Running shoes: Solution or the problem?

Running shoes and running injuries: Do the shoes actually cause the injuries?

After a couple of posts on doping, a bit of a change of theme for today, as we look at running shoes and injuries. This post was inspired by a link I was sent by one of our regular readers (thanks John - the link is further down the page, incidentally) and it's a really great article, a real conversation starter, so it follows on nicely from our great discussion after the previous post on lifetime bans for dope cheats. Thanks to everyone for their input on that one, let's see how this one goes.

The other reason to post links is because we've both been incredibly tied down with other work just lately, so in true academic fashion, we'll borrow from the excellent work that already exists and just steer the discussion and the traffic in that direction! Having initially thought that it was Albert Einstein who said that he had "stood on the shoulder of giants", one of our readers pointed out that it was in fact Isaac Newton! To save face, I will however point out that Einstein did quote Newton by saying this later in his own life, which of course only reinforces the idea that in science, don't say something in a new way when someone has already said it perfectly for you! And so we borrow that concept today and refer to a great article on running shoes and injuries...

The running shoe debate: An old topic revisted

To date, we have not really tackled the running shoe subject directly here at The Science of Sport, but it has come up incidentally in previous posts.

For example, it came up in the first post on our series on the Pose Running technique, where it was pointed out that ever since the "boom" in the running shoe industry about 30 years ago, the percentage of runners who get injured each year has remained pretty much the same.

So despite technological advances and developments in the industry, injury incidences have remained largely unchanged. Shoe companies make many promises, such as:

"Anti-pronation devices limit movement of the foot, reducing the risk of injury in overpronators", or "Forefoot and rearfoot cushioning devices reduce impact and the risk of injury"

Yet there's little reason to believe that this is true. The latest studies suggest that anything between 40% and 70% of runners are injured every year. And fascinatingly, in 1989, a study found that runners who ran in shoes costing more than $95 actually were twice as likely to get injured than runners who ran in shoes costing only $40! That was even after correcting for training and racing mileage! Of course, it's impossible to conclude that "expensive shoes CAUSE injury", because there are other factors that can't be accounted for. And one might argue that the typical runner of 2008 is quite different from the runners of the 1970's, who tended to be lightweight, biomechanically very different athletes. So maybe the fact that the injury rates are the same is actually a positive for the shoe industry? But let's pursue it a little further...

Points of differentiation and running shoe research

And what is more, the companies very rarely make their research available for all to see. Even if they did, you can pretty much guarantee that the research (which would be funded by the company, remember) would show "conclusively" that the shoe positively influences biomechanics, cushioning and hence reduces injury risk. The cynics among us would challenge the research on the grounds that they company could hardly spend money on scientific research and conclude that their latest selling point on the new models DOESN'T make a difference!

And in order to understand the full extent of the issue, you have to appreciate what is relatively obvious from a marketing point of view - all shoe makers are doing their utmost to differentiate their shoes and get their "share of wallet" in what is a very competitive, very lucrative (billions of dollars), but very cluttered market. The result of this search for a "point of differentiation" has thrown up a dizzying number of gimmicks and gadgets - every company has their solution, their distinctive features, often with the same function as competitors', yet it's still called "cutting edge technology".

A great article on running shoes

For a great article on the shoe industry, right the way from the Pharoahs of Egypt, through the Middle Ages and then onto the modern shoe industry, here is a great article on running shoes:

Athletic Footwear and Running Injuries

The article is pretty long, but worth the read. For the latest information and some real thought-provoking writing, I'd recommend Part II, about a quarter of the way down the page, which focuses on running injuries and how the shoes have failed to alter the injury rates.

Another site that may well develop into something in the future has been set up by a research in Australia, Dr Craig Richards - it's called "Barefoot versus the shoe"

He actually contacted us recently, in connection with some other articles here (fatigue, Pose), and we discovered the blog then. The posting frequency is relatively low, but it's worth reading simply to see what the shoe companies say in response to Dr Richards when he challenges them for their research. Hopefully in the future, he'll post more regularly and keep exposing the industry where it needs to be exposed.

