Restoring or Enhancing Athletic Bodies: Oscar Pistorius and the Threat to Pure Performance

  • Tara MagdalinskiEmail author
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 52)


The interface between the body and technology presents a perilous moment where the integrity of the former and the validity of the latter might be compromised. A body that succumbs to the temptation of illicit enhancement or is tainted by the presence of threatening technology typically has no place within sport where pure performance demands that uncontaminated participants strive to establish the limits of the human’s physical capacity. This chapter examines the junction between nature and technology extant in the athletic body to determine whether technologically enhanced bodies disrupt mainstream conceptions of pure performance. The triadic relationship between sport, the body and performance is interrogated with reference to Oscar Pistorius, a liminal figure whose presence in mainstream sport has been considered a threat to the integrity of sports performance.


Olympic Game Sport Performance Elite Sport External Technology Prosthetic Limb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adam, B. 1998. Timescapes of modernity: The environment and invisible hazards. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, L. 2001. Amateurism in sport: An analysis and a defence. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, M. 1999. Blood, sweat and well-earned tears. The Newcastle Herald, 17 July.Google Scholar
  4. Bale, J. 1994. Landscapes of modern sport. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barilan, Y.M., and M. Weintraub. 2001. The naturalness of the artificial and our concepts of health, disease and medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4(3): 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BBC Sport. 2008. Pistorius fails to make Olympics. BBC Sport Website, 18 July. Accessed 10 Jan 2012.
  7. Bednarek, J.R.D. 2005. The flying machine in the garden: Parks and airports, 1918–1938. Technology and Culture 46(2): 350–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butcher, R.B., and A.J. Schneider. 2001. Fair play as respect for the game. In Ethics in sport, ed. W.J. Morgan, K.V. Meier, and A.J. Schneider, 119–140. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  9. Chowdhury, S. 2012. Oscar Pistorius beaten by Alan Oliveira in 200m. BBC Sport, 2 September. Accessed 10 Oct 2012.
  10. Court of Arbitration for Sport. 2008. Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/IAAF, award of 16 May 2008. Accessed 10 Oct 2011.
  11. Cowley, M. 1999. O’Neill, Thorpe may be next to cover up in go-fast ‘scoot suit’. Sydney Morning Herald, 3 August.Google Scholar
  12. Crawford, R. 1984. A cultural account of ‘health’. In Issues in the political economy of health care, ed. J.B. McKinlay, 60–104. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  13. De Pauw, K.P., and S. Gavron. 2005. Disability sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  14. Eitzen, D.S. 2006. Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, R. 1989. On performance-enhancing substances and the unfair advantage argument. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 16: 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garland-Thomson, R. 1997. Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Garland-Thomson, R. 2002. Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. National Women’s Studies Association Journal 14(3): 1–32.Google Scholar
  18. Goggin, G., and C. Newell. 2000. Crippling Paralympics? Media, disability and Olympism. Media International Australia 97: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goggin, G., and C. Newell. 2005. Disability in Australia: Exploring a social apartheid. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gibson, O. 2012. Oscar Pistorius erupts after Alan Oliveira wins gold. The Guardian, 3 September. Accessed 10 Oct 2012.
  21. Herr, H., G.P. Whiteley, and D. Childress. 2003. Cyborg technology: Biomimetic orthotic and prosthetic technology. In Biologically inspired intelligent robots, ed. Y. Bar-Cohen and C. Breazeal, 103–144. Bellingham: SPIE Press.Google Scholar
  22. Holt, R. 1989. Sport and the British. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Holtz, A. 1996. Paralympic officials keep eye out for ‘boosting’. CNN Website. Accessed 14 Aug 2006.
  24. Hood, M. 2005. Born to run. IEEE Spectrum Online, November. Accessed 20 Dec 2006.
  25. International Association of Athletic Federations. 2008a. Competition rules 2008. IAAF, Monaco. Accessed 30 April 2008.
  26. International Association of Athletic Federations. 2008b. Press release: Oscar Pistorius – independent scientific study concludes that cheetah prosthetics offer clear mechanical advantages. IAAF, 14 January. Accessed 30 Jan 2008.
  27. Jenkins, P. 2002. Doping in sport. The Lancet 360(9327): 99–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levine, B.D. 2006. Should ‘artificial’ high altitude environments be considered doping? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 16: 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Longman, J. 2007. An amputee sprinter: Is he disabled or too-abled? The New York Times, 15 May.Google Scholar
  30. Magdalinski, T. 2000. Performance technologies: Drugs and Fastskin at the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Media International Australia 97: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Magdalinski, T. 2008. Sport, technology and the body: The nature of performance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Magdalinski, T., and K. Brooks. 2002. Bride of Frankenstein: Technology and the consumption of the female athlete. Research in Philosophy and Technology 21: 195–212.Google Scholar
  33. O’Leary, J. 2001. Drugs and doping in sport: Socio-legal perspectives. London: Routledge Cavendish.Google Scholar
  34. Ott, K. 2002. The sum of its parts: An introduction to modern histories of prosthetics. In Artificial parts, practical lives: Modern histories of prosthetics, ed. K. Ott, D. Serlin, and S. Mihm, 1–42. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Philip, R. 2005. Pistorius masters quick step. The Telegraph, 27 April 2005. Accessed 10 Jan 2012.
  36. Reid, H. 1998. Sport, education and the meaning of victory. Paper presented at Twentieth world congress of philosophy, Boston, August 1998. www/ Accessed 31 Oct 2006.Google Scholar
  37. Reilly, R. 2000. Paralympic paradox. Sports illustrated. Accessed 5 June 2006.
  38. Sandahl, C., and P. Auslander. 2005. Introduction. In Bodies in commotion: Disability and performance, ed. C. Sandahl and P. Auslander, 1–12. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shildrick, M. 2005. The disabled body, genealogy and undecidability. Cultural Studies 19(6): 755–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shilling, C. 2005. The body in culture, technology and society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, A., and N. Thomas. 2005. The ‘inclusion’ of elite athletes with disabilities in the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games: An exploratory analysis of British newspaper coverage. Sport, Education and Society 10(1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verroken, M. 2003. Drug use and abuse in sport. In Drugs in sport, 3rd ed, ed. D.R. Mottram, 29–62. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Whorton, J.C. 1982. Crusaders for fitness: The history of American health reformers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wigglesworth, N. 1996. The evolution of English sport. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, R.R. 1995. Cyber(body)parts: Prosthetic consciousness. In Cyberspace, cyberbodies, cyberpunk: Cultures of technological embodiment, ed. M. Featherstone and R. Burrows, 239–260. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCD Centre for Sports StudiesUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations