Story by Morgan Sun
Feature Editor
Illustration by Nathan Friezer
Staff Illustrator
In 1948, a hospital was looking to rehabilitate its paraplegic patients made up of veterans of WWII. In 1960, the first Paralympics were held in Rome, six days after the closing of the Olympics. And 70 years later, the outdated disability classifications are largely still used to this day.
The range of disabilities has grown since 1960, but the impairment types in the Paralympics have not, with only 10 eligible impairment types in the International Paralympics Committee (IPC). These classifications include impaired muscle power, impaired passive range of movement, limb deficiency, leg length difference, short stature, hypertonia, ataxia, athetosis, vision impairment, and intellectual impairment. Though the list seems comprehensive, most of the diverse range of chronic illnesses and complex disabilities are oversimplified into their nearest arbitrary subset of amputations and spinal cord injuries. The IPC oversees the organization and classification of athletes and sports, though their execution of such a job is questionable at best.
Some sports in Para athletics, such as track and field, have combined athletes with different impairments into the same race. There are fundamentally unfair competitions, with athletes missing a hand racing athletes missing a leg. Because both are considered a “limb deficiency,” they are classified under the same impairment. People with intersecting disabilities tend to be grouped under one label, ignoring people’s multifaceted experience into one “degree of activity limitation.” An athlete with multiple limb deficiencies could be racing other athletes with just one, or a person with vision impairment and another physical disability may be racing other physically impaired athletes with full vision.
In an attempt to create a level playing field and “safeguard the integrity of fair competition,” the IPC retroactively adjusts and corrects athletes’ times based on their disability classification categories. However, this fails to take into account an athletes’ true abilities, creating a relative comparison that may or may not be fair. Instead of placing athletes into accurate comparable categories, the IPC uses objective measurements on the subjective impact of an athlete’s disability. Instead, the IPC could consider expanding the range of classification types, or organizing heats and events based on the “severity” of the disability. There must be a greater eye for detail in the arrangement of the competition, otherwise the athletes are competing in a race against bureaucratic iniquity.
The IPC also creates hard and fast walls in the complex maze of disability accommodations. During the pandemic, competitors were only allowed to have “essential staff” with them, though the definition of essential staff was different for each disabled athlete. Becca Meyers, a decorated Paralympic swimmer with Usher syndrome who is deaf and blind, was unable to attend the 2021 Paralympics because she was denied her request for a personal care aide to navigate the foreign setting. The IPC doubled down on their regulations, ignoring the fact that their commitment should be to equity. Flexibility is necessary to accommodate the wide range of disabled people that attend the Paralympics, because not all edge cases can be accounted for.
The high stakes nature of the Paralympics competition results in far more incentives to cheat. Though most athletes do not exploit the system, the unreliable constitution of classification leaves loopholes for some to exaggerate or fake their disabilities. In the most extreme case, the gold medal winners of the Basketball ID (intellectual disability) event in the 2000 Summer Paralympics were disqualified after the fact because 10 of the 12 players were not disabled at all. But a vast majority of para athletes do not speak up on the irregularities of the competition, for fear of being excluded and barred from future national competitions. At a Parliamentary hearing into claims that athletes were cheating the system, 11-time Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson spoke out saying that British athletes were threatened with not being selected to silence them. In the U.S., a Paralympic medal now generates the same payout as an Olympic medal, an increase of 400 percent since 2018. The threat of taking away the opportunity to compete on the national stage would ruin an athlete’s career, especially in one with as big of a payout as the Paraolympics.
Through no fault of the athletes, the Paralympics are a contradictory combination of prized inclusion and shameful exclusion. For the Paralympics to live up to its name, they must afford equitable opportunities to its athletes, not a perverted imitation of it. The goal of the event is not to win — but the spirit of the competition necessitates a fair and equitable playing field for participants.
Change comes from mass outrage. The public has far more control than expected because organizations such as the IPC are reactive, not proactive. The lack of coverage on the Paralympics, let alone coverage of any whistleblowing substance, allows Paralympic athletes to fall into the background — even during an event that celebrates the forefronts of inspirational opportunity.
