would cater to the able-bodied. To be honest I think there should be more money invested in the Paralympics to ensure that it has as widespread an appeal as possible.

  14. I really liked this article.

    I must say that whether or not paraolympians are allowed to take part in the olympics, it doesn’t change the fact that they will seem less than able-bodied competitors. I think having them compete alongside olympians will only make this more clear, which can lead to embarrassment, and loss of self esteem.

    THis is extremely difficult to sort out though since the range disabilities is so wide, and even if they were to use standardized prosthetics, one wonders how it will fit one person, compared to another.

    I should say though that a way to solve this issue is to have one major olympics, with different categories, instead of keeping paraolympics and olympics separate. I’m sure that this way, there would be equal tv coverage, fairer competition between categories and recognition for all. To have all a country’s athletes together with their medals, receiving the cheers of the crowd and feeling motivated by this, would have a beneficial effect on everyone, especially disabled athletes who would feel more included in the main event, thus suggesting a utilitarian benefit.

  15. a very interesting article,

    It’s clear that prosthetics offer a fundamental difference and advantage, plus Paralympians wouldn’t even be able to compete with able-bodied athletes anyway. But if we can see both of them in the same competition, it will make our mind to believe that everybody in this world is equal and can do everything.

  16. I think prosthetics could give athletes an unfair advantage, especially as new prosthetics are developed and improved. For that reason I believe its best not to combine the olympics and paralympics. However it would be interesting to see an event thats open for all athletes, even those using drug enhancements. A complete free for all in terms of requirements to take part. If there’s enough demand for it, why not have such an event without canceling the olympics or paralympics. Its probably a bad idea though as Im not sure how far athletes will go to win in such an event

  17. Fundamental objectives of sports and games (Olympic games included) is not to win medals but for global peace and unity. Hate and a lot of prejudice has been reduced due to global participation in the fun of international games. In this light, extending the chances of participation to people with physical disabilities also enhances their sense of belonging to a world they felt to be misfits. It may require some balance from the competitive advantage prosthetics may place them relative to able bodied participants without assistive devices. at the long run it will offer more benefit, fun and integration of different aspects of the global society which are some of the objectives of gaming.

  18. Firstly the article speaks to the issue of equality of pay. Currently in both the Olympic and Paralympic games, certain events receive less viewing and less funding. There is no guarantee that combining games will resolve the pay imbalance of abled and disabled athletes, as this is not guaranteed even within the separate sports.

    Secondly, the article makes a good point that top disabled athletes currently do not sprint quick enough to reach the second heat of the abled-athlete 100m sprint. If the current disabled athletes were to compete, then they would not obtain qualifying times and as a result, lose the funding they already receive. I am forced to ask how this situation would level the ‘paying field’ so to speak, as the article mentions? Further, to ask disabled athletes whether they would give up their gold medal to come last in the 100m sprint (as times currently show they would) is to ask them to give up their sponsorship and identity as an athlete.

    Lastly, current disabled sports are classified according to their disability. To combine games would be to include able-bodied athletes within these classifications as simply ‘less disabled’ resulting in segregation of events anyway, until technology allows disabled athletes to reach the times and speeds of abled-athletes, at which point the disadvantage shifts again.
    Very interesting article and one I think requires the opinions of elite athletes.

  19. Interesting range of opinions thus far. I believe that paralympic athletes with prosthetics should be allowed to compete with their able-bodied counterparts if they are good enough. But I also feel they should have the opportunity to compete in their own games, with wheelchair athletes and those of other disabilities. Athletes with coordination impairments, congenital abnormalities, etc. are often no match for those who are able-bodied when it comes to these types of sporting events. They must have opportunities to compete with people like themselves and therefore the Paralympics ought to be protected and celebrated for what it is.

  20. In an increasingly egalitarian society where everyone demands equality, who are we to refuse someone the rights of participation in sport.
    It can be argued that to maintain a level playing field- the use of prosthetics may give an unfair advantage therefore creating imbalance and causing able bodied people to feel unfairly discriminated against.
    A solution to this would be to either let able and disabled people use prosthetics, or let them both compete without prosthetics.

    Or until it can be scientifically proven that prosthetics bare no advantages/ disadvantages over working limbs can you allow a competition to happen.

