The sharpest tragedy in the Pistorius scandal is the death of a young, intelligent woman - Reeva Steenkamp. Yet, the whole episode also threatens to strike a dagger into last year's Olympic legacy. For all that Pistorius did to prove the irrelevance of disability; he is now the blade runner that malfunctioned.
I am not one for heroes, and have always vehemently distanced myself from idolising prominent disabled people for the sake of it. Growing up as a wheelchair user in the 1990s, I was the only disabled person at my mainstream school. The reference points for my future were warped. Society dictated I either set diminished ambitions, or looked up to Stephen Hawking - a physically incapacitated, scientific genius.
Neither fitted. As such, Steven Gerrard and Malcolm X became my inspirations - the former for his tenacity and the latter for his struggle to overcome. Disability clung to me, but I had long outgrown its confines. Yet, in this empowerment lay deep visionary isolation.
Then Pistorius emerged, embodying everything I knew to be possible. Muscular like a race horse, he exuded confidence, the trademark sunglasses covering a gaze of steely determination. Every time the South African sprung into a race, his running obliterated boundaries on and off the track. Best of all this desire knew no limits. The first time I saw him was at the London Olympics, racing against able bodied athletes. In doing so, the man made quite clear who was in charge of body and ambition. With or without the blades, he towered 100 foot tall over his disability and demanded others do the same.
Most refreshing and inspiring was the way he transcended those before him to become a mainstream star; standing toe to toe with big name celebrities, both through status and endorsement deals. In a world obsessed with image, he proved disabled people could meet the test: attaining the spacious mansion and fast car, offering sex appeal and, as we now know so well, successfully wooing a beautiful, intelligent model.
These are things that, bluntly, were assumed to lie outside the reach of those with disabilities.
Therefore, upon hearing about the tragic events on 14 February, my overwhelming feeling was a mixture of sadness and frustration. Pistorius had done so much more than cross the finish line to win medals, he was running beyond. Yet, one moment of grave consequence has seen the progress slip through his fingers. It doesn't matter if he fired the fatal bullet or owns the bloodied bat, Pistorius faces death by association; discredited further by reports of steroids found in his home.
My dreams, and those held by thousands of other disabled people, now lie without their brightest symbol.
However, rather than suffocate in dejection, now is the time to realise that it is naive to place faith in heroes. I admired Pistorius not because of what he conveyed to millions, but because he affirmed what I already knew to be true.
Follow Alex T on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ykts_net
With that line, Alex T, you demonstrate you didn't even follow the bail hearing yet presume to be able to write about the case. Based on what? Trashy tabloid sensationalism?
Firstly, that Pistorius fired the shots is not for debate. He has never denied this. Why and how could or would he? There was no one else there. What is on trial are the circumstances and intention. Did he intend to murder Reeva (unlikely, as he would've had ample opportunity to do so before she would've even made it to the toilet or could've waited for her to come out, which she would've had to eventually, or could've beaten the door down first, rather than afterwards, and taken straight aim at her) or did he think it was an intruder (which under SA law would render it culpable homicide, regardless of whether the intention was to scare, injure or kill)?
Secondly, the use of the "bloodied bat" was media speculation and it's frankly embarrassing to still be suggesting it was used to attack Reeva, bearing in mind Pistorius' affidavit explaining the use of the bat to knock down the door after he realised Reeva was not in the bed/bedroom AND, more to the point, the prosecution's statement at the bail hearing and Reeva's family's affirmation afterwards that she had no signs of assault or of self-defence injuries. Her only wounds or markings were gunshots.
If Pistorius' version of events is shown to be true (and bear in mind that at the bail hearing, the prosecution stated that as yet it had found no evidence to refute his version - something that played a huge part in his being granted bail), how is this a case of violence against women?
Sadly, a woman was the unfortunate victim but under the perceived intruder scenario, one would have to absurdly expect Pistorius to have considered the possibility that the intruder may have been a woman?
Reeva had no injuries on her other than the bullet wounds and no fresh or mature signs of assault. Claims that Pistorius has a history of violence against women were also media exaggeration. The only call to police from his property was in 2009 when he threw a drunken guest out of a party. A drunken guest that happened to be female. He slammed the door, she kicked it and splintered her foot so reported him for "assault". Go figure.
I do wish some people would stop doing the very serious cause of violence against women (or domestic violence in general, because it's not just male on female) such an injustice or insult its victims (of which I have been one) so immensely by mentioning it in the same breath as a case that, as yet, has shown no relevance to the issue.
The scandal is unfortunate (Tragic, in this case); hopefully it does not undo all of the good that came before.
He was a lying drug-pusher who destroyed the lives of anyone who got in his way while lying to the American public to line his pockets with millions.
Worse, he used cancer-support as a shield to deflect any criticism of him - despicable!
A psycopath by definition - look it up.
In March 1985, Rick set off from Vancouver to wheel 40,000 kilometres through 34 countries on the Man In Motion World Tour to prove the potential of people with disabilities. His 26-month journey inspired an entire nation to believe anything is possible and moved thousands to make a difference.
After the Tour, he established the Rick Hansen Foundation to find a cure for spinal cord injuries and create more accessible communities.
Since 1988, the Foundation has leveraged the $26 million raised during the Tour into $280 million in investments towards spinal cord research, accessibility projects and quality of life initiatives.
Join us in building a healthy, inclusive world."
http://www.rickhansen.com/language/en-CA/Who-We-Are.aspx
He's got a technological advantage that the other athletes don't, doesn't he?
But you're missing the point; this man was an inspiration to those with disabilities. Allowing his participation embodies the spirit of the olympics. They knew he wasn't going to win before the event; the point was that he can be competative at a world class level; and inspire.
I'm not missing the point. I understand the inspirational aspect, but the point I was making still stands.
Just because it looks different, does not mean it affords him an advantage.
Regarding the legitimacy of him running against abled bodied runners...well...this is exactly why his actions on the track will be missed.