A group of us were watching this after a barbecue and a spirited conversation arose between me and a friend of my wife.
She said she couldn't grasp why we had to have an Olympics for "paralysed people" as the Olympics was all about physical perfection.
She then said "after all they're really sub-human"! I don't think I've ever shouted "what?" so loudly in my life.
She's Norwegian and old, there's a whiff of Nordic master-race about her.
But let's not kid ourselves, the Paralympics are a bit like someone wearing a wig in public. Everyone knows it's a wig, everyone knows he doesn't really have hair but we all go along with it colluding in the illusion he isn't bald. We all know Paralympic sport isn't as good (for want of a better word) as the regular Olympics, we all know the classification system is flawed (albeit the best system we have) and creates unfair competition etc but of course we pretend it isn't.
Don't reflect your own prejudice and claim everybody is the same please.
For me personally many parasports are considerably more exciting then those held at the Olympics (fencing for example)
And i wouldn't go as far as to say the system was flawed, especially when neither me nor you have a clear understanding of all the disabilities involved and how it effects performance.
I hate to see swimmers etc finishing a lap down through absolutely no fault of their own but the crowd rightly give them the praise they deserve, if it were up to me I would introduce a fourth medal that every competitor outside of the podium receives just as a recognition of their accomplishment.
oh please, the less money the BBC has the better. From what I have read BBC practically made no effort to get the rights.
The c4 coverage got a lot better when they took Jon Snow off the mic.