Key result
IPC equipment policies require rule modifications to ensure physical prowess drives Paralympic success over technology.
Why the study?
Paralympic sports present unique challenges to equality of opportunity, requiring fair and meaningful competition categories shaped by considerations of fairness.
This conceptual review highlights the need for improved theorization and rule modification in Paralympic sport classification to ensure fair equality of opportunity regarding equipment technology.
May guide IPC equipment regulations toward fairness; leaves open empirical validation of optimal classification frameworks.
Fairness in sport is a widely shared meritocratic norm. Its application is usually restricted to equality of opportunity to compete for victory. Paralympic sports lay down a further challenge in that equality of opportunity must be shaped by considerations of fairness, evidenced by the development of discrete competition categories to construct fair and meaningful contests. In this article, we extend these philosophical ideas to consider how Fair Equality of Opportunity might operate in the context of Paralympic sports classification. We articulate three conceptions of fairness relevant to these sports: (i) background fairness; (ii) procedural fairness; and (iii) stakes fairness. We critically review the International Paralympic Committee's Policy on Sport Equipment in relation to the first two conceptions and argue that greater clarification, theorization and rule modification is required if physical prowess, as opposed to equipment technology, is to be assured as the dominant determinant of Paralympic athletic success.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McNamee et al. (2021) conducted a review in Paralympic sport classification. Greater theorization and rule modification of the IPC sport equipment policy is required to ensure physical prowess, rather than equipment technology, determines Paralympic athletic success.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: