Bionic lenses

[Superman]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160052-worlds-first-telescopic-contact-lens-gives-you-superman-like-vision

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/106263-wireless-contact-lens-display-now-a-reality

 

New contact lenses are being developed that can improve a user's eyesight to "superhuman levels," and another set that can be used as a wireless display (think Google Glass, but worn directly on the eye). 

 

Imagine the benefits this could have for a football player, if the technology is actually developed to a usable degree. I'm sure the NFL would ban such a device, but this is an example of how the lines between technology and performance-enhancement are being blurred every day.

[bayone]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160052-worlds-first-telescopic-contact-lens-gives-you-superman-like-vision

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/106263-wireless-contact-lens-display-now-a-reality

 

New contact lenses are being developed that can improve a user's eyesight to "superhuman levels," and another set that can be used as a wireless display (think Google Glass, but worn directly on the eye). 

 

Imagine the benefits this could have for a football player, if the technology is actually developed to a usable degree. I'm sure the NFL would ban such a device, but this is an example of how the lines between technology and performance-enhancement are being blurred every day.

 

will NFL look into everones eyes to see if wearing enhancing contacts., Thats hard

[Nadine]

that's pretty amazing

[ruksak]

Weird, freaky deeky. 

 

If such a thing was actually capable of giving a player an advantage, and such a practice was banned, I would suggest the same punishment I would for players whom take banned substances or otherwise cheat.

 

ZERO TOLERANCE, 1 offense, you're out of the league and your contract is entirely void. Why professional sports hand-slap and tolerate such things that besmirch the game I have no idea. Such a penalty would remove all such practices from the game. It's the light punishment that makes a player weigh the risks and come out deciding to cheat. 

 

Anywho....someone contact me when they invent x-ray glasses. Gonna get my perv on.

[Superman]

Weird, freaky deeky. 

 

If such a thing was actually capable of giving a player an advantage, and such a practice was banned, I would suggest the same punishment I would for players whom take banned substances or otherwise cheat.

 

ZERO TOLERANCE, 1 offense, you're out of the league and your contract is entirely void. Why professional sports hand-slap and tolerate such things that besmirch the game I have no idea. Such a penalty would remove all such practices from the game. It's the light punishment that makes a player weigh the risks and come out deciding to cheat. 

 

Anywho....someone contact me when they invent x-ray glasses. Gonna get my perv on.

 

That's kind of why I posted this. I'm not so sure that's the right approach.

 

The lenses that can supposedly give a person "superhuman" vision are being designed for people with age-related macular degeneration. Just like laser eye surgery is intended for people with deteriorating eyesight. But after surgery, a person can technically have better than perfect vision. These lenses probably have a greater impact than that on a person with normal vision, acting more like a telescope. 

 

But the problem is that humans do myriad things in the name of performance enhancing. The NFL and other sports leagues have tried to draw a line in the sand and say what is and is not acceptable, but it's not even close to clear. I think there needs to be a major readjustment in the way performance enhancing is viewed and judged. There are a lot of beneficial implications to substances and devices that are not necessarily dangerous when used properly, and can help people to maximize their potential. To me, denying the usage of some of these things is the equivalent of banning weight lifting or laser eye surgery.

[ruksak]

That's kind of why I posted this. I'm not so sure that's the right approach.

 

The lenses that can supposedly give a person "superhuman" vision are being designed for people with age-related macular degeneration. Just like laser eye surgery is intended for people with deteriorating eyesight. But after surgery, a person can technically have better than perfect vision. These lenses probably have a greater impact than that on a person with normal vision, acting more like a telescope. 

 

But the problem is that humans do myriad things in the name of performance enhancing. The NFL and other sports leagues have tried to draw a line in the sand and say what is and is not acceptable, but it's not even close to clear. I think there needs to be a major readjustment in the way performance enhancing is viewed and judged. There are a lot of beneficial implications to substances and devices that are not necessarily dangerous when used properly, and can help people to maximize their potential. To me, denying the usage of some of these things is the equivalent of banning weight lifting or laser eye surgery.

I would submit a HUGE middle ground between "corrective" and "artificial enhancing".

 

"Corrective" is surgery, a procedure to correct faulty eyesight, hearing etc. 

