The case revolves around Oscar Pistorius, a South African double-amputee sprinter, who appealed a ban by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) preventing him from competing in IAAF-sanctioned events alongside able-bodied athletes. The IAAF based its decision on Rule 144.2(e), which prohibits technical devices that provide an advantage, arguing that Pistorius's Cheetah Flex-Foot prostheses gave him an unfair edge. This decision was supported by a report from Professor Brüggemann and his team at the German Sport University in Cologne, known as the Cologne Report. Pistorius, a successful Paralympic athlete who had competed in able-bodied events in South Africa, challenged the ban, leading to a review by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined whether the prostheses provided a metabolic or biomechanical advantage. While the IAAF's Cologne Report identified some biomechanical benefits, such as reduced energy loss and lower metabolic cost, Pistorius's experts contested these findings, arguing that no overall net advantage had been proven. The panel applied the "balance of probability" standard, concluding that the IAAF had not met its burden of proof. Key issues included the exclusion of critical race phases in testing, the lack of comprehensive analysis of overall advantages or disadvantages, and procedural flaws in the IAAF's handling of the case, such as insufficient time for Pistorius to respond and questionable voting procedures.
The panel ultimately ruled in favor of Pistorius, overturning the IAAF's ban and allowing him to compete in international events. The decision emphasized the lack of conclusive scientific evidence proving an overall advantage and highlighted the need for individualized assessments in such cases. However, the ruling was narrowly tailored to Pistorius and his specific prostheses, not setting a precedent for other amputee athletes. The case underscored the challenges of integrating adaptive technology into competitive sports and the importance of evidence-based policies. The CAS also noted that future scientific advancements might warrant reevaluation, but for the time being, Pistorius's eligibility was upheld. The decision marked a significant moment in the intersection of sports regulations, disability rights, and technological innovation.