The front page banner of this article has three apostrophes. The one in DVD's is unnecessary.
The one in Kid's is in the wrong place, ie should be at the end of the word.
The one in Kids' is fine.
Not what one expects from such a fine paper.

Shane Marsh, Canberra , Australia

I think those who think he should be included do so out of pity because he has no legs.

Legs or no legs, it has been shown scientifically that he has an advantage over runners with legs. You can't over look this because you feel sorry for him, or because you think he is a hero.

He seems to be doing fine without legs and probably doesn't want your pity anyway and would rather be treated as a normal person, not as "the sprinter without legs".

The man is a superb athlete and it's a shame he can't compete. However, if a pair for prosthetic legs could be produced that closely follow human legs, then get him in and let's see what he can do, until then, it's not a level playing field.

Kevin, Salisbury, UK

Talese, London, UK

You are confused. The Article is about the accuracy of the study. But the discussion (which doesn't have to follow the topic of the article as we live in a free country) also includes opinions as to whether he should be included in able bodied races or not, and people are responding to these opinions. Does that make them ignorant?

Kevin, Salisbury, UK

With the exception of Talese from London you're all completely missing the point. He's not suggesting that he should be able to compete if he has a mechanical advantage - the debate is as to whether the prosthetic limbs do give him any advantage. How did you not realise this?!?!

Duncan, Cambridge,

This is totally PATHETIC!!! and i am behind him 100% It is his choice.

BOBFREY, amsterdam, Holland

I'm 72, and I was going to ask if I could compete in the Olympic 10 000 metres on my bicycle. But unfortunately I see someone has already made the point before me.
Ridiculous discussion.
Respect for the man, yes. But competing on unequal terms, definitely no.

alan, Germany,

As recent events have shown hardly any of the "top" athletes from recent Olympics have been free of pharmaceutical enhancement and I for one have deep suspicions regarding those who have not yet been found out.

Despite that ,and sad as Mr Pistorius' case is, I feel that sanctioning any use of artificial aids is not a step that the IOC or the IAAF can or should legitimately take. There will always be questions about how much benefit any aid may give and that in itself means that competition cannot be fair and even. Wheelchair athletes regularly set marathon times that no able bodied runner could ever hope to approach. The essence of fair competition is that competitors should start equal.

Having said that I do feel that there is an opportunity for the IAAF to sanction the running of "mixed" events as a separate entity from world or olympic competition. I appreciate that in some ways this is unsatisfactory but is probably the best solution all round.

nick, reading,

If he was a swimmer and wanted to wear flippers would they be allowed ? - No.
The man is an inspiration to us all but he has an unfair advantage with the blades and therefore the result was right.
And Seamus - "its not the winning its the taking part. is this not the olympic ideal"
No it isn`t anymore. The Eddie "the Eagle" rule was brought in toughening up the rules to prevent the 'taking part' you refer to.
Sad but true.

Helen, Hereford, England

Gemma, Leighton Buzzard. No idea, but watching the clips on TV, it looked as though he was racing against people with one leg and no legs.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

If I got on my bike I could do a marathon quicker than the fastest athlete.

Does this mean I should compete in the Olympics despite me having a mechanical advantage

alan, edinburgh,

its not the winning its the taking part. is this not the olympic ideal, so let the man run if this is his wish. if this drug fest called the olympics is not open to all maybe its time it was stopped for good and all

seamus, dublin, ireland

As unfortunate and disheartening as this decision may seem to Pistorius, and to many people the world over who are touched by his strength and determination. It would be unfair to all the other athletes competing to allow him to race with > 30% mechanical advantage.

Just because they have two legs does it mean their strength and determination to get where they are is any less important?

There has to be a fair playing field, or we could start asking for certain players to be allowed to use other aids, or start a bit forward on the line because they have undergone years of mental sufferance through child abuse etc.

If the 30% differential in his blades could be evened/ reduced, and the playing field were then level, there should be no reason for him not to compete

Jessica, Bath, United Kingdon

This is just another case of people not being able to play with the cards that life has dealt them. You cannot ever perfect and imperfect situation and Mr Pistorius should just accept that.

