Olympic spirit?

Double-amputee sprinter Pistorius deserves better than the run-around he has received

Well, the International Association of Athletics Federations finally got its way. Oscar Pistorius won't be going to Beijing next month. Talk about ruining what should have been a heartwarming story.

Pistorius, a South African sprinter, was born without shin bones and had his legs amputated below the knees when he was 11 months old. In January, the world governing body of track and field banned him from competing, claiming his artificial limbs gave him an unfair advantage over able-bodied runners. In May, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned the IAAF in a unanimous decision, clearing the way for Pistorius to pursue his Olympic dream.

He still had to make the South African team, though; nothing was guaranteed. And after he failed to meet the qualifying standard of 45.55 seconds in the 400 meters, despite running a personal best of 46.25 last week at a meet in Switzerland, his only hope was to be named to the 1,600-meter relay team as an alternate. But when South Africa announced its roster Friday, Pistorius' name wasn't on the list. Now he must settle for competing in the Paralympics in September. I say ''settle'' only because he wants to compete against able-bodied athletes and has shown that he's capable. If only the governing bodies would let him.

The IAAF has a big problem with the curved carbon-fiber blades Pistorius runs on. In banning him, the IAAF claimed the blades give Pistorius a greater stride length and provide less wind resistance than real legs. The IAAF also thinks Pistorius might have an advantage as a double amputee because he doesn't have to contend with lactic acid building up in his legs.

Even after the ban was overturned, the IAAF refused to let the issue go. Apparently fearing he was going to defy the odds and make the South African team after all, IAAF general secretary Pierre Weiss claimed last week that Pistorius could be a risk to himself or others.

''If he runs in the pack, there's a risk that he or another athlete will fall,'' Weiss said in remarks published by Chinadaily.com. ''The South Africans have qualified without Pistorius, and if they take him, they are going to have to remove another relay runner. It's a decision that rests with ... the South African Olympic Committee, but we'd prefer that they don't select him for reasons of safety.''

What will the IAAF come up with next?

These comments and others prompted Pistorius' New York attorneys to threaten legal action against the IAAF. In response, the IAAF issued a statement that Weiss' comments ''have no effect on the official eligibility of Oscar Pistorius, nor should they be misconstrued as a personal attack on Pistorius.''

You can't blame Pistorius for feeling otherwise. Doesn't the IAAF have some drug users to go after? Track and field should be celebrating Pistorius, not trying to ban him from competition.

''One of the comments they made was that they didn't have the resources to check my prosthetic legs at every event, which kind of implies that I would try to cheat,'' Pistorius told Reuters. ''Personally, that's not what I think sport is about, and it's kind of sad that they would feel that. I think it was the IAAF's last desperate attempt to try and get me not to qualify.''

It looks like the IAAF's last desperate attempt paid off. Athletics South Africa president Leonard Chuene told the Associated Press that Pistorius was left off the team because four other runners had better times than him. But was that the actual reason? We're talking about fractions of seconds here. And Pistorius' legal battle negatively had affected his training. South Africa could have added him to the relay team if it had wanted to. You have to wonder whether the South African Olympic Committee was influenced by Weiss' comments. At the very least, the committee probably feared Pistorius would be a distraction. That's a shame because this young man has done nothing wrong.

Pistorius is only 21 years old and will aim for the London Olympics in 2012. But what if a newer version of the blades comes out before then? Will the IAAF become more determined than ever to prove they give him a competitive advantage? When the IAAF was considering banning him, it indicated that advancing technology was a concern.

''We all wish him well,'' spokesman Nick Davies said last year. ''The point here is, what's going to happen in 10 years? What happens if it continues to evolve?''

Of course, the technology will continue to evolve. More to the point: Will society keep pace?