He, (Pistorious) was, plainly, furious at the defeat. In a post-race interview he indicated that Oliveira, who prevailed in a time of 21.45 seconds, had the advantage of having longer prosthetic legs. Indeed, he held profound reservations about some of his fellow competitors, pointing out that Oliveira and American Blake Leeper had lengthened their prostheses in pursuit of an advantage.
“We’re not racing a fair race here,” he said immediately after the race. “The regulations say that you can make yourself unbelievably high.”
Please note that, unlike some of the usual dippy comments on the article, I have nothing to say about the man, whom I admire as much as any of the other athletes taking part in the games, especially the marathon and distance runners – and the blind five-a-siders.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Bravo, yes, I said something about thin ends of wedges. Once more, science intervenes in sport to its detriment.
It makes perfect sense to me that the longer the blade, the longer the pace. there is of course more to running than just the length of step otherwise all our top runners would be 6’10” giants.
Our previous discussions centered on whether the ‘blade’ runners have an advantage over their ‘two legged’ competition, an issue of which I have no opinion but was happy with the IAAF’s decision to let Oscar run in the ‘main’ event.
For the record the winning time here would have earned 50th place at the Olympics ‘proper.’ Just slightly quicker than Vyacheslav Muravyev of Kazakhstan but slower than Cristian Reyes of Chile!
http://www.london2012.com/athletics/event/men-200m/phase=atm002900/index.html
Soutie, I think Janus’ comment about wedges and thin ends is appropriate?
If I decide to enter my Landrover Defender in a drag race against a M3, SLK (or a Ford Fiesta for that matter) no matter what suspension or tyres I put on, as long as I have a hole in my tailpipe I’m not going to threaten to come close.
Wedges (thick or thin) or not, the IAAF said fine, I’m happy with that.
Sounds like they need to standardise the length of the blades.
I’m not at all sure it was the correct thing for him to run in both Olympics? Surely one or the other, not both?
It does not seem right that he can compete as both a disabled and non disabled runner.
I’m afraid my opinion of Pistorius has gone down a few pegs. Does he have French ancestry? I also agree with Christina that he should not have been permitted to take part in both games.
He has apologised for the timing of his outburst but not for the content. I think he was quite astounded that he lost. My opinion of him has not changed, and I don’t know why he cannot compete in both. It doesn’t bother me at all. I’m still impressed that he qualified to run in the Olympics “proper”.
Interesting one.
I presume that most of us in the UK are not watching the Paralympic coverage live. Don’t really blame you as Channel 4 are making a right Horlicks of it, in my opinion.
There were 80,000 people in that stadium last night expecting and wanting Oscar to win. Stunned silence when he did not.
So far, I think that most Brits who are interested are still on his side. He took his blades to the IAAF, he put them through all their tests and he demonstrated, to their satisfaction, that said blades gave him no unfair advantage against others. That was why he was allowed to run in the Olympics.
The recently extended Oliveira blades were not tested in the same way and they blind sided Pistorius last night. I understand why he was angry and I give him credit for his apology today. I hope that he does not retaliate by extending the length of his own blades, as he apparently could within the Paralympian specifications.
C’mon Oscar for the 400 and the 100!
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Ooops.
Regardless of how one feels about the individual, I just do not see how it is possible to prove whether or not the blades gave him an advantage over able bodied athletes. An artificial blade made of metal is not the same as a natural leg made of flesh and bones.They clearly gave him an advantage, as without them, he would not have been able to run at all. It would be like giving flippers to a swimmer who had lost his feet. Any advantage over his natural condition is an advantage and that is fundamentally unfair to other athletes who are not allowed those benefits. I do not see how anybody can argue with that. The cynical side of me sees this as a kow-tow to PC. Unless the IOC and IAAF put a halt to it now, all hell will let loose and it will be no time before athletes start damaging themselves so that they can make use of prosthetics. Paralympians are already harming themselves as it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19325756
Oscar’s loss has possibly cost him a fortune in lost sponsorship deals. This is big business.
Sipu, I agree. (Pause for shocK to subside.)