Paralympians or Para-Olympians?
### Oliver Chipchase
**The London Olympic Games were full of brilliance and recognised by many as one of the best games to have happened in a very long time. Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony was a great success, the weather held up (for the most part) and the so called “Game Makers”, an army of some 70,000 energetic, cheerful and accommodating volunteers made the London Games a roaring hit with visitors. **
Not only this but the Great British team won 120 medals between them and this record breaking feat had them win the BBC Sports Personality Team Award this year. It was whilst watching this programme that a question arose. With the success of athletes such as South Africa’s Oscar Pistorius in the Paralympics, should such entrants be able to compete in Olympic events alongside able bodied athletes?
{{quote The idea that disability will become a significant advantage somewhat baffles me. Running on carbon fibre blades has been compared to the taking of performance enhancing drugs }}
London 2012 seemed to think so and controversially permitted the “Blade Runner” to compete against the likes of Kirani James in the 400m. Although he came last in his heat, Pistorius became the first double-amputee to compete in the Olympic Games. A feat which many seemed to think this was a step too far. Indeed, they will say, Pistorius came last, but with technology as it is, athletes like him will eventually gain a significant advantage over able bodied competitors and therefore should be separated into their own Games. On the other side of the coin, one might ask, somewhat patronisingly, what is the point if they are just going to lose every time?
The idea that disability will become a significant advantage somewhat baffles me. Running on carbon fibre blades has been compared to the taking of performance enhancing drugs. Apparently blades are better than legs. But surely this means then, that in the most basic of ways, having longer legs is a significant advantage? Or having more money to train is a significant advantage? Or having the best brand of running shoe is a significant advantage? If an athlete trains hard and masters his ability as a runner with the options that are open to him, whether he is able bodied or impaired, surely means they have a right to be a champion.
With Pistorius as an example (there are many other leg-amputee runners), one cannot take away from him the fact he has learnt how to use the blades to the best of their ability. For arguments sake, if an able bodied runner was to try the blades, they would not have the technique or the training to use them properly. That is where Pistorius’ athleticism lies; the blades are not doing all the work.
And if technology does improve the blades, surely too it will improve running shoes and training machines for able bodies? Also, regulations that are already in place in the Games disallow anything that will give an unfair advantage to certain participants. In fact Pistorius himself complained to the IPC (International Paralympic Committee) after winning silver in a 200m defeat to Alan Oliveira, who the South African claimed to have an advantageous length to his blades.
But what if Paralympians never reach the level of able-bodied athletes? Is it harsh to let them compete only for them to come last? The answer quite simply is no. It sounds cliché but winning isn’t everything. The point of the Olympic Games is to put nations and people on the field of Sport to compete peacefully and without discrimination. For example London, a Games of firsts, hosted Sarah Attar as part of the first team of women from Saudi Arabia to ever compete in the Olympics. Also, David Rudisha became the first gold medallist from the Masai tribe.
The point here is not the fact these athletes won (Attar was not placed in her event) but the fact they were able to compete without discrimination or judgement. Now I’m not suggesting that it was discriminatory to not advocate Pistorius running in the Olympics, the point of the Paralympics is to give disabled athletes the chance to compete. I am merely saying that if the athlete feels capable, why not let them race?
This controversy surrounding Paralympians gives off a worrying scent of paranoia which is unfounded and damaging to the spirit of the Olympics. Let them contend.
Comments