Eds0n, London, England

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland, are there not different categories for double and single amputees in the Paralympics?

Gemma, Leighton Buzzard, UK

Unless you havent noticed he has no ankles. how can he have an advantage when he has no ankles? You have to let him run as it would be a travisty! i am disgusted!!

bob, liverpool, uk

How do you know when he has reduced the efficiency of the blades "enough"?

Don't understand how they can measure this. What is the difference between this and e.g. the carbon fibre bikes and slipstream helmets used in cycling races? Should those be banned too?

Steve, London, UK

I think Andrew Jones, South Africa has made a good point - why not allow this man to pursue his dream? He is a tremendous ambassador for people with any obstacle to overcome. It would be great to see him compete. I also think he cannot receive a winners medal. The artificial limbs would have to have the same disdvantages as ankles and knees! God forbid some despotic government should think to amputate in order to win!! Sick? Look what the Eastern block used to do to their athletes and gymnasts when they could get away with it?

Julie Ann Hilton, George Town, Caribbean

Is it not logical that a person with 25% less body mass than everybody else is going to burn 25% less energy? Did they do a test to determine his enegy consumption whilst at rest - if they did, no doubt they'd find a 25% 'benefit' too

Richard, Clane, Ireland

It is really scary that all the chessy 80's cyberpunk fiction may have been spot on. Expect it's not a case of people opting for cyberware, but those who have had prosthetics forced on them as a neccesity of life.
That decision is a bit harsh in any event..
Past: You can't run with these guys because it would not have been fair on you.
Now: You can't complete against these guys because they would eat your dust.
Again a weird twist of fate and more than a little cyberpunk...

I suppose it could end up wiht the respective olympic bodies setting out regulations on prothetics, much like the Formula 1 governing body does?

James maxwell, Watford or Port Elizabeth,

Purely from an engineering view point, the blades Oscar currently use are the result of continuous improvement of materials and design. Further improvements of both will continue at a faster pace than any able bodied person could develop without the aid of drugs so his advantage will increase or will the authorities have to impose a restriction of prosthetic research and development?

A. Williams, Cradley Heath, UK

Unfortunately Oscar has this same advantage in the Paralympics, as he is the only runner with this type of blade. If he was competing against people with one leg/one prosthetic, they could not possibly use these blades, as they would be running faster on one side than the other. Oscar may, by all of this, end up with nobody wanting to race against him, as with the mechanical advantages he has, nobody else can compete.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

If he brought the mechanical advantage down to 0% he wouldn't qualify for ther Olympics in any case because his times would be too slow.
Is Oscar a dedicated athlete? Yes, no question. Should he be given an unfair adavantage because everyone is too PC to say something about his prosthetic limbs? No.

Kevin, Workington, Cumbria

I agree with Alison; he should be allowed to compete if he modifies the blades to eliminate the 30% advantage.

Paul, your argument is hysterical and ridiculous and makes a mockery of the situation.

Yvonne, London, England

You ignorant people. The debate is about the accuracy of the study and whether saving energy gives him an advantage. They mention the ankle versus the blade, but leave out the knee joint and calf muscles not to mention the trauma his legs have suffered. The 1st batch of studies showed that he did not have an advantage but the IAAF have never wanted him to compete from the start, so this new study is a perfect excuse for them.

The IAAF are just as bad as FIFA on most other governing sports bodies. They hate change and love throwing their weight about.

If it was truly and unfair advantage - which it may well - be then the decision is right, but the advantage is not clear.

Lastly, those of you who clearly dont know, he already kills everybody in the paraolympics that is why he is trying to complete in the Olympics. And he is also no where near clearing sub 10 secs so he will not win.

Talese, London, UK

Several people have said Pistorius should modify his blades to eliminate the 30% advantage, but if he did that he would run significantly slower. The point is that it is this advantage that is making him as good as he is, without it, he wouldn't have a chance at the olympics. The IAAF made the right decision.

BIll, Dublin, Ireland

I'm not sure if you are joking Paul, but the disabled olympics does already exist...

The solution to be seems simple- just give all the other athletes a 30% head start...

