Ian Brittain - The Paralympic Games Explained-Routledge (2016)

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 18:07 13 February 2017
The Paralympic Games Explained

The Paralympic Games is the second largest multi-sport festival on earth and
an event which poses profound and challenging questions about the nature
of sport, disability and society. The Paralympic Games Explained is the first
complete introduction to the Paralympic phenomenon, exploring every
key aspect and issue, from the history and development of the Paralympic
movement to the economic and social impact of the contemporary Games.
Now in a fully revised and updated second edition, it includes new material
on hosting and legacy, Vancouver 2010 to Rio 2016, sport for development,
and case studies of an additional ten Paralympic nations. Drawing on a range
of international examples, it discusses key issues such as:
• how societal attitudes influence disability sport

• the governance of Paralympic and elite disability sport
• the relationship between the Paralympics and the Olympics
• drugs and technology in disability sport
• classification in disability sport.
Containing useful features including review questions, study activities,

web links and guides to further reading throughout, The Paralympic Games
Explained is the most accessible and comprehensive guide to the Paralympics
currently available. It is essential reading for all students with an interest in
disability sport, sporting mega-events, the politics of sport, or disability in
society.
Ian Brittain is a Research Fellow in the Centre for Business in Society at

Coventry University, UK. He has formerly been an Executive Board member
of the International Stoke Mandeville Wheelchair Sports Federation
and was the Sports Coordinator for the International Wheelchair and
Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS) World Games in Rio de Janeiro and
currently acts as Heritage Advisor to IWAS. He has attended the last four
Summer Paralympic Games in Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London and
was a Ceremonies Consultant for the London 2012 Paralympic Opening
Ceremony. His research focuses upon sociological, historical and sports
management aspects of Paralympic and disability sport.
This page intentionally left blank

Ian Brittain
Explained
Second edition
The Paralympic Games
First edition published by Routledge 2010
Second edition published 2016
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Ian Brittain
The right of Ian Brittain to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Brittain, Ian.
Title: The Paralympic Games explained / Ian Brittain.
Description: Second Edition. | New York : Routledge, 2016. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016003273| ISBN 9781138927162 (Hardback) |
ISBN 9781138927186 (Paperback) | ISBN 9781315682761 (eBook)
Subjects: LCSH: Paralympic Games. | Sports for people with disabilities.
Classification: LCC GV722.5.P37 B75 2016 | DDC 796.04/56–dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016003273
ISBN: 978-1-138-92716-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-92718-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-68276-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by HWA Text and Data Management, London
Contents
List of figures vi
List of tables vii
Acknowledgements x
Acronyms xi
Introduction 1
1 The history and development of the Paralympic Games 7
2 The Olympic Movement and the Paralympic Games 23
3 The governance of Paralympic sport 37
4 Disability and the body 52
5 The broader social issues of disability within society and

their impact on sports participation 68
6 Media, marketing and disability sport 86
7 Major issues within the Paralympic Movement 111
8 Diversity at the Paralympic Games 128
9 International perspectives on Paralympic participation 157
10 The Special Olympics, intellectual disability and the

Paralympic Games 198
Bibliography 210
Index 225
Figures
0.1 Archery, the very first competitive sport for athletes with 2
disabilities
2.1 Growth in participating nations at the Summer and Winter
Paralympic Games 29
2.2 British Paralympic team logo for Seoul incorporating the
five tae-geuk logo 30
2.3 Front of Barcelona protest tee-shirt 31
2.4 Reverse of Barcelona protest tee-shirt 31
3.1 International Paralympic Committee governance structure 44
4.1 Disability and the triangle of violence 62
6.1 Hiding the disability 94
6.2 The full photograph 94
6.3 Passive athlete pose 95
6.4 A focus on the visual impairment of Turkish Goalball players
at London 2012 95
6.5 Emotion and exhaustion at the end of the marathon 96
6.6 Wheelchair racers in the marathon at London 2012 97
6.7 Number of accredited media at the Paralympic Summer Games 99
6.8 Number of accredited media at the Paralympic Winter Games 99
6.9 Paralympic Mascots have become a major part of the
marketing of the Paralympic Games 107
7.1 Swimming uses a functional classification system 119
8.1 A comparison of female participation rates at the Summer
Olympic and Paralympic games 139
8.2 A comparison of female participation rates at the Winter
Olympic and Paralympic games 140
8.3 Female participation at the Paralympic Games by Continental
Association over the last twenty years 147
8.4 Asian NPC participation at the Paralympic Games over the last
twenty years 148
8.5 Boccia is a Paralympic sport specifically for cerebral palsied
athletes with high support needs 152
Tables
1.1 A chronology of the early Stoke Mandeville Games

(1948–1959) 11
1.2 A chronology of the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games 16
5.1 Average ages of the Great Britain Paralympic track and
field team at Sydney 2000 79
5.2 Average ages of the Great Britain Paralympic track and field
team at London 2012 80
6.1 Photographs used from Paralympic Games 93
6.2 Largest audience by nation of the last five Paralympic Games
on ParalympicSport TV 101
6.3 Summer and Winter Paralympic Games budgets since 1988 102
6.4 IPC Overall income and expenditure for 2004–2013 103
6.5 IPC Income and expenditure from marketing, sponsoring and
fundraising activities for 2004–2013 103
7.1 Doping tests at recent Summer and Winter Olympic and
7.2 Positive Summer Paralympic Games doping tests by
continental association and gender since Barcelona 1992 123
7.3 Positive Winter Paralympic Games doping tests by continental
association and gender since Lillehammer 1994 123
8.1 Development in the number of participating nations at the
Summer Paralympic Games over the last twenty years 129
8.2 Number of athletes by continental association competing at
the Summer Paralympic Games over the last twenty years 129
8.3 Distribution of the medals at the London 2012 Paralympic
Games by continental association 130
8.4 Development in the number of participating nations at the
Winter Paralympic Games over the last twenty-two years 131
8.5 Number of athletes by continental association competing at
the Winter Paralympic Games over the last twenty-two years 131
8.6 Distribution of the medals at the Sochi 2014 Paralympic
Games by continental association 132
viii List of tables
8.7 Participation at the London 2012 Summer Paralympic Games
by Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking 133
8.8 Medal success at the London 2012 Summer Paralympic Games
by Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking 133
8.9 Participation at the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games by
Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking 134
8.10 Medal success at the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games by
Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking 135
8.11 Participation by gender at the Paralympic Games 138

8.12. Top and bottom five sports for female participation in
London 2012 142
8.13 Medal events available by sport and gender at London 2012 144
8.14 Percentage of NPCs by continental affiliation with no female
participants 147
8.15 Distribution of athletes with high support needs at the
London 2012 Paralympic Games 154
8.16 Distribution of athletes with high support needs by continental
association at the Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games 154
8.17 Top and bottom five sports for AHSN participation in London 155
9.1 Participation by current IPC member nations at the Summer
and Winter Paralympic Games 158
9.2 Distribution of the medals at all Summer and Winter
9.3 The top ten overall medal-winning nations at the Summer
and Winter Paralympic Games 160
9.4 Top three medal-winning nations from the African region 162
9.5 South African participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 164
9.6 South African medals at the Summer Paralympic Games
by sport and gender 165
9.7 South African participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 165
9.8 Ugandan participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 167
9.9 Ugandan participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 167
9.10 Top three medal-winning nations from the Americas region 168
9.11 Canadian participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 171
9.12 Canadian medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport
and gender 172
9.13 Canadian participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 173
9.14 Canadian medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by sport
and gender 173
9.16 Brazilian medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport
and gender 176
9.17 Brazilian participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 177
9.18 Top three medal-winning nations from the Asian region at the
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games 178
9.19 Japanese participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 180
List of tables ix
9.20 Japanese medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport 181
and gender
9.21 Japanese participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 181
9.22 Japanese medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by sport and
gender 182
9.23 Indian participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 184
9.24 Indian medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and 184
gender
9.25 Top three medal-winning nations from the European region at 185
the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games
9.26 British participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 187
9.27 British medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and
gender 188
9.28 British participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 189
9.29 British medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by sport and
gender 189
9.30 Andorran participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 190
9.31 Andorran participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 191
9.32 Top three medal-winning nations from the Oceania region at
the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games 191
9.33 New Zealand participation at the Summer Paralympic Games 193
9.34 New Zealand medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by
sport and gender 193
9.35 New Zealand participation at the Winter Paralympic Games 194
9.36 New Zealand medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by
sport and gender 194
9.37 Papua New Guinean participation at the Summer Paralympic
Games 196
9.38 Papua New Guinean medals at the Summer Paralympic Games
by sport and gender 196
10.1 The development of the Summer and Winter Special Olympics
Games 200
10.2 Overview of intellectually disabled competitors and events at
the London 2012 Paralympic Games 208
10.3 Breakdown of intellectually disabled competitors by sport and
gender at the London 2012 Paralympic Games 208
Acknowledgements
The information for this book was drawn from a wide range of sources.
Numerous individuals have assisted in a variety of ways, each providing a
small piece of the jigsaw that went to make up this book. I would like to
give special thanks to all my friends and contacts working in disability and
Paralympic sport around the world and those at the International Olympic
Committee who answered countless questions and provided resource
material for the book. Thank you one and all!
Acronyms
AHSN Athletes with High Support Needs

APC Australian Paralympic Committee
ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations
BLESMA British Limbless Ex-Servicemen’s Association
BOCOG Beijing Organising Committee of the Olympic Games
CAS Court of Arbitration for Sport
CP-ISRA Cerebal Palsied International Sports and Recreation Association
CISS Comité International des Sports des Sourds
DQS Delegation Quota System
EHRC Equality and Human Rights Commission
FEI Fédération Equestre Internationale
FINA Fédération Internationale de Natation
FISA Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Aviron
FITA Fédération Internationale Tir a l’Arc
IAAF International Assocation of Athletics Federations
IBD International Bowls for the Disabled
IBSA International Blind Sports Association
ICC International Co-ordinating Committee
IFDS International Federation for Disabled Sailing
INAS-FID International Sports Federation for People with an Intellectual
Disability
INAS-FMH International Association of Sports for Persons with a Mental
Handicap
IOC International Olympic Committee
IOSD International Organisations for Sport for the Disabled
IPC International Paralympic Committee
IPSF International Paralympic Sports Federation
ISMGF International Stoke Mandeville Games Federation
ISMWSF International Stoke Mandeville Wheelchair Sports Federation
ISOD International Sports Organisation for the Disabled
IWAS International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation
NOC National Olympic Committee
NOSD National Organisation for Sport for the Disabled
xii Acronyms
NPC National Paralympic Committee
NWAA National Wheelchair Athletic Association
OCOG Organising Committee of the Olympic Games
PPP Paralympic Preparation Program
TUE Therapeutic Use Exemption
UCI Union Cycliste Internationale
UKSA UK Sports Association for People with Learning Difficulties
USOC United States Olympic Committee
WADA World Anti-Doping Agency

WCF World Curling Federation
WOVD World Organisation Volleyball for the Disabled
Introduction
Paralympic and disability sport is a seriously under researched area with a

dearth of academic material, although it has to be noted that things have
slowly improved since the first edition of this book came out in 2009.
Disability issues impact upon all areas of life. As such, any piece of research
that has been carried out in the area of non-disabled sport can also be
applied to Paralympic and disability sport, with numerous extra issues to
add in to the analytical mix that make the outcomes interesting, informative
and useful. There is already an emerging area of research entitled Olympic
studies; however, this still leaves a gaping hole in the research agenda. Despite
the fact that there is now a strong working link between the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Paralympic Committee
(IPC) most Olympic studies courses and researchers still pay scant attention
to the Paralympic Games. The Paralympic Games are the jewel in the crown
of the Paralympic Movement just as the Olympic Games are for the Olympic
Movement and are a relatively untouched area for any researcher wishing to
instigate a completely new area for study.
This lack of perceived interest in Paralympic and disability sport is, for
disabled people, simply a further affirmation of their exclusion from the
rest of society based upon non-disabled perceptions of their abilities, which
for the most part are unfounded. The aim of this and the first edition of the
book, therefore, is to provide information and data regarding the Paralympic
Games that will hopefully provoke interest and further research in this
fascinating area of sport. This edition of the book has attempted to not only
update the original edition in terms of data from the most recent Games, but
also to try and add new information, some of which attempt to respond to
criticisms of the first edition in various reviews.
The Paralympic Games are a modern day sporting phenomenon that
have grown from a small archery demonstration event sixty-eight years ago
to become the second largest multi-sport festival on the planet after the
Olympic Games. Despite this, there are still many misunderstandings and
misconceptions regarding both the Paralympic Games and disability sport in
general. Part of the reason for these misunderstandings and misconceptions
is the aforementioned dearth of academic research and introductory texts
2 Introduction
regarding these Games and the issues that surround them. Given this fact the
main purpose of this book is to clear up many of these misunderstandings by
providing a clear and accessible text that clearly explains how the Paralympic
Games have developed and the kinds of issues both their organisers and the
athletes that compete in them have had to overcome to reach the stage they
are at today.
The structure of the book

The first two chapters trace the development of the Paralympic Games
from their inception as an archery demonstration event at Stoke Mandeville
Hospital, UK to the second largest multi-sport festival on the planet after
the Olympic Games. They highlight the visionary nature of the Games
founder, Sir Ludwig Guttmann, and the methods he used to gain acceptance
of, and media coverage for, the early Stoke Mandeville Games. Guttmann
constantly drew parallels between the Stoke Mandeville Games and the
Figure 0.1 Archery, the very first competitive sport for athletes with disabilities
Introduction 3
Olympics and so the development and outcomes of the relationship between
the two movements and the impact this has had on the Paralympic Games in
recent times are outlined. This is followed in Chapter 3 by a discussion of the
development of the modern day organisational structure for international
disability sport and the Paralympic Games with a description of who the main
organisations are and what their roles are within the Paralympic Movement.
The aim of the chapter on disability and the body is to introduce the
reader to the three models of disability (medical, social and bio-social)
that exist to try and explain many of the problems that disabled people
face in their day-to-day lives. This will, hopefully, give the reader a better
understanding of many of the issues that arise in the following chapters.
The chapter will explain how the social model was developed by disability
activists to help fight the dominant medicalised understanding of disability
and how the medical view of disability impacts upon people’s perceptions of
disability and disability sport. I have also added a new section on disability,
oppression and types of ‘violence’ used against people with disabilities to
highlight the many, often subtle, ways people with disabilities are oppressed
within society. It concludes by outlining the importance of language in this
understanding and how the socially constructed and value-laden meanings
attached to words such as ‘disabled’ and ‘athlete’ mean that when the words
are put together to form ‘disabled athlete’ for many people there is an
immediate and fundamental contradiction. This then immediately colours
people’s perceptions of the validity of sport for the disabled as ‘real’ sport.
Chapter 5 explores how societal attitudes to disability and disability sport
can impact upon the opportunities for people with disabilities to become
involved in sport and progress to the highest levels. The perceptions of
disability embedded in the medical model discourse play a major part in
structuring the perceptions that people hold and the ways in which they
interact in relation to people with disabilities. As a result disability often
becomes the dominant feature of their social identity as perceived by those
around them. As a consequence of these views, and experiences of social
interaction, disability, for people with disabilities, can also become the
dominant feature of their own self-perception and self-image. Therefore,
because disability is seen as a negative, and connected to incapability, all of
the above mentioned factors may combine to inhibit involvement in sporting
activities. This chapter will highlight many of the issues, both psychological
and tangible, that can flow from this and act as barriers to disabled people
becoming involved in and reaching the very highest levels of their chosen
sport. I conclude this chapter with a new section on the Paralympic Games
and the subject of legacy, which has grown in importance immensely over
the last decade.
With the growth in importance of and participation in the Paralympic
Games there has been a steady increase in media coverage. However, such
coverage can vary greatly from country to country and the nature of the
coverage can often serve to reinforce negative stereotypes of disability and
4 Introduction
disability sport. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) launched an
internet-based television station in 2006 in order to try and overcome some
of these issues and provide access in countries with no television coverage. In
addition, media coverage can also impact upon the ability of the International
Paralympic Committee to effectively and successfully market the Paralympic
Games and Paralympic athletes. These issues will be discussed and explored
further in Chapter 6.
Chapter 7 explores some of the key issues with the modern day
Paralympic Movement. From its inception in the late 1940s the founder of
the international Paralympic Movement, Ludwig Guttmann, described the
aims of his use of sport in the rehabilitation process of the spinally injured
to be social re-integration and to change the perceptions of the non-disabled
within society regarding what people with disabilities are capable of. This
continued to be the underlying message of the International Paralympic
Committee regarding the Paralympic Games and international disability
sport for many years. These kind of aims and the language associated with
it (e.g. social integration, changing perceptions, etc.) possibly led to the
Paralympic Games being perceived primarily as a cultural games centred
on rehabilitation and inclusion rather than one that is about sport. Cultural
games have as their aim an ethos of fostering self-respect and belief amongst
their participants as well as helping to solidify their social identity as a group.
However, the last ten to fifteen year have seen a distinct shift in the language
used and the aims set out by the International Paralympic Committee
towards a purely sport based outlook. Some of the reasons and implications
of this move will be discussed.
Given the varying nature and impact of physical impairments and the
number of different impairment groupings that participate in the Paralympic
Games a system of classification has been developed over time to try and
ensure fair and equitable competition. However, this often causes confusion
for spectators unfamiliar with disability sport and has been accused of
devaluing disability sport due to the increased number of medals this can lead
to. The reasons for this will be explored and explained, although in truth the
subject of classification is worthy of a book in itself. Given space restrictions
this book can do little more than introduce the basic concepts and point any
interested parties in the direction of more detailed information sources.
Much has been written about the illegal use of drugs for performance
enhancement purposes within non-disabled sport. Drugs cheats also occur in
disability sport. However, the problem is made far more difficult in disability
sport by the fact that some athletes actually need to take drugs on a regular
basis for health reasons. How this is handled within disability sport will be
discussed and explained.
Chapter 7 will end with a discussion of a relatively new phenomenon that
has nonetheless received a great deal of media attention since Beijing 2008.
With the massive improvements in performance standards currently occurring
in disability sport some athletes, notably Oscar Pistorius of South Africa, have
Introduction 5
reached a standard that might allow them to qualify for the Olympic Games.
However, the technology they use in terms of adapted equipment in order
to enable them to compete has raised questions regarding advantages such
equipment might give them over their non-disabled counterparts. This has
led to the coining of such terms as ‘technological doping’ or ‘cyborg athlete’.
Chapter 8 is perhaps the most changed from the first edition. Women and
athletes with high support needs are still a focus of the chapter, but I have
widened the approach of the chapter to look at diversity more generally to
include the impacts of which continent athletes come from and whether a
nation’s ranking in the inequality adjusted human development index have a
bearing upon likely participation at a summer or winter Paralympic Games,
as well as the potential for medal success. Some of the issues that arise out of
the debate around the cultural versus sports model debate and the impacts
they have had upon the participation rates for both women and athletes with
high support needs are also described and explored further.
Given the international nature of the Paralympic Games, Chapter 9
attempts to highlight the impacts of many of the issues raised in this book
on a variety of nations. It does this through a series of ‘snapshots’ that
describe how these issues may have impacted upon the participation and
success of a particular nation at the Paralympic Games. These issues may
be geographical, topographical, economic, political or cultural and may
be specific to a particular country or may be relevant to other countries
regionally or globally. In order to try and highlight the impact of these issues
further upon the participation and medal success of the nations highlighted
in the ‘snapshots’ I have also included a full historical record of each nation
at both the summer and winter Paralympic Games.
The final chapter will look at an issue that has long been a cause of
confusion for many people with little or no knowledge of disability sport.
Many of these individuals believe that the Special Olympics and the
Paralympic Games are one and the same event. This chapter will explain the
difference between the two. It will then go on to discuss the participation of
athletes with an intellectual disability in the Paralympic Games including why
they were banned from participation following the scandal that occurred
with the Spanish Intellectually Disabled Basketball team at the Sydney 2000
Paralympic Games and the huge ramifications this had for the Paralympic
Movement as a whole prior to their readmission to the Paralympic Games
at London 2012.
The approach of The Paralympic Games Explained

Disability sport in general and the Paralympic Games in particular, have
grown hugely both in terms of size and political and media attention over the
last twenty years. Despite this there is still a dearth of academic research or
teaching regarding the subject. The aim of The Paralympic Games Explained
is, therefore, first and foremost to provide an introductory resource that
6 Introduction
outlines the history, development and issues for the Paralympic Movement.
The Paralympic Games Explained attempts to highlight the complex
interactions that occur between disability, sport, the body and non-disabled
society, how these interactions impact upon potential Paralympic athletes
and how the Paralympic Movement and its constituent members attempt to
deal with or mediate these impacts.
Each chapter contains study activities and chapter review questions in
order to try and make the reader think more deeply about the issues raised.
A large amount of factual information in the form of tables and graphs have
been included, in addition to comparative information from the Olympic
Movement where appropriate, in the hope that this might act as the starting
point for further research of specific topics by the reader.
The ten chapters that make up The Paralympic Games Explained can all
be studied in isolation, providing an introductory resource for each of the
topics covered. However, given the complexity of many of the issues raised,
and in order to facilitate a better overall understanding, there are a number
of cross-references between the chapters.
1 The history and development
of the Paralympic Games
Chapter aims
• To outline the history and development of the Summer and Winter
Paralympic Games.
• To explain the development and various meanings of the term
‘Paralympic’.
• To outline the various impairment groupings that make up the Paralympic
Movement.
Before proceeding with this chapter it is important to point out that the
academic study of the history of the Paralympic Games is still in its infancy,
especially compared to the historical study of events such as the Olympic
Games. It is only in the last ten years that any serious attempts have been
made to document their history and development. Also, unlike the Olympic
Games, there is still no single archival or library source that adequately
documents the subject. This problem has been further compounded by the
fact that record keeping for these Games, especially prior to 1988, was quite
basic, with much material connected to these early Games either simply
lost, thrown out or in the case of the very first Paralympic Games in Rome
in 1960, destroyed in a fire. Many of the reasons for this lack of record
keeping will become clear throughout the text, but the main reasons appear
to be that no one involved in these early Games believed that the Paralympic
Games would ever reach a size or importance that would make them worthy
of academic historical documentation and study and that the Games were
organised on shoe-string budgets by volunteers who had little or no time
to ensure the Games were adequately documented (Brittain et al., 2013).
The area in which this has had the greatest impact has been in arriving at
accurate figures for athlete participation numbers at the early Games. Even
where ‘full’ results are available, often in the case of team events and relays,
only the country name is given rather than the names of the individual
team members, making it impossible to come up with accurate figures for
participating athletes either by country or gender. There is, however, now
general agreement regarding the number of participating nations at each
8 History of the Paralympic Games
Games and the facts and figures that appear in this chapter are the result of
over ten years of research in this area by the author.
Disability sport prior to the 1940s

Sainsbury (1998) cites several examples of sports and leisure clubs for the
disabled in the early part of the twentieth century, including the British
Society of One-Armed Golfers (1932) and the ‘Disabled Drivers’ Motor Club
(1922). Indeed the first international organisation responsible for a particular

impairment group and its involvement in sport – Comité International des
Sports des Sourds (CISS) – was set up by a deaf Frenchman, E. Rubens-
Alcais, in 1924 with the support of six national sports federations for the
deaf. In August 1924 the first International Silent Games was held in Paris
with athletes from nine countries in attendance (DePauw and Gavron, 2005).
Now called the Deaflympics there are summer and winter versions which
occur in the year following their Olympic and Paralympic counterparts.
The impact of World War II on disability sport

Prior to World War II, the vast majority of those with spinal cord injuries died
within three years following their injury (Legg et al., 2002). Indeed, Ludwig
Guttmann, the universally accepted founder of the modern day Paralympic
movement, whilst a doctor in 1930s Germany encountered on a ward round
a coal miner with a broken back. Guttmann was shocked to learn from the
consultant that such cases were a waste of time as he would be dead within
two weeks (Craven, 2006). This was usually from sepsis of the blood or
kidney failure or both. However, after World War II sulfa drugs made spinal
cord injury survivable (Brandmeyer and McBee, 1986). The other major
issue for individuals with spinal injuries was the major depression caused by
societal attitudes to them, which, at the time, automatically assigned them to
the scrapheap of life as useless and worthless individuals.
Ludwig Guttmann was a German-Jewish neurologist who fled Nazi
Germany with his family in 1939 and eventually settled in Oxford where he
found work at Oxford University. In September 1943 the British Government
commissioned Guttmann as the Director of the National Spinal Injuries Unit
at the Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Stoke Mandeville, Aylesbury (Lomi
et al., 2004). This was mainly to take care of the numerous soldiers and
civilians suffering from spinal injuries as a result of the war. Guttmann
accepted under the condition that he would be totally independent and that
he could apply his philosophy as far as the whole approach to the treatment
of those patients was concerned, although many of his colleagues were
apparently surprised by his enthusiasm for what they perceived as an utterly
daunting task. Apparently, they could not understand how Guttmann could
leave Oxford University to be ‘engulfed in the hopeless and depressing task
of looking after traumatic spinal paraplegics’ (Goodman, 1986).
History of the Paralympic Games 9
Prior to World War II there is little evidence of organised efforts to develop
or promote sport for individuals with disabling conditions, especially those
with spinal injuries who were considered to have no hope of surviving their
injuries. Following the war, however, medical authorities were prompted to
re-evaluate traditional methods of rehabilitation which were not satisfactorily
responding to the medical and psychological needs of the large number of
soldiers disabled in combat (Steadward, 1992). According to McCann (1996),
Guttmann recognised the physiological and psychological values of sport in
the rehabilitation of paraplegic hospital inpatients and so it was that sport

was introduced as part of the total rehabilitation programme for patients in
the spinal unit. The aim was not only to give hope and a sense of self-worth
to the patients, but to change the attitudes of society towards the spinally
injured by demonstrating to them that they could not only continue to be
useful members of society, but could take part in activities and complete tasks
most of the non-disabled society would struggle with (Anderson, 2003).
According to Guttmann (1952) they started modestly and cautiously with
darts, snooker, punch-ball and skittles. Sometime later, apparently after Dr
Guttmann and his remedial gymnast, Quartermaster ‘Q’ Hill had ‘waged
furious battle’ in an empty ward to test it, the sport of wheelchair polo was
introduced. This was perceived a short time later, however, as too rough for
all concerned and was replaced by wheelchair netball (Scruton, 1964). This
later became what we now know as wheelchair basketball. The next sport to
be introduced into the programme at Stoke Mandeville was to play a key role
in all areas of Dr Guttmann’s rehabilitation plans. That sport was archery.
According to Guttmann archery was of immense value in strengthening, in a
very natural way, just those muscles of the upper limbs, shoulders and trunk,
on which the paraplegic’s well-balanced, upright position depends (Guttmann,
1952). However, it was far more than just that. It was one of the very few
sports that, once proficient, paraplegics could compete on equal terms
with their non-disabled counterparts. This led to visits of teams from Stoke
Mandeville to a number of non-disabled archery clubs in later years, which
were very helpful in breaking down the barriers between the public and the
paraplegics. It also meant that once discharged from hospital the paraplegic
had an access to society through their local archery club (Guttmann, 1952).
According to Guttmann these experiments were the beginning of a systematic
development of competitive sport for the paralysed as an essential part of
their medical rehabilitation and social re-integration in the community of a
country like Great Britain where sport in one form or another plays such an
essential part in the life of so many people (Guttmann, 1976).
An inauspicious beginning to a worldwide phenomenon

For an event that would later go on to become the largest ever sporting
event for people with disabilities and the second largest multi-sport event on
the planet after the Olympic Games, the event now known globally as the
Paralympic Games had a rather inauspicious beginning. It began life as an
archery demonstration between two teams of paraplegics from the Ministry
of Pensions Hospital at Stoke Mandeville and the Star and Garter Home
for Injured War Veterans at Richmond in Surrey. It was held in conjunction
with the presentation of a specially adapted bus to the patients of Stoke
Mandeville by the British Legion and London Transport. Perhaps more
auspicious was the date chosen for the handover of the bus and the archery
demonstration, Thursday, 29 July 1948, the exact same day as the opening
ceremony for the Games of the Fourteenth Olympiad at Wembley in London

less than thirty-five miles away. It is difficult to assess whether this initial
link to the Olympic Games was a deliberate one, or just coincidence, but
it was a link that Guttmann himself would cultivate very overtly over the
following years and decades. Guttmann later stated that the event was an
experiment as a public performance, but also a demonstration to society that
sport was not just the domain of the non-disabled (Guttmann, 1952). The
aim of the bus was not only to allow patients to travel around the country
to various activities and events, but also to allow them to get back out into
the community and enter more into the life of the town. The bus would also
be used to take competitors to many more archery competitions over the
coming years against teams of both disabled and non-disabled archers.
Dr Guttmann’s ‘Grand Festival of Paraplegic Sport’, as the second
incarnation of the Games were described, were held on Wednesday, 27 July
1949. Building upon much hard work done by Dr Guttmann, his staff and
the impact of various Stoke Mandeville patients moving to other spinal units
around the country and taking their new found enthusiasm for sport with
them the number of spinal units entered rose to six (The Cord, 1949). A
grand total of thirty-seven individuals took part in these Games and with
the exception of the archers from the Polish Hospital at Penley every
competitor had, at some time, been a patient of Dr Guttmann. In addition
to a repeat of the previous year’s archery competition, ‘net-ball’ was added
to the programme for these Games. This was a kind of hybrid of netball and
basketball played in wheelchairs and using netball posts for goals.
The next three years saw competitor numbers at the Games continue to
grow as more and more spinal units from around the country began to enter
teams. Guttmann, however, had far grander plans and continued with the
hope that he could move the Games on to an international footing. One
local paper claimed this had moved a step closer in 1951 with representation
of competitors with a variety of nationalities including a Frenchman, an
Australian, some Poles and a Southern Rhodesian. With the exception of
the Poles, who were residents of the Polish hospital at Penley, the others
were all individual patients resident at British Spinal Units. The first step to
Guttmann’s dream was to occur the very next year, 1952, when a team of
four paraplegics from the Military Rehabilitation Centre, Aardenburg, near
Doorn in the Netherlands became the first truly international competitors at
the Games. Over the next four years the international nature of the Games
Table 1.1 A chronology of the early Stoke Mandeville Games (1948–1959)
Date Teams Competitors Sports New sport
Thurs 29 July 1948 2* 16 1 Archery
Weds 29 July 1949 6* 37 2 ‘Netball’
Weds 27 July 1950 10* 61 3 Javelin
Sat 28 July 1951 11* 126 4 Snooker
Sat 26 July, 1952 2 130 5 Table tennis

Sat 8 August 1953 6 200 6 Swimming
Sat 31 July 1954 14 250 7 Dartchery
Fri and Sat 29– Fencing, basketball
30 July 1955 18 280 8 replaced netball
Fri and Sat 27–28
July 1956 18 300 8 –
Fri and Sat 26–27
July 1957 24 360 9 Shot putt
Thurs–Sat 24–26
July 1958 21 350 10 Throwing the club
Thurs–Sat 23–25
July 1959 20 360 11 Pentathlon
* Number of Spinal Units participating
rose dramatically so that in 1956 there were eighteen nations represented at

the Games and a total of twenty-one different nations had competed since
1952 (Scruton, 1956).
Spreading the word

It might appear hard to understand how an event that started life with just
sixteen wheelchair archers in 1948 as a demonstration to the public that
competitive sport is not the prerogative of the non-disabled could, just ten
years later, find itself with several dozen international teams in attendance.
In fact the Games grew to such an extent that despite several extensions
to the accommodation it became necessary to introduce a national Stoke
Mandeville Games from 1958 onwards from which a British team would be
selected to take part in the international Games a month or so later (Scruton,
1957). There appear to be five possible mechanisms that played key roles
in spreading the word regarding the Stoke Mandeville Games to various
corners of the globe:
1 In the early years much of the driving force for the growth appears
to have been down to former patients of Dr Guttmann’s who were
transferred to other spinal units and took what they had learnt, and
their enthusiasm for it, with them. Many of them returned year after
year to take part in the Games. To a slightly lesser extent this is also true
of the doctors and surgeons from all over the world who visited Stoke
Mandeville to train under Dr Guttmann and then returned home and
incorporated sport into their treatment programmes, such as Dr Ralph
Spira from Israel (Brittain & Hutzler, 2009).
2 In 1947 the very first edition of The Cord was published. This contained
articles and advice of benefit to paraplegics everywhere and often gave
space to reports on the sporting events at the hospital. Because practical

information of assistance to paraplegics was in short supply copies of this
journal often got sent abroad to individuals and organisations carrying
news of the Games and Dr Guttmann’s rehabilitation methods far and
wide. The journal continued to be published up to 1983.
3 Dr Guttmann himself was a major player in spreading the word about
the Games. He would often travel abroad to conferences, to give
lectures and even to give evidence in court cases and would take every
opportunity to tell people about the Games and his use of sport as a
rehabilitative tool. He would often challenge particular key individuals
in other countries to bring a team to the Games the following year as
was the case with Sir George Bedbrooke at the Royal Perth Hospital on
a visit in 1956. Australia sent their first team to Stoke Mandeville the
following year (Lockwood and Lockwood, 2007).
4 Dr Guttmann also appears to have been very astute when it comes to
politics and what it takes to get an event noticed. Right from the very
first Games in 1948 he made sure that high ranking political and social
figures and later sports stars and celebrities were present at the Games in
order to attract profile and media attention.
5 The final mechanism used by Dr Guttmann to cement the importance of
the Games in people’s minds, despite the lukewarm response it received
when he first suggested it, was his constant comparisons to the Olympic
Games. It’s effect and design appears to have been two-fold. First, to
give his patients something tangible to aim for and to give them a feeling
of self-worth and, second, to catch the attention of the media and people
and organisations involved with paraplegics worldwide.
The birth of the Paralympic Games

Guttmann’s persistence in forging a link between the Stoke Mandeville
Games and the Olympic Games, which will be outlined in greater detail in
Chapter 2, took a giant leap forward at the annual meeting of the World
Veterans Federation in Rome in May, 1959. Following discussions with
various individuals from the Instituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro
gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (INAIL) and Dr Maglio of the Spinal Unit, Ostia,
Rome, it was agreed to host the 1960 Games in Rome a few weeks after
the Olympic Games were to take place in the same city (The Cord, 1960).
Despite a few problems in Rome, mainly around access to accommodation,
the Games were considered a resounding success. Immediately the possibility
of Tokyo, already chosen by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
to host the Olympics in 1964, also hosting the Stoke Mandeville Games
was voiced. An invitation to the Japanese to host the Games in 1964 led
to a team of eight officials and their first ever athletes attending the Stoke
Mandeville Games in 1962 and, ultimately led to their acceptance to host
the 1964 Games. Present at the Tokyo Games was Dr Leonardo Ruiz, from
the Instituto Mexicano de Rehabilitación, as part of an observation team

looking at the possibilities for the Games to be held in Mexico City, hosts for
the Olympic Games of 1968. According to the minutes of the International
Stoke Mandeville Games Committee dated 21 July 1965 a letter from
the head of the rehabilitation centre stating that things were progressing
well was read out. Due to the worries about the impact of the altitude on
paraplegics it was decided that the Americans should take a team to Mexico
City to investigate. However, when their team manager, Ben Lipton, tried
to arrange this he received a letter from the President of the rehabilitation
centre stating that due to financial constraints and accessibility issues with
facilities, Mexico City would be unable to host the Games. Following offers
from both New York, and Tel Aviv it was decided that the 1968 Games
would be held in Israel.
Following the Games in Israel, it was again hoped that the Games would
return to being hosted by the Olympic host city in 1972, which was to
be Munich. Unfortunately, the Olympic Organising Committee declined
the application on the basis that the Olympic village was to be converted
into housing immediately after the Games and it was, apparently, too late
to change this. The Germans did, however, offer the alternative of the
University of Heidelberg, which was accepted. The Olympic Games of
1976 were scheduled to take place in Montreal, Canada, but once again
it was decided by the Montreal organisers to decline the invitation to host
the Games, especially in view of the fact that it had been decided to hold a
combined International Stoke Mandeville Games Federation (ISMGF) and
International Sports Organisation for the Disabled (ISOD) Games consisting
of paraplegics, blind and amputee athletes, which added to both the size and
the complexity of the Games. The Games eventually took place in Toronto.
In July 1977 the decision was taken to award the 1980 Paralympic Games to
Arnhem in the Netherlands, following a lack of response from the Olympic
organisers in Moscow. The Olympic Games of 1984 were set to take place in
Los Angeles. However, no evidence can be found that any attempt was made
by ISMGF or ISOD to secure the use of the Los Angeles venues for their
own games. Following a bid by Ben Lipton, Chairman of the US National
Wheelchair Athletic Association (NWAA) in 1980, America was still selected
to be the host country. These Games were, however to be split into ISMGF
Games, to be organised by the NWAA and ISOD Games to be organised by
ISOD at a separate venue at around the same time. According to the final
report of the VIIth World Wheelchair Games (1984) in October 1980 Ben
Lipton had issued a position paper stating the reasons for NWAA’s decision
to hold separate games. With the decision finally taken for this plan to go
ahead, the wheelchair Games were set to take place at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in July, with the ISOD ‘International Games for
the Disabled’ taking place in Nassau County, New York in June. However,
political and fundraising problems around the wheelchair Games forced
the University of Illinois to withdraw their support for the Games in early
1984 and the wheelchair Games were transferred at very short notice to
Stoke Mandeville. From 1988 onwards the Summer Paralympic Games have
been held in the same host city as the Olympic Games beginning about two
weeks after the Olympic Closing Ceremony. The only exception to this was
the Paralympic Games for Intellectually Disabled Athletes that was held
in Madrid in 1992 as a precursor to Intellectually Disabled athletes being
added to the programme alongside the other four impairment groups in
Atlanta four years later.
The Winter Paralympic Games

The idea for a Winter Paralympic Games was first suggested at the annual
general meeting of the International Sports Organisation for the Disabled in
1974. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the idea came from the Swedish delegation,
a country with a strong winter sports tradition. With less than eighteen
months in which to make the necessary arrangements the resulting Games
were quite small in size, but hailed as a great success nonetheless. These first
Games only catered for athletes with amputations or visual impairments.
The first six incarnations of the Games all took place in Europe, where
winter sports were highly developed and winter sports for athletes with
disabilities first began in the 1950s. Athletes with spinal injuries joined the
second Games in Geilo, Norway and they were quickly joined by cerebral
palsied and Les Autres athletes in Innsbruck, Austria four years later. The
Winter Games did not occur at the Olympic host city venues until their fifth
incarnation in Tignes-Albertville in 1992, although demonstration events
for disability skiing were held at the Sarajevo Winter Olympic Games as
early as 1984. A complete chronology of the Summer and Winter Paralympic
Games from 1960 to 2014, including a breakdown of national participation
by continental association, can be found in Table 1.2.
Study Activity
Study Table 1.2. Make a list of possible reasons why participation in the
Paralympic Games historically has varied so much between continents?
What can the IPC do to ensure maximum possible participation from all
continents?
Development of sport for other impairment groups
Before continuing it is important here to give a brief history of the development
of sport for the other main impairment groups e.g. the blind, amputees, etc.
In 1960, recognising the need to organise international sports for disability
groups other than paraplegics the International Working Group on Sports
for the Disabled was set up under the aegis of the World Veterans Federation
whose headquarters was in Paris. Unfortunately, due to language difficulties
and differences of opinion the organisation failed and was dissolved in 1964
(Guttmann, 1976). In its place the International Sports Organisation for the
Disabled (ISOD) was founded at a meeting in Paris in 1964 (Scruton, 1998).
ISOD remained under the patronage of the World Veterans Federation until
1967, when it became an independent organisation and its headquarters were
transferred to Stoke Mandeville. In the same year the British Limbless Ex-
Servicemen’s Association (BLESMA) organised the first ever international
sports competition for amputees at Stoke Mandeville. Guttmann, now Sir
Ludwig Guttmann after being knighted by the Queen for services to the
disabled in 1966, became President of both ISMGF and ISOD and this dual
role would play a major part in bringing the disability groups together in one
Games. Initially ISOD represented a number of disability groups, but by 1981
both the blind and the cerebral palsied had broken away to form their own
international federations. In 2004 ISOD, then representing Amputees and Les
Autres merged with the International Stoke Mandeville Wheelchair Sports
Federation (ISMWSF) to form the International Wheelchair and Amputee
Sports Federation (IWAS). As stated above, initially ISOD represented
a number of disability groups and together with ISMGF co-operated in
the organisation of the Summer Paralympic Games in Toronto, 1976 and
Arnhem, 1980. They also initiated the first ever Winter Paralympic Games in
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden in 1976 which was just for amputee athletes and those
who were blind or visually impaired.
The term ‘Paralympic’

There is often confusion as to where the term ‘Paralympic’ derives from.
Girginov and Parry (2005) claim that it is a misconception that the word
‘paralympic’ derives from the term paraplegic. In its current modern-day
usage this is true, but historically this claim is inaccurate. The earliest written
use of the term appears in the summer issue of The Cord in 1951, when
David Hinds, a Paraplegic at Stoke Mandeville hospital wrote an article
entitled ‘Alice at the Paralympiad’, which was a skit on Alice in Wonderland.
However, what this article does not explain is how the term came about.
A possible clue comes from two articles in a special edition of The Cord
celebrating ten years of the Spinal Unit in 1954. In one article Dora T.
Bell, the physiotherapist attached to the unit, refers to the ‘Paraolympics
of Stoke Mandeville’ and in a second article Ward Sister Merchant refers
Table 1.2 A chronology of the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games

No. of No. of Impairment Groups
Year Location countries Europe Americas Africa Asia Oceania Athletes Included
1960 Rome, Italy 21 16 2 1 1 1 ~328 SCI
1964 Tokyo, Japan 21 12 2 2 3 2 ~378 SCI
1968 Tel Aviv, Israel 28 16 4 3 3 2 ~730 SCI
Heidelberg, West
1972 Germany 42 23 7 5 5 2 ~984 SCI
1976 Örnsköldsvik, Sweden 16 12 2 1 1 0 198 A, BVI, SCI
1976 Toronto, Canada 40 19 10 3 5 3 ~1369 A, BVI, SCI
1980 Geilo, Norway 18 12 2 1 1 2 299 A, BVI, SCI
Arnhem, The
1980 Netherlands 42 22 8 5 5 2 ~1973 A, BVI, CP, SCI
1984 Innsbruck, Austria 21 16 2 0 1 2 419 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
1984 Stoke Mandeville, UK & 41 19 10 3 6 3 ~1097 SCI
New York, USA 45 25 6 3 9 2 ~1750 ALA, BVI, CP
1988 Innsbruck, Austria 22 17 2 0 1 2 377 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
1988 Seoul, South Korea 60 27 11 4 16 2 3059 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
1992 Tignes-Albertville, France 24 18 2 0 2 2 365 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
1992 Barcelona, Spain & 83* 33 16 11 20 2 3001 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
Madrid, Spain 75 28 22 13 11 1 ~1600 ID
1994 Lillehammer, Norway 31 24 2 0 3 2 471 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
1996 Atlanta, USA 103 41 18 16 25 3 3259 ALA, BVI, CP, ID, SCI
1998 Nagano, Japan 31 22 2 1 4 2 561 ALA, BVI, CP, ID, SCI

2000 Sydney, Australia 122* 41 20 20 33 7 3882 ALA, BVI, CP, ID, SCI
2002 Salt Lake, USA 36 25 3 1 5 2 416 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
2004 Athens, Greece 135 42 24 28 36 5 3808 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
2006 Torino, Italy 38 25 4 1 6 2 474 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
2008 Beijing, P.R. China 146 45 24 30 40 7 4011 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
2010 Vancouver, Canada 44 30 5 1 6 2 502 ALA, BVI, CP, SCI
2012 London, UK 164 47 28 39 42 8 4237 ALA, BVI, CP, ID, SCI
2014 Sochi, Russia 45 30 6 0 7 2 538 ALA, BVI, CP, ID, SCI
* Includes a group entitled independent Paralympic athletes. tint = Winter Paralympic Games. A = Amputee, ALA = Amputee and les autres,BVI= Blind and
visually impaired, CP = Cerebral palsied, ID = Intellectually disabled, SCI = Spinal cord injury
to the ‘Paraplegic Olympics’. It would appear then that this early usage of
the term is an amalgamation of the words paraplegic and Olympics, which
was shortened further to ‘Paralympics’, possibly because it is smoother and
shorter to pronounce. What is also clear from the increasing usage of the
term ‘paralympic’ by the media during the 1950s is that it was used to refer
to all the Games held annually from 1948–1959 as is reinforced by the
heading in the New York Times of 21 August, 1960 which stated ‘US to send
24 Athletes to Rome for Annual ‘Paralympics’ Event’.
The deliberate linking of the Stoke Mandeville Games with the host city
of the Olympic Games every fourth year had an almost immediate impact
on press usage of the term Paralympics. A good example of this is the local
newspaper, the Bucks Advertiser and Aylesbury News, the first paper to use the
term Paralympic back in 1953. In reporting on the Games at Stoke Mandeville
from 1961 to 1963 it reverted to describing them as the International Stoke
Mandeville Games. It appears that once the much clearer link between the
Stoke Mandeville Games and the Olympic Games had been made by moving
them away from Stoke Mandeville to the same city chosen to host the Olympic
Games the usage of the term ‘paralympic’, still in its ‘Paraplegic Olympics’
context, became much more specific. It now only referred to the edition of
the International Stoke Mandeville Games held in the Olympic year.
The modern day usage of the term ‘Paralympic’ came about as a result
of the participation in the Games of impairment groups other than those
with spinal cord injuries in Toronto in 1976. As they now included blind
and visually impaired and amputee athletes they could no longer be called
the International Stoke Mandeville Games, nor could the term ‘paralympic’
as it was then understood (Paraplegic Olympics) be applied. The next few
versions of the Games used varying adaptations of the term Olympics for
the Disabled, which led to quite heated discussions with the International
Olympic Committee over the use of Olympic terminology. In the end the
IOC agreed to the use of the term ‘Paralympic’ being used for the Games
from 1988 onwards, where at the same time the Games finally returned to
being hosted by the same city as the Olympic Games. A pattern that has
occurred ever since. However, the use of the term ‘Paralympic’ derives from
the Greek preposition ‘para’ meaning ‘next to’ giving a meaning of parallel
or next to the Olympic Games.
Impairment groups at the Paralympic Games

The participants at the current Summer and Winter Paralympic Games are
drawn from five impairment groups:
Athletes with spinal cord injuries

Athletes with spinal cord injuries includes all those athletes having a spinal
cord lesion, spina bifida or polio. Athletes with spinal cord injuries can also
be split into two broad categories of paraplegics which involves a ‘neurologic
affliction of both legs’ and quadriplegics or tetraplegics which involves a
‘neurologic affliction of all four extremities’ (Auxter et al., 1993).
Cerebral palsied athletes

Cerebral palsy is a condition in which damage inflicted on the brain has led
to motor function disorder (Auxter et al., 1993). According to French (1997)
there are three types of cerebral palsy. There is spastic that is characterised by
tense muscles which are contracted and resistant to movement, arthetoid that is
characterised by involuntary movements of the affected body parts and ataxia
that is characterised by a disturbance or lack of balance and coordination.
Amputees and les autres athletes

The classification system for athletes with amputations includes those athletes
with acquired or congenital amputations. Les autres, literally meaning ‘the
others’ includes all motor disabilities except amputees, medullar lesions
and cerebral palsy, for example muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis,
arthrogryposis, Friedrich’s ataxia and arthritis (Bazylewicz, 1998). This
grouping also includes athletes with dwarfism.
Blind and visually impaired athletes

This group of athletes ranges from individuals who are totally blind to
individuals who can recognise objects or contours between 2 and 6 metres
away that a person with normal vision can see at 60 metres (i.e. 2/60 to 6/60
vision) and/or a field of vision between 5 and 20 degrees.
Intellectually disabled athletes

The Paralympic Movement identifies intellectual impairment as
a disability characterized by significant limitation both in intellectual

functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social
and practical adaptive skills. This disability originates before the age of 18.
(American Association on Intellectual and Development
Disability, 2010)
The diagnostics of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior must

be made using internationally recognised and professionally administered
measures as recognized by Inas (International Sports Federation for Persons
with Intellectual Disability).
Although athletes with an intellectual disability had previously competed
at the Paralympic Games they were banned from participation from 2001 to
2009 and only returned to participation at London 2012. For an explanation
of the situation regarding intellectually disabled athletes in the Paralympic
Games please see Chapter 10.
Upcoming Paralympic Games
Rio de Janeiro 2016 Summer Paralympic Games

The opening ceremony for the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Summer Paralympic
Games will take place on 7 September, with the closing ceremony scheduled
for 18 September. It is expected that a maximum of 4,350 athletes from an
maximum of 178 nations will participate in 528 medal events spread across
the following twenty-two sports: athletics, archery, boccia, canoe, cycling
(road and track), equestrianism, football (five-a-side), football (seven-a-
side), goalball, judo, powerlifting, rowing, sailing, shooting, swimming,
table tennis, triathlon, volleyball (sitting), wheelchair basketball, wheelchair
fencing, wheelchair rugby, wheelchair tennis. Canoe and triathlon are
making their debut at the Paralympic Games in Rio.
Athletes from five impairment groups are scheduled to compete in Rio.
These are amputee and les autres athletes, blind and visually impaired
athletes, cerebral palsied athletes, intellectually disabled athletes and athletes
with spinal cord injuries. Further details on the Rio 2016 Summer Paralympic
Games can be found at www.rio2016.com.
Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Paralympic Games

The opening ceremony for the Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Paralympic Games
in South Korea will take place on the 9 March, with the closing ceremony
scheduled for 18 March. Athletes will participate in the following sports:
Alpine skiing, ice sledge hockey, Nordic skiing (biathlon and cross country),
snowboarding and wheelchair curling.
Athletes from five impairment groups are scheduled to compete in
Pyeongchang. These are amputee and les autres athletes, blind and
visually impaired athletes, cerebral palsied athletes, intellectually disabled
athletes and athletes with spinal cord injuries. Further information on the
Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Paralympic Games can be accessed at www.
Pyeongchang2018.com.
Tokyo 2020 Summer Paralympic Games

Tokyo was announced as the host city for the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic
Games at the 125th IOC Session in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 7 September
2013 and will become the first city to have hosted the Paralympic Games twice,
having first hosted them in 1964. The opening ceremony for the Tokyo 2020
Summer Paralympic Games will take place on 25 August, with the closing
ceremony scheduled for 6 September. It is expected to include the following
twenty-two sports: athletics, archery, badminton, boccia, canoe, cycling (road
and track), equestrianism, football (five-a-side), goalball, judo, powerlifting,
rowing, shooting, swimming, table tennis, taekwondo, triathlon, volleyball
(sitting), wheelchair basketball, wheelchair fencing, wheelchair rugby,
wheelchair tennis. Badminton and taekwondo will be new to the programme,
whilst football (7-a-side) and sailing have been dropped from the programme
for failing to meet the minimum inclusion criteria for the Games.
Currently athletes from five impairment groups are scheduled to compete

in Tokyo. These are amputee and les autres athletes, blind and visually
impaired athletes, cerebral palsied athletes, intellectually disabled athletes
and athletes with spinal cord injuries. Further information on the Tokyo
2020 Summer Paralympic Games can be accessed at www.Tokyo2020.jp/en.
Beijing 2022 Winter Paralympic Games

Beijing in China was selected to host the 2022 Winter Olympic and Paralympic
Games at the 128th IOC Session held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 30
July to 3 August 2017, making it the first city to host both an Olympic and
Paralympic Summer and Winter Games. The opening ceremony for the 2022
Winter Paralympic Games in China will take place on 4 March, with the
closing ceremony scheduled for 13 March. Athletes will participate in the
following sports: Alpine skiing, ice sledge hockey, Nordic skiing (biathlon
and cross country), snowboarding and wheelchair curling.
Athletes from five impairment groups are currently scheduled to compete
in Beijing. These are amputee and les autres athletes, blind and visually
impaired athletes, cerebral palsied athletes, intellectually disabled athletes
and athletes with spinal cord injuries.
2024 Host city?

A decision on the host city for the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic
Games will be made at the 130th IOC Session in Lima, Peru in September
2017. The shortlisted candidates following visits by the IOC Evaluation
Commission, which included a member of the IPC Governing Board, are
Budapest, Los Angeles, Paris and Rome.
Conclusion
International disability sport has come an amazingly long way since its early
beginnings as a rehabilitative tool at a hospital in England over sixty years ago.
It has developed into a huge international mega-event that has done a great
deal to raise the awareness of what some people with disabilities are capable
of and is increasingly making disability sport and athletes with disabilities an
important and visible part of the international sporting calendar.
Chapter review questions
1 What factors led Dr Guttmann to introduce sport as part of the
rehabilitation process and what were his aims in doing so?
2 What were the key mechanisms by which interest in the Stoke Mandeville
Games spread?
3 Explain the different uses of the term ‘Paralympic’ and how each came
about.
4 Name the six different impairment groupings that have participated in

the Paralympic Games.
Suggested further reading

Brittain, I., 2014, From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A history of the summer and
winter Paralympic Games, Common Ground Publishing: Champaign, IL.
International Paralympic Committee, 2006a, Paralympic Winter Games 1976–2006:
Örnsköldsvik–Turin, RLC, Paris, France.
Scruton, J., 1998, Stoke Mandeville: Road to the Paralympics, Peterhouse Press:
Aylesbury, UK.
2 The Olympic Movement and
the Paralympic Games
Chapter aims
• To outline the development of the relationship between the modern
Olympic Movement and the Paralympic Games.
• To outline the impacts of the recent close working relationship between
the two organisations.
As stated in Chapter 1, the very first Stoke Mandeville Games coincided

with the Opening Ceremony for the Fourteenth Olympic Games in London,
which Guttmann later claimed to be mere coincidence. However, at the end
of the second Stoke Mandeville Games the very next year Dr Guttmann gave
a speech in which he made the claim that the Stoke Mandeville Games would
one day become recognised as the paraplegic’s equivalent of the Olympic
Games. This certainly showed remarkable foresight given that he himself
admits that, despite the widely accepted success of the day, the statement was
met with very little shared optimism from those gathered in the audience
(Guttmann, 1954). It did, however, prompt one of the local papers, the
Bucks Advertiser and Aylesbury News dated 29 July, to print an article
under the headline ‘“Olympic Games” of Disabled Men is Born at Stoke’.
When the Stoke Mandeville Games first became truly international in 1952
with the participation of a Dutch team, Guttmann used this opportunity
to reinforce the Olympic link further when, during his opening speech, he
apparently reminded those present that the Olympic Games were in progress
in Helsinki and that he hoped that the paraplegic Games, as Guttmann called
them, would become as international and widely known as the Olympic
Games (Guttmann, 1952).
Four years later at the Games of 1956 some of the prizes were presented
by Sir (later Lord) Arthur Porritt, himself a surgeon and also an IOC member
for Great Britain. Apparently the Games so impressed him that a few weeks
later he wrote to Otto Mayer, Chancellor of the IOC, nominating the Games
for the Fearnley Cup. The nomination went forward and at their session
held in conjunction with the Olympic Games in Melbourne two months
later the members voted to award the Fearnley Cup to the Stoke Mandeville
24 The Olympic Movement
Games. This was the first time the cup had ever been awarded to a British
organisation or any kind of disability sport organisation anywhere. The
award of the Fearnley Cup motivated Dr Guttmann to dream of far bigger
things, as is shown in the report of his opening speech at the 1957 Games
when, with reference to the Fearnley Cup he is reported in the Bucks Herald
dated 2 August to have stated that he hoped this would be only the beginning
of a closer connection between the Stoke Mandeville Games and the Olympic
Games. He apparently went on to say that after the splendid recognition
by the Olympic Committee in awarding them the Fearnley Cup he hoped

that the Olympic Games would soon be open to disabled sportsmen and
women. Another local newspaper, the Bucks Advertiser and Aylesbury News,
also dated 2 August, reported him speaking about his greatest dream – that
paraplegics might take part in the next Olympic Games, in Rome, having
their own section.
Although Guttmann didn’t exactly get his wish, the Games of 1960 did
take place in Rome and these Games are now officially recognised as the first
‘Paralympic Games’. However, despite Guttmann’s clear efforts to forge a
link with the Olympic Games he still insisted that the Games were called,
and advertised as, the International Stoke Mandeville Games. Labanowich
(1989) puts this reluctance down to a desire to retain the identity of the
Games with Stoke Mandeville. The minutes of the International Stoke
Mandeville Games Committee, dated 21 July 1965, whilst clearly supporting
this theory, also note that the International Olympic Committee had ‘raised
the strongest objections to the use of the word “Paralympics”’, although
no other proof has been found to support this. Scruton (1998), however,
puts forward a different theory from Labanowich. She claims that Guttmann
regarded the athletes as having truly Olympic stature and that the Games
were worthy of the title ‘Olympics of the Paralysed’, a version of which
would come to greater prominence in 1976 and would eventually lead to
great changes in the world of international disability sport.
The use of Olympic terminology (1973–1984)

Over the next decade very little evidence can be found of any dialogue
or communication between the IOC and the international disability sport
movement. However, the bringing together of athletes from both ISMGF
and ISOD into one Games in Toronto in 1976 raised two problems with
regards to a name for the Games. As they now included blind and amputee
athletes they could no longer be called the International Stoke Mandeville
Games, nor could the term ‘Paralympic’, as it was then understood
(Paraplegic Olympics), be applied. In the end, the committees of ISMGF and
ISOD decided to call the games in Toronto the Olympiad for the Physically
Disabled, which the organisers shortened to the ‘Torontolympiad’, and
ISOD, who were organising the first Winter Games in Sweden, chose to
call these games the Winter Olympics for the Disabled. The subject of the
The Olympic Movement 25
choice of names, according to papers held in the IOC archives was first
drawn to the attention of the IOC by a letter from the International Ski
Federation in September 1975. In it the Secretary General, Sigge Bergman,
states that Bengt Hollen, Head of the organising committee for the disabled
winter games claims that Sir Ludwig had been given the right, verbally, to use
the term ‘Olympic Games’ for Stoke Mandeville competitions. In response
Madame Berlioux wrote to Guttmann regarding the Ski Federation’s letter
and made it clear that no authority had been given either verbally or in
writing allowing the use of the terms Olympic or Olympiad and asking both
ISMGF and ISOD to refrain from doing so. Six days later IOC President,
Lord Killanin, sent Madame Berlioux a memo stating that a meeting should
be arranged with Guttmann and that in the interests of both the Olympic
Movement and humanity it would be advisable for the IOC to encourage
such activities provided the situation was absolutely clear.
In the meantime, Guttmann, obviously taken aback by the letter from the
IOC, went on the offensive with a three page reply as to why the disability
sports movement was entitled to use Olympic terminology and why it would
not stop. These can be summed up in the following points:
1 Guttmann clearly considered the IOC to have recognised ISMGF as an

‘Olympic Organisation’ through the awarding of the Fearnley Cup in
1956.
2 He considered the disabled games to be the real Olympics because they
adhered far more closely to the ideals of the founder Pierre de Coubertin.
3 The term ‘Olympic’ or ‘Olympics’ could be found in the London
telephone directory applied to a wide variety of services including
cleaners and hair salons.
Finally Guttmann made it clear that until the IOC included Games for the
disabled within the Olympic Games the disabled sports movement would
continue to call their Games ‘Olympics’.
Study activity
Were the Paralympic Summer and Winter Games organisers of the 1970s
and 1980s right to use Olympic terminology for their Games? List reasons
for and against their use.
Three weeks later Guttmann received a response from Madame Berlioux,

claiming there had obviously been a misunderstanding with regard to the
relationship between the IOC and ISMGF. She stated that the IOC were
anxious to assist and give patronage to ISMGF and requested that a meeting
be arranged with Lord Killanin. A meeting between Sir Ludwig and Lord
Killanin took place over the Christmas period that year. The outcome of
the meeting appears to have been that the IOC would provide assistance
and patronage to the disability sports movement in return for an agreement
that they would desist from using Olympic terminology after the Toronto
Games. Killanin resolved to get agreement in principle for IOC recognition
of ISMGF at the IOC session in Innsbruck following a careful scrutinisation
of the ISMGF statutes. Lord Killanin again wrote to Sir Ludwig in March to
confirm that following a debate by the IOC Executive Board a decision had
been taken that the recognition of ISMGF was agreed ‘in principle’ provided
they refrained from the use of Olympic terminology after Toronto. Final
recognition was to be given following a final check to ensure that all ISMGF
rules were ‘fully in compliance with the Rules, Regulations and Principles of
the IOC’. The Technical Director of the IOC wrote to Sir Ludwig in May
with a series of questions, which Sir Ludwig quickly responded to.
With the exception of some correspondence in which Sir Ludwig sent
Madame Berlioux and Lord Killanin a report of the Games in Toronto,
communication between the IOC and Sir Ludwig went very quiet until
early 1978. In the meantime, despite concerted efforts by Sir Ludwig, he
failed to persuade the Russians to host the 1980 Games and so at a joint
meeting of ISMGF and ISOD in July 1977 it was decided that Arnhem in
the Netherlands should host them. It was also agreed that Geilo in Norway
should host the winter games, which would this time be organised as a joint
ISMGF-ISOD operation as paraplegics would be taking part for the first time.
The summer games were to be entitled the Olympics for the Disabled 1980
and the winter games the second Winter Olympics for the Disabled. This
came to the attention of the IOC and in February 1978 Madame Berlioux
again wrote to Sir Ludwig regarding the use of Olympic terminology. Sir
Ludwig responded by stating that he was still awaiting official written
confirmation of the IOC decision to recognise ISMGF. Throughout the
remainder of 1978 correspondence flowed backwards and forwards between
Madame Berlioux and Sir Ludwig in order that a solution could be found
and patronage officially bestowed upon ISMGF by the IOC. However,
throughout this period several issues arose, both politically and practically,
that prevented a solution being reached. These included the use of the term
‘Olympic’ by the Special Olympics organisation in the USA who had been
granted use of the term by the United States Olympic Committee. This came
to light when the Special Olympics Organisation made an application to join
ISOD in 1978. In addition, the IOC wished to officially recognise only one
organisation representing the whole of the disabled sports movement and
despite ISOD and ISMGF having the same President in Sir Ludwig they were
constitutionally two separate entities (see Chapter 3 for further details).
Finally, South Africa was a full member of both ISOD and ISMGF and
competed with a totally racially integrated team (Brittain, 2011). However,
the IOC stance at the time was that South Africa was banned from Olympic
competition and they, therefore, felt unable to recognise an organisation that
allowed South Africa to participate.
In the autumn of 1979, less than three months after his eightieth birthday,
Sir Ludwig suffered a coronary thrombosis and despite a brief recovery
died in March 1980 (Goodman, 1986). News of Sir Ludwig’s death was
obviously slow in reaching the IOC as in an internal memo in late March
1980 Lord Killanin wrote to Madame Berlioux that he thought they had not
heard from Sir Ludwig for a while because he had become very old. He ends
the memo by stating that nevertheless ‘the correct thing would be that (a)
these Games should not take place in the Olympic country (b) they should
not be called the Olympic Games but whatever games they like, under the
patronage of the IOC’. With the death of Sir Ludwig the attitude of the IOC
seemed to harden somewhat as the possibility of litigation was raised for
the first time. First, Madame Berlioux wrote to Mr Idenburg, President of
the Netherlands Olympic Committee in May 1980 asking him if anything
could be done under Dutch law to stop the use of the title ‘Olympics for the
Disabled’. Then, rather bizarrely, considering the Games finished on 5 July
she wrote to Mr Henrik Meijers, Managing Director of the Sports Division
for the Games on 17 October, asking if it was not too late for him to drop
the word ‘Olympics’. She concludes by indicating the possibility of litigation.
With the decision to host a split site Games in the USA in 1984 the way
was now open to resurrect the use of the term ‘Paralympic’ and for the first
time ever actually officially attach it to the ISMGF Games, which would be
just for Paraplegics. The Games were set to take place at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in July. From the very beginning the organising
committee called themselves the 1984 Paralympics Steering Committee and
used as its logo the three intertwined circles, originally three wheelchair
wheels, that had been used by ISMGF for several decades. The United States
Olympic Committee (USOC) took exception to both the name and the three
ringed logo claiming in a letter from their Executive Director, F. Don Miller
to Dale Wiley, Chairman of the Steering Committee that they ‘may tend to
cause confusion with the Olympic Games’. USOC objections continued and
in 1983 Dr Robert Jackson, the new President of ISMGF wrote to the new
President of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch asking for IOC approval of
the name and logo. Samaranch responded by saying that the IOC saw no
objection to the request, but that final responsibility lay with USOC.
Closer working relations with the IOC

This apparent thawing of attitudes within the IOC to the term ‘Paralympic’
came about following a number of meetings and events that assisted in a
closer working relationship between the IOC and the disability sports
movement and which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. A meeting
took place between the International Co-ordinating Committee (ICC) (see
Chapter 3) and the IOC in February 1983, at which IOC President Samaranch
made it clear that the IOC wished the disabled sports movement to become
part of the Olympic Movement. In return for the dropping of Olympic
terminology from their events he was willing to offer the disabled sports
movement, amongst other things, IOC patronage and financial assistance.
One of the major results of this meeting was an agreement by the IOC that a
demonstration disabled skiing event could take place at the Sarajevo Winter
Olympic Games in 1984 and if successful a demonstration event might
also be added to the Los Angeles Summer Games. This was confirmed at a
meeting of the IOC Executive Board in early summer of 1983. Prior to all
this in late 1982 the IOC had already shown a willingness to work closely
with the disabled sports movement when at its Executive Board meeting in
October 1982 it had agreed to give patronage to and allow the use of the
Olympic rings in the logo for what were to be called the 1984 World Winter
Games for the Disabled. This had been granted on the understanding that
the term ‘Olympic’ would be dropped from ISOD’s preferred title of ‘Third
Winter Olympic Games for the Disabled’. IOC President Samaranch also
agreed to attend the Games in person.
The closer working relationship between the ICC and the IOC paved the
way for much closer links between the Olympic Movement and the disability
sports movement, culminating in the ‘Paralympic Games’ returning in 1988
to the same city (Seoul, Korea), venues and village as the Olympic Games
for the first time since 1964, a pattern that has been repeated at every
summer and winter games since then. The impact of the Paralympic Games,
especially the Summer Games, returning to the same host city and venues as
the Olympic Games can clearly be seen in 2.1 where the number of countries
participating in the Paralympic Games has risen almost exponentially since
1988, with the number of nations participating having risen by 173 per
cent between Seoul, 1988 and London, 2012. Although participation at
the Paralympic Winter Games by nations is far lower than for the Summer
Paralympics there has still been a 88 per cent increase in the number of
nations participating between Tignes-Albertville, 1992 and Sochi, 2014.
Study activity
Study Figure 2.1. Make a list of possible reasons why participation in the
Winter Paralympic Games is so much lower than for the Summer Paralympic
Games? Is there anything the IPC can do to close this gap in participation
levels between the Winter and Summer Games?
Seoul, 1988 marked the return of the Paralympic Games to the same
host city and venues for the first time in twenty-four years and a period
of unprecedented change and growth within the movement. However the
next few years also saw yet another period of tension between the IOC and
the Paralympic Movement. The cause of this tension was the logo adopted
by the Seoul Paralympic Organising Committee that the ICC and then the
newly formed International Paralympic Committee (IPC), one year later,
200
180
160
140
No. of Particpating Nations
120 Summer
100 Winter
Linear
80
60
40
20
Year
Figure 2.1 Growth in Participating Nations at the Summer and Winter Paralympic
Games
decided to adopt it as the logo for the movement. The logo consisted of five
traditional Korean decorative motifs known as tae-geuks, which were meant
to represent the five oceans and the five continents. They were arranged in
a ‘W’ configuration meant to represent the first letter of the word ‘World’ in
order to represent the harmony and unity of the disabled worldwide through
sport. Their horizontal configuration represented equality and humanity, and
the wave shape expressed the willingness and determination of the disabled
to become fully active (IPC Newsletter, 2001a). Interestingly neither the
Seoul Organising Committee nor the IPC make any mention of the colours
used for the tae-geuks, nor the similarity of the logo to the IOC five rings logo
and it was this that was to lead them into conflict with the IOC. The British
Paralympic team for Seoul and the British Paralympic Association, formed
in 1989, were amongst the first to incorporate the logo into their own (see
Figure 2.2). However, sometime in 1990 the British Olympic Association
contacted the IOC pointing out the similarity between the IPC logo and
the IOC logo. This led to the IOC contacting the IPC in January 1991 to
express their concerns that the five tae-geuk logo was confusingly similar to
the Olympic symbol and requesting that IPC change their logo. The IOC
Director of Legal Affairs, Howard M. Strupp made it clear that unless the
Figure 2.2 British Paralympic team logo for Seoul incorporating the five tae-geuk logo
matter was cleared up to the total satisfaction of the IOC a recommendation

would be made to the IOC Executive Board with regard to sanctions to be
taken by the IOC against IPC (IPC Newsletter, 2001b).
This left the IPC Executive Board in a very tricky situation as they were
partly reliant on the funding that the IOC were now providing them with
and in addition they did not want to jeopardise the working relationship
they had recently forged. They, therefore, recommended a change in the
logo ‘in the spirit of co-operation’ with the IOC. However, at the IPC
General Assembly in Budapest in 1991 the member nations rejected a
change of logo and decided to retain the current logo. The mood amongst
the nations appears to have been that they felt they were being dictated to
by the IOC rather than there being any kind of true co-operation on both
sides. The decision of the general assembly did not go down well with the
IOC or other National Olympic Committees worldwide, many of whom
wrote to the IOC expressing their concerns over the impact this might have
on marketing and sponsorship programmes. Following several meetings and
negotiations with the IOC, the last of which occurred on 4 May 1992 the
management committee of IPC concluded that they had no option other
than to design a new logo, which they forwarded to the member nations for
support and which was apparently, on the whole, favourably received (IPC
Newsletter, 2002). However, it appears that some individuals were still not
happy with the actions of the IOC and members of one national Paralympic
team produced tee shirts that they intended to wear in protest at the Closing
Ceremony of the Barcelona Games in 1992 (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4). In
the end their protest plans were discovered prior to the closing ceremony
and they were prevented from carrying them out for fears of possible bad
publicity that might ensue and the potential damage that might be caused
to the relationship with the IOC. Given that the IOC had only really
discovered the true value of their brand at the Los Angeles 1984 Games and
had been extremely short of money prior to this their reaction is possibly
understandable. However, it should be noted that these events occurred at
a time when the social model of disability (see Chapter 4) was beginning to
have a major impact on the disabled population, particularly in the West, and
political activism in order to gain fair and equal access to society amongst the
disabled community was becoming far more widespread.
In the end the five tae-geuks logo was used at the Paralympic Games up to
and including the Lillehammer Winter Paralympics of 1994 as it had already
been used in advertising material for the Games prior to a final agreement
being reached between the IOC and the IPC.
Figure 2.3 Front of Barcelona protest tee-shirt
Figure 2.4 Reverse of Barcelona protest tee-shirt

Study activity
Do you think the athletes in Barcelona were right to try and protest in the
way they did? What other methods might they have used to successfully get
their feelings across regarding the logo issue?
Solidifying the closer working relationship between the IOC

and IPC
Following the Lillehammer Winter Paralympic Games the IPC and IOC
continued to co-operate with each other and the Paralympic Games continued
to be hosted by the same host city as the Olympic Games. In the mid-to late
1990s in the wake of the Salt Lake City bidding scandal the IOC set up
the IOC 2000 Commission on Ethics and Reform whose job it was to
make recommendations aimed at reforming not only the bidding process,
but also to try and repair some of the damage done to the image of the
Olympic movement. As part of this process the then IPC President, Dr
Robert Steadward, was one of only twelve individuals from outside the
Olympic movement invited to sit on this commission. This appointment
was the start of a much closer working relationship between the IOC and
the IPC, which culminated in two important events occurring at the Sydney
2000 Olympic and Paralympics Games. First, at the 111th IOC Session in
Sydney, Dr Steadward was elected as an IOC member, thus strengthening
the credibility and profile of the Paralympic movement. Then at the Sydney
Paralympic Games Dr Steadward and Juan Antonio Samaranch, the then
President of the IOC signed a general memorandum of understanding,
which included representation of the IPC on IOC Commissions as well
as financial assistance for the Paralympic movement from the IOC. This
was followed about eight months later by the signing of a much more
detailed co-operative agreement between the two organisations, dated 19
June 2001, which provided for the following benefits for the IPC and the
Paralympic Games:
• a full seven years for the preparation of the Paralympic Games;

• full support of the host city and the OCOG for the organisation of the
Paralympic Games;
• a financial guarantee of viability for the Paralympic Games;
• increased support for Paralympic athletes and team officials through
travel grants, the elimination of entry fees and free provision of
accommodation and ground transport;
• increased support for technical officials through free travel,
accommodation and ground transport;
• support for the administration of the IPC.
(IOC-IPC Formal Agreement dated 19 June 2001 in Brittain (2002))
Most of the proposals of this second agreement were not due to come into
force until Beijing 2008. However, Athens 2004 and Turin 2006 voluntarily
chose to implement many of the actions outlined in the agreement such as
the concept of having a single organising committee for both Games. On
25 August 2003 the new Presidents of the two organisations, Dr Jacques
Rogge (IOC) and Sir Philip Craven (IPC), signed an amendment to the 2001
agreement, which transferred broadcasting and marketing responsibilities
of the 2008, 2010 and 2012 Paralympic Games to the host organising
committees. In return the organising committees were to pay IPC US$9

million for the 2008 Games and US$14 million for the 2010 and 2012
Games. The latest agreement signed at the 124th IOC session in London on
24 July 2012 extended the then current agreement up to and including the
Tokyo Games in 2020.
The International Olympic Committee Agenda 2020

Recommendations and the Paralympic Movement
Olympic Agenda 2020 was unanimously agreed at the 127th IOC
Session in Monaco in December 2014 and is made up of 40 detailed
recommendations designed to outline the future of the Olympic Movement
(IOC website, 2015). The only recommendation included in the Olympic
Agenda 2020 document that directly relates to the Paralympic Movement is
Recommendation 7 ‘Strengthen relationships with organisations managing
sport for people with different abilities’. IOC President, Thomas Bach,
has reportedly claimed that some priorities, including a continuation of
the strong relationship between the IOC and the IPC, were not included
because they were already accepted and in motion (insidethegames, 2014a).
In the same article IPC President, Philip Craven, states that there ‘has been
a definite deepening and strengthening in our [IOC and IPC] relations’.
However, these statements display an underlying assumption that a closer
and stronger working relationship between the IOC and the IPC is indeed
the best way forward for the Paralympic Movement. This is an assumption
that has never thoroughly been debated, neither academically, nor within
the Paralympic Movement itself. However putting this issue aside it would
appear that the 40 Olympic Agenda 2020 recommendations contain things
that could be either very positive for the Paralympic Movement or, on the
flipside, potentially damaging, especially with regard to issues of power and
control. This is particularly important if the Paralympic Movement is to
maintain the more socially oriented aspects of their strategic plan that lie
outside the sporting arena e.g. changing societal attitudes towards disability
in a positive manner, although it has to be noted that these claims have
already come under strong criticism by disability rights activists (cf. Braye,
Dixon & Gibbons, 2013a).
How Agenda 2020 recommendations will impact on the Paralympic
Movement will become more clear in the fullness of time with the strength
of the impact largely dependent upon the amount, the ways in which and the
level to which the IOC and the IPC relationship develops over the coming
decade. Besides the transactions of understanding and management that can
occur within the IOC-IPC relationship, there are both opportunities and
challenges for research focused on autonomy and on the development of the
Paralympic Games that will have the chance to be implemented within the
period of activity of Olympic Agenda 2020. In this sense this section raises
questions related to seven Olympic Agenda 2020 recommendations which
could generate future studies and investigations.
Recommendation 2: Evaluate bid cities by assessing key

opportunities and risks
Will the cost of ensuring accessible facilities for both athletes and spectators
with disabilities lead to bidding cities wishing to host some Para-sport events
in other cities or maybe even countries in order to cut down on cost – and
in the process destroy some of the potential legacy of the Paralympics by
ensuring that there continues to be little in the way of accessible facilities for
future potential athletes with disabilities?
Recommendation 4: Include sustainability in all aspects of the

Olympic Games
Will the possibility of legacy monitoring mean that host cities will have
to ensure programmes and funding for legacy claims beyond the closing
ceremony and will such monitoring include the Paralympic Games? Currently
legacy promises at both Games are often little more than marketing tools to
justify the huge expenditure, but as I have already been recently told by
several senior leaders of Brazilian sport preparing for the Rio 2016 Games,
when budgets get tight it is the soft programmes like legacy that are the first
to go as they are not considered crucial to putting on the Games.
Recommendation 10: Move from a sport-based to an event-based

programme
This recommendation has the potential to be extremely good or a disaster for
some events. It could possibly lead to cherry-picking of high profile, media
friendly events and the loss of some traditional events from the programme,
which in the long run could lead to the event itself dying out as future
potential athletes choose those events on the programme over those that are
not. This is equally true for the Olympic or Paralympic Games, but for some
Paralympic sports, there are few alternatives for certain types or levels of
disability. This rule could also be used to sideline athletes with high levels
of disability from the Games as they are often perceived as the ones least
depicting what people perceive as elite sporting performance.
Recommendation 11: Foster gender equality ‘to achieve 50 per cent female
participation in the Olympic Games’
This is a worthwhile goal, but the interesting thing about this is that there is
no deadline set for achieving it. Indeed there has been an IOC goal to achieve
gender equality in sports management within the IOC for quite some time,
which is still nowhere near being achieved. In the Paralympic Games the
issues for women getting involved in sport are even greater, with body image
issues and opportunity factors playing an even bigger role for women with
disabilities (see Chapter 8).
Recommendation 13: Maximise synergies with Olympic Movement

stakeholders
Could this involve the further strengthening of links between the IOC and
IPC? Could we see a move to IPC becoming simply a division of the IOC?
Moves have already been made in the last round of contract talks for the IOC
to take over the running of the Paralympic Games and to pay IPC to focus
solely upon the development of disability sport at the grassroots to individual
World Championship levels. This was strongly rejected by the IPC.
Recommendation 33: Further involve sponsors in ‘Olympism in Action’

programmes
Does Olympism really include people with disabilities? Certainly the IOC
Olympism in Action Report includes some projects that include people with
disabilities, particularly in post-conflict zones. The IOC clearly claims that
Olympism is an inclusive philosophy and this may be true, but at the same
time it can be argued that Olympic and Olympian are certainly not inclusive
terms. In addition, the IPC has its own development foundation – the Agitos
Foundation – so, how do they ensure that the two bodies do not work at
cross purposes and that sponsors are not taken from the Agitos Foundation
to cover Olympism in Action projects that involve people with disabilities
simply because the sponsor feels they can gain more kudos by being attached
to an IOC initiative?
Recommendation 39: Foster dialogue with society and within the Olympic
Movement: creation of an ‘Olympism in Action’ Congress that would take
the pulse of society every four years.
This would actually appear to be more of an opportunity for the IPC than
a threat as it will give them access to key players in the world of sport as
well as future potential sponsors. They can market Paralympic sport and its
opportunities on a global scale and gain feedback from some of the most
knowledgeable sports organisers and marketers on the planet.
Study activity
What are some of the reasons the IOC might want to associate itself so closely
with the Paralympic Movement and Games? Do you think the Paralympic
Movement would be better or worse off in the long run if it continues its
ever closer ties to the IOC?
Conclusion
Knowing what is known now about the size and success of the Paralympic
Games and where they have grown from, it would not be an understatement
to describe Ludwig Guttmann as a visionary. His claims in 1949 that the Stoke
Mandeville Games would one day become recognised as the paraplegic’s
equivalent of the Olympic Games appeared laughable at the time, but
events have proved him correct. The relationship between the IOC and the
international disability sports movement has been quite turbulent at times,
but overall the growing relationship between the two organisations has had
an extremely positive impact on the growth and success of the Paralympic
Games.
1 Outline the impact of Dr Guttmann’s attempts to constantly link the

Stoke Mandeville Games to the Olympic Games and his reason for
doing so.
2 Describe the IOC’s reaction to the use of Olympic terminology and the
use of the five tae geuks symbol by the disability sports movement. Do
you think the reaction of the IOC was the correct one?
3 Outline the impact the return to Olympics host cities and the closer
working relationship with IOC have had on the Paralympic Games.
4 What are the potential impacts of the IOC Agenda 2020 findings upon
the Paralympic Movement and Games?

Bailey, S., 2008, Athlete First: A History of the Paralympic Movement, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Brittain, I., 2008, The Evolution of the Paralympic Games, in Cashman, R. and Darcy.
S., Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, Walla Walla Press,
Petersham, NSW, pp. 19–34.
Legg, D., Fay, T., Wolff, E. and Hums, M., 2015, The International Olympic
Committee – International Paralympic Committee Relationship: Past, Present and
Future, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 39(5), pp. 371–395.
3 The governance of
Paralympic sport
Chapter aims
• To outline the development of the organisational structure for
international disability sport and the Paralympic Games.
• To describe the current aims of the International Paralympic Committee
as contained in their strategic plan.
• To outline the current administrative structure for international disability
sport and the International Paralympic Committee.
As outlined in Chapter 1, disability sport from an organisational perspective

originally developed along the lines of specific impairment groups. Originally
there were six of these International Organisations of Sport for the Disabled
(IOSDs), but in 2002 the International Stoke Mandeville Wheelchair Sports
Federation (ISMWSF) merged with the International Sports Organisation
for the Disabled (ISOD) to form the International Wheelchair and Amputee
Sports Federation (IWAS). Therefore, the five current IOSDs are:
• The Cerebral Palsied International Sports and Recreation Association

(CP-ISRA)
• The International Blind Sports Association (IBSA)
• The International Sports Federation for People with an Intellectual
Disability (INAS)
• The International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS)
• The Comité International des Sports des Sourds (CISS)
The first four are currently members of IPC and take part in the
Paralympic Games. CISS, who are responsible for deaf and hard of hearing
athletes have their own world games called the Deaflympics, which usually
take place the year following the Paralympic Summer and Winter Games.
Today each IOSD is responsible for the development of sport for athletes
in the specific impairment groups that they represent. Each organisation
has its own world games, although for CP-ISRA, IBSA, INAS and IWAS
these Games are largely a stepping stone for athletes wishing to make the
38 Governance of Paralympic sport
Paralympic Games, as well as an opportunity to experience international
competition for those athletes who may never be quite good enough to
compete at the Paralympic Games.
The International Paralympic Committee acts as an umbrella body to co-
ordinate Paralympic sport at both the Paralympic Games and at IPC multi-
disability World Championship level. World championships for sports that are
specific to a particular impairment group (e.g. judo for the blind) are organised
by the relevant IOSD (e.g. IBSA), but where a sport (e.g. Athletics), includes
athletes from a variety of the IOSDs then the IPC are responsible. Before going
any further it is worth recounting how and why this situation came about.
Towards a single worldwide organisational body for international

disability sport
The gradual breaking up of the International Sports Organisation for the
Disabled (ISOD) into three separate organisations (CP-ISRA, IBSA, ISOD)
in the late 1970s and early 1980s led Sir Ludwig to raise the question at the
ISOD General Assembly in Madrid in March, 1977, as to exactly what the
future role of ISOD should be. This led to the preparation of a discussion
document, presented in November, 1978 by Joan Scruton, Secretary General
of ISOD and ISMGF. In it she raised the possibility of ISOD taking on the
role of an overall umbrella organisation that would become the coordinating
committee for sport for all disabled people and in Olympic years would act
as an overall organising body representing all the relevant individual sports
organisations. This is something the IOC had also been pushing for in its
dealings with the disability sport movement as its representatives found it
quite confusing trying to deal with such a wide variety of organisations.
Following a report in April 1979 by Guillermo Cabezas, Vice President of
ISOD, and Ariel Fink, Vice President of ISMGF, on the setting up of a single
federation a study group was set up consisting of representatives from all
interested parties. The group held three meetings in July 1979, June 1980
(Arnhem), and December 1980 (Stoke Mandeville), which came up with
several drafts of ideas for a new organisation. In the end the recommendations
of the study group were rejected. However, it was recognised that the united
efforts of the different disability organisations represented within the study
group were the basis for further mutual co-operation. Therefore, at the
ISOD General Assembly in December 1981, the new President of ISOD,
following the death of Sir Ludwig, Mr Avronsaart, invited the three other
international sports organisations involved in the Paralympic Games to a
meeting in order to discuss the establishment of a Co-operative Committee.
With the International Blind Sports Association (IBSA) having been founded
in Paris in 1981, there were four different International Organisations for
Sport for the Disabled (IOSDs) represented at the founding meeting on 11
March 1982 in Leysin, Switzerland during the Second World Championships
of Winter Sports for the Disabled:
Governance of Paralympic sport 39
• Cerebral Palsied – International Sports and Recreation Association (CP-
ISRA) (1978)
• International Blind Sports Association (IBSA) (1981)
• International Sports Organisation for the Disabled (ISOD)
• International Stoke Mandeville Games Federation (ISMGF)
After lengthy discussion it was unanimously agreed that the four international
organisations should form a co-operative committee, with the chairmanship of
future meetings of this co-operative committee rotating amongst the Presidents

of the four member organisations. At the second meeting of the committee
on 28 July 1982 at Stoke Mandeville it was agreed that the name for the new
co-operative committee should be the International Co-ordinating Committee
(ICC). This was later amended at the fifth meeting of ICC in 1984 to the
International Co-ordinating Committee of World Sports Organisations for the
Disabled. At the tenth meeting held in Gothenburg, Sweden in August 1986
the Comité International des Sports des Sourds (CISS), representing the deaf,
and the International Association of Sports for Persons with a Mental Handicap
(INAS-FMH) were accepted into membership of ICC.
ICC and national representation

Following an ICC seminar held in the Netherlands in February 1985
recommendations were made that a further seminar be held, to which
national members were invited, in order to discuss a possible future structure
of ICC to include national representation. This seminar was finally held in
Arnhem, the Netherlands from 12–15 March 1987. As well as representation
from the six IOSDs the seminar was also attended by representatives from
thirty-nine voting countries and 106 national and international disability
sports organisations in total. The main recommendation to come out of the
seminar was that there had to be a change in the existing ICC structure
and that any future structure must include: first, national representation;
second, representation from and the continued existence of the IOSDs;
third, regional representation and finally, representation from the athletes.
An ad hoc committee was appointed to formulate a constitution for the new
organisation to replace ICC. It was voted that the ad hoc committee should
consist of the six representatives of the IOSDs, one elected representative
from each of the Continental Associations and three athlete representatives.
The new constitution proposed by them was circulated to the member
nations and then discussed at a hearing during the Seoul Paralympic Summer
Games in 1988. The hearing that occurred in Seoul was actually a very
turbulent and highly charged affair with many representatives actually
leaving the meeting, partly in frustration. However, it was finally agreed that
draft recommendations for the new constitution should be submitted to the
ad hoc committee by 21 December 1988 and that a final draft constitution
would be circulated to national and international organisations by 1 March
1989. This final draft was finally discussed and voted upon at a General
Assembly held in Dusseldorf, Germany on 21–22 September 1989.
The formation of the International Paralympic Committee

The General Assembly in Dusseldorf did not start well for the IOSDs when
it was decided that only national organisations had the right to speak and
vote. However, after some strenuous lobbying from the floor the decision
was overturned and the IOSDs were finally given both speaking and voting
rights. Part of the reason for these initial problems was possibly the fact
that a neutral Chairperson, Dr Wilf Preising, was selected to chair the
assembly, but lacked knowledge and experience of the political rivalries
inherent within international disability sport at the time. There followed
many hours of, sometimes acrimonious, debate and argument and just when
it appeared that an agreement would never be reached a series of motions
from the floor by Jens Bromann (Denmark), York Chow (Hong Kong)
and André Raes (Belgium) enabled the assembly to come to an agreement.
Originally the new organisation was to have been called the International
Confederation of Sports Organisations for the Disabled (ICSOD), but
following a vote it was decided that it should be called the International
Paralympic Committee (IPC) instead. The key objective of the newly formed
IPC was decreed as being the only world multi-disability organisation with
the right to organise Paralympic and multi-disability World Games, as well
as World Championships. Following a further vote the structure of the
proposed executive committee was enlarged from twenty to twenty-three
members with the addition of an extra regional representative, splitting
Asia into east and west, a Technical Officer and a Medical Officer. Prior
to voting for the new Executive Board it was decreed that no one standing
for a position could, if elected, also hold a position on the Executive Board
of one of the IOSDs. This ruling caused several candidates to withdraw
from the elections. The six IOSDs and the forty-one countries that were
represented by various NOSDs are recognised as the founding members of
the International Paralympic Committee. These were:
Australia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada

Cyprus Czechoslovakia Denmark Egypt Faroe Isles
Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong
Hungary Iceland Iran Iraq Ireland
Israel Italy Jordan Kenya Korea
Kuwait Luxembourg Malta Morocco Netherlands
New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain
Sweden Switzerland UK USA USSR
Venezuela
The ICC–IPC handover of responsibilities
IPC held their first Executive Committee meeting in Duisburg, Germany on
23 September 1989, the day after the General Assembly had closed. One
of their first orders of business was to inform the IOC, ICC and the United
Nations (UN) of their existence and objectives. With the contracts already
signed by the ICC for the Winter and Summer Paralympic Games to be
held in Tignes, Barcelona and Madrid in 1992, the IPC were unsure exactly
as to when full authority should be passed from the ICC to the IPC. At
the first ICC meeting held after the General Assembly in January 1990 in
Barcelona the general consensus was that the meeting in Dusseldorf had
been very badly organised and chaotic and that a large part of the world, in
particular the Far East and South Pacific Regions, had had no opportunity
to vote. However, both the IPC Executive and the ICC meetings agreed
that there should be reciprocal invitations for members of each organisation
to attend each other’s meetings in order to facilitate the transfer. Indeed,
after some initial discussion the new President and Secretary General of the
IPC, Bob Steadward and André Raes, were invited to join the ICC meeting
in Barcelona. After two sessions of discussion regarding the outcomes of
Dusseldorf it was voted on and agreed that the transition of responsibility
from the ICC to the IPC would be postponed until the first meeting of the
ICC after the General Assembly of the IPC held in conjunction with the
Assen World Games for the Disabled in June 1990. In the meantime the ICC
was to extend an invitation to the President and Secretary General of the IPC
to attend ICC meetings as observers. At the second IPC General Assembly,
which was held in Groningen rather than Assen, it was proposed by Jens
Bromann, President of IBSA, that an agreement be drawn up between the ICC
and the IPC regarding the transfer of authority. A meeting was held between
the six Presidents of the IOSDs and the IPC President on 5 October 1990
in Aylesbury, UK to draw up the agreement and it was signed the next day
by all concerned at the eighteenth meeting of the ICC. The outcome of the
agreement was that the ICC would continue to be responsible for the 1992
Winter and Summer Paralympic Games, but that from that day forward the
IPC would assume immediate control over all other world multi-disability
(more than one IOSD) games. On completion of the 1992 Paralympic Games
the ICC and the IPC would then issue a joint communiqué spelling out the
final transfer of power from the ICC to the IPC. Following the successful
completion of the Winter and Summer Paralympic Games of 1992, the ICC
held their twenty-third and final meeting at the Sandy Beach Hotel, Larnaca,
Cyprus from 24–25 March 1993. At the meeting Jens Bromann moved that
all residual funds after the winding up of the ICC should be transferred
to the IPC. The motion was seconded by Bob Steadward, President of the
IPC. Although the motion was lost, after some discussion Bob Steadward
proposed that each of the IOSDs (CP-ISRA, IBSA, ISMWSF, and ISOD)
receive 10,000 dollars with the remainder being transferred to the IPC.
INAS-FMH were not to receive the payment as they were in debt to the ICC
for a similar amount for sanction fees from the Madrid Games. This motion
passed with a majority of five in favour and one against.
IPC and Strategic Planning

In 2006 the IPC published its strategic plan to cover the period 2006–2009.
Its overall vision was to enable Paralympic athletes to achieve sporting
excellence and inspire and excite the world. In order to achieve this vision
the strategic plan encompassed five strategic objectives developed in co-
operation with the management team and the IPC committees, which
needed to be successfully delivered in order to achieve this mission. These
objectives were:
1 To be a high performing organisation.

2 To facilitate membership development.
3 To improve resource creation.
4 To ensure Paralympic Games success.
5 To achieve global recognition.
(IPC Strategic Plan, 2006–2009)
The latest strategic plan (2015–2018) takes a slightly different approach

whilst still maintaining the ethos of the five original objectives. It now has
three strategic goals, which are underpinned by three strategic drivers. The
strategic goals are:
1 Consolidate the Paralympic Games as a premier sporting event by

fostering the sporting excellence, worldwide visibility and social
footprint of the Paralympic Games.
2 Empower para-athletes and support the development of para-sports by
increasing and improving the opportunities for para-athletes to develop
from the grassroots to Paralympic level, raising the quality of their
environment and supporting transition beyond sport.
3 Improve the recognition and value of the Paralympic brand by growing
the Paralympic brand, its social impact and commercial value.
The underpinning three strategic drivers are:
1 Build sustainable funding by generating sustainable funding from

existing revenue agreements and new opportunities that capitalise on
the appeal of the Paralympic Movement’s assets.
2 Shape organisational capability by creating a positive and effective
working environment maximising the skills of all people who contribute
across the Movement
3 Foster key strategic partnerships by growing the Movement through a
partnership philosophy.
Each of these strategic goals and strategic drivers are backed up by specified
strategic priorities and target outcomes (IPC Strategic Plan, 2015–2018).
The Structure of the IPC

The structure of the IPC has grown and changed beyond all recognition
since its creation in 1989, which is a clear reflection of the growth that has
occurred in both the Paralympic Movement and the organisation necessary
to maintain it. Figure 3.1 is a structural diagram of the current general
structure of the IPC showing the various groups that have a stake in the
running of the movement.
General Assembly
The IPC General Assembly is held every two years in the year between the
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games. It is the highest decision-making
authority of the International Paralympic Committee and consists of all
member groups that make up the IPC, which are as follows:
Sports
Paralympic Sports are classified into three groups dependent upon who has
overall organisational responsibility for them at the Paralympic Games.
IPC sports
An IPC Sport is a multi-disability sport for athletes with a disability governed
by the IPC under the management of an IPC Sports Committee. There are
currently eight IPC Sports on the Paralympic Programme and one other
IPC Sport, not on the Paralympic Programme, but whose Championship
Programme (e.g. World and Regional Championships) is managed by the
IPC.
IPC sports in the Paralympic programme
Summer Sports: Winter Sports:

Athletics Alpine Skiing
Powerlifting Biathlon
Shooting Cross-Country Skiing
Swimming Ice Sledge Hockey
International Sports Federations (IFs) (17) General Assembly Regional Organisations (ROs)
IOSD Sports (4)*
National Paralympic International Organisations of IPC Regions (5)
Committees (NPCs) Sport for the Disabled
IPC Sports (14)* (176) (IOSDs) (5)
*Speaking Rights Only
Councils Standing Committees

Athletes with a
Governing Board
Severe Disability
Anti -Doping (Currently a Working
Group)
Classification Development
Athletes Council
IPC Management Team
Currently 11 members Education Legal
Finance Sports Science

IOSDs’ Council, Regions’ Council and Sports Council
All dissolved at the IPC General Assembly in November 2015 to be
replaced by Independent Bodies. Paralympic Games Women in Sport
Therapeutic Use Ethics

Exemption
Figure 3.1 International Paralympic Committee Governance Structure

Other IPC Sports (not on Paralympic programme): Wheelchair Dance Sport.
IOSD sports
An IOSD sport is a sport for athletes with a disability on the Paralympic
Programme governed by an IOSD. There are currently four such sports on
the Paralympic programme.
IWAS: Wheelchair Fencing IBSA: Football 5-a-side
Goalball
Judo
Independent Paralympic Sports Federations

An Independent Paralympic Sports Federation (IPSF) is an independent
sport federation recognised by the IPC as the sole world-wide representative
of a sport for athletes with a disability that has been granted the status as a
Paralympic Sport by IPC. There are currently sixteen federations recognised
by IPC that have sports on the current or future Paralympic programmes:
Summer Games
• World Archery (WA): (Archery)
• Badminton World Federation (BWF): (Badminton) (From 2020)
• Boccia International Sports Federation (BISFed): (Boccia)
• The International Canoe Federation (ICF): (Canoeing) (From 2016)
• Union Cyclisme Internationale (UCI): (Cycling)
• Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI): (Equestrian)
• International Federation for CP Football: (Football 7-a-side) (Until
2016)
• Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Aviron (FISA): (Rowing)
• The International Sailing Federation (ISAF): (Sailing) (Until 2016)
• The International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF): (Table tennis)
• World Taekwondo Federation (WTF): (Taekwondo) (From 2020)
• The International Triathlon Union (ITU): (Triathlon) (From 2016)
• The International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF):
(Wheelchair basketball)
• The International Wheelchair Rugby Federation (IWRF): (Wheelchair
Rugby)
• The International Tennis Federation (ITF): (Wheelchair tennis)
• World ParaVolley: (Sitting volleyball)
It should be noted that Football 7-a-side and sailing have been removed from
the Paralympic programme for Tokyo 2020 for failing to meet the minimum
criteria for inclusion on the Paralympic programme. Despite strenuous efforts
by both sports to get this decision overturned the appeals were rejected by
the IPC, although both sports were accepted as IPC members at the IPC
General Assembly held in Mexico City in November 2015 (insidethegames,
2015). Two new sports (Para-Canoe and Para-Triathlon) will appear on the
programme at the Rio 2016 Games increasing the total number of sports
on the programme to twenty-two and Football 7-a-side and Sailing will be
replaced on the programme at Tokyo 2020 by Para-Badminton and Para-
Taekwondo.
Winter Games
• The World Curling Federation (WCF): (Wheelchair curling)
• Other IPSF Sports (not on the Paralympic programme)
• International Bowls for the Disabled (IBD): (Bowls)
• World Karate Federation (WKF) (Karate)
In terms of the Paralympic Games the function of an IPSF is to exercise

technical jurisdiction and guidance over the competition and training venues
of its respective sport during the Games.
Study activity
Find out exactly why Football 7-a-side and Sailing were removed from the
programme for the Tokyo 2020 Games and formulate a strategy for one of
them to try and regain their place on the Paralympic programme.
Regional organisations
A regional organisation is an independent regional organisation recognised
as the sole regional representative of the IPC members within a specific
region as defined by the IPC. The IPC currently recognises four regional
organisations:
• The African Sports Confederation of Disabled (Africa): (No website at

present).
• The Asian Paralympic Committee (Asia): (www.asianparalympic.org).
• The European Paralympic Committee (Europe): (www.europaralympic.
org).
• The Oceania Paralympic Committee (Oceania): (www.oceaniaparalympic.
org).
Until such time as an independent regional organisation is created,

the IPC has established an Americas regional committee to act as the sole
representative body in that region:
• The Americas Paralympic Committee (Americas): (www.paralympic.
org/americas-paralympic-committee).
The role of regional organisations is to liaise with the IPC on behalf of its
members in the respective region, organise regional sports events, coordinate
their development activities with the IPC and provide support to the IPC
membership within the respective region.
National Paralympic Committees

A National Paralympic Committee (NPC) is a national organisation
recognised by the IPC as the sole representative of athletes with a disability
in that country or territory to the IPC. The IPC currently has 176 National
Paralympic Committees listed on its website as in membership.
Africa 49 NPCs (Mauritania currently suspended)

The Americas 29 NPCs (Costa Rica currently suspended)
Asia 42 NPCs (DR Timor L’Este currently suspended)
Europe 48 NPCs
Oceania 8 NPCs
It should be noted that at the IPC General Assembly held in Mexico City in
November 2015 the National Paralympic Committees of Albania, Bangladesh,
Somalia and Peru all had their memberships of IPC terminated as a result of
either the NPCs inactivity or due to having been suspended from membership
for more than four consecutive years. However, a new NPC from Somalia,
along with NPCs from St Vincent and the Grenadines, Aruba, Yemen and
Guinea Bissau all saw their memberships approved (insidethegames, 2015).
The role of an NPC is to undertake the co-ordination and support of IPC
activities and Paralympic Sport within their respective territory. They are
also responsible for the entrance, management and team preparation for the
Paralympic Games and other IPC sanctioned competitions.
Study activity
What does the NPC in your country do to promote sport for people with
disabilities? Formulate a strategy to enhance the impact of the work done by
your NPC in order to create even greater opportunities.
International organisations of sport for the disabled

An International Organisation of Sport for the Disabled (IOSD) is an
independent organisation recognised by the IPC as the sole representative
of a specific impairment group to the IPC. IOSDs co-operate with the IPC
in providing the impairment-specific expertise required to develop sport
for athletes with a disability from the grass-roots level to the elite level.
They also co-ordinate their development activities with the IPC. As stated in
previous chapters the IPC currently recognises four IOSDs:
The Cerebral Palsy International Sports and Recreation Association

(CP-ISRA)
The aim of CP-ISRA is to promote and develop the means by which people
who have cerebral palsy or a related neurological condition throughout
the world can have access to opportunities for participation in sport and
recreational activities of their choice and to encourage and facilitate the
organisation and running of world, regional and national games. Their
headquarters are in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany (www.cpisra.org).
The International Blind Sports Federation (IBSA)

Founded in Paris in 1981, IBSA is registered as a non-profit, public interest
body based in Spain that encourages and provides opportunities for all
blind and visually impaired people to get involved in different sports
and physical activities. Their headquarters are in Madrid, Spain (www.
ibsasport.org).
The International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS)

IWAS was formed in 2002 from the merger between the International Stoke
Mandeville Wheelchair Sports Federation (ISMWSF) and the International
Sports Organisation for the Disabled (ISOD). Its aim is to enable the growth
and achievements of persons with a physical disability in sport and provide
opportunities to achieve individual aspirations at all levels through a defined
athlete pathway. Their headquarters are in Aylesbury, UK (www.iwasf.com).
The International Sports Federation for Persons with an Intellectual

Disability (INAS)
INAS was founded in 1986 and is responsible for providing sporting
opportunities for athletes with intellectual disabilities who wish to take
part in open competitive sport performed under the rules of the relevant
International Federation. The aims of the INAS are different from, and
should not be confused with, Special Olympics who also cater for athletes
with an intellectual disability. Please see Chapter 10 for further details. Their
headquarters are in Wakefield, UK (www.inas.org).
The IPC Governing Board
The Governing Board is the representative of the IPC Membership, elected
at the General Assembly in accordance with nomination and election
procedures adopted by the IPC Membership at the 2004 Extraordinary
General Assembly. It is responsible for overseeing the affairs of the IPC in
between meetings of the General Assembly and comprises fifteen members,
including one President, one Vice-President, ten Members-at-Large, one
co-opted member (member without vote), one Athletes’ representative

(ex-officio member with vote, elected by the Athletes’ Council) and the
CEO (ex-officio member without vote). The Governing Board is chaired
by the President and holds meetings at least three times a year. It is
primarily responsible for the implementation of policies and directions
set by the General Assembly. Additionally, the Governing Board provides
recommendations on membership, including conditions for membership
and fees, to the General Assembly as well as recommendations on motions
received from members. It is also responsible for approving budgets
and audited accounts, IPC Rules and Regulations, membership of IPC
Committees and the Paralympic Games.
IPC Councils
Athletes’ Council
The Athletes’ Council is the collective voice of Paralympic athletes within
the IPC and the greater Paralympic Movement. It acts as the liaison between
IPC decision makers and Paralympic athletes and works to provide effective
input into decision-making at all levels of the organisation. A member of the
IPC Athletes’ Council also sits on the IOC Athletes’ Commission. The IPC
Athlete’s Council consists of nine Paralympic athlete representatives elected
for a four-year term. Six athlete representatives are elected from summer
sports and three from winter sports at the Paralympic Games. However,
the current Athletes’ Council (as at December 2015) also includes a co-
opted member and a representative from the IOC Athletes’ Commission.
Athlete candidates are nominated by their respective National Paralympic
Committee and must have competed at a Paralympic Games within the
previous eight years. The Athletes’ Council meets at least once a year at the
invitation of the Chairperson and upon request of the IPC Governing Board.
Its roles include overseeing the Athletes’ Council election process during the
Paralympic Games to ensure that they are organised in a democratic and
fair manner and aim to ensure maximum participation by athletes eligible to
vote. Successful candidates are announced during the Closing Ceremony of
the respective Paralympic Games.
The IPC Regions’ Council
Up until the last IPC General Assembly held in Mexico City in November
2015 the IPC Regions’ Council provided feedback, advice and representation
on the IPC Governing Board on behalf of, and in the interests of, their
respective regions in all IPC matters. It consisted of representatives from each
of the five regional organisations mentioned above and provided a forum
for the exchange of information on matters of common interest. However,
following the General Assembly the IPC Regions Council was dissolved.
According to IPC New communication mechanisms have been established
to ensure effective communication between the IPC and its Regions (IPC
Website, 2015b).
The IPC IOSDs’ Council

2015 the IPC IOSDs’ Council provided feedback, advice and reports to the
IPC Governing Board, on behalf of and in the interests of their respective
athletes and officials in all IPC matters. It consisted of representatives of
each of the four IOSDs mentioned above. The Council provided a forum
for exchange of information on matters of common interest. However,
following the IPC General Assembly the IOSD Council was dissolved. An
independent Council of IOSDs is in the process of being established.
The IPC Sports Council

2015 the IPC Sports Council provided feedback, advice and reports to the
IPC Governing Board, on behalf of and in the interest of sports recognised
by the IPC. The Sports Council provided an annual forum for exchange of
information on matters of common interest, sharing of best practices and
expertise within and between the Sports. However, at the 2015 General
Assembly the IPC Sports Council was dissolved. An independent Association
of Paralympic Sports Organisations (APSO) will be established to take its place.
IPC Standing committees

There are currently twelve standing committees (see Figure 3.1) which were
established to consult and advise the IPC on a variety of issues pertinent to
the running of both the Paralympic Games and the organisation as a whole.
Members are nominated from within the member organisations and then
selected by the Governing Board. However, as at December 2015 the Athletes
with High Support Needs Committee is currently a Working Group with
the aim of putting a Standing Committee in place that will better represent
Athletes with High Support Needs within the Paralympic Movement.
The IPC Management Team
The IPC Management Team consists of the professional staff working under
the direction of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). With the authority
delegated by the Governing Board, the CEO represents the Governing Board
and the IPC in all day-to-day business affairs.
Conclusion
As the size and success of the Paralympic Games and international disability
sport in general has grown, the complexity and size of the structure necessary
for it to continue to grow and succeed has grown accordingly. This brings
with it many issues that need to be addressed or overcome. A number of
these issues will be outlined within the remaining chapters of this book.

1 Name the five IOSDs currently in existence and describe their role in
international disability sport.
2 What is the role of the International Paralympic Committee in
international disability sport?
3 List the three strategic goals and the three strategic drivers of the IPC
Strategic Plan (2015–2018) and discuss their potential effectiveness.
4 What is the role of a National Paralympic Committee (NPC)? How
much do you know about the NPC in your country?

DePauw, K. and Gavron, S.J., 2005, Disability Sport (2nd edn), Human Kinetics,
Leeds, UK.
Misener, L. and Darcy, S., 2014, Editorial: Managing disability sport: From athletes
with disabilities to inclusive organisational perspectives, Sport Management
Review, Vol. 17(1), pp. 1–7.
Thomas, N. and Guett, M., 2014, Fragmented, complex and cumbersome: a study of
disability sport policy and provision in Europe, The International Journal of Sport
Policy and Politics, Vol. 6(3), pp. 389–406.
4 Disability and the body
Chapter aims
• To outline the medical, social and bio-social models of disability and
their relevance.
• To review the place of disability in relation to concepts such as normality
and oppression.
• To review the role of language and its impact upon people with
disabilities.
How any group of people get on in life is very often dependent upon how
that group is viewed and treated by the rest of society. This doesn’t just
relate to sport, but all aspects of the lives of people with disabilities. This
first section outlines the ways people with disabilities have been viewed
throughout history and the way these views have been perceived and
interpreted by individuals and groups working in disability research. DePauw
(1997) highlights the importance of people’s perceptions and definitions of
the body and their effect on perceptions of disability and argues that:
An understanding of the body, our attitudes toward the body, ... is

important because how we view the body and how we define sport
impacts how we view disability and individuals with disabilities.
(DePauw, 1997, p. 420)
According to Dunn and Sherrill (1996) some, although they don’t say
whom, have argued that society, in its attempts to try and understand people
with disabilities, has progressed or evolved through a series of phases in its
treatment of the disabled. However, it should be noted that they appear to be
talking about western society in particular. They summarise these phases thus:
Extermination
This has occurred throughout history from ancient times for a variety of
reasons including some religious beliefs that held that people with disabilities
Disability and the body 53
were evil, to modern genetic engineers who put a modern spin on the
need to exterminate anything that might interfere with ideal or ‘normal’
development of the human body, for example Nazi Germany (see also Peers,
2015, pp. 135–139).
Ridicule
Earlier societies, particularly in the medieval period where many of the court
jesters were individuals with different appearances or mental functions (e.g.

dwarfs, hunchbacks), were prone to ridicule and taunt those who were
disabled in some way. Even today individuals with disabilities frequently
have to endure rude, ignorant and offensive comments. Our language is full
of expressions that have a tendency to poke fun at those with disabilities (for
example cripple, retarded) (see also Korhonen, 2014).
Institutionalisation
Up to the early 1900s, it was very common to institutionalise any individual
who somehow deviated significantly from the norm. Although this was
viewed as the humane thing to do, many acknowledge that institutions were
created to protect the non-disabled from those with disabilities (see also
Frederick, 2014).
Education
In more modern times, more recent views of those with disabilities have helped
some within society to understand that educating these individuals leads to
productive citizens. To a large extent, however, those with disabilities continue
to lag far behind in overall education and this lack of adequate education
affects employment, income and independence (see also Penketh, 2014).
Self-realisation
According to Dunn and Sherrill (1996), individuals with disabilities are
increasingly accepted as individuals without focusing on, or generalising about,
their disability. They claim this is evident, for instance, in efforts to promote
programmes that integrate people with disabilities into all facets of life,
including schools, employment, and recreation. To a large extent, however,
individuals with disabilities are still viewed by many as a ‘class or category’
with little appreciation or understanding of the unique nature of each person,
regardless of the disability. This is an argument that many writers in the field
of disability concur with (Swain et al., 1993; Barnes, 1991; Shearer, 1981).
According Dunn and Sherrill (1996), this tendency to categorise all individuals
with disabilities, or to stereotype, is a particularly hurtful type of prejudice that
further contributes to the depersonalisation of individuals with disabilities.
Disability, definitions and societal perceptions
All of the historical phases of treatment of people with disabilities introduced
above are based upon the prevalent societal perceptions of disability and
people with disabilities at that time. How disability is defined within a
particular society potentially says a lot about how that society perceives
disability and people with disabilities. Below are three definitions of the
term ‘disability’ which clearly pathologise disability, that is represent it as
biologically situated and produced:
1 Disability: The loss or reduction of functional ability. (World Health

Organisation (1980) in DePauw (1997, p. 422))
2 Disability, noun – 1. The state of being disabled. 2. A condition such as
a physical handicap that results in partial or complete loss of a person’s
ability to perform social, occupational or other everyday activities.
(Chambers Encyclopaedic English Dictionary (1994, p. 365))
3 Disability, n. – 1. A physical incapacity; either congenital or caused by
injury, disease, etc., esp. when limiting a person’s ability to work. 2. A
lack of some asset, quality, or attribute, that prevents a person from
doing something.(Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (1998, p. 230))
These definitions of disability form the basis for what constitutes

conventional views of disability. DePauw (1997), Oliver (1993a) and Morris
(1991) have pointed to the ways in which such taken for granted notions
identify individual impairment as the problem, placing this problem squarely
on the shoulders of the individual with a disability. This is termed the medical
model of disability. It has as its emphasis a disability – specific or categorical
approach that reinforces and perpetuates the perspective of disability as
found in the person and their individual impairment and, therefore, as a
problem of the individual (Garland-Thomson, 2014).
Power – knowledge, medical model discourse and disability

A key concept in defining how powerful ideas shape or generate a framework
of discipline for organisational systems is the Foucauldian idea of power-
knowledge. This is based on common assumptions and according to Foucault
these assumptions underlie particular patterns of language use, particularly
in ‘expert jargon’ (O’Donnell, 1997, p. 98). Foucault calls a set of common
assumptions related to a particular topic a ‘discourse’, which according to
Layder (1994):
refers to all that can be thought, written or said about a particular

thing such as a product (like a car, or a washing detergent), or a topic
of specialist knowledge (such as sport or medicine). In this sense, the
ability to employ a discourse reflects a command of knowledge of a
particular area. It also implies that this facility is employed in relation
to people who lack such command and have no legitimate claim to such
knowledge. For instance, command of a particular discourse, such as
that of medicine or law, also allows control over those who do not, such
as patients and clients.
(Layder, 1994, p. 97)
According to O’Donnell (1997) those who do have command over the

knowledge within a particular discourse, the experts, have the power or

authority to establish that discourse, which can then be extremely difficult
to challenge without the help of an alternative set of experts. In modern day
western societies the power of the medical profession, gained through its
ability to both define and name illnesses and body parts as well as the power
to heal injuries and cure illnesses, has put them in a very strong position to
create and perpetuate discourses with respect to many areas of life related
to the body and mind including disability. Along with this power to define
comes ‘control and discipline’ (O’Donnell, 1997, p. 99). The medical
profession work from a biological perspective and this has led to disability
being conceived of as merely a biological product. Therefore, the general
view is that the problems that face people with disabilities are the result of
their physical and/or intellectual impairments and are independent of the
wider socio-cultural, physical, and political environments. The power of the
medical profession within society has played a significant role in creating
many of the societal perceptions of disability that are embedded within the
medical model discourse. A large part of the reason for this, according to
Wendell (1996), is that:
Their authority operates far beyond medical institutions – inside and

in relation to government bureaucracies, insurance companies, courts,
schools, charities, rehabilitative organizations, and institutes for longterm
care. Medical professionals also exercise considerable authority with all
types of employers, certifying people medically capable or incapable of
working.
(Wendell, 1996, p. 117)
As a result of this ‘cognitive authority’ of the medical profession (Addelson,

1983, cited in Wendell, 1996, p. 117) both the non-disabled and people with
disabilities within society are strongly encouraged, through the numerous,
apparently legitimate, sources (such as those described by Wendell, above) in
which they encounter it, to ‘internalise’ many of the perceptions of disability
embedded in the medical model approach to disability. Consequently, it
appears to people with disabilities that the cause of many of their problems lies
within them and their impairments. In addition this powerful and apparently
‘legitimised’ discourse is then taken up and used by other organisations and
institutions within society to inform policy or to exert power over those
with disabilities, that is, a particular understanding of disability has been
normalised within society. Therefore, those with the most legitimate claim
to determine and define the discourse in the area of disability (people who
actually have disabilities) are strongly encouraged to accept a discourse
that is not in their best interests. But because the rest of society has also
internalised such a discourse and, as such, accepts disability as pathological
(that is, based on biology), it has become almost impossible for them to put
forward an alternative discourse that will be listened to.
Drake (1999), by way of an explanation for the position of people with

disabilities within British society, introduces the work of Lukes (1974) and
his three dimensional analysis of power. Drake states that, first, for Lukes,
power is an active concept, the direct exercise of which might take the
form of decision-making or by the use of force or imposition of authority.
In the case of disability one such authority would be that of the medical
profession as discussed above, who have the power not only to label someone
as ‘disabled’ but also the power to affect their access to assistance to mediate
their situation such as state benefits. Drake (1999) states that in Lukes’
second dimension of power he introduces the notion of ‘deliberate non-
decision’, which includes the ideas in the first dimension and which results in
the suppression or thwarting of a latent or manifest challenge to the values
or interests of the decision maker. Insofar as the inactivity is deliberate, this
is an exercise of power. Reasons for this may include issues such as cost.
It is cheaper to label someone as ‘disabled’ and give them benefits than it
would be to admit that it might actually be other factors such as the built
environment that disables them and pay to have that environment made
accessible. In terms of disability this might be one possible reason to explain
why proponents of the social model of disability (outlined in the next section)
find it so hard to gain acceptance for their ideas, although the overall reason
is likely to be far more complex. According to Drake (1999) Lukes’ third and
final dimension is most closely related to the ideas of Gramsci’s hegemony
theory in which Gramsci (1971) states ‘the ascendancy of a class or group
rests on its ability to translate its own worldview into a pervasive dominant
ethos’ (Gramsci 1971 cited in Drake, 1999, p. 14). Drake states that in
Lukes’ view this involves the shaping of people’s perceptions, cognitions and
preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order
because they can neither see nor imagine an alternative to it. However, as Burr
(1995, p. 71) states ‘if people really understood that they were being controlled
they would not stand for it.’ As a possible explanation for this situation Burr
cites Foucault (1976) who claims “power is tolerable only on condition that it
mask a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide
its own mechanisms” (Foucault, 1976 cited in Burr, 1995, p. 71).
In the case of disability this power is successfully hidden, through the
perceptions embedded in the medical model of disability, by transferring the
‘blame’ for an individual’s situation on to the individual with a disability,
thus forcing them to accept a situation that is not in their best interests. This
is then reinforced by regular reference to societal norms and because people
with disabilities do not fit into these norms, for example, they get around
using a wheelchair instead of walking or cannot see as well as the majority of
society, this leads to the situation of people with disabilities being taken for
granted by most members of society. Although it is difficult to discern this
situation from a situation of genuine consensus, Lukes suggests that where
power is exercised by means of a social construction of reality there will
exist ‘latent conflict’ (Lukes, 1971 cited in Drake, 1999, p. 15). In the case
of disability there is a contradiction between those exercising power and the

‘real interests’ of those they exclude through the imposition of the perceptions
of disability embedded in the medical model discourse and it is up to those
who are excluded to discover what their ‘real interests’ are and act.
Some academics have attempted to redefine this discourse, in conjunction
with people with disabilities, in order to try and gain legitimacy for the
arguments contained within the social model of disability, within the eyes of the
rest of society. This is an approach that several scholars, also within the fields
of sport and physical education, now appear to be advocating. DePauw (2000,
p. 365) claims that co-operation with people with disabilities ‘can help move
our research and scholarship from studies of disability as a biological category
to the understanding of disability as a social identity’ and Barton (1993, p. 52)
whilst discussing the issues of ‘rights, choice, power and change’ in reference
to the emancipatory process within school physical education states ‘part of
this process involves the participation of disabled people in those decisions
affecting their lives and over which they have expert knowledge’.
Study Activity
List some of the names you have heard used as insults thrown at individuals
who have played particularly badly in a sporting activity. How many of
them relate to disability or specific impairments? Discuss the link between
these insults and what they might tell us about perceptions of disability and
disability sport.
The social model of disability

According to Morris (1991) in recent years, many of those involved in
the disability movement have argued against the perceptions of disability
embedded in the medical model, which health and social services professionals
(and the general public) tend to apply to people with disabilities. Disability
activists have, therefore, developed a social model of disability, arguing that it
is environmental barriers and social attitudes that disable. According to Devine
(1997, p. 4) social construction theory ‘seeks to explain the process by which
knowledge is created and assumed as reality.’ In terms of disability and the use of
the social model by disability activists to fight against the dominant perceptions
of disability, based upon a medical model ethos, within society, Priestley (1998)
claims its use has its roots in the work of the Union of Physically Impaired
Against Segregation (UPIAS) (1976) and Vic Finkelstein (1980), both in Great
Britain. These works ‘form the core assumptions’ for modern day contributors
in this area (Priestley, 1998, p. 80). Morris (1991) states that this perspective
takes the view that if people’s attitudes were to change, and there was public
policy that legislated that environmental barriers should be removed, then
many of the problems associated with disability would disappear. This view is
exemplified in the comments of Drake (1996, cited in Imrie, 1997):
disablement lies in the construction of society, not in the physical

condition of the individual. However, this argument is usually rejected
precisely because to accept it involves recognising the extent to which
we are not merely unfortunate but are directly oppressed by a hostile
social environment.
(Drake, 1996, cited in Imrie, 1997, p. 263)
The bio-social model of disability

