WHEN the London 2012 Paralympics came to this country, it marked a watershed moment for para-sport. Over the course of those two weeks, the world saw a different side of para-sport, with London 2012 managing, for the first time, to persuade people that the Paralympics complemented the Olympics and were not, as had seemed on so many occasions in the past, a bolt-on.
London 2012 changed perceptions in quite a remarkable fashion – no longer were Paralympians viewed, patronisingly, as plucky triers in wheelchairs; London 2012 showcased them as elite athletes who were due every bit as much credit, and in some cases even more, than able-bodied athletes.
Until the past few weeks, para-sport had, in the main, been exempt from much of the criticism and negativity that has enveloped able-bodied sport in the past few years. But over the past month or two, this has all changed.
Allegations began to circulate that athletes were exaggerating their disability in order to be placed in a more disabled category which would, in turn, give them a greater chance of winning.
The discussion has escalated to such a level that a Parliamentary select committee hearing was held on Tuesday, with 11-time Paralympic gold medallist Tanni Grey-Thompson amongst those giving evidence.
When Grey-Thompson was asked if the classification system was fit for purpose, she said: “Judged on what I have been told, I don’t believe we can confidently answer that question right now.”
And the committee heard that athletes had been threatened with not being selected if they dared to speak out about any classification concerns they may have had.
The classification system within para-sport has always been a thorny issue. It is an almost unwinnable battle – too many classes and there is not the strength-in-depth of athletes to make the event competitive, too few classes and the disparities between athletes are so great that the event becomes blatantly unfair.
As it stands, things are not right. The system is so broken that British T37 200m sprinter Bethany Woodward handed back a relay medal that she won at London 2012 as she believed the inclusion of one of her team-mates was giving the British team an “unfair advantage”.
The International Paralympic Committee dispute the claim that the classification system is not fit for purpose, as do a number of British Paralympians.
Nevertheless, the IPC are taking action – the classification rules are being revised and will come into effect from January 1 next year.
Para-sport had, to date, been largely untouched by the doping scandals that have plagued able-bodied sport. However, the classification scandal looks like it could be para-sport’s drugs issue.
It should perhaps be unsurprising that alleged foul play has reached para-sport.
As it has become more professionalised, it has become more lucrative, with sponsorship deals and television contracts far more commonplace. With money, more often than not, comes corruption.
And, as we have seen in able-bodied sport, higher levels of success can breed a win-at-all-costs culture. British para-sport has become so successful that any drop down the Paralympic medal table would be seen as an overwhelming failure. It would be naïve to think Paralympic sport is in any way immune from nefarious behaviour, particularly when able-bodied sport, at times, seems riddled with it.
What is particularly disturbing is that para-athletes are being treated very differently – some are being subjected to invasive and severe testing to prevent any attempts at cheating while others are afforded much more leeway.
Para-sport must nip this controversy in the bud now. Able-bodied sport has proven quite how difficult it is to rebuild a damaged reputation and if those in charge at the IPC have any sense, they will throw all their might behind sorting this issue out before it snowballs even further.
Because if they don’t, we could see the para-sport bubble burst in front of our eyes.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here