[JoeRedskin]

I am generally leaning towards the "should not compete" side. Prosethetics are man made alterations to one's body. Whether they provide a competitive advantage or not, they are a physical alteration of the standard physiology.

While I applaud his strength, courage and attitude and would hope that others emulate it, I do not think he belongs in a race against fully able bodied atheletes any more than one who uses chemical alterations to the physiology.

I understand that this is not the politically correct stance. At the same time, with advancements in robotics, prosthetics and other mechanical assistance to disabled athletes, where should the line be drawn? How does one, or should one, determine if the mechanical replacements provide a "competitive advantage"? Is that the line? What about pharmaceuticals? Are they always to be disallowed as creating "competitive advantage"?

It just seems to me to be a slippery slope.

Again, please don't confuse my position that Blade Runner shouldn't be in the Olympics with any disrespect for his acheivements.