However, Imrie (1997) himself argues strongly against this perspective. He
claims that this perspective suggests that a change in the physical environment
(access to buildings, etc.) can change the experiences of people with
disabilities. However, such transformations alone will do little or nothing
to destroy the underlying disablist values within society or the institutional
structures within which people with disabilities are forced to operate. He
claims that the reverse is, in fact, more likely:
because such perspectives (social model of disability) de-politicise the

very essence of ‘being disabled’ as either an individual condition or one
connected to the policy practices of policy institutions. Wider structural
conditions are lost sight of while the body is conceived of (if at all) as
ephemeral.
(Imrie, 1997, p. 270)
This attempt to include impairment within the overall understanding of

disability and its impact within a society is known as the bio-social model.
What this appears to indicate is that it is a change in underlying attitudes and
levels of understanding that are key to changing the situation for people with
disabilities. Indeed it could be argued that if underlying attitudes and levels
of understanding were to change in a positive manner then the necessary
changes in policy should follow as a natural progression of the new situation.
However, writers such as Imrie (1997) and Birkenbach (1990) have argued
that perspectives such as the medical and social models are both inherently
weak because they deny the interactional character of disablement. Imrie
(1997) and Birkenbach (1990) do, however, acknowledge the difficulties
of trying to locate disablement in a relationship between a medical and a
functional problem and the social responses to it, as they claim the concept
of disability requires. Birkenbach (1990) argues that the social model must
recognise that there is a physical state that prevents people with disabilities
being afforded equal opportunities and treatment in that their very physical
differences mean that society has to react to them and their various needs
in a different way from the way it reacts to the same needs of the rest of
society. French (1993) rejects the idea that her visual impairment generates
disabilities that are wholly socially created. As she comments, her impairment
(blindness) disables her from recognising people and makes her ‘unable
to read non-verbal cues or emit them correctly’ (French, 1993, p. 17). In
response to this Priestley (1998) cites the Northern Officer Group Report of
1996 which states:
The social model does not deny the existence of impairments and
physiological differences ..., rather, it addresses them without attaching
value judgements such as ‘normality’ and shifts emphasis towards those
aspects of our world that can be changed
(Northern Officer Group (1996) cited in Priestley, 1998, p. 85)
In addition to this Shakespeare and Watson (1997) feel that this issue
of the failure of the social model to acknowledge the role of impairments
in producing disability is one that only arises within the area of disability
research. They feel that the real issue is the need for a clear and united stance,
because ‘the differences within the movement on the issue of the social model
are as nothing compared to the hostility and ignorance with which the social
model is greeted in the wider world’ (Shakespeare and Watson, 1997, p.
299). Whilst acknowledging the importance of individual impairment in the
construction of individual personal identity, Priestley (1998) underlines the
importance of the fact that people who are different may still be discriminated
against collectively within the society in which they live.
Disability and normality

The concept of ‘normality’ plays an important role in people’s views and
perceptions of the world around them and the people in it. Most people’s
concept of normality is historically and culturally located and so a universal
concept of normality would appear impossible, as Morris (1993) points out:
Prejudice is associated with the recognition of difference. In theory

‘normal’ could be a value-free word to mean merely that which
is common, and to be different from normal would not therefore
necessarily provoke prejudice. In practice, the word is inherently tied
up with ideas about what is right, what is desirable and what belongs’
(Morris, 1993, p. 101)
Abberley (1993) argues that the range of disciplines, from medical
sociology to social psychology, still retain the notion that disabled people
are abnormal, in the sense that their impairment can be explained only in
terms of a deviation from a ‘standard norm’ and that they are the problem
for deviating from it. Davis (1997, p. 9) discusses the use of ‘norms’ within
society and claims that “we live in a world of norms”. He argues that
everything we do is compared against that of the ‘average person’, be it
our intelligence, height, weight or sex drive, and that there is probably no
area of contemporary life in which some idea of a norm, mean, or average

has not been calculated. Davis goes on to argue that in order to understand
the disabled body, one must return to the concept of the norm, the normal
body. He suggests that the majority of writing about people with disabilities
has been centred on the disabled person as the object of study, and argues
that a focus on the construction of normalcy would be more advantageous.
His argument is that the “problem” is not the person with a disability; the
problem is the way that normalcy is constructed to create the “problem” of
the disabled person.
Davis’ argument that everything we do is ranked along some conceptual
line from subnormal to above-average is extended and further related to
people with disabilities in the work of Shearer (1981). Shearer discusses
the broad mix of abilities and inabilities that goes to make up the human
race. She cites the case of a woman who, because of an accident of birth,
is unable to walk at all and must go about in a wheelchair. The woman
is, however, a gifted mathematician and also has a quota of other gifts.
However, somehow, according to Shearer, she is no longer seen as able
in some situations and un-able in others. Instead, a blanket description is
thrown over her. She is ‘disabled’. Immediately the perception changes.
The continuum of ability and inability is broken and a new vocabulary
comes into play. Shearer claims that by turning a description of a condition
into a description of people, we are saying that this is all we really need to
know about them and in doing so we confirm their ‘abnormality’. Barton
(1993, p. 44) claims that ‘definitions are crucial in that the presuppositions
informing them can be the basis for stereotyping and stigmatisation’ and,
by making terms such as ‘disabled’ a blanket term to cover people with all
types of impairment it creates a sense of ‘sameness’. This partly explains
the strenuous efforts by persons working and competing in the field of
disability sport to have those participating described as ‘athletes with
disabilities’ rather than ‘disabled athletes’ in order to place the emphasis on
the fact that, first and foremost, they consider themselves, and would wish
to be viewed by others, as athletes (who happen to have an impairment).
Moreover, Barton (1993) also claims that the way an individual with a
disability experiences their disability within a society and the level of
perceived discrimination and oppression can be lessened or compounded
by other issues such as race, gender, class and age. This clearly underlines
the complexity of how disability is produced and experienced and it is
clear from this that simply redefining a few labels will actually do little to
change the underlying presuppositions attached to those labels.
According to The Independent newspaper (2015) recorded hate crime
against disabled people in the UK increased by 41 per cent in the year 2014–
15, with campaigners claiming the figures are just the tip of the iceberg.
According to data acquired by The Independent via a Freedom of Information
request, hate crimes recorded by police rose to 2,765 incidents in 2014–15
compared to 1,955 incidents in 2013–14. The next section will, therefore,
look at the different kinds of ‘violence’ many people with disabilities have to
endure on an almost daily basis.
Disability, oppression and types of ‘violence’ used against people

with disabilities
The adaptation of Galtung’s Triangle of Violence highlights some of the ways
in which people with disabilities have historically been ‘victims’ of various
kinds of ‘violence’ around the world (see Figure 4.1). For the purposes of
this work ‘violence’ is defined by the World Health Organisation as:
the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual,

against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that
either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death,
psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.
(World Health Organisation website, 2010)
Direct violence
As outlined at the beginning of this chapter extermination of people with
disabilities has occurred throughout history from ancient times for a variety
of reasons, including some religious beliefs, to eugenics. In addition, people
with disabilities are prone to ridicule (so called ‘freak shows’ would be a
modern-day example of this). Even today individuals with disabilities
frequently have to endure rude, ignorant and offensive comments.
Although the more extreme forms of visible direct violence such as
extermination may not be anywhere near as prevalent today (although this
is not say that it does not still happen in more isolated areas or individual
cases) other forms of visible violence such as abortion and even euthanasia
still occur, often legally within society even though both practices come
under heavy criticism from a number of different sources.
Structural violence
In addition to the usually reported issues of poverty and an inaccessible
built environment, there are a number of other issues that come under the
Direct Violence
Extermination/Abortion/Euthanasia
Ridicule
Visible
Violence
Invisible/Less
Visible Violence
Cultural Violence Structural Violence

– Fear – Unequal access to opportunities/
– Hatred services (Education, Health,
– Dismissiveness Employment)
– Negative perceptions regarding – Inaccessible built environment
abilities – Poverty
– Pity – Institutionalisation/Hiding
away by families
Figure 4.1 Disability and the triangle of violence (adapted from Johan Galtung, 1990)
heading of structural violence. As outlined at the start of this chapter, up to

the early 1900s, it was very common to institutionalise any individual who
somehow deviated significantly from the norm. A more modern version of
this is the hiding away by families of family members who are disabled as a
result of a variety of cultural and/or religious reasons. The central precept
of Buddhism revolves around ‘Karma’ whereby actions in this life dictate
the level of existence in the next. At a conceptual level, this often means
that disability is seen as a punishment for bad actions committed in previous
lives. Persons with a disability, especially in rural areas are, therefore, often
hidden by their families who are afraid for their reputations in the wider
community – specifically the very Asian idea of ‘losing face’. In Kenya, in the
1980s, 50 per cent of Kenyans with disabilities had no children, compared
to the average Kenyan family of six or more children (Crawford, 2004,
p. 13). Crawford attributes this fact to myths surrounding passing on ‘bad
blood’ combined with perceptions that people with disabilities are ‘asexual,
unable to care for children, or are medically incapable’ (Crawford, 2004,
p. 13). This concept of ‘bad blood’, similar to the idea of karma described
above, plays a key part in impacting the way many people with disabilities
are treated in Kenya compared to the non-disabled. However, non-disabled
family members of people with disabilities may also be deemed to be tainted
by the same curse, meaning whole families may be treated differently
or even shunned. This situation can even cause some individuals to take
drastic actions as appeared in the Daily Mirror newspaper in the UK who
reported the story of an Armenian woman who left her husband and filed
for divorced one week after the birth of their first child who was born with
Down’s Syndrome. According to the report the wife file for divorce because
the husband refused to give his son up and she believed their son’s disability
would bring shame on the family (Daily Mirror, 2015).
Unequal access to services can result from many different situations and
not just in relation to what those in the non-disabled section of society

receive. For many years disabled war veterans in Israel have benefited from
a system of welfare that means that they receive far better care and financial
benefits than Israeli individuals injured as a result of birth defects, traumatic
injuries or illness later in life. Indeed Dr Yaniv Poria, author of a study on the
disabled in Israel stated that ‘it is common among disabled people in Israel
to say that it is better to become disabled during your army service than as a
result of birth or an accident’ (Brinn, 2004). Gal and Bar (2000) claim that
disabled war veterans are more highly regarded within Israeli society than
other disabled individual due to the fact that they received their disabilities in
fighting in the name of Israel. Gal and Bar differentiate between the ‘needed’
and the ‘needy’ disabled individuals with the ‘needed’ disabled individuals
having much higher status and far better care and remuneration than the
‘needy’ individuals, due to the sacrifices they made ‘in the name of an array
of social values’(Gal and Bar, 2005, p. 592).
Cultural violence
Emotional responses to disability such as fear, hatred, dismissiveness or pity
can have major impacts upon the way people within non-disabled society
interact with people with disabilities. Even the reaction of close friends
to a sudden acquired disability can cause problems in a previously close
friendship as Danny (in Brittain, 2002, p. 138) pointed out following the
loss of his right arm at the shoulder during a car accident:
a lot of them found it very difficult, obviously, to come to terms with it.
More so than me. And they found it hard to be around me, friends that
I’d had for years.”
(Danny)
The fact that many of Danny’s long-term friends found it hard to be

around him following his accident appears to be in line with Hogan’s (1999)
contention that an acquired disability signifies a massive change in social
status in the eyes of those around them. It is likely that a general lack of
understanding of disability and the issues surrounding it were to blame for
the difficulty of Danny’s friends in accepting his disability, for as Chris (in
Brittain, 2002, p. 138) so concisely put it:
They have very little knowledge of people with a disability and instead
the attitude is basically if I leave it alone and don’t touch them and don’t
get involved then it’s not my problem kind of thing.
(Chris)
The reaction of Danny’s friends to his acquired impairment clearly

demonstrates the effect that a lack of understanding and a fear of the difference
of anyone who does not conform to societal norms of able-bodiedness can
have. Danny is still fully ambulatory with all his visual and intellectual faculties
intact. He simply has one arm less than the majority of people.
Disability and multiple oppression – mediation or magnification

The use of social construction theory, upon which the social model of
disability is based, is not confined solely to the field of disability studies. It
has been used to investigate many areas of society as the following quote
from Figueroa (1993) indicates:
Racism at the cultural level can be thought of as the operation of a shared

racist frame of reference. This is a socially shared set of assumptions,
beliefs, conceptual constructs, symbolic systems, values, attitudes and
behavioural norms linked implicitly or explicitly to a concept of ‘race’,
... Thus, this racist frame of reference can be thought of as a group myth,
ideology, worldview, shared paradigm or embedded code in which real
or supposed phenotypical or other features, taken as natural or inherent
defining characteristics, constitute the key differentiating factor. It
animates and constrains perception, interpretation and action, defines
group identity, provides a rallying point for group loyalty and cohesion,
structures social relations, provides a rationale for the existing social
order, and performs a system maintenance function, serving the interests
of those who hold power. It essentially operates at a tacit or taken-for-
granted level
(Figueroa, 1993, p. 93)
It would appear that the words ‘race’, ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ could quite
easily be replaced by words such as class, gender, age, disability, sexual
orientation and all of their relevant ‘isms’ without changing any other
words or the overall context and meaning of the quote, although in practice
these might be differently experienced. Wendell (1996, p. 37) claims that
social factors that have an effect on people’s bodies are mediated by other
factors such as ‘racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, and advantages of
class background, wealth, and education.’ The social construction approach,
therefore, allows for the inclusion of numerous possible interrelated factors
when investigating each factor’s effect (both positive and negative) on
individuals or particular social groups. What this also highlights is that an
individual can be the victim of multiple prejudices. A black, female, disabled
lesbian may be subject to a combination of prejudices such as racism, sexism,
disableism and heterosexism, each of which may interact to magnify the sense
of isolation within the society in which they happen to live. Alternatively, the
impact of some of these ‘isms’ might be mediated by others so that a white,
disabled, heterosexual male from a wealthy background maybe subject to far
less prejudice within society, especially if their disability was received as a
result of an injury whilst fighting a war for their country.
Disability, language and sport

Language is at its most simple just a series of words or characters. It is the
meanings attached by humans to these words or characters that makes
language important. One function of language is communication, but in
communicating humans also, more often than not, convey the underlying
meaning behind the words or characters used. It is also claimed that language
plays a key role in politics, domination and control. The meanings attached
to the words or characters used are socially constructed within the social or
cultural group within which an individual grows up and develops. Therefore,
there can be major differences in the perceived meanings of words such
as disability, disabled and even what constitutes sport, dependent upon the
social and cultural group within which an individual learns their proscribed
meanings. However, as some social groups and cultures within a given society
are more powerful or have more influence than others one set of meanings
for these words may gain dominance, even over those meanings proscribed
by the group they refer to. In the next section some of the potential impacts
of this power struggle, which is predominantly between powerful groups
within the non-disabled majority (such as the medical profession and policy
makers and those with economic and political power and influence) and
those with the greatest understanding of the impacts of disability and
disabling language, people with disabilities themselves, are highlighted.
Ableist language, internalised ableism and feelings of inferiority

According to Wolbring (2012a) ‘ableism describes prejudicial attitudes and
discriminatory behaviours toward persons with a disability. Definitions of
ableism hinge on one’s understanding of normal ability and the rights and
benefits afforded to persons deemed “normal” ‘(p. 78). Today’s mainstream
sports organisations, sports media, sports sponsors and the overall sports
industry place an extensive focus on non-disabled athletes and non-disabled
sports. While sports opportunities for persons with disabilities continue to
emerge in many international communities, athletes with disabilities and
disability-specific sports largely remain segregated and invisible from the
mainstream sports environment. Historic and current barriers and prejudices
have reinforced the marginalisation of persons with disabilities in sports.
In the context of disability sport this prioritisation of non-disabled sport
within society devalues sport for athletes with disabilities and potentially
undermines much of the hard work done by disability activists to gain
acceptance for people with disabilities in all walks of life. Thomas Hehir of
the Harvard Graduate School of Education defines ableism as:
the devaluation of disability ... that results in societal attitudes that

uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak
than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a
spell-check, and hang out with non-disabled kids as opposed to other
disabled kids.
(Hehir, 2002, p. 2)
Ableism devalues people with disabilities and results in segregation, social

isolation and social policies that limit opportunities for full societal participation.
Unfortunately, persons with disabilities are also susceptible to internalising
stereotypes and negative beliefs. This process is called internalised ableism and
is similar to internalised racism and sexism regarding other devalued groups.
Internalised ableism in sport is experienced by disabled athletes, coaches and
administrators through their acceptance of the status quo and second-class
status compared to non-disabled athletes and non-disabled sports.
Disabled athlete – an oxymoron?

So what part does language play in this process? As described earlier, language
is made powerful by the meanings ascribed to particular words and phrases
and an understanding of those meanings by various groups within society. The
non-disabled form is, by far, the largest group within society and also the most
powerful, by sheer force of numbers if nothing else. Therefore, non-disabled
definitions or meanings for words tend, on the whole, to be the most widely
accepted and used. There has, in recent times, with the advent of the social
model of disability, been slow but positive change in some quarters regarding
the meaning attached to disability. However, for the majority of non-disabled
the perceived meaning is still based within the medical model of disability
whereby disability has as its emphasis a disability-specific or categorical
approach that reinforces and perpetuates the perspective of disability as found
in the person and their individual impairment and, therefore, as a problem
of the individual. In addition, little headway, if any has been made in altering
in any way the meaning attached to words such as ‘sport’ and ‘athlete’. The
connection between the human body, physicality and sport is a complex one.
However, Barton (1993) claims sport is a social construction of dominant
groups within society and is, therefore, a creation of and for the non-disabled,
which gives priority to certain types of human movement. According to
Middleton (1999) sport is a highly prized activity within society, in which
success is well rewarded and applauded. She claims that ‘a high value is placed
on physical perfection measured in terms of speed, strength, endurance, grace,
style and the ability to fight’ (Middleton, 1999, p. 65). These highly prized
attributes of any top class athlete mean that when words such as disabled
and athlete or disability and sport are placed next to each other the general
accepted perceptions of each mean that there is an immediate and fundamental
contradiction. In an ideal world both words should be simply descriptive nouns
to describe a condition and an activity respectively. However, in reality, both
are laden with socially constructed meaning and underlying value judgements.
Study activity
Take the three forms of ‘violence’ outlined in the chapter (Direct, Cultural
and Structural) and try to find specific examples of each a; in the everyday
lives of people with disabilities and b; within the context of sport for people
with disabilities.
Conclusion
The apparent oxymoronic nature of terms such as disabled athlete and
disability sport are part of the reason why disability sport and disabled athletes
find it so hard to be accepted as just sport and just athletes. It further impacts
on opportunities for athletes to get involved and advance in disability sport,
along with many other areas of their everyday lives, as well as opportunities
for the Paralympic Movement to generate media interest and sponsorship
deals. Possible reasons for why these issues exist and how they impact upon
participation in disability sport are discussed in the following chapters.

1 Describe the five phases through which Dunn and Sherrill (1996) argue
society has progressed in its treatment of people with disabilities.
2 Outline three key models of disability.
3 Explain the concept of multiple oppression.
4 Outline the different kinds of ‘violence’ used against people with
disabilities.
5 Why is language important when discussing disability.

Barton, L. (ed.), 2006, Overcoming Disabling Barriers: 18 Years of Disability and
Society, Routledge, London, UK.
Goodley, D., 2014, Dis/ability Studies: Theorising Disablism and Ableism, Routledge;
London, UK.
Howe, P.D., 2008, The Cultural Politics of the Paralympic Movement: Through an
Anthropological Lens, Routledge, London, UK.
5 The broader social issues
of disability within society
and their impact on sports
participation
Chapter aims
• To outline the economic and social position of people with disabilities.
• To review the impact of societal perceptions of disability and disability
sport upon people with disabilities.
• To introduce some of the barriers to participation in sport for people
with disabilities.
• To introduce the idea of legacy in relation to the Paralympic Games and
some of the issues associated with the claims made by the IPC.
The previous chapter outlined some of the ways that societal perceptions
of, and attitudes towards, disability might arise and the ways in which
these might show themselves. This chapter will now look at some of the
more tangible impacts of these perceptions on the daily lives of people with
disabilities and upon their opportunities to get involved in sport at all levels.
It will also introduce some of the legacy claims made by the IPC regarding
the Paralympic Games and some of the issues related to these claims.
The economic and social position of people with disabilities

According to the January–March 2014 Labour Force Survey, 8,657,000 of
59,821,000 Great Britain residents of working age (16+) were disabled (UK
Data Service, 2014), which equates to around 14.5 per cent of the population
who are of working age. The figures also show that only 27.4 per cent of
people with disabilities who are of working age are in employment. This
compares to 31 per cent in the mid-1980s although in general these jobs
tended to be poorly paid, low status positions (Kew, 1997; Southam, 1994).
According to Huang (2005) in Taiwan, a survey in 2004 revealed that 30 per
cent of disabled people were unemployed and that the unemployment rate
for disabled people was seven times more than the average unemployment
rate of the nation (Gao and Liang, 2004 in Huang, 2005). In addition
to this Oliver (1996, p. 115) points out that 60 per cent of people with
disabilities in both Britain and the USA currently live below the poverty
Broader social issues 69
line and as Crawford (1989, p. 8) points out ‘for most, the economics of
disability determine what life at the sidelines is like’. Oliver (1993b) claims
that work is central to industrial societies due to the fact that it not only
produces the goods to support life, but also helps to create some of the social
relationships necessary for a satisfactory life. Despite these figures, above,
French (1994) claims that there is considerable evidence to show that people
with disabilities can be just as productive and efficient as their non-disabled
counterparts, as well as being far less likely to have accidents at, or be absent
from, work. However, she goes on to state that this information is generally
not known or ignored and that it is generally presumed that people with
disabilities will be unable to cope, may deter or upset clients and are more
likely to have accidents.
Oliver (1993b) claims that it has not always been this way. He claims
that the arrival of the industrial society, with its regimented production
techniques and the speed required to complete set tasks, runs contrary to the
kinds of work methods many people with disabilities have been introduced
to. His overall argument in this case is that people with disabilities are very
likely to suffer exclusion from the work place due to perceived inabilities
and, as a result, face a continued creation of dependency upon the state
and those around them. This kind of attitude to hiring disabled employees
is clearly highlighted by Huang (2005) who claims that the Protection Law
for the Disabled in Taiwan, which defines minimum quotas for the hiring of
disabled employees in both public and private companies is flouted by many
employers. Apparently, 55 per cent of businesses do not hire disabled people,
preferring instead to pay the fine of approximately £262 per month for each
disabled person they are short of their quota. According to Huang (2005, p.
60) in May 2002, the Taipei City Special Account for Handicapped Welfare
had a net balance of US$166 million as a result of these fines. Crawford
(2004, p. 12) points out that in Kenya roughly 81 per cent of the parents
or guardians of people with disabilities come from groups that subsist well
below the poverty line. This, of course, means that for many disabled people
around the world just having enough money to feed and clothe themselves is
often difficult, let alone having enough time, money and energy to become
involved in sport. However, lack of money is not the only reason they may
be prevented from taking part as the following sections will show.
The impact of negative perceptions of disability on social

interaction in relation to people with disabilities
The persistence of the negative perceptions of disability embedded in the
medical model discourse within many societies is based upon a number
of factors; for example, the power of the medical profession to define the
discourse for disability, the legitimisation of this discourse by other groups and
institutions within society, economic arguments, fear of difference and lack of
understanding and the use of societal ‘norms’, combined with a marginalisation
70 Broader social issues
by members of society of any person or group that does not conform to those
‘norms’. Some, or all, of these factors may interact to inform an individual’s
perceptions of people with disabilities and, as such, may form the basis for
how they act towards a person with a disability and what they might say when
discussing people with disabilities. Perhaps this is most clearly illustrated in the
actions of people towards an individual, who has for a large number of years
been considered a fit, healthy, non-disabled member of society, but due to an
accident or disease becomes ‘disabled’. Changes in the way people act towards,
or interact with, such an individual give a clear indication of a difference in

perception of the social status of that individual who has a newly acquired
disability. As Hogan (1999) clearly points out:
Acquired disability signifies a massive change in a person’s social

position and constitutes a personal crisis for the individual. Identity as
a social phenomenon becomes apparent as individuals are perceived by
themselves and others as different.
(Hogan, 1999, p. 80)
However, The Disability Daily (1998, in Donnellan, 1998) claims that

it is a myth that being disabled is easier if you are born that way and so
do not know any different, because it is the way that other people react
to impairment (and a lack of facilities for disabled people) that makes
things difficult for people with disabilities, irrespective of whether their
impairments are acquired or congenital. A typical example of this is parents
of disabled children who, fearing the child may hurt themselves, keep them
away from any form of physical activity that they perceive as dangerous to
their health. The suggestion appears to be that physical activity, particularly
strenuous physical activity, is not something that people with disabilities are
capable of taking part in. Even when they do, it is seen more as a form of
physical rehabilitation rather than something done for an ulterior reason
or for its own sake. This very same attitude leads many parents to be very
reticent to allow their children to take part in potentially beneficial physical
activity (both in terms of socialisation as well as physical well-being) for fear
that they might get hurt or are incapable of doing the activity (Thierfeld
and Gibbons, 1986). This perceived incompatibility between the demands
of sport and the capabilities of people with disabilities plays a key role in
keeping many people with disabilities of all ages out of sport. In a recent
survey of children with disabilities, aged between six and sixteen, Sport
England found that 19 per cent of all those surveyed said that they did not
take part in any sport due to inhibition or discrimination by the general
public (Sport England, 2001, p. 42). In light of this research some of the
effects of the perceptions with regard to sport and disability discussed above
on the self-perceptions of people with disabilities are highlighted below. By
way of a partial explanation of this complex issue Hargreaves (2000, p. 185)
states that people with disabilities ‘are looked upon, identified, judged and
represented primarily through their bodies, which are perceived in popular
consciousness to be imperfect, incomplete and inadequate.’ As a result of
this those closest to someone with a disability, apparently driven by a desire
to help them live as ‘normal’ a life as possible and a misguided perception
that they are now somehow incapable of doing anything for themselves, can
change the whole nature of a formerly close relationship, as demonstrated
by the quote from Danny from Brittain (2002) in chapter 4. Hargreaves
(2000) explains this perception of inability, within Western societies at least,
in terms of the emphasis placed within these societies upon the desire to
achieve ‘mastery and perfection’ over, and of, nature and our own bodies
and how the disabled body is incompatible with this ideal.
However, according to Huang (2005) in Taiwanese society, where 93 per
cent of Taiwanese people believe in a mixture of Buddhism, Confucianism,
and Taoism, before Western medicine was introduced through missionary
activity in the nineteenth century, cultural perceptions of people with
impairments were predominantly entrenched in religious discourses. Disabled
people were often considered to have received their impairments as a result
of some kind of bad deed in a previous life that had offended either a God
or a ghost. Although, through the endorsement of Taiwanese Government
policy, Western medicine has become the authoritative perspective about
the body in contemporary Taiwanese society, making the medical model
of disability the dominant ideology, it has not totally displaced the idea of
religious retribution (Huang, 2005, p. 109). Crawford (2004, p.13) reports
similar issues in Kenya where she cites myths surrounding the passing on of
‘bad blood’ as one of the perceived reasons for someone having a disability.
The socially constructed ‘reality’ of disability and sport and some of

its effects upon the self-perceptions of people with disabilities
Self-confidence and self-image

When constantly confronted with negative perceptions about their abilities to
carry out tasks that most people take for granted, and also bombarded with
images of ‘physical perfection’ that most of the general public could not live
up to, it is little wonder that many people with disabilities suffer from low
self-esteem (Hargreaves, 2000). Seymour (1989) sums this up when she states:
the body in which I live is visible to others, it is the object of social

attention. I learn about my body from the impressions I see my body
make on other people. These interactions with others provide critical
visual data for my self-knowledge.
(Seymour, 1989 cited in Hargreaves, 2000, p. 185)
This socially imposed feeling of worthlessness and low self-esteem brought

on by the reaction of others to obvious physical difference can have very
strong and long-term effects on people with disabilities. This is particularly
true for young women who live in societies where physical beauty and
attractiveness are revered or as Tiemann (1999) puts it:
In a society where people are systematically taught to hate and fear old
age and disability and equate them with ‘ugliness’, everybody strives
for ‘prettiness’ and youth. In this society it is especially difficult and
stressful for women with physical disabilities to meet these demands.
They are perceived in Western-European and North-American society

as being inadequate, unable to totally fulfil culturally defined norms and
role expectations, especially concerning physical attractiveness, physical
activity, motherhood, employment and sexual partnership.
(Tiemann, 1999, pp. 1–2)
In line with this, Hargreaves (2000) claims that the influence of dominant
images of gender cause many disabled women to ‘choose not to participate in
sport because, in common with many able-bodied women, they are influenced
more by commodified anti-athletic stereotypes of femininity’ (Hargreaves,
2000, pp. 186–7). This perceived fear of failure and low sense of self-worth
can act as a strong deterrent, for many people (and especially women) with
disabilities, to becoming involved in sport. This is especially true when you
consider the fact that placing themselves in a sporting context is very likely
to exacerbate the visibility of the very physical differences that lead to these
feelings and perceptions in the first place. For a more detailed account of some
of the issues encountered by women with disabilities in sport, see Chapter 8.
Dependency
The idea, perpetuated through the perceptions of disability embedded in the
medical model discourse, that people with disabilities are incapable of doing
things for themselves clashes with the need of human beings to feel a sense
of independence within their own lives. Therefore, those individuals with
disabilities who do require help to perform certain tasks within their daily
lives can be made to feel a burden by the actions (conscious or unconscious)
of family, friends and carers. This, combined with the loss of any feeling of
independency or control over their lives, can lead many of these individuals to
feel that they have become a burden upon society and this feeling is probably
compounded by the idea of people with disabilities as non-productive
members of society as reported by Middleton (1999) and Priestley (1998).
This perception of being a burden and feeling guilt for being unable to do the
same things as everyone else are what can cause many people with disabilities
to stop asking for help altogether. The fact that people with disabilities do
perceive themselves to be a burden may have its origins in the fact that many
societies, particularly western industrialised societies, are constructed on the
Darwinian premise of ‘survival of the fittest’ (Barnes, 1994, p. 19), where any
request for help or assistance is perceived as a sign of weakness. Any requests
for help, or ‘acts of charity’ as they may be perceived by some, can lead to a
major lowering of self-esteem or even depression.
A perceived failure to live up to their role as an independent member
of society is often blamed, within the medical model discourse, on the
individual’s impairment. However, as Morris (1996, p. 10) points out
‘impairment does not necessarily create dependency and poor quality of
life; rather it is lack of control over the physical help needed which takes
away people’s independence’. Therefore, the combined assumption that

the problem lies within the individual and their impairment (Felske, 1994,
p. 182) and that everyone, especially adults, should be able to look after
themselves and their own needs within a society based upon competition
(Middleton, 1999, p. 69) can force people with disabilities into the false
belief that they are a burden upon society and that they are to blame for their
situation. By leading individuals with disabilities into this kind of self-belief,
however, it can help ensure that they do not make too many demands upon
society, particularly ones that have economic impacts for society as a whole
(Barnes, 1994, pp. 220–1).
Negative perceptions of disability and their influence upon people

with disabilities
It could be assumed that negative perceptions with regard to disability are
only relevant to non-disabled individuals when dealing with or discussing
people with disabilities. However, the power and reach of the perceptions of
disability embedded in the medical model discourse are such that they can
inform people with disabilities’ discourses regarding people with different
or more severe impairments in much the same way as they do for the non-
disabled community. Just because people with a disability are subjected to
one or some of the socially constructed ‘isms’ (e.g. disablism, sexism, racism)
it does not mean that they are immune from using disablist discourse. Indeed,
as an example of this Brittain (2004a) quotes one Paralympian as follows:
INA I think it gives a bad impression when you see these people that, like
the ones doing boccia. I think that’s just such an embarrassment and
you know when we went out there and came back then people were
saying oh we’re not on the same plane as the boccia lot.
INT But those are CPs (cerebral palsied athletes), not intellectually
disabled.
INA No, but it’s still intellectually or mentally disabled isn’t it?
INT They’re not, the CPs (cerebral palsied athletes). It’s just that they
don’t have the control of the muscles.
INA Yes, but it’s people like that that give the rest of us a bad name and
impression and they seem to class us all together and they only see
the really bad ones generally.
(Brittain, 2004a, p. 443)
It appears then that Ina is displaying a discriminatory or disablist viewpoint

of a group of people more severely disabled than herself. Arguably there is a
tendency within society to label all people with disabilities as ‘disabled’ and
attribute the same ‘meaning’ (usually that of the person with the greatest level
of impairment) to people with all types of impairment. This then could be
why Ina fears being associated with this group. However, in reality the quote
from Ina clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of what it means to
have cerebral palsy and also a discriminatory attitude towards their right to be
taking part in their chosen sporting activity and being part of the same team
as Ina and the others she refers to. In this case, this does not demonstrate the
more usual case of non-disabled perceptions regarding disability potentially
deterring a potential athlete with a disability from becoming involved in a
sport, but another, albeit relatively less, disabled individual displaying the same
kind of views about another group of individuals with a disability. This kind
of occurrence has also been reported by Hunt (1966 cited in Sherrill, 1986,
pp. 23–4) who stated that ‘people with less stigmatized disabilities are often
quite prejudiced against individuals who are more stigmatized.’ Deal (2003)
found reported similar findings when writing about disabled people’s attitudes
towards other impairment groups and Mastro (1996) reported that there was
actually a hierarchy of preference amongst elite athletes with impairments
toward one another. This then plays a part in reinforcing and recreating
negative perceptions of disability and their continued use within society.
Lack of awareness amongst people with disabilities

Brittain (2002) investigated, as part of a larger research project, how aware
the participants in his research were of the impact of societal perceptions
of disability on their lives by giving each of the participants taking part in
the research three wishes, which they felt, if granted, could improve the
situation for disability sport within Britain and/or encourage more people
with disabilities to take up sport. Despite the fact that Britain is the birthplace
of the social model of disability, not one of the participants directly stated
that what was needed was a change in the perceptions of society as a whole
towards the issue of disability. Brittain states that although the wording of
the question put to them may have been at fault, if the participants in the
research were truly cognisant of the mechanisms that result in many of the
problems they face, then there would have been a far greater emphasis upon
changing ‘attitudes’ towards disability within society amongst their answers
(Brittain, 2002, p. 149). However, this apparent lack of awareness amongst
the interviewees is consistent with Lukes’s (1974) third dimension of power
which is most closely related to the ideas of Gramsci’s hegemony theory in
which Gramsci (1971) states ‘the ascendancy of a class or group rests on
its ability to translate its own worldview into a pervasive dominant ethos’
(Gramsci 1971 cited in Drake, 1999, p. 14). Drake states that in Lukes’ view
this involves the shaping of people’s perceptions, cognitions and preferences
in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order because they can
neither see nor imagine an alternative to it. In addition Drake (1999) claims:
there are many examples where disabled people, and more especially
carers, unthinkingly accept the medical model and thus strive for
individual rather than environmental change
(Drake, 1999, p. 17)
The above then gives a grounding in some of the issues that disabled
individuals have to deal with in their everyday lives and which, when combined
together, may have a considerable impact on both their opportunities and
desire to become involved in sport.
Sport and disability

Devine (1997) claims that society has a prescribed set of standards by which
we are all measured and when someone’s biological make-up or function fails
to meet these standards they are ‘assumed to be inferior and are subject to
a decrease in inclusion in society’ (Devine, 1997, p. 4). This is equally true
for many aspects of life, but in the realm of sport, where one of the key aims
is to distinguish between different levels of biological make-up and function
through tests of physical strength, speed and endurance, this is especially true.
In many ways sport is designed to highlight and revere extremes of bodily
physical perfection and, under these circumstances, it is possible to see why,
for some people, the idea of elite sport for people with disabilities, and in
some cases any sport at all, is an anathema. Mastro et al. (1988, p. 81) claim
that part of the reason for this is that ‘there is no culturally recognised need for
competition and sports beyond therapeutic programs’, which in itself has its
roots in the schism between the socially constructed discourse of what sport
is and the perceptions of disability embedded in the medical model discourse.
By this I am referring to the view of sport as a means of highlighting bodily
perfection and the perceptions embedded in the medical model discourse that
views disability as a major form of biological imperfection. The outcome of
such a situation for potential athletes with a disability is that their dreams and
aspirations can be met with scorn or derision.
Self-perception and sport

Kew (1997) attempts to explain the relatively low number of people with
disabilities who take part in sport in terms of a lack of previous opportunity
and experience ‘at critical learning periods in childhood’ (Kew, 1997, p.
112), leading to a low self-assessment of their own abilities. This in turn
translates into a fear of failure or ridicule, which causes potential sportsmen
and women with disabilities to shy away from or avoid completely any form
of sport or leisure activity that may place them in this potential position of
perceived failure or ridicule. This appears to support the idea that part of the
reason why many people with disabilities do not become involved in sport
is based in their own self-perceptions, learnt through numerous interactions
with non-disabled members of society and leading to low self-confidence

and negative self-images with regard to the capabilities of their own bodies.
Indeed, a recent English Federation of Disability Sport (EFDS) (2013) found
that ‘disability’ (49%) and ‘health’ (40%) were the two top reasons given
by respondents for not doing sport (EFDS, 2013, p. 48). In addition, the
Sport England survey of children with disabilities found that 17 per cent of
the respondents cited their own impairment as the major reason preventing
them from doing any sport (Sport England, 2001, p. 42).
Material factors
For those people with disabilities who are encouraged to take part in sport or
who decide, despite the factors mentioned above, to take part of their own
volition the problems that they may encounter along the way are potentially
many and varied. The following are just a selection.
Transport
Barnes (1991, p. 186) cites a succession of studies (e.g. Barnes, 1990,
GLAD, 1988), which indicate that a major factor in the opportunities for
a person with a disability to take part in activities outside their own homes
is access to a car belonging to their family or a friend. This dependency
upon the goodwill and availability of family and friends for transportation
or even on local specialised transport systems has several repercussions for
people with disabilities. These include a decrease in independence such that
any leisure activities often have to be arranged around those times when
transport is available. If transport availability does not happen to coincide
with the times when coaching is available, or when team mates train, then
the chances of an individual, however keen or talented, achieving their
optimal performance level will be severely restricted. Cavet (1998, p. 98)
claims that ‘there is substantial evidence that disabled young people have
more limited opportunities for leisure activities outside their own homes
than non-disabled people of the same age’. Norris (2015) claims that a report
by UK disabled children’s charity Whizz-Kidz states that three-quarters of
wheelchair users and their families and carers can’t travel as independently
as they would like to and two-thirds do not feel confident enough to use
public transport. The report states that barriers in accessing public transport
ranged from lack of accessible transport near where respondents live (67
per cent), to being deterred by the attitude of staff (57 per cent) or other
passengers (61 per cent). The GLAD report (1988, p. 3) claims that those
people with disabilities who are dependent on specialised transport systems
such as local authority provision ‘participated in the fewest leisure activities
outside the home’. This may, therefore, kill off some elite disability sports
careers before they have even begun.
Physical accessibility
Even if problems of time and transport can be overcome, or are not an issue,
further problems of accessibility can arise once an athlete with a disability
has arrived at their destination. Much has been written about problems of
accessibility for people with disabilities (e.g. French and Hainsworth, 2001)
and many buildings were designed and built with a conception of non-
disabled users in mind. Therefore, if people with disabilities have difficulty
entering a facility it may put them off taking part in sport at all. Not only
does it make access awkward, but it makes people with disabilities feel
unwanted and unwelcome at the venue.
Study activity
Visit your local sports centre. How accessible do you think it is for disabled
individuals? Do not just think in terms of wheelchairs. Does the signage include
pictures to assist the intellectually disabled or those who can’t read? Do any
of the staff have a sign language qualification? Do they offer any activities,
integrated or otherwise, for the disabled? If not, try to find out why not.
Time/pace
Just getting dressed or changing can take a lot longer than for non-disabled
individuals. Lack of time, the time of day and the time it takes to do things
can all play a part in arranging a training regime for a sportsperson with a
disability. Wendell (1996, p. 38) claims ‘pace is a major aspect of expectations
of performance, non-disabled people often take pace so much for granted
that they feel and express impatience with the slower pace at which some
people with disabilities need to operate’.
Disability specific implications

One example of a disability specific implication is access to guide runners
for blind athletes, for both racing and training. Finding and retaining a guide
runner for a blind athlete who might be training eight or nine times a week,
especially one committed enough and fast enough can be a mammoth time
consuming task in itself.
Adapted equipment
The cost and availability of adapted equipment for use by athletes with a
disability can have a major impact upon their participation. A single racing
prosthetic for a below the knee amputee with fitting can cost up to $20,000
(Runners World, 2015) and a top of the range Invacare Top End Eliminator
OSR Racing Chair with carbon fibre wheels costs just under £5,000 (Invacare
website, 2015).
Competition at an appropriate level

The relatively low number of people with disabilities taking part in sport,
especially competitive sport, can have an impact on opportunities for people
with disabilities to get involved and progress within a particular sport. This
is further compounded by the athletes having to be split up into functional
classification groupings in order to try and ensure fair competition. For a
more detailed account of the classification issue, see Chapter 7.
Access to coaching
Just finding a coach willing to take on an athlete with a disability can be a task
in itself. Finding one who has the knowledge, or the time and the inclination
to gain an understanding, of the implications of a particular impairment on
the coaching and training process can prove even harder.
Type of schooling
Brittain (2004b) highlights the impact of schooling on the opportunities for
children with disabilities to become involved in sport. In particular he highlights
the impact of the move towards mainstreaming of children with disabilities and
the implications this has both for children with disabilities and for teachers of
physical education within mainstream institutions who are often unequipped
to deal with them. This not only has an impact upon participation in disability
sport in general, but as Brittain (2004b, p. 90) highlights can also have a major
impact upon elite level sport, particularly for those impairment groupings such
as wheelchair users and visually impaired that are particularly difficult to fully
integrate into a mainstream physical education class. In addition, the dispersal
of disabled children into mainstream schools has made new talent identification
much harder than when they were all together in special schools.
Study activity
Did you have any disabled children in your year at school? If so, what
happened to them during games and PE lessons? If they were allowed to take
part how easy was it for them to be fully involved and what did the teacher
do to try and make this possible?
Overall impact on recruitment of new athletes
The impact of a combination of the factors outlined above not only affects
recruitment into grass roots disability sport, but also at the very highest levels.
According to Brittain (2004b) from 1992 to 2000 only one new visually
impaired athlete joined the Great Britain Paralympic track and field squad.
In addition, of the nine visually impaired track and field athletes representing
Great Britain in Sydney only one was under thirty years of age. The same is
also true of the wheelchair team of whom, from the eight athletes present
in Sydney, only one was under thirty years of age and she did not compete
due to illness. A comparison of the average ages of the five disability groups
in the track and field team in Sydney, as well as a comparison of the overall
track and field team with that of the British non-disabled Olympic track and
field team is given in Table 5.1.
A comparison of the differences in the average ages of the visually
impaired (34 years) and wheelchair (38 years) squads with the other disability
groupings, where the average age was well below thirty, raises the question
of why more young athletes in these two groups are not making it to the top
in the sport. Although Brittain accounts for this in terms of the fact that at
school the two groups of children with an impairment that are, potentially,
the most difficult to integrate into non-disabled physical activity lessons are
those with visual impairments and those in wheelchairs, it is likely to be a
combination of some or all of the above factors, but especially issues such as
accessibility, which have a greater impact for these two impairment groups.
Many of the children in the other three disability groupings, although maybe
not as quick and mobile as their non-disabled peers, are still able to integrate
into a variety of physical activities with minimal or often no adaptations to
Table 5.1 A comparison of the average ages of the Great Britain Paralympic track and
field team at Sydney 2000 by disability grouping and with the able–bodied Olympic
track and field team in Sydney
Men Women Team
Age Ave Age Ave Age Ave
No. range age No. range age No. range age
ALA 4 18–38 27 1 – 26 5 18–38 27
CP 14 17–35 24 7 21–52 28 21 17–53 25
ID 4 19–31 25 0 – – 4 19–31 25
VI 8 26–40 34 1 – 30 9 26–40 34
W 4 32–49 40 4 21–53 35 8 21–53 38
Team 34 17–49 29 13 21–53 30 47 17–53 29
Olympic
Squad 45 21–43 27 30 21–42 28 75 21–43 27
ALA=Amputee and les autres, CP=Cerebral palsy, ID=Intellectual disability, VI=Visual
impairment, W= Wheelchair, Team=Whole Great Britain Paralympic Track
Table 5.2 A comparison of the average ages of the Great Britain Paralympic track
and field team at London 2012 by disability grouping and with the non-disabled
Olympic track and field team in London
Men Women Team
Age Ave Age Ave Age Ave
No. Range Age No. Range Age No. Range Age
ALA 6 19–36 23 4 16–27 19 10 16–36 21
CP 12 16–34 23 11 16–38 26 23 16–38 25

ID 1 – 23 0 – – 1 – 23
VI 1 – 20 3 22–42 33 4 20–42 30
W 7 22–49 34 3 16–26 23 10 16–49 30
Team 27 16–49 25 21 16–42 25 48 16–49 25
Olympic
Squad 45 20–35 28 33 20–39 27 78 20–39 27
ALA=Amputee and les autres, CP=Cerebral palsy, ID=Intellectual disability, VI=Visual
impairment, W= Wheelchair, Team=Whole Great Britain Paralympic Track and Field Squad,
Olympic Squad=Non-disabled Track and Field Squad.
the activity. These children, therefore, get the maximum number of possible
opportunities to undergo the normalisation process and as such gain the
maximum potential benefits.
Interestingly, the same figures for the Great Britain London 2012 Olympic
and Paralympic track and field teams (see Table 5.2) display some interesting
changes amongst the Paralympic team. The average age amongst all of the
impairment groups with the exception of the cerebral palsied had dropped
and even amongst the cerebral palsied athletes the age of the oldest team
member had dropped from 53 in Sydney to 38 in London. This is likely
due to a combination of factors such as the continued professionalization of
Paralympic track and field within the non-disabled national governing body,
greater media coverage of Para-sport and numerous talent identification
days for potential new athletes in the lead up to 2012, although the drop
in the number of visually impaired athletes in the team from 9 in Sydney
to 4 in London may point to ongoing issues attracting people with visual
impairments into sport.
Legacy and the Paralympic Games

Over the last decade or so a large body of work has been produced examining
the idea that major sports events such as the Olympic Games or the FIFA
World Cup can produce ‘legacies’ for the host city and country well beyond
the event itself. However, Misener et al (2013, p.1) claim that ‘few studies
have evaluated the comparative outcomes, legacies and event leverage that
the Paralympic Games have generated’. This is despite the fact that in many
ways, the Paralympic Games, and their forerunner the Stoke Mandeville
Games, were founded on the idea of legacy as a process designed to improve
the lives of people with disabilities. According to Weed and Dowse (2009)
this idea has become increasingly prominent in legacy narratives relating to
recent Games. Guttmann (1976, pp. 12–13), highlighted three main areas
in which he felt participation in sport could benefit people with disabilities:
1. Sport as a Curative Factor

According to Guttmann, sport represents the most natural form of remedial
exercise and can be used to successfully complement other forms of remedial
exercise. Sport can be invaluable in restoring the overall fitness, including
strength, speed, co-ordination and endurance, of someone receiving
a disabling injury. Tasiemski et al. (1998) point out how sport can be of
particular benefit to individuals with certain disabilities. Following a pilot
study on individuals recovering from a spinal cord lesion, they state:
Systematically practised physical activity and sports allows the disabled

person to keep the high level of physical fitness that was obtained during
rehabilitation. It also helps to maintain compensatory processes and
prevent complications caused by inactivity. Physical activity and sports
are amongst the most important factors that determine the effectiveness
and final outcomes of physical rehabilitation.
(Tasiemski et al., 1998, unpublished)
They also found that the annual frequency of hospital readmissions

following discharge was three times less in athletes than it was in non-
athletes, adding weight to their claim that those involved in activities away
from the home, especially physical ones such as sport, are physically fitter,
more independent and have fewer avoidable complications. Similar claims
have been made by Groff, Lundberg and Zabriskie (2009) who state:
Several studies have suggested that participation in sport may impact

elements of quality of life such as one’s overall enjoyment with life, sense
of well-being, and ability to complete daily life activities. Researchers
have concluded that athletes with disabilities exhibit higher levels of
positive mood, increased wheelchair mobility skills, lower levels of
tension and depression and have better perceived health and well-being
(Groff, Lundberg and Zabriskie, 2009, p. 319)
2. The Recreational and Psychological Value of Sport

Guttmann claims that the big advantage of sport for the disabled over other
remedial exercises lies within its recreational value in that it restores ‘that
passion for playful activity and the desire to experience joy and pleasure
in life, so deeply inherent in any human being’ (1976, p. 12). Guttmann
also points out that much of the restorative power of sport is lost if the
person with the disability does not enjoy their participation in it. As long
as enjoyment is derived from the activity, then sport can help develop an
active mind, self-confidence, self-dignity, self-discipline, competitive spirit
and camaraderie, all of which are essential in helping to overcome the all-
consuming depression that can occur with sudden traumatic disability.
3. Sport as a means of Social Re-integration

There are certain sports where people with disabilities are capable of competing
alongside their non-disabled peers e.g. archery, bowls, table tennis, as Neroli
Fairhall of New Zealand proved when she competed from a wheelchair in
archery at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles (Associated Press, 2006).
This helps create a better understanding between people with disabilities and
their non-disabled peers and aids in their social re-integration through the
medium of sport. Since Fairhall lead the way a further four Paralympians, all
female, have competed at an Olympic Games. In Atlanta 1996 Paola Fantato
(ITA) who had polio competed in archery. In Sydney 2000 visually impaired
Marla Runyan (USA) competed in the 1500m. In Beijing 2008 leg amputee
Natalie Du Toit (RSA) competed in swimming and Natalie Partyka (POL) who
was born without a right hand or forearm competed in table tennis. The only
male Paralympian to have competed in the Olympic as well as the Paralympic
Games is double leg amputee Oscar Pistorious (RSA) who competed at the
London 2012 Olympic Games for South Africa, having been prevented from
being selected for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games by fears that his carbon
fibre prosthetic legs would give him an unfair advantage over his non-disabled
peers. Even today, despite other events in his life taking him out of sport, his
participation at the London 2012 Olympic Games still raises many difficult
questions about the nature of sport and human performance that will probably
be debated for many years to come (Wolbring, 2008).
These ideas still form the underpinnings of the ‘ultimate aspiration’ of the
IPC stated in their strategic plan (2015–2018) of making ‘a more inclusive
society for people with an impairment through para-sport’ (IPC Strategic
Plan 2015–2018, p. 14). They follow this up by claiming:
The Paralympic Games are the world’s number one sporting event for
transforming society’s attitudes towards impairment. By broadening
the reach of the Paralympics, growing para-sport events and furthering
brand awareness, the Paralympic Movement’s transformational legacy
will be amplified.
(IPC Strategic Plan 2015–2018, p. 14)
This is despite there being relatively little in the way of hard evidence and/
or scientific studies to back these claims up (Misener et al, 2013).
Alternative perspectives on the Paralmypic Games and Legacy
In contradistinction to this dominant discourse around the Paralympic Games
and disability, there are many individuals with disabilities and groups that
represent people with disabilities who consider that the Paralympic Games
actually do them a disservice. Amongst these are three academics, who also
happen to be former Paralympians and Paralympic medallists – Stuart Braye
and David Howe (Athletics) and Danielle Peers (Wheelchair Basketball).
Peers (2009, 2012) is quite scathing of those involved in the running and
promotion of the Paralympic Movement painting them as self-serving and
claiming that the IPC ‘continually reproduces the figure of the tragic disabled
in order to reproduce itself ’ (p. 9). She claims that historically the IPC and its
forebears have used the image of the tragic disabled in order to justify its aims
and existence and that IPC continues this practice today. Purdue and Howe
(2012) argue that the IPC is endeavouring to situate the Paralympic Games as
an elite sports competition operating within a self-contained social vacuum in
which social perceptions about the impaired body are nullified by the assertion
that it is the athletes’ sport performances, not their individual impairments
that should be the focus. However according to Purdue and Howe this is
problematic as the athletes must perform for two distinct audiences – a non-
disabled audience that is expected to only focus on the sporting performance
and a disabled audience that is ‘encouraged to identify with the impairment
the athlete has, whilst also appreciating their performance’ (p. 194).
Braye et al. (2013a) interviewed 32 members of the United Kingdom
Disabled People’s Council (UKDPC) in order to elicit their views on the
Paralympic Games of London 2012 and concluded that ‘the portrayal of
equality in the Paralympics is an apparent misnomer when compared with
the lives of ordinary disabled people’ (p. 20). By way of highlighting this
viewpoint they cited the following comment from one of their participants:
I’m afraid that the focus on elite Paralympians promotes an image of

disabled people which is so far from the typical experiences of a disabled
person that it is damaging to the public understanding of disability
(Colin in Braye et al., 2013a, p. 9)
Hodges et al. (2014) from Bournemouth University in the UK found

similar results in research that they carried out for Channel 4 claiming
that for some disabled people the Paralympic Games ‘was a source of deep
frustration because the Paralympics represented something distant from their
everyday reality’ (p. 4). With regard to London 2012 Braye et al. (2013b)
concluded that ‘the IPC’s positive rhetoric on improving equality can also
be regarded as having a limited effect on the negative daily reality faced by
disabled people living in the UK today’ (p. 3). It should also be noted that
this is not a new finding with Purdue and Howe (2012) citing Cashman and
Thomson (2008) regarding the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games who found
that disabled people in Australia ‘had reservations about the Paralympians
and did not regard them as relevant to their situation’ (Purdue & Howe,
2012, p. 195).
Particularly apparent when reading the comments by Disabled People’s
Organisations and disabled individuals regarding the London 2012
Paralympic Games is the disconnect they feel with both Paralympians on the
one hand and society in general on the other. Walker (2012) commented
‘The Paralympics showcases the amazing achievements and triumphs of
a tiny percentage of disabled people – just as the Olympics demonstrates

what a tiny percentage of “able-bodied” people are able to achieve.’ Alice
Maynard, Chair of the disability charity Scope, explained the importance of
this differentiation when she stated ‘The Paralympics has inspired a small
number to be more involved in sport or the community. But ultimately it
comes down a simple point: if you don’t have the support you need to get
up, get washed and get out of the house; if you’re struggling to pay the
bills – it’s a big ask to join a tennis club (Scope website, 2013). Certainly,
some Paralympians have become celebrities as a result of the media coverage
they received from London 2012 combined, of course, with their sporting
successes. However, the apparent inability of some people to differentiate
between Paralympians and the average everyday disabled person and the
Games themselves is seen as causing more problems than it solves. The
following quote from Bush et al. (2013) is indicative of this:
He’d already sensed the disappointment lurking behind people’s eyes

when he told them he was not training for a future Paralympics. People
would now expect this, yet he was more worried about the day-to-day
struggles of being disabled
(Bush et al., 2013, p. 635)
Research carried out by the Australian Paralympic Committee (APC)

interviewing spectators at disability sports events in Australia appears to
confirm this as according to Tony Naar, the former Knowledge Services
Manager at APC, the results appear to show that it is only spectators attitudes
towards the actual athletes and not the disabled population as a whole that
are changed (Naar, 2014, personal communication).
Conclusion
It is clear, then, that the way people with disabilities are viewed by the
rest of society can have a great bearing upon both their lives, sporting and
non-sporting, and their self-confidence. This issue of self-confidence is
particularly true for women with disabilities and is investigated further in
Chapter 8. It is also clear that the impacts of these issues are felt all the way
from the grass roots introduction to sport for the disabled all the way up to
impacting upon the recruitment of new elite athletes with a disability at the
Paralympic level. In addition it would appear that many of the claims made
regarding legacy and the Paralympic Games, particularly those of the IPC
would appear to be problematic, lacking in concrete evidence and require
far more scientific investigation.

1 How and why does impairment impact upon the economic and social
position of people with disabilities?

2 How do non-disabled perceptions of disability and disability sport
impact upon how people with disabilities view themselves? What impact
might this have on the likelihood of them becoming involved in sport?
3 List some of the barriers people with disabilities might face in getting
involved in and progressing within a particular sport.
4 Outline some of the issues with the legacy claims made for the Paralympic
Games by the IPC.

