The accusations made by disabled sports' poster boy has triggered a series of debates about what is and isn't "fair" in the world of sport, which is quite ironic, really, when the South African - blade runner - led his campaign to compete against able-bodied athletes based on the argument that his blades provided no unfair advantage.
Why do we continually buy into this fairness ethic when it comes to sport? Since when has sport ever been a level playing field, balanced fight, or non-discriminatory activity?
In reality, it is a tiered playing field, one-sided fight in most cases, and a discriminatory activity by nature (winners and losers).
Gone are the days where "nature" was the only ingredient by which success should be measured and I'd argue success in the sports arena has never been based on nature alone, anyway. Where you were born and raised, whether you were born male, female, able-bodied or disable-bodied, and the technology, advice, and knowledge you have access to can create advantages and disadvantages when it comes to life and sport. I was expecting to see the man who beat Pistorius, Brazilian Alan Oliveira, running around on "unbelievably" high and long stilts after hearing of the upset, but to the naked eye, there was very little or no difference between the two athletes.
Oliveira won the final in 21.45 seconds and claimed the new blades he adopted only three weeks ago, which increased his racing height from 1.76m to 1.81m, helped him to run around a second quicker. Despite increasing his racing height by 5cm, Oliveira was still shorter than Pistorius who used blades that gave him a height of 1.84m.
Did Oliveira break any rules by increasing his racing height? Not according to the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) which suggested his maximum permissible height was 1.85m.
Arguing that his prosthetic legs do not give him an unfair advantage over able-bodied runners in one context has created a disadvantage for Pistorius in the world of disabled running. Which brings me back to the argument about whether "fairness" across the many variations in bodies, cultural backgrounds, socio-economic circumstances, and technology can ever exist. Life isn't fair and all we can do is do our best with what we've been given, and convince others that rules need to be changed in order to bring about the illusion of fairness.
Pistorius has been on a mission to be embraced by mainstream athletics for so many years and now he is arguing that the ground within disable-bodied athletics still needs a bit of levelling.
Although the timing of his comments screamed "bad sport", what he had to say hasn't fallen on deaf ears and the IPC seems to be taking his concerns into consideration. It is the least it can do for its poster boy. His privileged status to some may seem unfair.
Meanwhile, many of the athletes at the Paralympic Games continue to compete against others who are classified differently because their impairments are considered to place them at around the same level of ability. In some cases there isn't an event available for a particular classification so athletes in these cases have the option of competing up a class with athletes who are less impaired.
Is this fair? Probably not, but the alternative is to not compete at all and as an athlete who wants that?
United States swimmer Mallory Weggemann had her classification changed from S7 into the less impaired S8 class on the eve of the London Games.
Despite her concerns she still won the S8 50m freestyle gold.
This shows that in reality "fairness" is idealistic and something that may never be achieved. What should be the focus of sport is the spirit of personal achievement and a celebration of the strength of the human mind in combination with the human body and all its impairments, enhancements, and capabilities.