 

"Artificial Enhancing" would be, for an extreme example, a player having titanium plates surgically bonded to his forearms for use in football. (Wasn't there an NFL player years ago that wore his arm cast longer than usual because [allegedly] he liked using it as a weapon?) 

 

Contact lenses are an external corrective measure.

 

The lenses you linked to, those aren't corrective if used to gain an advantage.

[Tony Sullivan]

Just to play devil's advocate.

 

 

Why aren't gloves banned? They add extreme tackiness to a players grip, aiding in receiving, tackling, ball carrying etc. 

[ruksak]

Just to play devil's advocate.

 

 

Why aren't gloves banned? They add extreme tackiness to a players grip, aiding in receiving, tackling, ball carrying etc. 

...and shoulder pads make it easier to tackle. 

 

It's a compromise between the glove as a valid piece of gear and a glove as enhancing capability.

 

Per the rule book;

 

Adhesive, Slippery Substances

(i) Adhesive or slippery substances on the body, equipment, or uniform of any player; provided, 

however, that players may wear gloves with a tackified surface if such tacky substance does not 

adhere to the football or otherwise cause handling problems for players. 

[southwest1]

That's kind of why I posted this. I'm not so sure that's the right approach.

 

The lenses that can supposedly give a person "superhuman" vision are being designed for people with age-related macular degeneration. Just like laser eye surgery is intended for people with deteriorating eyesight. But after surgery, a person can technically have better than perfect vision. These lenses probably have a greater impact than that on a person with normal vision, acting more like a telescope. 

 

But the problem is that humans do myriad things in the name of performance enhancing. The NFL and other sports leagues have tried to draw a line in the sand and say what is and is not acceptable, but it's not even close to clear. I think there needs to be a major readjustment in the way performance enhancing is viewed and judged. There are a lot of beneficial implications to substances and devices that are not necessarily dangerous when used properly, and can help people to maximize their potential. To me, denying the usage of some of these things is the equivalent of banning weight lifting or laser eye surgery.

I'm not opposed to the NFL and other sports genres or leagues establishing a set of rules for what it deems an unfair competitive advantage Superman. However, there is 1 major problem with surgery to enhance your vision. Just because an athlete can see the ball early, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will catch or grab the ball faster than other players can. Just because the eyes can anticipate where the ball literally is that doesn't mean that their hands will catch the ball & run it into the endzone for a touchdown. Hands and feet do not always work in perfect unison with an athlete's eyes either on offense or defense. It's called hand/eye coordination for a reason IMO.

[southwest1]

Also, if the NFL banned contact lenses in this country, what's to stop an athlete from purchasing the lenses in Europe or have a permanent procedure to enhance your vision there? How far does the NFL legal jurisdiction literally reach? And what if an athlete pays an American optometrist to do the eye enhancement abroad? If the procedure is banned artificially [contact lens] or permanently through surgery in the United States among sports leagues, can an athlete escape fines or suspensions just by leaving North American to have work done?

 

Just because the NFL plays an occasional game in London that doesn't give Roger Goodell the right to administer rulings outside the borders of America. And how would the Commissioner prove any newly passed competitive advantage law was actually broken? Well paid athletes can get a note from their doctor to say that the surgery was not cosmetic but essential surgery too.

[southwest1]

will NFL look into everones eyes to see if wearing enhancing contacts., Thats hard

Tom Cruise in the film "Minority Report" LOL!

 

[Superman]

I'm not opposed to the NFL and other sports genres or leagues establishing a set of rules for what it deems an unfair competitive advantage Superman. However, there is 1 major problem with surgery to enhance your vision. Just because an athlete can see the ball early, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will catch or grab the ball faster than other players can. Just because the eyes can anticipate where the ball literally is that doesn't mean that their hands will catch the ball & run it into the endzone for a touchdown. Hands and feet do not always work in perfect unison with an athlete's eyes either on offense or defense. It's called hand/eye coordination for a reason IMO.

 

Sure, but if you don't have good hand/eye coordination, you're not playing football. Hand/eye coordination is already a given.

 

But take someone who has slightly affected vision, and you give them laser eye surgery. They now have better than normal -- you could say "superhuman" -- vision. These lenses we're talking about take that to a different level, of course, but the principle is the same. They've had surgery that enhances their vision beyond what is normal.

 

Move this beyond football, to golf, for instance. Tiger Woods had laser surgery and said it helped him tremendously. Let's say someone has these new lenses put in their eyes, and now they have telescopic vision. Wouldn't that help them read the green better, and so on?

