The Paralympics are supposed to be fair and inclusive, but often fail to be

The Summer Paralympic Games in Paris are now coming to a close. Over the past 10 days, more than 1,000 athletes with disabilities competed in 164 different disciplines. Inspiring stories about overcoming adversity and celebrating diversity filled sports pages covering the event.

Indeed, the Paralympics, which are held every four years, promise athletes with disabilities a platform where dedication and skill, not their physical conditions, define their potential for victory. They are supposed to guarantee fairness and inclusivity.

Yet, when I naively embarked on my journey as a Paralympic athlete, I was shocked to find a system that often accentuates rather than diminishes disabilities. While the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) touts advancements in athlete inclusion and competitive integrity, many athletes face a different reality.

When the Paralympics started in 1960, they focused on catering mainly to World War II veterans with specific injuries. Competitions were organised by amputation type or wheelchair use. These categories are still largely in use 70 years later, with athletes being grouped based on their impairments.

The goal is to create a level playing field by ensuring that athletes compete against others with similar ability levels. However, this classification system does not accommodate the wide spectrum of disabilities now present in the games.

I personally experienced the system’s inadequacies when officials, unable to classify my unique set of impairments, arbitrarily placed me in a category originally intended for athletes with below-knee amputations, despite the fact that I have both of my legs.

This is because my sport does not have a classification category for athletes with impairment in all four limbs, which is my circumstance. I was told that the IPC had not anticipated someone with my level of disability wanting to compete.

While my ill-fitting classification did not ultimately prevent me from excelling in my discipline, the same cannot be said for many others.

This broken system leads to unfair competition. Notably, chronic illnesses and complex disabilities, which are increasingly common today, are routinely oversimplified during classification.