(That IS a joke)

Katie, Durham, Durham

I think we all wish him well, and would have hoped that this would not have been his lot. But, at the same time, what lengths will atheletes be prone to go to, bionic implants, or complete limb replacement, if they perceive that it is not going to be administered. Other atheletes would slowly be rejected for lack of competitiveness, and the Olympics would evolve into a farce. Where do you draw the line on fair play?

Jeff Dunham, Yacolt, USA/ WA

It is not "crass and condescending" to suggest that this athlete enter the Paralympics. That is what they are for. The wheelchair racers can acheive higher speeds than the ablebodied athletes in the distance events. Does that mean wheelchairs should be allowed in the Olympics?

Oscar Pistorius deserves the huge admiration expressed on these pages, but if anybody competes in the Olympics or Paraylympics with an unnatural advantage it renders the whole games pointless. Andrew Jones, Johannesburg, criticises the IAAF for "reducing sport to performance". I would remind him of the Olympic motto - Citius, Altius, Fortius (swifter, higher, stronger). Surely it is "crass and condescending" to judge sport by any other criteria.

Mt Pistorias is an inspiration in the way he has overcome huge adversity to reach the pinnacle of his sport, as have all the Paralympians which is what makes the Paralympics the intensely entertaining and inspiring tournament which it is.

Gemma, Leighton Buzzard, UK

As a "disabled" person, I agree 100% with the decision. This is an issue regarding fairness in sport. Reduce the efficiency of the blades or don't compete. Simple.

Gary William Murning, Middlesbrough, UK

It would appear that the prsthetics used by Oscar are engineered to give the optimum performance. Ignoring the fact that he is disabled, if an abled athlete were to 'engineer' his muscles with some form of oral additive, would this be deemed fair, or would he be a cheat. We all have to face reality, I believe. Sometimes life is far from fair and we have to make do with what we have or do not have. Oscar's achievements are not to be belittled, but I think it would be unfair if he were to compete against those with biological limbs.

Horace, Weltford, Suffolk

The problem here is that the IAAF has once again reduced sport to performance. And this is the policy that has led so many athletes, who rightfully see the sucess of their careers as dependent solely on stats and times, to use performance enhancing drugs. The true aim of sport is and should be about the pursuit of excellence in a particular endeavour via the disciplined and consistent exercise of honour, determination and guts all of which Oscar Pistorius has shown. What the IAAF should do then is add an extra lane, perhaps not even a medal winning one, but one that is on the track nonetheless for that athlete who most deserves to be there. If the issue is performance advantage then exempt him or her from winning medals. However by no means should a man be banned when with no legs but more guts than any of us can possibly imagine he fights his way to being within reach of Olympic glory. Andrew P.Jones JHB RSA

Andrew Jones, Johannesburg, South Africa

Perhaps the experts need a lesson in simple arithmetic?

So the gain to this man is 30% compared to a fully abled athlete - well whats the loss due to the absence of lower legs? Let's take the time it would take him to run on stumps into the equation - does he still have an advantage over an abled athlete???? That 30% might give him a sighting of a level playing field but he is still on the incline while his abled bodied opponents enjoy the slight decline of a field plowed by pompous smallminded officialdom.

While I am sure it is a technically correct decision because these people would be so scared of legal ramifications should they not have been correct - it is still a mean spirited one - he is a long way off performance standards of an average olympic sprinter - are they really that insecure that this determined and brave man threatens them??

dave, adelaide, australia

It seems that the IAAF have spent some time on this to prove a 'demonstrable mechanical advantage'. I'm hoping that Mr. Pistorius will take this decision with good grace but also that this will not stop him from finding a way to compete with fully able bodied athletes. If the prosthetics could be produced in a way that could more closely mimic leg action so as not to offer an advantage, this would be good for all involved. To say that if a disabled person wants to compete they should enter the paralympics is crass and condescending. If it's fair, of course he should be able to compete.

Jon Dickenson, Wrexham, UK

Not a good decision . lets be bit humane in the analysis .
It might appear that the equipment might provide him of 'mechanical advantage' but why do we forget that he had put so much work in fighting to enable his potential to be able to run . we are forgetting his daily fight as well .