 

I agree that these sports associations should establish rules for what is determined an unfair advantage. I don't think they're doing a good job of that right now, though. I think there are a lot of banned substances and practices that are only banned because there's a stigma attached to them. And then, with some of them, there are exemptions made for one participant that are not made for the next participant. (For instance, Adderall: Even if I have a verified and documented reason for taking Adderall, it still helps me operate at a higher than normal capacity, in theory. So my body and brain are potentially functioning at a higher level than someone who doesn't have ADHD. I'm getting an advantage.)

[Superman]

 

...and shoulder pads make it easier to tackle. 

 

It's a compromise between the glove as a valid piece of gear and a glove as enhancing capability.

 

Per the rule book;

 

Adhesive, Slippery Substances

(i) Adhesive or slippery substances on the body, equipment, or uniform of any player; provided, 

however, that players may wear gloves with a tackified surface if such tacky substance does not 

adhere to the football or otherwise cause handling problems for players. 

 

 

But a glove does enhance capability. That's partly what it's for. 

 

I would submit a HUGE middle ground between "corrective" and "artificial enhancing".

 

"Corrective" is surgery, a procedure to correct faulty eyesight, hearing etc. 

 

"Artificial Enhancing" would be, for an extreme example, a player having titanium plates surgically bonded to his forearms for use in football. (Wasn't there an NFL player years ago that wore his arm cast longer than usual because [allegedly] he liked using it as a weapon?) 

 

Contact lenses are an external corrective measure.

 

The lenses you linked to, those aren't corrective if used to gain an advantage.

 

Corrective laser eye surgery does enhance, to beyond normal levels. These lenses are meant to be corrective in individuals with macular degeneration, but they could have the advantage of enhancing as well. Sure, there's a difference, but it's not as far apart as you're claiming it is.

 

You're calling these lenses artificial, but look at all the things athletes put into their bodies that are artificial. Look at all the artificial procedures they put themselves through (elevation training and hyperbaric chambers, and so on). Regenokine surgery is artificial, but it's accepted (and it's technically the same process as blood doping, which is not accepted). Wearing a tinted visor is artificial, and it gives the person wearing it a supposed advantage over someone who isn't wearing one.

[southwest1]

Considering that the NFL & NFL PA can't even agree on a mechanism or reliable testing procedure for blood testing right now, I don't really see how the league is anyone close to even addressing eye enhancements.

 

I do agree though with Superman 100% though that if you fail to deal with eye enhancements soon the players may take advantage of this lack of oversight, get retina surgery done on a grand scale, & then by the time the Commissioner issues a ruling prohibiting the procedure it's too late because so many athletes have now been forever altered & miraculous catches are now routine diminishing the magnitude of true competition in this league.

 

Superman does make a valid point IMO.

[shakedownstreet]

i wonder if you can hear that bionic sound when wearing them

[southwest1]

Sure, but if you don't have good hand/eye coordination, you're not playing football. Hand/eye coordination is already a given.

 

But take someone who has slightly affected vision, and you give them laser eye surgery. They now have better than normal -- you could say "superhuman" -- vision. These lenses we're talking about take that to a different level, of course, but the principle is the same. They've had surgery that enhances their vision beyond what is normal.

 

Move this beyond football, to golf, for instance. Tiger Woods had laser surgery and said it helped him tremendously. Let's say someone has these new lenses put in their eyes, and now they have telescopic vision. Wouldn't that help them read the green better, and so on?

 

I agree that these sports associations should establish rules for what is determined an unfair advantage. I don't think they're doing a good job of that right now, though. I think there are a lot of banned substances and practices that are only banned because there's a stigma attached to them. And then, with some of them, there are exemptions made for one participant that are not made for the next participant. (For instance, Adderall: Even if I have a verified and documented reason for taking Adderall, it still helps me operate at a higher than normal capacity, in theory. So my body and brain are potentially functioning at a higher level than someone who doesn't have ADHD. I'm getting an advantage.)

Highly athletic & gifted athletes can still drop balls though Superman. It's really a matter of volume & frequency of catches as opposed to drops or incompletions. I get what you are saying though with increased vision particularly on a peripheral level does dramatically increase the probability of catching the ball &, even in baseball, if you can see the ball early it greatly enhances the likelihood of hitting homeruns. Point taken.

