PhD, Associate Professor A.G. Abalyan¹
PhD, Professor O.E. Evseeva²
Dr.Hab., Professor, Corresponding Member of RAE S.P. Evseev²
Dr.Sc.Hist., Professor A.V. Kirillov^3
1St. Petersburg Scientific Research Institute for Physical Culture, St. Petersburg
²Lesgaft National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health, St. Petersburg
³Russian State Social University, Moscow

Keywords: disabled athletes, Paralympic sport disciplines, classification.

Background. Analysis of the Paralympic sport history shows that it may be classified into at least three stages: (1) Paralympic sport as an element in the integrated therapeutic system for the military service personnel with spinal injuries; (2) Paralympic sport as a rehabilitation sporting service tool with the relevant treatment/ rehabilitation and socializing elements; and (3) Paralympic sport as an Olympic movement vehicle for disabled people and a social practice to improve their life quality [1,2,3,6]. The Summer and Winter Paralympic Games were launched in 1960 and 1976, respectively. The first summer Paralympic Games were dominated by competitors with spinal cord injuries; in 1972 they were joined by blind and visual impaired people; since 1976 they welcomed the people with other musculoskeletal disorders; since 1980 amputees and people with cerebral palsy; and since 1992 they included people with intellectual disabilities. The growing inclusion process may be interpreted as indicative of the changes in the societal attitudes to the people with disabilities and health limitations – from alienation and barring from top-level public competitions to the broadening recognition, inclusion and personality-sensitive humanitarian axiological concept to equalize them with other people in every life segment including sports [1, 4].

Sport classification i.e. grouping of athletes into classes having about the same functionalities is one of the key Paralympic sport advancement policies designed to secure equal conditions for the competitors. It is commonly acknowledged by sport experts that success in Paralympic sports largely depends on the applied classification system that should give a priority to athletes’ functionalities rather than to their actual fitness levels [1, 2].

Furthermore, we believe that even minor inaccuracies and distortions in a competitors’ classification system may give to some of the Paralympians much higher advantages than even doping. It should be noted, however, that the importance of this aspect is largely underestimated today and overshadowed by the largely inflated and contradictory doping issues. Revisions of the existing Paralympians’ classification systems could seriously adjust the relevant grouping policies and practices, change the group numbers and, hence, the numbers of competitive events and medal sets. These changes, in their turn, should result in the relevant amendments to the precompetitive athletic training strategies and tactics including the sport reserve training systems in the Paralympian sport disciplines.

Methods and srtructure of the study. The study was designed to attain the following goals: (1) analyze the existing medical classification; sport functionality classification; and handicap rating classification; and (2) outline Paralympic sport progress avenues versus classification systems. The methods applied for the study purposes were as follows: analyses of the available literature on the subject and the Paralympians’ classification reports of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC) and International Sport Federations. The Federations generally apply the classifications by the relevant diagnoses including cerebral palsy (СP-ISRA); amputees and orthopaedic conditions (ISOD); blind and vision impaired athletes (IBSA); spinal cord injuries (ISMGF); people with intellectual disabilities (INAS); and adaptive sports classifications applied by the Russian sport federations.

Study results and discussion. In view of the fact that the Paralympians’ classification systems are still in progress, the relevant support mechanisms shall be applied to facilitate the sport reserve training for the Paralympic sports and put the national classification systems in harmony with the international ones. Now what have been the changes to the Paralympians’ classification system?

Having analyzed the criteria, policies and practices of the Paralympians’ classification systems for the period of 1960 to 2004, we would break up the classification history in the following periods: (1) 1960-1968 when no clear criteria were applied to group the athletes with spinal cord injuries into event-specific classes; (2) 1972-1976 when a classification system designed by the International Stoke Mandeville Games Federation (ISMGF) was introduced to group the athletes with spinal cord injuries; (3) 1976-1988 when the people with other disabilities (spinal cord injuries; cerebral palsy; amputations and inborn limb reductions; other musculoskeletal system disorders; and vision system disabilities/ disorders) were given an access to the handicap-specific groups of competitors; and (4) 1988-2004 when the sport functionality classification was introduced based on the medical (general and diagnosis-specific) and handicap-rate-driven grouping logics [1].

