Paralympics and olympics: the parallelism

Both the Paralympic and Olympic movements are based on the fundamental principle of the Olympic Charter, Olympism, a philosophy of life that exalts and combines in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sports with culture and education, Olympism/Paralympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and a respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
Similarities And Differences
From its inception in 1960, the Paralympic Games have been modeled after the high-level sports competitions offered by the Olympic Games, and since 1988 they have been held immediately following the Olympics in the same host city. Both Games are organized for athletes with or without disabilities who are inspired by the Olympic motto "Citius-Altius-Fortius", requiring competitive sports performances, high ethical standards and great courage. To conform to this model and have the Paralympics as a global sports movement that is truly parallel to the Olympics, there is a need to address the following issues:
• Use of the Olympic name and symbols by the IPC.
• The structure and governance of Paralympic sports.
• Classification, the essential difference.
Paralympic Name And Symbology
The first issue concerns the relationship of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC). There is a cooperation agreement between the two organizations that sets clear rules concerning the link between the Olympic and Paralympic Games. IOC provides financial support for the administration of the IPC and recognizes the need to assist the IPC in organizing the Paralympic Games.
However, IOC places some restrictions on the IPC regarding use of the five-ringed logo, the name "Olympic" and other aspects related to public exposure. It is ironic that the IOC, in 1988, objected to a proposed five-teardrop IPC symbol, saying it was too similar to the Olympic’s five interlaced rings, while allowing use of the term "Olympics" by another organization now called the Special Olympics. As a result, the Paralympics are often confused with the Special Olympics, which are dedicated solely to individuals with intellectual disabilities. This confusion is caused mainly by use of the term "Olympics" in conjunction with the word "Special". Unlike the Paralympic Games, the Special Olympics offer participation only and note elite sports competition.
In 1985 the IOC stipulated that all disability sports organizations must refrain from using the word "Olympic". In the interest of creating harmony between the two organizations, IPC respected the IOC’s decision and selected the alternative name "Paralympic Games" for athletes with disabilities. With this title, IPC purposely did not adopt the grammatically correct term "Parolympic", which is the correct derivation of the preposition "Para" meaning "alongside" and adjective "Olympic," referring to the Greek city of Olympia where the original Olympic Games where held.
I would argue that because of the similarity of roles both organizations play in the high-level sports competition that the Paralympic logo, flag, flame, torch and other symbols should be very similar, if not identical, to the actual Olympic symbols. It is now time for the IOC to remove the restrictions imposed in 1985 and to recognize that the Paralympic Games should have equal status with Olympic Games, thus ensuring equal rights for all sporting persons, able bodied as well as disabled.
Structure and Governance
On the second issue concerning the structure and governance of the Paralympics, we should note that Olympic sports are organized as so-called able-bodied international federations. For example, FIFA for soccer, ITF for tennis, IAAF for athletics, FIBA for basketball, FINA for swimming, etc. In contrast, Paralympic sports are organized as a mixture of federations by sport (wheelchair basketball) or federations by disability (IBSA, CP-ISRA, ISOD, ISMWSF, and INAS-FID) or in some cases, as a part of able-bodied sport federations (wheelchair tennis).
In my view, federations by sport are the preferred models for Paralympic sports because they best facilitate reaching the objective of making the Paralympic structure parallel to that of the Olympics. It appears to be unrealistic, unfortunately, to hope that Paralympic sports might be, in the near future, integrated into the able-bodied sports federations. The impediment to this happening is the general lack of understanding as to the nature and role of the complexity with which some of our sports are conducted. This internal complexity makes Paralympic sports difficult to integrate into the able-bodied federations. Another obstacle to integration is the fact that, unlike sports federations for the disabled, able-bodied federations mainly emphasize professional sports.
Classification, the Essential Difference
As for the third issue, classification, I wish to stress that this essential difference from the Olympics makes the Paralympic Games unique and very popular with athletes with disabilities, while at the same time tiresome or confusing for the general public to watch. We have to recognize that some Paralympic sports or events are time consuming, thus classification presents a stumbling block for the media and general public, who are used to the simpler rules as well as the faster pace of Olympic sports. This problem calls for greater transparency in the opinion of Philip Craven, IPC President. To avoid confusion, the public needs to be familiar with the rules of the various Paralympic sports so they can better understand what is happening on the field of play. It must be explained why there is more than one final in many swimming or track and field events. And why athletes with disabilities compete in different classes.
While a high-quality classification system is necessary because it protects athletes with disabilities from unfair competition, in some cases the excessive proliferation of classes and medals has raised questions about the quality of the Paralympics or the level of achievement of the winners. For example, in referring to the large number of medals awarded in one event, Dr. Robert Steadward, former IPC President, wrote in his 1997 book, Where Heroes Come: "we all recognized that having 60 gold medals in one swimming event as we had in Seoul is ridiculous and is not accepted as top sport."
Since 1988, in Seoul, there has been a concerted effort by the IPC to reduce the number of classes in the Paralympics. However, it would be wrong to conclude that there should be a general requirement or move to reduce the number of classes without preserving the interests of all Paralympic athletes. The events for severely disabled athletes and borderline cases always cause great concern.
In some Paralympic sports (i.e. wheelchair tennis) there are just one or two disability types and classes, while in other sports or events (i.e. athletics or swimming), there are many disability types and it may be necessary to have many classes in the same type of disability. Currently in the Paralympic Games, there are more than 250 gold medals awarded in athletics and about 150 gold medals awarded in swimming, while the corresponding award numbers for the Olympic Games are 46 and 32 respectively. From these numbers it becomes obvious why the Paralympics and Olympics must be held separately.

Conclusions

• IPC should retain its identity while seeking to strengthen its ties to the IOC both symbolically and organizationally.
• IPC needs a stronger campaign to promote greater awareness of its mission and to further public acceptance and understanding of how the Paralympics are conducted.
• IPC should continue with the model of federations by sport and avoid integration with the able-bodied sports federations.
• IPC must continue to focus on streamlining the classification process while retaining its commitment to the unique needs of all athletes with disabilities.