Pistorius getting too big for his blades?
To celebrate, Oscar Pistorius launched his own festival of irony.
“All I want is not to spend my career discussing my legs,” complained Pistorius once, tired of the insinuation that it was his disability that made his ability possible. It didn’t, when he was beaten in the Paralympic 200m, discourage him from immediately talking about Alan Oliveira’s. The man who gave much of his adult life to proving his prosthetics gave him no advantage over ‘able-bodied’ runners, now carping that others’ blades unfairly hinder him. We might, however, forgive Pistorius a slack moment in disappointment. Even this controversy has further bolstered the Games’ profile, one he has already done much to polish.
But it may have undone much of the progress Pistorius has made in gaining acceptance at the Olympics for amputee athletes.
Because there are no easy answers to the questions he raised. Oliveira wore taller blades, but Pistorius’ strides were still longer. The option to run taller was also available to the South African. How long should a person’s blades be anyway? Would it be so wrong to compensate an amputee for natural shortness, while you are at it? Wouldn’t longer blades be heavier and slow you down a little? Pistorius’ stance appears to have some backing from fellow athletes. And if there is still a debate about what constitutes an unnatural advantage within Paralympic circles, does it suggest the Court of Arbitration for Sport jumped the gun in ruling Pistorius — or anyone wearing prosthetics — eligible to compete in mainstream events?