The medical/ general classification implies the disabled people being grouped into classes depending on the remaining organic and/or functional capacities or the degree/ severity of the disorder/ injury (that is much the same in terms of the procedural approach). It is important that in the medical classification the disabled athletes are grouped by the exclusively medical criteria/ rates with no consideration for their vocational sport specifics. This was the reason why the medical/ general classification in the above Period 3 was designed by the diagnosis-prioritizing institutions (CP-ISRA, ISOD, ISMGF and IBSA). The classification, however, splits up the competitors in too many groups often with too limited intra-group competitiveness and even difficulties for the group formation process for the reason that the necessary group headcount cannot always be achieved. For example, in the 1984 (VII) Summer Paralympic Games in Stoke Mandeville for the competitors with spinal cord injuries and in New York for the competitors with cerebral palsy, amputations, musculoskeletal and vision system disorders – as little as 2,880 athletes competed for as many as 958 sets of medals. Much the same situation was in the Winter Paralympic Games – when the 1994 (VI) Winter Paralympic Games in Lillehammer, for instance, offered 125 events (and sets of medals) that was still twice as high as that (58 events) in the 2006 (IX) Winter Paralympic Games in Turin.

To step up the competitiveness and popularity of the sport events, a new sport functionality classification was offered for the Paralympians to make a special emphasis on every Paralympic sport specifics and competitive requirements with account of the first medical classification criteria. The sport functionality classification provided a basis for the sport-specific grouping customizable to every sport discipline – largely regardless of the diagnoses (including amputations, cerebral palsy, spinal cord injuries) due to its focus on the remaining functional capacities of the athletes versus specific sport requirements. This is the reason why it is the sport federations that since then bear full responsibility for the sport functionality classification policies and practices driven by the federation’s sport discipline rather than the diagnoses. As things now stand, it is the sport federations that make changes and amendments to the classification rules and instructions. Thus, the official website of the Russian Paralympic Committee gives an access to the Classification Code and the relevant International Standards version of 11.04.2016; list of acceptable defeats in the Paralympic sports; Classification Rules (CR) for Track and Field Sports version of 08.06.2017; Classification Rules for Swimming Sports version of 11.04.2016; Classification Rules for Rifle Shooting version of 11.04.2016; Classification Rules for Boccia version of 27.02.2017; and some other rules.

The handicap rating classification implies every sport functionality class being rated in percentage terms with the competitive result being adjusted for the handicap rate versus competitive results of other competitors. The handicap classification is applied to mixed groups of athletes qualified with different sport functionality classes, with the group mixing intended either to step up the competitiveness level of the group and/or achieve the minimal required group headcount when some athletes listed for the event fail to join for some reason.

The handicap rating classification is presently applied, for instance, in the Paralympic cross country skiing, biathlon and Alpine skiing disciplines, with only the following three categories of Paralympians qualified for the events: (1) standing competitors; (2) sitting competitors; and (3) vision impaired competitors split up into three subclasses (V1, V2, V3). These arrangements make it possible to greatly increase the competitiveness of each event for the reason that a set of medals in some discipline (for instance, in 5km ski race) may be contested by all standing competitors qualified by the valid rules with seven different sport functionality classes (including those with prosthetic lower and/or upper limbs competing with or without poles), with the relevant adjustment rates applied for every class. To put it in other words, previously every set of medals was offered to some sport functionality class, and now competitors of every sport functionality class compete for the same set of medals with their results being adjusted for their handicap rates to nominate the winners. These rules help significantly contribute to the competitiveness, support and emotionality of the events, and at the same time make the competitions sensitive to the accuracy of the handicap ratings and classification.