Is barefoot running the way to go?

On the note of Dr Richards' blog title (Barefoot versus the shoe), the argument is growing that running barefoot is the natural and hence the "correct" way to run. And I know of many podiatrists who are gradually shifting their thinking in this direction - if any of you out there are podiatrists, please feel free to weigh in on the discussion. In fact, even the shoe industry has cottoned onto this idea - think Nike Free, and the other shoes that are now being made to mimic barefoot running.

But, a word of caution here. If you're a runner who has been pounding the pavement for 20 years in a pair of shoes, suddenly switching to barefoot (assuming you can run barefoot - I would never consider it on the tarred roads of Cape Town) may be a risky move for you. Because the change in biomechanics and loading of joints, muscles and tendons threatens injury if you're not careful. So in the article, you'll see advice to run barefoot - what you may miss is the proviso that you start with "small doses", which is really important - be careful about over-compensating and injuring yourself on the other side!

Any shoe experts out there?

I suspect that everyone has an opinion on this one - I have no doubt that many of you reading this will be able to share your experience that a persistent, nagging injury suddenly cleared up when you switched shoes, and perhaps you've never looked back? Those stories are very common, and lend support to the idea that a certain shoe will help with injury risk.

Personally, I'm of the belief that an injured athlete should look at their training as the first port of call after injury. The second port of call is probably training as well, followed by things like muscle strength or flexibility imbalances, and then in fifth, have a look at your training! Seriously though, I think that one consequence of a pre-occupation with shoes and injury prevention is that it takes away the attention that should be given to training - an injury can almost always be traced to a change in training intensity or volume, and that's where I'd begin the detective work, not with shoes.

But, let's hear from anyone who has experience or knowledge. I know we have many readers who are involved in the industry, and have a great deal of technical knowledge, so do fire away!

A look into the future

So that's it as far as "standing on the shoulders of giants" goes - in the next few days, I'll hopefully get that long-awaited post on fatigue up, so join us then!

Ross

LIfetime bans for drug cheats?

Should dopers be banned for life? Or is two years enough? A debate of crime vs. punishment

Yesterday, we looked at the case of Dwain Chambers, disgraced sprinter from Britain who served a two year suspension for his use of the designer steroid THG and who is now making a bid to run for Britain, first at the World Indoors (which he will run in) and then in the Olympic Games (where he's trying to get to). Even failing this, he's likely to push for the World Champs and other big races in the future. His desire to do so has sparked lively reactions, polarizing opinion among present and former athletes for Britain.

For example, double Olympic Champion Kelly Holmes has said:

"This was an athlete who went to America, knowingly took a drug that was undetectable at the time, got caught, admitted he'd taken drugs, then went on to say that you can't win anything without taking drugs. It doesn't put us in a good light allowing a cheat, who has admitted he's a cheat, to represent us."

She is backed up by Steve Cram, former 1500m champion, and now a commentator and journalist, who suggests that a lifetime ban for any drug cheat should be in order:

"I think a lot of us in the sport feel that a two-year ban is never enough for people committing that type of offence. And I would hope that as the next few months follow on, this isn't really just about Dwain Chambers at all, it's about the sport's attitude towards those who've committed serious drugs offences."

As things stand, Chambers will never take part in the Olympic Games, because the British Olympic Authorities do issue a lifetime ban to all convicted drug cheats. So for now, Cram, Holmes, and others who agree with them, can be satisfied knowing that the Olympics, at least, are out of reach.

However, there are those who support Chambers and are fully behind his efforts to run again. In effect, they are saying that "he has done the time, now let him come back and make a new start". They apply the letter of the law, which says that a convicted doper gets two years, and then is allowed to return to sport.

For example, Kim Collins, former 100m world champion, is quoted as saying:

"If they don't pick him then UK Athletics would be bending their own rules. He should be allowed to run and he should be representing Great Britain because he's the man for the job. He did serve his time and unless they are willing to change the rules and keep it 'once and you're out', he should be able to run."

