Angry Pistorius can’t have it both ways

 

Last night saw Oscar Pistorius lose out to Brazilian Alan Oliveira in the Paralympic T44 200m final.

The South African ‘face’ of the Paralympic Games led the race going into the final 20m, only to be overhauled by Oliveira, who inflicted a first competitive defeat upon his “idol” with a time of 21.45 seconds – seven hundredths of a second faster than Pistorius.

What followed was an uncharacteristic and ironic outburst from world record holder Pistorius, dubbed ‘the fastest man on no legs’, as he launched an angry attack upon the length Oliveira’s blades – the name given to the artificial legs used by many Paralympic runners – calling his win “absolutely ridiculous.”

Pistorius told Paralympic broadcaster Channel 4 after the race: “We are not running in a fair race here.

“I don’t know how you can come back, watching the replay, from eight metres behind on the 100 to win.”

Pistorius later apologised for the timing of his comments, which immediately followed the climax of the race, but his outburst had already fired up huge controversy as the South African put himself on the attacking end of the debate in which he has been the perennial victim.

London 2012 saw Pistorius become the first ever double amputee to run in the Olympic Games, a feat which saw him receive huge adoration from many and further cemented his place as an inspiration for disability sport. However, he was, and still is the subject of intense scrutiny due to the eligibility of his blades, the question being whether they give him an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes.

That Pistorius has now placed himself on the opposite side of the argument leaves a somewhat sour taste – he has stressed before how tired he is of the debate over his eligibility to run in able-bodied competitions and back on 18th May 2008, when Pistorius was declared legal to compete in the Olympics, he spoke of the significance of this day to disability sport, adding: “I hope this silences the crazy theories circulating about my having an unfair advantage.” That he is now criticising the legality of another runner’s blades, therefore, has come as an unpleasant and upsettingly bitter shock.

Pistorius cannot have it both ways – the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) have ruled Oliveira’s blades to be “within the regulations outlined in the IPC Athletics Classification Handbook”, just as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) adjudged Pistorius eligible to compete in the Olympics, and if he wants to continue to compete in able-bodied athletics events he must accept the ruling of these sporting authorities together. Unless the IPC make an unlikely backtrack on their ruling over blades such as Oliveira’s, Pistorius must admit either that he was beaten by the better man on the night, or that some legal blades can give athletes an unfair advantage.

Pistorius’ apology this morning has ensured that he has not truly tarnished his reputation as one of the great heroes of modern athletics – he will remain an inspiration to disabled and able-bodied competitors alike, but this is a debate in which he is far too intrinsically involved to try and place himself on the opposite side of the argument. The best thing the ‘blade-runner’ can do now is to come out and defend his 100m and 400m titles, to prove that no matter the blades, he is still a man very much at the top of his sporting field.