[southwest1]

i wonder if you can hear that bionic sound when wearing them

I wonder what Lindsay Wagner star of "The Bionic Woman" and Lee Majors star of the "Six Million Dollar Man" think of this "eye opening" debate? Cheesy I know, but still mildly funny SDS.

 

Even the 2007 reboot of The Bionic Woman on NBC in 2007 wasn't bad either. See...

 

[Superman]

Highly athletic & gifted athletes can still drop balls though Superman. It's really a matter of volume & frequency of catches as opposed to drops or incompletions. I get what you are saying though with increased vision particularly on a peripheral level does dramatically increase the probability of catching the ball &, even in baseball, if you can see the ball early it greatly enhances the likelihood of hitting homeruns. Point taken.

 

That's not an issue of hand/eye coordination. It's an issue of concentration and proper technique. An NFL receiver or defensive back has exceptional hand/eye coordination, even the ones that don't catch very well. 

 

But it seems logical to conclude that any activity that requires vision is made easier if you improve your vision. 

 

To be honest, this particular technology seems to be designed to help people with age-related macular degeneration to read easier. I bet it's not optimal for fast-paced activities, and might not help an NFL player at all. For now, at least. But the idea is still intriguing, and it makes me wonder when pro sports associations are going to take a closer look at their "enhancement" policies, in light of new technology.

[southwest1]

If Roger Goodell did permit the use of these special contact lenses across the league, would players eyes gleam in shiny colors with the NFL logo inside them? The NFL loves to slap it's name on anything & market it to get a percentage of the profits. American capitalism at it's finest on stilts.   

 

Do players get to pick scary red & green pigmentation colors for night games too? Only Kidding! It would be cool to see at a game on Halloween night though wouldn't it?

[amfootball]

But what if your eyes are already perfect like Brady? j/k. Couldn't resist.

[SteelCityColt]

I wonder what Lindsay Wagner star of "The Bionic Woman" and Lee Majors star of the "Six Million Dollar Man" think of this "eye opening" debate? Cheesy I know, but still mildly funny SDS.

 

Even the 2007 reboot of The Bionic Woman on NBC in 2007 wasn't bad either. See...

 

Ahh Michelle Ryan, I'm still not sure how she got that gig!

[CardiacColts]

Weird, freaky deeky.

If such a thing was actually capable of giving a player an advantage, and such a practice was banned, I would suggest the same punishment I would for players whom take banned substances or otherwise cheat.

ZERO TOLERANCE, 1 offense, you're out of the league and your contract is entirely void. Why professional sports hand-slap and tolerate such things that besmirch the game I have no idea. Such a penalty would remove all such practices from the game. It's the light punishment that makes a player weigh the risks and come out deciding to cheat.

Anywho....someone contact me when they invent x-ray glasses. Gonna get my perv on.

At what point do you say, "Hey, maybe we should evolve?" I mean I would argue that having a coach in a boxes voice piped right into your helmet would be a bigger advantage than contacts that improve vision. I say let every player wear them. By your logic, we should suspend players who wear visors because it gives an unfair advantage by blocking the sun and preventing other players from reading your eyes. I say let the league evolve.

[GoPats]

To use the bionic vision, do you have to look through the back of the head of the person who has them in?

 

Like this guy, for my fellow "I grew up in the 70s and early 80s" peeps!
 

[deedub75]

Well maybe the officials should were these bionic lenses since they miss so many calls!

[shakedownstreet]

[ruksak]

At what point do you say, "Hey, maybe we should evolve?" I mean I would argue that having a coach in a boxes voice piped right into your helmet would be a bigger advantage than contacts that improve vision. I say let every player wear them. By your logic, we should suspend players who wear visors because it gives an unfair advantage by blocking the sun and preventing other players from reading your eyes. I say let the league evolve.

I think you're ignoring the standard here. The standard by which these sorts of ancillary rules are formed is very similar to the legal standard used to form the language of law. 

 

A key word to explain such things is the word "reasonable". Gloves, visors etc give the player a reasonable edge, making the product (the game) more enjoyable for the fans. As well, these measures do not exclude anyone, cause extenuating issues (such as stickum getting the ball/other players all messy), or other allow a player to gain an unreasonable advantage that may cause detriment to the quality of the game. 

