I have the greatest of respect for her achievements, but would have to ask how having a non-functioning hand would interfere with riding a bicycle?

Balance, ability to put pressure on hands/arm to more fully engage the pedalling action and the ability to re-centre themselves whilst moving around a velodrome are the first things that come to mind. Probably a myriad of other aspects that aren't noticable until you are pushing yourself to the very limit of your ability.

Not to mention any pain/discomfort that's being felt.

Boxers, judokas, weightlifters and all that lot are sorted into classes by weight, right?

And nobody thinks that the 63kg weightlifter who lofts 3 times his bodyweight isn't a real athlete, do they?

(I hope they don't. I think those men and women are awesome.)

The paralympics does that, basically. It classifies people so that they can compete against their physical equals, in pretty much the same way.

The most able Paralympians can and do go to the Olympics if they are so ludicrously talented that even their physical impairment doesn't stop them from being able to keep up with the fully-legged. South Africans Natalie du Toit (swimmer) and Oscar Pistorius (runner) are examples but there are plenty more, always have been and always will be. Brit cyclist Sarah Storey is knocking on the door, too.

How athletes are classified varies by sport because of different attributes being relevant (and not). The best example is swimmers - they basically have some insanely complicated formula for how much raw potential power you lose for each degree of amputation, spasticity, underdevelopment or paralysis a person has per limb and in their torso - so unlike, say, athletics where wheelchair users race other wheelchair users, you get a big mixture, just with each classification having people with the same degree of mechanical impairment, regardless of its origin.

Just like that 63kg weightlifter is an elite athlete in his own right and whose achievements can only fairly be measured against those of his physical equals, and duly celebrated, so go the Paralympians. Make no mistake - they are, already in great number and increasingly, truly elite athletes who train fulltime and are the fittest, strongest and fastest they could possibly be.

Du Toit is an absolute animal. Superb competitor.

Sarah Stovey makes me giggle a bit. I like the idea that His Imperial Majesty King Dave of Velodrome looked down upon his dominion and wept for their were no more events to conquer...and then stopped. For lo and behold he had spotted something else...Paraolympic cycling! New events that Britiain had not yet annexed into his Empire. A quick squiggle about the scene and he sees Stovey. Oi Stovey, wth do you think you are doing pissing about in something I already own? Now, see those new events over there? I want you to go over and conquer them. Yer good enough to get into my elite Jedi Storm Trooper squad, so you should piss all over this lot with ease. "Er boss though, the Paraolympics are meant to be about fairness and equality." Bugger that, Im the High Lord King Dave and demand you add complete and utter domination of the Paraolympics to my Empire!

Well it makes me giggle anyway. Im going to start calling Brailsford Darth Dave

That counter works great if he can name the woman who won the javelin, or the U18, or... anyone else involved.

Otherwise his point still seems to stand, you've just added to the equation that not all sports are equally revered too, which is also true.

Stand by my point - all you have done is point out that no one cares about javelin, no matter who chucks it! (unless its a brit then we may remember them)

NBA earn more than the WNBA because it's better. If the women were dunking all over each other it would be different....but it's like watching 13 year olds play. No one watches, they get no sponsorship.

Of course there will always be odd examples that go against the theory but there is normaly an extra factor involved. We know Jess Ennis not the male winner because she is a brit, we know some lighter weight boxers because their personality shines through.....but in the main, the BEST person gets the most viewers/money/attention.

Ask anyone "who won wimbledon this year" - see if you get a mans name, a womans name or the name of the kid in the U18's event. Don't bother, it will be a man - and you certainly wont get "do you mean the able bodied event or the wheelchair tennis winner? "

i'm not sure what the argument is anymore!!!, some people like the javelin and can name the winner, you dont and cant.

I agree, mens sport dominates the press and is the foundation of most peopels sporting knowledge, but I still dont see why paralympics, womens and youth sports acheivements are dismissed becuase they are not as fast as Bolt and Co when its clear they never will be. You can only compete against the people in your race etc etc

Britain is no different. Time was when nobody in the UK cared about 5k or 10k. The Marathon was something you put fancy dress on in London for. We wnked ourselves silly over the 800 and 1500m though. Now we dont care about the 800 and 1500 and wnk ourselves silly over Mo and the longer distances. The Marathon came into focus because of Paula and in Britain we basically ignore the field events these days despite Backley v Jan Z. used to being one of the top draw attractions. In the Carib they traditionally ignore everything except the sprints, but the young Trinidadian lad basically put the place into a week long party, gave them I think only their 2nd ever gold medal.

Sporting interest in events ebbs and flows as per talent available. Britain's greatest consistency of interest/talent has probably been in the multi-disciplinary events and the 400.

They aren't dismissed.....just look, next week they have a whole Games to themselves! But they wont get AS much attention....and understandably so.

Again...no one is saying sport doesnt count if it's not a battle for THE VERY BEST.....but when it is, it counts most!