Should this guy be competing in the able-bodied Olympics?

[mathematic]

20. Yes, the CAS decision was flawed with respect to the facts.

Order of events & summary:

1) The original study by the IAAF made a specific physiological claim and the IAAF banned Pistorius from competition.
2) Pistorius appeals to the CAS and commissions a study by Hugh Herr and Peter Wyland to study the Pistorius' blade running.
3) CAS finds that the IAAF's specific physiological claim was not supported by the new research and the ban was overturned.
4) AFTER the hearing the research gets published.
5) Wyland, the main author of the research used to unban Pistorius, goes on the record saying Pistorius has a 12 second advantage. The research on the mechanical advantage (as opposed to the physiological advantage) of the blades was not presented.

So what went wrong?

The CAS decision was based on a purposely incomplete depiction of the research. There were some significant flaws in the research methods. The specific physiological claim the IAAF was refuted by measuring Pistorius' running at sub-sprinting speeds. When compared to other sprinters, he was 2.7 standard deviations better. The research then included sub-elite and elite distance runners from the literature to the comparisons. Since they were measuring running economy (how well a runner uses oxygen), it was a major flaw to include distance runners. Sprinters do not train this physiological system while distance runners do, so the average value in the comparison group dropped significantly and resulted in less of an advantage for Pistorius. Essentially, Pistorius was un-banned because his running economy (a measure of non-sprint running) wasn't that much better than distance runners. The research says that Pistorius, a sprinter, uses less oxygen than elite distance runners and then concludes he's no different than other runners! They do completely different training!

And that's just the PHYSIOLOGICAL differences. When Wyland considered the mechanical advantages of the blades he initially estimated a 12 second advantage (other scientists have later estimated it in the 6-7s range). Wyland was not at the hearing and none of this was presented to the CAS. Herr had no interest in presenting any data that would result in the ban remaining. After all, independent of this research, Herr is getting paid by Pistorius' blade company for blade design work. He has every incentive in the world to suppress pro-ban data.

You're interested in the facts and say you're willing to change your mind based on them. Well there are the facts.