Gel Bracelets George Lopez

STUDI E SENTENZE

INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PROF. BRUEGGEMAN which show that implants "CHEETAH" clearly offer ADVANTAGES Athlete
(November 2007, published in January 2008)

The study was conducted by prof. Brueggeman, professor at the University of Cologne, and took into account the physiological and biomechanical implications of the race straight from Pistorius made with carbon fiber prosthesis ("cheetah"). The team that conducted the test consisted of 10 scientists, including a team of physiologists, coordinated by prof. J. Mester (Institute of Training Science and Sport Informatics).
• Are you using 12 cameras (250 frames per second) to record 3D kinematics, 3 cameras to monitor the movements of so-called sagittal (Plane divides the body which runs in two parts, right and left). •
sensors were used to record the ground reaction forces with the ground and their point of application.
• Athletes during testing of the K4 400m on a form to register your VO2 max. The results of VO2 max were analyzed in the laboratory using the exercise bike. Finally were recorded levels of lactic acid in the blood.
• To all the athletes were using a 3D scanner to monitor the body mass index and anthropometric characteristics
• Even implants were subjected to tests
tests have allowed to compare the performance of Pistorius with those of 5 athletes normodotati che hanno tempi simili nei 400 m.
Questo studio è stato commissionato dalla IAAF ( International Association of Athletics Federations) per vedere se le protesi offrivano all’atleta un vantaggio tecnico rispetto agli altri concorrenti violando così l’art. 144.2 delle regole di competizione dello IAAF.

IAAF Rule 144.2 extract
Relates to the use of" technical aids" during competition
This rule prohibits:
(e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device.

I risultati dello studio sono i seguenti:

o Pistorius è in able to run as fast as the able-bodied spending 25% less energy, or
Following laboratory tests on potential performance on Pistorius and other athletes was that there was so much difference in physiological or
Instead, Biomechanical analysis showed that the greatest differences were manifested in the sprint start:

The biomechanical analysis demonstrated major differences in the mechanics of the sprint between an athlete who uses a prosthesis for an amputated below the knee compared to a normal person. The maximum vertical ground reaction force and vertical pulses are significantly different and such an amount of energy returned were never reported in human ankle during a sprint race than that of implants
The active work, or energy returned, the prosthesis is close to three times the highest reported in a human ankle.
The energy lost for a prosthetic hand is about 9.3% during the position while the average energy lost by a human ankle is about 41.4%. This means that the mechanical advantage of implants compared to able-bodied athlete is higher than 30% E 'evident that an athlete using the Cheetah prosthetic type can run as fast as a normal person spending a lot less energy. Run using these prostheses involves a minor vertical movement and a consequent lower labor expended to support the body. Similarly, the energy lost by the use of implants is significantly smaller than a human ankle during sprinting at full speed. An athlete using this prosthetic has a demonstrable mechanical advantage (more than 30%) compared to an athlete that uses it.
The IAAF Council has considered the entire description and decided that these implants known as "cheetachs" should be considered as technical aid for athletes who use them, in clear contravention of IAAF 144.2 compared to the norm. Consequently Oscar Pistorius is not eligible to compete in competitions organized by IAAF regulations.

(Translation the official site of the IAAF http:// www.iaaf.org )


Judgement of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
IF 2008/A/1480 Pistorius V /

IAAF Arbitration between

Oscar Pistorius, represented by Mr Marco Consonni, Jeffrey and David G. Feher, Attorneys, of Dewey & Leboeuf LLP, Milan, Italy, and New York, USA
appellant

E

International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), represented by Mr Mark Gay, Mr Huw Roberts, solicitor for DLA , London, England, and Me Habib, a lawyer, Paris, France.

Accused

INTRODUCTION

The shares and dispute

The Appellant, Oscar Pistorius is a citizen of the Republic of South Africa. It 's a professional athlete who competes in races of 400 meters and 100.200.
The accused, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), track and field rule the world and is recognized by the International Olympic Commission. It is based in Monaco.
In this arbitration, Pistorius appealed the decision No. 2008/01 of the IAAF Council in January 2008 according to which the prosthetic "Cheetah" used by Pistorius, amputee to Gemba both the age of eleven, are a technical device that gives him an advantage over athletes normo-equipped in violation of IAAF Rule 144.2.
The decision of the IAAF was based on research conducted by Professor Brueggeman and his colleagues at the University of Sports in Cologne. As a result of the decision, Pistorius was allowed to compete against athletes with normal-in competitions approved by the IAAF.


L ' agreement for arbitration

According to Rule 60.25 of the IAAF, an athlete can appeal the final decision of the IAAF
within 30 days from the date of communication. The IAAF sent the decision Pistorius January 16, 2008, and he made use of the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) 13 February 2008 and was admitted. The

issues to be determined

i. The council of the IAAF has extended its jurisdiction in making the decision?
ii. The process that led to the decision of the IAAF was "defective"?
iii. The decision of the IAAF was unlawfully discriminatory?
iv. The decision of the IAAF in determining that the use of the "Cheetah Flex-Foot contravened Rule 144.2 was wrong?

Analysis Expert

Question ii.

56 events linked to the decision of the IAAF began with the adoption of new rule 144.2 March 26, 2007 in Mombasa, Kenya. The Committee has found little convincing evidence that the primary purpose of the new rule was the use of technology in running shoes and sprint. It 'clear that the problems with running shoes was a long time and was treated before March 2007 without any need for a new rule.

57 Experts believe it possible that the new rule was introduced with Mr.Pistorius in mind and that it has initiated the process that led the IAAF to declare unfit to compete in sports events sponsored by the IAAF.

58 The second evento significante è stato il filmato di Mr Pistorius durante la corsa a Roma il 13 luglio 2007. Gli esperti non hanno trovato nulla di sbagliato.

59. La IAAF decise poi di investigare dando il compito all'istituto di Cologna di fare test biomeccanici e metabolici e di redigere un report il cui scopo era vedere se le protesi di Pistorius dessero un vantaggio competitivo rispetto agli altri atleti. Pistorius fu daccordo a partecipare ai test.

60. A questo punto, secondo la visione degli esperti, il processo ha cominciato ad andare "fuori dai binari". La corrispondenza tra lo IAAF e il prof. Brueggeman mostra che le istruzioni erano di testare solo quando Mr Pistorius correva in una linea dritta dopo la fase di accelerazione.

62. The story is not clear that Dr. Gailey, the scientist named by Pistorius to participate in the test of Cologne, has been left out.

63. In fact, the letters to Mr. Locatelli of 29/10/2007, which highlight a series of questions and suggestions directly related to the testing protocol, was ignored by both the IAAF that Prof. Brueggeman.

(Translation from the site of Tas ufficicle http://www.tas-cas.org/ )