Michael Johnson bucks courts findings, says 'friend' Pistorius shouldn't compete in London
Coming on the heels of curious statements about the descendants of slaves being athletically superior, Johnson is now saying it's "unfair" if Oscar Pistorius, aka Blade Runner, competes against able-bodied runners when it's not clear whether he has an advantage, according to the Telegraph in London.
The South African runner and his carbon fiber prosthetics are slated to compete in the individual 400 as well as the 4×400 relay in this summer's London Games.
Basically this guy is born with a deficiency where his legs were amputated about mid-calf. He uses spring-like "blades" to run.
My question isn't really about Johnson, but about how we move forward with definitions of what gives someone an unfair advantage and how this is known. Generally, how should different types of competition be defined? (e.g. regular vs para events) This question sometimes comes up where, say, a hermaphrodite wants to compete with women (and may be advantaged).
This guy in particular has won para events, so does he qualify for para only or all events? Why don't "normal" people qualify for such events? Let's say that someone decides to amputate their (perfectly working) legs and gets the same kind of prosthetic and does well - is that any different?