 

Bionic lenses are unreasonable and strikingly dishonest. As well, not everyone can partake. Google ~ 'Eye/Contact Lens Allergies and you'll start to see where I'm going with this. 

 

As a fan, I certainly do not want to see NFL players adorning such attachments to their body that likens them to cyborgs. It seems ....unreasonable......

[Superman]

I think you're ignoring the standard here. The standard by which these sorts of ancillary rules are formed is very similar to the legal standard used to form the language of law. 

 

A key word to explain such things is the word "reasonable". Gloves, visors etc give the player a reasonable edge, making the product (the game) more enjoyable for the fans. As well, these measures do not exclude anyone, cause extenuating issues (such as stickum getting the ball/other players all messy), or other allow a player to gain an unreasonable advantage that may cause detriment to the quality of the game. 

 

Bionic lenses are unreasonable and strikingly dishonest. As well, not everyone can partake. Google ~ 'Eye/Contact Lens Allergies and you'll start to see where I'm going with this. 

 

As a fan, I certainly do not want to see NFL players adorning such attachments to their body that likens them to cyborgs. It seems ....unreasonable......

 

How long ago would Regenokine have been considered "unreasonable"? It's still got a stigma to it now.

 

Elevation training is potentially exclusive; someone with a medical condition like Ryan Clark can't do it. 

 

As for it being "dishonest," I don't know how you come to that conclusion. It's technology. You're not wiretapping your opponent. You're not sabotaging them. What's dishonest about enhancing your vision?

[ruksak]

How long ago would Regenokine have been considered "unreasonable"? It's still got a stigma to it now.

 

 

Players are allowed to take medicine/treatments for injuries and ailments so long as such measures are sanctioned. A line in the sand must be drawn, separating that which may be necessary and that which may be unnecessary. 

 

Contact/corrective lenses are necessary for a player to compete with his counterparts. "Bionic" lenses aren't necessary for a player to compete with his counter parts. 

 

Elevation training is potentially exclusive; someone with a medical condition like Ryan Clark can't do it. 

 

...but not unreasonable. 

 

Steroids are unreasonable. That is your proverbial line in the sand. 

 

Keep acting coy and progressive, and you'll get this as a treat..........

 

 

 

Yeah....awesome. No thanks. 

 

 

As for it being "dishonest," I don't know how you come to that conclusion. It's technology. You're not wiretapping your opponent. You're not sabotaging them. What's dishonest about enhancing your vision?

 

 

 

While we're traveling down this hilariously short-sighted path, let's consider how far your proposed attachments may go? What's next? Robotic Extendo-Arms? Go-Go Gadget Legs? 

 

Enhancing your vision to BEYOND normal levels is akin to using steroids to enhance your strength to BEYOND normal levels. This isn't real hard to figure as to why such proposals are not only laughable, but insulting to athletes everywhere, as well as the fans whom expect an honest contest of natural athletic ability. 

[Superman]

 

Players are allowed to take medicine/treatments for injuries and ailments so long as such measures are sanctioned. A line in the sand must be drawn, separating that which may be necessary and that which may be unnecessary. 

 

Contact/corrective lenses are necessary for a player to compete with his counterparts. "Bionic" lenses aren't necessary for a player to compete with his counter parts. 

 

...but not unreasonable. 

 

Steroids are unreasonable. That is your proverbial line in the sand. 

 

Keep acting coy and progressive, and you'll get this as a treat..........

 

 

 

Yeah....awesome. No thanks. 

 

 

 

While we're traveling down this hilariously short-sighted path, let's consider how far your proposed attachments may go? What's next? Robotic Extendo-Arms? Go-Go Gadget Legs? 

 

Enhancing your vision to BEYOND normal levels is akin to using steroids to enhance your strength to BEYOND normal levels. This isn't real hard to figure as to why such proposals are not only laughable, but insulting to athletes everywhere, as well as the fans whom expect an honest contest of natural athletic ability. 

 

 

See, but that's the whole thing.

 

First, as it pertains to "bionic" lenses, they are only a slight exaggeration over already prevalent laser eye surgery, which increases your vision to beyond normal levels. 