  21. Given the idea that sports competitions should be based on fairplay, it’s not really possible to have disabled and able-bodied athletes compete side by side. That being said maybe it would be interesting to remove the fairplay aspect and allow competitors the freedom to choose whatever modifications/performance enhancers they want to use for the competition.

  22. This topic was quite intriguing. The scope, and the ethical gradient that this article showcases is indeed fascinating. Up to this point. I trust that paralympic competitors with prosthetics ought to be permitted to rival their physically fit partners in the events in which they are able to. Be that as it may, however, I feel they ought to have the chance to contend in their own particular Paralympics as well, with wheelchair competitors and those who are with a form of disability. Competitors with coordination disabilities, innate irregularities, and so on are regularly no counterpart for the individuals who are healthy with regards to these kinds of wearing occasions. They should have chances to rival individuals like themselves. This is why in my opinion, Paralympians should be treasured and valued and celebrated for who they are, and should be allowed to compete wherever they like.

  23. Very good read which raises some good ethical questions on the state of sport today.

    My personal opinion is that having disabled athletes compete in the Olympics would be outright unfair for both abled and disabled athletes due to the significant difference in the capabilities of some abled athletes compared to disabled counterparts who don’t use prosthetics, as well as for those using prosthetics that would give them an unfair advantage. Then again, although the cause of the difference makes sense, it feels like Paralympians deserve more recognition for their efforts as do the Olympians. The only middle ground I can think of is to have a crossover event where Olympians compete against Paralympians, which I would be interested to see myself how some disabled athletes fair against others, which would give recognition to those disabled athletes. However, marketing such a crossover event may prove challenging and may face some ethical issues again with having an unfair competition, despite being a one-time event.

  24. This was a great effort in demonstrating the ethical point of view of this important issue that is currently surfacing in the sports world. The for and against discussions do differentiate each other to a great degree and in it helps in grasping and understanding the complexity of the ethical problem in regards to this subject!

    As a competitor in sports myself, I have played in various sports, and I have been doing so as long as I can remember (while being healthy). Having done so for so many year I came to the conclusion that is is extremely difficult to participate in sports ever for the able-bodied people. I can only imagine how significantly more troublesome participating might be for the individuals who are handicapped.

    Consequently I think it is splendidly sensible to permit everybody to contend in a similar event on the off chance that they are capable! I’m certain that there are teenagers who are capable of doing extraordinary stuff for their age, however, they are discriminated against and are not allowed to partake in most events due to being handicapped. The question that floats in my mind is, Are the reasons mentioned in the report valid enough to deprive athletes from partaking in any sports event?

  25. This article was very fascinating, I do believe that permitting handicapped and capable athlets to contend closely with each other might be dubious. In spite of the salary dissimilarities – Due to the fact that people generally tend to watch the regular olyimpcs more according to your article – Paralympians still have huge leverages when compared to their olympian counterpart. the aspect of financing these events alone is justifiable enough to go against allowing the mixed events. This alongside the obvious biomechanical advantage of paralympians, with the regularly evolving innovations (prompting more effective prosthetic parts) makes a bigger issue from both a moral and an ethical viewpoint. Would it be able to be ethically satisfactory to hold a mixed Olympics? I personally do not believe that it is indeed ethical to do so.

  26. This report provided an interesting perspective and balance from both sides of the theoretical coin. It is especially relevant in today’s society where there isn’t such a clear cut answer, the lack of clarity today is due to the current state of prosthetics allowing disabled athletes to perform well enough to be considered for competition against able-bodied athletes. I feel the inclusive games solution presented could help to reduce the issue of disparity in pay as all athletes would receive the same TV coverage which would provide disabled athletes with the exposure needed to develop their personal image in the media, improving sponsorship deals.
    Perhaps the races in this games could be structured in the way men and women compete alongside one another at the same games but not against as mentioned in previous comments.

