Here's a long but very interesting background article on Oscar from a few days ago. Details a life of privilege and special treatment, including being allowed to compete in the 400m in London even though he had not qualified, leaving another SA athlete who had at home. Also many previous incidents of favourable treatment by law enforcement officials, as well as lots of reason to think there are serious emotional issues there.
And the athlete named Simon Magakwe isn't even a 400m runner.
To think that fun is simple fun, while earnest things are earnest, proves all too plain that neither one thou truthfully discernest.
Is South Africa the country with higher country standards though? I remember there being a fuss some Olympics where a country left qualified athletes at home because they didn't meet internal standards. IIRC, SA requires runners to meet two A standards. That may have been how Pistorius didn't qualify. I have no idea if this is the case. Though it is funny that the named runner doesn't run the event (I did find some articles about him being left off the team despite meeting the A standard, but nothing mentioned Oscar.)
Any body read the Vanity Fair article? http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...storius-murder
I thought a lot of the things the article says were later on denied, (ex. she was shot through her shorts, there was a bloody bat, etc.) and things I didn't know (ex. she had stayed with him for three days, Pistorius never tried to talk to Reeva's parents) but I doubt they would've put it in due to the risk of later being sued. The portrait they paint is of an out-of-control aggressive jerk but a Slate blogger is not convinced:
A New Vanity Fair Story Shows that Oscar Pistorius Is a Jerk. But Is He a Murderer?