Brittain, I., 2004, Perceptions of Disability and Their Impact Upon Involvement in
Sport for People with Disabilities at All Levels, Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
Vol. 28(4), pp. 429–52.
Kerr, S., 2015, A Sociological Critique of the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic
Games, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Loughborough University, UK.
Legg, D. and Gilbert, K., 2011, Paralympic Legacies, Common Ground Publishing,
Champaign, IL.
Thomas, N. and Smith, A., 2008, Disability, Sport and Society: An Introduction,
Routledge, London, UK.
6 Media, marketing and
disability sport
Chapter aims
• To review the role of the media and the way it represents disability.
• To outline the International Paralympic Committee’s response to media
coverage of disability sport.
• To outline the costs of running the Paralympic Movement and Games
and the increasingly important role of marketing in raising the necessary
funds.
The way the media portray people with disabilities and disability sport can
have a major impact on how other groups and individuals within society
view them also. The combination of how they are portrayed by the media
and how the rest of society views them can also have a large bearing upon
the success or otherwise of any marketing programmes those running the
Paralympic movement might undertake in order to raise the increasing
funds necessary to support the significant growth that has occurred in the
movement over the last ten to fifteen years.
The media and its representation of disability in general

A lack of understanding towards, and coverage of, disability issues within
the media is not limited to just disability sport, but to disability generally.
Haralambos and Holborn (2000) point out as a possible reason for this
general lack of understanding and awareness that the people who hold
senior positions in media organisations are mostly middle-class, and usually
older than their subordinates, and in addition to this, people with disabilities
are highly under-represented within such organisations. This leads to the
situation whereby the dominant groups within (Western) society (usually
white, middle class, non-disabled males) hold the key positions within
organisations and institutions that are key in influencing the perceptions
of those within the rest of society. This can lead to the situation whereby
representations of people with disabilities shown on television are all defined
by people with little or no knowledge of what it is like to be disabled.
Media, marketing and disability sport 87
Cumberbatch and Negrine (1992, cited in Haralambos and Holborn, 2000,
p. 956) cite ten ways in which people with disabilities are represented on
television:
1 disability or handicap as an emblem of evil

2 the disabled as monsters
3 disability as a loss of one’s humanity
4 disability as total dependency and lack of self-determination
5 the image of the disabled as a maladjusted person

6 disability with compensation or substitute gift (for example, the blind
having compensatory powers)
7 disability leading to courageousness or achievement
8 disability and sexuality: as sexual menace, deviancy, danger stemming
from loss of control
9 disability as an object of fun or pity
10 the disabled as an object of charity.
Cumberbatch and Negrine (1992) highlight that people with disabilities

are rarely portrayed in a positive or constructive light. They claim that when
people with disabilities do appear on screen their role and actions are far
more likely to be determined by the nature of their disability and they are far
less likely to appear as a person who just happens to have a disability. These
portrayals of people with disabilities on television, therefore, continue to
reinforce the perception of disability as deficit. The blanket label of ‘disabled’
is applied and the ability–inability continuum is broken. This is a situation
one athlete quoted by Brittain (2002) appears very aware of:
the physically disabled, there’s nothing wrong with our brains, and
we’ve got things that we can do that they probably can’t do, you know
skills and that kind of thing. But unless they actually see more disabled
people being successful at various roles then it’s hard to get it across that
disabled people are just as able and equal to able-bodied people.
(Ina in Brittain, 2002, pp. 156–7)
Ina’s use of the terms ‘we’ and ‘they’, meaning people with disabilities
and non-disabled individuals, suggests a sense of disenfranchisement from
the rest of society and gives an indication of the role that societal perceptions
of people with disabilities play in the creation of this by setting people with
disabilities up as different or inferior to the rest of society, based upon
biology. However, it is not only the type of media representation that affects
people’s attitudes, but also the amount of coverage disabled people receive.
The Broadcasting Standards Commission (1999 cited in Haralambos and
Holborn, 2000, p. 956) showed that people with disabilities appeared in 7
per cent of their sample of television programmes and accounted for 0.7 per
cent of all those who spoke. Reiser and Mason (1990 cited in Barnes, 1994,
88 Media, marketing and disability sport
p. 198) suggest that this general absence of people with disabilities from
television, coupled with the traditional linking of disability and medicine,
reinforces the idea that people with disabilities are incapable of participating
fully in everyday life, while at the same time feeding the notion that they
should be shut away and segregated.
Media portrayals of disability sport

With limited exceptions, the Paralympic Games is often the only time that
disability sport receives any kind of national media coverage in countries
around the world. Academic investigation of the media coverage at the
Summer Paralympic Games, whilst limited in depth, has been occurring
in some form after every Games since Seoul in 1988. These include Seoul
(Stein, 1989), Atlanta (Schantz and Gilbert, 2001; Schell and Duncan, 1999),
Sydney (Thomas and Smith, 2003) and Athens (Quinn, 2007). Pappous
(2008) also did a comparative study of newspaper coverage in five countries
of the Sydney and Athens Paralympic Games. Thus far, there appears to have
been little or no academic study of media coverage at the Winter Paralympic
Games.
A clear indicator of societal attitudes towards disabled and non-disabled
sport may be seen in the differences in time spent covering the Olympic
and Paralympic Games. Schantz and Gilbert (2001) claim that media
coverage of the Paralympics is an indicator of public representations of,
and attitudes toward, sport for persons with disabilities. If this claim has
any validity it should be evident in the coverage and portrayal of athletes
with disabilities, and people with disabilities in general, by the media. It
is reasonable to suppose that the relative amount of air time given to the
Olympic and Paralympic Games gives some indication as to how these events
are differently valued by the programmers. One possible example of this is
the amount of airtime that the two Games receive on television. According
to Richard (in Brittain, 2002) the difference in airtime given by the BBC to
the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games is indicative of discrimination
against disability sport:
There was 540 hours available of Olympic showing time on TV and

there was ten? Ten or twelve of the Paralympics? That’s the sort of
discrimination that’s going on.
(Richard in Brittain, 2002, p. 152)
Richard is not the only one to hold this kind of view about the discrepancy
in coverage given by the BBC to the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The BBC gave viewers the opportunity on its website, under the heading
‘Has the Sydney Paralympics been a success?’ to air their views about the
BBC coverage of the Sydney Paralympic Games. Typical of the numerous
responses they received is the following:
I am so disappointed to find the coverage limited to less than an hour
per evening, on at a time when most people are still travelling home
from work, and dismissed to BBC2, unlike the Olympics which had a
prime time evening slot on BBC1 as well as constant live coverage.
(Carole Neale, England in Brittain, 2009; p. 75)
Media coverage given to an event suggests the ‘value’ placed on it by

programmers. Programmers cover an event for a variety of reasons, be it
financial, perceived interest to the viewing public or sponsors or simply

newsworthiness. If the BBC provides more airtime to Olympic Sport then
it appears that it perceives it to have far greater ‘value’ than its Paralympic
counterpart. Since sport is a creation of and for non-disabled people, which
gives priority to certain types of human movement (Barton, 1993) disability
sport does not, apparently, provide images that fit within the norms that
delineate sporting images within British society. However, this issue is not
just restricted to Britain. Huang (2005) reports that in Taiwan there was
no live media coverage of the Athens 2004 Paralympic Games and the fact
that the Games received any coverage at all was largely due to the fact that
the Taiwanese President’s wife, who is a wheelchair user, led the Taiwanese
team in Athens. A group of nearly forty political journalists followed the
President’s wife to Athens and reports generally appeared as political rather
than sporting news. There was only one professional sports journalist from
Taiwan with the delegation. Apparently once the President’s wife left Athens,
the reporting of the Games all but ceased. Quinn (2007) reports that the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had around 200 staff in Sydney to cover
the Olympic Games. It asked a team of six to stay on in Sydney to cover the
Paralympic Games, who produced four one hour shows that were shown in
Canada after the Games were over. According to Cashman and Tremblay
(2008) TV New Zealand also showed four one hour specials after the Sydney
2000 Paralympic Games had ended and in the United States CBS broadcast
a two-hour special entitled ‘Role Models for the 21st Century: The Sydney
2000 Paralympic Games’ in November, nearly two months after the Games
had ended. This practice continued in the United States for both the Athens
and Beijing Paralympic Games despite mounting criticism. In response to
this there were a number of internet-based petitions protesting at the fact
that NBC were going to give blanket coverage of the Olympics from Beijing,
but no live coverage of the Paralympic Games. This situation continued all
the way up until September 2013 when the IPC announced that NBC and
the United States Olympic Committee had signed to take the media rights
to the Sochi 2014 and Rio 2016 Paralympic Games, promising to deliver
60 hours of coverage from Sochi and 66 hours from Rio, which would be a
60.5 hour increase on their coverage from the London Paralympic Games
(IPC website, 2013).
This worldwide lack of exposure has numerous knock-on effects. It limits
the visibility of disability sport, therefore, lessening the possibility of non-
participating people with disabilities becoming aware of it or inspired to take
part themselves. Since young people with disabilities, who are interested in
sport, have limited role models with a disability to inspire them they may,
therefore, be forced to turn to non-disabled sportspersons as role models.
There is a possibility, therefore, that they model themselves and their
sporting lives on a non-disabled conception of sport based on (masculine,
non-disabled) physical strength and performance. Consequently they may
perceive their own performances as inferior. The lack of media coverage
is implicated in the lack of recognition of the capabilities of athletes with

a disability. In addition, in many countries the interest from the media in
disability sport is very fleeting and generally dies away completely within
two to three weeks of the Paralympic closing ceremony.
Competition to be the host broadcaster for London 2012 proves to

be a game changer for British television coverage of Para-sport
Up to 2010 The BBC had been covering the Paralympic Games in Great
Britain using various formats (television, radio, online) since 1980, as well
as a host of other disability sport events including the annual Paralympic
World Cup from Manchester, and they were apparently so confident of being
the host broadcaster for the London 2012 Paralympic Games that the BBC
sport website was already proclaiming it to be ‘the Paralympics Broadcaster’
(Guardian website, 2010). However, LOCOG, keen to maximise revenue
and apparently fearing a low price from the BBC set up a tender process,
which Channel 4 won with a bid worth more than £5 million and a promise
to broadcast an unprecedented 130 hours of coverage from the Games on its
main channel (insideworldparasport website, 2010a). Although Channel 4
had a good record in bringing disability into the mainstream, they had little
or no experience of covering disability sport and this led to some fearing for
the long-term future of the media coverage of disability sport within Great
Britain. ParalympicsGB released a statement stating it was saddened by the
loss of its long-term broadcast partner and that although they looked forward
to working with Channel 4 they feared for the coverage of disability sport
post-2012 (insideworldparasport website, 2010a). This fear was possibly
made worse by the fact that Channel 4, as part of its build up to London 2012
stated that it wished to bid against the BBC to host the Paralympic World Cup
(insideworldparasport website, 2010b). However, as LOCOG Chairman,
Sebastian Coe remarked ‘the commercial value of this deal has raised the bar
financially for the Paralympic movement’ and Roger Mosey, BBC Director
of Sport stated ‘we will, of course, continue to support the Paralympics too
– and our commitment to disability sport in general remains’ (BBC website,
2010). It would appear, therefore, that having two large media corporations
such as Channel 4 and the BBC competing to broadcast disability sport could
potentially be good for disability and Paralympic sport in Great Britain both
financially and in terms of the quality and amount of exposure they receive.
In the end Channel 4 won praise and numerous awards for its coverage from
London 2012 and in addition has continued to broadcast a range or Para-
sport events including the Sochi Winter Games and a number of Para-sport
World and European championships including athletics and swimming.
Provision of role models in the printed media

Having visible role models to encourage people into believing they too
can possibly take part in sport at a high level plays a vitally important role.
The printed media plays a key role in this process through the medium
of photographs. However, when it comes to photographs of athletes with
disabilities research appears to suggest that there is a distinct lack of visible
role models for potential disabled athletes in the print media and especially
age or gender specific role models for women and children with disabilities.
Hardin et al. (2006) examined six copies of four different women’s
sport, health and fitness magazines over a one-year period and examined
6,045 advertising and editorial photographs contained in the twenty-four
magazines for individuals who had a clearly discernable disability. They
found that of 1,437 photographs used in advertising there were zero that
contained individuals with a discernable disability and of 4,708 photographs
used in editorial content only 13 (0.3 per cent) contained individuals with a
discernable disability. With respect to disabled children Hardin et al. (2001)
carried out the same process on thirty-six issues of Sports Illustrated for
Kids over a three-year period. They found that of 1,527 photographs used
in advertising there were zero that contained individuals with a discernable
disability and of 5,565 photographs used in editorial content only 24 (0.4
per cent) contained individuals with a discernable disability. None of the
36 cover pages contained individuals with a discernable disability. This has
the effect of not only denying disabled people visible role models, but also
reinforces the underlying assumption of the superiority and importance of
non-disabled sport within society.
These issues are equally true for the newspaper coverage of the Olympic
and Paralympic Games. Chang and Crossman (2009) compared the coverage
of the two Games at Athens 2004 by a South Korean national newspaper,
the Chosun IIbo, in terms of number and size of articles and the number and
size of photographs from each Games. They found a total of 261 Olympic
and 16 Paralympic articles and 220 photographs from the Olympic Games
and only 17 from the Paralympic Games. Olympic articles totalled 3002.2
square inches and Olympic photographs totalled 3043.9 square inches whilst
Paralympic articles totalled 248.9 square inches and Paralympic photographs
totalled a mere 197 square inches (p. 16). These findings are similar to those
of ongoing research by the author regarding British newspaper coverage of
the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Results for one British
national daily newspaper, the Daily Express, found that for the London
Games the daily average coverage of the Olympic Games was 1477.6
square inches amounting to 25.3 per cent of available space, with a daily
average of 68 photographs with an average size of 19.4 square inches. For
the London Paralympic Games the daily average coverage was 331.6 square
inches amounting to 6.0 per cent of available space, with a daily average of
17 photographs with an average size of 15.5 square inches. So despite the
London Games being a ‘home’ Games the Daily Express devoted four and
a half times more space to the Olympic Games and featured four times as
many Olympic photographs that were an average of 25 per cent bigger than
the average Paralympic photograph.

It is not just the news media that are guilty of this process however. Hardin
and Hardin (2004) examined fifty-nine general physical education methods
textbooks, which would be used in the training of the physical educators and
sports coaches of the future and found that no more than six of the textbooks
contained photographs of individuals with a discernible disability. They also
found that of 2,455 photographs used by the textbooks only 14 (0.6 per cent)
contained individuals with a discernible disability. Perhaps more worrying
still they found that 10 of these 14 (71 per cent) photographs depicted the
disabled person receiving help from a teacher, coach or peer, whereas only
19 out of 2,441 (0.008 per cent) depicted a non-disabled person receiving
help. This potentially reinforces the image of disabled people as weak and
unable to fend for themselves not just amongst the future coaches and
physical educators of the future, but also amongst the disabled population.
Brittain (2008b) in reviewing many of the key texts currently used at some
of Britain’s key institutions for the provision of degrees in the area of sports
studies, sports management and sports development found that they make
little or no mention of disability sport whatsoever. Tomlinson (2007), Jarvie
(2006) and Green and Houlihan (2005) all make no mention whatsoever of
disability sport. Hylton and Bramham (2008) simply mentions the Disability
Rights Commission amongst a list of organisations. Numerous other texts
appear to show the same apparent disregard for this growing area of sport.
What’s in a picture?
It is not just the lack of photographs in the print media showing individuals
with discernible disabilities that has an impact. As hinted above in the work
by Hardin and Hardin (2004) the way the photograph is framed and what
it depicts can be equally revealing about the underlying attitudes towards
disability and disability sport within the mainstream media. Pappous (2008)
analysed photographs in two popular mainstream newspapers in Greece,
France, Spain, Germany and Great Britain during the periods of the Sydney
and Athens Paralympic Games. First he counted the number of photographs
used from the Games in each country, which were as shown in Table 6.1.
In all cases the number of photographs depicting disabled athletes increased
at the Athens Games, which possibly hints at an increasing awareness of the
Games amongst the journalists at the newspapers selected. The huge increase
Table 6.1 Photographs used from Paralympic Games
France Germany Great Greece Spain
Britain
Sydney 2000 0 14 16 3 4
Athens 2004 4 15 23 105 11
Source: adapted from Pappous (2008)
in the number of photographs in the Greek papers for the Athens Games
also clearly shows the impact and importance of actually hosting the Games.
However, on closer examination of the photographs Pappous highlighted a
number of issues with the content and framing of the photographs some of
which are outlined below:
Hiding the disabled body

Pappous found that in some of the photographs the image had been altered
such that the particular impairment of the Paralympian (wheelchair user,
amputation, etc.) was not visible. It is as if the editor had decided that these
are things that the readers should not be subjected to, thus reinforcing
many of the stereotypes regarding disability that are inherent in the medical
model. An example of this is given in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 using the authors
own photographs from London 2012.
The use of passive poses

Many of the photographs used depicted the Paralympians in very passive
poses, unlike many of the action shots used to depict non-disabled
sportsmen and women. Despite the fact that most of these Paralympians can
run, jump, throw, lift, etc., better than most of the non-disabled population
their depiction in passive poses simply reinforces the stereotype of disabled
people as weak and passive individuals unable to do anything for themselves
without assistance. An example of such a photograph is given in Figure 6.3
using the authors own photographs from London 2012.
A focus on the disability

In contrast to the first point of hiding the disabled body Pappous also found
that the opposite sometimes occurred when the focus of the photograph was
specifically upon the impairment. However, these photographs do not depict
the whole individual athlete, but just a part of them such as a prosthetic limb
or a wheelchair. Pappous raises the question of what would be the reaction if
an Olympic athlete were depicted by a photograph of just a hand holding a
racquet or just one of their feet. What this does is to highlight and reinforce
a sense of difference between disabled and non-disabled athletes rather than
Figure 6.2 The full photograph

Figure 6.1 Hiding the disability
the fact that they are all just sportsmen and women. An example of such a
photograph is given in Figure 6.4 using the authors own photographs from
London 2012.
Portraying emotion rather than motion

Pappous points out that despite the fact that the motto of the International
Paralympic Committee is ‘Spirit in Motion’, many editors depict the emotion
Figure 6.3 Passive athlete pose
Figure 6.4 A focus on the visual impairment of Turkish Goalball players at London
2012
Figure 6.5 Emotion and exhaustion at the end of the marathon
of Paralympic athletes (athletes with tears in their eyes, crying, etc.) rather
than strong action shots thus reinforcing the stereotype of disabled people
as fragile, delicate and oversensitive. An example of such a photograph is
given in Figure 6.5 using the authors own photographs from London 2012.
Overrepresentation of wheelchair athletes

Many journalists, according to Pappous, appear to work on the assumption
that disabled equals wheelchair. This stereotype has possibly been reinforced
by the facts that the Paralympic Games started as an event for wheelchair
users and also that the international symbol for disability is a person in a
wheelchair. However, this often leads to the problem that other categories
of disability are under-represented in reporting on the Paralympic Games.
This is particularly true of many of the more severely disabled athletes. Part
of the reason for this, and possibly linked to the point regarding the hiding
of the disabled body, is that the strong muscular upper bodies of wheelchair
athletes (when not shown in conjunction with the wheelchair) clearly fit
with non-disabled perceptions of what the sporting body should look like.
An example of such a photograph is given in Figure 6.6 using the authors
own photographs from London 2012.
Language matters
As pointed out in Chapter 4 the language used in describing the achievements,
sporting or otherwise, of disabled people is important, because it is often
loaded with underlying meaning and perceptions which are often based in
Figure 6.6 Wheelchair racers in the marathon at London 2012
the medical model of disability. This is perhaps best portrayed in the work
of Thomas and Smith (2003) who analysed British media coverage of the
Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games and found that ‘Paralympic athletes were on
occasions discussed and reported in ways that reaffirmed dominant media
portrayals of people with disabilities’ (Thomas and Smith, 2003, p. 172).
Perhaps the most common occurrence of this kind of medicalised reporting
occurs through the use of what is known as the ‘super-crip’ stereotype.
The super-crip
Hardin and Hardin (2003, p. 249) claim that the use of the ‘super-crip’
stereotype is often found in the media coverage of disability sport. They
claim that the underlying assumption in such depictions is that people with
disabilities are ‘pitiful and useless until they “overcome” their disabilities
through rugged individualism and pull off a feat considered heroic by the
mainstream’. This kind of portrayal of disabled athletes places great emphasis
on the disability, usually with the intention of evoking an emotional response
(such as pity) and thus reflecting and reinforcing the pervasive medicalised
perception of disability as personal tragedy without recognising the socio-
political dimensions inherent in disability. By taking such an approach the
media tend to trivialise the sporting aspect of the disabled individual, with
any successes serving merely as the catalyst for a heart-warming ‘super-crip’
story. Defeats for fancied Olympic athletes or teams are often reported as
national catastrophes, whereas defeats for Paralympic athletes are often
reported rather patronisingly as valiant efforts by the poor disabled person. It
should be pointed out that this situation is improving, albeit slowly, in some
countries such as Great Britain, where Paralympic athletes now receive state
funding to assist their training leading to far greater expectations in terms of
performance. However, despite increasing media coverage of the Paralympic
Games, the content of the coverage continues, on the whole, to reinforce
medicalised stereotypes of disabled people as ‘super-crips’ who courageously
overcome their disability and the issues that come with it to achieve and to
be ‘normal’. Darke (1998, p. 187) claims that such portrayals are based in
two general themes that are inherent in media portrayals of disability in
general. First, the abnormal medical state that disability is considered to be

cannot be seen in any way other than as a tragedy. Second, the struggle for
‘normality’, as defined by the non-disabled population, is unquestionably
the only thing a disabled individual would desire to achieve owing to the
perceived supremacy of the ‘normal’ body. Huang (2005, p. 205) claims that
‘media representations of Paralympic athletes “emotionally experiencing
disability” reveal more about what disability means to the able-bodied than
the lived feelings and sport experiences and achievements of elite athletes
with disabilities’. Huang goes on to claim that as long as athletes with
disabilities have got a tragic and charity-based image, their sporting image
will continue to be reported in diminished terms by the media, especially in
comparison to non-disabled athletes.
The International Paralympic Committee’s response to media

coverage
Media coverage of the games since the creation of IPC

Growing coverage and increased interest by the media in the Paralympic
Games is one indication of a growing interest and awareness of the Games
globally. The media has a tendency only to cover news and events that it
perceives its audience to have an interest in and so the increasing numbers of
accredited journalists at the Games, especially the Summer Games, over the
last twenty years is testament to that growing interest and awareness. Figure
6.7 shows clearly that the number of accredited media at the Paralympic
Summer Games has more than doubled over the last four Games. However,
media interest, particularly from the television networks still varies greatly
from country to country. In Great Britain the BBC showed nightly highlight
programmes from Athens, which attracted up to 2 million viewers.
Conversely, in the USA television companies showed very little interest in
the Games in Athens and Beijing and viewers in America had to wait for six
weeks after the closing ceremony to see a one hour highlights show, despite
having one of the largest teams at both Games and an extremely successful
record at previous Games.
Figure 6.8 shows a slightly greater increase in media interest in the
Paralympic Winter Games compared to that of the Summer Games with
over five times as many media personnel attending the Sochi Games as were
6000
5000
Number of accredited media
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Barcelona Atlanta Sydney Athens Beijing London
Summer Paralympic Games host city
Figure 6.7 Number of accredited media at the Paralympic Summer Games (1992–
2012)
3000
2500
Number of accredited media
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Tignes Lillehammer Nagano Salt Lake Torino Vancouver Sochi
Wintre Paralympic Games host city

Figure 6.8 Number of accredited media at the Paralympic Winter Games (1992–
2014)
in Tignes. However, the overall media presence at the Winter Games is still
much lower than that at the Summer Games. The rather prominent peak
in attendance in Nagano for the 1998 Winter Games is likely a reflection
of the fact that these were the very first Paralympic Winter Games to occur
anywhere outside Europe and so raised greater interest, especially in Asia.
However, overall, the media presence at the Paralympic Games is still
nothing like that at the Olympic Games and what coverage there is varies
widely from country to country and continent to continent. In order to try
and overcome this the International Paralympic Committee launched an
internet-based free view television service.
www.ParalympicSport.TV
Although media coverage of the Games is on the increase the disparity
between levels of coverage, especially television coverage, led IPC to
introduce its own internet-based free view television service that provided a
sustainable global media platform with which to reach audiences around the
world. Sponsored by VISA and Samsung, this system allows IPC to satisfy
additional demand where only limited coverage is available or to provide
coverage where none exists. It was first introduced at the Turin 2006 Winter
Paralympic Games and was an instant hit, broadcasting over 150 hours of
live sport. The five key objectives of ParalympicSport.TV (PSTV) are:
• to create a sustainable global media platform to reach out to current and

potential fans;
• to turn the weakness caused by a lack of mainstream media coverage
into a strength as pstv is often the only coverage available;
• to satisfy additional demand in areas where only limited coverage is
available;
• to communicate ipc’s vision;
• to make coverage easily accessible in order to allow for maximum
exposure.
PSTV has greatly increased awareness of Paralympic sport and by increasing

awareness of Paralympic sport it should eventually impact upon traditional
media coverage by increasing interest amongst audiences. It has received
extremely positive audience feedback and has provided great promotion for
the movement. It has also overcome the issue of time difference as spectators
are now able to watch their chosen events at a time that suits them from any
place in the world. Marketing opportunities and IPC brand communication
have also been greatly enhanced, thus greatly improving IPC’s long-term
commercial prospects.
Fans from 110 countries took advantage of this service in Turin, watching
an average of just under four and a half hours of sport. In Beijing fans from
166 countries took advantage of the service. Since Turin, ParalympicSport.
TV has been used to provide worldwide coverage of a large number of
major sport events for athletes with a disability including a wide variety of
IPC summer and winter sport world championships as well as the annual
Paralympic World Cup from Manchester, UK. All of these events are archived
on the site and can be viewed again and again, making them an excellent
learning resource for anyone wishing to learn more about disability sport.
Table 6.2 shows the top ten viewing nations using the service at the last five
Paralympic Games.
Table 6.2 Largest audience by nation of the last five Paralympic Games on
ParalympicSport.TV
Rank Torino, 2006 Beijing, 2008 Vancouver, London, Sochi, 2014
2010 2012
1 USA USA Canada Great Britain USA
2 Italy Canada Germany Japan Canada
3 Canada France USA USA Germany
4 Germany Great Britain Russia Germany France

5 Japan Germany Great Britain Canada Russia
6 France Netherlands France Netherlands Great Britain
7 Netherlands Japan Poland Australia Italy
8 Great Britain Australia Czech France Japan
Republic
9 Belgium Spain Japan Belgium Spain
10 Spain Italy Switzerland Poland Netherlands
Source: adapted from IPC, 2009 and 2015; personal communication
Study activity
All of the nations listed in Table 6.2 as having the largest audiences on
ParalympicSport.TV are nations that generally do well at the Paralympic
Games. What are some of the possible reasons why other less successful, or
possibly less developed nations, do not use the service more?
The cost of running the Paralympic movement and the Games

One of the other key issues, other than general awareness of the Paralympic
Games that media coverage impacts upon is the ability to raise funding and
sponsorship. As Table 6.3 clearly shows the costs of putting on both the
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games rose nearly 500 per cent between
Seoul, 1988 and Beijing 2008. Obviously these figures reflect the fact that
the Games have grown enormously over the last twenty years and, of course,
it is the organising committee’s job to raise the money to actually stage the
Games. However, as pointed out at the end of Chapter 2 the agreement
signed between the IPC and IOC in 2003 transferred broadcasting
and marketing rights and responsibilities for the 2008, 2010 and 2012
Paralympic Games to the host organising committee in return for fixed sums
of money. This means that the ability to raise funding and sponsorship based
on the Paralympic brand is not just important for the IPC, but also the host
organising committees. Despite several attempts, I have been unable to obtain
information on the costs of putting on the Paralympic Games in Vancouver,
London or Sochi, nor the final cost for the Beijing Games. However, I have
Table 6.3 Summer and Winter Paralympic Games budgets since 1988
Paralympic Games Games budgets Games budgets (US$)
(respective currency)
Seoul 1988 25 billion Won 32 million US$ (as of 1988)
Tignes 1992 70 million FF 14 million US$ (as of 1992)
Barcelona 1992 9530 million PES 75 million US$ (as of 1992)
Lillehammer 1994 89 million NOK 15 million US$ (as of 1994)
Atlanta 1996 81 million US$ 81 million US$ (as of 1996)

Nagano 1998 5510 million Yen 41 million US$ (as of 1998)
Sydney 2000 156 million AUS$ 82 million US$ (as of 2000)
Salt Lake 2002 52 million US$ 52 million US$ (as of 2002)
Athens 2004 99 million Euro 126 million US$ (as of 2004)
Torino 2006 55 million Euro 69 million US$ (as of 2006)
Beijing 2008 1000 million RMB 150 million US$ (forecast as of April
2007)
Source: adapted from IPC, 2009; personal communication
been informed by a friend who was heavily involved in the London 2012
Games that the actual cost of putting on the London Paralympic Games was
around £220million (approx $330million), which is over ten times what
the Games in Seoul 1988 cost and reinforces the importance of having a
marketable and positive Paralympic brand.
IPC also have to raise funds for their own administrative and other running
costs. Table 6.4 shows the overall IPC revenue and expenditure for the eleven-
year period 2004 to 2014. As can be seen IPC actually ran at a net loss in
2004. This is possibly because this was a Paralympic Games year, which will
incur extra costs in relation to the build-up and preparation with site visits,
etc. Since 2004 IPC has managed a relatively small surplus each year.
What is clear from Table 6.5 is the increasing role and importance that
income from marketing, sponsorship and fundraising has had on the financial
fortunes of the IPC. Income from these sources has increased nearly five-fold
over the eleven-year period. The overall impact of income from marketing,
sponsorship and fundraising rose dramatically over the period. In 2004 it
only made up 26.6 per cent of all income for the year. By 2007 it had a risen
to 72.9 per cent of all income for the year. However, by 2014 it was down to
42.4 per cent of all income for the year. Therefore, either fundraising from
these sources has gotten more difficult recently due perhaps to the austere
economic climate in the global economy or the IPC have been successful
in increasing income from other areas, possibly including increases in the
amount they receive from the IOC in return for handing over Games time
marketing rights to the host organising committee. Overall, however, this
clearly indicates an increasing success on behalf of the IPC over the period to
Table 6.4 IPC Overall income and expenditure for 2004–2013

Year Revenue (€) Expenditure (€) Result (€)
2004 4,677,507 5,608,496 - 390,389
2005 3,409,611 3,325,019 + 84,592
2006 5,186,401 5,131,156 + 55,245
2007 4,334,980 4,272,488 + 62,492
2008 6,373,112 6,360,381 + 12,731

2009 6,083,696 6,061,659 + 22,037
2010 7,139,873 7,125,271 + 14,602
2011 7,605,052 7,591,992 + 13,060
2012 10,294,026 10,289,570 + 4,456
2013 12,790,590 12,775,466 + 15,124
2014 12,511,547 12,488,951 + 22,596
Source: adapted from IPC Website, 2015c
Table 6.5 IPC Income and expenditure from marketing, sponsoring and fundraising
activities for 2004–2013
Year Income (€) Expenditure (€) Result (€)
2004 1,244,450 94,676 + 1,149,774
2005 1,998,191 163,172 + 1,835,019
2006 2,214,956 122,510 + 2,092,446
2007 3,161,663 138,767 + 3,022,896
2008 3,774,708 106,600 + 3,668,108
2009 3,778,269 146,731 + 3,631,538
2010 4,171,979 159,752 + 4,012,227
2011 4,038,085 62,515 + 3,975,570
2012 5,308,170 152,791 + 5,155,379
2013 4,940,019 282,215 + 4,657,804
2014 5,299,206 306,542 + 4,992,664
Source: adapted from IPC Website, 2015c
market the Paralympic brand as a fundraising tool for the movement and the
next section will look at some of the ways they went about it and the issues
they had to overcome.
Marketing the paralympic brand

According to Hardin and Hardin (2003, p. 246) ‘the biggest difference
between the Olympic and Paralympic Games lies in awareness and publicity
for the events’. Huang (2005, p. 206) takes this further when she states
‘Paralympic sport is yet to be regarded as competitive and as valuable as
Olympic sport and in consequence the achievements and physical prowess
of elite athletes with disabilities are still far from being fully recognised’. In
many ways the Paralympic Movement has adopted many of the strategies
used by the IOC in trying to market itself to the world. Obviously, however,
it does not have the same history or totally the same vision as the IOC.
Therefore, in order to provide a strong and viable platform from which to
market itself to the world, IPC, as part of its strategic review, came up with a
vision for the Paralympic Movement that they felt would get across best the
aims and objectives of the Paralympic Movement to sponsors and spectators
alike. The following comparison gives a clear indication to readers of how
the IPC’s vision for what it is trying to achieve has developed over the last
ten to fifteen years. The first section is taken from their strategic plan (2006–
2009). This is followed by how they describe their vision and aims in their
latest strategic plan (2015–2019).
The IPC Vision (2006)

To enable Paralympic athletes to achieve sporting excellence and inspire
and excite the world
Each word in the vision had a clear meaning in defining the ultimate aim
of the IPC:
• To enable: the primary role of IPC as an organisation: To create the

conditions of athlete empowerment through self-determination.
• Paralympic athletes: the primary focus of IPC’s activities, in the
context of Paralympic athletes, is the development of all athletes from
initiation to elite level.
• To achieve sporting excellence: the goal of a sports centred organisation.
• To inspire and excite the world: the external result is our contribution
to a better world for all people with a disability. To achieve this,
relations with external organisations and the promotion of the
Paralympic Movement as a whole are of prime importance.
(IPC Strategic Plan (2006) in Brittain, 2009, p. 85)
According to Schäfer (2008, personal communication) ‘in order to achieve

the IPC vision, the IPC strategic plan has identified five strategic goals of
which one is global recognition. The IPC Strategic Plan (2006) claims that
global recognition will be achieved by having a Paralympic brand that is
clearly defined and recognised, understood and valued around the world.
The overall proposed outcome of this is that the IPC should end up with a
brand that has clearly defined attributes and messages and that is recognised
in the sporting arena, instantly understood by the spectators and the media
and valued by its commercial and other partners. In order to achieve this, the
strategic plan outlines six strategies:
1 To define and protect the Paralympic brand, including values, key

messages and key distinctive characteristics, and to increase the
control of the worldwide usage of IPCs marks and properties.
2 To develop and implement marketing and communication strategies
that maximise the recognition, understanding and exposure of the
Paralympic brand.
3 To determine and implement a sponsorship and fundraising strategy
in alignment with the positioning of the Paralympic brand in the
market place.
4 To establish the Paralympic brand as a credible vehicle to reach, access
and capture the market of persons with a disability and their allies.
5 To ensure the capturing, cataloguing, conservation and access to the
history and legacy of the Paralympic Movement.
6 To develop and realise a global education initiative directed to build
the awareness and understanding of the Paralympic values among
youth and schoolchildren.
(IPC Strategic Plan, 2006, p. 9)
The IPC Aspiration and Vision (2015)

The Paralympic Movement’s ultimate aspiration is:
To make for a more inclusive society for people with an impairment
through para-sport.
The Paralympic Games are the world’s number one sporting event
for transforming society’s attitudes towards impairment. By broadening
the reach of the Paralympics, growing para-sport events and furthering
brand awareness, the Paralympic Movement’s transformational legacy
will be amplified.
Although all within the Movement have different perspectives and
backgrounds, they all share a common vision:
To enable para-athletes to achieve sporting excellence and inspire and
excite the world.
In trying to achieve this vision, the Paralympic Movement has adopted
and follows four athlete focussed values, which also act as an underlying
reference for all those involved in para-sport.
• Courage – para-athletes through their performances showcase
to the world what can be achieved when testing your body to its
absolute limits
• Determination – para-athletes have a unique strength of character
that combines mental toughness, physical ability and outstanding
agility to produce sporting performances that regularly redefine
the boundaries of possibility
• Inspiration – As role models, para-athletes maximise their abilities,
thus empowering and exciting others to participate in sport.
• Equality – through sport, para-athletes challenge stereotypes and
transform attitudes, helping to increase inclusion by breaking
down social barriers and discrimination towards people with an
impairment
(IPC Strategic Plan 2015–2019 p. 14)
Two things immediately stand out when comparing the different

approaches outlined in 2006 and 2015. The first is the introduction of the
‘ultimate aspiration’ of making a more inclusive society for people with an
impairment through para-sport. This clearly has parallels with the stated aim
of the Olympic Movement:
The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful

and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without
discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires
mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
(IOC Website, 2015b)
This is indicative of the ever-closer relationship between the IPC and

the IOC, some of the implications of which are outlined in more detail in
Chapter 7. Both organisations appear to feel it necessary to give themselves a
role that appears to extend well beyond simply providing elite level sporting
opportunities for their respective communities of athletes, despite the fact
that there is little concrete evidence that either of their ultimate aspirations
are actually feasible and achievable. The potential issues with IPCs ultimate
aspiration were discussed in Chapter 5 in the section on legacy.
The second noticeable difference between the two strategic plans is
the dropping of any mention of Strategies 5 and 6 from the 2006 plan
regarding the ‘capturing, cataloguing, conservation and access to the history
and legacy of the Paralympic Movement’ and, perhaps more surprisingly,
the development and realisation of ‘a global education initiative directed
to build the awareness and understanding of the Paralympic values among
youth and schoolchildren’. It is conceivable that both have been dropped
due to cost implications or, in the case of the education initiative that this
is already partly covered by the Olympic education programmes usually
launched by each successive host city, which usually have contained elements
of Paralympic education in recent times. However, it would still appear
strange to have dropped two strategies that could potentially play keys roles
as tools in enabling the IPC to achieve its ultimate aspiration of a more
inclusive society for people with an impairment, especially as education and
understanding play such crucial roles in achieving this.
Figure 6.9 Paralympic Mascots have become a major part of the marketing of the
Paralympic Games
(Pachi, Toronto 2015, Parapan Games mascot)
Some of the ways the IPC have attempted to achieve these strategies,
other than through the Paralympic Games and other international disability
sports events include the following:
IPC Website
Like nearly all major organisations the IPC has its own website that enables
it to disseminate all the latest news and to provide a range of services to a
variety of interested parties from athletes to the media to school children
doing projects. It can be found at www.paralympic.org.
The Paralympian
A quarterly newsletter available electronically from the website or in hard
copy by registering your details online.
Paralympic school days

This is a set of activities that educate young people about Paralympic sport,
individual differences and disability issues in a fun and playful environment.
These activities can be organised during a normal school day and target an
audience of young students between the ages of 6 and 15. A manual, activity
cards and DVD are available to teachers for download from the IPC website.
Paralympic Games Education Programme
The IPC works closely with Paralympic Games Organising Committees to
assist them in creating and delivering an education programme leading up
to and during the Paralympic Games that will be distributed to schools in
that country. Further details can be found at www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/
paralympic-games-education-programmes:
IPC Athlete of the Month

Each month IPC selects a shortlist or around six Para-athletes or teams who
have excelled the previous month and there is then a public online vote
to select the winner. This helps to continually keep the achievements of
Paralympians in the public eye. A list of all previous winners can be found at
www.paralympic.org/athlete-of-the-month.
ParalympicSport.TV
As described earlier, this has been developed by the IPC to try and overcome
the major global disparities in media coverage of Paralympic sport and has
enabled IPC to overcome other issues such as time changes, whilst giving them
full editorial control over how Paralympic sport is portrayed to the world.
Social Media
The IPC has invested heavily in social media as a means of spreading its message
and providing wide ranging access to information about the Paralympic
Movement and Games. This includes the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
Google as well as the Samsung Paralympic bloggers programme that allows
people to see behind the scenes at a Paralympic Games via video blogs from
competing athletes. The extra benefit of using social media in this way is that
it allows the IPC to maintain an element of control in the way the Paralympic
message is portrayed to the world.
IPC Honorary Board

The main purpose of the IPC Honorary Board is to allow leaders of society
an opportunity to support the vision of the Paralympic Movement and to
strive to maintain the issue of sport for persons with a disability high on
the agenda of the global community. Honorary Board Members assist the
IPC in creating opportunities for raising awareness and funding, through the
members’ network of contacts and sphere of influence. There are currently
ten members of the IPC Honorary Board:
• HRH Princess Margriet of the Netherlands (NED)
• HRH Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg (LUX)
• HRH Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (SWE)
• HSH Prince Albert of Monaco (MON)
• Dr James Wolfensohn (AUS) (Former President of the World Bank)
• Ms. Maria Guleghina (RUS) (Opera singer)
• HRH Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein (JOR)
• Ms Thérèse Rein (AUS) (Wife of Australia’s former Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd)
• Mr Hassan Ali Bin Ali (QAT) (Chairperson – Shafallah Centre for
Children with Special Needs)
• HRH Princess Astrid of Belgium (Member of the Belgian Royal
Family)
(IPC Website, 2015d)
Study activity
Design further strategies that the IPC might use to strengthen and spread its
vision to as wide an audience as possible in a positive way.
Conclusion
It is clear that the amount of media coverage and the way that coverage is
displayed can have a major impact upon all areas of disability sport ranging
from the recruitment of new athletes to the ability of the IPC to raise
funding through commercial sponsorship and marketing opportunities. It
appears that, on the one hand, the IPC is doing everything it can to project
a strong and dynamic vision and image for the movement and on the other,
changes in the way disability sport is viewed within both society in general
and the media in particular are having a positive impact upon the ability of
the IPC to raise funding through marketing, sponsorship and fundraising
opportunities.

1 List the ten ways Cumberbatch and Negrine (1992) claimed people with
disabilities have been represented on television and try to explain the
implications of some of these depictions for people with disabilities.
2 Describe some of the ways photographs of athletes with a disability are
manipulated by the media and the possible reasons why this happens.
3 Describe the concept of the ‘super-crip’ and explain the implications.
4 Outline some of the ways the IPC currently promotes the Movement
and the Games.
Cherney, J.L., Lindemann, K. and Hardin, M., 2015, Research in Communication,
Disability, and Sport, Communication & Sport, Vol. 3(1), pp. 8-26.
Jackson, D., Hodges, C.E.M., Molesworth, M. and Scullion, R., 2015, Reframing
Disability? Media, (Dis)Empowerment and Voice in the 2012 Paralympics,
Routledge; London, UK.
Schantz, O.J. and Gilbert, K., 2012, Heroes or Zeroes? The Media’s Perceptions of
Paralympic Sport, Common Ground Publishing; Champaign, IL.
7 Major issues within the
Paralympic Movement
Chapter aims
To highlight some of the major issues within the Paralympic Movement:
• Cultural or sports games?

• Olympians or Paralympians?
• Classification
• Cheating
Like nearly all major international organisations, sporting or otherwise, the

Paralympic Movement has a number of ongoing issues that it has to deal with
and mediate. As is usually the nature of such issues they are both complex
and difficult to manage in a way that keeps everyone happy. Other issues,
such as cheating, in various forms, are possibly a reflection of the increasing
importance of the Games themselves and the vastly improved benefits that
being successful at the Paralympic Games may now bring to both individuals
and the nations and sporting organisations that they represent. The aim of
this chapter is to outline some of these issues for the reader, although given
the complexity of some of them and the limited space available here they
can only be presented in their broadest form. Hopefully, however, the reader
will be inspired to learn more about the complex nature of these issues and
their impacts.
The Paralympic Games – a cultural or a sports event?
The Paralympic Movement and its underlying language/message

From its inception in the late 1940s the founder of the international disability
sport movement, Ludwig Guttmann, described the aims of his use of sport
in the rehabilitation process of the spinally injured to be social re-integration
and to change the perceptions of the non-disabled within society regarding
what people with disabilities were capable of (see Chapter 1). This continued
to be the underlying message of the International Paralympic Committee
112 Major issues within the Paralympic Movement
(IPC) regarding the Paralympic Games and international disability sport for
many years. These kinds of aims and the language associated with them (e.g.
social integration, changing perceptions, etc.) possibly led to the Paralympic
Games being perceived primarily as a cultural games, with an emphasis upon
rehabilitation and other social goals such as inclusion, rather than one that is
about sport. Cultural games have as their aim an ethos of fostering self-respect
and belief amongst their participants as well as helping to solidify their social
identity as a group. However, the last ten years or so, have seen a distinct shift
in the language used and the aims set out by the International Paralympic
Committee. The language used is now much more about sport than disability
as the Strategic goal to ‘Empower para-athletes and support the development
of para-sports’ in the new IPC Strategic Plan 2015-2018 clearly shows:
Increase and improve the opportunities for para-athletes to develop

from the grassroots to Paralympic level, raising the quality of their
environment and supporting transition beyond sport … A para-athlete’s
interests, priorities and opportunities to participate and excel in fair
sporting competition are of prime concern to the IPC. Our aim is to
ensure that all sports in the Paralympic Movement are practiced in a
manner that protects a para-athlete’s health and respects fair play and
ethics, including compliance with the IPC Code of Ethics, World Anti-
Doping Code, IPC Classification Code and IPC Medical Code.
(IPC Strategic Plan 2015-2018, p. 22)
Although references to identity and integration are still inherent within the
statement the focus is explicitly on sport, sporting opportunities and fair play.
There is no mention of disability with the exception of its inherent connection
with the word Paralympic and all the mentions of the word Paralympic are in
connection with elite athletes and sport. It is possible that the reasons for this
change hinge upon the fact that the advent of the social model of disability
and the increasing influence of disability politics within societies in general
meant that recognition of disability issues was much more prevalent. This
allowed disability sport and elite disability sport in particular to shift the focus
of its aims away from the acceptance of people with disabilities as potentially
productive members of society to gaining their acceptance as elite athletes
irrespective of any impairment they might have. So why is this important?
Perhaps this is best shown by looking at the potential outcomes of the cultural
and sporting models in terms of their aims and the language used.
The impact of the cultural and sport models on the Paralympic

Movement’s place in international sport
There can be little doubt that, historically speaking, there was a definite need
for the disability movement in general to take a cultural model approach in
all areas in order to try and remove the cloak of near invisibility cast over it
Major issues within the Paralympic Movement 113
by the rest of society and to highlight the fact that people with disabilities
were capable of amazing feats, just like anyone else within society. One of
the most visible avenues through which these aims have been advanced is
through sport. However, disability sport has been so successful in growing
itself that the language and aims of the cultural model approach reached
a point whereby they were preventing people with disabilities from being
accepted in some quarters as athletes within non-disabled definitions of what
constitutes an ‘athlete’. As pointed out in Chapter 4, this often conjures
up images of physical perfection and sporting prowess that most of the

non-disabled population could never achieve. By constantly referring to
disability and the exploits of ‘disabled’ sportsmen and women this not only
re-emphasised an element of difference, but also continued to highlight the
oxymoronic nature between the non-disabled understandings of words such
as ‘disabled’ and ‘athlete’ when the two words were brought together. By
taking a sports model approach, which emphasises the athleticism of athletes
with disabilities and using words such as Paralympian, which, although still
understood to mean an athlete with disability, negates the need for any
mention of the disability itself, the aims of the cultural model approach
can still be achieved without the inherent problems of such an approach
as previously mentioned. By becoming ‘Parallel Olympians’ athletes with
disabilities can try to get away from the oxymoron that ‘disabled athlete’
may be perceived as and associate themselves with a movement that sells
itself as being about sport as a vehicle for peace and understanding as well
as sport of the very highest level. In this way both the cultural and sporting
aims of the Paralympic Movement can be met in a positive and constructive
context. However, a number of Paralympians refer to themselves simply as
Olympians. In the next section, therefore, some of the possible implications
of this are investigated. If elite athletes with disabilities were to become fully
integrated into the Olympic Movement, although not necessarily in the one
Games scenario, would this be a positive step forward for the Paralympic
Movement or would this lead to the issue of disability becoming invisible
again under a cloak of ‘Olympism’ and the cultural model impacts of the
Paralympic Movement being lost altogether?
Elite athletes with disabilities – Olympians or Paralympians?
Historical context
Before discussing the possible implications of full integration of Paralympic
athletes into the Olympic Movement it is worth pausing to look briefly at
the historical background with regards to the integration process that has
occurred thus far. As early as 1949 Dr Guttmann gave a speech in which
he made the claim that the Stoke Mandeville Games would one day
become recognised as the paraplegic’s equivalent of the Olympic Games.
Throughout his career Guttmann consistently drew parallels between the
two movements as highlighted in Chapter 2. In the 1970s and 1980s the
Paralympic Movement even went as far as using Olympic terminology such
as ‘Olympics for the Disabled’ to denote the Games that occurred in the
Olympic year, which led to threats of litigation from the IOC. In 1984 the
IOC consented to demonstration events without any medal status being held
at the Sarajevo Winter Games and the Los Angeles Summer Games. At that
time the Paralympic Movement, however, saw this as just the first step and in
the early 1990s the International Paralympic Committee set up a Commission
for the Integration of Athletes with Disablities, which lobbied for, amongst
other things, the inclusion of events with full medal status within the Olympic
Programme. This was never achieved and although the two wheelchair
demonstration events continued to be held at the Summer Olympic Games
up until Athens, 2004 the competitors did not receive full Olympic athlete
status accreditations. They were not allowed to march in the opening or
closing ceremonies nor were they allowed to stay in the Olympic Village.
The rights of athletes with disabilities versus the potential impacts

The modern day usage of the term Paralympic is now widely accepted as
being a shortened version of the term Parallel Olympics. However, additional
definitions of the prefix ‘para’ are of interest due to their potentially negative
connotation:
Para-
Etymology: Greek, from para; akin to Greek pro before
1a: beside: alongside of: <parenteral>
1b: Parallel
1d: associated in a subsidiary or accessory capacity <paramilitary>
4a: faulty: abnormal <paresthesia>
(Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1961, p. 1634)
It is the third and fourth definitions that are of particular concern as ‘para’
can infer that the Paralympic Games are ‘faulty’, ‘abnormal’, ‘associated in
a subsidiary or accessory capacity’ to the Olympic Movement. Although
the first two definitions indicate the two Movements are parallel to one
another, the other definitions have the potential to disempower elite athletes
with disabilities. Is ‘Paralympian’ an appropriate label to use, therefore,
if it can be associated with negative connotations? Another reading of
the prefix ‘para’ in Paralympian, in which parallel may be interpreted as
disempowering, results from the insinuation that the Paralympic Movement
takes a subsidiary capacity to the Olympic Movement. Aimée Mullins of the
USA, a multi-Paralympic medallist had this to say on the matter:
There is indeed a ‘less than’ association with the Paralympics. It’s why
I always say that I’m an Olympian and dare anyone implicitly to say
that I’m not, because to do so would only be to ‘qualify’ my athletic
achievements rather than acknowledge them in the same pantheon as
that of an Olympic achievement.
(Mullins in Brittain and Wolff, 2007)
The push for full integration by the International Paralympic Committee

that was so prevalent in the early 1990s has been replaced by attempts to
build up a strong Paralympic brand image, the use of much more sports-based
language in order to try and gain acceptance of athletes with disabilities as

athletes and a gradual move towards a greater use of educational tools such as
the International Paralympic day. However, there are those that would argue
that sport for the disabled has accepted its status as separate and unequal instead
of continuing to advocate for full inclusion in the Olympic Movement due to
insecurity and internalised inferiority. Conversely, there is also an argument to
be made that the need by athletes with disabilities to call themselves Olympians
is also a result of this internalised inferiority in that they are trying to take on the
sporting terminology of the non-disabled majority in order to gain acceptance,
rather than making the term Paralympian one they and others can be proud of,
in that it encapsulates both their sporting and cultural identity.
Study activity
There have long been suggestions that the Olympic and Paralympic Games
should be combined into one Games with Para-sports events forming part of
the Olympic programme. What are the possible ramifications, both positive
and negative, of such a move?
The recognition of cultural identity has always been a major part of

the elite sporting model. You only have to look at examples such as Cathy
Freeman and her attempts to increase the visibility of her aboriginal heritage,
the ‘black power’ salute at the 1968 Men’s Olympic 200m medal ceremony
or the protests by Islamic Fundamentalist Groups against the clothing worn
by Hassiba Boulmerka of Algeria in winning World and Olympic track titles
that went totally against what her culture and religion dictated were right
and proper. But these are all political issues you might claim. However, to
most people the right to promote and defend their cultural heritage is a
political issue and this is why the cultural identity model element of the
Paralympic Games has been so important to athletes with disabilities in
furthering the cause of all people with disabilities. However, amongst the
athletes in particular and the Paralympic Movement in general there is a
strong move to have athletes with disabilities accepted as athletes first and
foremost, whilst still maintaining other elements of their cultural heritage
such as race, gender or disability. This is perhaps best summed up by Sarah
Reinartsen, a triathlete who has worn a prosthetic leg since the age of seven:
I’ve always been fighting to be seen as an athlete, but also as a disabled
woman. For so long I wasn’t included in sports, so I feel every person,
regardless of gender or disability, has a right to be an athlete.
(Reinartsen in Brittain and Wolff, 2007)
The argument most often used against integration is that athletes with
disabilities would once again become invisible. However, Terri Lakowski at
the Women’s Sports Foundation claims this is a myth and that until there is
integration athletes with disabilities will always feel that they are second-tier
(Lakowski in Brittain and Wolff, 2007). There can be little doubt that many
of the reasons for these apparent feelings of perceived inferiority are based
in the meanings attached to the language and terminology that surrounds
sport. There still remains a great need for many of these perceived meanings
to be challenged and re-defined. Sport for people with a disability is a highly
legitimate category of sport and if Olympism really is about peace and mutual
understanding amongst different cultures, rather than money and political
power, as it is often perceived to be, then disability sport has a major role to
play in that process within the Olympic family. Whether this is best served
by full integration of disabled athletes into Olympic and other non-disabled
sporting terminology or whether they continue down the ‘Parallel Olympic’
route is still open to debate and requires more research and thought.
However, what does appear to be clear is the importance of the cultural
identity element of disability sport as a tool for changing the understanding
of perceived meanings. If full integration is to be pursued then a way must be
found to ensure that this cultural identity element remains strong and highly
visible. An excellent recent example of this is the introduction of a new law
drafted in Russia’s State Duma on 28 October 2008 that assured the status of
the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and announced the introduction
of IOC and IPC standards to Russia’s national legal system. This new law,
introduced in light of their successful bid for the Olympic and Paralympic
Winter Games in Sochi in 2014 is expected to increase greatly the awareness
of disability sport within Russia and it is hoped that it will greatly benefit the
11 million Russians living with a disability (IPC Website, 2015e). A similar
situation has arisen in Brazil in the lead up to the Rio 2016 Paralympic
Games where ‘The Inclusion of People with Disabilities Act’ was passed into
law in 2015. The Act eliminates accessibility barriers in transport, housing,
services, education, sport and the exercise of citizenship. The new law also
states that 2.7 per cent of the gross revenues of the federal lotteries should be
invested in sport, up from the current level of 2 per cent. Of this investment,
the Brazilian Olympic Committee will receive 63 per cent and the Brazilian
Paralympic Committee (CPB) 37 per cent, which is a significant increase as
CPB currently receives 15 per cent of the transfer of lottery revenues (IPC
Website, 2015f). Clearly, only time will tell whether these laws are actually
legally enforced, but at the very least having the law on the statute books
gives people with disabilities and the organisations that represent them in
Russia and Brazil a legal basis upon which to fight discrimination, that did
not exist prior to the Paralympic Games taking place in these countries.
I will now turn my attention to some of the major issues within the
Paralympic Movement. As already stated given the complexity of some of
these issues and space restrictions I will only be able to introduce them in the
broadest terms. Hopefully, however, the reader will be sufficiently inspired
by some of them to investigate further and so to this end I have tried to
provide references that will allow the reader to learn more should they wish
to do so. The first of these, and possibly the most complex issue for the
Paralympic Movement and spectators and supporters of the Movement alike
is that of classification.
Classification in Paralympic sport

This is possibly one of the most contentious issues in disability sport and
also one of the most difficult to find a solution to that satisfies the needs and
desires of all concerned. Different impairments impact upon an individual’s
functional ability in different ways and to different degrees, but in nearly all
cases the impacts usually lead to a competitive disadvantage in sport. This is
especially true when compared to non-disabled sportsmen and women, but
may also be true in comparison to athletes with different impairments or
even athletes with the same or a similar impairment. It is necessary, therefore,
to put criteria in place in order that success is determined by ‘skill, fitness,
power, endurance, tactical ability and mental focus’ (BOCOG, 2008) as it is
in non-disabled sport, rather than by level of disability. A very crude analogy
would be to compare classification in disability sport to weight categories
in boxing, but the criteria used in classification for disability sport are much
more detailed and require much more than just a set of weighing scales. The
classification system in disability sport in general and in the individual sports
that athletes with disabilities take part in are constantly evolving as classifiers
and those involved in running disability sport learn more about the impacts
of various impairments on sporting ability. In general classification decides
three main issues:
1 Which impairment groups can compete in a particular sport i.e. in

goalball only individuals with a visual impairment can compete, but
swimming is open to all impairment groups.
2 In the very broadest terms classification decides which athletes are
eligible to compete in a particular sport and equally importantly which
athletes are not. Not only does it dictate whether they have the correct
impairment for a particular sport, but also whether they are impaired
enough to meet the minimum disability requirements for participation.
3 Finally classification decides which individual athletes, with which
impairments and at what levels of impairment, may compete against
each other in a particular medal event.
The decision as to in which events and against whom a particular athlete
with a disability should compete is made by a panel of classifiers. The role of
a classifier, who usually will only classify athletes within one particular sport
that is their area of expertise, is to decide, based on a number of factors, a
sports classification grouping for each individual athlete to take part in in
their sport. These factors may include the results of a physical examination, a
series of practical sports-specific tests and even watching individuals perform
within a competitive sports setting. Each individual is then assigned a sports
classification for that particular sport. Against whom each individual athlete
then competes against will be down to the type of classification system
used within a particular sport. Within the Paralympic Movement there are
currently two different types of classification system in use:
1 A general classification system: this kind of classification system only takes

into account the type and degree of impairment associated with each
individual athlete e.g. the level of visual impairment. Athletes with similar
impairments and levels of impairment then compete against each other.
2 A sport specific or functional classification system: in this system athletes
are evaluated in terms of their functional ability to carry out specific
tasks required by a particular sport e.g. the level of ability to catch or
throw in wheelchair rugby..
In general, functional classification systems are associated with physical

impairments and general classification systems are usually applied to visually
impaired or intellectually disabled athletes. In Paralympic terms the only
sports in which visually impaired athletes compete alongside their physically
disabled counterparts are in the sports of equestrianism, sailing and Nordic
skiing. Some sports such as athletics and swimming may actually employ
both systems i.e. they use a general classification system for the visually
impaired and the intellectually disabled participants and some events for
physically disabled athletes and a functional classification system for the
remaining participants in certain events (i.e. some field events in athletics and
all individual swimming events for physically disabled swimmers). Pickering
Francis (2005) claims that the need for the Paralympic Movement to provide
categories for athletes that are both entertaining for spectators and fair for
the athletes involved requires ‘striking a very difficult balance between
categories that are sufficiently broad to provide compelling competition
yet sufficiently well-defined so that people with relevantly similar skills are
paired against each other’ (Pickering Francis, 2005, p. 129).
Classification and the inherent tensions in the cultural-sporting model

dichotomy
Classification is one area of the Paralympic Games where the inherent
tensions in the cultural model–sports model dichotomy become very clear.
Figure 7.1 Swimming uses a functional classification system for all physically disabled
swimmers
As IPC has moved the Paralympic Games further towards the sporting model
the pressure to provide an event that is saleable to sponsors and the media
has increased or as Howe and Jones (2006) put it:
The only evaluative criteria relevant to such logic are supply, demand
and profit. Good Games are profitable ones, good sports are marketable
ones, and good athletes are endorsable ones. The IPC are conspiring
with the IOC to repackage, remarket, refresh, modernize, and essentially
sell the Paralympics. The product, however, needs revising to increase
demand. The Paralympics needs to be quicker, slicker, shorter, with
fewer events and fewer, but higher profile champions.
(Howe and Jones, 2006, p. 33)
As will be seen in the next chapter there has been a squeeze on athlete
numbers and a propensity towards reducing the number of medal events at
the Paralympic Games since they first returned to the Olympic host venues
in Seoul, 1988. However, this move towards achieving the goals laid out
by Howe and Jones above comes at a price. Women and athletes with high
support needs have been particularly hard hit as will be shown further in
Chapter 8. This means that although the IPC might be successfully moving
towards an elite sports model for the movement the further they move
away from the cultural model the more in danger they become of isolating
key groups of the community of athletes they are there to represent.
This happens because either there are insufficient athletes from a range
of countries and continents to make up what the organisers deem a
competitively viable event or alternatively these athletes are combined with
another classification group that they deem themselves not able to compete
against on equal terms and so decide to either change events or sports or
sometimes to give up sport altogether.
Another problem that makes the issue of classification even harder to

solve to the satisfaction of all concerned is the difficulty of designing a
system within a particular sport that is easy for non-disabled spectators to
understand. In general, spectators, particularly non-disabled spectators,
lack an understanding of disability in general and specific impairments in
particular on sporting performance. Combine this with a general lack of
anatomical and physiological understanding of the body and how it works
and it is easy to see why many people find classification a confusing concept.
Unfortunately, as Howe (2008a) points out, even though media coverage
of disability sport has increased greatly over the last twenty years there is
often little or no mention of classification within this coverage even though
an awareness, and some understanding, of the classification process would
greatly assist in the public’s perception of sport for the disabled. Without
this understanding and with only non-disabled sport as a benchmark against
which to measure any sport for the disabled these spectators might watch,
it is likely that their perceptions will remain grounded firmly in the medical
model of disability. In an attempt to educate spectators at both the London
2012 and Sochi 2014 Paralympic Games Channel 4, the host broadcasters
from London 2012 (see Chapter 6) introduced a web-based ‘decoder’ for
classification, which they called LEXI and which spectators could use to
try and better understand the classification system in a particular sport
and the impairments of those competing. Further details of LEXI can be
found online <http://lexi.channel4.com/index.html>. Further details of
the classification system can also be found on the IPC website at www.
paralympic.org/classification
I will now move on to an area that has long been an issue in non-disabled
sport and is slowly becoming more prevalent in Para-sport as the rewards of
success have grown – that of cheating in Paralympic sport.
Cheating in Paralympic sport

Many people find it hard to believe that cheating occurs in sport for the
disabled. This possibly reflects a perception of sport for the disabled that
is grounded more in pity for these poor unfortunate individuals than one
that views them as athletes who simply happen to have an impairment. The
growing media coverage and increasing rewards now available to individuals
who are successful at the highest levels of disability sport and the increasing
importance placed on being successful at the Paralympic Games by national
governments mean that the pressure to succeed leads to a win at all costs
mentality amongst some individuals. Many of the forms of cheating that
have long been known about in international non-disabled sport are now
also prevalent in elite sport for the disabled. Although cheating is to be
deplored in any sport, disabled or non-disabled, what it does highlight is that
athletes with disabilities are as human as everyone else with the same wants,
desires and potential character flaws that lead them to cheat.
Doping
Much has been written about the illegal use of drugs for performance
enhancement purposes within non-disabled sport. Drugs cheats also occur in
disability sport. However, the problem is made far more difficult in disability
sport by the fact that some athletes actually need to take drugs on a regular
basis for health reasons.
Dope testing at the Summer Paralympic Games appears to have begun
at the Stoke Mandeville Games in 1984 when eight urine samples all tested
negative. Since then the number of tests taken at each Games has increased
dramatically with over a thousand tests being carried out in Beijing, 2008
and London, 2012. Dope testing at the Winter Paralympic Games began in
Tignes, 1992 and despite a steadily increasing number of tests at subsequent
Games the first case of a positive test at a Winter Paralympic Games only
occurred in Salt Lake in 2002 when German Nordic skier Thomas Oelsner
tested positive after winning two gold medals in men’s standing biathlon
events (The Paralympian, 2002, p. 2). However, there has been a positive
doping test at the last two Winter Paralympic Games in Vancouver and Sochi.
As can be seen in Table 7.1 there has only been one Summer Paralympic
Games (Atlanta, 1996) where no positive tests have been returned during the
Games since 1992. The other five Summer Games have returned a total of 29
positive tests. In the same period there have been 57 positive tests at Olympic
Summer Games. Perhaps a little surprisingly this means that the Summer
Paralympic Games have returned one positive test for every 156 tests carried
out. This is actually a drop in positive tests as the rate after Beijing was one
in every 121 tests. The rate for the Summer Olympic Games is one positive
test for every 329 tests carried out. However it should be pointed out that
the vast majority of the positive tests at the Summer Paralympic Games (72.4
per cent) have all occurred in one sport – powerlifting. Introduced as a sport
in Sydney 2000 nearly all the positive tests that occurred in both Sydney (10
out of 11) and Athens (6 out of 10) four years later were in powerlifting.
This caused those in charge of the sport to severely tighten up the rules on
doping and it is satisfying to see that although three powerlifters were caught
in Beijing the number of positive tests has been reduced dramatically. There
is, clearly still a problem in the sport, however, as the only two positive tests
in London where both powerlifters, with a third powerlifter being caught the
Table 7.1 Doping tests at recent Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games
Olympic Games Paralympic Games
Tests Positives Tests Positives
Barcelona, 1992 1873 5 300 3
Lillehammer, 1994 529 0 49 0
Atlanta, 1996 2000 6 450 0
Nagano, 1998 621 1 52 0

