If one concedes that Oscar Pistorius' prosthetic limbs may give him a mechanical advantage over other runners, should we then test each individual athlete to make certain all are starting on a level playing field?

Does a runner with longer legs or bigger feet have a physical advantage over shorter runners?

Do shorter runners have an advantage because they take shorter, and perhaps more powerful, strides?

And how about those shorter divers and gymnasts who spin faster than their taller competitors because their bodies form tighter circles?

Maybe there should be different classifications within a competition. We could have floor exercises in an under five-feet category, then 5'0" to 5'6" and so forth.

If we work hard enough to refine athletic competition to the nth degree of equality, every student -- because each is unique, in one way or another -- could be a student-athlete.

Ah, utopia!

Should we keep six feet eight inch kids out of basketball?

What is an advantage? Don't tall kids have medical advantages too?

Keeping one guy out because of a medical advantage makes us have to start evaluating all different types of things.

There is so much irony in this - because normally people with disabilities are fighting for ways to be at the same level or to be treated equally. The second a guy with a disability is going to be a superior athlete to able bodied people, his competitors are crying foul!

What if my dad was Kareem -- do I have an unfair advantage?

If i have cancer and I'm dying in two days and I'm still actually healthy enough to run a quick race and I feeling like going for it in a big way do I have a medical advantage?

Just wait for the first guy with a choice of losing his legs or trying to save them decide to get the prosthetics.
The types of crazy competitors i've seen -- they'd do it!

People should keep quiet and deal with it. It's rude to complain about Oscar - and chicken too.

Having one testicle removed, Lance Armstrong has a medical disability. Even if it is not a missing limb or something else we would generally view as a physical handicap, the procedure has altered the chemical balance in his body. In fact, there are studies that claim to have proven this as a marked benefit to his body (in terms of his cycling of course).
Because he has had cancer and a testicle removed, resulting in his body burning energy more efficiently, should he no longer be counted as the greastest cyclest ever? Is the achievement no longer his own?

SUCH CRYBABIES! HURRAH FOR REHAB!