Amputee has an unfair advantage?

Unfair advantage? Those words might be a little unfamiliar with double-amputee South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, so you might need to elaborate. Born without both fibulas, "The Blade Runner" quickly rose to fame when he broke sprinting records at the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens.

Next on his plate: The 2008 Beijing "Able-Bodied" Olympics.

Not so fast. The International Association of Athletics Federation is expected to rule on Saturday that Pistorius has a competitive edge over his opponents after extensive testing.

Extensive testing? Did he do EPO? The cream and the clear? Did he break a homerun record?

Firstly, if this guy was in the US, his personal best 46.9 400m race falls about two full seconds short of any qualifying time. Qualifying! In other countries, that may qualify him as an alternate on a relay. That's all.

So let's be honest. Even with his "unfair advantage," he's not setting any world records. He's not going to win any medals. So what's the point of all this testing? Isn't the idea of this whole thing to make a feel-good story about a guy who had to clear so many hurdles along the way? Good press? I mean I recall Iraqi children running in the last Olympics in t-shirts and shorts, competing against World Class Athletes. They got a standing ovation, and it wasn't like the pity claps the fat kid in high school gets. They were applauded for being courageous.

What kind of message does this send? Does that mean that if they actually ran a good time they possibly would not have even been there? You made the exception for them, now why not this? What, he's too good?

Give him a break. You don't have to count it. Just let him run -- something that he wouldn't be able to do without that "unfair advantage."