Sydney, 2000 2100 11 630 11
Salt Lake, 2002 825 7 97 1
Athens, 2004 2815 17 735 10
Torino, 2006 1219 1 242 0
Beijing, 2008 4900 9 1155 3
Vancouver, 2010 2149 3 444 1
London, 2012 5051 9 1259 2
Sochi, 2014 2812 8 491 1
week before the London Games and being banned from competing. Table
7.2 breaks the 29 positive doping tests that have been found at Summer
Paralympic Games down by continental affiliation and gender of the athletes
concerned. It can clearly be seen that the majority of positive tests have
occurred with athletes from Europe and Asia (82.8 per cent) and that 89.7
per cent of all positive tests were from male athletes. From Table 7.3 it can
be clearly seen that all positive tests at the Winter Paralympic Games have
come from European males.
Study activity
List possible reasons why the prevalence of positive doping tests at the
Paralympic Games is so much higher for European nations. Make a second
list of possible reasons why the prevalence of positive doping tests at the
Paralympic Games is so much higher for men than women.
Therapeutic use exemption (TUE)

Given the nature of some impairments certain individuals may be required
to take substances or use treatment methods, under doctors’ orders, that are
prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code. Under such
circumstances, if the individual wishes to continue competing in their chosen
sport, they must apply to either the IPC TUE Committee or their own
national anti-doping agency for a therapeutic use exemption certificate at the
latest on the final day of entry for the competition they wish to compete in.
Table 7.2 Positive Summer Paralympic Games doping tests by continental association
and gender since Barcelona 1992
Americas
Oceania
Europe
Female
Africa
Total
Male
Asia
Barcelona,1992 0 1 0 2 0 3 3 0
Atlanta, 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sydney, 2000 1 1 3 6 0 11 10 1
Athens, 2004 0 1 3 6 0 10 9 1
Beijing, 2008 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 1
London, 2012 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0
Total 2 3 7 17 0 29 26 3
Table 7.3 Positive Winter Paralympic Games doping tests by continental association
and gender since Lillehammer 1994
Americas
Oceania
Europe
Female
Africa
Total
Male
Asia
Lillehammer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1994
Nagano 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salt Lake 2002 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Torino 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vancouver, 2010 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Sochi, 2014 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Total 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0
However, in extraordinary circumstances, such as an injury during training

or illness just prior to competition an emergency TUE may be granted. The
TUE Committee to which the application has been made, and consisting of
at least three members, then evaluates the request in accordance with the
WADA International Standards for Therapeutic Use Exemptions and renders
a decision. This decision is then communicated to both the athlete and
WADA. At this point WADA may, at the request of the athlete concerned or
of their own volition, review the decision and, in exceptional circumstances
may even overturn it. The outcome of this is that an athlete who is granted
a TUE may then compete in a sporting competition and if drug tested the
testers will know to expect to find the allowed banned substance in the
sample and the expected levels of that substance.
Boosting
Boosting is the colloquial terminology for self-induced autonomic
dysreflexia, which is considered as a performance enhancing technique
(Mazzeo et al, 2015). Boosting refers to a technique potentially employed
by athletes with a spinal cord injury at the T6 level or above. The resultant
effect is similar to that produced by ergogenic aids. Boosting has, therefore,
been banned in sport for the disabled. Reported methods for boosting by
some athletes include temporarily blocking their own urinary catheter,

drinking large amounts of fluids prior to their event to distend the bladder,
tightening clothing, and sitting for long periods of time. According to Grey-
Thompson (2008) it can boost performance by up to 25 per cent. Potential
complications of prolonged boosting are the same as for non-self-induced
autonomic dysreflexia in general e.g. stroke, seizure, irregular heart rhythm,
heart attack, and potentially death (Wan & Krassioukov, 2014). Boosting is,
therefore, banned not just on ethical grounds, but also health grounds.
Classification
The most obvious and clear cut case of cheating the classification system
occurred in Sydney in the intellectually disabled basketball. This case is
described in much greater detail in Chapter 10. However, given that in
Beijing there were ninety-nine functional reclassifications, sixty-three visual
impairment reclassifications and thirteen athletes reclassified again after their
first appearance in front of the classifiers it clearly shows that classification
is not an exact science. Two athletes were actually reclassified to such an
extent that they were deemed to be not sufficiently disabled enough to
compete in Paralympic sport, one of them after having won a silver medal.
The inexactness of the classification system clearly opens up opportunities
for individuals to try and get themselves classified into a group that would
give them a competitive advantage or to be simply wrongly classified and the
mistake not get spotted.
Tampering with technology

Grey-Thompson (2008) claims that there have been instances where
wheelchair track athletes have felt that their racing chairs, and in particular
their compensators which they calibrate themselves to help them go around
the two bends on the track, have been tampered with. A slight change in
the calibration might mean that the chair would either not turn in correctly,
forcing the chair out wide, or might turn in too sharply causing the chair to
hit the kerb on the inside of the track. For this reason Grey-Thompson claims
she guarded her racing chair very closely whenever she was racing.
Technological doping or cyborg athlete syndrome
With the massive improvements in performance standards currently
occurring in disability sport some athletes have reached a standard that might
allow them to qualify for the Olympic Games. However, the technology they
use in terms of adapted equipment in order to enable them to compete has
raised questions regarding advantages such equipment might give them over
their non-disabled counterparts. This has led to the coining of such terms
as ‘technological doping’ or ‘cyborg athlete’. The most notable example

of this is, of course, Oscar Pistorius, the South African double below-the-
knee amputee who used carbon fibre blade prosthetic limbs to allow him to
compete. It is unnecessary to go into detail regarding the Pistorius case as it
has been covered heavily by both the media and academics worldwide (see
Wolbring, 2008; Howe, 2008a), However, in brief, Pistorius, a Paralympic
Gold medallist and world record holder decided he wished to compete
against non-disabled athletes in open competition and if possible qualify to
compete in the 400 metres at the Olympic Games in Beijing. He came within
half a second of the qualifying standard, when in March 2007 the IAAF
introduced a rule regarding ‘technical aids’ that brought into question the
use of such prosthetic limbs within the Olympic Games as it was felt they
gave the user an unfair advantage when compared to the capabilities of the
human leg. Following an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS),
which challenged the veracity of the tests carried out by the IOC and the
IAAF it was decided by CAS that Pistorius should be allowed compete (but
only using the technology which he used in the original tests). In the end
Pistorius failed to reach the qualifying time for the individual event, but still
hoped to make his country’s relay team, at which point the IAAF Secretary
General Pierre Weiss is cited as saying ‘we’d prefer that they don’t select him
for reasons of safety … Pistorius will risk the physical safety of himself and
other athletes if he runs in the main pack of the relay event’ (CBC Sports,
2008). In the end Pistorius was not selected for the South African team as
four other athletes posted faster times. Another South African, swimmer
Natalie Du Toit, a single leg amputee, did qualify to represent South Africa
in the 10 km open water swimming event at the Beijing Olympic Games and
there was no such reticence to her participation by either the IOC or FINA,
as she does not use any kind of prosthetic when she swims, although she
does for daily living.
The fear then, in the case of Pistorius, for the IOC and the IAAF, was
not the usual prejudice most people with disabilities have encountered at
some point in their lives of being considered ‘less than human’, but in fact
the complete opposite – the fear of being ‘more than human’. The very
devices society has devised to allow individuals to walk in the upright
position like everyone else and to compete in running events in a similar
style and manner as their non-disabled counterparts are now considered to
give an unfair competitive advantage. Pistorius went from a fine Paralympic
athlete whose achievements were to be applauded, perhaps in the slightly
patronising manner outlined in the previous chapter, to a kind of ‘Robocop’
of the track who might not only have an unfair advantage over athletes not
wearing his prosthetic limbs, but also might reap danger and injury upon
both himself and his fellow relay competitors. Swartz and Watermeyer
(2008) ascribe this reaction to the fact that Pistorius is effectively challenging
one of the key underlying ethics’ of sport – that of bodily perfection. He
was challenging culturally ascribed definitions of bodily perfection based
around non-disabled conceptions. To have someone whose body is less than

perfect (i.e. missing limbs) potentially beating athletes whose bodies far
more readily meet the requirements laid down for bodily perfection is a
challenge to the virtues of those who hold power, especially when that body
has been ‘technologically accessorised’ with prosthetic limbs. It is somewhat
ironic that the term ‘prosthetic’ is derived from the Greek meaning ‘an
addition designed to remove physical stigma’ (Howe, 2008a, p. 127), when
in Pistorius’ case it appears to have resulted in removing the stigma of being
disabled whilst adding the stigma of being ‘more than human’ in athletic
ability, but ‘less than human’ in physical appearance i.e. some kind of cyborg.
This then begins to raise numerous questions around the difference between
being human and being a machine. Pistorius did finally gets his wish to
compete in the Olympic Games of London 2012 becoming the first double
leg amputee to compete at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. He also
managed to compete at the Olympic Games without incident or injury to
himself or his fellow competitors. Sadly, events in his personal life now mean
that Oscar Pistorius is in jail for murder and so he will not get to repeat his
achievements in Rio. However, what is certain is that the questions raised by
the issues related to his participation will be far reaching and will continue
to be debated for a long time to come as has been demonstrated by the
numerous academic articles his achievements have spawned across a find
range of academic fields (cf. Smith, 2015; Marcellini et al., 2012; Burkett et
al., 2011; Chockalingam et al., 2011)
Study activity
To what extent should technology be allowed to play a role in Para-sport and
how does and should this differ from the Olympic Games?
Conclusion
It is clear that the Paralympic Movement has some highly complex and
difficult issues to deal with. How it deals with these issues and how their
remedies are perceived will ultimately decide the success or failure of the
movement. Many of the issues such as doping have been a problem for the
Olympic Movement for many years and so hopefully the IPC can learn from
the mistakes and triumphs of the IOC in this area. Recent doping issues in
cycling and athletics do not, as yet, appear to have tainted Para-sport, but
clearly, as the Paralympic Games become more successful and gain more
media coverage the pressure on some individuals to cheat will increase. In
addition, how the IPC deals with the move towards an elite sporting model,
thus moving it further away from its cultural model roots, will potentially
impact upon its ability to successfully serve all the members of the Paralympic
community, particularly women and athletes with high support needs, who
will form part of the focus of the next chapter.

1 Should athletes with disabilities who compete at the Paralympic Games
be called Olympians or Paralympians? Give reasons for your answer.
2 What extra issues are involved in doping control within sport for people
with disabilities and how are they managed?
3 Name and explain the different classification methods used in sport for
people with disabilities.
4 Should Oscar Pistorius have been banned from non-disabled competition?
5 How are Oscar Pistorius’s blades different from the latest aerodynamic
carbon fibre racing bike or technologically enhanced swimming suit?

Howe, P.D., 2008b, The tail is wagging the dog: Body culture, classification and the
Paralympic movement. Ethnography, Vol. 9(4), pp. 499–517.
Tweedy, S.M., Beckman, E.M. and Connick, M.J., 2014, Paralympic classification:
Conceptual basis, current methods, and research update. Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Vol. 6(8), pp. 11–17.
Wolbring, G., 2012b, Paralympians outperforming Olympians: An increasing
challenge for Olympism and the Paralympic and Olympic movement. Sport,
Ethics and Philosophy, Vol. 6(2), pp. 251–266.
8 Diversity at the Paralympic
Games
Chapter aims
• To examine the diversity of participation at the Paralympic Games in
terms of geography, social and economic development, gender and
differing types and levels of impairment.
• To highlight how athlete origins and the social and economic development
of a participating nation might impact upon medal success.
• To describe the development of the participation of women in the
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games and highlight the role of gender
on participation in sport for the disabled.
• To describe the development of the participation of athletes with high
support needs in the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games.
In order to claim to be a truly worldwide sporting movement it is essential

that the International Paralympic Committee ensure that the Paralympic
Games encompasses as diverse a range of the worldwide population of people
with disabilities as is possible. Some aspects of what are usually included
under the term diversity such as ethnicity, religion and sexuality are simply
not possible to include in this chapter largely because the data simply isn’t
available. This chapter will, therefore, examine the diversity of participation
at the Paralympic Games in terms of athlete origins, social and economic
development, gender and differing types and levels of impairment in order
to investigate how these factors might impact both on the opportunity to
participate at the Paralympic Games as well as the potential for medal success.
Athlete participation at the Paralympic Games by continental

association
This section will look at athlete participation at the Summer and Winter
Paralympic Games in terms of continental association. To this end I have
used the same five continental associations use by both the IOC and the IPC
i.e. Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania to which NOCs and
NPCs are grouped. This section will look at the number of nations from each
Diversity at the Paralympic Games 129
continental association, the number of athletes they are represented by and
how this appears to be reflected in terms of overall medal success at recent
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games.
The Summer Paralympic Games

Table 8.1 illustrates that the number of nations from around the world
competing at the Summer Paralympic Games has risen dramatically over the
last twenty years, doubling in number from 82 (plus Independent Paralympic

Athletes) in Barcelona 1992 to 164 nations competing at London 2012. The
rise in the number of nations competing has been worldwide, but particularly
strong in Africa where the number of competing nations has more than
trebled in the same period from 11 in Barcelona to 39 in London.
This would appear to paint a very rosy picture for the development of the
Paralympic Games worldwide until, that is, you look at the actual number
of athletes competing at the Games from each continental association (see
Table 8.2) which clearly shows the dominance of participants from European
Table 8.1 Development in the number of participating nations at the Summer

Paralympic Games over the last twenty years by continental association
countries
Americas
Oceania
athletes
Europe
No. of
No. of
Africa
Asia
Year Location
1992 Barcelona, Spain 83* 33 16 11 20 2 3001
1996 Atlanta, USA 103 41 18 16 25 3 3259
2000 Sydney, Australia 122* 41 20 20 33 7 3882
2004 Athens, Greece 135 42 24 28 36 5 3808
2008 Beijing, P.R. China 146 45 24 30 40 7 4011
2012 London, UK 164 47 28 40 41 8 4237
*Includes Independent Paralympic Athletes (2000)/ Independent Paralympic Participants (1992)
Table 8.2 Number of athletes by continental association competing at the Summer

Paralympic Games over the last twenty years
Location Europe Americas Africa Asia Oceania
Seoul 1479 706 73 610 189
Barcelona 1798 630 94 316 147
Atlanta 1939 654 130 339 197
Sydney 2076 668 213 583 339
Athens 1927 695 216 778 192
Beijing 1954 751 251 858 197
London 2085 803 307 854 188
130 Diversity at the Paralympic Games
Table 8.3 Distribution of the medals at the London 2012 Paralympic Games by
continental association
Nations Gold Silver Bronze Total Percentage
winning
medals
Africa 10 38 36 38 112 7.6
Americas 10 76 70 75 221 14.9
Asia 16 127 106 103 336 22.7

Europe 36 223 261 226 710 47.9
Oceania 3 39 30 34 103 6.9
nations, that have added over 500 athletes since Seoul 1988, whereas Africa,
which has seen the greatest increase in the number of nations represented,
has only grown by 234 participants in the same period. Of the 39 nations
from Africa represented at London 2012, 16 only had one participant and
32 had five or fewer participants.
When you compare this information with how each of the continental
associations fared in terms of medal success at London 2012 it becomes clear
that the European nations dominated with 36 of the 47 European nations
participating winning nearly half of all the medals available (see Table 8.3).
Asia appears to have done very well in London winning 22.7 per cent of
available medals. However, it should be noted that China accounts for 16.2
per cent of all medals won in London and 70.7 per cent of all medals won
by Asian nations. China has invested very heavily in Summer Paralympic
sport over the last ten years and has become the top performing Summer
Paralympic nation by far at the last two Summer Paralympic Games. For
further discussion of China’s success see Brittain (2006).

In contrast, Table 8.4 shows a relatively very low increase in the number
of nations competing in the Winter Paralympic Games compared to the
Summer Games over the same period with by far the greatest increase in
competing nations coming about in Europe.
Despite the relatively large increase in the number of European nations
competing at the Winter Paralympic Games compared to other continental
associations over the last 22 years the biggest increases in individual
participant numbers appear to have been from Asia and the Americas (Table
8.5). However, a closer analysis of the data shows that these increases are
almost entirely due to Canada and the USA in the Americas and Japan and
South Korea from Asia. These nations were all competing in Tignes in 1992
and have greatly increased their team sizes as the Games have developed.
When you compare this information to how each of the continental
associations fared in terms of medal success at Sochi 2014 it becomes clear
Table 8.4 Development in the number of participating nations at the Winter
Paralympic Games over the last twenty-two years by continental association
countries
Americas
Oceania
Athletes
Europe
No. of
No. of
Africa
Asia
Year Location
1992 Tignes, 24 18 2 0 2 2 365
France
1994 Lillehammer, 31 24 2 0 3 2 471

Norway
1998 Nagano, 31 22 2 1 4 2 561
Japan
2002 Salt Lake, 36 25 3 1 5 2 416
USA
2006 Torino, 38 25 4 1 6 2 474
Italy
2010 Vancouver, 44 30 5 1 6 2 502
Canada
2014 Sochi, 45 30 6 0 7 2 538
Russia
Table 8.5 Number of athletes by continental association competing at the Winter

Paralympic Games over the last twenty-two years
Location Europe Americas Africa Asia Oceania
Tignes 288 48 0 17 12
Lillehammer 367 61 0 30 13
Nagano 396 82 1 74 9
Salt Lake 273 86 1 48 8
Torino 315 92 1 54 12
Vancouver 310 101 1 77 13
Sochi 334 128 0 66 10
that the European nations completely dominated winning just over 80 per
cent of all the medals available (see Table 8.6).
Despite the fact that there is clearly a growing worldwide interest in
competing at the Summer Paralympic Games it is clear that many of the
nations’ competing are only able or willing to send a very small team.
Overall, Europe continues to dominate participation at the Summer and
Winter Paralympic Games in terms of athlete numbers and this domination
clearly translates into overall medal success relative to nations from the other
continental associations.
In the next section a similar analysis of participation by nations at the
London 2012 Summer and Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games is carried
Table 8.6 Distribution of the medals at the Sochi 2014 Paralympic Games by
continental association
Nations Gold Silver Bronze Total Percentage
winning
medals
Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0
Americas 2 9 9 16 34 15.7
Asia 1 3 1 2 6 2.8
Europe 14 60 61 52 173 80.1
Oceania 2 0 1 2 3 1.4
out, but this time the countries have been grouped according to their ranking
in the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index in order to investigate
if there is a link in terms of team size, number of women participating and
medal success.
Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index and participation and

success at the Paralympic Games.
According to the United Nations (2015) the Human Development Index (HDI)
is a summary measure of average achievement by countries in key dimensions
of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable
and having a decent standard of living. However, the Inequality-adjusted
Human Development Index (IHDI) takes into account not only the average
achievements of a country on health, education and income, but also how
those achievements are distributed among its population by ‘discounting’
each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. Countries
are then placed into four categories of development; very high, high, medium
and low. An analysis of participation and medal success at the London 2012
Summer and the Sochi Winter Paralympic Games in terms of IHDI yields
some interesting results.

success at the London 2012 Summer Paralympic Games.
Table 8.7 depicts the results of an analysis of participation at the London 2012
Summer Paralympic Games in terms of which category of the Inequality-
adjusted Human Development Index a particular country is in. This clearly
shows that the majority of countries that took part in London (98 out of 164
(59.8 per cent)) fall into the high or very high ranking. The impact of IHDI
ranking appears to become even clearer when the actual number of athletes
sent by NPCs in each category is analysed as 3952 athletes out of 4302
competitors (91.9 per cent) in London came from the top two categories.
The size of team that an NPC sent to London also appears to correlate with
Table 8.7 An analysis of participation at the London 2012 Summer Paralympic
Games by Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking
Average number in
team
Country NPCs Men Women Total % % Men Women Total
HDI Men Women
band
Very 53 1644 939 2580 63.7 36.3 31.02 17.66 48.68
high
High 45 879 493 1372 64.1 35.9 19.53 10.96 30.49
Medium 30 175 65 240 72.9 27.1 5.83 2.17 8.00
Low 36 81 29 110 73.6 26.4 2.25 0.81 3.06
its ranking in the IHDI with countries in the very high category sending an
average team size of nearly 49 athletes to London, whilst those in the low
category sent an average team size of just three athletes. The final correlation
that arises from this analysis is the number of women a team took to London.
Both the average number of women in a team and the percentage of women
with regards to the total number of athletes sent by NPCs in a specific
category is highest for those in the very high IHDI ranking and get lower as
you descend down the IHDI ranking categories. Interestingly the number of
NPCs with zero women in the teams, very high (9), high (14), medium (12),
low (20) didn’t quite follow this pattern. Overall, what this clearly appears
to show is a direct link between the IHDI ranking of a country and its level
of participation at the Paralympic Games in terms of team size and number
of women in the team.
Table 8.8 depicts the results of an analysis of medal success at the London
2012 Summer Paralympic Games ranked by Inequality-adjusted Human
Development Index category. Again this clearly appears to show a direct
link between IHDI ranking and the success of countries within a particular
IHDI ranking category in winning medals. Those countries in the high and
very high categories won 1442 medals out of a total of 1522 available, which
equates to 94.8 per cent of all medals.
Table 8.8 An analysis of medal success at the London 2012 Summer Paralympic
Games by Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking
NPCs Gold Silver Bronze Total Percentage
Very high 40 244 282 312 838 55.1
High 23 234 192 178 604 39.7
Medium 8 16 21 21 58 3.8
Low 4 9 8 5 22 1.4
success at the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games.
Although not exactly the same as for the London 2012 Summer Games,
Table 8.9 shows very similar findings to those for the Sochi Winter Games.
In some ways the findings are even more stark in that 43 of the participating
NPCs out of 45 (95.6 per cent) came from the high or very high IHDI
ranking categories and there were no counties at all participating in Sochi
from the low IHDI category. The only other slight difference was that the
number of women from NPCs in the high IHDI category as a percentage
of the overall number of participants from that category was slightly higher
than that for women from the very high category. However, there were still
nearly three times more women from NPCs in the very high than the high
category. The number of NPCs with no women by category appears to go
against the trend; very high (11), high (7) and medium (2), but this is likely
a reflection of the low number of participating countries overall especially
when these figures are depicted as a percentage of all teams in that category
that have no women; very high (37.9 per cent), high (50 per cent) and
medium (100 per cent). Some of the reasons for the low participation rates
of women at the Winter Paralympic Games are discussed elsewhere in this
chapter in the section on women’s participation at the Paralympic Games.
Table 8.10 depicts the results of an analysis of medal success at the Sochi
2014 Winter Paralympic Games ranked by Inequality-adjusted Human
Development Index category. Again this clearly appears to show a direct link
between IHDI ranking and the success of countries within a particular IHDI
ranking category in winning medals. This clearly shows that the majority of
countries who won medals in Sochi were in the very high IHDI category (16
or 84.2 per cent). Neither of the two counties in the medium IHDI category
won medals, however, the three countries in the high category won exactly the
same number of medals as the sixteen countries who won medals in the very
high category. This is perhaps best explained by the fact that the host nation in
Table 8.9 An analysis of participation at the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games
by Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking
Average number in
team
Country NPCs Men Women Total % % Men Women Total
HDI Men Women
Band
Very 29 314 91 405 77.5 22.5 10.83 3.14 13.97
high
High 14 93 37 130 71.5 28.5 6.64 2.64 9.28
Medium 2 3 0 3 100.0 0 1.50 0 1.50
Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8.10 An analysis of medal success at the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games
by Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Ranking
NPCs Gold Silver Bronze Total
Very high 16 37 35 36 108
High 3 35 37 36 108
Medium 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0 0
Sochi, Russia, is classed in the high IHDI category and won 74.1 per cent of
all medals won by countries in the high category and topped the overall medal
table winning 37.0 per cent of all available medals. They also had the second
largest team after the USA with 69 participants to USAs 71 participants. These
two nations made up 26.1 per cent of all participants in Sochi, which would
give both teams more opportunities to win medals. In addition, being the host
nation would have allowed many of the Russian participants the opportunity
to practice regularly at the Sochi venues in the lead-up to the Games.
In order to compare these results the same analysis was carried out on the
Beijing 2008 Summer and the Vancouver 2010 Winter Paralympic Games.
The results of these analyses were almost exactly the same as the results
presented above, with the only major difference being that the medal success
at the Vancouver 2010 Winter Paralympic Games was dominated far more
by those countries in the very high IHDI category. Overall, what this appears
to show is that the higher the category of a country in the IHDI rankings
the bigger team it is likely to send, the more women that team is likely,
on average, to include and the more likely it is to be successful in winning
medals at a Paralympic Games.
The Agitos Foundation and the development of Paralympic sport

According to former IPC Development Manager, Amy Farkas, the IPC has
been carrying out development work in Africa since at least 2003 (Farkas,
2015, personal communication) and works closely with the African Sports
Confederation of Disabled (ASCOD), which is described in the IPC newsletter
‘The Paralympian’ of 2003 as the IPC’s African regional committee (The
Paralympian, 2003, p. 10). The IPC has certainly been running workshops
in Africa covering various topics such as classification seminars for doctors
and physiotherapists since around the year 2000 (The Paralympian, 2000,
p. 8). However, more recently, as the IPC has grown in stature and relative
financial security this has allowed them to set up an embryonic version of the
IOC’s Olympic Solidarity in order to try and promote the development of
sport for people with disabilities around the world. The Agitos Foundation,
which takes its name from the Paralympic symbol, the Agitos, was launched
by the IPC on 4 September 2012 in order to fulfil its strategic goal in terms of
development and education, with the aim of supporting the implementation
of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2006) and sustaining and delivering on the Paralympic movement’s global
objective of helping to create a more inclusive society. It aims to do this
by increasing awareness, forming partnerships and securing the necessary
resources to implement programmes covering four key areas:
1 Sports development: To increase the number of people with an

impairment practising physical activity and sport.
2 Awareness and education: To raise awareness and educate people on

the abilities and achievements of athletes helping to change’s society’s
attitude towards people with an impairment.
3 Advocacy and inclusion: To contribute to the implementation of the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to achieve
inclusion.
4 Knowledge and research: To share existing best practice and implement
programmes that widen the knowledge base of the benefits of sport
for people with an impairment.
(IPC Website, 2015g)
In 2014, in the second year of their grant support programme, the Agitos
Foundation put out a call for proposals from IPC member organizations to
access €650,000 of funding to instigate partnerships in order to implement
development projects that support the IPC strategic priorities. The figure
available for 2015 applications has risen to €1,100,000. The priorities for
2014 were as follows:
For national Paralympic committees and regional organizations

• Paralympic movement awareness
• athlete education
• athlete development
• sport technical education (coaches, classifiers and technical officials)
• capacity-building and leadership
• national classification strategies
For international federations and international organizations of sport

for the disabled:
• educational tools (technical officials, coaches and classifiers)
• certification of international technical officials and international
classifiers
• organisation of youth or development competitions
• equipment
• classification research
Of the 28 successful projects, from 76 applications, in 2014 five were

awarded to projects specifically targeting African nations. Of these, the
African Paralympic Committee were given support for athlete development
in advance of the 2015 All African Games; the Benin Paralympic Committee
were resourced to help widen the reach of the Paralympic movement
nationally; the Democratic Republic of Congo Paralympic Committee were
assisted as part of efforts to strengthen the technical and administrative
capacity in Central Africa; the Ghanaian Paralympic Committee were
provided with help to stage a national Para-sports festival and the Rwanda
Paralympic Committee were provided with support to enhance the athlete
development pathway in view of the 2016 Paralympic games in Rio and

2020 Games in Tokyo (insidethegames, 2014b).
Having highlighted the potential role of both geographical location and
the social and economic development of a country on both participation
and potential medal success at the Paralympic Games I will now describe
the development of the participation of women in the Summer and Winter
Paralympic Games and highlight the role of gender on participation in sport
for the disabled.
Women at the Paralympic Games

In its strategic plan 2015–2018 under the strategic goal ‘Empower para-
athletes and support the development of para-sports’ IPC includes the
strategic priority to ‘Increase participation in all regions of the world,
including encouraging more women and athletes with high support needs’
(IPC Strategic Plan 2015–2018, p. 23) The fact that the IPC strategic plan
deems it necessary to specifically include these two groups of athletes, and
the fact that both groups have their own standing committee within the
IPC governance structure, highlights the fact that they are the two groups
of athletes within the Paralympic family that are hardest hit by many of the
issues raised in the earlier chapters. The remainder of this chapter will look
in a little more detail at each of these groups to see why this might be and
how the impact of these issues might manifest themselves for each group.
Table 8.11 highlights the increasing numbers of participants in both
the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games since their inception in 1960
and 1976 respectively. It also shows this participation by gender, which
highlights the much greater male participation levels relative to women.
The table clearly demonstrates the growth in Paralympic participation over
the last five games as well as the steady increase in women’s participation
at the Games relative to their male counterparts. The drop in male
participation at the Athens and Beijing Games is likely due to the efforts
by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) to encourage greater
participation by women at the games and is possibly compounded by
the 4,000 athlete cap placed on participation at the Paralympic Games
through the co-operative agreement signed between the IPC and the IOC.
The cap was increased slightly for London 2012 and saw male and female
participation rise almost equally.
Table 8.11 Participation by gender at the Paralympic Games
Year Location Men Women Total
1960 Rome, Italy 275 53 328
1964 Tokyo, Japan 303 75 378
1968 Tel Aviv, Israel 554 176 730
1972 Heidelberg, West Germany 697 287 984
1976 Örnsköldsvik, Sweden 161 37 198

1976 Toronto, Canada 1105 264 1369
1980 Geilo, Norway 229 70 299
1980 Arnhem, The Netherlands 1503 470 1973
1984 Innsbruck, Austria 325 94 419
1984 Stoke Mandeville, UK and 829 268 1097
New York, USA 1278 472 1750
1988 Innsbruck, Austria 300 77 377
1988 Seoul, South Korea 2380 679 3059
1992 Tignes-Albertville, France 288 77 365
1992 Barcelona, Spain and 2301 700 3001
Madrid, Spain NA NA ~1600
1994 Lillehammer, Norway 381 90 471
1996 Atlanta, USA 2469 790 3259
1998 Nagano, Japan 440 121 561
2000 Sydney, Australia 2891 991 3882
2002 Salt Lake, USA 329 87 416
2004 Athens, Greece 2643 1165 3808
2006 Torino, Italy 375 99 474
2008 Beijing, China 2628 1383 4011
2010 Vancouver, Canada 381 121 502
2012 London, UK 2736 1501 4237
2014 Sochi, Russia 410 128 538
(Tints = Winter Games, NA: Data not currently available)
Source: Brittain (2014)
The Summer Paralympic Games

Women’s historical participation rates at the Summer Olympic and Paralympic
Games are shown as a percentage of the total number of participants in Figure
8.1. As can be seen, there have been times when the percentage for women
at the Paralympics has been higher than that for women at the Olympics
in the same year. However, this is probably due more to the much lower
overall number of participants competing at the Paralympics at that time.
What is clear is that the number of women at both Games has been steadily
increasing relative to the number of men, especially over the last twenty
years. This may be an indication that some of the IOC/IPC strategies for
increasing female participation are beginning to take effect. This is possibly
also an indication of the increasing importance and recognition of women’s
sport over the last twenty years. The higher overall starting levels for women
at the Paralympics is more likely a reflection of the period in history when

they began. The fact that the percentage for women at the Olympics is so
much higher than that for women at the Paralympics in London 2012 is
indicative of the extra difficulties faced by women with disabilities to get
involved in and reach the highest levels in sport.

Women’s historical participation rates at the Winter Olympic and Paralympic
Games are shown as a percentage of the total number of participants in Figure
8.2. Whilst participation rates for women at the Winter Olympic Games have
50
Percentage of women competitors
45
40
Olympics
35 Paralympics
30
25
20
15
10
0
Mexico City/ Tel Aviv
Helsinki
Munich/ Heidelburg
Berlin
Rome
LA/ NY/Stoke Mandeville

Athens
Paris
St Louis
London
Stockholm
Antwerp
Paris
Amsterdam
Los Angeles
London
Melbourne
Tokyo
Montreal/ Toronto
Moscow/ Arnhem
Seoul
Barcelona
Atlanta
Sydney
Athens
Beijing
London
Host City
Figure 8.1 A comparison of female participation rates at the Summer Olympic and
Paralympic games
risen steadily with time, those for women at the Paralympics have remained
virtually static at around 20 per cent since the Winter Paralympic Games
commenced in 1976. There is almost no research whatsoever regarding the
participation of women at the Winter Paralympic Games, but it is likely
that the reason for this consistently low participation of women is due to a
combination of factors including cost, the fact that the only two team sports
(sledge hockey and wheelchair curling) are almost totally male dominated
(thus increasing the number of males relative to females), the differing risk-
taking propensities of men and women (men do riskier sports as described

below) and geographical location and access to mountains or indoor ice
rinks for women around the world.
The role of gender in participation at the Paralympic Games

Gender plays a key role in participation rates amongst persons with disabilities.
This can be partially accounted for by the fact that according to Corso et
al. (2015) injury rates in the United States from accidents are 20 per cent
45
40
Percentage of women competitors
35
Olympics
Paralympics
30
25
20
15
10
0
Chamonix
Nagano
Torino
Tignes-Albertville
St Moritz
Lake Placid
Gamisch-Partenkirchen
St Moritz
Oslo
Cortina D'Ampezzo
Innsbruck
Grenoble
Sapporo
Innsbruck/ Geilo
Sarajevo/ Innsbruck
Calgary/ Innsbruck
Lillehammer
Salt Lake
Vancouver
Sochi
Squaw Valley
Lake Placid/ Ornskoldsvik
Host City
Figure 8.2 A comparison of female participation rates at the Winter Olympic and
Paralympic games
higher among males than among females. In addition Deaner et al. (2012)
claim that males play sports much more than females in the United States.
As early as 1986 Thierfeld and Gibbons suggested that this is due to the
fact that men do more dangerous things. They are more daring, have more
accidents and become disabled (Thierfeld and Gibbons, 1986). However,
according to many authors, the problem goes much deeper than that. Huang
(2005), Olenik (1998) and Guthrie (1999), to name but a few, all discuss the
problems persons with disabilities, and women with disabilities in particular,
face in any attempts to become involved in any kind of sporting activity.

These include:
1 Generally men grow up playing sport and are encouraged to do so by

everyone around them. Women, however, generally do not and are
not encouraged to do so. This is equally true of non-disabled girls and
women and so if they are not encouraged, young women with disabilities
are even less likely to be.
2 It is rare for women who were not active in sports prior to becoming
disabled to turn to them afterwards for fitness, especially as those who
influence them are unlikely to encourage them in that direction.
3 Disabled women and girls often face enormous emotional problems.
Issues of low self-esteem, lack of experience in sports, fear of success
and failure, which are already documented for non-disabled women are
even greater problems for women with disabilities.
4 A lack of role models to counteract rolelessness plays a major part as
they provide tangible proof of what is attainable. This is compounded
by a lack of media coverage of disability in general and disability sport
in particular.
5 There is a lack of adequate coaching within disability sport in general
and what there is is often monopolised by the male athletes.
6 There is a lack of opportunities to take part in disability sport and often
a lack of awareness of what little provision there is.
7 Women, even more than men, with disabilities often struggle to find
employment and so without the material resources to support themselves
survival becomes the key concern, making it unlikely that they will have
the time, energy or financial wherewithal to take part in recreational or
sporting activities.
Studies by both Brittain (2002) and Olenik (1998) came to the conclusion
that once athletes with disabilities had reached the elite level the problems
they encounter in maintaining their participation become much more about
the structure of the sport they are involved in and those charged with running
and administering it.
Economics plays a major role in deciding the likelihood of a disabled
individual becoming involved in sport. Studies such as Hargreaves (2000) and
Kolkka and Williams (1997) have shown that economics is a major barrier to
participation in sport, especially for women with disabilities. Lonsdale (1990)
found that women with disabilities are at a far greater economic disadvantage
than their male counterparts in employment and in the distribution of state
benefits or other financial support. According to Smith and Twomey (2002)
44 per cent of disabled men compared with 52 per cent of disabled women
in Britain were economically inactive in 2001 in contrast with 9 per cent of
non-disabled men and 21 per cent of non-disabled women. Huang (2005),
citing the Taiwan Federation for the Disabled (2001) and Kuao (2001),
claims that in Taiwan in the same year 87 per cent of disabled women and 77
per cent of disabled men were economically inactive. Without the financial
wherewithal to take care of the daily necessities of life it is unlikely that any
individual will take up a recreational or sporting pastime.
Women’s participation at the London Paralympic Games

This section will use data from the last seven Paralympic Games, which
appears to indicate that women’s participation at the Summer Paralympic
Games is increasing worldwide. The left hand side of Table 8.12 shows the
top five sports that women competed in at the London Paralympic Games
when compared to male participation in the same sport. Of the twenty
sports competed in at London, women only outnumbered men in one
– equestrianism and had equal numbers in rowing, which only had four
events. Of the remaining three sports in the top five, two of them are team
Table 8.12 Top and bottom five sports for female participation in London by gender
and sport and as a percentage of all women participating at the Games*
Highest Lowest
Sport % Sport %
Percentage of women by gender and sport
Equestrianism 71.8 Wheelchair rugby 2.2
Rowing 50.0 Sailing 18.8
Wheelchair basketball 45.8 Boccia 26.2
Goalball 45.3 Wheelchair tennis 28.6
Swimming 43.0 Shooting 29.3
Percentage of all participating women by sport
Athletics 24.9 Wheelchair rugby 0.1
Swimming 17.3 Sailing 1.0
Wheelchair basketball 8.0 Boccia 1.8
Table Tennis 6.8 Wheelchair tennis 2.1
Sitting Volleyball 5.9 Wheelchair fencing 2.4
*Does not include Football 5-a-side or 7-a-side where no women participated.
sports. This may, therefore, not be a true reflection of women’s participation
in these sports relative to men as the number of teams and the number of
players per team is fixed by the organisers. The remaining sport in the top
five is swimming. Swimming is often used as a rehabilitative tool for people
with disabilities and doesn’t require much in the way of specialist equipment,
which might explain why the number of women relative to men is so much
higher than for other individual sports. All of the five sports with the
lowest percentage of women relative to men, with the exception of sailing
and wheelchair rugby, are individual sports and/or require both specialist
equipment and training, which as indicated earlier are often monopolised by
male athletes. Boccia is also a sport especially for athletes with high support
needs, the implications of which are discussed in greater detail in the next
section. One of the implications of this is that, all of the other issues faced
by women in getting involved in sport are compounded the greater the level
of impairment experienced.
The right hand side of Table 8.12 shows the top five sports that women
competed in relative to the total number of female participants at the London
Paralympic Games. This clearly shows that athletics and swimming are by far the
two most popular sports for women. However, this is not particularly surprising
as they are also the two biggest sports for men and women at both the Olympic
and Paralympic Games. The high percentage of women participating in these
two sports at the Paralympics is likely a reflection of the popularity, availability
and accessibility of these two sports worldwide. Of the five sports with the
lowest percentage of women taking part relative to other sports four of them are
highly technical sports necessitating expensive equipment and coaching, which
puts them beyond the reach of many disabled athletes’ means. This is especially
true for women, whom as seen in the previous section suffer from multiple
barriers of various kinds when trying to access sporting opportunities. The fifth
sport, boccia, as mentioned above, is for athletes with severe disabilities, now
called athletes with high support needs. When combining a severe disability
with all of the issues previously outlined it is hardly surprising that so few
women with high support needs compete at the Paralympic Games.
Medal events by sport and gender at London 2012

Table 8.13 shows a breakdown of the number of medal events available by
sport and gender at London 2012 along with the number of participants
by gender in each sport. This clearly highlights, particularly in individual
sports, the difficulties of increasing female participation relative to men and
achieving parity in terms of the number of medal events whilst maintaining
a strong competitive field with sufficient numbers in each event. In many
individual sports the number of competitors relative to the number of medal
events is much lower for women than men (cf. archery, athletics, cycling)
A further investigation of the most popular sport for women in London,
athletics, shows that there have been some big changes in participation
Table 8.13 A breakdown of the number of medal events available by sport and gender at London 2012
Medal events Competing
Men Women Mixed Total NPCs Men Women Total
Archery 5 4 0 9 29 88 51 139
Athletics 103 67 0 170 141 757 373 1130
Boccia 0 0 7 7 21 76 27 103
Cycling 27 19 4 50 48 155 67 222
Equestrian 0 0 11 11 27 22 56 78
Football 5-a-side 1 0 0 1 8 64 0 64
Football 7-a-side 1 0 0 1 8 96 0 96
Goalball 1 1 0 2 16 70 58 128
Judo 7 6 0 13 30 81 46 127
Powerlifting 10 10 0 20 61 113 80 193
Rowing 1 1 2 4 23 48 48 96
Sailing 0 0 3 3 23 65 15 80
Shooting 3 3 6 12 44 99 41 140
Sitting volleyball 1 1 0 2 15 109 88 197
Swimming 81 67 0 148 74 344 260 604
Table tennis 16 13 0 29 47 174 102 276
Wheelchair basketball 1 1 0 2 17 142 120 262
Wheelchair fencing 7 5 0 12 24 69 36 105
Wheelchair rugby 0 0 1 1 8 88 2 90
Wheelchair tennis 2 2 2 6 31 80 32 112
267 200 36 503 2740 1502 4242*
* Five athletes in London competed in more than one sport.
numbers for women between the Athens Paralympic Games in 2004 and
the London Games eight years later. The number of women competing in
athletics in London rose to 373 compared to 332 in Beijing and 298 in
Athens. At the same time the number of men competing in athletics remained
relatively static with 757 in London compared to 766 in Athens. In addition,
the number of medal events in athletics dropped from 194 (137 male, 57
female) in Athens to 170 (103 male, 67 female) in London, although this
was an increase from Beijing where there were 160 (100 male, 60 female).
Overall women do appear to be making progress in terms of participation

in athletics at the Paralympic Games relative to men with both the number
of participants and the number of medal events having risen. In contrast,
the number of men competing has remained static and the number of medal
events has dropped. However, despite there being 36 more medal events for
men in London the ratio of participants to medal events was still higher for
men (7.3) than women (5.6). The following quote from Fiona (in Huang,
2005) may give a clue to a possible reason why:
There just aren’t enough females in the sport anyway. And you have got
the different disabilities in different classes so in actual fact it’s easier for
women to get to the top than it is for men because there are fewer female
athletes, especially in paraplegics ... So for me I picked the right thing
because there wasn’t much competition really, so I was lucky, you know
more chance of a medal and travelling to represent Britain or England.
(Fiona, in Huang, 2005, p. 148)
Fiona, who competed as a shot putter in Sydney, appears to intimate that

because there are fewer women taking part in sport and in her sport of
athletics in particular, it was far easier for her to be chosen and improved
her chances of getting a medal. In an attempt to improve standards of
competition the International Paralympic Committee and the organising
committees in both Beijing and Athens cut back on the number of medal
events for both men and women in an attempt to increase the number of
participants per event and improve standards. In three events for women in
Beijing (javelin, discus and shot-put) the organisers also combined the classes
for the highest categories of disability in the spinal cord injured and cerebral
palsied disability groupings.
The number of countries competing in athletics rose from 103 in Sydney
to 115 in Athens, but in Beijing this number dropped slightly to 111. In
London it jumped dramatically to 141. The number of countries entering
female participants in athletics, which had risen quite dramatically from
fifty-five in Sydney to eighty in Athens, dropped back down to sixty-six in
Beijing. This rose again in London to an all-time high of eighty-seven in
London. The number of countries entering only male athletes dropped from
forty-eight in Sydney to thirty-five in Athens, which would appear to indicate
that opportunities for disabled women to take part in disability athletics
worldwide were apparently on the increase. However, rather worryingly,
this number rose again in Beijing to forty-five and rose again in London
to fifty-four. However, as a percentage of countries entering athletics it is
slightly lower in London (38.3 per cent) to than Beijing (40.5 per cent).
The decreasing number of spaces and medal events for men (thus increasing
competition for places amongst male athletes in each nation), and the lack
of opportunities for women to get involved and progress to the elite level,
particularly in economically developing nations, possibly resulted in these
nations only sending men. However, overall the figures for athletics in
London are positive, with an increasing number of countries taking part,
more female participants and more medal events for them and an increasing
number of countries entering female participants. Part of the reason for this
apparent success in athletics may be explained by the increasing success of
the IPC Athletics World Championships, the introduction of an IPC Athletics
Grand Prix series and the inclusion of some Para-athletics events in the IAAF
Diamond League events, which have all attracted sponsorship and media
coverage of the sport, strengthening its appeal worldwide.
Women’s participation at the Summer Paralympic Games more generally.

It would appear, overall, from the following data that the number of women
taking part in the Summer Paralympic Games is on the increase worldwide.
Figure 8.3 shows the breakdown in participation of women at the last
seven Paralympic games by continental association. Although this clearly
demonstrates that, historically, the majority of female participants at the games
have come from Europe and the Americas, it is also clear that the participation
of women from the other three continents is definitely on the increase.
Overall, the number of countries entering no female participants at
the Paralympic Games appears to be on the decline. Table 8.14 shows
the percentage of National Paralympic Committees (NPCs) from each
continental association, relative to the total number of NPCs, that had
no female participants at the last seven Paralympic Games. Up to the
Athens 2004 Games, with the exception of Asia, the general trend clearly
demonstrated a decrease in countries entering no women at the Paralympic
Games. However, in Beijing two noteworthy changes occurred in these
figures. First, the percentage of African nations bringing no women to the
Games rose sharply. This coincides with the participation of a number of
African nations in the Paralympic Games for the first time, possibly as a
result of the development work the IPC and the Agitos Foundation have
been doing in Africa, outlined earlier in this chapter. Many of these nations
only brought very small teams and possibly due to a combination of factors
such as economics, lack of development of female sporting opportunities
etc., chose to bring male athletes. The other change of note is the apparent
decrease in Asian NPCs not taking women to Beijing. In reality the number
of NPCs from Asia not taking women to Beijing remained the same as in
1600
1400
1200
Number of competitors
1000
Oceania
800 Asia
Africa
600
Americas
400
Europe
200
0
Seoul Barcelona Atlanta Sydney Athens Beijing London
Host City
Figure 8.3 Female participation at the Paralympic Games by Continental Association

over the last twenty years
Table 8.14 Percentage of NPCs by continental affiliation with no female participants

in relation to the total number of teams with no female participants over the last
seven Paralympic Games
Seoul Barcelona Atlanta Sydney Athens Beijing London
Europe 26.7 19.4 19.1 15.8 16.1 10.4 10.9
(EOC)
Americas 20.0 22.6 19.1 15.8 16.1 18.8 20.0
(PASO)
Africa 20.0 29 25.5 18.4 19.4 31.3 32.7
(ANOCA)
Asia 33.3 29 38.3 42.1 48.4 31.3 29.1
(OCA)
Oceania 0 0 2 7.9 0 8.3 7.3
(ONOC)
Athens, but the large increase in NPCs from Africa and a slight increase in
Oceania and the Americas not taking women to Beijing meant the figure for
Asia dropped in overall terms.
Figure 8.4 investigates in slightly closer detail the participation of NPCs
from Asia at the last seven Paralympic Games and highlights the fact that the
number of countries participating at the games from Asia has nearly trebled
over this period. It can be seen that the number of Asian countries with no
female participants has dropped slightly between Atlanta and Beijing, but
rose again slightly in London.
In line with Sherrill’s (1997) findings regarding the Atlanta Paralympic
Games the vast majority of all countries not sending female participants to
60
50
40
Number of NPCs
30
20
10
0
Seoul
Barcelona
Atlanta
Athens
Beijing
London
Sydney
Host City
NPCs with no women NPCs from Asia Total number of NPCs

with no women from Asia
Figure 8.4 Asian NPC participation at the Paralympic Games over the last twenty
years
London (49 out of 55) had a team size of two or fewer and the lack of female
participants in these teams probably reflects economic limitations, possibly
with an underlying bias towards male sport and a lack of opportunities for
women. When comparing the same nations’ participation at the London
Olympic Games it is found that, following a big push by the IOC to try
and ensure all NOCs had at least one female competitor only three nations
attended the Olympic Games with no women in their team (Barbados, Nauru
and St Kitts and Nevis). The lack of female participation at the Paralympics
may be due to a lack of development of disability sport within these countries,
possibly exacerbated by cultural issues around disability and gender.
As in Beijing four years earlier, Saudi Arabia and Qatar (both Muslim
states) had no women at the Paralympic Games despite fielding a total
of five men at the Paralympics. However, at the Olympic Games, having
had no female participants in Beijing they fielded a total of six women
in London. This appears to highlight the possibility of another barrier to
female participation in sport – that of religious and cultural issues. However,
it should be pointed out that in Athens there were five countries from Asia
who had no women at either the Olympic or Paralympic Games who had
fielded a total of thirty-seven men at the Athens Olympics and twenty at the
Athens Paralympics, so it would appear that things are possibly changing for
the better at the Olympics at least where all Asian nations fielded at least one
woman competitor in London. There is still a long way to go, however, to
achieve the same goal at the Paralympic Games.
Although participation rates for both female Olympic and Paralympic
participants are steadily increasing relative to their male counterparts there
are many issues relating to opportunity, prejudice and body image that are
still preventing disabled females from getting involved in sport and reaching
the highest levels. These barriers may also be exacerbated by political,
cultural and religious issues relating to women’s role expectations within
a specific society. It would appear from the data that the participation of
women at the Summer Paralympic Games is on the increase with countries
entering female athletes, although the number of countries in London with
no women had actually increased from Beijing four years earlier. There are
still many differences between continents and even between sports and there
is still a long way to go before anything like equity is reached.
Study activity
Select a couple of major issues highlighted above that impact upon
participation of women with disabilities around the world in sport at the
highest level and try to design strategies relevant to each issue that might
assist in helping these women overcome them.
Athletes with high support needs

Originally called athletes with severe disabilities, the term ‘severe disability’
led to concerns that it was laden with overly negative connotations that
might prove detrimental to those involved. The new terminology of athletes
with high support needs (AHSN) was, therefore, introduced in order to
emphasise the support needs that all athletes require to make it to the very
top in their sport (coaching, financial, etc.), whilst recognising that some
athletes with disabilities have higher and possibly more specialised support
needs than others. Such support might include a sighted guide for a blind
athlete, both for in and out of competition assistance at a Paralympic Games
where the built environment will be unfamiliar to the athlete and they may
also need a guide to compete in events such as track races. There are two
broad categories of AHSN – those with more severe physical disabilities
and those who are blind or visually impaired to such an extent that they
need a guide to assist them, not only for their sport, but for their everyday
living needs whilst in the unfamiliar environment of the Games. Although
the many developments in classification over the years, combined with
incomplete record keeping in the early years of the Paralympic Games,
has meant that it is very difficult to trace accurately the participation of
AHSN in the Games it is known that the first events for tetraplegic athletes
were added to the programme in Tokyo, 1964. AHSN with other physical
disabilities and blind and visually impaired AHSN did not take part in the
Summer Paralympic Games until Toronto, 1976. Some authors claim that
there were demonstration events for blind athletes in Heidelberg, 1972,
but no records of these can be found and the Director of Sports for these
Games, Joerg Schmeckl, has no recollection of them (Schmeckl, 2008,
personal communication).
The squeeze on athlete numbers at the Paralympic Games
Following the introduction of athletes with amputations and visual
impairments the total number of medals awarded in Toronto, 1976 rose
from 575 in Heidelberg (1972) to 1,172 in Toronto. With the addition of
athletes with cerebral palsy in Arnhem four years later the total number
awarded rose to 1,601. The split site Games of 1984 in Stoke Mandeville,
UK and Long Island, New York, as well as the addition of Les Autres athletes
to the Games in New York, effectively allowed for more athletes and more
events at each venue and the total number of medals awarded at both venues
combined hit an all-time high of 2,767. In Seoul 1988, with the Games
finally returning to the Olympic host city and re-combining into one event
(but still two separate Games) the number of medals awarded dropped back
to 2,208. This return to the Olympic host city, which has continued ever
since, combined with a number of other issues and events appear to have
had quite a major impact on the participation of AHSN in the years that
followed. These issues and events include:
• Having the Games at the same host city venues as the Olympic Games
very shortly after the Olympic Games allowed for direct comparison.
For example, due to the classification system used in Seoul there were
twenty-one male and fourteen female 100 m finals in athletics compared
to one for each gender at the Olympic Games. In addition many of the
events were straight finals with no heats necessary due to the limited
number of athletes within a particular classification grouping. This led
to the perception amongst some that athletes only had to turn up at the
Games to win a medal, which was totally at odds with the elite sporting
model the movement had already begun moving towards.
• In January 1987, at an ICC meeting in Seoul, the Seoul Paralympic
Coordinating Committee (SPOC) had tried to get the number of athletes
and Officials, previously agreed at 4,000, cut to a total of 3,000, citing
financial and facility issues as the reason. Although this cut did not
actually occur in the end, it is clear from the minutes that a formula had
been devised to cut the number of athletes if necessary. The additional
financial burden on Olympic host cities of also hosting the Paralympic
Games would continue to be a source of pressure on the number of
athletes allowed to participate in subsequent Games.
• As part of the ongoing move towards an elite sport model minimum
entry standards for Paralympic Games had already been in use since at
least Arnhem, 1980.
The combination of these three issues came to a real head for the first
time in Barcelona, 1992. In an attempt to reduce the number of medals
awarded and overcome the perception that an individual only had to turn
up to win a medal, a functional classification system was introduced in six
sports for CP-ISRA, ISOD and ISMWSF athletes. According to Sherrill
(1993) the balance of power between these three organisations and the way
qualifying standards were worked out prevented many countries from taking
CP athletes to Barcelona. This, in turn, impacted on other events due to the
ICC rule that an event had to contain athletes from at least three countries
and two continents to be considered viable. This resulted in events either
being integrated with others or deleted from the programme completely.
The total number of medals awarded in Barcelona fell by over 500 from
the previous Games to 1,503. By Beijing, 2008 this number had dropped to
1,431, but rose again to 1522 at London 2012.
Athletes with high support needs and the squeeze on athlete

numbers
Athletes with high support needs by definition require greater support in
order to participate in their chosen sport. This means that they face far more
barriers to getting involved in and reaching the elite level in their chosen
sport, than their more functionally able counterparts. Add to this that there
are probably less of them worldwide to start with and it is unsurprising that
the number of AHSN making it to the elite level in sport is relatively small
compared to the number of athletes with a disability as a whole. Therefore,
when events such as those that happened in Barcelona occur, it is usually
the events for AHSN that are hardest hit by deletions or being combined
with more functionally able athletes thereby negating any possible chance
they might have had of winning a medal. This in turn negatively impacts
on the motivation of these athletes to continue to train and compete, which
can lead to even fewer AHSN being available to compete in future events
(Wilhite, 2002). Several events have occurred over the last couple of decades
in order to try and counteract the perceived decreasing opportunities for
AHSN to take part in the Paralympic Games. These include the setting up
of a standing committee within IPC in 2004 to specifically look out for the
welfare and needs of AHSN within the Paralympic family. In addition sports
for specific groups of AHSN such as boccia (CP athletes) and wheelchair
rugby (tetraplegic athletes) were added to the Paralympic programme in
order to provide opportunities for these athletes.
However, even with sports such as wheelchair rugby, which is specifically
for AHSN, some are concerned that the most severely disabled are being
overlooked in the pursuit of sporting excellence and success. Players in
wheelchair rugby are given a points score (0.5 – most disabled to 3.5 –
least disabled) with each team only allowed to have four players totalling
no more than eight points on the field at any one time. Schreiner and
Strohkendl (2006) claim that wheelchair rugby is dominated on field by high
point players (3–3.5 points) due to the fact that the eight point team limit
favours their inclusion and that this has led to the continuous decline of
low point players within the sport in recent years. This clearly demonstrates
Figure 8.5 Boccia is a Paralympic sport specifically for cerebral palsied athletes with
high support needs
the tension within the Paralympic movement of trying to move towards an

elite sporting model that matches societal perceptions and understandings
of what sport should look like, and providing sporting opportunities at the
elite level for all their constituent members. One more issue for AHSN in
this area raised by Lepore et al. (2007) is the perception by some AHSN that
they do not really feel welcome by the more functionally able athletes at
the Paralympic Games. Lepore et al. (2007, p. 271) state that ‘Athletes with
more severe disabilities feel that the more elite athletes with disabilities are
embarrassed to compete at the same Games as them’. This is a perception
that seems at least partially borne out by the quotation in Chapter 5 by Ina,
an athlete with the British team, quoted in Brittain (2002) where she claims
to be embarrassed to have had to travel on the same aeroplane as the boccia
players. This not only highlights that disabled people are just as capable of
being disablist as anyone else, but also is another possible reason why so
few AHSN feel motivated enough to try and make it to the elite level in
sport. However, it should also be pointed out that the very wording of the
quotation above by Lepore et al. (2007) smacks of the very same disablist
undertones in that it describes the athletes that supposedly are embarrassed
to compete alongside AHSN as ‘more elite’ rather than more functionally
able. This, therefore, clearly aligns elitism with relative functional ability
i.e. the more functionally able a person is (stronger, higher, faster) the more
‘elite’ they are considered.
Athletes with high support needs in London 2012

Table 8.15 shows the distribution of AHSN by continental association at
the London Paralympic Games, as well as splitting the totals into physical
disabilities and blind athletes who require a guide. Table 8.16 shows the
distribution of AHSN by continental association at the Beijing Paralympic
Games for comparison. However, it should be pointed out that the figures in
table 8.15 do not include the sport of cycling as these have proved impossible
to obtain due to the format the UCI had used to report the results from
London. These tables highlight one final issue with regard to opportunities
for AHSN to participate in the Paralympic Games, that of the ability of their
relevant NPC to afford to provide the necessary extra support (guide, carer,
etc.) needed by an individual AHSN. Given the choice between taking an

extra athlete or paying for a guide or a carer to accompany an AHSN, NPCs
on tight budgets are more likely to take another more functionally able
athlete in order to increase their chances of gaining medals – on which most
NPCs’ future funding is based. This is, of course, also partly dependent upon
the how many places the Delegation Quota System (DQS) employed by IPC
allows a particular country to take up at a particular Games. The DQS does
allow for NPCs to take additional staff to a Games to meet the additional
needs of AHSN, but this is also dependent upon the NPC being able to
afford the additional staff necessary. It is clear from Tables 8.15 and 8.16
that the majority of AHSN at the Beijing and London Paralympic Games
came from the more economically developed nations. However, there are
signs from the figures for London that Africa in particular took more AHSN
to London, although the majority of this increase appears to have been blind
athletes, whose care needs are easier to and often more straight forward to
accommodate than someone with a more severe physical impairment.
Table 8.17 highlights the top and bottom five sports for AHSN participation
in London by sport (excluding cycling) and as a percentage of all AHSN
participating at the Games. Unsurprisingly the two sports with the greatest
percentage of AHSN are those specifically added to the programme to
accommodate them – boccia and wheelchair rugby. Of the remaining three
sports two are sports that require the competitors to wear blindfolds, rendering
them completely blind – football 5-a-side and goalball. The remaining sport is
equestrianism, included possibly due to the fact that riding is often used as a
form of therapeutic rehabilitation for children and adults with a wide range of
physical disabilities. The sports that the greatest number of AHSN compete in
relative to all AHSN at the Games include athletics and swimming – the two
largest sports in terms of participation and medal events at the Games by far
with specific events to accommodate AHSN as well as boccia and wheelchair
rugby – the two sports on the programme specifically for AHSN. The three
sports AHSN participate in the least are sailing, rowing and archery, all of
which require expensive and highly technical equipment, which often becomes
even more expensive if it needs to be specifically adapted to accommodate a
particular individual’s needs.
In total, AHSN made up 17.6 per cent of all athletes who participated
in Beijing. In London, excluding cycling, they made up 18.5 per cent of all
participants, perhaps indicating that work to better include AHSN at the
Table 8.15 Distribution of athletes with high support needs by continental association at the London 2012 Paralympic Games
All AHSN Physical Disabilities Blind
NPCs M W T NPCs M W T NPCs M W T
Africa 9 29 9 38 4 10 6 16 8 19 3 22
Asia 16 141 41 182 8 79 19 98 15 62 22 84
Americas 20 117 40 157 16 75 27 102 9 42 13 55
Europe 30 298 81 379 25 215 56 271 24 83 25 108
Oceania 2 21 7 28 2 21 5 26 1 0 2 2
Total 77 606 178 784 55 400 113 513 57 206 65 271
Table 8.16 Distribution of athletes with high support needs by continental association at the Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games
All AHSN Physical disabilities Blind
NPCs M W T NPCs M W T NPCs M W T
Africa 6 15 4 19 3 7 4 11 4 8 0 8
Asia 15 125 39 164 10 69 22 91 12 56 17 73
Americas 14 104 34 138 12 63 24 87 7 41 10 51
Europe 34 250 81 331 30 163 56 219 26 87 25 112
Oceania 2 32 13 45 2 27 10 37 2 5 3 8
Total 71 526 171 697 57 329 116 445 51 197 55 252
Table 8.17 Top and bottom five sports for AHSN participation in London by sport
(excluding cycling) and as a percentage of all AHSN participating at the Games
Highest Lowest
Sport % Sport %
Percentage of AHSN by sport
Boccia 100.0 Sailing 3.1
Wheelchair rugby 100.0 Rowing 4.6
Football 5-a-side 80.0 Archery 10.1

Equestrian 52.6 Wheelchair tennis 14.3
Goalball 28.1 Table tennis 15.2
Percentage of all participating AHSN by sport
Athletics 20.9 Sailing 0.3
Swimming 13.0 Rowing 0.6
Boccia 11.3 Archery 1.5
Wheelchair rugby 9.9 Wheelchair tennis 1.8
Football 5--a-side 7.0 Judo 3.0
Paralympic Games may be starting to pay slight dividends. However, only

22.7 per cent of the AHSN in London were female, again highlighting the
impact of potential multiple discrimination i.e. being a woman and having
a disability and having a disability that requires a high level of support.
Unfortunately there is no other accurate data available to allow for a
comparison of participation at previous Paralympic Games, but estimates
by the IPC cite figures of 24.3 per cent for Sydney and 23.5 per cent for
Athens (IPC, 2008, personal communication), which if anywhere near
correct display a worrying downward trend in the participation of AHSN
at Summer Paralympic Games. The estimates for Winter Games cite figures
of 10.6 per cent for Salt Lake City and 7.6 per cent for Turin (IPC, 2008,
personal communication), again displaying the same downward trend and
possibly the even greater problems and issues involved for an AHSN to
become involved in winter sports.
Study activity
What do you think needs to be done to encourage more athletes with high
support needs to become involved in sport at the highest level? How would
you go about enabling this whilst still trying to meet all the other aims of
the IPC?
Conclusion
Participation rates for Women at the Summer Paralympic Games appear to be
on the increase, although they are still well below those of their non-disabled
counterparts in the Olympic Games. In contrast, however, the participation
rates for women at the Winter Paralympic Games have remained virtually
stagnant since the Games began over thirty years ago and participation rates
for athletes with high support needs actually appear to be on the decline.
There are numerous, and often complex, reasons for this that vary greatly
from country to country. What is very clear is that the IPC and those involved
in organising disability sport worldwide have a long and difficult task ahead
of them if they are to overcome these issues and greatly increase the presence
of women and athletes with high support needs at both the Summer and
Winter Paralympic Games.
1 List and explain some of the issues for women who want to become
involved in sport for the disabled.
2 Participation rates for women with disabilities at the Winter Paralympics
have remained virtually unchanged for over thirty years. What are some
of the possible reasons for this?
3 What is an ‘athlete with a high support need’?
4 What are some of the possible reasons for the apparent downward trend
in the participation of athletes with high support needs at both the
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games?

