Ford has contradictory logic. On the face of it Drysdale should not be a finalist as he only won a bronze, yet Ford argues:
The often controversial judging panel has done it again, this time overlooking Drysdale, who, while in the process of winning his bronze in Beijing against immense odds, restored our faith in sport and New Zealand sportspeople alike.
So he argues the fact he won a bronze while sick from food poisoning means he should be a finalist. But then later on he argues:
And, by including Paralympics swimmer Sophie Pascoe ahead of Erakovic, the judges seemingly blew any chance to argue there is no room for sentimentality when comparing and weighing the performances of athletes (see Drysdale).
The photogenic Pascoe performed with distinction. No ifs, no buts. She did a great job and, like Drysdale, stole our hearts by overcoming the odds.
But the cold, hard reality, is that the Paralympics can’t be compared alongside the real deal, or Wimbledon for that matter.
But now overcoming the odds doesn’t count when you are a paralympian. Ford manages to dismiss all paralympians (and make no mistake the top competitors there spend just as many hours a day training as other professional sportspersons, if not more), reduces Sophie Pascoe’s three gold medals (and one silver) to “performed with distinction” and then belittles her further by labelling her “photogenic” as if that is why she was made a finalist.
A pretty patronising article.