The ongoing saga of Oscar Pistorius is both fascinating and polarizing among Olympic-level athletes as well as the observers and media that will bear witness to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. Pistorius was born without fibulae – the bone joining the knee and the ankle – and his legs were amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old. Now a college student in South Africa, Pistorius uses carbon fibre blades attached to his legs so that he can compete in track events with other disabled athletes.

As the world record holder for double amputees in 100, 200 and 400 metres, Pistorius is a shining example of someone who has overcome a significant disadvantage to achieve his goal of being recognized as a world class athlete. However, he is not satisfied with being the best Paralympic runner in the world – he wants to race against able-bodied athletes in the 2008 Olympics.

Six months after the IAAF – the international governing body for track and field – announced that he would not be eligible to qualify for the Olympics, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Pistorius' blades provided him with an advantage over able-bodied runners. As a result, IAAF reversed its ruling and Pistorius is now preparing to attempt to qualify for the South African track team for the 400 metre event at the Beijing games.

Now that we've got the back story out of the way, let's get to the heart of matter. Is it fair that Pistorius should be able to race against competitors with fully-functional legs? One way to form an opinion on this would be to look at his previous results – his best time in the 400 is 46.33 seconds. This is roughly 0.8 seconds slower than the time he'll need to qualify.

Pistorius has admitted himself that it's unlikely that he'll be able to shave almost a full second off his best time, and that leads me to wonder if that's the main reason he is being allowed to compete. The IAAF could be trying to make a concession to lobbying from advocates of the disabled, while still expecting to maintain the "purity" of the Olympics when Pistorius fails to qualify.

Of course, I put "purity" in quotes because many Olympic athletes haven't been pure for a long time. The rampant infestation of performance enhancing drugs in amateur sports has created such an atmosphere of cynicism and suspicion around most of the athletes that it makes it difficult for me to muster a significant amount of outrage over the Pistorius situation. If the blades actually do give him an advantage, at least he's not trying to hide his "enhancements".

Some of you are undoubtedly inspired by Pistorius' crusade, but if he manages the unlikely feat of qualifying for the Olympics, will you feel any sympathy for the aspiring Olympian who gets left out as a result?

Modern sports science will continue to blur the lines between what sort of technology should and should not be allowed in sports. Pistorius' landmark ruling is far from the beginning of this story, but merely the latest chapter in what will surely become an increasingly contentious debate over time. If you support Pistorius, where will you stand when someone wants to compete in the shotput event with a specially-designed prosthetic "catapult arm"? Sure, it sounds ridiculous, but look again at the photo above and think about how strange the idea of this "Blade Runner" would have seemed 10 years ago.

As you might have surmised by now, I don't believe that Pistorius should be allowed to compete, but I can't be bothered to get all that upset about it. The Olympics have been a circus freak show for decades with all its juiced-up and gender-questionable participants. With all due respect to the courageous Pistorius, his presence in these Games will only confirm that image.

Feedback or column suggestions? Send them to the-5-hole@hotmail.com.