Hums, M.A. and Wolff, E.A., 2015, The Paralympic Movement and sport-for-all, in
Bailey, R. and Talbot, M. (Eds), Elite Sport and Sport-for-All: Bridging the Two
Cultures, Routledge; London, UK.
Purdue, D.E.J. and Howe, P.D., 2013, Who’s in and who is out? Legitimate bodies
within the Paralympic Games, Sociology of Sport Journal, Vol. 30(1), pp. 24–40
Wendell, S., 1996, The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on
Disability, Routledge; London, UK.
9 International perspectives on
Paralympic participation
Chapter aims
• To outline the historical differences in participation rates by continent in
the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games.
• To highlight the most successful nations in terms of medal success at the
• To raise a variety of issues from an international perspective that impact
upon participation and success at the Summer and Winter Paralympic
Games.
The aim of this chapter is to look at historical participation in the Summer

and Winter Paralympic Games from a global perspective and to highlight a
variety of issues that impact upon participation and success at the Games.
As highlighted in Chapter 3, membership of the International Paralympic
Committee (IPC) is divided into the same five regional areas as those used
by the International Olympic Committee (Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe
and Oceania). There are currently 176 National Paralympic Committees in
membership with the IPC compared with 206 National Olympic Committees.
Building upon the data presented at the beginning of Chapter 8, this chapter
will look at participation in the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games
historically on a regional basis in order to highlight certain disparities in
participation that become clear from the figures. It will then take each region
individually and give short ‘snapshots’ from a couple of different countries
within those regions in order to highlight a range of different issues that
might impact on participation either nationally, regionally or internationally.
Finally, throughout the chapter attempts will be made to highlight and
explain some of the possible reasons between different participation levels
at the Summer and Winter Games.
This chapter begins by showing a comparison of participation by current
IPC member nations at the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games. Table
9.1 shows that, of the 176 nations in membership with the IPC in December
2015, 169 of those nations (96 per cent) have competed at a Summer
Paralympic Games. The only countries currently in membership with the
158 Paralympic participation
Table 9.1 A comparison of participation by current IPC member nations at the
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games up to and including London 2012 and Sochi
2014
Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Total
IPC 49 29 42 48 8 176
Membership
Competed 44 27 42 48 8 169
at a Summer
Games
Competed at a 2 6 7 34 2 51
Winter Games
London 2012 40 27 41 46 8 162*
Summer
Games
Sochi 2014 0 6 7 30 2 45
Winter Games
*Albania (Europe) and Peru (Americas) had their IPC memberships terminated in 2015.
IPC not to have competed at a Summer Paralympic Games are Congo,

Malawi, São Tomé and Principe, Somalia and Togo (Africa) and Aruba and
St Vincent and the Grenadines (Americas). The last two from the Americas
only took up membership of the IPC in November 2015. The picture for
the Winter Paralympic Games, however, is very different with only 51 of the
176 nations (29 per cent) in membership with the IPC having competed at
a Winter Paralympic Games. The vast majority of these (67 per cent) come
from Europe.
The major difference between the participation rates at the Summer and
Winter Paralympic Games is likely to be access to ice facilities, geographical
i.e. access to the necessary topographical (e.g. mountains) and climatic
conditions (e.g. snow) needed for the regular practice of winter sports.
Those countries lacking these conditions would need to be able to afford
to send athletes to train in areas of the world where these conditions can
be found, which, along with the cost of the necessary adapted equipment,
makes participation in winter sports for these nations a very expensive
proposition indeed.
Table 9.2 shows the distribution of all medals by continental region for
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games from their inception up to and
including the Sochi 2014 Winter Games and the London 2012 Summer
Games. This clearly highlights the European and North American dominance
of both the Summer and Winter Games.
Given that the Summer Paralympic Games were born in Great Britain
and were heavily euro-centric in the early years and given that the world’s
major winter sports resorts are, on the whole, primarily in Europe and
North America this historical dominance by European and North American
nations is perhaps not surprising. Other nations, especially from Asia and
Paralympic participation 159
Table 9.2 Distribution of the medals at all Summer and Winter Paralympic Games by
region up to and including Sochi 2014 and London 2012
Region Gold Silver Bronze Total Total %
Summer Games
Africa 295 256 241 792 4.1
Americas 1390 1270 1308 3968 20.8
Asia 693 610 602 1905 10.0
Europe 3686 3740 3723 11149 58.5

Oceania 425 425 397 1247 6.5
IPA/IPP* 4 3 1 8 0.1
Total 6493 6304 6272 19069
Winter Games
Africa 0 0 0 0 0
Americas 141 147 126 414 15.0
Asia 20 31 32 83 3.0
Europe 752 730 725 2207 79.9
Oceania 26 12 20 58 2.1
Total 939 920 903 2762
* IPA/IPP: Independent Paralympic athletes (2000)/independent Paralympic participants (1992)
Africa, joined the Paralympic Games later in their history, when competition
for medals was greater, and so it is perhaps unsurprising that they fall behind
in medal rankings.
Tables 8.3 and 8.6 in the previous chapter show the distribution of medals
by continental region for the Sochi 2014 Winter Games and the London 2012
Summer Games. From the London results it appears as though both Asia and
Africa are gaining in strength and success at the Summer Paralympic Games
as both almost doubled their respective share of the medals compared to their
historical share of Summer Games medals. In truth, however, these results
are down to just one nation from each continent. China, won 69 per cent
of all medals and 75 per cent of gold medals for the Asia region and South
Africa won 26 per cent of all medals and 21 per cent of gold medals for
the Africa region. If the medals for these two countries were removed and
Table 8.3 was recalculated the results would be broadly in line with those in
Table 9.2. This not only highlights the dangers of relying on statistics alone
to examine and try to explain trends, but also possibly the advantages that
richer or more developed nations may have in terms of preparing athletes
and increasing their medal potential at a Paralympic Games. Interestingly, the
distribution of medals at the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games (Table 8.6)
and the overall historical distribution of Winter Games medals (Table 9.2)
are almost identical, with perhaps Asian nations making very slight gains at
Table 9.3 The top ten overall medal-winning nations at the Summer and Winter
Paralympic Games
Gold Silver Bronze Total
Summer Games (1960–2012)
USA 732 656 678 2066
Great Britain 563 550 539 1652
Germany* 487 493 466 1446
Canada 386 319 329 1034

Australia 359 373 345 1077
France 338 342 329 1009
China 331 259 199 789
Netherlands 260 226 204 690
Poland 255 242 197 694
Sweden 230 223 170 623
Winter Games (1976–2014)
Norway 135 103 81 319
Germany* 130 113 102 345
Austria 104 113 108 325
USA 98 104 77 279
Russia 85 87 61 233
Finland 75 49 60 184
France 52 47 52 151
Switzerland 50 55 48 153
Canada 43 43 49 135
Sweden 26 32 41 99
* These totals include medals won by the former Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the
German Democratic Republic (DDR)
the expense of the Oceania region. This possibly underlines the importance
of access to the necessary topographical, climatic and financial conditions
outlined earlier in preparing athletes for the Winter Paralympic Games and is
clearly underlined in Table 9.3 which shows the top ten overall medal-winning
nations at the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games. There are no countries
from outside Europe and North America in the top ten Winter Games nations.
Only Australia, who has competed since the first Summer Games in Rome,
1960 and China make it into the top ten Summer Games nations. China is an
interesting case as they only began competing in the Paralympic Games in New
York in 1984, but have risen to become the Summer Paralympic powerhouse
nation over the last three Summer Games (Brittain, 2006).
Study activity
Find out what you can about one of the five nations from the African region
that have not yet competed at a Paralympic Games (Congo, Malawi, Sao
Tome and Principe, Somalia and Togo) and list reasons why this might be the
case. What could be done to ensure participation of your chosen nation in a
future Paralympic Games?
The remainder of this chapter will look in slightly more detail at each of
the continental regions. Each section will start with a table showing the top
three medal performing nations at the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games
from that region. There will then be a short overview of any interesting or
pertinent facts regarding the region and the Paralympic Games. Finally, each
section will finish with ‘snapshots’ of two nations within that region. The
aim of these snapshots is to introduce a variety of issues that may impact on
participation in, and performances at, the Paralympic Games. These issues
may be relevant nationally, regionally or globally. Each snapshot will also
include details of each nation’s historical participation and medal success at
the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games. The nations chosen for these
snapshots are generally those where sufficient information was available to
enable the writing of a sufficiently interesting and relevant snapshot.
Africa
In all a total of seventeen of the forty-nine African nations currently in
membership with IPC have won at least one medal of any colour at the
Summer Paralmpic Games. Only Uganda (1976, 1980) and South Africa
(1998–2010) from the African region have ever competed in a Winter
Paralympic Games. Neither has ever won a medal.
South Africa
South Africa is the southernmost country in Africa. It is bounded on the south
by 2,798 kilometres of coastline of southern Africa stretching along the South
Atlantic and Indian Oceans, on the north by the neighbouring countries of
Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, and on the east by Mozambique and
Swaziland, and surrounds the kingdom of Lesotho. At 1,219,912 km2
(471,011 sq mi) South Africa is the twenty-fiftth largest country in the world
by land area, and with close to 53,491,000 million people, is the world’s
twenty-fourth most populous nation. South Africa is ranked as offering
medium opportunities for human development in the Inequality-Adjusted
Human Development Index outlined in Chapter 8. Poverty levels apparently
dropped in South Africa between 2006 and 2011, reaching a low of 20.2
per cent for extreme poverty (approx. 10.2 million people) and of 45.5 per
cent (approx. 23 million people) for moderate poverty. Extreme poverty is
Table 9.4 Top three medal-winning nations from the African region at the Summer
and Winter Paralympic Games
Summer Games
South Africa 110 88 82 280
Egypt 46 58 61 165
Tunisia 32 28 14 74
Winter Games
No medallists
defined in terms of a ‘food poverty line’ below which people are unable to
purchase enough food for an adequate diet (southafrica.info Website, 2016).
According to the Independent Living Institute (ILI) (2016) the majority
of people with disabilities in South Africa have been excluded from the
mainstream of society and, therefore, prevented from accessing fundamental
social, political and economic rights including education and employment.
ILI claim that poor people face a greater risk of impairment or disability.
In addition, the birth of a disabled child, or the occurrence of disability in
a family, often places heavy demands on family morale, thrusting it deeper
into poverty, which means that not only is there is a higher proportion of
disabled people amongst the very poor, but also that ‘there is an increase in
families living at the poverty level as a result of disability’ (ILI, 2016). ILI
state that the exclusion experienced by people with disabilities and their
families in South Africa is the result of a range of factors, including the
political and economic inequalities of the apartheid system, social attitudes
which have perpetuated stereotypes of disabled people as dependent and in
need of care; and a discriminatory and weak legislative framework which
has sanctioned and reinforced exclusionary barriers.
The issue of apartheid raised by ILI above actually led to South Africa
being banned from competing in international disability sport in the 1980s
and highlights the issue of multiple oppression and its impact upon the
lives of people with disabilities that was outlined in Chapter 4. In terms of
healthcare for the general population during the apartheid period Bernstein
(1985) claims that the white population of South Africa enjoyed an extremely
high standard of healthcare. There were no malnutritional diseases to be
found among them, there was a more than adequate supply of doctors,
and hospitals had an excellent reputation for their treatment of their white
patients. In general, white patients had better access to better facilities – less
crowded hospitals, speedier referrals, better-equipped surgeries and so on.
With few exceptions, all facilities were segregated, those for whites being
amongst the best in the world and those for blacks being greatly inferior.
Seedat (1984) claims that in a country where health and social services for
the physically ‘normal’ black citizens were distinctly inferior to the facilities
provided for whites, it should come as no surprise to discover that facilities
for the physically disabled were practically non-existent. In 1981 there were
a total of forty institutions for whites, as well as protective workshops. For
handicapped coloured people there were only seven workshops subsidised
by the Department of Internal Affairs (Seedat, 1984).
The gross national product of South Africa in the 1970s was one of the
highest in Africa and amongst the top thirty in the world, but wealth was
very unevenly distributed. The minority white population received 64 per
cent of the national income in 1977, whilst Africans received 26 per cent. On
average, a white worker earned more than four times the monthly wage of
an African (Seedat, 1984). According to Thompson (1990) unemployment
which was always high amongst black South Africans, increased during
the 1970s. Thompson cites South African economist Charles Simkins who
estimated that African unemployment almost doubled from 1.2 million to
2.3 million between 1960 and 1977, by which time perhaps 26 per cent
of Africans were unemployed. Consequently, blacks experienced high levels
of poverty, under nutrition, and disease, especially tuberculosis. Although
apartheid has now been consigned to history in South Africa, the country is
still dealing with many of the structural issues that it caused within society
particularly in terms of poverty.
Sport has always been a very important aspect within South African
society (Nauright, 1997). This was especially true during the apartheid
years where sport played an important role in ending apartheid in South
Africa. Perhaps unsurprisingly given the information above it was a whites-
only South African team that competed at the Paralympic Games from 1964
to 1972, but in 1976 the South Africans sent a racially integrated team to
Toronto, before being banned from further Paralympic Games until 1992
due to pressure from both host cities and governments of other competing
nations. According to ILI (2016) there is a serious lack of reliable information
on the nature and prevalence of disability in South Africa. This is equally
true regarding the structure and prevalence of disability sport in South
Africa, although part of the reason for this may be a lack of finance and IT
infrastructure amongst organisations responsible for disability sport in South
Africa to allow them to disseminate this information, which not only causes
problems for researchers such as myself, but must cause bigger problems
for potential athletes with a disability within South Africa. This also makes
researching the reasons for the apparent collapse of the South African team
in the medals table at London 2012 where they fell to eighteenth from an
all-time high of sixth four years earlier in Beijing extremely difficult. Further
information on South Africa and the Paralympic Games can be found on the
South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee website (www.
sascoc.co.za/team-south-africa/paralympics/).
Table 9.5 South African participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Summer Competing Position G S B Team Size
Paralympic nations
Men Women
Medals
Tokyo 1964 21 6 8 8 3 5 4
Tel Aviv 1968 28 10 9 10 7 5 3
Heidelberg 42 4 16 12 13 12 12
1972
Toronto 1976 40 19 6 9 11 29 10
Barcelona 1992 83 27 4 1 3 9 1
Madrid 1992 75 27= 0 0 0 NK NK
Atlanta 1996 103 15 10 8 10 29 11
Sydney 2000 122 13 13 12 13 50 15
Athens 2004 135 13 15 13 7 31 20
Beijing 2008 146 6 21 3 6 40 21
London 2012 164 18 8 12 9 44 18
Total 110 88 82
South Africa at the Paralympic Games

South Africa has competed at the Summer Paralympic Games since its
second incarnation in Tokyo, 1964. As mentioned earlier, they were actually
banned from participation at the Paralympic Games from Arnhem 1980 to
Seoul 1988 due to the apartheid practices of the South African government
(Brittain, 2011). South Africa currently lie seventeenth on the all-time
Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold medals won and nineteenth
when ranked by the total number of medals won.
As can be seen from Table 9.6 the majority of South Africa’s medals have
come from the sports of athletics and swimming, accounting for 86.4 per cent
of all the Paralympic medals they have won. Men account for just under two-
thirds of all medals won (64.3 per cent), but given that they account for 68.8
per cent of all South African competitors at the Games and generally there
have been more sports and events, and therefore, more medal opportunities
for men this is not really surprising, but does highlight some of the issues
around women participating in the Paralympic Games outlined in Chapter 8.
South Africa has never won a Winter Paralympic Games medal. Despite
the fact that Table 9.7 indicates they have competed in four editions of the
Winter Games this is somewhat misleading as it was actually just one man,
Bruce Warner, who competed in alpine skiing events from 1988 to 2010.
Warner lost a leg in a car crash and having previously intended to make a
career in hockey, he subsequently embarked on a career in skiing. His best
finish was ninth out of 27 in the men’s slalom at Salt Lake City in 2002. That
Table 9.6 South African medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and
gender
Summer Men Women Total
Paralympic
G S B G S B G S B
Medals by
Sport
Archery 2 0 1 4 4 0 6 4 1
Athletics 48 33 34 14 15 14 62 48 48
Cycling 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 2 3
Dartchery 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Equestrian 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0
Lawn bowls 1 4 0 4 1 1 5 5 0
Powerlifting 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Shooting 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Swimming 13 21 16 20 5 9 33 26 25
Table tennis 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Weightlifting 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total 66 60 54 44 28 28 110 88 82
Table 9.7 South African participation at the Winter Paralympic Games

Winter Competing Position G S B Team Size
Paralympic nations
Men Women
Medals
Nagano 1998 31 22= 0 0 0 1 0
Salt Lake 2002 36 23= 0 0 0 1 0
Torino 2006 38 20= 0 0 0 1 0
Vancouver 44 22= 0 0 0 1 0
2010
Total 0 0 0
a country as successful as South Africa in sport generally and at the Summer

Paralympic Games is unable to compete at the Winter Paralympic Games
highlights the impact of many of the issues regarding participation at the
Winter Paralympic Games outlined at the beginning of this chapter.
Uganda
Uganda is a landlocked country in East Africa. It is bordered to the east by
Kenya, to the north by South Sudan, to the west by the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, to the southwest by Rwanda, and to the south by Tanzania.
According to 2014 estimates, the population of Uganda is around 39.2
million making it the world’s second most populous landlocked country
after Ethiopia. According to the World Bank (2015) 33.2 per cent of the
Ugandan population lived on less than $1.90 a day in 2012. Uganda is ranked
as offering low opportunities for human development in the Inequality-
Adjusted Human Development Index. According to the International
Labour Organization (ILO) the 2002 Population and Housing Census in
Uganda, found that at least four out of every twenty-five, or 16 per cent
of the population, are disabled, which if applied to today’s population of

39 million people would indicate a Ugandan disabled population of around
6 million people. ILO claim that disabled people in Uganda, as in most
developing countries in the world, face extreme conditions of poverty, have
limited opportunities for accessing education, health, suitable housing and
employment opportunities.
Despite Uganda apparently offering low opportunities for human
development and having so many people living at or below the poverty line
Abimanyi-Ochom and Mannan (2014) claim Uganda has been praised as
one of the champions in sub-Saharan Africa for advocating for the rights of
persons with disabilities with their rights incorporated in the national legal
framework. This includes the 1995 constitution which recognises the rights
of persons with disabilities to attain full mental and physical potential as well
as the development of the 2006 National Policy on Disability. According to
Browning (2012) on 16 April 2012, over forty representatives of schools,
NGOs, sports organisations and the Uganda Paralympic Committee joined
together at a national Uganda Disability Sport Summit to discuss how to
expand opportunities for young people with disabilities to participate in
sport. By the end of the summit, the participants had produced a detailed
national action plan, and it was agreed that the Uganda Paralympic
Committee would organise a task force to take the plan forward, which
hopefully bodes well for future Paralympic Games. Further information on
Uganda and the Paralympic Games can be found on the Ugandan Paralympic
Committee Facebook page (www.facebook.com/Uganda-National-
Paralympic-Committee-201850883222155/).
Uganda at the Paralympic Games

Despite having competed in seven editions of the Summer Paralympic Games
including the last five editions, Uganda has never won a Summer Paralympic
Games medal. This puts them joint 117th on the all-time medals table along
with all other nations who have yet to win a Summer Paralympic medal.
However, this is perhaps unsurprising, as they generally, with two exceptions
where they sent two athletes, have only sent one athlete to represent them at
the Games. Since Atlanta 1996 they have only entered three sports – athletics,
powerlifting and swimming. All of these are relatively cheap and easy to
train for, but are also extremely competitive and with the exception of Irene
Table 9.8 Ugandan participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Paralympic nations
Men Women
Medals
Heidelberg 42 32= 0 0 0 2 0
1972
Toronto 1976 40 33= 0 0 0 1 0
Atlanta 1996 103 61= 0 0 0 1 0

Sydney 2000 122 69= 0 0 0 0 1
Athens 2004 135 76= 0 0 0 1 1
Beijing 2008 146 77= 0 0 0 1 0
London 2012 164 76= 0 0 0 1 0
Total 0 0 0
Table 9.9 Ugandan participation at the Winter Paralympic Games

Winter Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team Size
Medals nations
Men Women
Örnsköldsvik 16 10= 0 0 0 1 0
1976
Geilo 1980 18 11= 0 0 0 1 0
Total 0 0 0
Acen, a visually impaired swimmer who entered two events in Athens 2004,
all the other Ugandan competitors have only competed in one event making
the likelihood of winning a medal even harder.
Uganda has never won a Winter Paralympic Games medal. Despite the
fact that Table 9.9 indicates they have competed in two editions of the
Winter Games this is again somewhat misleading as, like South Africa, it was
actually just one man, Tofiri Kibuuka, who competed in cross-country skiing
events at the first two Winter Paralympic Games in 1976 and 1980. Tofiri
Kibuuka is blind and moved to Norway in the early 1970s. With the first
two Winter Paralympics being held in Scandinavia he was able to represent
Uganda, before gaining Norwegian citizenship and representing Norway on
the track at the Summer Paralympic Games from 1984 to 1992. Kibuuka
was the first African to compete at a Winter Paralympic Games and is still
one of only two Africans to have done so, the other being Bruce Warner
from South Africa, mentioned above.
Table 9.10 Top three medal-winning nations from the Americas region at the
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games
Summer Games
USA 732 656 678 2066
Canada 386 319 329 1034
Mexico 93 88 92 273
Winter Games
USA 98 104 77 279
Canada 43 43 49 135
No other medallists
The Americas
Nineteen of the twenty-nine nations from the Americas region currently in
membership with IPC have won at least one medal of any colour at the
Summer Paralympic Games. Argentina (2010, 2014), Brazil (2014), Chile
(2002–2014) and Mexico (2006–2014) are the only nations other than the
USA and Canada from the Americas region to have competed at a Winter
Paralympic Games. None have won a medal.
Canada
Canada consists of ten provinces and three territories, in the northern part of
the North America continent. It extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and
northward into the Arctic Ocean and covers 9.98 million square kilometres
(3.85 million square miles) in total, making it the world’s second-largest
country by total area and the fourth-largest country by land area. Canada’s
common border with the United States forms the world’s longest land border.
Canada’s population was estimated at 35.7 million on 1 April 2015 (Statistics
Canada, 2015). Canada is ranked as offering very high opportunities for
human development in the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index.
In a Canadian Survey of Disability carried out by Statistics Canada (2012)
that comprised all Canadians aged 15 or older as of 10 May 2011 who were
living in private dwellings, they found that 13.7 per cent of those aged 15
or over had some kind of disability with the prevalence in women (14.9 per
cent) being higher than that of men (12.5 per cent). The prevalence also rose
sharply with age from 4.4 per cent for those aged between 15 and 24 to 42.5
per cent for those aged 75 and over. According to Romeo (2013):
Today in Canada, there have been tremendous efforts to remedy the

past; however, we still have a long way to go. Canadians with disabilities
still face social, economic, systemic, and attitudinal barriers. Persons
with disabilities top the list when it comes to unemployment. According
to Statistics Canada, nearly half of Canadians with disabilities who
are actively looking for work are unemployed or cannot find steady
employment. In addition, persons with disabilities are still at a greater
risk of being victimized, especially children.
(Romeo, 2013)
So it can be seen that, even in countries ranked as offering very high

opportunities for human development in the Inequality-Adjusted Human
Development Index, life for people with disabilities can still be full of
many challenges that many in the non-disabled population do not have to
contend with.
The Canadian Sport for Life website (2016) states that whether their
aims are recreational or competitive, persons with disabilities deserve to
have access to quality sport and physical activity programmes. To this end
they have developed a seven stage Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD)
pathway for all citizens whether they simply wish to take part recreationally
or are aiming to make it all the way to an Olympic or Paralympic Games.
There are two additional stages in the LTAD for people with disabilities. The
nine stages for people with disabilities are, therefore, as follows:
• Stage 1: Active Start aimed at ages 0–6 years, when children need to
be introduced to unstructured active play that incorporates a variety
of body movements.
• Stage 2: FUNdamentals where females (6–8 yrs) and males (6–9 yrs)
should develop fundamental movement skills, including the ABCs of
agility, balance, coordination and speed.
• Stage 3: Learn to Train where females (8–11 yrs) and males (9–12
yrs) should be converting their fundamental movement skills into
fundamental sport skills.
• Stage 4: Train to Train where females (11–15 yrs) and males (12–16
yrs) need to build an aerobic base and consolidate their sport-specific
skills.
• Stage 5: Train to Compete where females (15–21 yrs) and males (16–
23 yrs) choose one sport in which they will train to excel.
• Stage 6: Train to Win is for females (18 yrs+) and males (19 yrs+)
and is the final stage of the LTAD high-performance stream. Medals
and podium performances are the primary focus.
• Stage 7: Active for Life is the final destination of all Canadians. In
this stage, athletes and participants enjoy lifelong participation in a
variety of competitive and recreational opportunities in sport and
physical activity.
• Extra Stage: Awareness informs the general public and prospective
athletes with disabilities of the available opportunities.
• Extra Stage: First Involvement ensures persons with disabilities have
a positive first experience with an activity and remain engaged.
Organizations need to train coaches and develop programs that
provide suitable orientation for prospective athletes with disabilities,
helping them to feel confident and comfortable in their surroundings.
(Canadian Sport for Life website, 2016)
That the Canadian sporting structure has such a highly developed

pathway to encourage people with disabilities to get involved in sport at all

levels would appear to be indicative of the advanced level of development
of Canadian disability and Paralympic sport, particularly in comparison to
many other nations that compete at the Paralympic Games. Canada also
has a Paralympic military rehabilitation programme called ‘Soldiering On’
which affords military veterans injured in the line of duty the opportunity
to use sport as part of their rehabilitation and if sufficiently skilled and
motivated to make it into the Canadian Paralympic training programmes.
Greg Legace, who worked for the Canadian Paralympic Committee and
who was also programme manager for ‘Soldiering On’ in Canada, is quoted
by Chivers (2009, p. 331) as stating that ‘our Paralympians are aging and
they’re depleting’. As a result of this there is a need to find ways to increase
the number of new athletes coming into the system. That such programmes
exist also hints at the importance with which participation in the Paralympic
Games is now perceived with Canada. Further information on Canada and
the Paralympic Games can be found on the Canadian Paralympic Committee
website (http://www.paralympic.ca/).
Canada at the Paralympic Games

Canada has competed at the Summer Paralympic Games since its third
incarnation in Tel Aviv, 1968. They currently lie fourth on the all-time
Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold medals won and fifth when
ranked by the total number of medals won. Canada has also been a Summer
Paralympic Games host country putting on the 1976 Games in Toronto.
As might be expected from a country that has such a long history of
competing at the Summer Paralympic Games and who are able to send such
large teams to a Summer Games Table 9.12 highlights the diverse number of
sports in which Canada has been able to successfully compete and win medals.
However, having said that 88.8 per cent of all Canadian medals come from just
two sports – athletics and swimming. This highlights the importance of these
two sports in terms of medal potential and partly explains why countries often
target these two sports if they have limited budgets. They are the two largest
sports at the Games in terms of events and competitor numbers, therefore
offering the greatest number of opportunities to win medals, especially as one
athlete can compete in multiple events. They are also two sports that require
relatively little in the way of specialised, and often expensive equipment, to
Table 9.11 Canadian participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Summer Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team
Medals nations Size
Men Women
Tel Aviv 1968 28 12 6 6 7 16 6
Heidelberg 1972 42 13 5 6 8 26 13
Toronto 1976 40 6 25 26 26 64 23
Arnhem 1980 42 4 64 35 31 69 33
Long Island 1984 45 3 52 60 54 92 40
Stoke Mandeville 41 2 35 22 15 32 18
1984
Seoul 1988 60 4 55 42 55 99 53
Barcelona 1992 83 6 28 21 26 89 49
Madrid 1992 75 14 1 2 3 NK NK
Atlanta 1996 103 7 24 21 24 95 38
Sydney 2000 122 3 38 33 25 113 53
Athens 2004 135 3 28 19 25 92 54
Beijing 2008 146 7 19 10 21 83 63
London 2012 164 20 7 15 9 88 59
Total 387 318 329
take part (wheelchair and leg amputee athletics events excepted). In terms of
gender medal success is fairly evenly split, being 54.4 per cent from men, 44.3
per cent from women and 1.3 per cent from mixed gender events, despite the
fact that women have only made up 34.8 per cent of all Canadian athletes
sent to a Summer Paralympic Games.
Canada is one of only twelve nations that has competed at every edition
of the Winter Paralympic Games (Brittain, 2014). They currently lie ninth
on the all-time Paralympic medal table when ranked by both gold medals
won and by the total number of medals won. Canada has also been a Winter
Paralympic Games host country putting on the 2010 Games in Vancouver.
The majority of Canadian medals at the Winter Paralympic Games have
come in alpine (73.3 per cent) or cross-country (19.3 per cent) events.
However, this is again unsurprising as like athletics and swimming at the
Summer Games, these two sports have the most events and so the most
medal opportunities by far. In terms of gender the Canadian women (51.9
per cent) have actually been slightly more successful than the men (48.1
per cent) in winning medals despite only making up 25.6 per cent of all
Canadian athletes sent to a Winter Paralympic Games.
Table 9.12 Canadian medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Summer Men Women Mixed Total
Paralympic Medals G S B G S B G S B G S B
by Sport
Archery 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2
Athletics 104 112 92 91 47 72 0 1 1 195 160 165
Boccia 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 5
Cycling 4 5 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 8 8 8
Equestrian 0 1 1 1 2 5 0 0 0 1 3 6
Football 5-a-side 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Goalball 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 2
Judo 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Lawn Bowls 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 2
Powerlifting 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
Sailing 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Shooting 3 3 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 6 4
Snooker 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Swimming 71 55 57 87 65 63 0 0 0 158 120 120
Table Tennis 1 1 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 7
Volleyball Standing 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
WC Basketball 3 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 6 1 1
WC Rugby 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1
Wrestling 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0
Total 199 194 169 186 119 153 2 5 7 387 318 329
Table 9.13 Canadian participation at the Winter Paralympic Games
Winter Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team
Medals nations Size
Men Women
Örnsköldsvik 16 9 2 0 2 5 1
1976
Geilo 1980 18 8 2 3 1 12 8
Innsbruck 1984 21 10 2 8 4 16 6
Innsbruck 1988 22 8 5 3 5 13 7
Tignes 1992 24 9 2 4 6 14 5
Lillehammer 1994 31 14 1 2 5 25 6
Nagano 1998 31 15 1 9 5 25 8
Salt Lake 2002 36 6 6 4 5 23 4
Torino 2006 38 6 5 3 5 26 7
Vancouver 2010 44 3 10 5 4 31 14
Sochi 2014 45 3 7 2 7 37 12
Total 43 43 49
Table 9.14 Canadian medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Winter Paralympic Men (or mixed) Women Total
medals by sport
G S B G S B G S B
Alpine 10 16 16 13 20 24 23 36 40
Biathlon 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2
Cross country 11 2 0 5 3 5 16 5 5
Ice sledge hockey 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2
Wheelchair 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
curling
Total 25 20 20 18 23 29 43 43 49
Brazil
Brazil is the largest country in both South America and the Latin-American
region. It is the world’s fifth-largest country, both by geographical area and
by population. Bounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the east, Brazil has a total
area of 8,515,767 km2 (3,287,956 sq mi) and has a coastline of 7,491 km
(4,655 mi). It borders all other South American countries except Ecuador
and Chile and occupies 47.3 per cent of the continent of South America.
Brazil is ranked as offering high opportunities for human development in
the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index. According to Pestana
(2015) Brazil has a population of 200 million people, of which 47 million
have some form of disability. Global Accessibility News (2015) reported
that the Brazilian version of the Inclusion of People with Disabilities Act
was first introduced to the Brazilian Senate in 2003 and after having been
forwarded to the House of Representatives in 2006 was finally passed and
came into law in June 2015. The legislation includes more clear definitions
for terms such as disability, and long-term disability and introduces quotas
in an attempt to better ensure access to all areas of society for people with
disabilities. Pestana (2015) also states that Brazil was a 2007 signatory of the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and

its optional protocol. However, Kirakosyan argues that:
The formal creation of institutions (such as the UNCRPD) is just the

first step toward realization of human rights for disabled Brazilians and
thereby a more robust democracy. Changing cultural values and social
relations institutionalized in informal patterns of everyday life cannot
be achieved by statutory mandates alone, but will be critical to full
realization of the Convention’s aspirations in Brazil.
(Kirakosyan, 2013, p. 29)
In a further paper examining violence practised against disabled Brazilians

in relation to sustainable development Kirakosyan states ‘although there are
no national data and statistics regarding violence against disabled citizens in
Brazil, findings from a number of small-scale research studies suggest that it
is a problem of considerable magnitude’ (Kirakosyan, 2014). The Program of
the Movement for the Rights of Disabled Persons (Brazil) cited in Charlton
(2000) claims that
the problem of disabled persons in Brazil is closely related to the history

and overall situation of all Brazilian people. The paternalistic approach
of the Brazilian elite has been responsible for the notion that (1) there
are no prejudices against minorities and other social groups and (2)
these groups are well integrated into the wider society.
(Charlton, 2000, p. 59)
Charlton goes on to claim that paternalism lies at the centre of the

oppression of people with disabilities and that it starts with a notion of
superiority. This notion of superiority is more often than not based in the
concept of ableism that was outlined in Chapter 4.
Brazil was awarded the right to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games
of 2016 at the 121st IOC Session in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009. Brazil
will be the first South-American country to host a Paralympic Games and
has set itself a target of finishing in the top five in the medal table at the
Rio 2016 Paralympic Games (Pestana, 2015). Its previous best finish was
seventh at London 2012. One of the legacy plans for the Rio 2016 Games
is the completion of a Brazilian national Paralympic training centre that will
Table 9.15 Brazilian participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Summer Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team Size
Medals nations
Men Women
Heidelberg 1972 42 32= 0 0 0 10(9)* 0
Toronto 1976 40 31 0 1 0 20 2
Arnhem 1980 42 41= 0 0 0 8 0
Long Island 1984 45 28 1 3 2 13 3

1984
Seoul 1988 60 26 4 9 15 46 11
Barcelona 1992 83 32 3 0 4 31 10
Madrid 1992 75 13 1 3 1 NK NK
Atlanta 1996 103 37 2 6 13 41 19
Sydney 2000 122 24 6 10 6 53 11
Athens 2004 135 14 14 12 7 75 22
Beijing 2008 146 9 16 14 17 130 56
London 2012 164 7 21 14 8 112 69
Total 74 86 75
*Due to the nature of the results e.g. no first names given, it is currently impossible to say if
individuals with the same surname are the same individual or two different people. Therefore,
the first number is the maximum possible number of athletes from the results and the number
in brackets is the minimum if all such cases of the same name were actually the same person.
accommodate fifteen Para-sports as well as a regional Paralympic training

centre in each of the 26 states. The Brazilian Paralympic team has finished
higher than its Olympic counterpart in their respective medals tables at
the last six Games with the exception of Atlanta 1996. According to Tovar
(2015) the Paralympics sector in Brazil is unusually well funded thanks to
a 2001 law which gives two per cent of lottery proceeds – rising to 2.7 per
cent next year – to the Olympic and Paralympic committees. This amounts to
around 250 million Brazilian reals, of which the Paralympic sector receives
37 per cent (Pestana, 2015). The Paralympic sector also has an advantage
over its Olympic counterparts in Brazil in that it has direct control over
the two biggest Paralympic sports (athletics and swimming), which would
usually be controlled by their relevant national federations. With this direct
control the Paralympic committee has been able to decide better how to
make investments in these sports (Tovar, 2015) and the positive results of
this can be seen in the fact that athletics and swimming account for 84.3 per
cent of all medals won by Brazil at a Paralympic Games. Further information
(in Portuguese) on Brazil and the Paralympic Games can be found on the
Brazilian Paralympic Committee website (www.cpb.org.br/).
Table 9.16 Brazilian medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Paralympic Medals
G S B G S B G S B G S B
by Sport
Athletics 17 25 18 16 25 14 0 0 0 33 50 32
Boccia 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 0 2
Equestrian 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Football 5-a-side 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
Football 7-a-side 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Goalball 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Judo 4 1 4 0 4 5 0 0 0 4 5 9
Lawn bowls 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Rowing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Swimming 24 22 21 4 5 7 0 0 0 28 27 28
Table tennis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Wheelchair 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
fencing
Total 52 52 46 20 34 28 2 0 1 74 86 75
Table 9.17 Brazilian participation at the Winter Paralympic Games
Winter Competing Position G S B Team
Paralympic nations Size
Medals
Men Women
Sochi 2014 45 20 = 0 0 0 2 0
Total 0 0 0
Brazil at the Paralympic Games

Brazil has competed at every Summer Paralympic Games since Heidelberg,
1972. They currently lie twenty-fifth on the all-time Paralympic medal table
when ranked by gold medals won and twenty-sixth when ranked by the total
number of medals won.
Like most nations, the majority of Brazil’s Summer Paralympic medals
have either been won in athletics (48.9 per cent) or swimming (35.3 per cent).
However, Brazil’s apparent gold medal success in men’s swimming at the last
three Paralympic Games is down to just three individuals – Clodoaldo Silva
(five individual and one relay gold in 2004), Andre Brasil (four individual
in 2008 and three individual in 2012) and Daniel Dias (four individual in
2008 and six individual in 2012). Their 22 individual gold medals accounts
for 91.7 per cent of all Brazilian swimming gold medals and 29.7 per cent
of all Paralympic gold medals ever won by Brazil at the Paralympic Games.
Brazil has also won every gold medal ever available in the sport of five-a-
side football for blind and visually impaired since the sport was added to the
programme in Athens 2004. In terms of gender Brazilian male athletes have
won 63.8 per cent of all Brazilian medals whilst accounting for around 73
per cent of all Brazilian athletes sent to a Summer Paralympic Games.
Brazil competed at the Winter Paralympic Games for the very first time in
Sochi, 2014 where they were represented by Andre Pereira in alpine skiing
(snowboard) and Fernando Rocha in cross country skiing (sitting).
Asia
Of the forty-two nations currently in membership with the IPC from the
Asia region twenty-seven have won at least one medal of any colour at the
Summer Paralympic Games. China (2002–2014), Iran (1998–2014) and
Mongolia (2006–2014) are the only other nations from this region, other
than the three nations who have won medals listed in Table 9.18, to have
competed at the Winter Paralympic Games, but none has won a medal.
Japan
Japan is an island country in East Asia. Located in the Pacific Ocean, it lies to
the east of the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea, China, North Korea, South
Table 9.18 Top three medal-winning nations from the Asian region at the Summer
Summer Games
China 331 259 199 789
South Korea 119 97 92 308
Japan 114 115 124 353
Winter Games
Japan 20 28 32 80
South Korea 0 2 0 2
Kazakhstan 0 1 0 1
Korea and Russia, stretching from the Sea of Okhotsk in the north to the East
China Sea and Taiwan in the south. Japan is a strato-volcanic archipelago of
6,852 islands. The four largest are Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku,
which make up about 97 per cent of Japan’s land area, which is 377,923 km2
(145,916.9 sq mi), of which 374,834 km2 (144,724 sq mi) is land and 3,091
km2 (1,193 sq mi) water. Japan’s population of 126 million is the world’s tenth
largest. About 73 per cent of Japan is forested, mountainous, and unsuitable
for agricultural, industrial, or residential use. As a result, the habitable areas,
mainly located in coastal areas, have extremely high population densities
making Japan one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
Weiss (2010) claims that in 1999 Japanese people with disabilities accounted
for only 7,510,000 (5.9 per cent) of the overall Japanese population of
126 million people. This was split as physically handicapped (2,933,000);
visually handicapped (305,000), limb handicap (1,657,000) internal-organ
handicap (621,000) and multiple handicap (179,000), with the remainder
being intellectually disabled or mentally ill. The figure of 5.9 per cent appears
quite low compared to many other large nations and possibly highlights the
problems that arise around the world in coming to a universally acceptable
definition of disability and the methods used to collect data.
Highlighting the impact of multiple oppression outlined in Chapter 4,
Otake (2012) claims that being a woman in Japan often comes with a variety of
challenges, but when you are a woman with disabilities the scale of hardships
that must be endured can be overwhelming. Citing a report by Disabilities
Peoples’ International (DPI-Japan) titled Shogaino Arujosei no Seikatsu no
Konnan: Fukugo Sabetsu Jittai Chosa Hokokusho (Difficulties in the Lives
of Women with Disabilities: A Report on Multiple Discriminations) Otake
highlights ‘the horrendous realities surrounding women with disabilities,
including sexual and verbal abuse in their homes and at workplaces, hospitals
and other care facilities’ (Otake, 2012). The report concludes that women
with disabilities in Japan are more disadvantaged than non-disabled women
or disabled men. Thirty years ago the Japanese government passed the Law
for Employment Promotion of Persons with Disabilities making it mandatory
for companies to ensure that 1.8 per cent of the positions at all private-
sector companies employing 56 or more people and 2.1 per cent of national
and municipal governments, as well as government-affiliated organizations
should be filled by people with disabilities. However, not once in the last
thirty years have the quotas been achieved in Japan where according to the
Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, as of June 2005, only 42.1 per cent
of private-sector companies, along with 44.8 per cent of state-affiliated

organizations and 77.5 per cent of national and municipal governments
complied (Otake, 2006). According to Osamu (2013) on 19 June 2013, the
Diet (Japanese Parliament) passed the Act on the Elimination of Disability
Discrimination, banning direct discrimination and obligating the provision
of reasonable accommodation as a pathway to Japan being able to ratify the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Nakayama (2004) claims that although the Japanese government
repeatedly insists that the development of a socially integrated society is
their goal they still appear to treat people with disabilities differently citing
the fact that government funds were awarded almost exclusively for sports
activities solely for persons with disabilities rather than in an inclusive setting
(p. 11). This is something I have noticed myself on several recent visits to
Japan. However, the situation in Japan and the winning of the right to host
the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2020 have led to some interesting
developments. Kazuo Ogura, a Cambridge graduate and former Japanese
ambassador to France, whilst working as Secretary General of the Tokyo 2020
bid committee became aware of the attitudes towards people with disabilities
in general and sport for people with disabilities in particular. Once the bid
for 2020 was won Ogura retired. However, having formerly been President
of the Japan Foundation, Ogura used his connections to get a large grant to
set up the Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group (NFPRG) (http://
para.tokyo/english/about/) which has as its goal to study the Paralympic
Movement and based upon the findings put forward recommendations for
potential legacies that might come about as a result of hosting the Paralympic
Games. One of the early results of this work has been the setting up of a
new Japanese Disability Sport Centre of Excellence that will host many of the
individual Japanese Para-sports associations as well as provide them with the
necessary finance and training to substantially professionalise the way they
are run (Ogura, 2015, personal communication). It is hoped that this will
substantially increase opportunities for people with disabilities in Japan to
take part in sport and physical activity as well as start the process of changing
attitudes towards disability in a positive manner. However, there is still no
intention to try and integrate any of the Para-sport associations into their non-
disabled counterparts. Further information (in Japanese with a small amount
of English) on Japan and the Paralympic Games can be found on the Japanese
Sports Association for the Disabled website (www.jsad.or.jp/paralympic/jpc/)
Table 9.19 Japanese participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Summer Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team
Medals nations Size
Men Women
Tokyo 1964 21 13 1 5 4 51 2
Tel Aviv 1968 28 16 2 2 8 40 7
(37)* (6)*
Heidelberg 1972 42 15 4 5 3 20 5
Toronto 1976 40 15 10 6 3 30 4
Arnhem 1980 42 16 9 10 7 32 5
Long Island 1984 45 22 3 2 5 16 1
1984
Seoul 1988 60 14 17 12 17 106 33
Barcelona 1992 83 16 8 7 15 53 22
Madrid 1992 75 21= 0 0 1 NK NK
Atlanta 1996 103 10 14 10 13 57 24
Sydney 2000 122 12 13 17 11 111 41
(110)*
Athens 2004 135 10 17 15 20 108 54
Beijing 2008 146 17 5 14 8 97 65
London 2012 164 24 5 5 6 91 44
Total 114 115 124
*Due to the nature of the results e.g. no first names given, it is currently impossible to say if
individuals with the same surname are the same individual or two different people. Therefore,
the first number is the maximum possible number of athletes from the results and the number
in brackets is the minimum if all such cases of the same name were actually the same person.
Japan at the Paralympic Games

Japan has competed at the Summer Paralympic Games since its second
incarnation in Tokyo, 1964, where they were the hosts. They currently lie
fifteenth on the all-time Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold medals
won and by the total number of medals won. In 2020 Tokyo, Japan will
become the first city to host the Paralympic Games for a second time.
The majority of Japan’s Summer Paralympic Games medals come from
athletics (49.0 per cent) and swimming (22.9 per cent). They have also been
quite successful in judo for blind and visually impaired athletes, which is
perhaps unsurprising as this is considered a national sport in Japan. In terms
of gender, Japanese male athletes have won 68.0 per cent of all Japanese
medals whilst accounting for around 72 per cent of all Japanese athletes sent
to a Summer Paralympic Games.
Table 9.20 Japanese medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Summer Paralympic Men Women Total
Medals by Sport
G S B G S B G S B
Archery 2 8 5 3 4 4 5 12 9
Athletics 34 37 38 24 24 16 58 61 54
Cycling 3 5 6 0 0 0 3 5 6
Dartchery 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Goalball 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
Judo 12 8 6 0 0 0 12 8 6
Lawn bowls 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 1
Swimming 10 17 27 17 4 6 27 21 33
Table tennis 3 4 3 0 1 5 3 5 8
Weight lifting 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Wheelchair basketball 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Wheelchair fencing 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Wheelchair tennis 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1
Total 69 82 89 45 33 35 114 115 124
Table 9.21 Japanese participation at the Winter Paralympic Games

Winter Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team
Medals nations Size
Men Women
1976
Geilo 1980 18 11= 0 0 0 5 0
Innsbruck 1984 21 15= 0 0 0 11 2
Innsbruck 1988 22 14= 0 0 2 11 2
Tignes 1992 24 19 0 0 2 11 4
Lillehammer 1994 31 18 0 3 3 19 7
Nagano 1998 31 4 12 16 13 53 14
Salt Lake 2002 36 22 0 0 3 30 6
Torino 2006 38 8 2 5 2 33 7
Vancouver 2010 44 8 3 3 5 33 8
Sochi 2014 45 7 3 1 2 14 6
Total 20 28 32
Table 9.22 Japanese medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Medals by sport
G S B G S B G S B
Alpine 5 7 8 2 4 9 7 11 17
Biathlon 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2
Cross country 2 1 2 0 1 0 2 2 2
Ice sledge racing 4 6 5 5 6 6 9 12 11

Wheelchair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
curling
Total 11 16 16 9 12 16 20 28 32
Japan is one of only twelve nations to have competed at all Winter

Paralympic Games (Brittain, 2014). They currently lie twelfth on the all-time
Winter Paralympic medal table when ranked by both gold medals won and
by the total number of medals won. Japan has also been a Winter Paralympic
Games host country putting on the 1998 Games in Nagano. They are one of
only four nations to have hosted both a Summer and a Winter Paralympics
Games, the others being Canada, Italy and the USA. South Korea (2018) and
China (2022) will join this list shortly.
The majority of Japan’s medals have come from alpine skiing (43.8 per
cent) and ice sledge racing (40.0 per cent), which is no longer on the Winter
Paralympic programme. Of all the Winter Paralympic Games medals won
by Japan in the five disciplines currently on the programme alpine skiing
accounts for 71 per cent of them. Up to and including Sochi 2014 Japan
have won medals in all Winter Paralympic disciplines except wheelchair
curling. In terms of gender the Japanese women have won 46.3 per cent of
all Japanese Winter Paralympic medals despite only making up 20.2 per cent
of all Japanese athletes sent to a Winter Paralympic Games.
India
India is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area, the
second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most
populous democracy in the world. India is a federal constitutional republic
governed under a parliamentary system consisting of twenty-nine states and
seven union territories. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the
Arabian Sea on the south-west, and the Bay of Bengal on the south-east, it
shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to
the north-east; and Myanmar (Burma) and Bangladesh to the east. India has
a total land area of 3,287,263 km2 (1,269,219 sq mi) and measures 3,214 km
(1,997 mi) from north to south and 2,933 km (1,822 mi) from east to west.
India is ranked as offering medium opportunities for human development in
the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index.
Indian women and girls with disabilities are, according to Human Rights
Watch (2014), forced into mental hospitals and institutions, where they face
unsanitary conditions, risk physical and sexual violence, and experience
involuntary treatment, including electroshock therapy.
In a country where gender-based discrimination is pervasive, women

and girls with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities in particular face

multiple layers of discrimination – on account of their disability and
gender – and are thus among the most marginalized and vulnerable to
abuse and violence.
(Human Rights Watch, 2014)
This may go some way to explaining why so few women with disabilities
have represented India at a Paralympic Games. CNN (2013) claim as many as
40–80 million people with disabilities live in India where the underdeveloped
infrastructure across much of this vast country makes it difficult for them to
get around. However, according to CNN it’s not just the land that can be harsh
and unwelcoming, but prejudice and the karmic belief that disabled people are
at fault for their incapacity can affect their ability to lead a normal life.
According to the Huffington Post (2015) at the fifteenth Indian National
Para Athletics Championships in Ghaziabad in March 2015 the participating
athletes were forced to live in inaccessible and unhygienic accommodation,
use filthy toilet facilities, drink water from an tanker that had not been
cleaned and eat very poor quality food. The complaints that arose from
this led to the Indian government suspending the Paralympic Committee of
India (PCI) for gross negligence and poor management (Firstpost, 2015).
This followed on almost immediately from the PCI being suspended by
the International Paralympic Committee due to ‘individual conflicts at the
national level between different groups and persons’ (NDTV, 2015). This
was actually the third time the PCI had been suspended by the IPC. However,
PCI President at the time Rajesh Tomar sought to lay the blame on the Indian
government which he claimed had not given any funds for organising such
events and refused to arrange for a proper venue to host the championships
(Huffington Post, 2015). Further information on India and the Paralympic
Games can be found on the Paralympic Committee of India website (http://
www.paralympicindia.org.in/).
India at the Paralympic Games

India first competed at the Summer Paralympic Games in 1972 in
Heidelberg and has competed at every Games since Seoul in 1988. They
currently lie seventy-sixth on the all-time Paralympic medal table when
ranked by gold medals won and seventy-seventh when ranked by the total
Table 9.23 Indian participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Summer Competing Position G S B Team size
Paralympic nations
Men Women
Medals
Tel Aviv 1968 28 23= 0 0 0 8 2
Heidelberg 1972 42 25 1 0 0 6 2
Long Island 1984 45 34 0 2 2 5 0
Seoul 1988 60 50= 0 0 0 1 1

Barcelona 1992 83 56= 0 0 0 6 2
Madrid 1992 75 27= 0 0 0 NK NK
Atlanta 1996 103 61= 0 0 0 9 0
Sydney 2000 122 69= 0 0 0 4 0
Athens 2004 135 53 1 0 1 11 1
Beijing 2008 146 77= 0 0 0 5 0
London 2012 164 67= 0 1 0 10 0
Total 2 3 3
Table 9.24 Indian medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Paralympic
G S B G S B G S B
medals by
sport
Athletics 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 3 2
Powerlifting 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Swimming 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total 2 3 3 0 0 0 2 3 3
number of medals won. They generally send a relatively small and usually
male-dominated team to the Summer Paralympic Games having only sent
one woman, Malathi Krishna (Athens 2004) to the Games in the last five.
They have never competed at a Winter Paralympic Games. Since Barcelona
1992 India have only entered participants in four sports – athletics,
powerlifting, shooting and swimming. The only sport they have entered
female competitors in is athletics.
All Indian Summer Paralympic medals have been won by male
competitors, who have made up 89 per cent of all Indian competitors sent to
the Paralympic Games. India has failed to send a female athlete to the Games
since Athens 2004.
Table 9.25 Top three medal-winning nations from the European region at the Summer
Summer Games
Great Britain 563 550 539 1652
Germany* 487 493 466 1446
France 338 342 329 1009
Winter Games
Norway 135 103 81 319
Germany 130 113 102 345
Austria 104 113 108 325
*These totals include medals won by the former Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the
German Democratic Repubic (DDR)
Europe
Forty-three out of forty-eight nations currently in membership with the IPC from
the European region have won at least one medal of any colour at the Summer
Paralympic Games. A total of thirty-four nations currently in membership with
IPC from the European region have competed at the Winter Paralympic Games
out of a total of fifty-one worldwide. This means that 67 per cent of nations
that have competed at the Winter Paralympic Games are European.
Great Britain
Great Britain is an island in the North Atlantic off the north-west coast of
continental Europe. With an area of 209,331 km2 (80,823 sq mi), it is the
largest island in Europe and the ninth-largest in the world. The island is part
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in 2013 it
had a population of 64.1 million people. Great Britain is ranked as offering
very high opportunities for human development in the Inequality-Adjusted
Human Development Index. The English Federation of Disability Sport
(EFDS) (2016) claim there were 11.6 million disabled people in Great Britain
in 2012, accounting for around 18 per cent of the population. 45 per cent
were males and 55 per cent were females. The prevalence rate of disability in
Great Britain is strongly related to age impacting 2.1 per cent of 16–19-year-
olds, 31 per cent of people aged 50–59 years and 78 per cent of people aged
85 or over. In terms of impairment there are 1.86 million people in the UK
with sight loss and around 1.2 million wheelchair users. Disability impacts
upon employment opportunities with 47 per cent of disabled people currently
in work compared to 77 per cent of non-disabled people, despite the fact
that 2015 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Disability Discrimination
Act that put anti-discrimination law on the British statute book. In terms of
sports participation in Great Britain, participation among disabled people is
significantly lower across all age groups compared to non-disabled people, but
the difference is most notable between people aged between 20 to 25 years
old. The Sport England Active People Survey, October 2014 to September
2015, reports that 82.3 per cent of disabled people took part in no sport or
physical activity, compared to 59.5 per cent of non-disabled people (Sport
England Website, 2016). According to the EFDS (2016) disabled men are
more likely to take part in sport than disabled women with 20.1 per cent of
disabled men taking part in thiry minutes of sport a week compared to 15.5
per cent of disabled women. People with sensory impairments (hearing and
visual impairments) have the lowest level of participation with 12 per cent
of people with a visual impairment and 10 per cent of people with a hearing
impairment taking part in sport for thirty minutes once a week, which may
partly explain the findings in Chapter 5 regarding the issue of declining
numbers of visually impaired athletes in the British Paralympic track and field
team at the London 2012 Paralympic Games.
From these statistics above it might then appear surprising that Great
Britain are actually the second most successful nation at the Summer
Paralympic Games in terms of medals won and are one of only six nations
to have competed at every Summer and Winter Paralympic Games (Brittain,
2014). However, Great Britain is actually the founder and spiritual home
of the Paralympic movement, beginning as it did through the work of Dr
Ludwig Guttmann with soldiers with spinal cord injuries at Stoke Mandeville
Hospital towards the end of World War II. British Paralympians now receive
many of the same benefits as their Olympic counterparts in terms of funding
their elite athletic careers, although this obviously brings with it many of the
same performance expectations and related pressures. However, there are
still many barriers that British athletes with disabilities have to overcome
before they can achieve the level of performance necessary to receive such
funding (cf. Brittain, 2004a). Finally, with the London 2012 Paralympic
Games Great Britain hosted what has been widely acclaimed as the best and
most successful summer Paralympic Games to date (Kerr, 2015).
Great Britain is also one of only four countries that have specific military
Paralympic programmes that offer opportunities for military personnel
disabled whilst in service to use sport as part of their rehabilitation process
and potentially progress through the Paralympic performance pathways to
become a British Paralympian (Brittain and Green, 2012). The other three
countries are Australia, Canada and the USA. This process has recently been
enlarged and strengthened with the introduction of the Invictus Games, a
Paralympic style international games for disabled military personnel that was
first held in the UK in 2014 with delegations from fourteen different nations.
The next games will be held in Florida, USA in May 2016 (Invictus Games
Foundation, 2016). Further information on Great Britain and the Paralympic
Games can be found on the British Paralympic Association website (http://
paralympics.org.uk/).
Table 9.26 British participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Medals nations
Men Women
Rome 1960 21 2 21 14 19 38 13
Tokyo 1964 21 2 18 23 20 52 18
Tel Aviv 1968 28 2 29 20 20 50 22
Heidelberg 1972 42 3 16 15 21 50 25
Toronto 1976 40 5 29 29 36 68 22
Arnhem 1980 42 5 47 33 21 75 32
Long Island 1984 45 2 80 84 86 107/8 52/3
1984
Seoul 1988 60 3 65 65 54 178 63
Barcelona 1992 83 3 40 47 41 155 51
Madrid 1992 75 10 2 4 5 54 38
Atlanta 1996 103 4 39 42 41 164 80
Sydney 2000 122 2 41 43 47 139 75
Athens 2004 135 2 35 30 29 99 67
Beijing 2008 146 2 42 29 31 134 78
London 2012 164 3 34 43 43 181 113
Total 566 550 540
Great Britain at the Paralympic Games

