This is the IPC's response to the SBS Dateline story Cheating in the Paralympics: The fight for fairness.
The IPC and all International Federations actively encourage athletes to raise any concerns they have regarding classification with them directly.
The 2015 IPC Athlete Classification Code is designed to ensure consistency of classification across the Paralympic Movement, which includes a huge variety of different sports, each requiring different functional abilities. The Code details policies and procedures common across all sports and sets principles to be applied by all Para sports.
To further ensure this consistency and standardisation across the Paralympic Movement, the Code is complemented by International Standards. These provide technical and operational standards for specific aspects of classification, to be carried out by all Paralympic sports in a manner which athletes and other Paralympic stakeholders understand and have confidence in. The International Standards cover:
- International Standard for Eligible Impairments: Defines what an eligible impairment is in Para sports, thereby ensuring that Para sports are reserved for those that have an eligible impairment.
- International Standard for Athlete Evaluation: Details the procedures for the assessment of athletes and the allocation of Sport Class and Sport Class Status.
- International Standard for Protests and Appeals: Defines procedures for the management of classification-related protests and appeals.
- International Standard for Classifier Personnel and Training: Outlines the procedures for classifier recruitment, training, certification and re-certification.
- International Standard for Classification Data Protection: Ensures that classification organisations use classification data consistently in accordance with their legal obligations.
Compliance with these International Standards is mandatory for all Para sports, including all sports on the Paralympic Games programme.
The IPC, together with all International Federations, is continually looking to improve classification. With more medical and sports science and research in this area, plus the expertise and input of several universities who specialise in classification around the world, we are always looking to make the system more robust for all athletes.
The IPC Athlete Classification Code also has provisions in place for International Federations to consult their members when changing the classification rules and athletes are part of this consultation.
Allegations of cheating
The IPC and International Federations are well aware of such rumours and treats all allegations of misconduct in any of its sports seriously.
If the IPC or International Federations have evidence of a breach of their Classification Rules & Regulations and/or the provisions of the Code and Standards, they take appropriate action in accordance with those provisions.
The IPC and all International Federations treat intentional misrepresentation as a very serious offence. It is one that can lead to a suspension of up to four years for an athlete and/or athlete support personnel, or a lifetime suspension for repeat offenders.
The IPC Athlete Classification Code requires each International Federation to include procedures in its rules on how to identify and manage allegations of intentional misrepresentation.
On some occasions, the IPC may appoint external legal counsel to investigate allegations of intentional misrepresentation.
The IPC is confident that any allegations made to the relevant authorities in Australia, whether that be through the National Paralympic Committee or National Federation, are investigated accordingly.
Within the 2015 IPC Athlete Classification Code and the International Standards there are clearly defined procedures for the management of classification-related protests and appeals.
In relation to their sport class, the protest provisions in an International Federation’s rules provide athletes with an opportunity to challenge the decision of a classification panel through their National Federation or National Paralympic Committee, if they believe they have been allocated an incorrect sport class. Further, an International Federation may also make a protest at any time if it has reason to believe that any athlete is in the wrong sport class. An athlete’s National Federation or National Paralympic Committee can also make a Medical Review Request in the event that there is a change in the nature or degree of an athlete’s impairment which affects the athlete’s ability to execute the specific tasks and activities required by the sport. In addition, there is also the possibility to submit an appeal.
In all cases, the outcome of a successful protest, medical review request, or appeal is that the athlete will be seen by a new panel of certified classifiers, who will re-evaluate the athlete and assign them the correct sport class.
In relation to wider complaints, the IPC encourages athletes to contact their National Federation or National Paralympic Committee, who may raise the matter with the respective International Federation. Athletes are also free to share their concerns with either the athlete representative of their sport, NPC or the IPC Athletes’ Council, all of which exist in order to give athletes a voice on important issues.
Every complaint that comes to the IPC is reviewed and appropriate follow-up initiated with the relevant International Federation.
Depending on the seriousness of the allegation, an internal assessment is co-ordinated by the Head of Classification who then engages a range of relevant experts should circumstance warrant their involvement. This could include classification experts from the respective International Federations, advisory groups, international classifiers, members of the IPC Classification Committee and third-party expertise.
Ahead of the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games, the IPC reviewed the individual files of more than 80 athletes from 24 countries across six sports. This followed requests from various sources including National Paralympic Committees, coaches, and parents of athletes.
The review included assessing all evidence supplied by the complainants, reviewing hundreds of hours of competition footage, detailed examinations of classification records and, in some cases, requesting and reviewing additional and detailed medical diagnostic information on several athletes (this information was provided by registered medical experts such as doctors).
The review revealed no instances where the IPC could reasonably allege intentional misrepresentation. In many cases, the information brought forward amounted to nothing more than allegations without substantive grounds.
However, different remedial actions were initiated. This included follow up with different National Paralympic Committees to complement available medical diagnostic information on different athletes as part of the assessment, and several athletes were brought back in for re-assessment in accordance with the appropriate rules and regulations.
The 2016 review included looking into 16 potential cases of intentional misrepresentation in Para swimming. These were identified either through complaints or discrepancies in performances during 2015 – athletes swimming slower during classification observation than during other races – which might cause World Para Swimming to question an athlete’s respective classification results.
Each case was examined thoroughly. The resulting determination was there was insufficient evidence for World Para Swimming to take further action in each case.
Despite this comprehensive review, some parents have continued to complain and allege intentional misrepresentation. In some cases, the parents have resorted to harassing athletes who they believe are in the incorrect class. This presents a serious welfare issue for those athletes. The same parents are also continuously sending unsubstantiated allegations to the IPC, National Paralympic Committees, International Federations and National Federations.
Each international federation has procedures in its rules on how to identify and manage allegations of intentional misrepresentation.
When an athlete undergoes a classification assessment, trained classifiers follow a set process which includes:
*The verification of the presence of an eligible impairment for that sport – this includes reviewing medical documentation provided by a medical expert
*A physical and technical examination to examine the degree of activity limitation
*Allocation of sport class
*Observation in competition, if so required by the nature of the impairment and/or the rules of the sport
If there are concerns that an athlete is in the incorrect class, observation in competition can continue, an athlete can be asked to undertake a full classification re-evaluation and the Chief Classifier can protest an athlete’s classification at any point during a competition.
Andre Brasil’s reclassification
NPC Brazil and Andre Brasil brought legal proceedings in the German courts in relation to the athlete’s classification as non-eligible (NE) in 2019, and World Para Swimming’s introduction of its 2018 Classification Rules and Regulations on which that assessment was based.
The Regional Court of Cologne dismissed the claimants’ claims in their entirety. The Court found that both the introduction of the rules, and the classification decision itself, were lawful and were carried out in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures and were not wrong in fact or disproportionate.
The process for making the changes to the rules commenced in 2015. As part of this process, National Paralympic Committees (NPCs) were consulted about the proposed changes, including the changes to the technical assessment (water test).
In the case of Andre Brasil, the athlete’s NE decision was confirmed by two independent classification panels and separately by the independent Board of Appeal of Classification, before the decision of the German court.
Andre Brasil subsequently appealed the decision of the Regional Court of Cologne. As legal proceedings are ongoing in this respect, we cannot comment any further.
As with the development of all sport assessment systems, research, evidence, technology and the views of the Para sport movement continue to improve our assessment processes over time.
