Citing that someone is petty is "petty". What did you add? Nada!

BTW, kids should be seen, not heard.

You can't be heard on a forum. We read here.

It was implicit.

And citing a 2005 editorial predicting that the blades will launch Pistorius into the Beijing Olympics doesn't really add much now does it? The CAS panel considered evidence -- from both the IAAF and Pistorius -- and concluded that there was no evidence of an unfair advantage. His best time, despite the end-of-the-earth prediction of The Guardian writer, is still one second slower than the qualifying standard.

Nevertheless, there will be those who complain about "preformance inhencing," regardless of the evidence. Gei gezundeheit. Laugh a little.

Until then, we leave you with a quote from the scientific expert, Hugh Herr, who defended Oscar Pistorius after performing his top-secret, unverified research. He advocates the introduction of this technology into the sport. This quote is no doubt familiar to many of your who are regular readers:

A bilateral amputee professor named Hugh Herr works here (at MIT). If anyone can predict what sports will look like in 2050, it's Herr, who lost his legs 26 years ago in a climbing accident. Herr wears robotic limbs with motorized ankles and insists he doesn't want his human legs back because soon they'll be archaic. "People have always though the human body is ideal", he says. "It's not".

It does talk about other sports, which may be relevant.

I apologize, but it looked an awful like you'd just run out of gas in the debate and were just trolling. It's sometimes difficult to tell when people are joking. I made a mistake. For the first time in my life, I am wrong again.