Great Britain is one of only eleven nations to have competed at every Summer
Paralympic Games and one of only six nations to have competed at every
Summer and Winter Paralympic Games (Brittain, 2014). They currently lie
second on the all-time Summer Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold
medals won and by the total number of medals won.
The majority of Great Britain’s Summer Paralympic Games medals come
from athletics (30.6 per cent) and swimming (38.7 per cent). The next most
successful sport is table tennis (5.8 per cent). Of the sports currently on the
Paralympic programme Great Britain has never won a medal in football five-
a-side, goalball, sitting volleyball and wheelchair rugby. In terms of gender
British male athletes have won 55.8 per cent of all British medals whilst
British women have won 43.5 per cent, with the remainder (0.9 per cent)
being won in mixed gender events. British males have accounted for around
68 per cent of all British athletes sent to a Summer Paralympic Games.
Despite being one of only twelve nations to have competed at every
Winter Paralympic Games Great Britain currently lie twenty-fifth on the
Table 9.27 British medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Paralympic
G S B G S B G S B G S B
Medals by
sport
Archery 5 7 9 9 12 11 0 1 0 14 20 20
Athletics 105 95 106 82 65 52 0 0 1 187 160 159
Basketball 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4
Boccia 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 3 5 3
Cycling 18 13 5 10 3 2 0 0 0 28 16 7
Dartchery 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
Equestrian 6 3 1 14 10 7 4 0 0 24 13 8
Fencing 6 9 17 4 1 6 0 0 0 10 10 23
Football 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
Judo 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9
Lawn bowls 21 17 12 13 11 7 1 1 0 35 29 19
Pentathlon 2 1 3 3 1 4 0 0 0 5 2 7
Powerlifting 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 4
Rowing 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1
Sailing 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
Shooting 2 5 6 6 4 5 0 0 0 8 9 11
Snooker 8 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 6
Swimming 114 118 88 88 113 118 0 0 0 202 231 206
Table tennis 13 14 23 11 18 17 0 0 0 24 32 40
Tennis 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2
Volleyball 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Weightlifting 4 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 6
Total 313 305 303 245 241 232 7 4 4 566 550 540
all-time Winter Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold medals won
and nineteenth when ranked by the total number of medals won.
The majority of Great Britain’s winter medals have come from alpine
skiing (55.6 per cent) and ice sledge racing (29.6 per cent), which is no
longer on the Winter Paralympic programme. Of all the Winter Paralympic
Games medals won by Great Britain in the five disciplines currently on
the programme alpine skiing accounts for 78.9 per cent of them. In terms
of gender the British men have won 59.3 per cent of all British Winter
Paralympic medals whilst making up 87 per cent of all British athletes sent
to a Winter Paralympic Games.
Table 9.28 British participation at the Winter Paralympic Games
Winter Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team Size
Medals nations
Men Women
1976
Geilo 1980 18 11= 0 0 0 8 0
Innsbruck 1984 21 12 0 4 6 19 3
Innsbruck 1988 22 16= 0 0 0 18 3

Tignes 1992 24 15 0 1 4 14 1
Lillehammer 1994 31 21 0 0 5 23 0
Nagano 1998 31 22= 0 0 0 20 1
Salt Lake 2002 36 23= 0 0 0 2 0
Torino 2006 38 17= 0 1 0 18 2
Vancouver 2010 44 22= 0 0 0 7 5
Sochi 2014 45 10 1 3 2 6 6
Total 1 9 17
Table 9.29 British medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by sport and gender
Medals by Sport
G S B G S B G S B
Alpine 0 1 9 1 3 1 1 4 10
Biathlon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cross country 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Ice sledge racing 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 4 4
Wheelchair curling 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 0 3 13 1 6 4 1 9 17
Andorra
Andorra is a sovereign landlocked microstate in south-western Europe,
located in the eastern Pyrenees mountains and bordered by Spain and
France. Andorra is the sixth-smallest nation in Europe, having an area of
468 km2 (181 sq mi) and a population of approximately 76,000. Its capital
Andorra la Vella is the highest capital city in Europe, at an elevation of 1,023
metres (3,356 ft) above sea level. Due to its location in the eastern Pyrenees
mountain range, Andorra consists predominantly of rugged mountains,
the highest being the Coma Pedrosa at 2,942 metres (9,652 ft), and the
average elevation of Andorra is 1,996 metres (6,549 ft). I have been unable
to find any statistics regarding the prevalence of disability in Andorra, but
if you take an average of 15 per cent for the disabled population this would
suggest a disabled population in Andorra of around 11,400 people. If you
then remove those who are too old or too young and those with whose
impairments would not be eligible to compete in the Paralympic Games it
becomes clear that the pool of potential athletes in Andorra is very small
indeed by comparison to other nations and not all of those who are eligible
would necessarily be interested in sport or of sufficient talent to qualify.
This may go some way to explaining Andorra’s very limited participation

in the Paralympic Games (outlined below). Andorra is, however, famous for
the practice of winter sports and has appeared in every Winter Olympic
Games since 1976. Andorra has three domains dedicated to snow sports:
Grandvalira, Vallnord and Naturlandia, with 318 kilometres of pistes and
a total of 3,075 hectares of skiable area. Grandvalira and Vallnord together
have the largest concentration of mechanical ski lifts per square metre in the
world, with a capacity for transporting 156,000 people per hour. (Govern
d’Andorra, 2015). This may well explain why Andorra is the only nation
to have competed at the Winter Paralympic Games prior to participating
in the Summer Paralympic Games for the first time. Further information
(in Catalan) on Andorra and disability sport can be found on the Andorran
Federation of Adapted Sports website (http://fadea.ad/).
Andorra at the Paralympic Games

Andorra is an unusual case in the sense that it has been competing at the
Winter Paralympic Games far longer than the Summer Paralympic Games. In
fact it only sent its first athlete (Antonio Sanchez Francisco in swimming) to a
Summer Paralympic Games at London 2012. They are currently ranked 117th
equal on the all-time Summer Paralympic medal table, along with all the other
nations who have yet to win a medal. The only sports they have ever entered
at the Paralympic Games are swimming (Summer) and alpine skiing (Winter)
Andorra first competed at the Winter Paralympic Games in Salt Lake
City in 2002. They are currently ranked thirty-second equal on the all-time
Winter Paralympic medal table, along with all the other nations who have
yet to win a medal. They have only ever competed in alpine skiing with men
making up 71.4 per cent of all competitors sent to a Winter Games.
Table 9.30 Andorran participation at the Summer Paralympic Games

Paralympic nations
Men Women
Medals
London 164 76= 0 0 0 1 0
2012
Total 0 0 0
Table 9.31 Andorran participation at the Winter Paralympic Games
Winter Competing Position G S B Team size
Paralympic nations
Men Women
Medals
Salt Lake 2002 36 23= 0 0 0 2 0
Torino 2006 38 20= 0 0 0 1 1
Vancouver 2010 44 22= 0 0 0 1 1
Sochi 2014 45 20= 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0
Oceania
At the London, 2012 Summer Paralympic Games, Fiji, became the first nation
from the Oceania region, other than Australia or New Zealand, to win a
Paralympic gold medal. Of the eight nations currently in membership with the
IPC from the Oceania region only Australia and New Zealand have competed
at the Winter Paralympic Games. However, it should be noted that the other
six nations are all relatively small island or small multi-island nations.
New Zealand
New Zealand is an island country in the south-western Pacific Ocean. The
country geographically comprises two main landmasses - the North and
South Islands, and numerous smaller islands. New Zealand is situated some
1,500 kilometres (900 mi) east of Australia and roughly 1,000 kilometres
(600 mi) south of the Pacific island areas of New Caledonia, Fiji, and Tonga.
New Zealand is long and narrow with over 1,600 kilometres (990 mi) along
its north–north-east axis with a maximum width of 400 kilometres (250
mi) with about 15,000 km (9,300 mi) of coastline and a total land area of
Table 9.32 Top three medal-winning nations from the Oceania region at the Summer
Summer Games
Australia 359 373 345 1077
New Zealand 65 51 52 168
Fiji 1 0 0 1
Winter Games
Australia 11 6 13 30
New Zealand 1 6 7 28
No Other Medallists
268,000 km2 (103,500 sq mi). New Zealand is ranked as offering very high
opportunities for human development in the Inequality-Adjusted Human
Development Index. According to Grant (1992) one value claimed to be
important to New Zealanders is participating in sport, which has led to New
Zealand having an impressive international sporting record for a country with
a small population. New Zealand actually had the first Paralympian to ever
compete in an Olympic Games, when Neroli Fairhall, a paraplegic archer,
competed in the women’s Olympic archery competition at the Los Angeles
Olympics of 1984. Athletes with a disability had previously competed at the

Olympic Games, but Fairhall was the first to compete at a Paralympic Games
and then go on to compete at an Olympic Games (Brittain, 2014, p. 314).
According to the New Zealand Disability Survey carried out in 2013,
1,062,000 New Zealanders (95,000 children, 967,000 adults (over 15 yrs))
or around 24 per cent of the population where classified as having a disability,
with physical impairments making up the largest proportion (Statistics New
Zealand, 2014, p. 3). For the majority of adults the cause of their impairment
is fairly evenly distributed between disease or illness, accident or injury and
the result of ageing. One of the things that becomes noticeable when trying
to put together snapshots of countries like this is that the more developed
a country is the easier it is to find detailed statistical reports regarding the
prevalence of disability and different types of impairment within that country.
This link to the state of the development of a country is also apparent in the
sporting infrastructure in place for people with disabilities in a country and
how long that infrastructure has been in place.
In New Zealand the Halberg Disability Sport Foundation was founded
in 1963 by Sir Murray Halberg, New Zealand’s Olympic gold medallist
from 1960, in the belief that all people, regardless of their ability, should
have equal opportunity to enhance their lives through sport and is now the
lead agency for physical disability and sport in New Zealand. Their mission
is to enhance the lives of physically disabled New Zealanders by enabling
them to participate in sport and recreation. To achieve this they have a team
of Disability Sport Advisers around New Zealand who deliver courses and
connect physically disabled people to sport and recreation opportunities
in schools, clubs and in their communities. They also provide grants for
adaptive sports equipment, camps and lessons (Halberg Disability Sport
Foundation website, 2016). Further information on New Zealand and the
Paralympic Games can be found on the Paralympics New Zealand website
(http://www.paralympics.org.nz/).
New Zealand at the Paralympic Games

New Zealand has competed at the Summer Paralympic Games since its third
incarnation in Tel Aviv, 1968. They are currently ranked twenty-seventh on
the all-time Summer Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold medals
won and twenty-eighth when ranked by the total number of medals won.
Table 9.33 New Zealand participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Medals nations
Men Women
Tel Aviv 1968 28 18 1 2 1 14 1
Heidelberg 1972 42 18 3 3 3 7 3
Toronto 1976 40 18 7 1 5 11 1
Arnhem 1980 42 19 7 6 6 12 5
Long Island 1984 45 25 2 4 1 1 2
1984
Seoul 1988 60 30 2 4 11 12 5
Barcelona 1992 83 23 5 1 0 9 4
Atlanta 1996 103 19 9 6 3 28 6
Sydney 2000 122 25 6 8 4 36 6
Athens 2004 135 26 6 1 3 28 8
Beijing 2008 146 24= 5 3 4 20 10
London 2012 164 21 6 7 4 11 13
Total 65 52 51
Table 9.34 New Zealand medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport and
gender
Paralympic
G S B G S B G S B
Medals by Sport
Archery 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Athletics 17 15 17 17 13 6 34 28 23
Boccia 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Cycling 0 1 1 2 1 5 2 2 6
Dartchery 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Equestrian 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lawn bowls 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
Shooting 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 4
Swimming 10 8 10 14 10 4 24 18 14
Weightlifting 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Wheelchair 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
rugby
Total 30 25 35 35 27 16 65 52 51
Table 9.35 New Zealand participation at the Winter Paralympic Games
Winter Competing Position G S B Team Size
Paralympic nations
Men Women
Medals
Geilo 1980 18 11= 0 0 0 3 0
Innsbruck 1984 21 11 1 3 1 6 2
Innsbruck 1988 22 13 0 1 0 2 1
Tignes 1992 24 11 2 0 0 7 0
Lillehammer 31 10 3 0 3 6 1
1994
Nagano 1998 31 11 4 1 1 3 2
Salt Lake 2002 36 10 4 0 2 1 1
Torino 2006 38 20= 0 0 0 2 0
Vancouver 2010 44 15 1 0 0 2 0
Sochi 2014 45 16= 0 1 0 3 0
Total 15 6 7
Table 9.36 New Zealand medals at the Winter Paralympic Games by sport and
gender
Winter Men (or mixed) Women Total
Paralympic
G S B G S B G S B
Medals by
sport
Alpine 10 4 6 5 2 1 15 6 7
Total 10 4 6 5 2 1 15 6 7
As with most nations the majority of New Zealand’s Summer Paralympic

medals come from athletics (50.6 per cent) and swimming (33.3 per cent),
although interestingly they have only won one athletics medal at the last
two Games in Beijing and London – a silver by Kate Horan in the women’s
200m T44 in Beijing 2008. In terms of gender New Zealand men have won
53.6 per cent of all New Zealand medals at the Summer Paralympic Games
whilst accounting for 74.9 per cent of all New Zealand competitors sent to
a Summer Paralympic Games.
New Zealand has competed at every Winter Paralympic Games since the
second incarnation in Geilo in 1980. They currently lie fifteenth on the all-
time Winter Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold medals won and
eighteenth when ranked by the total number of medals won.
All of New Zealand’s Winter Paralympic medals have come from alpine
skiing, which is unsurprising given that this is the only sport they have ever
entered. In terms of gender the New Zealand men have won 71.4 per cent
of all New Zealand Winter Paralympic medals whilst making up 83.3 per
cent of all New Zealand competitors sent to a Winter Paralympic Games.
In fact New Zealand have failed to send a female competitor to a Winter
Paralympic Games since Salt Lake City in 2002.
Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea, in the southwestern Pacific, encompasses the eastern
half of New Guinea and its offshore islands. It covers an area of 462,840
km2 (178,704 sq miles) and has a population of around 7.2 million. Papua
New Guinea is ranked as offering low opportunities for human development
in the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index. Linguistically, it is
the world’s most diverse country, with more than 700 native tongues. In
addition around 80 per cent of Papua New Guinea’s people live in rural
areas with few or no facilities of modern life. Many tribes in the isolated
mountainous interior have little contact with one another, and live within
a non-monetarised economy dependent on subsistence agriculture. Due
to these many isolated settlements and low levels of literacy radio is an
important form of communication. Corruption is apparently rife, with
Transparency International rating the country one of the most corrupt in the
world in 2012 (BBC Website, 2015). According to the National Disability
Resource and Advocacy Centre (NDRAC) set up in 2006 to advocate for
people with disabilities in Papua New Guinea there are no official statistics
for the number of people with disabilities in Papua New Guinea. However,
based on the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that 15 per cent
of the world’s populations have some form of disability or impairment
NDRAC estimate that approximately 975,000 people are living with some
form of disability or impairment in Papua New Guinea. Of this number only
about 2 per cent or about 19,500 people receive services. NDRAC claim that
there is a distinct lack of knowledge and resources for managing disabilities
in some communities, and that cultural and traditional perspectives have
a great influence over the lives of people with disabilities. People with
disabilities are unable to join community life, go to school or work. They
are not able or not allowed to leave their homes due to shame, as disability
is associated with violations of cultural norms. NDRAC state that generally,
the status of people with disabilities within Papua New Guinea is extremely
low and their voices are unheard. They claim the key underlying causes are
the attitudes and structures that exist in society that not only negatively
affect the health and social well-being of people with disabilities, but limit
their opportunities and participation in society. The Paralympic Committee
of Papua New Guinea does not currently have a website.
Papua New Guinea at the Paralympic Games

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the information above Papua New Guinea’s
participation in the Summer Paralympic Games has been somewhat sporadic,
Table 9.37 Papua New Guinean participation at the Summer Paralympic Games
Summer Paralympic Competing Position G S B Team size
Medals nations
Men Women
Stoke Mandeville 41 34= 0 0 0 4 0
1984
Sydney 2000 122 69= 0 0 0 3 0
Beijing 2008 146 63= 0 1 0 1 1
London 2012 164 76= 0 0 0 2 0

Total 0 1 0
Table 9.38 Papua New Guinean medals at the Summer Paralympic Games by sport
and gender
Paralympic
G S B G S B G S B
Medals by Sport
Athletics 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
but they have sent small teams of two competitors to the last two Games in
Beijing and London. They are currently ranked 103rd equal on the all-time
Summer Paralympic medal table when ranked by gold medals won and 102nd
equal when ranked by the total number of medals won. The only sports they
have ever entered at a Paralympic Games are athletics and powerlifting.
At the Beijing 2008 Summer Paralympic Games, Papua New Guinea,
became the first nation from the Oceania region, other than Australia or New
Zealand, to win a Summer Paralympic medal. This is the only medal they have
ever won at a Summer Paralympic Games – a silver by Francis Kompaon in
the men’s 100m T46. They have only ever sent one female competitor to the
Paralympic Games – Joyleen Jeffrey in the women’s 100m T12, also in Beijing.
Study activity
One thing the above ‘snapshots’ appear to highlight is the fact that for many
teams, despite sending a far higher proportion of men to the Summer and
Winter Paralympic Games it is the women who appear to win a greater
proportion of medals in relation to the number of women actually sent to
the Games. What are some of the possible reasons for this?
Conclusion
Hopefully this chapter has highlighted to the reader the variety and
complexity of issues that can impact upon the participation and success
of athletes with a disability around the world. The problems they face can
be geographical, climatic, political, attitudinal, financial to name but a few
and not only impact upon whether a particular nation participates at the
Paralympic Games, but also what sports it competes in. What is clear is that
how these issues are managed or overcome will play a key role in the success
or otherwise of nations and athletes aspiring to compete successfully in the

1 What are some of the possible reasons for the overall differences in
medal success at the Paralympic Games between the countries included
in these ten ‘snapshots’?
2 How does a country’s ranking in terms of the Inequality-Adjusted
Human Development Index appear to impact the participation of
countries within the Paralympic Games?
3 How well did your country do at the London, 2012 Paralympic Games?
What needs to change in your country to improve your country’s
chances of success at future Games?

Beacom, A., 2009, Disability sport and the politics of development. In Levermore, R.
and Beacom, A. (eds.) Sport and International Development, Palgrave Macmillan:
London, UK, pp. 98–123.
Crawford, J.L. and Stodolska, M., 2008, Constraints experienced by elite athletes
with disabilities in Kenya, with implications for the development of a new
hierarchical model of constraints at the societal level. Journal of Leisure Research,
Vol. 40(1), pp. 128–155.
Lauff, J., 2007, Developing Country Participation in International Disability Sport
Competition: A Historical Perspective. (http://assets.sportanddev.org.sad.
vm.iway.ch/downloads/70__developing_country_participation_in_international_
disability_sport_competition.pdf) Accessed 28th December 2015.
10 The Special Olympics,
intellectual disability and the
Paralympic Games
Chapter aims
• To outline the development and aims of the Special Olympics Movement.
• To explain the differences between the Special Olympics and the
Paralympic Games.
• To explain why athletes with an intellectual disability were banned
from Paralympic competition between 2001 and 2009 and some of the
ramifications of this ban.
There are still many individuals around the world who believe that the
Special Olympics and the Paralympic Games are one and the same event.
The aim of this chapter is, therefore, first, to clearly explain the difference
between the two movements. It will then go on to discuss the participation
of athletes with an intellectual disability in the Paralympic Games and
why they were banned from participation from 2001 up to London 2012
following the scandal that occurred with the Spanish Intellectually Disabled
Basketball team at the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. The ramifications
of this ban for both for the Paralympic Movement and for those athletes
with an intellectual disability who were prevented from competing at the
Paralympic Games and how they regained their place in London 2012 are
then discussed.
The Special Olympics – the beginning

The Special Olympics were started by Eunice Kennedy Shriver, a member
of the politically and economically elite Kennedy family that dominated
American politics in the 1960s and 1970s. As part of her work with the Joseph
P. Kennedy Jr Foundation, set up in honour of the eldest son of Ambassador
and Mrs Joseph P. Kennedy Sr who was killed in World War II, Eunice Kennedy
Shriver visited many institutions built to house the numerous individuals
with intellectual disabilities in the United States. Shocked by the terrible
conditions and the total lack of educational or physical activity opportunities
provided for these individuals she became determined that something had to
The Special Olympics 199
be done. Herself an active sportswoman she was convinced that sport and
physical activity could greatly enhance the lives of people with intellectual
disabilities. In June 1962 she held a day camp, called Camp Shriver, for
thirty-five boys and girls with intellectual disabilities at Timberlawn, her
home in Rockville, Maryland in order to try out her theory using a variety
of different sports and physical activities. Camp Shriver became an annual
event and the Kennedy Foundation provided grants to various organisations
to promote similar camps around the United States.
The Kennedy Foundation also began to promote workshops on the benefits

of sports for everyone including individuals with an intellectual disability.
This led to one attendee at a workshop from Chicago, Anne Burke, doing
some work for the Chicago Parks Department on how they could do more
for individuals with an intellectual disability. This eventually led to them
working with the Kennedy Foundation to put on the First Special Olympics
International Games in July 1968. Since that first Games the Special Olympics
have developed into a worldwide organisation of over 2 million registered
athletes from over 170 countries. The first Winter Games were introduced in
Steamboat Springs, Colorado in 1977 and the first Games to be held outside
the USA were the Winter Games held in Salzburg and Schladming in Austria
in 1993. The Summer Games were first held outside the USA in 2003 when
they were held in Dublin, Ireland. Table 10.1 shows how the main Special
Olympics Summer and Winter Games have developed since they were first
introduced in 1968. As with the Paralympic Games, historical data for these
Games is at best patchy and so the table is not complete.
Special Olympics – the name

Given the discussion in Chapter 2 regarding the use of Olympic terminology
by the Paralympic movement and the reaction of the International Olympic
Committee to this usage, some readers might be wondering why the Special
Olympics movement gets away with it. Information on this issue is sketchy
and hard to find, but letters in the IOC archive from the 1970s indicate
that usage of Olympic terminology by the Special Olympics movement at
that time was a very contentious issue. In a letter from Douglas F. Roby,
former President of the United States Olympic Committee to the then IOC
President Lord Killanin dated 28 December, 1974, Roby claims the issue
began in around 1966 when ‘a trap’ was apparently set for the former
IOC President Avery Brundage regarding the Special Olympics that led to
him giving his endorsement to their use of the word ‘Olympics’ at their
inaugural Games in Chicago. Roby apparently obtained verbal agreement
from the Kennedys in both 1966 and 1967 that they would stop using
the term Olympics. However, it appears that Roby’s successors had a
change of heart and in a letter from F. Don Miller of USOC to Madame
Berlioux at the IOC dated 20 December, 1978 Miller admits that the USOC
Executive Board did grant the Special Olympics Organisation the right to
200 The Special Olympics
Table 10.1 The development of the Summer and Winter Special Olympics Games
Year Location No. of No. of No. of
countries athletes sports
(inc. demo
events)
1968 Chicago, USA 2 1000 3
1970 Chicago, USA 4 2000 NA
1972 Los Angeles, USA 8 2500 NA

1975 Michigan, USA 17 4000 NA
1977 Colorado, USA 5 525 2
1979 Brockport, USA 20 3500 NA
1981 Vermont, USA 11 700 2
1983 Baton Rouge, USA 50 4300 NA
1985 Utah, USA 14 900 2
1987 Indiana, USA 73 4700 NA
1989 Nevada and California, USA 18 1055 NA
1991 Minnesota, USA 104 5700 NA
1993 Salzburg and Schladming, 60 1550 5
Austria
1995 Connecticut, USA 143 7000 21
1997 Ontario, Canada 73 2000 5
1999 North Carolina, USA 150 7000+ 19
2001 Alaska, USA 70 1800 7
2003 Dublin, Ireland 150 6500+ 21
2005 Nagano, Japan 84 1800+ 7
2007 Shanghai, China 164 7500 25
2009 Boise, USA ~100 ~2500 7
2011 Athens, Greece 168 7000 22
2013 Pyeongchang, South Korea 107 3000+ 8
2015 Los Angeles, USA 177 6500 27
Tinted = Winter Games NA = Information not available
use the term ‘Special Olympics’, but only within the United States’ borders.
According to the Special Olympics website this occurred in December 1971.
Madame Berlioux responded to Miller in the following January stating that
all NOCs would be contacted and instructed to stop the use of the word
‘Olympics’ on their territory and that the Special Olympics Organisation
would be requested to replace the term ‘Olympics’ in their title with another
appropriate term. As history has shown this never happened and in February
1988 the Special Olympics Organisation was officially recognised by the
IOC and is the only non-Olympic organisation with official permission to
use the term ‘Olympics’ in its title. How this came about can only be a matter
for conjecture at present. However, it is likely that a combination of the
influential political and economic power of the Kennedys combined with
the massively influential role the Los Angeles Olympic Games and the part
corporate sponsorship had in saving the Olympic movement from financial
ruin, played key roles in this. The financial and political influence of the
United States Olympic Committee within the Olympic movement, as the

American TV companies and other major corporate sponsors have become
ever greater contributors to the Olympic coffers, may also have played a part
in this decision.
Special Olympics – their aim

The Special Olympics Organisation has seven regional offices around the
world and encompasses around 170 countries. It claims to be the world’s
largest sports organisation for people with intellectual disabilities: with more
than 4.5 million athletes and millions more volunteers and supporters. It
defines itself as follows:
Mission
The mission of the Special Olympics is to provide year-round sports training
and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports for children and
adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them continuing opportunities to
develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate
in a sharing of gifts, skills and friendship with their families, other Special
Olympics athletes and the community.
Vision
The Special Olympics movement will transform communities by inspiring
people throughout the world to open their minds, accept and include people
with intellectual disabilities and thereby anyone who is perceived as different.
Eligibility
Special Olympics athletes must be at least eight years old and identified by an
agency or professional as having one of the following conditions: intellectual
disabilities, cognitive delays as measured by formal assessment, or significant
learning or vocational problems due to cognitive delay that require, or have
required, specially designed instruction.
Competition
Games and Tournaments should offer every athlete an equal chance to excel
during competition. Each competition division within a given event must be
structured so that every athlete/team in the division has a reasonable chance
to excel during competition, by placing athletes and teams in divisions or
trial heats according to accurate records of their previous performance,
and where relevant, by grouping athletes and teams by age and gender,
as provided and required by the SOI Sports Rules. (Special Olympics

International Website, 2015).
The Special Olympics and the Paralympic Games – the

differences
The Special Olympics Organisation and the International Paralympic
Committee are both sporting organisations for people with disabilities that
are recognised by the International Olympic Committee. They both hold
Summer and Winter Games on a four-yearly cycle. However, the Paralympic
Games are held in conjunction with the Olympic Games in the same host
city and using the same sporting facilities and starting two to three weeks
after the closing ceremony for the Olympic Games. The Special Olympic
Winter Games are held in the year following the Olympic and Paralympic
Summer Games and the Special Olympic Summer Games are held in the
year following the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The principal
differences between the Special Olympic and Paralympic movements lie in
the levels of sporting ability of the participating athletes as well as the actual
disability of the athletes.
Ability level
The Special Olympics involves athletes from all ability levels with
participation from the full range of intellectual disability. In order to assure
fair competition, Special Olympics athletes are placed in divisions with other
athletes of similar ability. Each division has a final allowing all athletes a
fair opportunity to compete with a chance to win. In addition, although the
first three in each final receive a medal, every other competitor receives a
participation ribbon. This system is designed to challenge each athlete to do
his or her best while providing a meaningful and enjoyable experience.
The Paralympic Games involves athletes from six disability groups who
compete only at the elite sports level. As in mainstream sports competition,
athletes who do not meet qualifying standards may not compete and
others who are competing may lose in preliminary play. The mainstream
philosophy of sport is applied that facilitates competition to determine the
best individual athlete or team.
Disability criteria
The Special Olympics competition is, first and foremost, for individuals who
have an intellectual disability. They may also have additional physical or
sensory disabilities, but in order to qualify to take part they must have an
intellectual disability.
In order to participate in the Paralympic Games individuals must come
from one of six disability groups as described in Chapter 1. Although
these six groups do include one for intellectual disabilities, athletes with
intellectual disabilities who aspire to compete at the Paralympic Games are
not represented by the Special Olympics Organisation.
Study activity
Why do you think so many people think the Special Olympics and the
Paralympic Games are the same event? What could be done to improve
understanding and appreciation of the two events by the general public?
The International Sports Federation for People with an Intellectual

Disability
The International Sports Federation for People with an Intellectual Disability
(INAS) was formed in 1986 with the aim to create a platform for athletes
with an intellectual disability who wish to perform their sport competitively,
in open competition (as at the Olympics) and according to the rules of the
mainstream International Sports Federations. The difference in the sporting
ethos and philosophy between INAS and the Special Olympics Organisation
is exactly the same as the difference between those of the Paralympic
movement and the Special Olympics Organisation with regard to ability
level. However, athletes represented by INAS at the Paralympic Games are
currently banned from competition at both the Paralympic Games and the
IPC World and regional championships.
Intellectually disabled athletes at the Paralympic Games

The International Association of Sports for Persons with a Mental Handicap,
which later became the International Sports Federation for People with
an Intellectual Disability (INAS), were accepted into membership of the
International Co-ordinating Committee at their tenth meeting held in
Gothenburg in 1986. Although events for athletes with an intellectual
disability were added to the programme for the Winter Games in Tignes,
1992 it was decided that a separate Summer Games, sanctioned by ICC,
would be held in Madrid immediately after the Games in Barcelona, 1992
as part of their gradual inclusion into the overall Paralympic framework.
A total of seventy-five nations from all five continents gathered in Madrid
for the Games to compete in sixty-eight events spread over five sports.
However, in Atlanta four years later when intellectually disabled athletes
first competed in the Summer Paralympic Games proper there were only
fifty-six athletes competing in athletics and swimming. This grew four years
later in Sydney to 244 athletes competing in athletics, swimming, table tennis
and basketball. All seemed to have gone well and participation of athletes
with intellectual disabilities at the Paralympic Games appeared set to become
a regular feature of the Games. Then something happened that was to rock
the world of Paralympic and disability sport for many years to come.
The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games eligibility scandal

On 21 October 2000 the Spanish intellectually disabled basketball team won
the gold medal at the Sydney Paralympic Games beating Russia 87–63 in
the final. This victory capped Spain’s best ever performance at a Summer
Paralympic Games winning 107 medals and finishing third in the medal
table. However, triumph was to turn into disaster in late November when
Carlos Ribagorda, a member of the gold medal-winning basketball team
and also a journalist with a Madrid-based business magazine, Capital, wrote
an article chronicling long-term and widespread fraud and cheating within
intellectually disabled sport in Spain. The pinnacle of his revelations was that
ten of the twelve gold medal-winning Spanish basketball players actually had
no intellectual disability at all and had been deliberately recruited to increase
the strength of the team in order to win medals and thus guarantee future
funding. It also turned out that this was not a new occurrence, but had been
going on for a number of years. It later transpired that four members of
the Spanish intellectually disabled basketball team that had won the gold
medal at the World Championships in Brazil also had no disability. The
potential cheating was apparently not restricted to the sport of basketball
either. One member of Spain’s intellectually disabled track and field team,
two swimmers and one table tennis player were suspected of not having a
disability and went on to win medals.
At the centre of the growing storm was Fernando Vicente Martin, a former
Madrid councillor who held numerous prominent positions in the world of
disability sport. The father of a disabled daughter, he was an International
Paralympic Committee Executive Board member, Vice-President of the
Spanish Paralympic Committee, President of INAS-FID and President of the
Spanish Sports Federation for the Intellectually Disabled (FEDDI). He was
also founder and President of the National Association of Special Sports
(ANDE), a charitable body for the intellectually disabled, which received
generous state subsidies and was a major sponsor of the Madrid Paralympic
Games for the Intellectually Disabled in 1992. Initially Vicente Martin
denied any wrongdoing and claimed that all of the Spanish athletes were
intellectually disabled, albeit many of them were very near the upper limits
of the qualification criteria (maximum IQ of 75). The Spanish Paralympic
Committee launched a full investigation in November 2000 and concluded
not only that fraud had been committed in Sydney, but that Fernando Vicente
Martin was the man responsible for the events that had occurred. In January
2001, the Spanish Paralympic Committee expelled him and in February IPC
suspended him and he resigned as President of INAS-FID.
As a result of the Spanish Paralympic Committee’s findings, the IPC set up
a commission of investigation in December 2000 to examine the allegations
consisting of Andre Noel Chaker, a lawyer specialising in sports legislation,
Dr Donald Royer of the IPC Legal Committee, Dr Lutz Worms, a specialist

in sports medicine and Thomas Reinecke, the IPC Chief Operating Officer.
In January the Commission requested specific information for investigative
purposes from INAS-FID including the INAS-FID registration cards for the
244 athletes who had participated in Sydney. In the end, according to issue
1 of The Paralympian (2001) the INAS-FID Secretariat forwarded 230 of
the 244 registration cards. Fourteen cards were, therefore, missing and it
later transpired that eleven cards provided were for athletes not accredited
to compete in Sydney. These were excluded from the investigation. After
careful scrutiny of the remaining 219 cards it was found that 157 (72
per cent) were found to be invalid in that one or more of the primary
requirements was found to be incomplete or missing. The commission
concluded that the eligibility verification of the forms at both national
and international level had been seriously mismanaged and administered.
To make matters worse it was found that 94 of the 132 possible medals
for intellectually disabled events at the Sydney Games were awarded to
athletes amongst the 157 cards deemed to be invalid. However, it should
be pointed out that just because a card had been deemed invalid it did not
automatically bring into question the athlete’s eligibility, just that the card
registration system had been poorly managed.
Based upon these findings, on 29 January, 2001, the IPC Management
Committee suspended INAS-FID, its President Fernando Vicente Martin and
all athletes with an intellectual disability from all IPC activities. This decision
was later upheld and endorsed at the IPC Executive Committee held in Salt
Lake City on 9 March, 2001, where they approved five resolutions relating
to the case:
I The IPC IC findings have proven beyond doubt that the process of
assessment, verification and certification of intellectually disabled
athletes was not properly carried out, supervised or audited. The IPC
determined that the President and Technical Officer of INAS-FID, Mr.
Fernando Martín Vicente and Mr. Felipe Gutiérrez García respectively,
are primarily responsible for this serious violation. Consequently, it was
decided that both be expelled from IPC with immediate effect.
II IPC demanded that the membership of INAS-FID review their
eligibility criteria and process and implement a new mechanism
following the recommendation of the IPC IC, which clearly defines
the eligibility process, qualification and accreditation of assessors and
standard documentation to the full satisfaction of IPC.
III IPC requests the National Paralympic Committees whose athletes
submitted inaccurate or invalid documentation at the XI Paralympic
Summer Games Sydney 2000 to review the status of their athletes by
an independent investigation committee similar to that conducted by
the Spanish Paralympic Committee, and to produce a findings report
for the IPC IC within the next three (3) months, but no later than May
31, 2001.
All medals won by athletes who do not meet the international
eligibility standards should be returned to IPC via the respective National
Paralympic Committee.
IV IPC urges INAS-FID to admit their responsibility and accountability
with regard to the current violations, and to rectify their policy and
leadership at the upcoming General Assembly scheduled for April 2001,
including the expulsion from their executive positions on the INAS-
FID Executive Committee, members who voted in favor of the motion
of confidence for Mr. Fernando Martin Vicente at the last INAS-FID
Executive Committee meeting.
V Until and unless INAS-FID has resolved the above issues to the
satisfaction of the IPC Executive Committee, the membership of INAS-
FID will remain suspended indefinitely. INAS-FID may produce their
new policy, and results of their investigation, to IPC at any time for
consideration.
However, and as proof of respect to athletes with an intellectual
disability, according to the definitions provided by the World Health
Organisation and the American Association of Mental Retardation,
the IPC Executive Committee accepts that competitions and events
sanctioned by the IPC and involving athletes with an intellectual
disability may continue to be planned and organised, including the VIII
Paralympic Winter Games Salt Lake City 2002. Intellectually disabled
athletes may obtain provisional recognition from IPC, if their eligibility
is duly proven and verified by a new eligibility committee appointed by
INAS-FID and IPC.
(The Paralympian, 2001/1, p. 3)
By late 2002 the IPC and INAS-FID were still working together and making
some progress towards the establishment of a new, more robust, eligibility
system that encompassed stringent verification procedures. However, both
sides agreed that the new system still did not meet the necessary criteria.
Unfortunately, by early to mid-2003 it was decided that the new system was still
not reliable enough and events for athletes with an intellectual disability were
removed from the programme for Athens 2004. This situation remained the
same some five years later. Athletes with an intellectual disability did not appear
at the Beijing, 2008 Paralympic Games. However, a joint IPC – INAS project
team set up in 2007 spent nearly three years to develop a robust classification
system that would allow athletes with an intellectual disability to re-enter the
Paralympic Games (IPC Website, 2015h). According to Burns (undated):
The research group worked from a conceptual model of how different

types of intelligence impacted on the different types of cognitive skills
needed to perform different sports. Some are generic skills such as good
reaction time which is needed in most sports and others are more event
based, such as the ability to adjust your pace. From this a methodology
was evolved to measure these abilities through a computerised test,
sports specific technical tests and observation and this has become
the classification procedures for the intellectual impairment group in
athletics, swimming and table tennis.
(Burns, undated)
This test led to thr IPC reinstating athletes with disabilities to the
Paralympic Movement at their General Assembly in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
in November 2009 with events in athletics, swimming and table tennis
added to the programme for the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Below
is a breakdown of the 118 Intellectually Disabled athletes who eventually
participated in London. Perhaps the thing that stands out the most in these
figures is the fact that only 36 NPCs out of the record 164 who were present
in London were able to take athletes with an intellectual disability. This will
partly be due to the 120 athlete cap placed upon the Games by thr IPC,
but may also be a reflection of the damage done to elite sport for athletes
with an intellectual disability caused by the ban, which may take some time
to reverse. The work of the IPC-INAS working group brought to an end
almost a decade of struggle by athletes with intellectual disabilities and the
organisations that represent them to be re-included in the Paralympic Games.
The impact of the ban on athletes with an intellectual disability and the
organisations that represent them following the IPC ban was far reaching.
Funding in the UK ceased to both the representative organisations and the
athletes themselves, meaning that athletes had to fund themselves if they
wished to continue representing Britain in international competition. Many
simply could not afford to do so. At the time the UK Sports Association
for People with Learning Disability (UKSA) who represent British athletes
claimed ‘UK athletes have been ejected, completely excluded or limited from
competing and accessing various sporting competitions and schemes across
the UK including the UK School Games’ (UKSA News Release, 2008).
Finally it should be pointed out that the IPC–INAS project team picked
up several awards for their work to get athletes with an intellectual disability
back into the Paralympic Games. The team won a 2012 Podium Award for
their contribution to scientific research (IPC Website, 2015i) and Professor
Jennifer Mactavish received the International Paralympic Committee’s (IPC)
2015 Paralympic Scientific Award in recognition of the role she played in the
Table 10.2 Overview of intellectually disabled competitors and events at the London
2012 Paralympic Games
Sport Total Men Competitors Women Competitors
competitors
Athletics 59 1500m 11 1500m 6
Long jump 10 Long jump 8
Shot put 13 Shot put 11
Swimming 47 100M back 17 100m Back 18*

100M 16 100m 19*
breast Breast
200M free 19 200m Free 21
Table 12 Singles 6 Singles 6
Tennis
*One athlete did not start, but is included in competitor numbers. In both cases they did start
in other races and are, therefore, included in competitor numbers.
Table 10.3 Breakdown of intellectually disabled competitors by sport and gender at

the London 2012 Paralympic Games
Sport NPCs competing Men Women Total
Athletics 25 34 25 59
Swimming 21 24 23 47
Table tennis 9 6 6 12
Overall 36 64 54 11
re-inclusion of athletes with an intellectual impairment into the Paralympic

programme (IPC Website, 2015j).
Study activity
Do you think banning athletes with an intellectual disability after the Sydney
scandal was the right decision? What would you have done in this situation?
How would you go about overcoming the apparent negative impact on
current athlete numbers moving forward?
Conclusion
Hopefully it is clear from this chapter that the Special Olympics and the
Paralympic Movements are two completely separate, but equally valid,
organisations with very different aims and serving two very different groups
of clientele by similar means, but different methods. It should also be clear
that even amongst the intellectually disabled sporting community there are
those who wish to go down the Special Olympic route to meet their sporting
needs and those who wish to compete in the Paralympic Games. The latter
have their own organisation (INAS), which is again separate from the Special
Olympics and which is part of the Paralympic family.

1 What are the Special Olympics?
2 What are the differences between the Special Olympics and the
Paralympic Games?
3 What are the possible reasons why the Special Olympics were allowed to
continue using Olympic terminology when the Paralympic Movement
was not?
4 What were some of the implications for athletes with an intellectual
disability of being banned from the Paralympic Games?

Bueno, A., 1994, Special Olympics: The First 25 Years, Foghorn Press, San Francisco,
CA.
Harada, C.M, Siperstein, G.N., Parker, R.C. and Lenox, D., 2011, Promoting social
inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities through sport: Special Olympics
International, global sport initiatives and strategies. Sport in Society, Vol. 14(9),
pp. 1131–1148.
Jobling, A., Jobling, I. and Fitzgerald, H., 2008, The Inclusion and Exclusion of
Athletes with an Intellectual Disability in Cashman, R. and Darcy, S. (eds),
Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, Walla Walla Press,
Bibliography
Abberley, P., Disabled people and ‘normality’, in Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French,
S. and Oliver, M. (eds), 1993, Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments, Open
University, Milton Keynes, pp. 107–15.
Abimanyi-Ochom, J and Mannan, H., 2014, Uganda’s disability journey: Progress
and challenges. African Journal of Disability, Vol. 3(1) (http://www.ajod.org/
index.php/ajod/article/view/108/234) accessed 7th March 2016.
Addelson, K.P., 1983, The Man of Professional Wisdom, in Harding, S. and Hintikka,
M.B., 1983, Discovering Reality, Reidel, Boston, pp. 165–186.
American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 2010, Definition
of Intellectual Disability (http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition#.
VZPwGEZLbQ8). Accessed 1 July 2015.
Anderson, J., 2003, Turned in Tax Payers: Paraplegia, Rehabilitation and Sport at Stoke
Mandeville, 1944–56, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 38 (3), pp. 461–75.
Associated Press, 2006. Neroli fairhall, champion archer, dies at 61 The New York
Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/sports/13fairhall.html) Accessed
29th December 2015.
Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., and Huettig, C., 1993, Principles and Methods of Adapted
Physical Education and Recreation, Mosby, London.
Bailey, S., 2008, Athlete First: A History of the Paralympic Movement, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Barnes, C., 1990, ‘Cabbage Syndrome’: The Social Construction of Dependence, The
Falmer Press, London.
Barnes, C., 1991, Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination, Hurst and Co,
London.
Barnes, C., 1994, Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination (2nd edn), Hurst
and Co, London.
Barton, L., 1993, Disability, Empowerment and Physical Education, in Evans, J. (ed.),
1993, Equality, Education and Physical Education, The Falmer Press, London, pp.
43–54.
Barton, L. (ed.), 2006, Overcoming Disabling Barriers: 18 Years of Disability and
Society, Routledge, London, UK.
Bazylewicz, W, 1998, Disability Sport: International Sports Organisation for the
Disabled, on Michigan State University website (http://ed-web3.educ.msu.edu/
KIN866/isod.htm) Accessed 15th February 1999.
BBC Website, 2010, Channel 4 lands 2012 Paralympics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1
/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/8448236.stm) Accessed 15th January 2016.
Bibliography 211
BBC Website, 2015, Papua New Guinea country profile (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
world-asia-pacific-15436981) Accessed 31st December 2015.
Bernstein, H., 1985, For Their Triumphs & For Their Tears: Women in Apartheid
South Africa. International Defence Aid Fun for South Africa, London.
Birkenbach, J., 1990, Physical Disability and Social Policy, University of Toronto
Press, Toronto.
BOCOG, 2008, Guidelines to Classification, BOGOG, Beijing, China, p. 1.
Brandmeyer, G.A. and McBee, G.F., 1986, Social Status and Athletic Competition for
the Disabled Athletes: The Case of Wheelchair Road-Racing, in Sherrill, C. (ed.),
1986, Sport and Disabled Athletes, Champaign, Il., Human Kinetics, pp. 181–7.
Braye, S., Dixon, K. and Gibbons, T., 2013a, ‘’A mockery of equality’: An exploratory
investigation into disabled activists’ views of the Paralympic Games’. Disability &
Society, Vol. 28(7), pp. 984–996.
Braye, S., Gibbons, T. and Dixon, K., 2013b, Disability ‘Rights’ or ‘Wrongs’? The
Claims of the International Paralympic Committee, the London 2012 Paralympics
and Disability Rights in the UK, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 18(3) (http://
www.socresonline.org.uk/18/3/16.html) Accessed 26th December 2015.
Brinn, D., 2004, Israeli athletes strike gold at World Paralympic Games, (http://www.
israel21c.org/culture/israeli-athletes-strike-gold-at-world-paralympic-games).
Accessed 13–04–10.
Brittain, I., 2002, Elite Athletes with Disabilities: Problems and Possibilities,
Unpublished PhD thesis. Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, UK.
Brittain, I., 2004a, Perceptions of Disability and Their Impact Upon Involvement in
Sport for People with Disabilities at All Levels, Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
Vol. 28(4), pp. 429–52.
Brittain, I., 2004b, The Role of Schools in Constructing Self-perceptions Regarding
Sport and Physical Education in Relation to People with Disabilities, Sport,
Education and Society, Vol. 9(1), 75–94.
Brittain, I., 2006, Paralympic success as a measure of national social and economic
development, International Journal of Eastern Sport and Physical Education, Vol.
4(1), pp. 38–47.
Brittain, I., 2008a, The Evolution of the Paralympic Games, in Cashman, R. and
Darcy. S., Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, Walla Walla
Press: Petersham, NSW, pp. 19–34.
Brittain, I., 2008b, Studying (Able-Bodied?) Sports Development: Researching,
Teaching and Writing in the Field, Brunel University, UK, 25–26 April.
Brittain, I., 2009, The Paralympic Games Explained (1st Ed.), Routledge, London.
Brittain, I, 2011, South Africa, Apartheid and the Paralympic Games, in Sport in
Society, Vol. 14(9), pp. 1167–1183
Brittain, I., 2014, From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A history of the summer and
winter Paralympic Games, Common Ground Publishing: Champaign, Il.
Brittain, I. and Wolff, E., 2007, Why Language Matters, Paper presented at the
North American Society for Sociology of Sport Conference, Pittsburgh, IL, 31
October–3 November.
Brittain, I. and Hutzler, Y., 2009, A social-historical perspective on the development
of sports for persons with a physical disability in Israel in Sport in Society, Special
Issue: Sport, Culture and Ideology in the State of Israel, Vol. 12(8), 1075–1088.
Brittain, I. and Green, S.E., 2012, Disability sport is going back to its roots:
Rehabilitation of military personnel suffering sudden traumatic disablement in
212 Bibliography
the twenty-first century, Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, Vol. 4(2), pp.
244–264.
Brittain, I., Ramshaw, G. and Gammon, S.J., 2013, The Marginalisation of Paralympic
Heritage, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 19(2), pp. 171–185.
Broadcasting Standards Commission, 1999, Monitoring Report 7, BSC, London.
Browning, J.H., 2012, Uganda Disability Sport Summit leads to national action
plan. (http://www.sportanddev.org/en/connect/userprofile.cfm?4471/Uganda-
Disability-Sport-Summit-leads-to-national-action-plan) Accessed 31st December
2015.
Bueno, A., 1994, Special Olympics: The First 25 Years, Foghorn Press, San Francisco,
CA.
Burkett, B., McNamee, M. and Potthast, W., 2011, Shifting boundaries in sports
technology and disability: equal rights or unfair advantage in the case of Oscar
Pistorius? Disability & Society, Vol. 26(5): pp. 643–654
Burns, J, undated, People with learning disabilities and the Paralympics (Briefing
Sheet) (http://www.inas.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Briefing-sheet-People-
with-learning-disabilities-and-the-Paralympics-final.pdf) Accessed 28th December
2015.
Burr, V., 1995, An Introduction to Social Construction, Routledge, London.
Bush, A., Silk, M., Porter, J. and Howe, P.D., 2013, Disability [sport] and discourse:
stories within the Paralympic legacy. Reflective Practice, Vol. 14(5): pp. 632–647.
Canadian Sport for Life Website, 2016, LTAD Stages (http://canadiansportforlife.ca/
athletes-disabilities/ltad-stages) Accessed 3rd January 2016.
Cashman, R. and Thomson, A., 2008, The Community, in Cashman, R. and Darcy, S.
(eds), Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, Walla Walla Press,
Sydney, pp. 123–140.
Cashman, R. and Tremblay, D., 2008, Media, in Cashman, R. and Darcy, S. (eds),
Sydney, pp. 99–122.
Cavet, J., Leisure and Friendship, in Robinson, C. and Stalker, K. (eds), 1998,
Growing Up with Disability, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, pp. 97–110.
CBC Sports, 2008, Pistorius Falls Short in Last-chance Run, (http://www.cbc.ca/
news/story/2008/07/16/pistorius-lucerne.html) Accessed 27th December 20015.
Chambers Encyclopedic English Dictionary, 1994, Larousse PLC, Edinburgh,
Scotland.
Chang, I.Y. and Crossman, J., 2009, ‘When there is a will, there is a way’: A
Quantitative Comparison of the Newspaper Coverage of the 2004 Summer
Paralympic and Olympic Games. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences,
Vol. 21(2): pp. 16–34.
Charlton, J.I., 2000, Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and
Empowerment, University of California Press, London, UK.
Cherney, J.L., Lindemann, K. and Hardin, M., 2015, Research in Communication,
Disability, and Sport, Communication & Sport, Vol. 3(1): pp. 8–26.
Chivers, S., 2009. Disabled veterans in the Americas: Canadians ‘Soldier On’ after
Afghanistan – operation enduring freedom and the Canadian mission. Canadian
review of American studies, Vol. 39(3): pp. 321–342.
Chockalingam, N., Thomas, N.B. and Smith, A., 2011, By designing ‘blades’ for
Oscar Pistorius are prosthetists creating an unfair advantage for Pistorius and
Bibliography 213
an uneven playing field? Prosthetics and Orthotics International, vol. 35(4): pp.
482–483.
CNN, 2013, Disability in India: The struggles of infrastructure, prejudice and karma
(http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/27/world/asia/india-disability-challenges/)
Accessed 1st January 2016.
The Cord, 1960, The 1960 International Stoke Mandeville Games for the Paralysed
in Rome, 18–25 September, Special Edition, p. 14.
The Cord, 1949, Stoke Mandeville Calling, 2(4), pp. 34–5.
Corso, P., Finkelstein, E., Miller, T., Fiebelkorn, I. and Zaloshnja, E., 2015, Incidence
and lifetime costs of injuries in the United States. Injury Prevention, Vol. 21(6):
pp. 434–440.
Craven, Sir P., 2006, Paralympic Athletes Inspiring and Exciting the World,
presentation at the XIXth British National Olympic Academy, Greenwich, UK on
29 April, 2006.
Crawford, C., 1989, A view from the sidelines: disability, poverty and recreation in
Canada, Journal of Leisurability, Vol. 16 (2), pp. 3–9.
Crawford, J., 2004, Constraints of Elite Athletes with Disabilities in Kenya,
Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Cumberbatch, G. and Negrine, R., 1992, Images of Disability on Television,
Routledge, London.
Daily Mirror, 2015, Wife divorces husband because he wouldn’t give up on their
Down’s syndrome baby (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/wife-
divorces-husband-because-wouldnt-5114737?ICID=FB_mirror_main) Accessed
29th December 2015.
Darke, P. 1998, Understanding cinematic representation of disability, in Shakespeare,
T. (ed.), The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives, Continuum, London
pp. 181–197.
Davis, L.J., 1997, Constructing Normalcy: The Bell Curve, the Novel, and the
Invention of the Disabled Body in the Nineteenth Century, in Davis, L.J. (ed.),
1997, The Disabilities Studies Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 9–28.
Deal, M., 2003, Disabled People’s Attitudes toward Other Impairment Groups: a
hierarchy of impairments, in Disability & Society, Vol. 18(7): pp. 897–910.
Deaner, R.O., Geary, D.C., Puts, D.A., Ham, S.A., Kruger, J., Fles, E., Winegard, B. and
Grandis, T., 2012, A Sex Difference in the Predisposition for Physical Competition:
Males Play Sports Much More than Females Even in the Contemporary
U.S, PLOSone (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.
pone.0049168) Accessed 29th December 2015.
DePauw, K.P., 1997, The (In)Visibility of DisAbility: Cultural Contexts and “Sporting
Bodies” Quest, Vol. 49 (4), pp. 416–30.
DePauw, K.P., 2000, Social-Cultural Context of Disability: Implications for Scientific
Inquiry and Professional Preparation, Quest, Vol. 52, pp. 358–68.
DePauw, K.P. and Gavron, S.J., 2005, Disability and Sport (2nd Ed.), Human
Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
Devine, M.A., Inclusive Leisure Services and Research: A Consideration of the Use
of Social Construction Theory, Journal of Leisurability, Spring 1997, Vol. 24(2),
pp. 3–11.
Disability Daily, Exploding the Myths, 1998, in Donnellan, C. (ed.), Issues:
Disabilities, Vol. 17, Independence, Cambridge, UK.
214 Bibliography
Donnellan, C. (ed.), 1998, Issues: Disabilities, Vol. 17, Independence, Cambridge,
UK.
Drake, R.F., 1999, Understanding Disability Politics, Macmillan, London.
Dunn, J.M. and Sherrill, C., 1996, Movement and Its Implication for Individuals
with Disabilities, Quest, Vol. 48, 3, pp. 378–91.
EFDS, 2013, Disabled People’s Lifestyle Survey (http://www.efds.co.uk/
assets/0000/7297/Disabled_People_s_Lifestyle_Survey_Report_Sept_2013.pdf)
Accessed 26th December 2015.
EFDS Website, 2016, Facts and statistics. (http://www.efds.co.uk/resources/facts_
and_statistics) Accessed 3rd January 2016.

Felske, A.W., 1994, Knowing about Knowing: Margin Notes on Disability Research,
in Rioux, M.H. and Bach, M. (eds), Disability is Not Measles: New Research
Paradigms in Disability, Roeher Institute, Ontario, Canada, pp. 181–199.
Figueroa, P., 1993, Equality, Multiculturalism, Antiracism and Physical Education
in the National Curriculum, in Evans, J. (ed.), Equality, Education and Physical
Education, The Falmer Press, London, pp. 90–104.
Finkelstein, V., 1980, Attitudes and Disabled People: Issues for Discussion, monograph
5, World Rehabilitation Fund, New York.
Firstpost.com website, 2015, Sports Ministry also Suspends Paralympic Committee of
India. (http://www.firstpost.com/sports/sports-ministry-also-suspends-paralympic-
committee-of-india-2207822.html) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Foucault, M., 1976, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Penguin,
Harmondsworth, UK.
Frederick, A., 2014, Mothering While Disabled, Contexts, Vol. 13(4): pp. 30–35.
French, R., 1997, Cerebral Palsy Definition, on Texas Women’s University website
(http://venus.teu.edu/~f_huettig/cerebral.htm) Accessed 16th March 1999.
French, S., 1993, Disability, Impairment, or Somewhere in Between, in Swain, J.,
Finkelstein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M. (eds), 1993, Disabling Barriers – Enabling
Environments, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 17–25.
French, S. (ed.), 1994, On Equal Terms: Working with Disabled People, Butterworth-
Heinemann Ltd, Oxford.
French, J. and Hainsworth, P., 2001, ‘There Aren’t any Buses and the Swimming
Pool’s always Cold!’: Obstacles and Opportunities in the Provision of Sport for
Disabled People, Managing Leisure, Vol. 6(1), pp. 35–49.
Gal, J. and Bar, M., 2000, The Needed and the Needy: The Policy Legacies of
Benefits for Disabled War Veterans in Israel, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 29(4),
pp. 577–598.
Galtung, J., 1990, Cultural Violence in Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27(3), pp.
291–302.
Gao, C.T. and Liang, S.Y., 2004, Low acceptance of enterprises in employing people
with disabilities, cited in Huang, C.J., 2005, Discourses of Disability Sport:
Experiences of Elite Male and Female Athletes in Britain and Taiwan, Unpublished
PhD Thesis, Brunel University, UK.
Garland-Thomson, R., 2014, Feminist Disability Studies, Signs, Vol. 30(2): pp.
1557–1587.
Girginov, V. and Parry, J., 2005, The Olympic Games Explained, Routledge, Abingdon.
GLAD, 1988, The Impact of Transport on the Quality of Life and Lifestyles of
Young People with Physical Disabilities, Transport Paper No. 2, Greater London
Association for Disabled People, London.
Bibliography 215
Global Accessibility News, 2015, Brazil Passes Inclusion of People with Disabilities
Act. (http://globalaccessibilitynews.com/2015/06/12/brazil-passes-inclusion-of-
people-with-disabilities-act/) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Goodman, S.,1986, Spirit of Stoke Mandeville: The Story of Sir Ludwig Guttmann,
Collins, London.
Govern d’Andorra, 2015, Andorra in Figures 2015. (http://www.estadistica.ad/
serveiestudis/publicacions/Publicacions/Andorra%20en%20Xifres_ang.pdf)
Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Gov.UK, 2015, Disability prevalence estimates 2011/12. (https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321594/disability-
prevalence.pdf) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Gramsci, A., 1971, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Edited by Greengross, Q.
and Nowell Smith, G., Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Grant, B.C., 1992, Integrating Sport Into the Physical Education Curriculum in New
Zealand Secondary Schools. Quest, Vol. 44(3): pp. 304–316.
Green, M. and Houlihan, B., 2005, Elite Sport Development: Policy Learning and
Political Prioties, Routledge, Abingdon.
Grey-Thompson, Dame T., 2008, Cheating does Happen in the Paralympics, (http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/paralympicsport/2798515/Cheating-does-
happens-in-the-Paralympics-Paralympics.html) Accessed 27th December 2015.
Grimes, P.S. and French, L., 1987, Barriers to Disabled Women’s Participation in
Sports, JOPERD, March 1987, Vol. 58(3), pp. 24–7.
Groff, G.D., Lundberg, N.R., and Zabriskie, R.B., 2009. Influence of adapted sport
on quality of life: perceptions of athletes with cerebral palsy. Journal of Disability
and Rehabilitation, Vol. 31 (4), pp. 318–326.
Guardian Website, 2010, Paralympics deal fires starting gun for Channel 4’s post-
Big Brother era (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/jan/08/
paralympics-deal-channel-4) Accessed 19th February 2010.
Guthrie, S.R., 1999, Managing Imperfection in a Perfectionist Culture: Physical
Activity and Disability Management Among Women with Disabilities, Quest, Vol.
51, pp. 369–81.
Guttmann. L., 1952, On the Way to an International Sports Movement for the
Paralysed, The Cord, Vol. 5 (3) (October), pp. 7–23.
Guttmann, L., 1954, Looking Back on a Decade, The Cord, Vol. 6(4), pp. 9–23.
Guttmann, L., 1976, Textbook of Sport for the Disabled, HM and M Publishers,
Aylesbury.
Halberg Disability Sport Foundation Website, 2016, Halberg Disability Sport
Foundation (http://www.halberg.co.nz/our-story/halberg-disability-sport-
foundation) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Harada, C.M, Siperstein, G.N., Parker, R.C. and Lenox, D., 2011, Promoting social
inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities through sport: Special Olympics
International, global sport initiatives and strategies. Sport in Society, Vol. 14(9):
pp. 1131–1148.
Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M., 2000, Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (5th
edn), Collins, London.
Hardin, B. and Hardin, M., 2003, Conformity and Conflict: Wheelchair Athletes
Discuss Sport Media, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 246–59.
Hardin, B. and Hardin, M., 2004, Distorted Pictures: Images of Disability in Physical
Education Textbooks, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 399–413.
216 Bibliography
Hardin, B., Hardin, M., Lynn, S. and Walsdorf, K., 2001, Missing in Action? Images
of Disability in Sports Illustrated for Kids, Disability Studies Quarterly, Vol. 21(2).
(http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/277/303) Accessed 7th March 2016.
Hardin, M., Lynn, S. and Walsdorf, K., 2006, Depicting the Sporting Body: The
Intersection of Gender, Race and Disability in Women’s Sport/Fitness Magazines,
Journal of Magazine and New Media Research, Vol. 8(1), pp. 1–16.
Hargreaves, J., 2000, Heroines of Sport: The Politics of Difference and Identity,
Routledge, London.
Hehir, T., 2002, Eliminating Ableism in Education, The Harvard Educational Review,
Spring 2002, Vol. 72(1), pp. 1–32.

