I pit hypocrites who praise Pistorius now that he's lost

The BBQ Pit
#1

Almost unanimously, people are–rightly–praising Oscar Pistorius for his historic competition at the Olympics.

But remember that it was only a few days ago that there was all kinds of speculation about whether the “Bionic Man” had an unfair advantage going into his race, whether his artificial “Cheetah” legs were really “Cheater” legs.

I guarantee you that had he won, the hate-mail and criticism would have poured in. Of course, many–probably most–would have still been impressed, and amazed, by the hard work and athleticism of the man. I would have! The fact that he dominates the Paralympics, that no other athlete on his legs has put up times competitive with his own, makes it clear that it is him, not the machine, that is winning races. But respect for his hard work and effort would not have been universal, and his opposition would be a loud, vocal minority.

So: to everyone who thought he was cheating when he was competitive, but honest when he was no longer competitive. To everyone who would have hated him as a winner, but felt pity for him as a loser. To everyone forgetting you were ever critical of his legs, now that praising him is the popular thing to do. I pit you. I pit your hypocrisy. And I pit the sad fact that you are probably lying to yourself, and won’t even know that this is aimed at you.

#2

Who says it’s the same people?

Plus, even if they are, you sound like you would’ve wanted those people to change their minds in this direction. Who says they’ve done so for illegitimate reasons?

#3

“He lost” is not a legitimate reason to decide someone is brave instead of a cheater. And I assume it’s the same people because…well, it is. Not all people. Maybe not a majority of people. But I guarantee you there is a numerically significant group of people unaffected by the cognitive dissonance of thinking “If he won, it would have been unfair” and “He tried so hard and lost, what a brave guy” at the same time.

#4

That is not in answer to either of my questions (both of which question as to whether that is, in fact, what happened).

ETA: To clarify, when I say “Who says they’ve done so for illegitimate reasons?”, I mean “Who says they’ve done so simply because he lost?”

#5

It was never a real possibility; his times are about 2 seconds below the fastest runners.

#6

Aside from his loss, what else has changed in the past few days that would justify the change in the tone of reporting, coverage, and social media commentary?

Edit: also, this is the pit! I don’t have to justify being angry! Fuck them all! :slight_smile:

#7

Fair enough. :slight_smile:

#8

Personally I didn’t think he should have been allowed to run and I’m glad that he didn’t win as it would have raised far too many questions about what is and isn’t “fair”. By letting him run an administrative precedent has now been set so it may be that we’ll revisit this again and again. I see this in the same light as the Caster Semenya issue. Her gender is somewhat in doubt and whilst it is a naturally occurring quirk it just happens to be a quirk that puts in doubt her legitimacy to race as a female.

Of course I bear neither of them no ill will and recognise that they are talented and dedicated athletes. They just happen to defy categorisation in a sport that demands it.

Don’t know how any of that relates to your pitting but those are my thoughts.

#9

I didn’t think he should be allowed to race, yet I think it’s admirable that he did. Am I a hypocrite?

#10

Yes. Heaven forfend we ever get forced to think about sports. Or question our assumptions of what is or isn’t proper for competition.

#11

So, you’re upset at some hypothetical group of people that may or may not exist? Sorry, but your guarantee isn’t worth the electrons it is written with.

#12

From what I understand (I don’t follow running) he was never expected to win. He wouldn’t even have qualified if he’d been from a team with better runners.

The questions raised about his entry are no less valid now that the events are over.

#13

He did make the “A” qualifying standard. (45.07) Not his fault his home country lacks 400m runners.

#14

South Africa only sent 6 runners listed as 400m types.
All 6 are listed as running the 4x400, 3 are also running the 400 hurdles. Pistorious is the only one who was entered in the 400m.

Willem de Beer 4x400
Shaun de Jager 4x400
Cornel Fredericks 4x400 400 hurdles
Ofentse Mogawane 4x400
Oscar Pistorius 4x400 400
L J van Zyl 4x400 400 hurdles

#15

I don’t think so. I lean toward the unfair advantage side, and not meaning that he would win, but that some day better prosthetics could give an advantage over people with meat feet. But I never considered that he did anything improper. He followed the process and was qualified to run by a governing body. My problems would only be with that governing body. He is an admirable man, and I don’t think I’m a hypocrite to think so even if I thought he shouldn’t compete.

#16

Have we considered that maybe he did have a mechanical advantage … but he’s just a shitty runner?

#17

Well, yeah, except “someday” isn’t today.

#18

My only issue with the man is that he plans to continue competing in the Paralympics. I think anyone who can qualify for the Olympics and get past the first heat shouldn’t be eligible for the Paralympics.

#19

Caster Semenya = Yes, A Secret Man. Coincidence? :dubious:

#20

Poor Lil’ Tink Tink.
(Warning, you tube link, NSFW, annoying affected accent, use of the word ‘Motherfucker’ about 90 times in a row, not really funny, don’t say I didn’t warn you.)