As two scholars supportive of the Paralympic Games movement, we’ve often called Paralympic classification the “doping” of the movement. It’s controversial, tough to adjudicate, yet vital to the integrity of the Games.
This issue surfaced recently when one of us met with administrators from Queensland’s Centre for Olympic and Paralympic Studies and saw how multiple entities are preparing for the Brisbane 2032 Summer Paralympics.
One individual grabbing our attention was Dr. Sean Tweedy, a professor in the University of Queensland’s School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences. Tweedy is actively involved with the Paralympic community and took time to explain the complex classification system (e.g. S1-18; T1; C1, BC1, etc.) regulating Paralympic participation.
It brought back memories from the Beijing (2008) and Rio (2016) Summer Games, where we held leadership roles and started our education on the topic of classification challenges.
Tweedy talked passionately about a current S2 swimmer who has limited use of her arms, and can do little with her hands, legs or trunk. An S2 classification essentially covers individuals with cerebral palsy or significant limb amputations.
Meeting with Tweedy led to a meeting with Ross Ashcroft, the national integrity manager for the Australian Sporting Alliance for People with a Disability.
In the para sport community, classification is a highly controversial topic because some athletes seek category re-classification to facilitate a medal-winning outcome. Further, in team sports such as wheelchair rugby and wheelchair basketball, coaches select team members based on the total “score” of their athletes’ impairment classifications.
Example? Assume an individual is coaching a wheelchair rugby team heading to the 2028 L.A. Games. Each starting team is made up of four athletes who must have functional impairment in at least three limbs. Each player has been classified between 0.5 to 3.5, in increments of 0.5, from least to most function.
That coach can only put a total of 8.0 points on the floor at any one time. So, if one of the starters gets reclassified from a 1.5 to a 1.0, that allows the coach to play a more functional player (e.g., 3.5 over a 3.0) at the same time.
In most cases, para classification influences who wins and loses. This can lead to intentional misrepresentation (IM), a real thorn in the side for those generating official classifications.
Many SBJ readers might be surprised to learn athlete impairment is a lengthy process considered on a sport-by-sport basis and certified pre-competition after medical, technical and observational assessments. This review is critical because many believe widespread IM is taking place and threatening the perception of “fair play.”
It’s why a comparison to doping in Olympic sport rings true.
This difficult perception/reality has generated numerous revisions to the International Paralympic Committee code (2007, 2015 and 2024) and left some para athletes, coaches and administrators highly concerned. French para-badminton athlete Richard Perot has suggested it’s the “biggest threat to Paralympic movement.”
“Classification is a vitally important component,” said Ashcroft, “as it determines which athletes are eligible to compete in para sport. But much of the media or social media commentary [on an individual’s eligibility] is based on speculation or a misunderstanding of someone else’s condition without a full understanding of their disability or access to the athlete’s complete medical data … which is highly relevant. Other times, there have been allegations by ex-partners going through acrimonious separations or aggrieved athletes/parents of athletes who feel like they missed out on an opportunity [because of someone else’s new classification].”
Initially, in 1960, the Paralympic Games were restricted to athletes in wheelchairs or select swimming events. By 1976, other disabilities such as amputations or visual impairment were included. In 1996, the IPC code was modified to include intellectual impairment.
While we applaud the inclusion of more Paralympians each quadrennium (more than 4,400 competed at the Paris 2024 Summer Paralympics, including a record number of women), and the increase in media coverage of the Paralympics, we also know athletes, coaches, national governing bodies and even national Paralympic teams are incentivized to secure medals.
In the corporate world, Paralympic medals for athletes in certain sports and disciplines — think “blade” amputee sprinters and gladiator-styled wheelchairs in rugby — now produce sponsorship and endorsement deals. Financial benefit could possibly lead to IM via disguising (faking or enhancing the degree of an impairment) or even worse (and these accusations have been made), a governing body deliberately impairing able-bodied athletes (i.e., requiring an amputation) to enhance the likelihood of a medal stand moment.
Shocked? Don’t be.
The idea of intentionally enhancing an impairment or purposeful injury is not as far-fetched as one might think, simply because winning often makes highly competitive individuals consider illegal options.
We don’t have solutions for this IM issue, but it’s worth pointing out that as para sport grows in prominence, the movement will face increasing challenges on the topic of athlete eligibility. They need to firmly resolve this issue or face withering public attacks that the Paralympic Games are tainted.
Rick Burton is the David B. Falk Professor of Sport Management at Syracuse University and co-host of the “NIL Clubhouse” podcast. He was chief marketing officer for the USOC at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Norm O’Reilly is the dean of the University of New England’s College of Business and Partner with the T1 Agency. He was Canada’s deputy chef du mission for the Paralympics in 2016. Their newest book, “The Rise of Major League Soccer,” (Lyons Press) publishes in May 2025.