 

Second, as it pertains to steroids and PEDs, there's such a stigma (steroids are WRONG, no matter what, end of discussion), that there hasn't been an open and honest debate about their merits in 20 years. You said players are allowed to take medicine and treatments for injury and ailments, but that's one of the major benefits of using steroids or HGH. They can help you recover from injury faster. Regenokine and PRP is practically the same thing as blood doping. One is sanctioned, the other isn't. Why?

 

Of course robo arms and legs aren't going to be sanctioned. And maybe so-called bionic lenses shouldn't be, either. I'm not trying to be coy. I'm just saying that there's a serious need for further scrutiny of these so-called performance enhancers. Many of them, when used properly and under supervision, are highly beneficial for an athlete. And I don't think there's anything dishonest about them, nor do I think they enhance your strength beyond human levels. But that's the stigma -- you use steroids, and you turn into the Incredible Hulk. Not true. You have guys who look like this on steroids, and you have guys who look like this off steroids. The main point of these substances is to help your body recover faster, so that you can push it harder. I don't necessarily find that to be unreasonable.

 

Or Adderall. Not only is the use of a substance that improves memory, energy and concentration not unreasonable (and shouldn't be banned on that basis), but the NFL allows certain people to use it, while others can't. And the differentiation isn't based on who is legally prescribed. It's based on an independent review to determine who "needs" it, and who doesn't. Pseudoephedrine. I take it all the time because it works well, but if you get caught using this OTC decongestant, you're in trouble. Olympians have been stripped of medals because of it. Talk about unreasonable.

 

The line ought to be drawn. I agree. But base that off of what is dangerous for the typical person to use, or what the medical community deems unreasonable. Technically, none of it is "necessary." Protein supplements aren't "necessary." Elevation training isn't "necessary." That isn't a good benchmark. Neither is "unreasonable," because that is a matter of perspective, and perspective changes over time. At least the sports world and ought to have the guts to stand up and seriously consider their policies in light of new and changing information. I think the current policies are draconian and needlessly restrictive. I'm not arguing that people who willingly break the rules should be given a pass. But I do think the rules need to be rewritten.

[southwest1]

Ahh Michelle Ryan, I'm still not sure how she got that gig!

Funny thing is SW1 usually gets "weak in the knees" for crimson haired redheads, but I gotta say, I wouldn't exactly kick Michelle Ryan out for eating crackers in bed either SCC. Besides, SW1 always wanted to say to someone in a dark alley "behave sir or my beautiful girlfriend is going kick your caboose 6 ways to Sunday." I am firm enough in my masculinity to fully embrace the feminist movement after all.

 

If Michelle Ryan wants to be the enforcer, go right ahead. Smoking hot women that can finish fights is kinda hot & a okay with me man.    :36dancing:

[southwest1]

Cyclopes from the X-Men graphic novels must be Matt Schaub's father. All organisms evolve even humans. Cyclopes had 1 solid beam shooting out of his eye piece & Matt Schaub has 2 beams now...Evolution. Sounds good to me man. Plus, on camp outings, you don't need matches or to rub 2 sticks together either. 

[southwest1]

Cyclopes from the X-Men graphic novels must be Matt Schaub's father. All organisms evolve even humans. Cyclopes had 1 solid beam shooting out of his eye piece & Matt Schaub has 2 beams now...Evolution. Sounds good to me man. Plus, on camp outings, you don't need matches or to rub 2 sticks together either. 

I do wonder though what the settings are on laser beam eyes? Low, well done, & crap I burned down half the forest again. My wife is really gonna be royally ticked off at me again...No intimate relations fun for a month. Sigh...  

[SteelCityColt]

Funny thing is SW1 usually gets "weak in the knees" for crimson haired redheads, but I gotta say, I wouldn't exactly kick Michelle Ryan out for eating crackers in bed either SCC. Besides, SW1 always wanted to say to someone in a dark alley "behave sir or my beautiful girlfriend is going kick your caboose 6 ways to Sunday." I am firm enough in my masculinity to fully embrace the feminist movement after all.

If Michelle Ryan wants to be the enforcer, go right ahead. Smoking hot women that can finish fights is kinda hot & a okay with me man. :36dancing:

For us in the UK it's hard to forget her acting in Eastenders...

[SteelCityColt]

For us in the UK it's hard to forget her acting in Eastenders...

 

 

Hmm should have been a link below that:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaVY6lgc-QE

[SteelCityColt]

On a more serious note and back on topic, for me this is a sign of a topic that have to be addressed sooner or later by the league as technology progresses. For me you broadly split things into two types, those enhance your natural ability and those that replace it.