Now, bear in mind that all this has been said against the backdrop of the issue of Chambers' selection of the British team for the world indoor championships in March, so people are commenting more on that issue than perhaps the issue of what to do with a convicted doper.

Should we be considering a four-year ban for dopers? Or criminal charges?

But it got me thinking about the severity of the punishment for a doping offence. This issue, as you might imagine, is debated extensively, and some have suggested that any positive test should result in a lifetime ban, or at the very least, a four-year ban, as Lord Sebastian Coe and Ed Moses have recently suggested.

Coe, for his part, has been pushing for a four-year ban for drug cheats since last year. If that sounds extreme, others within the IOC have even suggested that doping offences should be criminalized - jail time the result of a positive test.

The problem with increasing the punishment - testing will be even more vulnerable to attack

What interests me about this is that no one is looking at the testing procedure and systems, but rather assuming that testing is capable of reliably catching athletes who do cheat. For the implicit assumption when one calls for increased bans, is that the process that will ultimately give that ban is sound, and not likely to collapse under what would become even more pressure to be correct. If the system for testing and then processing positive tests is even slightly flawed, increasing the bans simply invites even more legal wrangling and controversy.

Now, believe me, I'm the last person to side with those who cheat in sport - I wish we could watch sport knowing that the most any athlete is using is a Vitamin C supplement! But the problem is that the process AFTER A POSITIVE TEST seems to be so flawed that if the punishment was made more severe, the already creaky structures under which athletes are tested would come crashing down under the "burden of proof" that would be required to send a runner to jail!

The "Innocent Man" syndrome

I recently read John Grisham's book "The Innocent Man", which is about a man who is wrongfully sentenced to death as a result of a flawed justice system - he loses 11 years of his life on death row before being exonerated. It would take me pages to run through just how flawed the system was, and besides, this is The Science of Sport, not a Book Club (though I'd highly recommend the book)! But the point is, it would be terrible if someone could write a book in 2015 about an athlete who spends 2 years in jail and/or is banned for life for testing positive for any drug, when he's actually been wrongfully convicted!

But the even bigger problem - dopers will get away with more under the increased burden of proof

Now, if you're thinking I'm going soft of dopers, let me address the balance. Because while the chance of "false positive" is a real one, what concerns me more is that dopers who test positive will have even more chance of getting away with it, because the entire process that ultimately delivers their sentence would now be under even more pressure to avoid a false conviction.

What we have seen in recent years is a dramatic change in how doping cases are managed. In the past, it was a case that an athlete would test positive, receive their ban, and disappear for four years - think Ben Johnson in 1988. He got caught, took his punishment, and we didn't hear from him again, until the ban was served.

But these days, "positive" doesn't mean positive, it means start the legal fight

But what is happening more and more today is that athletes are wising up to the "grey areas" in the system. There is almost a "guide book" on how to respond when you test positive. You begin by attacking the personality and integrity of your accusers, you go after the credibility of the laboratory testing you, you cry out that people are out to get you and that you're being discriminated against. Then you take your defence into the media and put all kinds of articles on Wikipedia to claim your innocence. You might even consider writing a book about it, and you definitely hire an expensive legal team who help you concoct defences like the "vanishing twin theory" which is more at home on an episode of "House" than in a sports tribunal, or you simply bombard the system with so much doubt that you escape punishment because no one can prove the use amidst all that uncertainty. And all the while, you deny, deny, deny, because actually proving that you used drugs is no longer as simple as testing your blood or urine and finding the presence of drugs in it! (and this doesn't even take into account the fact that a lot of drugs can't even be detected!)

The positive drugs test, formerly definitive proof that an athlete has doped, is now nothing more than the start of a usually messy, drawn out fight that is played out in the media and undermines the sport more than even the drugs use does. The problem is that sometimes the athlete has a case, because there are flaws and mistakes, and the system is not beyond reproach, which it needs to be in order to issue life bans. The result of this is that I honestly believe that we are headed for the day where an athlete who tests positive will face a trial consisting of a judge and a jury of their peers, who will have to assess their guilt based on days of testimony and evidence...think "Boston Legal" and "The Practice" for sport.

