I never tire of reading articles about people overcoming barriers, whether they are physcial, mental, economic, political, or otherwise. Thanks for writing the article and highlighting a couple more of those people.
However, I believe most arguments for allowing special exemptions for challenged athletes usually boil down to
argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity), rather than objective analysis of the case. In this case (and in the
Casey Martin case), it is up to the ruling body to determine if the special equipment sufficiently changes the playing field.
It will never be black and white, of course. There is clearly an enormous gray area (contact lenses), and a
reductio ad absurdum to issues like economic and social disadvantages. But it seems in this case that the difference between legs and blades is a qualitative difference (regardless of whether the blades are less, or more, efficient), and I agree with the IAAF that it's a different enough set of circumstances that it would necessitate different events.