Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
Just because you like the guy doesn't matter.
The door has been opened.
There's a reason bike riders are not allowed in the marathon. A bike from the 1880's might not have won - but today's could, very easy.
The whole "well he can because it does not give him an advantage" is crap. Who decides what an "advantage" is? How is an advantage measured? For it not to be an advantage does that not make it a handicap? Is he handicapped by not being able to compete with the fastest runners - only the slower ones? Maybe to be "equal" he does need better springs. So if he gets better springs and wins was it him or the springs? They should have just said no. The door is wide open.
|
If you think a fellow with both legs amputated is not handicapped, I would like to know what you consider is? I like the guy because he has overcome this handicap to such an extent that he qualified for the Olympics whereas thousands of people worldwide with the same handicap and prosthesis have not come close. This is such a great example of Olympic spirit that it must be an inspiration to all who witness it. Why should the door not be opened to handicapped people to compete on level playing fields with their able bodied comrades?