No? In golf, there was recently a debate as to whether a (permanently) injured player should be allowed to use a golf cart when all the other players had to walk. There are already restrictions on binoculars, wind gauges, and other measuring tools and techniques. In racing, tracks have been limited in their efficiency. Clothing is restricted. Professional and Olympic racers have labs design shoes for them. In the context of limiting "enhancements", I don't see anything about prosthetics that would make them more of a slippery slope than what we've already dealt with.
How about voluntary child amputees because that's the only way left to compete in the Olympics? Doesn't that little slippery slope make traditional doping scandals seem like pat-a-cake?
It's not a slippery slope. The sport will put reasonable restrictions on runners' equipment that won't significantly incentivize replacing natural limbs.
Edit: who knows, you may be right. After all, gymnasts injure themselves daily and risk their lives on a minute-by-minute basis during practices and competition. I doubt they would limit self-mutilation per se.
As prosthetic limbs can be and are switched out for specialized versions adapted to different scenarios, 'race limbs' are just another kind of sporting equipment.
Except not all competitors have equal access to them, which is a huge difference. Other sporting equipment is much less affected by this problem, and disciplines eventually converge to an equilibrium point where all serious athletes are using roughly equivalent tech.
