Shocking, you say? How could I, an unabashed proponent of human enhancement, be opposed to seeing disabled athlete Oscar Pistorius compete at the Olympic Games?
The short answer is that it’s not fair to the able-bodied athletes who don’t want to get into the enhancement game.
Moving forward, it sets up a situation where:
(1) able-bodied athletes will increasingly be set at a disadvantage relative to the cyber-athletes, particularly as prostheses improve
and
(2) able-bodied athletes will have no choice but to seek enhancement measures of their own, legal or otherwise, to remain competitive
Despite what the Court of Arbitration for Sport says, Pistorius has an advantage. A 25% advantage to be exact.
And even if we assume the Court is wrong, that the IAAF has not conclusively proven that the Cheetahs go beyond the call of normal human functioning duty, the day is all but upon us when advanced prostheses and other measures will.
Consequently, Pistorius and other disabled athletes should continue to compete against each other. This is not intended as a way to segregate athletes according to their abilities per se, but a way to create leagues in which athletes don’t feel coerced into entering arms races with each other. Mirrored leagues should be set up, those in which enhancement is sanctioned, and those in which it is not. Athletes can then choose where they want to compete.
Ultimately, the end result will be to the advantage of Pistorius and those like him. They’ll inherit the top echelons of sport and maintain the public’s interest, while the unenhanced leagues will whither away as quaint curiosity, a throwback to how things used to be.
But until then, let’s not set up a situation where chaos and ambiguity ruins it for everyone.
I was pretty surprised by this ruling. Distance running seems like an area where a well-designed blade would give a huge advantage. Extremely low weight with good springback and the effort required by the athlete could be made quite low compared with an able-bodied runner. If the prosthetics could be designed to give no advantage I would agree with the ruling, but they are not. I develop composite parts for a living (not for this application), and you can really tailor their properties for a given application.
Trying to avoid the mess that including Pistorius will cause is the wrong strategy for a better future. Given your belief that Pistorius may indeed be the future, it is essential that we include those such as him in high profile athletic events. The Olympics are that event. I would presume that many of those who read your opinions have heard of Thomas Hughes. It is one aspect of Mr. Hughes’ ideas about technological momentum have relevance to this issue: The sooner we act to shape technologies the more chance we have to effect their development. Once a new technology has matured and been integrated into a culture it is very difficult to change the way that it is used and the way that people think about that technology. The time is now to shape the way that enhancement technologies are used. That shaping can only happen if rules, laws, and public awareness combine to push the development of technologies in directions that are beneficial to humankind. Without integration into the Olympics, integration that happens not due to years of neglect and an understanding that come too late but through active engagement, the shape of our technological future will be determined by politicians exploiting our fear and the vagaries of market forces. There may be other venues, but none as high profile as the Olympics. The Olympics are not-amateur sports and they are already subject to various forms of enhancement. This is a good chance to have and open discussion about athletics, enhancements, and a future that we help to create rather than merely react to. It may be messy. But sports and politics are always messy. Otherwise, the lament “Ah, if it was only like it was back when….” wouldn’t be so commonplace in politics and sports.
oh you better believe i’ve got a comment! coming soon. 
IEET Blog