Games without frontiers

With more disabled athletes than ever before competing in this summer’s Olympic Games, Paul Carter investigates the potential impact on the Paralympic movement

When the Olympic Games finally kick off in Beijing this summer, there remains the possibility that three disabled athletes could be competing side-by-side against their non-disabled counterparts.

South African swimmer Natalie du Toit has already qualified for the 10km open water event, while arm amputee Natalia Partyka will be representing Poland at table-tennis.

And as Disability Now went to press, Du Toit’s compatriot Oscar Pistorius was still bidding to reach the qualifying time for the 400m, although it was looking increasingly unlikely he would make the grade in time, with his personal best still about a second outside the required “A” standard.

But Steffi Klein, a spokeswoman for the International Paralympic Committee, the governing body of Paralympic sport, says this summer’s disabled triumvirate will not be the first to compete at the Olympic Games.

“In the past, there have been some athletes with a physical disability who have competed in full-medal events within the Olympic Games,” she says. “These athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympic Games [within] the rules established by their international sport federations. We commend these athletes for their athleticism and ability to compete as they so choose.”

Marla Runyan, who is blind, made it to the final of the 1,500 metres at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, while Wilma Rudolph, who had polio as a child, won relay bronze way back in 1956 in Melbourne, before going on to claim double gold in the 100m and 200m in Rome in 1960.

Despite these frontrunners of disability sport, it is the disabled athletes of today who have pushed Paralympic sport onto the mainstream news agenda, with both Pistorius and Du Toit taking up plenty of column inches in the build-up to the Games.

But their desire to compete alongside disabled athletes has not been met with universal approval, and their decision to compete outside the Paralympic movement has raised several issues.

The decision surrounding Pistorius’s bid in particular has split both the disabled and non-disabled community.

Where Pistorius’s situation differs from that of Du Toit and Partyka is that he relies on the use of prosthetic “blades” to compete, something the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) refer to as “technical aids”.

The IAAF initially banned Pistorius from competing in any of their events after a series of tests found that the prosthetics gave him “clear mechanical advantages”, a decision that was later overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
IAAF spokesman Nick Davies is quick to point out that the decision was taken solely with the benefit of athletics in mind, and was not intended to lead to a ban on disabled athletes from competing.

“I think there is a misunderstanding about the IAAF's policy, since the issue was not really about disabled athletes, but about the use of technical aids which give athletes an advantage,” he says. “If you consider the IAAF's record on disabled athletics – we were amongst the first to encourage Paralympic competition by hosting exhibition events for disabled [people] within the programmes of our own events as far back as the 1980s.

“Also, disabled athletes, in particular Marla Runyon of the USA, who was legally blind, were allowed to compete in open competitions at the highest levels – IAAF World Champs and Olympics. She was a disabled athlete by every definition of the word. So the IAAF competition rules have nothing against disabled athletes – we only have something against athletes using what we consider to be technical aids.”

Former British Olympic athlete Iwan Thomas, a former European and Commonwealth gold medallist over 400m, says he thinks classing prosthetics as technical aids is unfair. “I think he should be allowed to run. I don’t think it’s an issue,” he says.

“I know there have been studies and stuff, but I cannot see how not having any lower legs can give him any form of advantage.”

Nick Davies says there is no doubt the CAS judgement “has opened the door”. “We now have an obligation to ensure that, as technology improves, these prosthetics do not become a form of ‘techno-doping’,” he says.

Thomas, however, disagrees.

Running spikes and things like that are improved all the time,” he says. “I can see both points of view and I can understand the arguments, but for him to improve he has to look for the strongest competition he can. He has to go out and run against and train with non-disabled athletes to do that. I think he’s achieved great things and, if he makes the South African squad, then I think he should be allowed to run.”

Dame Tanni Grey Thompson is Britain’s most successful Paralympian, and competed in five Paralympic Games. She remains unconvinced of the benefits of allowing Pistorius in particular to compete, and called on the governing bodies to undertake more research.

“The authorities need to make a very clear, legally and morally sound decision. I think their initial ban was a bit rushed, but I think there needs to be more testing involved as to exactly what the advantages and disadvantages are, because at the moment it’s still a very grey area.”

The IPC, however, remains fully committed to Pistorius’s cause. “As a Paralympic athlete, he is seeking a new competitive horizon and these aspirations have propelled him into competition with some of the fastest athletes in the world.

“The IPC is highly supportive of Oscar’s superb achievement as an elite athlete, an attribute he shares with many Paralympic athletes who compete at the highest levels of sporting excellence.”

Ian Jones, a British athlete who competed against Pistorius at last year’s Paralympic World Cup, adds: “I don’t understand how people can shout at him and call him a cheater. I don’t see how he can be a cheater when he hasn’t got any legs. All he wants to do is better himself and do the best he can.

“He’s a good role model. I don’t think he’s devaluing the Paralympics in any way. He’s just saying he thinks disabled people who are good enough to compete in the Olympics should be able to. He’s said that he still wants to compete in the Paralympics and still wants to do both. I think it’s absolutely brilliant.”

For Du Toit, the road to the Olympics has seen far less controversy than that of her compatriot.

The fundamental difference is that she uses no form of prosthetics or aids to compete alongside non-disabled swimmers. In fact, the lack of a lower left leg puts her at an immediate physical disadvantage to her competitors.

Additionally, she is competing in a completely different event at the Olympics from the Paralympics, where she will still compete.

"We are immensely proud of Natalie, even though I don't think she recognises yet what she has done in global terms,” says Moss Mashishi, president of the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee. “She has set our country on the map and we have absolute confidence that she will do herself and South Africa justice in both events.”

British swimmer Sascha Kindred welcomes Du Toit’s dual qualification. “It’s nice to see that Natalie is still taking the Paralympics very seriously and will still be competing,” he says. “Natalie has always said that the Paralympics are her main aim, and that she wanted to see if she could qualify for the Olympics, and she’s done that. It’s not going to devalue the Paralympics.

“It’s a good thing, because it gives us more media coverage and attention and shows that we are elite athletes, and that despite the fact she has a limb missing, she can compete against the very best.”

Dame Tanni points to a fundamental difference between the two athletes’ respective sports.

“I think Natalie is OK because it’s a disadvantage for her, but for Oscar, I’m not sure,” she says. “Swimming is a very inclusive sport; everyone can train and compete in the same pool, but athletics is very different.”

For many, the fundamental problem with disabled people competing in non-disabled events is the future impact this will have on the Paralympics.

Dame Tanni, Britain’s most successful Paralympian, has concerns over the long-term effect that allowing disabled people to compete in the Olympics will have on the future of the Paralympics. “I don’t want the Paralympics to turn into a B final,” she says. “It comes down to how the Paralympics are portrayed. There are a pile of people out there already who think that the Paralympics is secondary. People still say, ‘Are you going to the main Olympics?’ not ‘the Olympics and Paralympics’.

“I have no issue with Oscar running at grand prix meets and so on, as Oscar will bring people into athletics. Oscar is a big story. It’s just the long-term effect on the Paralympics that I have concerns about.”

“I can totally understand that point of view,” says Thomas, “but the fact is that he needs to run against the quickest athletes he can. He’s already achieved great things in the Paralympics, and he’s proved that he’s head and shoulders above the competition there.

“I think the Paralympics are a great event, and I understand that some people might see it that way, but if he’s going to improve and compete at the highest level, he needs to progress.”

Klein says the Paralympics are a unique sport event for disabled athletes, with about 4,000 athletes from 145 countries participating in Beijing. “The growing media and spectator interest shows that people are interested in the Games and get inspired by the athletes,” she says. “We do not see it as a B event.”