I'll ignore the fact that you prefaced the above with "it's true" citing no source, but science should matter. I'll be the first to admit that this guy is inspirational to say the least, but if science has given him superior legs, why should he be able to compete with those of us who are stuck with legs that easily injure and are less energy efficient?
That would be like an arm-amputee strapping into one of those exoskeletons for a weight competition.

I agree with the above comment. Just because he's inspirational doesn't mean he should be allowed to compete. where do you draw the line? what if in 20 years the prothesis' are good enough to offer a clear advantage? Isn't this almost like steroids? an unnatural aid?

his new ankle may be 20-30% more efficent, but he dosnt have calf muscle to give that extra push, only spring. Regardless he may have an advantage.

But if the use of mechanical ligiments is allowed, even passive then I have a link for everyone.
http://www.jumpusa.com/poweriser.html

If he can use those, I'll use these.

So, what happens when a blind person is given bio-mechanical/artificial eyes (sometime in the future) allowing them to have 20/10 vision, and this person wants to compete in the shooting event? What happens when someone decides to have their legs amputated so they themselves can have prostetics giving them an unfair advantage over others? I know it's extreme but it's definitely not far fetched. Olympians aren't allowed to use steroids, they shouldn't be allowed to turn themselves into cyborgs and compete without legs when everyone else has to. Where does it end? It sets a precedent that I'm sure will be challenged in the near future.

you bunch of whiners. do any of you even know an amputee?

please make sure to read this whole comment, because you will most likely first be upset, and then start to understand.

in the stricted sense, he shouldn't be allowed go compete, well he should be eligible, but he shouldn't be able to use any prosthetics. what i mean is that if he in his natural state is able to qualify more power to him, but the use of unnatural training methods or unnatural prosthetics shouldn't be allowed in the olympics, this is why we band things like steroids and such. this is why things like special olympics exist. yes it is elitist, but the olympics ARE elitist.

granted "natural" and "unnatural" are ugly words, but in this situation i think they fit.

Why not make seperate classes of competition for all sorts of amputees with standards for the prosthetic power they use?

I think it's disgusting to mention this man in the same breath as a hypothetical person who "decides to have their legs amputated so they themselves can have prostetics" as said in an above comment. Even if a bizarre extreme case happened like that, CAS and the IAAF could turn down that individual.

Pistorius was born with no fibulas and had to have both his legs amputated as a baby. His perseverance is inspiring. With all of the morally questionable athletes that we consider role models in this country, it is refreshing that there is someone out there who embodies what athletics really should be all about.

He is the kind of sports hero that i want my young son to emulate.

This guy has a very clear advantage. There is no reason he should be allowed to compete. There is no such thing as a good time to ignore science. That's the beauty of it, it's there whether you want it or not.

As was stated before, there is no doubt that he is inspirational. The discussion at hand is whether or not he should be allowed to compete with an unfair advantage. Athletes aren't allowed to cheat just because they're nice guys or inspirational, so why should the fake legs be allowed.