Had he be allowed to compete it would have been moral booster for all the disabled people on earth that even they can do it .. it would have been inspiration for them . The motto of olympics has always been driven by 'passion' , this guy has the passion to compete , to fight , to win !!

Nishant Varshhney, New Delhi, India

This is entirely correct. There is a category for this athlete in the Paralympics, and before anyone cries "Discrimination!" it is only as discriminatory as banning and able bodied athlete from competing in any of the disabled events.

Gemma, Leighton Buzzard, UK

Jo from London.

I would not thought it obvious that he has an unfair advantage. How about you get both your legs lopped off below the knee and learn to walk with them. I dare say you'd think differently then.

What about a person with only one blade? Or perhaps we should seperate runners based on ethnicity and muscle mass. Certain Black people have large proportion of fast twitch muscle fibres which gives them an advantge of speed.

As for James in Manchester. Rules take longer to make than technology. The rules need to catch up. Much like peoples perception of the handi-capable. Just because he can run as fast as able-bodied athletes doesn't mean it's all the work of the blades. I'm sure he put the hard yards in training as well.

Xav, London,

I have to disagree with the statement "If a disabled person would like to compete at such a high level they should enter the paralympics," to me it seems an absurd statement and very uninformed. The guy is far too quick for the paralympics.
Could they not redesign his cheatah blades (and rename them, to something that doesn't sound like cheater). If they were redesigned to a level where they wouldn't confer any energy saving advantage then he could be allowed to compete. Maybe there is not enough time for this to take place for Bejing, but the guy is young and could be ready for the next Olympics in 2012 to compete with able bodies athletes on a level playing field.

Jamie Walton, Durham, Durham

If thats correct that he uses 30% less energy for the same speed then of course he shouldn't be allowed to compete.
Unless of course they start to have seperate event's for prosthetic users. Disabled Olympics?
It seems to me that this guy is trying to push his way through the rules hoping political correctness will win him a place.
That kind of thinking would destroy the Olympics
What next? one armed Archers with bionic arms?

Phill , The Wirral, England

Pathetic.

Bells, Bristol, UK

There is a difference between him having an advantage because of the design of these particular prosthetics and the principle of a disabled person competing against able-bodied people (Ben I'm talking to you there).

Why can't he be asked to modify the blades to bring that 30% mechanical advantage down to 0%? After all, that's what handicaps (no pun intended) in other sports are for.

Alison, London,

Unfortunately I guess this decision was inevitable - it is a no win situation for either the authorities or Oscar. If he was allowed to compete and won, then the unfair advantage of his blades would have been cited; however not allowing him to compete seems a crying shame too given his dedication and the obstacles he has had to overcome.

DM, Vienna, Austria

Surely this athlete has the Olympics that is solely for disabled people where he could compete on a level playing field.
If he was allowed to use these artificial aids at the ordinary Olympics then what would stop able bodied athletes from having a pair of cheetah blades for sprinting, hurdling and the high jump? Perhaps they should be renamed CHEATER BLADES.

GJB, Slough , Berkshire

How does it amount to an unfair advantage? THE MAN HAS ONLY HALF OF HIS LEGS. Perhaps they want him to run on two Long John Silver style wooden stumps. Ooh, with a parrot too. That would be more entertaining wouldn't it? Lets see the special case disabled people struggle by. This is unbelievable. He is not using performance enhancing drugs. He is using his own body with some artificial legs. Some people may have tighter hamstrings which will allow them more spring and so make them able to run faster. Is this an unfair advantage?

Paul, London, UK

Yes, alas, Pistorius might as well strap on some wings and a jet pack: unless athletes compete on equal terms using only what nature has endowed them with then, sadly, the results of their competitions become meaningless. My view - and I'm sure I'm not alone in this - is that true Olympic athletes should perform stark naked, as of ancient times . . .

Jonathan Stiles, Helsinki, Finland

It seems obvious that he has an unfiar advantage. I am surprised that he is trying to compete.

If this were allowed, what about a pair of roller skates instead of feet.

Jo, London,

Quite rightly too. If a disabled person would like to compete at such a high level they should enter the paralympics; rules are rules.

Ben James, Manchester,