Terrific movie...but not the issue. Nor is Oscar Pistorius's heart, courage, or ability to overcome adversity. His mental toughness would qualify him for any Olympics; however, this issue is about whether he should physically be permitted to run in the Olympics-should he qualify. Look at the facts, not the "heart warming story" or the "political correctness" of the issue.

I'm not saying definitively that he should be allowed to run. I am merely offering food for thought to those who think it is so clear cut that he shouldn't. A German professor ran studies that showed the carbon fiber "legs" were energy efficient and therefore unfair. An MIT professor showed that he gains no advantage with the devices than any other runner. If these two people (who are clearly smarter than us average sports fans) can't agree on the issue, is it really that open and shut?

If you agree that you or I couldn't "strap these things on" and qualify for the Olympics or even cut a second off of your 40 time, then you can perhaps open your mind to some other thoughts. If you think, "Hell, I could run the 100 in 10 flat with those things..." then you are beyond any help that can be provided by sensible thought.

Can you really just look at tell that he's getting an advantage? He sure looks fast with those things, but maybe it's because...well he IS fast. Can you tell if an Olympic skier is using a banned length or type of ski vs. a legal one when they are flying down the mountain? Let's come back to this...

Let's go way back in history...I'm going to assume that at some point some runner was the first one to wear shoes. Was this an unfair advantage over those who didn't? I'm sure at some point spikes were introduced into track shoes. Did this create an unfair advantage? The aero dynamic helmets that the US introduced in skiing and cycling in the past decade were lauded as benefits to the American athletes. What is the difference between an unfair advantage and a technological advancement?

Ok, the next thing you are going to say is that steroids can be considered a "technological advancement", and you would be 100% correct. The difference is that this specific "technological advancement" can cause permanent damage to your body and has been ruled illegal.

Comparing the legs in Mr. Pistorius's case to carbon fiber flippers in swimming or spring loaded cheetah's in a high jump contest is absurd. Those are enhancements, not replacements. Pitchers come back after Tommy John surgery in some cases with more velocity than they had before, is this creating an unfair advantage? Will pitchers ask for the tendon to be a "bit tighter" so they can have a little more pop on their heater? You don't think this is/will happen? If so, does that mean all baseball players with this surgery get banished to the Paralympic team?

Clearly there is a line somewhere. You are allowed to put pine tar on a bat, but not cork. You are allowed to put resin on your hands as a pitcher, but not spit. Wide recievers are allowed to wear gloves, but not "stick-em". Spikes have maximum lengths, golf clubs have maximum sizes, and hockey sticks have maximum amounts of curve to them. These lines are determined by governing bodies, but they are certainly not the same as they were 20 or even 5 years ago. Sports advance with technology and vice-versa...Bjorn Borg wouldn't play with a wooden racket today even though he won 5 Wimbledon titles with one. So before you automatically dismiss this case as an unfair advantage, ask yourself a few questions:

• Is this unfair just because it looks unfair or is it just the first instance of making the playing field level for an athlete who has the ability to compete at this high level?
• If a physics professor at MIT and the board in charge of assuring, first and foremost, that the Olympics are fair are saying that there is no unfair advantage, what proof can I offer that it is?
• If a world class athlete's body naturally produces an abnormally high level of testosterone above an acceptable testing level that makes him stronger and faster than his competitors...is he to be relegated to the Paralympics? Someone with an extra leg muscle? What if a study is performed on athletes from a specific country and they are found to be "more energy efficient" in some way (insert your own former East German female comment here)? Are we to ban them from competing? Be careful with your answer to this one...taking a level playing field to an extreme is very dangerous.

My last point...before you throw around words like "carbon fiber" or "space age alloy" to justify your case against Mr. Pistorius, check out the latest "technological advancement" being unveiled in the Olympic pool this year. Is there a difference?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-25-voa35.cfm

I guess the only true way to solve this is to go back to the ancient Olympic days where everyone competed naked to see who is truly the most gifted...so to speak.