Hinds, D., 1951, Alice at the Paralympiad, The Cord, Vol. 4(1), pp. 27–32.
Hodges, C.E.M., Jackson, D., Scullion, R., Thompson, S. and Molesworth, M., 2014,
Tracking changes in everyday experiences of disability and disability sport within
the context of the 2012 London Paralympics, CMC Publishing, Bournemouth
University, UK.
Hogan, A., 1999, Carving out a space to act: acquired impairment and contested
identity, in Corker, M, and French, S. (eds), 1999, Disability Discourse, Open
University Press, Buckingham, UK, pp. 79–91.
Howe, P.D., 2008a, The Cultural Politics of the Paralympic Movement: Through an
Anthropological Lens, Routledge, London.
Howe, P.D., 2008b, The tail is wagging the dog: Body culture, classification and the
Paralympic movement. Ethnography, Vol. 9(4), pp. 499–517.
Howe, P.D. and Jones, C., 2006, Classification of Disabled Athletes: (Dis)Empowering
the Paralympic Practice Community, Sociology of Sport Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 29– 46.
Huang, C.J., 2005, Discourses of Disability Sport: Experiences of Elite Male and
Female Athletes in Britain and Taiwan, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Brunel University,
UK.
Huffington Post, 2015, Dirty Toilets, No Fans, No Water: Para Athletes Describe
Horrible Living Quarters At National Meet. (http://www.huffingtonpost.
in/2015/03/23/para-athletes-india_n_6920766.html) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Human Rights Watch, 2014, India: Women With Disabilities Locked Away and
Abused (https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/12/03/india-women-disabilities-locked-
away-and-abused) Accessed 1st January 2016.
Hunt, P. (ed.), 1966, Stigma: The Experience of Disability, Chapman, London.
Hylton, K. and Bramham, P. (eds), 2008, Sports Development: Policy Process and
Practice, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
Imrie, R., Rethinking the Relationships between Disability, Rehabilitation, and
Society, Disability and Rehabilitation, 1997, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 263–71.
Independent Living Institute Website, 2016, Integrated National Disability Strategy
(http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/SANatlDisStrat1.html) Accessed 3rd
January 2016.
Independent Newspaper, 2015, Hate Crime against Disabled People Rises 41 Per Cent
in One Year (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hate-crime-against-disabled-
people-rises-41-per-cent-in-one-year-a6713546.html) Accessed 29th December
2015.
Insidethegames, 2014a, Exclusive: Paralympic Movement will benefit from
Agenda 2020 reforms, claims IPC President, (http://www.insidethegames.biz/
paralympics/1024267-exclusive-paralympic-movement-will-benefit-from-
agenda-2020-reforms-claims-ipc-president) Accessed 29th December 2015.
Bibliography 217
Insidethegames, 2014b, Agitos Foundation to dole out €650,000 to 28 projects
through Grant Support Programme, (http://www.insidethegames.biz/
paralympics/1021464-agitos-foundation-to-dole-out-650-000-to-28-projects-
through-grant-support-programme) Accessed 27th December 2015.
Insidethegames, 2015, Motion for 23rd sport to be added to Tokyo 2020 defeated at
IPC General Assembly, (http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1031722/motion-
for-23rd-sport-to-be-added-to-tokyo-2020-defeated-at-ipc-general-assembly)
Insideworldparasport Website, 2010a, ParalympicsGB fear for coverage post-
London 2012 after Channel 4 deal, (http://www.insideworldparasport.biz/index.

php?Option=com_content&view=article&id=8371:paralympicsgb-fear-for-
coverage-post-london-2012-after-channel-4-deal&catid=145:news&Itemid=303)
Accessed 19th February 2010.
Insideworldparasport Website, 2010b, Exclusive: Channel 4 target BT Paralympic
World Cup (http://www.insideworldparasport.biz/index.php?option=com_conte
nt&view=article&id=8445:exclusive-channel-4-target-bt-paralympic-world-cup
&catid=145:news&Itemid=303) Accessed 19th February 2010.
International Labour Organization, 2015, Inclusion of People with Disabilities
in Uganda (http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/@ifp_skills/
documents/publication/wcms_115099.pdf) Accessed 31st December 2015.
International Olympic Committee website, 2015, Olympic Agenda 2020 20+20
Recommendations (http://www.olympic.org/olympic-agenda-2020) accessed 1
July 2015.
International Paralympic Committee, 2006a, Paralympic Winter Games 1976–2006:
Örnsköldsvik–Turin, RLC, Paris, France.
International Paralympic Committee website, 2013, NBC and USOC buy media
rights to Sochi 2014 and Rio 2016 (http://www.paralympic.org/news/nbc-and-
usoc-buy-media-rights-sochi-2014-and-rio-2016) Accessed 26th December 2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015a, IPC operational structure (http://
www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/operational-structure) Accessed 29th December
2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015b, Regions Council (http://www.
paralympic.org/the-ipc/councils/regions) Accessed 25th December 2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015c, Annual Reports (http://www.
paralympic.org/the-ipc/publications) Accessed 30th December 2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015d, IPC Honorary Board (http://
www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/honorary-board) Accessed 26th December 2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015e, New Russian law upholds
Paralympic standards, (http://www.paralympic.org/news/new-russian-law-
upholds-paralympic-standards) Accessed 27th December 2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015f, New law hailed as a landmark
in Brazil (http://www.paralympic.org/news/new-law-hailed-landmark-brazil)
International Paralympic Committee website, 2015g, ‘Agitos Foundation Brochure’,
(http://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/120817161051631_
Brochure%2B-%2Bfinal_1.pdf) Accessed 27th December 2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015h, Joint Statement on the Re-
inclusion of Athletes With Intellectual Disability (http://www.paralympic.org/
news/joint-statement-re-inclusion-athletes-intellectual-disability) Accessed 28th
December 2015.
218 Bibliography
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015i, Athletes With Intellectual
Impairment Return to Paralympics (http://www.paralympic.org/news/athletes-
intellectual-impairment-return-paralympics) Accessed 28th December 2015.
International Paralympic Committee Website, 2015j, IPC announce 2015 Paralympic
Scientific Award winner (http://www.paralympic.org/news/ipc-announce-2015-
paralympic-scientific-award-winner) Accessed 28th December 2015.
IOC Website, 2015b, What is Olympism? (http://www.olympic.org/olympism-in-
action) Accessed 26th December 2015.
IPC, 2008, Personal Communication. Excerpt from AHSN handbook emailed 2
December 2008 (unpaginated).

IPC Newsletter, 2001a, The New IPC Symbol, Vol 2(1), p. 1.
IPC Newsletter, 2001b, What is the status of the IPC Symbol?, Vol. 2(2), p. 1.
IPC Strategic Plan 2006–2009, 2006, IPC Strategic Plan 2006–2009, IPC, Bonn,
Germany.
IPC Strategic Plan 2015–2018, 2015, Strategic Plan 2015–2018 (http://www.
paralympic.org/the-ipc/publications) Accessed 1st July 2015
Invacare Website, 2015, The Invacare Top End Eliminator OSR Racing Wheelchair
price list (http://www.invacare.co.uk/sites/uk/files/product_documents/50f720a
91bbe70a52f1cd13d7c1c99b3-85_eli-prescription_form-en_GB--1442401823-
Eliminator%20OSR%20Price%20List.pdf) Accessed 26th December 2015.
Invictus Games Foundation, 2016, Invictus Games (https://invictusgamesfoundation.
org/games) Accessed 3rd January 2016.
Jackson, D., Hodges, C.E.M., Molesworth, M. and Scullion, R., 2015, Reframing
Disability?: Media, (Dis)Empowerment and Voice in the 2012 Paralympics,
Jarvie, G., 2006, Sport, Culture and Society: An Introduction, Routledge, Abingdon.
Jobling, A., Jobling, I., and Fitzgerald, H., 2008, The Inclusion and Exclusion
of Athletes with an Intellectual Disability in Cashman, R. and Darcy, S. (eds),
Kerr, S., 2015, A Sociological Critique of the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic
Games, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Loughborough University, UK.
Kew, F., 1997, Sport: Social Problems and Issues, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Kirakosyan, L., 2013, Linkinking Disability Rights and Democracy: Insights From
Brazil. Societies Without Borders, Vol. 8(1), pp. 29–52.
Kirakosyan, L., 2014, An Examination of Violence Practiced against Disabled Brazilians
in Relation to Sustainable Development. Disability Studies Quarterly Online, Vol.
34(4) (http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3989/3805) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Kolkka, T. and Williams, T., 1997, Gender and Disability Sport Participation: Setting a
Sociological Research Agenda, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 8–23.
Korhonen, A., 2014, Disability Humour in English Jestbooks of the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries, Cultural History, Vol. 3(1), pp. 27–53.
Kuao, L.H., 2001, Taiwanese Women’s Right White Paper. Taiwanese Women
Employment Facilitating Association cited in Huang, C.J., 2005, Discourses of
Disability Sport: [BL], Unpublished PhD Thesis, Brunel University, UK.
Labanowich, S., 1989, The Paralympic Games: A Retrospective View, Palaestra,
Summer 1989.
Layder, D., 1994, Understanding Social Theory, Sage, London.
Bibliography 219
Legg, D., Emes, C., Stewart, D. and Steadward, R, 2002, Historical Overview of the
Paralympics, Special Olympics and Deaflympics, Palaestra, 20.1 (Winter 2002),
pp. 30–35, 56.
Legg, D. and Gilbert, K., 2011, Paralympic Legacies, Common Ground Publishing,
Champaign, IL.
Legg, D., Fay, T., Wolff, E. and Hums, M., 2015, The International Olympic
Committee – International Paralympic Committee Relationship: Past, Present and
Future, in Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 39(5), pp. 371–395.
Lepore, M., Gayle, G.W. and Stevens, S., 2007, Adapted Aquatics Programming: A
Professional Guide, Human Kinetics, London.

Lockwood, R. and Lockwood, A., 2007, Rolling Back The Years: A History of Wheelchair
Sports in Western Australia, Wheelchair Sports, WA Inc, Perth, Australia.
Lomi, C., Geroulanos, E. and Kekatos, E., 2004, Sir Ludwig Guttmann – ‘The
de Coubertin of the Paralysed’, 2004, Journal of the Hellenic Association of
Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Vol, 55 (1). (http://www.acta-ortho.gr/v55t1_6.
html) accessed 7 November 2008.
Lonsdale, S., 1990, Women with Disabilities: The Experience of Physical Disability
among Women, Macmillan Education, London.
Lukes, S., 1974, Power: A Radical View, Macmillan, London.
McCann, C., 1996, Sports for the Disabled: the evolution from rehabilitation to
competitive sport, British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 30(4), pp. 279–80.
Marcellini, A., Ferez, S., Issanchou, D., De Léséleuc, E. and MacNamee, M., 2012,
Challenging human and sporting boundaries: The case of Oscar Pistorius.
Performance Enhancement & Health, Vol. 1(1), pp. 3–9.
Mastro, J.V., Hall, M.M., and Canabal, M.Y., 1988, Cultural and Attitudinal
Similarities – Females and Disabled Individuals in Sports and Athletics, JOPERD,
Nov/Dec 1988, Vol. 59(9), pp. 80–3.
Mastro, J.V., 1996, Attitudes of Elite Athletes With Impairments Toward One
Another: A Hierarchy of Preference, in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol.
13(2), pp. 197–210.
Mazzeo, F., Santamaria, S. and Iavarone, A., 2015, “Boosting” in Paralympic athletes
with spinal cord injury: doping without drugs. Functional Neurology, Vol. 30(2),
pp. 91–98.
Middleton, L., 1999, Disabled Children: Challenging Social Exclusion, Blackwell
Science, Oxford.
Misener, L., Darcy, S., Legg, D. and Gilbert, K., 2013, Beyond Olympic Legacy:
Understanding Paralympic Legacy Through a Thematic Analysis. Journal of Sport
Management, 27(4), pp. 329–341.
Misener, L. and Darcy, S., 2014, Editorial: Managing disability sport: From athletes
with disabilities to inclusive organisational perspectives, in Sport Management
Review, Vol. 17(1), p. 7.
Morris, J., 1991, Pride Against Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to Disability, The
Women’s Press Ltd, London.
Morris, J., 1993, Prejudice, in Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M.
(eds), 1993, Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments, Open University, Milton
Keynes.
Morris, J., 1996, Introduction, in Morris, J. (ed.), Encounters with Strangers:
Feminism and Disability, The Women’s Free Press, London, UK, pp. 1–12.
220 Bibliography
Naar, T., 2014, Personal communication with author, E-mail dated 21st February
2014.
Nakayama, K., 2004, Japanese Laws and Policies Concerning Persons with
Disabilities: To Develop a Normalized Society through Recreation. Educational
Research for Policy and Practice, Vol. 3(1), pp. 3–16.
National Disability Resource and Advocacy Centre, 2015, Disability in Papua New
Guinea (http://ndrac.weebly.com/disability-in-png.html) Accessed 31st December
2015.
Nauright, J., 1997, Sport, Cultures and Identities in South Africa, Leicester University
Press, London.
NDTV.com website, 2015, International Paralympic Committee Suspends ‘Chaotic’
Indian Federation for Infighting. (http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/news/240778-
paralympic-committee-of-india-suspended-by-world-body) Accessed 2nd January
2016.
Norris, R., 2015, Transport needs to be more inclusive for wheelchair users (http://
www.disabledgo.com/blog/2015/11/transport-needs-to-be-more-inclusive-for-
wheelchair-users/) Accessed 26th December 2015.
Northern Officer Group, 1996, The Disability Discrimination Act: a policy and
practice guide for local government, Northern Officer Group, Wakefield.
O’Donnell, M., 1997, Introduction to Sociology (4th edn), Thomas Nelson and Sons
Ltd, Walton on Thames.
Ogura, K., 2015, Personal Communication – face to face conversations in Tokyo
Japan in October 2014 and December 2015.
Olenik, L.M., 1998, Women in Elite Disability Sport: Multidimensional Perspectives,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Oliver, M., 1993a, Re-defining Disability: A Challenge to Research in Swain, J.,
Finkelstein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M. (eds), 1993, Disabling Barriers – Enabling
Environments, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 61–8.
Oliver, M., 1993b, Disability and Dependency: A Creation of Industrial Societies? in
Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M. (eds), 1993, Disabling Barriers
– Enabling Environments, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 49–60.
Oliver, M., 1996, Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice, Macmillan
Press Ltd, London.
Osamu, N., 2013, Act on the Elimination of Disability Discrimination in Japan (http://
inclusion-international.org/act-on-the-elimination-of-disability-discrimination-in-
japan/) accessed 7 March 2016.
Otake, T., 2006, Is ‘disability’ still a dirty word in Japan? http://www.japantimes.
co.jp/life/2006/08/27/to-be-sorted/is-disability-still-a-dirty-word-in-japan/#.
VoflwfmLSUl) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Otake, T., 2012, Disabled women speak out on discrimination. (http://www.
japantimes.co.jp/life/2012/07/01/general/disabled-women-speak-out-on-
discrimination/#.VofgY_mLSUk) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, 1998, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pappous, A., 2008, The Photographic Coverage of the Paralympic Games, Paper
presented at the Third Annual International Forum on Children with Special
Needs “Sport and Ability”, Shafallah Centre, Doha, Qatar, 20–22 April, 2008.
The Paralympian, 2001, IPC Investigation Commission Finds Two-Thirds of INASFID
Forms to be Invalid, No. 1, p. 2.
The Paralympian, 2000, ‘Disability Sport Gains Ground in African Region’, No. 4, p. 8.
Bibliography 221
The Paralympian, 2002, Paralympic Games/Salt Lake City, No. 2, p. 2.
The Paralympian, 2003, ‘Africa Pleads More Participation of Women in Sport and
Recreation’, No. 3, p. 10.
Peers, Danielle, 2009, (Dis)empowering Paralympic histories: Absent athletes and
disabling discourses. (http://www.daniellepeers.com/academics.html) Accessed
26th December 2015.
Peers, Danielle, 2012, Patients, Athletes, Freaks: Paralympism and the Reproduction
of Disability. Journal of Sport and Social Issues Vol. 36(3), pp. 295– 316.
Peers, D., 2015, From Eugenics to Paralympics: Inspirational Disability, Physical
Fitness, and the White Canadian Nation, PhD Thesis (https://www.researchgate.

net/profile/Danielle_Peers/publication/278410035_From_eugenics_to_
Paralympics_Inspirational_disability_physical_fitness_and_the_white_Canadian_
nation/links/55806e3508aed40dd8cd26cc.pdf) Accessed 25 December 2015.
Penketh, C., 2014, Invention and repair: disability and education after the UK
Coalition Government, Disability & Society, Vol. 29(9), pp. 1486–1490.
Pestana, A., 2015, Rio 2016 Paralympic Games and Brazilian Policies for Social
Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. Paper presented at International Symposium
on the Paralympic Movement: Prospect and Legacy of the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic
Games, Tsukuba University, Tokyo, 12 December, 2015.
Pickering Francis, L., 2005, Competitive Sports, Disability, and Problems of Justice in
Sports, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, Vol. 32, pp. 127–32.
Priestley, M., 1998, Constructions and Creations: Idealism, Materialism and
Disability Theory, Disability and Society, Vol. 13(1), pp. 75–94.
Purdue, D.E.J., and Howe, P.D., 2012, See the sport, not the disability: exploring
the Paralympic paradox, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, Vol.
4(2), pp. 189–205.
Quinn, N., 2007, The Representation of Disability by the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC) during the 2004 Summer Paralympic Games, Unpublished
Masters Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.
Reiser, R. and Mason, M., 1990, Disability Equality in the Classroom: A Human
Rights Issue, Inner London Education Authority, London.
Romeo, R., 2013, Changing Attitudes Towards Disability (http://blog.workhealthlife.
com/2013/12/changing-attitudes-towards-disability/) accessed 7 March 2016
Runners World, 2015, 4-Year-Old Girl Learns to Run on Prosthetics (http://www.
runnersworld.com/newswire/4-year-old-girl-learns-to-run-on-prosthetics)
Sainsbury, T., 1998, The Paralympic Movement, Paper presented at the British
Olympic Academy, Wembley Hilton Hotel, London.
Schäfer, A. 2008, Personal Communication. Email from Alexis Schäfer, 27 September
2008.
Schantz, O.J. and Gilbert, K., 2001, An Ideal Misconstrued: Newspaper Coverage of
the Atlanta Paralympic Games in France and Germany, Sociology of Sport Journal,
Vol. 18, pp. 69–94.
Schantz, O.J. and Gilbert, K., 2012, Heroes or Zeroes?: The Media’s Perceptions of
Paralympic Sport, Common Ground Publishing, Champaign, IL.
Schell, L.A.B. and Duncan, M.C., 1999, A Content Analysis of CBS’s Coverage of the
1996 Paralympic Games, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 27–47.
Schmeckl, 2008, Personal Communication. Email from Jörg Schmeckl, 21 September
2008.
222 Bibliography
Schreiner, P. and Strohkendl, H., 2006, The Disappearance of Athletes with Severe
Disabilities in Wheelchair Rugby, Paper presented at the Vista 2006 Conference
entitled ‘Classification: Solutions for the Future’ held in Bonn, Germany, 6–7
May, 2006.
Scope Website, 2013, Paralympics legacy in balance as attitudes fail to improve,
(https://www.scope.org.uk/About-Us/Media/Press-releases/August-2013/
Paralympics-legacy-in-balance-as-attitudes-fail-to) Accessed 26th December 2013.
Scope Website, 2015, 20 years since the Disability Discrimination Act –
#DDA20. (http://blog.scope.org.uk/2015/11/02/20-years-since-the-disability-
discrimination-act-dda20/) Accessed 2nd January 2016.

Scruton, J., 1956, International Stoke Mandeville Games, The Cord, Vol. 8(4), pp. 7–21.
Scruton, J., 1957, The 1957 International Stoke Mandeville Games, The Cord, Vol.
9(4), pp. 7–28.
Scruton, J., 1964, History of Sport for the Paralysed, The Cord, Vol. 17 (1).
Scruton, J., 1998, Stoke Mandeville: Road to the Paralympics, The Peterhouse Press,
Aylesbury.
Seedat, A., 1984, Crippling a Nation: Health in Apartheid South Africa. International
Defence and Aid Fund for South Africa, London.
Seymour, W., 1989, Body Alterations, Unwin Hyman, London.
Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N.,1997, Defending the Social Model, Disability and
Society, Vol.12, No. 2, pp. 293–300.
Shearer, A., 1981, Disability: Whose Handicap? Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Sherrill, C. (ed.), 1986, Sport and Disabled Athletes, Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics,
London.
Sherrill, C., 1993, Women with Disability, Paralympics and Reasoned Action Contact
Theory, Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, Vol. 2(2), pp. 51–60.
Sherrill, C., 1997, Paralympic Games 1996: Feminist and Other Concerns: What’s
Your Excuse? Palaestra, Winter, pp. 32–8.
Smith, A. and Twomey, B., 2002, Labour Market Experiences of People with
Disabilities. Labour Market Trends, August, 110(8), pp. 41–427 (http://www.
statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/People_with_disabilities_aug2002.
pdf) Accessed 7th November 2008.
Smith, L.R., 2015, The Blade Runner: The Discourses Surrounding Oscar Pistorius
in the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. Communication and Sport, vol. 3(4), pp.
390–410.
Southam, M., 1994, Sport, Leisure, Disability, The Leisure Manager, Oct/Nov 1994,
pp. 12–14.
southafrica.info Website, 2016, Poverty levels in South Africa dropping: report. (http://
www.southafrica.info/about/social/poverty-040414.htm#.Vok5VPmLSUk)
Accessed 3rd January 2016.
Special Olympics International Website, 2015, What we do (http://www.
specialolympics.org) accessed 28th December 2015.
Sport England, 2001, Disability Survey 2000: Young People with a Disability and
Sport – Headline Findings, Sport England, London.
Sport England Website, 2016, Active People Survey 9 (Oct 2014 – Sep 2015), (http://
www.sportengland.org/media/1136427/1x30_overall_factsheet_aps9v2.pdf)
Accessed 3rd January 2016.
Bibliography 223
Statistics Canada, 2012, Disability in Canada: Initial findings from the Canadian
Survey on Disability. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2013002-
eng.htm) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Statistics Canada, 2015, Canada’s population estimates, first quarter 2015. (http://
www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/150617/dq150617c-eng.htm) Accessed 2nd
January 2016.
Statistics New Zealand, 2014, New Zealand Disability Survey 2013 (http://www.stats.
govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/DisabilitySurvey/HOTP2013/
DisabilitySurvey2013HOTP.pdf) accessed 7th March 2016.
Steadward, R.D., 1992, Excellence – The Future of Sports for Athletes with Disabilities,
in Williams, T., Almond, L. and Sparkes, A. (eds), 1992, Sport and Physical Activity:
Moving Towards Excellence, E and FN Spon, London, pp. 293– 99.
Stein, J.U., 1989, U.S. Media – Where Were You During 1988 Paralympics?, Palaestra,
Summer, pp. 45–52.
Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M. (eds), 1993, Disabling Barriers –
Enabling Environments, Open University, Milton Keynes.
Swartz, L., and Watermeyer, B., 2008, Cyborg Anxiety: Oscar Pistorius and the
Boundaries of What it Means to be Human, Disability and Society, Vol. 23(2),
pp. 187–90.
Taiwan Federation of the Disabled, 2001, Life Circumstances Report of People
With Disabilities in 2001. (http://www.enable.org.tw/res/res2001.htm) accessed
15 September 2004 cited in Huang, C.J., 2005, Discourses of Disability Sport:
Experiences of Elite Male and Female Athletes in Britain and Taiwan, Unpublished
PhD Thesis, Brunel University, UK.
Tasiemski, T., Bergstrom, E., Savic, G., and Gardner, B.P., 1998. Sports, recreation
and employment following spinal cord injury – a pilot study. Unpublished.
Thierfeld, J. and Gibbons, G., 1986, From Access to Equity: Opening Doors for
Women Athletes, Sports n Spokes, May/June 1986, pp. 21–23.
Thomas, N. and Guett, M, 2014, Fragmented, complex and cumbersome: a study
of disability sport policy and provision in Europe, in the International Journal of
Sport Policy and Politics, Vol. 6(3), pp. 389–406.
Thomas, N. and Smith, A., 2003, Preoccupied with Able-Bodiedness? An Analysis
of the British Media Coverage of the 2000 Paralympic Games. Physical Activity
Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 166–81.
Thomas, N. and Smith, A., 2008, Disability, Sport and Society: An Introduction,
Thompson, L., 1990, A History of South Africa. Yale University Press, New Haven,
CT.
Tiemann, H., 1999, Exploring the Sporting Lives of Women With a Physical Disability,
in Doll-Tepper, G., Kroener, M. and Sonnenschein, W. (eds), 2001, New Horizons
in Sport for Athletes with a Disability: proceedings of the International Vista ‘99
Conference, Vol. 2, Meyer and Meyer Sport (UK) Ltd, Oxford, pp. 643–54.
Tomlinson, A. (ed.), 2007, The Sports Studies Reader, Routledge, Abingdon.
Tovar, J., 2015, Brazil eyes Paralympic big time in 2016 (http://sports.yahoo.com/
news/brazil-eyes-paralympic-big-time-2016-210002798--oly.html) Accessed 2nd
January 2016.
Tweedy, S.M., Beckman, E.M. and Connick, M.J., 2014, Paralympic Classification:
Conceptual Basis, Current Methods, and Research Update. Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Vol. 6(8), pp. 11–17.
224 Bibliography
UK Data Service, 2014, Quarterly Labour Force Survey, January – March, 2014.
(http://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/catalogue?sn=7501) Accessed 26th December
2015.
UKSA, 2008, Response from The UK Sports Association for People with Learning
Disability to the Joint Statement on the Re-Inclusion of Athletes with Intellectual
Disability in the Paralympic Games (http://uksportsassociation.org/support/
Response_from_UKSAto_INAS-IPC_announcment_on_Inclusion.pdf) accessed 7
March 2016.
Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS), 1976, Fundamental
Principles of Disability, UPIAS, London.

United Nations, 2015, Human Development Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/
human-development-index-hdi) Accessed 27th December 2015.
Walker, S.W., 2012, And so begins demonisation’s subtle new post-paralympic form.
(http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/03/and-so-begins-demonisations-subtle-
new-post-paralympic-form-skwalker1964-blog/) Accessed 26th December 2015.
Wan, D. and Krassioukov, A.V., 2014, Life-threatening outcomes associated with
autonomic dysreflexia: A clinical review. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine,
Vol. 37(1), pp. 2–10.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged,
1961, Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers, Springfield, MA.
Weed, M. and Dowse, S., 2009, A missed opportunity waiting to happen? The
social legacy potential of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. Vol 1(2), pp. 170–174.
Weiss, T., 2010, Disability in Japan. (http://www.disabled-world.com/news/asia/
japan/japan.php) Accessed 2nd January 2016.
Wendell, S., 1996, The Rejected Body: Feminist Phiolosophical Reflections on
Disability, Routledge, London.
Wilhite, B., 2002, Sport for Athletes with Severe Disabilities – Identifying Key Issues
Affecting the Future of Disability and Sport. (http://www.europaralympic.org/
doping/Bratislava/hosts.htm) accessed 10 February 2009.
Wolbring, G., 2008, Oscar Pistorious and the Future Nature of Olympic, Paralympic
and other Sports, Scripted, Vol. 5(1), pp. 139–160.
Wolbring, G., 2012a, Expanding Ableism: Taking down the Ghettoization of Impact
of Disability Studies Scholars, Societies, Vol 2, pp. 75–83.
Wolbring, G., 2012b, Paralympians Outperforming Olympians: An Increasing
Challenge for Olympism and the Paralympic and Olympic Movement. Sport,
Ethics and Philosophy, Vol. 6(2), pp. 251–266.
World Bank, 2015, Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of
population) (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY) Accessed 31st
December 2015.
VII World Wheelchair Games Final Report (Failed Games in Illinois), 1984, Part 2,
Appendix A, Organising Committee, Champiagn, IL.
Index
Page references in italic indicate figures Barcelona protest tee-shirt 30–1, 31

and tables. Barnes, C 76
Barton, L. 57, 60, 66
Abberley, P. 60 BBC 88–9, 90
Abimanyi-Ochom, J. and Mannan, H. Bedbrooke, Sir George 12
166 Beijing Organising Committee of the
ableism 65–6 see also disablism Olympic Games (BOCOG) 117
access: physical accessibility 77; Bell, Dora T. 15
transport 76–7 Benin Paralympic Committee 137
Acen, Irene 167 Bergman, Sigge 25
adapted equipment 78 Berlioux, Madame 25, 26, 27, 200
Africa 161–7, 162 bio-social model of disability 58–9
African Paralympic Committee 137 Birkenbach, J. 58–9
African Sports Confederation of blind/visually impaired athletes/people
Disabled (ASCOD) 135 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 48,
Agitos Foundation 135–7, 146 59, 149, 153, 154, 167, 177, 180;
Americas 168–77 guides for 77, 153
amputee athletes 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, boosting 124
21, 24, 78, 79, 80, 82, 125–6 Boulmerka, Hassiba 115
Andorra 189–90, 190–1 Brasil, Andre 177
apartheid 162–3 Braye, S. 83; et al. 83
archery 9, 10 Brazil 116–17, 173–7, 175, 176–7
Asia 177–85, 178 Britain 185–8, 187
Association of Paralympic Sports British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Organisations (APSO) 50 88–9, 90
athlete impairment groups 18–20, 203 British Limbless Ex-Servicemen’s
Athletes’ Council 49 Association (BLESMA) 15
athletes with high support needs British Olympic Association 29
(AHSNs) 149–55; in London British Paralympic Association 29
Paralympic Games 152–5, 154–5; British Society of One-Armed Golfers 8
and squeeze on athlete numbers Brittain, I. 63–4, 73–4, 79, 87, 92, 141
151–2 Broadcasting Standards Commission 87
Australia 160 Bromann, Jens 40, 41
Australian Paralympic Committee (APC) Browning, J.H. 166
84 Bucks Advertiser and Aylebury News 18,
autonomic dysreflexia 124 23, 24
Auxter, D. 19 Bucks Herald 24
Avronsaart, Mr 38 Burke, Anne 199
Bach, Thomas 33 Burns, J. 207
226 Index
Burr, V. 56 Democratic Republic of Congo
Bush, A. et al. 84 Paralympic Committee 137
Cabezas, Guillermo 38 DePauw, K.P. 52, 54, 57
Camp Shriver 199 dependency 72–3
Canada 130, 160, 168–71, 168, 171, Devine, M.A. 57, 75
172–3 Dias, Daniel 177
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 89 disability 52–7; bio-social model 58–9;
Canadian Sport for Life 169–70 definitions 54; discrimination see
Cashman, R.: and Thomson, A. 83–4; discrimination; influences of negative
and Tremblay, D. 89 perceptions of 69–71, 73–4; and

Cavet, J. 76 language 65–7; and the media see
CBS 89 media; medical model and power-
cerebral palsy 19, 48, 74, 79, 80, 150; knowledge discourse 54–7, 73; and
and boccia 152 normality see normality; people with
Cerebral Palsy International Sports and see people with disability; relational
Recreation Association (CP-ISRA) impact of negative perceptions
37–8, 39, 48 69–71; and shame 63, 195; socially
Chaker, Andre Noel 205 constructed ‘reality’ and its impact
Chang, I.Y. and Crossman, J. 91 on self-perceptions 71–3; social
Channel 4 television 90–1, 120 model see social model of disability
Charlton, J.I. 174 Disability Daily 70
cheating 120–4 Disability Discrimination Act (UK) 185
China 130, 160 disability sport: accessibility 77;
Chivers, S. 170 adapted equipment 78; athletes
Chosun IIbo 91 with high support needs see athletes
Chow, York 40 with high support needs (AHSNs);
CNN 183 coaching access 78; competition
coaching access 78 at appropriate level 78; cultural
Coe, Sebastian 90 model approach 112–13; curative
cognitive authority 55 value of sport 9, 81; development
Comité International des Sports des 15; disability specific implications
Sourds (CISS) 8, 37, 39 77; governance see governance
Commission on Ethics and Reform of Paralympic sport; and the IOC
(IOC 2000) 32 27–8; legacy and the Paralympic
Cord, The 12, 15 Games 80–4; and the media see
Coubertin, Pierre de 25 media; and the Olympic Movement
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) 28; paralympic see Paralympic
125 Games; Paralympic Movement;
Craven, Sir Philip 33 prior to 1940s 8; recreational
Crawford, J. 62, 69, 71 and psychological value of sport
cultural identity 115–16 81–2; recruitment 79–80, 79;
cultural model approach to disability research lack 1; and schooling 78;
sport 112–13 and self-perception 75–6; social
cultural violence 63–4 re-integration through sport 4,
Cumberbatch, G. and Negrine, R. 87 82; Special Olympics see Special
cyborg athlete syndrome (technological Olympics; ‘super-crip’ stereotype
doping) 125–6 97–8; time/pace 77; and transport
Daily Express 91–2 76–7; World War II impact 8–9
Daily Mirror 63 ‘Disabled Drivers’ Motor Club 8
Darke, P. 98 disablism 58, 73–4, 152; and the ‘super-
Davis, L.J. 60 crip’ stereotype 97–8
Deaflympics 8 discrimination 63 see also prejudice;
Deal, M. 74 apartheid 162–3; and children’s non-
Deaner, R.O. et al. 141 participation in sport 70; Disability
Index 227
Discrimination Act (UK) 185; medals by sport and gender 193,
employment 69, 163; and language 194–5, 194; Papua New Guinean
65–7; marginalisation 65, 69–70; medals by sport and gender 196;
multiple oppression 64–5; of women role of gender 140–2; South African
with disabilites in Japan 178–9; of medals by sport and gender 165;
women with disabilities in India 183 Summer Olympic/Paralympic
doping 121–3, 122, 123, 126–7 Games comparisons 139; Summer
Drake, R.F. 56, 58, 75 Paralympic Games 138–9, 139,
drugs 121–3, 122, 123, 126–7 142–9, 164, 165, 176, 177, 180,
Dunn, J.M. and Sherrill, C. 52, 53 181; Winter Olympic/Paralympic

Du Toit, Natalie 82, 125 Games comparisons 140; Winter
dwarfism 19 Paralympic Games 139–40, 140,
economics: poverty see poverty; 173, 182; women at London Games
socio-economic position of people 142–5, 142
with disabilities 68–9; and sport Ghanaian Paralympic Committee 137
participation by people with Girginov, V. and Parry, J. 15
disabilites 141–2 GLAD report 77
education 53; impact of schooling on Global Accessibility News 174
sport opportunities 78; Paralympic Goodman, S. 8
Games Education Programme 108; governance of Paralympic sport 37–51;
Paralympic school days 107 ICC and national representation
employment 68–9 39–40; ICC–IPC handover of
English Federation of Disability Sport responsibilities 41–2; Independent
(EFDS) 76, 185, 186 Paralympic Sports Federation
eugenics 53, 61 45; IOSDs see International
Europe 185–90, 185 Organisations of Sport for the
extermination 52–3, 61 Disabled; IPC see International
Fairhall, Neroli 82, 192 Paralympic Committee; National
Fantato, Paola 82 Paralympic Committee 47; strategic
Farkas, Amy 135 planning 42–3, 82; towards a single
Fearnley Cup 23–4 worldwide organisation body for
Figueroa, P. 64 38–9
Fink, Ariel 38 Gramsci, A. 56, 75
Finkelstein, V. 58 Grand Festival of Paraplegic Sport
Foucault, M. 54, 56 (1949) 10
Francisco, Antonio Sanchez 190 Great Britain 185–8, 187
Freeman, Cathy 115 Green, M. and Houlihan, B. 92
French, R. 19 Grey-Thompson, T. 124
French, S. 59, 69 Groff, G.D. et al. 81
Gal, J. and Bar, M. 63 guide runners 77, 153
Galtung’s Triangle of Violence 61, 62 Guthrie, S.R. 141
Games for Intellectually Disabled Guttman, Sir Ludwig 8, 9, 10, 12, 15,
Athletes, Madrid (1992) 14 23, 24, 25–6, 36, 38, 81–2, 111,
gender of Paralympic Games 186; death 27
participants 137–49, 138; Brazilian Halberg, Sir Murray 192
medals by sport and gender 176, Halberg Disability Sport Foundation
177; British medals by sport and 192
gender 187, 188, 189; Canadian Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. 86–7
medals by sport and gender 172, Hardin, B. and Hardin, M. 92, 97,
173; Indian medals by sport and 103–4
gender 184; Japanese medals by Hardin, M. et al. 91
sport and gender 180, 181, 182; Hargreaves, J. 70–1, 72, 141–2
London medal events by sport and hate crimes 61
gender 143–5, 144; New Zealand hegemony theory 56, 75
228 Index
Hehir, T. 66 106; and the Special Olympics
Hill, Quatermaster ’Q’ 9 199–201
Hinds, David 15 International Organisations of Sport
Hodges, C.E.M. et al. 83 for the Disabled (IOSDs) 37–9,
Hogan, A. 70 40, 41–2, 47–8; Council 50; IOSD
Hollen, Bengt 25 sports 45
Horan, Kate 194 International Paralympic Committee
Howe, P.D. 83, 120; and Jones, C. (IPC) 1, 28–30, 32–3, 38, 83,
119 145, 157; administration/running
Huang, C.J. 69, 71, 89, 98, 104, 141, costs 102; and Agitos Foundation
145 135–7, 146; and AHSNs 151;
Huffington Post 183 athlete of the month 108;
Human Rights Watch 183 Athletes’ Council 49; Athletics
Hunt, P. 74 Grand Prix 146; Athletics World
Hylton, K. and Bramham, P. 92 Championships 146; Commission
Idenburg, Mr 27 for the Integration of Athletes with
impairment groups 18–20, 203 Disabilities 114; and education
Imrie, R. 58–9 107–8; finance 102; formation
Independent Living Institute (ILI) 162 40; freeview television service
Independent newspaper 61 (PSTV) 99–100, 101, 108; General
Independent Paralympic Sports Assembly 30, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47,
Federation (IPSF) 45–6 49, 50; Governing Board 49;
India 182–4, 184 Honorary Board 108–9; ICC–IPC
Inequality-adjusted Human handover of responsibilities 41–2;
Development Index (IHDI) 132–5, and INAS 205–7; IOC relationship
133, 134–5, 161, 166, 168, 173, 29–35, 106; IOSD’s Council
185, 192, 195 50; and IOSD sports 45; IOSDs
institutionalisation 53 recognised by 47–8; IPC sports
Instituto Mexicano de Rehabilitación 43–5; logo controversy with IOC
13 29–31; Management Team 44, 51;
intellectual impairment 19–20; of media coverage response 98–9;
athletes at Paralympic Games and media rights 89; and NPCs
19–20, 203–8, 208; and London 47, 207; Paralympian newsletter
Paralympic Games (2012) 208; 107, 135, 205–6; PCI suspension
Sydney 2000 Parlympic Games 183; and regional organisations
eligibility scandal 204–6 44, 46–7; Regions’ Council 50;
International Association of Athletics social media investment 108;
Federation (IAAF) 146 sports classification 43–6; Sports
International Association of Sports for Council 50; standing committees
Persons with a Mental Handicap 44, 50; Strategic Plan (2006) 42–3,
(INAS-FMH) 37–8, 39, 42 82, 104–5; Strategic Plan (2015)
International Blind Sports Association 105–6, 112; structure 43, 44;
(IBSA) 37–8, 39, 45, 48 and the Sydney 2000 Parlympic
International Co-ordinating Games eligibility scandal 205–7;
Committee (ICC) 27–9, 39; and TUE Committee 122–3; ultimate
national representation 39–40 aspiration 82, 105–7; underlying
International Olympic Committee message 111–12; vision (2006)
(IOC) 1, 13, 18, 24–36, 38, 104–5; vision (2015) 104–5;
114; 2000 Commission on website 107, 136; and women’s
Ethics and Reform 32; Agenda participation at Games 137
2020 recommendations and the International Silent Games 8
Paralympic Movement 33–5; aim International Ski Federation 25
of Olympic Movement 106; and International Sports Federation
the ICC 27–9; and the IPC 29–35, for People with an Intellectual
Index 229
Disability (INAS-FID) 48, 203, 204, Maglio, Dr 12
205–7 marginalisation 65, 69–70 see also
International Sports Organisation for discrimination
the Disabled (ISOD) 13, 14, 15, marketing 102–9; Paralympic Mascots
24–5, 26, 39; General Assembly 38 107
International Stoke Mandeville Games Martin, Fernando Vicente 204, 205,
Committee 13 206
International Stoke Mandeville Games mascots 107
Federation (ISMGF) 13, 15, 24, 25, Mastro, J.V. 74
26, 27, 39 Mayer, Otto 23

International Stoke Mandeville Maynard, Alice 84
Wheelchair Sports Federation media 86–109, 93; British television
(ISMWSF) 15, 37 and the London Paralympics 90–1;
International Wheelchair and Amputee and cost of running Paralympic
Sports Federation (IWAS) 15, 37–8, Movement and Games 101–3,
45, 48 102, 103; disability sport portrayal
International Working Group on Sports 88–90; general representation
for the Disabled 15 of disability 86–8; IPC response
Invictus Games 186 to media coverage 98–9; IPC’s
Jackson, Dr Robert 27 freeview television service (PSTV)
Japan 177–82, 180, 181–2 99–100, 101, 108; language 96–7;
Jarvie, G. 92 overrepresentation of wheelchair
Jeffrey, Joyleen 196 athletes 96; and Paralympic
Joseph P. Kennedy Jr Foundation 198–9 classification 120; photographs of
karma 62 disabled athletes 91–6, 93, 94–7;
Kennedy family 198 role model provision in printed
Kennedy Foundation 198–9 media 91–2; Summer Games
Kenya 62, 69 coverage 98; ‘super-crip’ stereotype
Kew, F. 75–6 97–8; Winter Games coverage 98–9
Kibuuka, Tofiri 167 medical model of disability 54–7, 73
Killanin, Lord 25–6, 27 Meijers, Henrik 27
Kirakosyan, L. 174 Mexico City 13
Kolkka, T. and Williams, T. 141–2 Middleton, L. 66–7, 72
Kompaon, Francis 196 military Paralympic programmes 186
Krishna, Malathi 184 Military Rehabilitation Centre,
Kuao, L.H. 142 Aardenburg 10
Labanowich, S. 24 Miller, F. Don 27, 199–200
Lakowski, Terri 116 Misener, L. et al. 80
language 65–7; and the media 96–7; Montreal 13
underlying language/message of Morris, J. 54, 57, 59, 73
Paralympic Movement 111–12 Mullins, Aimée 114–15
Layder, D. 54–5 Naar, Tony 84
Legace, Greg 170 Nakayama, K. 179
legacy 80–4 National Disability Resource and
Lepore, M. et al. 152 Advocacy Centre (NDRAC) (Papua
Les Autres athletes 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, New Guinea) 195
21, 79, 80, 150 National Olympic Committees (NOCs)
Lipton, Ben 13, 14 148, 200
LOCOG 90 National Paralympic Committees
Lonsdale, S. 142 (NPCs) 47, 132–3, 133, 134, 134–5,
Lukes, S. 56, 57, 74–5 144, 146–7, 147, 148, 157, 207
McCann, C. 9 National Wheelchair Athletic
Madrid Paralympic Games for the Association (NWAA) 13, 14
Intellectually Disabled (1992) 204 NBC 89
230 Index
Neale, Carole 89 118–20; diversity 128–56; earliest
New York Times 18 venues 13–14; eligibility and
New Zealand 191–5, 193–4 ability level 18–20, 202, 203,
Nippon Foundation Paralympic 207; and gender see gender of
Research Group (NFPRG) 179 Paralympic Games participants;
normality 53, 59–61, 71, 98; and governance see governance of
ableism 65–6 Paralympic sport; history and
Norris, R. 76–7 development 7–21; impairment
Northern Officer Group Report (1996) groups 18–20, 203; Inequality-
59 adjusted Human Development

Oceania 191–6, 191 Index and participation and success
O’Donnell, M. 55 132–5, 133, 134–5; and the IPC’s
Oelsner, Thomas 121 underlying message 111–12; legacy
Ogura, K. 179 for disability sport 80–4; link to
Olenik, L.M. 141 Olympic Games 12–14, 28, 32–6,
Oliver, M. 54, 68, 69 113–17; marketing 103–9; media
Olympic Games: Athens (2004) 91, and the cost of running 101–3,
92; Beijing (2008) 89, 125, 148; 102, 103; misconceptions 1–2; and
dope testing 121, 122; female the Olympic Movement 23–36;
participation 139, 140, 148; London Olympic terminology 24–7, 113–14;
(2012) 80, 90–2, 126, 148; Los organising committees 33, 101, 108,
Angeles (1984) 13, 28, 31, 82, 145; participation by continental
192, 201; Mexico City (1968) association 128–35, 147, 154,
black power salute 115; Paralympic 157–8, 158; research lack 1, 5, 7;
Games’ link to 12–14, 28, 32–6, Special Olympics comparison 202–3;
113–17; Special Olympics see Summer see Summer Paralympic
Special Olympics; Stoke Mandeville Games; term ‘Paralympic’ 15–18;
Games’ link to 10, 12, 18, 23–4, Winter see Winter Paralympic
25; Summer Olympic/Paralympic Games; women at 137–49, 138
comparison of female participation Paralympic Movement: and the Agitos
139; Sydney (2000) 32; Wembley, Foundation 135–7; athletes with
1948 10; Winter Olympic/ high support needs see athletes
Paralympic comparison of female with high support needs (AHSNs);
participation 140 boosting 124; cheating in 120–4;
Olympic Movement 23–36; and classification cheating 124;
disability sports movement 28 classification systems and criteria
Olympic Organising Committee 13 117–20; cultural and sport models’
Olympics for the Disabled 18, 26, 27, influence on international standing
114 112–13; doping in 121–3, 122,
Osamu, N. 179 123, 126–7; founder 8; integration
Otake, T. 178–9 issues with Olympic programme
pace 77 113–17; and the IOC Agenda 2020
Pappous, A. 92, 93–6 recommendations 33–5; IPC see
Papua New Guinea 195–6 International Paralympic Committee;
Paralympian newsletter 107, 135, marketing 103–9; media and the cost
205–6 of running 101–3, 102, 103; and
Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) technology see technology; tensions
183 and classification in cultural-sporting
Paralympic Games: athlete numbers model dichotomy 118–20; ultimate
squeeze 150–2; athletes with high aspiration 82, 105–7; underlying
support needs see athletes with language/message 111–12
high support needs (AHSNs); birth ParalympicSport.TV (PSTV) 99–100,
12–14; classification tensions in 101, 108
cultural-sporting model dichotomy Paralympics Steering Committee 27
Index 231
Paralympic World Cup 90, 100 ridicule 53
Partyka, Natalie 82 Roby, Douglas F. 199
Peers, D. 83 Rogge, Jacques 33
people with disability: amputees see Romeo, R. 168–9
amputee athletes; athletes with high Royer, Dr Donald 205
support needs see athletes with high Rubens-Alcais, F. 8
support needs (AHSNs); dependency Ruiz, Dr Leonardo 13
72–3; discrimination against see Runyan, Marla 82
discrimination; employment/ Russia 116
unemployment 68–9, 169; historical Rwanda Paralympic Committee 137

treatments by society 52–3; impact Sainsbury, T. 8
of socially constructed ‘reality’ of Samaranch, Juan Antonio 27, 28, 32
disability on self-perceptions 71–3; Saudi Arabia 148
influences of negative perceptions Schäfer, A. 104
on 69–71, 73–4; intellectual Schantz, O.J. and Gilbert, K. 88
impairment see intellectual Schell, L.A.B. and Duncan, M.C. 88
impairment; lack of awareness Schmeckl, Joerg 149
amongst 74–5; photographs of Schreiner, P. and and Strohkendl, H.
disabled athletes in the media 91–6, 151
93, 94–7; recruitment of athletes Scruton, Joan 24, 38
with disabilities 79–80, 79; relational Seedat, A. 162–3
impact of negative perceptions self-esteem/self-perception 71–2, 75–6
of disability 69–71; self-esteem self-realisation 53
71–2; and shame 63, 195; socio- Seoul Paralympic Coordinating
economic position 68–9; and sport Committee (SPOC) 150
see disability sport; violence against Seoul Paralympic Organising
see violence; visual see blind/visually Committee 29
impaired athletes/people Seymour, W. 71
Pereira, Andre 177 Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. 59
Pestana, A. 173–4 shame 63, 195
physical education textbooks 92 Shearer, A. 60
Pickering Francis, L. 118 Sherrill, C. 147, 151
Pistorius, Oscar 82, 125–6 Shriver, Eunice Kennedy 198–9
Polish hospital, Penley 10 Silva, Clodoaldo 177
Poria, Dr Yaniv 63 Simkins, Charles 163
Porritt, Sir (later Lord) Arthur 23 Smith, A. and Twomey, B. 142
poverty 62, 68–9, 161–2, 166 social construction theory 64–5
power-knowledge discourse 54–7 social media 108
Preising, Wilf 40 social model of disability 31, 57–8;
prejudice 53, 59, 65, 74, 148, 183 see impact of socially constructed
also discrimination; disablism 58, ‘reality’ of disability on self-
73–4, 152 perceptions 71–3; and social
Priestley, M. 57–8, 59, 72 construction theory 64–5
Purdue, D.E.J. and Howe, P.D. 83–4 social re-integration 4, 82
Qatar 148 ‘Soldiering On’ 170
Quinn, N. 89 South Africa 26, 161–5, 162
Raes, André 40, 41 Spanish intellectually disabled basketball
recruitment of athletes with disabilities team 204–6
79–80, 79 Spanish Paralympic Committee 204–5,
regional organisations 44, 46–7 206
Reinecke, Thomas 205 Special Olympics 198–209; ability
Reinertsen, Sarah 115–16 level 202; aim 201–2; competition
Reiser, R. and Mason, M. 87–8 202; development of Summer
Ribagorda, Carlos 204 and Winter Games 200; disability
232 Index
criteria 203; eligibility 201, 203; and gender 187, 188; British
INAS comparison 203; mission 201; participation 187, 187; budgets
name 199–201; Paralympic Games 102; Canadian medals by sport and
comparison 202–3; start 198–9; gender 172; Canadian participation
vision 201 170–1, 171; China in 130;
Special Olympics Organisation 26 chronology 16–17; dope testing 121;
spinal injuries 8–9, 18–19 Europe’s top medal winning nations
Spinal Units: Ostia, Rome 12; Stoke 185; federations recognised by IPC
Mandeville 8–9, 10 45; growth in participating nations
Spira, Dr Ralph 12 29; Heidelberg (1972) 16, 138, 149,

Sport England 70; Active People Survey 150, 164, 167, 171, 175, 180, 187,
186 193; Indian medals by sport and
sport model approach to disability sport gender 184; Indian participation
113 183–4, 184; Inequality-adjusted
Star and Garter Home for Injured War Human Development Index and
Veterans, Richmond 10 participation and success at London
Steadward, Robert 32, 41–2 132–3, 133; Japanese medals by
Stein, J.U. 88 sport and gender 180, 181; Japanese
Stoke Mandeville Games 10–12, 11, participation 180, 180; London
15, 113; 1984 Paralympics 16, 138, (2012) 17, 80, 82, 83, 84, 92, 94–7,
150, 171, 175, 180, 187, 193, 196; 102, 120, 121, 122, 123, 129, 130,
dope testing 121; International Stoke 132–3, 133, 137, 138, 142–5, 148,
Mandeville Games Committee 13, 151, 152–5, 154–5, 158, 163, 167,
24; link to Olympic Games 10, 12, 171, 175, 180, 186, 187, 190, 193,
18, 23–4, 25; move to international 196, 208; Los Angeles (1984) 114;
footing 10–11, 23 Madrid (1992) 16, 42, 138, 164,
Stoke Mandeville Ministry of Pensions 171, 175, 180, 187, 203–4; medals
Hospital: National Spinal Injuries by continental region 158–60,
Unit 8, 9, 10, 186; sports introduced 159, 160; media coverage 88–9,
at 9 98; New York/Long Island (1984)
Strupp, Howard M. 29–30 16, 138, 150, 160, 171, 175, 180,
sulfa drugs 8 187, 193; New Zealand’s medals
Summer Paralympic Games 14, 98; by sport and gender 193, 194; New
Africa’s top medal winning nations Zealand’s participation 192, 193;
162; Americas’ top medal winning Oceania’s top medal winning nations
nations 168; Andorran participation 191; Papua New Guinean medals
190; Arnhem (1980) 13, 15, 16, by sport and gender 196; Papua
26, 138, 150, 171, 175, 180, 187, New Guinea’s participation 195–6,
193; Asia’s top medal winning 196; participation by continental
nations 178; Athens (2004) 17, 33, association 128–32, 129–30, 158;
89, 91, 102, 114, 121, 122, 129, Rio de Janeiro (2016) 20, 46, 89,
137, 138, 145, 167, 171, 175, 180, 116, 174–5; Rome (1960) 7, 12–13,
187, 193; Atlanta (1996) 16, 82, 16, 24, 138, 187; Seoul (1988) 16,
102, 121, 122, 123, 129, 138, 167, 28, 102, 102, 129, 138, 171, 175,
171, 175, 180, 187, 193; Barcelona 180, 187, 193; South African medals
(1992) 16, 30, 102, 122, 123, 129, by sport and gender 164, 165;
138, 150–1, 164, 171, 175, 180, South African participation 164–5,
187, 193; Beijing (2008) 17, 82, 164; Stoke Mandeville (1984) 16,
89, 100, 102, 121, 122, 123, 129, 138, 150, 171, 175, 180, 187,
137, 138, 145–7, 151, 163, 167, 193, 196; Sydney (2000) 17, 32,
171, 175, 180, 187, 193, 196, 196; 79, 79, 82, 83–4, 88–9, 102, 121,
Brazilian medals by sport and gender 122, 123, 129, 138, 145, 167, 171,
176, 177; Brazilian participation 175, 180, 187, 193, 196, 204–6;
175, 177; British medals by sport Tel Aviv (1968) 13, 16, 138, 164,
Index 233
171, 180, 187, 193; Tokyo (1964) Whizz-Kidz 76–7
13, 16, 138, 149, 164, 180, 187; Wiley, Dale 27
Toronto (1976) 13, 15, 16, 18, Winter Paralympic Games 14,
24, 26, 138, 149, 150, 163, 164, 98–9, 159; Americas’ top medal
167, 171, 175, 180, 187, 193; winning nations 168; Andorran
Ugandan participation 166–7, participation 190, 191; Asia’s
167; upcoming (from 2016) 20–1; top medal winning nations 178;
women at 138–9, 139, 146–9, 165 Brazilian participation 177, 177;
super-crip stereotype 97–8 British medals by sport and gender
Swartz, L. and Watermeyer, B. 126 188, 189; British participation

Taipei City Special Account for 187, 189; budgets 102; Canadian
Handicapped Welfare 69 medals by sport and gender 173;
Taiwan 68, 69, 71, 89 Canadian participation 171,
Tasiemski, T. et al. 81 173; chronology 16–17; dope
technology: tampering 124; testing 121; Europe’s top medal
technological doping (cyborg winning nations 185; federations
athlete syndrome) 125–6 recognised by IPC 46; Geilo
therapeutic use exemption (TUE) (1980) 16, 26, 138, 167, 181,
122–3 189, 194; growth in participating
Thierfeld, J. and Gibbons, G. 141 nations 29; Inequality-adjusted
Thomas, N. and Smith, A. 97 Human Development Index and
Thompson, L. 163 participation and success at Sochi
Tiemann, H. 72 134–5, 134–5; Innsbruck (1984)
Tomar, Rajesh 183 16, 138, 181, 189, 194; Innsbruck
Tomlinson, A. 92 (1988) 16, 138, 181, 189, 194;
Tovar, J. 175 Japanese medals by sport and
transport 76–7 gender 182; Japanese participation
TV New Zealand 89 181, 182; Lillehammer (1994) 16,
Uganda 161, 165–7, 167 31, 102, 122, 123, 131, 138, 181,
UK Sports Association for People with 189, 194; medals by continental
Learning Disability (UKSA) 207 region 158–60, 159, 160; media
unemployment 68, 163, 169 coverage 98–9; Nagano (1998)
Union of Physically Impaired Against 17, 99, 102, 122, 123, 131, 138,
Segregation (UPIAS) 58 181, 189, 194; New Zealand’s
United Nations Convention on the medals by sport and gender 194–5,
Rights of Persons with Disabilities 194; New Zealand’s participation
136, 174 194; Örnsköldsvik (1976) 15, 16,
United States of America 68–9, 98, 167, 181, 189; participation by
130, 135, 160, 168 continental association 130–2, 131,
United States Olympic Committee 132, 158; Salt Lake (2002) 17,
(USOC) 27 102, 121, 122, 123, 131, 138, 155,
violence: cultural 63–4; direct 52–3, 164, 181, 189, 191, 194; Sarajevo
61; Galtung’s Triangle of 61, 62; (1984) 14, 28, 114; Sochi (2014)
structural 61–3 17, 89, 91, 98–9, 116, 120, 121,
Walker, S.W. 84 122, 123, 131, 132, 134–5, 134–5,
Warner, Bruce 164, 167 138, 158, 177, 177, 181, 189, 191,
Weiss, Pierre 125 194; South African participation
Wendell, S. 55, 64, 77 164–5, 165; Tignes-Albertville
wheelchair sports: archery 11; (1992) 14, 16, 102, 121, 131, 138,
basketball 9, 20, 21; curling 20, 181, 189, 194; Torino (2006) 17,
46; dance 45; fencing 20, 21, 45; 102, 122, 123, 131, 138, 189, 191,
netball 9, 10; polo 9; rugby 20, 194; Turin (2006) 33, 100, 155;
21, 45; tennis 20, 21, 45; World Ugandan participation 167, 167;
Wheelchair Games 14 upcoming (from 2016) 20, 21;
234 Index
Vancouver (2010) 17, 121, 122, 123, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
131, 135, 138, 181, 189, 191, 194; 122, 123
women at 139–40, 140 World Health Organisation (WHO) 61,
Wolbring, G. 65 195
women athletes see gender of World Veterans Federation 12, 15
Paralympic Games participants World Wheelchair Games 14
Women’s Sports Foundation 116 Worms, Dr Lutz 205

Ian Brittain - The Paralympic Games Explained-Routledge (2016)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ian Brittain - The Paralympic Games Explained-Routledge (2016)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 18:07 13 February 2017

The Paralympic Games Explained

• how societal attitudes influence disability sport

Containing useful features including review questions, study activities,

Ian Brittain is a Research Fellow in the Centre for Business in Society at

This page intentionally left blank

1 The history and development of the Paralympic Games 7

2 The Olympic Movement and the Paralympic Games 23

3 The governance of Paralympic sport 37

4 Disability and the body 52

5 The broader social issues of disability within society and

6 Media, marketing and disability sport 86

7 Major issues within the Paralympic Movement 111

8 Diversity at the Paralympic Games 128

9 International perspectives on Paralympic participation 157

10 The Special Olympics, intellectual disability and the

1.1 A chronology of the early Stoke Mandeville Games

8.11 Participation by gender at the Paralympic Games 138

AHSN Athletes with High Support Needs

WADA World Anti-Doping Agency

Paralympic and disability sport is a seriously under researched area with a

The structure of the book

The approach of The Paralympic Games Explained

Disability sport prior to the 1940s

(1922). Indeed the first international organisation responsible for a particular

The impact of World War II on disability sport

the rehabilitation of paraplegic hospital inpatients and so it was that sport

An inauspicious beginning to a worldwide phenomenon

ceremony for the Games of the Fourteenth Olympiad at Wembley in London

Sat 26 July, 1952 2 130 5 Table tennis

rose dramatically so that in 1956 there were eighteen nations represented at

Spreading the word

space to reports on the sporting events at the hospital. Because practical

The birth of the Paralympic Games

the Instituto Mexicano de Rehabilitación, as part of an observation team

The Winter Paralympic Games

The term ‘Paralympic’

Table 1.2 A chronology of the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games

1998 Nagano, Japan 31 22 2 1 4 2 561 ALA, BVI, CP, ID, SCI

Impairment groups at the Paralympic Games

Athletes with spinal cord injuries

Cerebral palsied athletes

Amputees and les autres athletes

Blind and visually impaired athletes

Intellectually disabled athletes

a disability characterized by significant limitation both in intellectual

The diagnostics of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior must

Upcoming Paralympic Games

Rio de Janeiro 2016 Summer Paralympic Games

Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Paralympic Games

Tokyo 2020 Summer Paralympic Games

Currently athletes from five impairment groups are scheduled to compete

Beijing 2022 Winter Paralympic Games

2024 Host city?

4 Name the six different impairment groupings that have participated in

Suggested further reading

As stated in Chapter 1, the very first Stoke Mandeville Games coincided

by the Olympic Committee in awarding them the Fearnley Cup he hoped

The use of Olympic terminology (1973–1984)

1 Guttmann clearly considered the IOC to have recognised ISMGF as an

Three weeks later Guttmann received a response from Madame Berlioux,

Closer working relations with the IOC

No. of Particpating Nations

matter was cleared up to the total satisfaction of the IOC a recommendation