If Rosie Ruiz had appealed to CAS, she'd still be a Boston winner. This is America, and we all want to believe in the Big Dream. If a gawky kid from Illinois can become Abe Lincoln, if a poor black girl from the south can become Oprah, if a boy born from the union of a white Kansas girl and a black Kenyan man can become president (maybe), then how can we not believe in a Boston runner who doesn't know what "intervals" are just because a few of the video cameras failed to pick her up? C'mon, that's SOOOO unfair. And how can we keep a handicapped dude out of the Olympics? So unfair again.
The problem occurs when someone fails to distinguish between freedom of civil rights and freedom to play on a level athletic field. Sports are different from academics and politics and similar arenas.
For example, there are no rules against politicians using steroids and epo. They'd probably be an asset, in fact, in those long, grueling campaigns. If we found out that Hillary was on epo, many would cheer when she said, "I'm a fighter, and epo helps me fight longer and harder for the causes you and I both believe in--fair wages, health care, social security, etc."
But if Oscar Pistorius were on epo, he'd get tossed out quickly. And he'd be labeled a cheat rather than an inspiration.
Of course, he's not on epo. He's on two super high tech titanium legs. Which seem to give him a far bigger advantage than epo ever gave any runner. There are questions still to be answered. More research is needed. But Ross Tucker is right in saying that the IAAF studies were carried out in a relatively open and scientific manner, and reported a similar manner. I don't think the same can be said of the MIT studies presented to CAS.
CAS ruled more on the civil rights question. Sure Pistorius has the right to run in appropriate competitions. But he doesn't have the right to run at the highest levels, in the Olympics, etc, if his legs tilt the athletic playing field and give him an unfair advantage.