Presently the Russian sport system formally acknowledges only those sport disciplines that are registered with the Pan-Russian Register of Sport Disciplines (PRRSD), with the PRRSD operating in the capacity of the Federal database (storing hard and electronic data copies) of the sport disciplines registered in the Russian Federation as provided by the Ministry of Sports of Russia Order #702 dated 02.09.2013 “On the Procedure of Sport Classes and Sport Disciplines Approval and Registration with the Pan-Russian Register of Sport Disciplines” endorsed by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation Note #29916 dated 10.09.2013 [5].

Historically the first adaptive sport disciplines for blind and vision impaired athletes were registered with the PRRSD in 1995. Presently the PRRSD lists every major adaptive sport discipline including sports for blind and vision impaired athletes, those with musculoskeletal and intellectual disorders. Such sport discipline registration with the PRRSD is a necessary condition for its budgetary financing [5].

As things now stand with the adaptive sports in Russia, they are advanced by the Russian Paralympic Committee, and the relevant Russian Sport Federations including the Russian Federation of Sports for Persons with Physical Impairment, Blind Sports Federation, Russian Federation of Sports for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, and Russian Cerebral Palsy Sports Football Federation.

Conclusion. In view of the fact that the sport functionality classifications are being designed and updated by the relevant Paralympic Sport Federations with the relevant classification criteria being revised on a permanent basis; and knowing that presently the Paralympic sports are subject to three classification systems including medical/ general classification, sport functionality classification and handicap rating classification – the new classification design and update process comprises one of the key factors of influence on the progress and specifics of the Paralympic sports on the global arenas. In Russia the Paralympic movement is mostly facilitated by the relevant Russian Paralympic Sport Federations and Russian Paralympic Committee acting as required by the valid legislation and largely financed by the relevant categorical assignments from the Federal Government budget.

References

1. Abalyan A.G. Sport kak faktor samorealizatsii i povysheniya kachestva zhizni lits s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami [Sport as a factor of self-actualization and quality of life in persons with disabilities]. Vestnik sportivnoy nauki, 2016, no. 2, pp. 49-51.

2. Abalyan A.G., Stepyko D.G., Ostashenko Yu.E. Evolyutsiya priznaniya vidov sporta lits s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Evolution of recognition of sports for disabled people in the Russian Federation]. Vestnik sportivnoy nauki, 2010, no. 2, pp. 60-63.

3. Briskin Yu.A., Evseev S.P., Perederiy A.V. Adaptivny sport [Adaptive sports]. Moscow: Sovetskiy sport publ., 2010, 316 p.

4. Evseev S.P., Evseeva O.E. Teoriya i praktika adaptivnogo sporta. Novy etap razvitiya [Theory and practice of adaptive sports. New stage of development]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo mezhdunarodnogo olimpiyskogo universiteta, 2014, no. 1, pp. 76-83.

5. Evseev S.P., Evseeva O.E. Teoreticheskie problemy adaptivnogo sporta na sovremennom etape [Theoretical problems of adaptive sports today]. Kultura fizicheskaya i zdorovye, 2015, no. 4(55), pp. 78-83.

6. Makhov A.S., Stepanova O.N., Shmeleva S.V., Petrova E.A., Dubrovinskaya E.I. Planning and organization of sports competitions for disabled people: Russian experience. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia, 2015, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 877–886.

Corresponding author: k181920@bk.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to analyze the key progress avenues for the Paralympic sport disciplines in the context of different classifications of Paralympians based on analyses of the available literature on the subject and Paralympians’ classification reports of the International Paralympic Committee, Russian Paralympic Committee and International Sport Federations. The Federations generally apply the classifications by the relevant diagnoses including cerebral palsy (СP-ISRA); amputees and orthopaedic conditions (ISOD); blind and vision impaired athletes (IBSA); spinal cord injuries (ISMGF); people with intellectual disabilities (INAS); and adaptive sports classifications applied by the Russian sport federations. On the whole, the modern classifications are dominated by the following three ones: medical/ general classification; sport functionality classification; and handicap rating classification. New classifications may be viewed among the key factors of influence on the global modern Paralympic sports on the whole and specific Paralympic sport disciplines in particular.