So my concern with increasing the length of a doping ban, and possibly criminalizing the use of drugs in sport is that the testing procedures, which are already "losing their teeth" in terms of actually following through with a positive test will become completely toothless as a result of increased bans --- taking a decision to ban an athlete for two years can be done a little more lightly than sending that same athlete to prison and preventing them from ever competing again!

So while in theory and principle, I'm all for a lifetime ban or even criminal charges, actually proving it poses a problem and until WADA and the federations figure out how to regain the upper hand in the "post-positive test" battle, increasing the ban will do little more than intensify the pressure they are under.

Back to Dwain Chambers - what should be done?

But let's get back to Dwain Chambers, for as Cram points out, the issue is not solely about one athlete, but about the attitude of the system towards its "cheats". And I'd love to hear from any of our readers who have some sports law experience, or even some experience in employment law on this one, because the issue here is bordering on that of "restraint of trade", where someone is prevented from earning a living unfairly.

Do you believe that a lifetime ban can be enforced for something like drug use? Or does this amount to restraint of trade, unfairly preventing the athlete from earning a living or surviving? Is it possible to block an athlete's participation based on one "mistake", willful or not?

I tried to think of the analogy from the world of business - if a businessman was caught defrauding his company, he'd without doubt be fired, and probably face criminal charges. But would he ever be able to work in the same industry again? Would the business world consider issuing a lifetime ban on a corrupt businessman? Well, rhetorical question, because there's no "system" to ban him from. But there's a good chance he'd be labeled and unable to find work, at least in the same area. Is that the same situation as Chambers and the Olympic Games?

All questions for which I don't have an answer - if you do, or have an opinion, please do let us know!

Ross

Dwain Chambers is back

Hopefully, you've noticed the newly added Tabs at the top of the page - we've added this to make it a little easier to navigate your way around our archives and to find articles. Thanks to Vanilla from Half-fast for steering me in the right direction to figure out how to add the tabs. While we're in the process of fixing them up and adding and rearranging our content, our email subscribers might get the occasional arbitrary email post which is actually just a page we're inserting to make use of the tabs, so please bear with us! We hope the tabs work well and they make the site a little easier to get around!

But for today, we thought we'd look at a story that has been around in the news for a while now, but one that we missed while I was in the USA - the story of Dwain Chambers.

Dwain Chambers: A headache for sports authorities, but a case control study on the state of doping

Dwain Chambers of Britain was one of the world's most promising sprinters - in 1999, at the age of 21, he claimed bronze at the World Athletics Championships in Spain.

He went on to win the European Championships in 2002, but never really made the big breakthrough, living in the shadow of the dominant sprinter of the early 2000's, Maurice Greene.

Then, in 2003, the wheels came off for Chambers, when his performances were poor, and he failed a drugs test in August. It was subsequently revealed that he had tested positive for THG, the designer steroid made famous by the BALCO scandal. It was Chamber's use of THG that landed him with a 2-year ban from the sport. He later admitted to having used THG since 2002, which would cost him (and team-mates) medals from the 2002 European Championships.

During his ban, Chambers dabbled in American Football, including a failed tryout with the San Francisco 49ers. He eventually returned to competitive athletics in 2006, and even won a medal as part of the British relay team at the 2006 European Championships. It was after this race that one of his team-mates from the 2002 European Championships, Darren Campbell, refused to join the team on the victory lap, in protest against Chamber's drug past. Campbell, along with 2 other team-mates, had been stripped of their own gold medals in 2002 thanks to Chambers' confessed use of THG.

The headache grows - Chambers finds form indoors

But the looming problem for the British Athletic authorities was only going to get bigger. Chambers has returned to form in 2008, and won the British Indoor Championships, having expressed his intention of qualifying for the World Indoor Championships.

The problem for the authorities is that Chambers had effectively retired from athletics in 2006, after the European Champs, when he had again attempted to start a career in American Football with the NFL Europa league. This was mixed in with a stint on a reality TV show, but the net result was that British authorities took Chambers off their list of athletes who would be tested out of competition.

However, on his return, Chambers did everything required of an athlete to qualify for the British team, even winning the indoor 60m title which SHOULD have guaranteed him his place.

But the situation is not so simple - understandably, the British athletics authorities do not want Chambers in their team. In their words:

"The committee was unanimous in its desire not to select Dwain".

And this was AFTER he'd been selected for the team, amid threats of lawsuits and counter-threats should he be omitted.

However, the fact was that there was no law in place to exclude Chambers and so the only basis for leaving him out would be an "exceptional circumstances" clause. This "exceptional circumstance" might have been that Chambers CANNOT run in the Beijing Olympics, thanks to a British Olympic law that gives a life-time ban to any athlete failing a dope test.

They chose not to make use of that law, possibly fearing reprisal from Chambers' lawyers, and so now we will see Chambers competing in a British vest come the World Indoor Championships in March.

But there's more to Chambers than this

So having said just this, Chambers' story is not exceptional. But then you begin to consider some of the things he has said since he was caught and banned. For example, in an interview with Matthew Pinsent in mid-2007, Chambers had the following to say about doping in sport:

"It's simple, science always moves faster than the testers. Some people take chances, some don't, and I was willing to take that chance. I was under the assumption that I wouldn't get caught."

In one sense, one has to applaud Chambers' honesty, as it makes a change from the usual conspiracy theories and denial that characterizes most positive tests these days - the usual tactic is to attack the testers, cry smear campaign, and deny every accusation. Chambers chose instead to speak his mind, revealing what most athletes probably think before they too use drugs.

But then later on, Chambers was asked whether a clean athlete could possibly beat a doped runner, his reply was:

"It's possible, but the person that's taken drugs has to be having a real bad day. That's what I believe."

This was seen to be a 'confession' that most of the top, successful athletes were using drugs and that success was not possible without the use of drugs. This common interpretation of Chambers' comments is probably taken a little out of context, but it earned Chambers almost universal condemnation from former and present British athletes. Now that Chambers is part of the British athletics scene once again, the viewpoints have been expressed from all corners.

For example, in response to Chambers' selection for the World Indoor team for 2008, Dame Kelly Holmes, double Olympic Champion from Athens, was quoted as saying that:

"This was an athlete who went to America, knowingly took a drug that was undetectable at the time, got caught, admitted he'd taken drugs, then went on to say that you can't win anything without taking drugs. It doesn't put us in a good light allowing a cheat, who has admitted he's a cheat, to represent us."

Harsh words, which encapsulate just how strongly some feel about Chambers' inclusion and the possibility that he will be fighting for an Olympic berth later this year. For more quotes and reaction to the story, check out this article.

The interesting possibility of a case control comparison of past vs. present

But apart from all the ethical and legal arguments that this issue has raised, there is also an interesting possible "case-control" study that may arise as a result. I for one, will be very interested to see just how Chambers fares this season.

Because what we have here is an athlete who admitted to using a steroid over a very clearly defined time-period, who is now competing, supposedly drug free.

So lets' say that Chambers comes back and runs the same times as he did during his drug-use days. If this happens, it invites three interesting possible conclusions, the first two of which are:

• Either he is still using drugs, and they are providing the same effect as before
• The drugs he used did not work to begin with

The second option seems unlikely, so it will be very interesting to see how the athletics world responds to Chambers should he be successful in 2008. He is already viewed with suspicion and that will only grow if he is successful this year. Perhaps the only way he will be able to avoid all suspicion and fulfill the role of "anti-doping ambassador" (a role he himself has spoken of) is if he is unsuccessful on the track!

That's a tricky situation to be in - success means suspicion, while avoiding suspicion requires mediocre performances! Of course, there is the third possibility which is that he is now drug-free and still performs at the same levels thanks to his training and dedication, but then being the cynics we are, that's a far less likely scenario!

So it will be very interesting to see how Chambers fares in the coming months. The possible legal wranglings on the horizon will also make for interesting discussion, should Chambers go after the Olympic Games as he's threatened to do. But for now, we'll keep an eye on his performances and see just how he performs!

Ross

Oscar Pistorius: A case where the science does not matter

Latest news on Pistorius - the appeal that will focus on "non-science" matters - why science appears irrelevant to Pistorius

Well, it's been a prolonged absence, but I'm now back in SA having had a great time of it travelling through the USA and Egypt. And so we'll get right into some of the meaty issues that have developed in the last week. And what a week it's been - Roger Clemens and McNamee taking their case to Congress, Dwain Chambers and a brewing storm over his participation, and breakthroughs in the study of fatigue. Those issues to come in more detail...

Pistorius to appeal ban at CAS

But for today, a brief update of the ongoing story of Oscar Pistorius, the South African Paralympic runner who is vying to compete in the able-bodied Olympic Games.

The story is now into its second year, after first hitting the major headlines last year. And we've tried as much as possible to cover the developments with a more critical eye. Indeed, part of the reason for steering the blog in the direction we did (a news site) was to report on scientific issues in a little more detail than the mainstream media.

So this particular issue is a fascinating one, and in a series of posts on it, we've looked at the realm of theoretical evidence that suggests that Pistorius does have a large advantage as a result of his high-tech carbon fibre blades. We then added to this by analysing his debut performances in Europe last year, where all that theory was proven correct and he ran a race that is physiologically impossible. That alone should have been enough to issue a ban ON SCIENTIFIC grounds, but the IAAF, to their credit, performed very extensive testing on the limbs.

Their result? They showed conclusively that Pistorius has a LARGE ADVANTAGE over able-bodies athletes. What was most amazing about this finding, is that that there was an advantage, but just HOW BIG IT WAS - we're talking 30% differences in economy and mechanical efficiency. Difficult to know how that translates to performance, but it's clear it's seconds, not milliseconds. This has not discouraged Pistorius from taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, citing "new evidence" and challenges to the IAAF result.

The only answer that Pistorius will accept

The IAAF testing really should have been the end of the debate, especially considering that Pistorius has opportunities BEFORE the testing to consult his own experts and contribute to the research process. To say after the fact, once the result is announced, that the testing was faulty is either an admission of incompetence to begin with, or simply a plea to keep this issue in the media for a little longer.

Point is, the IAAF tested everything, in duplicate, comprehensively. The theory pointed to an advantage back in June last year, the results from his races suggest that he has the advantage by confirming those theories, and the IAAF testing proved it, beyond all measure of SCIENTIFIC doubt, in my opinion.

But the science is not the issue for Pistorius, the media is

But this is clearly not about the science to Pistorius. Rather, it is obvious that the only answer they will accept is the one that allows him to run. To date, 9 months into this debate, and the Pistorius group has not produced a single shred of valid scientific evidence. In fact, everything scientific they have claimed has been downright laughable. Last year, there were claims that lactate production caused Pistorius' back pains, they have also "proven" that he has no advantage by pointing out that his strides are normal in length.

And now, in the latest of the "scientific barrage" being generated, we have been told that Pistorius clearly has no advantage because another runner, who lost his leg in an accident, has not run faster on the blades than before.

The extent of Pistorius' science

In the latest retort, Pistorius has decided to appeal the IAAF ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. He does this "for all disabled athletes", despite the fact that the Paralympic community are largely silent on this issue. I know personally of at least five Paralympic athletes who are OPPOSED to his campaign (that is 100% of my own sample), but I guess they are not part of the "athlete group" he refers to?

In his latest scientific angle, he draws on the story of a fellow South African, Joseph van der Linde, who was a good, promising sprinter, before a farming accident forced the amputation of his right foot.

He duly continued running, wearing a SINGLE carbon fibre blade. His times, however, were never able to reach those his "pre-accident days". In Pistorius' words:

"If my artificial limbs gave me an advantage, as alleged by the IAAF, Joseph should run faster, not slower," he said.