 

Examples of the first could be equipment, training methods, good diet, PEDs (and that's a vague term at best!), The issue I have with these as Superman so eloquently pointed out is why are some allowed and others not? Why should say someone like Lionel Messi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi) be allowed HGH to combat admittedly a diagnosed medical condition but it's barred from other players' use. You can enter into a fine game of semantics going over what should and shouldn't be allowed but ultimately as long as the league's rules are clear as to what you can and can't do no one who breaks them has an excuse really.

 

The second type is more into what originally started the topic, technology that replaced your natural ability. Again as Superman said the league will never allow for example full limp replacement I'm sure, but I bet still some players would be tempted. Consider this too, somewhat ironically given what's happened with a certain TE. Oscar Pistorius, the so called blade runner, suffered a tragedy early in life, but don't let it hold him back and with the aid of his prosthetic legs becomes a very good runner. The question here is at what point would the blades stop allowing him to competed and instead actively aid his performance, you could say when does the disability become a superability. 

 

Roll this forward a few years, what if a young man tragically loses his arm, has it replaced with a bionic prosthetic and becomes a pretty decent QB. Is the league/NCAA going to stop him from playing the game, it could be opening themselves for all sorts of equal opportunity litigation.

[ruksak]

 

The second type is more into what originally started the topic, technology that replaced your natural ability. Again as Superman said the league will never allow for example full limp replacement I'm sure, but I bet still some players would be tempted. Consider this too, somewhat ironically given what's happened with a certain TE. Oscar Pistorius, the so called blade runner, suffered a tragedy early in life, but don't let it hold him back and with the aid of his prosthetic legs becomes a very good runner. The question here is at what point would the blades stop allowing him to competed and instead actively aid his performance, you could say when does the disability become a superability. 

 

IMO....he should never have been allowed to run a race without legs. They have a Special Olympics. Or would he be better fit for the robot league? 

 

Why not just slap a motor and some wheels on his limb stumps and call those "legs"? 

[Superman]

IMO....he should never have been allowed to run a race without legs. They have a Special Olympics. Or would he be better fit for the robot league? 

 

Why not just slap a motor and some wheels on his limb stumps and call those "legs"? 

 

That's an exaggeration, clearly. The research and experiments found that the prosthetics have an advantage at full speed -- they use less energy -- but accelerating and changing direction is considerably more difficult. The prosthetics aren't mechanical, they don't make him a robot. There's no motor, there are no wheels.

 

No one wants to see cyborgs playing football. But if we're extreme with these limitations, we're going to shun all advancements in science and technology. 

[ruksak]

That's an exaggeration, clearly. The research and experiments found that the prosthetics have an advantage at full speed -- they use less energy -- but accelerating and changing direction is considerably more difficult. The prosthetics aren't mechanical, they don't make him a robot. There's no motor, there are no wheels.

 

No one wants to see cyborgs playing football. But if we're extreme with these limitations, we're going to shun all advancements in science and technology. 

I'm thinking that science and technology research won't be put on hold per NFL rules. 

 

Running a race with artificial legs is as dishonest as using an artificial arm as a pitcher. Keep my sport pure. Limit such embellishments reasonably. 

 

Bionic vision? Are we really having this conversation? 

[southwest1]

For us in the UK it's hard to forget her acting in Eastenders...

 

 

 

Hmm should have been a link below that:

 

 

Thanks for the frame of reference for people like myself who don't live in the United Kingdom or European Union. Clearly, at the onset of her career, Michelle Ryan was not a superb actress, but then again very few people are. Miss Ryan, to her credit, has definitely improved her acting range. Lots of American actors get their start on Soap Operas SCC. There's no shame in that to me. Look at U.S. actress Meg Ryan for example. Julianne Moore & Steven Webber also starred on "As The World Turns" before they became successful film & TV celebrities etc too...

 

http://www.instyle.com/instyle/package/general/photos/0,,20164507_20481990_20937694,00.html

 

 

[dgambill]

I could see this be an issue in baseball way more so than football. Being able to pick up the seems on a pitch would greatly enhance hitting percentages but football...I don't see a real huge advantage on the game from having enhanced eye sight....at least not as much as baseball or tennis or race car driving etc.