Oscar Pistorius made a quiet but notable return to competitive sport by participating in the Isuzu Ironman 70.3 triathlon in Durban on June 1, 2025. This marked his first public sporting event since being released on parole in January 2024, following his conviction for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in 2013.
Competing in the physically challenged category, Pistorius finished third with a time of 5 hours, 56 minutes, and 39 seconds, completing the demanding race that included a 1.9 km swim, 90 km bike ride, and 21.1 km run.
His participation was reportedly authorized by his parole officer, and his lawyer Conrad Dormehl described the event as part of Pistorius’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, emphasizing that sport remains important to him.
The event drew mixed reactions. While some spectators quietly acknowledged his presence during the race, others, including Reeva Steenkamp’s family and advocacy groups, have expressed that his return to sport is disrespectful to her memory.
Despite this, Pistorius continues to live under strict parole conditions until 2029, including media restrictions and ongoing therapy, as he navigates this complex phase of his life.
The general view across the publications is sharply critical of Oscar Pistorius’s participation in the Ironman 70.3 triathlon, with strong condemnation from groups like the United Democratic Movement Women’s Organisation (UDEMWO) and public figures. They consider his return to public sport as deeply disrespectful and a painful insult to the memory of Reeva Steenkamp, whose life he took, and see it as a stark reminder of the tragedy for her loved ones. Critics argue that allowing a convicted murderer to resume normal life and compete alongside law-abiding citizens sends a troubling message in a country grappling with gender-based violence and femicide. While Pistorius’s lawyer and some reports frame his participation as part of his rehabilitation, the predominant public sentiment expressed in these reports is one of outrage and calls for a thorough investigation into the parole officer’s decision to permit his involvement in the event.