  27. I believe that, even though disabled people should be treated as normal able-bodied people in daily life, they cannot participate in the Olympics with the rest of the athletes. The main reason is that they are at a huge disadvantage since professional athletes have powerful bodies and are totally prepared to face any physical situation. Disabled people tend to be a little bit weaker and they are not going to win, even if they try. Moreover, if they participate using a new device, it would be like cheating since able-bodied athletes won’t be able to use it, so disabled people would have a mechanical advantage, breaking the sense of Olympic games.
    I believe that the best option for solving this problem is that people as audience support more the Paralympics, giving disabled people the chance to compete and show themselves in an environment where they can win and be recognise. If people show interest in this event, more investors will be interested on it, giving more financial support to disabled athletes.

  28. While I’ve heard about the technological advancements in prosthetic limbs, which at first glance seem to be a great thing, I had never stopped to consider the potential ethical dilemmas that arise from this advancement. I thought this was a job well done in presenting a critical, yet balanced view of this topic – was a great read!

  29. This article is very deep and its really attention-grabbing !
    Many key concerns were raised in the article for the combining of the olympic and paralympic games into one entity. It is really a big debate and its still far fetched and we don’t know whether or not this can be achieved.

    It is of immense importance to ask the opinions of the paralympians themselves as with regards to this issue, and what they have to say on the integrity of a sporting event that abolishes centuries previous rules in favour of latest rules for a revolutionary olympic games.
    The article mentions of a very important issue as well, that is that of reduced sporting attention for the paralympic games. This reduced attention is definitely a mirrored image of public perception on the importance/insignificance of such a happening with respect strictly to atheltic amusement capability, and not the taking part people. This public perception is definitely the strongest indicator promoting the seperation of the paralympics and therefore the athletic contest. Is it necessary to force the public to watch sporting events that they might not prefer ? arent there any other methods to tackle this issue ?

  30. This article was eyecatching and really well-written, well done !
    First of all, the article addresses the difficulty of the equality of pay, however, presently in each the Olympic and Paralympic games, different events receive less viewing and fewer funding. there’s no ensuring that the combination of games can resolve the pay gap of both sides, as this is often not warranted even when the games are separated .

    Moreover, the article makes an interesting argument and claims that disabled athletes presently don’t sprint as fast as the abled-athlete 100m sprint. On the off chance that the present disabled competitors were to contend, at that point they would not acquire qualifying times and accordingly, lose the financing they as of now get. I am compelled to ask how this circumstance would level the gap in pay , as the article notices? Further, to ask dis-abled competitors whether they would surrender their gold medals to participate in with the his able bodied colleagues in the 100m run; i assume they have to, is to request that they surrender their sponsorship and way of life as a competitor as well.

    All in all, a great article. i believe that this needs the opinions of elite disabled athletes. They should have a say in this first, and conclusion should be decided on their replies.

  31. A well written article. This was an interesting read indeed.

    Firstly, I trust that, despite the fact that individuals with disabilites ought to be dealt with as ordinary healthy individuals in every day life, they can’t take an interest in the Olympics with whatever is left of the competitors. The principle reason is that they are at an enormous impediment since proficient competitors have intense bodies and are completely built to confront any physical circumstance. disable individuals have a tendency to be somewhat weaker and they are not going to win, regardless of whether they attempt. Additionally, in the event that they take an interest utilizing another gadget, it would resemble bamboozling since physically fit competitors won’t have the capacity to utilize it, so crippled individuals would have a mechanical favorable position, breaking the feeling of the Olympic atmosphere, and going beyond the realm of sports as we know it.

    I trust that the best alternative for taking care of this issue is that individuals as group of onlookers bolster progressively the Paralympics, allowing dis-abled individuals to contend and show themselves in a domain where they can win and be perceived well. In the event that individuals indicate enthusiasm for this occasion, more spectators will be intrigued, giving the sport more budgetary to help in fainancing dis-abled competitors.

  32. Pingback: buy backlinks uk
  33. Pingback: cheap wigs
  34. Pingback: www.isofrane.com
  35. Pingback: eatverts
  36. Pingback: Plumber Near Me
  37. Pingback: fun88
  38. Pingback: Stiiizy pods
  39. Pingback: cat tay chay mau
  40. Pingback: Devops strategy
  41. Pingback: viagra
  42. Pingback: fun88casino.net
  43. Pingback: cats having fun
  44. Pingback: cowl neck bodysuit
  45. Pingback: replica watches
  46. Pingback: generic viagra
  47. Pingback: buy cialis now
  48. Pingback: sa game

Leave a Reply