Never mind the fact that:

• Once an athlete (like van der Linde) loses the limb later in life, they must relearn all the motor control patterns, which means the chances of running properly again are very minimal. Pistorius learned to walk and run on prostheses, so he is an entirely different class of athlete. There is therefore no comparison between the two.
  
• Pistorius runs on two blades, van der Linde only runs on one. The result is that Linde is unbalanced, and this costs MASSIVE energy as he runs, because one leg is highly variable in length, while the other is relatively fixed. This is in fact something we've discussed in detail in the past. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Pistorius should be banned from competing against single-leg amputees, because his advantage of them is even bigger than the advantage over able-bodied athletes. Again, the point is, van der Linde is a completely different case and the comparison is worthless.
  

The truth of the matter - not even van der Linde agrees with Pistorius' argument

So what we have here is Pistorius bringing another athlete into the debate, entirely unwittingly. And what is more, his comparison is not even valid. Now, the only thing that could possible make more of a mockery of this "evidence" is if that athlete himself doesn't agree with Pistorius! And that is exactly what happened!

Joseph van der Linde himself disagrees with Pistorius. Yet somehow, he finds himself in the category of "evidence supporing the defence"! A truly bizarre twist in this story...

But, don't take my word for it. Joseph van der Linde has himself ridiculed Pistorius' comparison, saying that "you cannot compare him to Oscar", and that "Pistorius enjoys advantages over other athletes". You can read his summary and reasons here.

van der Linde actually cuts right to the facts, which is surprising, since he's not a scientist. Yet he displays a better appreciation and capacity to grasp the science than Pistorius. Why is that surprising? Because ever since this story broke, it was always going to be a question of science - Pistorius and his team had to have known that ultimately, they would need to win the argument on scientific grounds. Yet they have been completely ignorant, their science has been laughable and they have nothing but hollow claims to show for their efforts.

To date, that is the only science that has come out of the news of Pistorius' appeal. There is talk, admittedly, of "experts" who have seen flaws in the IAAF testing. But then there are also rumours that Pistorius is consulting with local scientists in an attempt to help his case. These "local experts" do not have the necessary expertise to challenge a world leading German lab on this topic, pure and simple.

The science does not matter to Pistorius - only the exposure and media attention

To me, it is clear that the science is the furthest thing from the agenda. Indeed, Pistorius' agent, Peet van Zyl, was quoted as saying that the case is not going to argued "on technical matters only". So instead of focusing on the facts, we are going to be treated to smokescreens and mirrors, with the bizarre notion that banning an athlete with an ADVANTAGE is discriminatory! In otherwords, the science says he has an advantage, but that is insufficient to prevent him from competing!

Can I suggest that the next step is that a drug cheat will have to be allowed to compete against other athletes because he is simply not as naturally talented as the other athletes and so the drugs are NECESSARY even though they give him an advantage! Too small at birth? No problem, use steroids and growth hormone to bulk up, and if they ban you, just point out that it's not your fault you are not a natural power sprinter. That seems to be where the argument is going.

Unless, that is, Pistorius can prove that the legs don't provide an advantage...but then, that would require scientific testing and evidence, which seems to be in short supply. The reason for that, incidentally, is because the only science that does exist says the advantage is enormous, but selective hearing is fully in play on this one.

Quite frankly, the process is ludicrous, and the cards need to be placed on the table - there is no science to support that there is no advantage, only talk. And unfortunately, the media has willingly gone along with this "truth". There is only the desire to keep this story in the public eye for as long as possible, because the longer it stays there, the longer the cheques are written and the balance climbs. At the risk of sounding cynical, this is not an issue of courage and human spirit any longer, it's financial, and marketing and endorsement related.

So unfortunately, this issue will only end for Pistorius when the auhorities say that "There is NO advantage". This is of course untrue, so I suspect we have much longer to travel on this issue. But don't expect valid scientific facts in defence of Pistorius any time soon.

Ross