Unless the analysis in http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards-controversy-of.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sp

Unless the analysis in http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards-controversy-of.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awa... is quite wrong, I can't see how he should be allowed to compete. The story here is being cast as a win against bureaucracy, but ignores the fact that he has significant mechanical and metabolic advantages against able-bodied athletes. Final paragraphs: > The end result of this is that Pistorius was "cleared", based not on science, but on a legal process that was manipulated by science and the huge drive to permit Pistorius to run. And make no mistake, there is inspiration in the story. > In fact, it got to the point where despite the science, I can appreciate the viewpoint of those who say "Sure, there is an advantage, but there's only one such athlete, and he's not running away with the gold medals, and so the good outweighs the bad, so let him compete despite that advantage". > I disagree with that, but I can respect the opinion of those who believe it. What cannot be accepted, however, is the assertion that there is no advantage. Everything about the science points to the advantage, from the pacing strategy he uses, to the German-testing that found mechanical and metabolic differences, to the Texas testing which provided evidence of an athletic advantage. > The science was clear, from the point of hypothesis, to the theory behind it, to the evidence. The deceit in the case, fueled by a willfully ignorant media who would rather portray as villains anyone who dares suggest what the science really says, is equally clear, to me at least.