I saw TV footage of him running, and commented to my wife 
about the possible energy storage advantages of the 
'blades'.

BUT

Reading even the copy supplied it seems that this is a 
typical legal decision, based on each side marshalling 
logical and legal arguments, with the best overall 
combination, in the opinion of qualified adjudicators, 
winning. While some legal systems and subsystems are widely 
known, or held, to have been taken captive by special 
interests, this does not seem to be the case here.

Regardless of how one may think or feel about the matter, it 
sounds like the decision was made on a proper legal basis by 
the appropriate qualified body. This was AFAIK a sporting 
ruling body and not an Olympic one per se. The fact that 
they were not expected to return the decision that they did 
and that the 'winning' lawyer suggested that the losing 
lawyers briefing had been inadequate suggests that the 
decision is the one you would hope that a disinterested 
tribunal would arrive at. It is not usually the role of the 
adjudicators to fill in the gaps that counsel fail to 
identify.

A key question to me would be "Why *shouldn't* this person 
be allowed to compete on an equal footing (pun almost 
intended) with others?". Valid answers might be 'So 
different as liable to disadvantage others unfairly' or 'so 
advantaged as to influence the results unfairly'. The latter 
situation would lead into all sorts of minefields (usually 
the realm of affirmative action initiatives), the latter 
seems capable of reasonable adjudication. I see nothing to 
suggest that the decision was not a competent one. But, as 
ever, my vision may be too short for the task ;-) .



        Russell 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist