Written evidence submitted by Kathryn Periac

Paralympic Sport Classification

I have worked in Paralympic sport since 1985, including as Head Athletics Coach of the Australian Paralympic Teams and Athletics Assistant Manager – Performance of the 2008 British Paralympic Team.  Currently I lead the Australian Paratriathlon Program for Triathlon Australia and was the Team Leader for the Rio Paralympics.  From 1988 I have attended 7 Paralympic Games in a variety of roles.  I was employed by then UK Athletics (UKA) from March 2006 until March 2009 as a Performance Manager.

I have worked with multiple versions of the athletics classification systems.  Always what class an athlete is in is clearly one of the most significant drivers of performance success.  I have no doubt the system has always been open to manipulation, and continues to be so, providing the opportunity for those with their own agenda to push the boundaries beyond the reasonable right through to outright cheating.

At the same time multiple athletes have been put through the most appalling of circumstances, through no fault of their own at all, often with devastating consequences.

I provide here two specific examples from my time leading the Wheelchair Racing and Throws programs of then UKA.  These are but two of very many situations I have been very close to.  Both provide evidence of the opportunities for the manipulation of the system on many levels, the poor IPC Athletics governance and management of the classification process and the devastating consequences for innocent athletes.  I was there and saw this happen first hand.

Example One: Anne Wafula-Strike

• When I joined UKA Anne was a member of the High Performance Program, with the classification T53 Confirmed.
• She was a highly inexperienced athlete with previously limited coaching or the opportunity for performance support services.  At this time she had just begun training in a more high performance environment, and her race performances were therefore improving significantly.
• At the 2006 Paralympic World Cup, held in May in Manchester, she had a breakthrough performance, finishing on the podium. 
• The then UKA Wheelchair Racing Head Coach, Ian Thompson, husband of the other T53 British athlete Tanni Grey-Thompson, began to try to engage me in conversations about Anne’s classification being questionable.
• The UKA Wheelchair Racing Head Coach role was reviewed and reshaped, and re-advertised prior to the 2006 IPC World Athletics Championships (Worlds) to be held in Assen in September.  Ian was replaced by Chris Hallam in the Wheelchair Racing role.
• In the last couple of months leading into the 2006 Worlds the questioning and general noise around Anne’s classification increased, and it became clear that something was going on.  It was clearly questioning her eligibility as a T53 athlete.  This is not an uncommon occurrence, and indeed is reasonable to protect the best interests of all athletes where there are genuine grounds for concern.
• As an experienced coach of world class T53 athletes I had no doubt of her class.  Also when you travel in close proximity to athletes and see them in their daily life you really see what they are capable and not capable of doing.  All I saw supported Anne as a T53 athlete and to confirm that I asked the team physiotherapist, who had no experience or knowledge in classification but who knew her well through working closely with Anne at camps and races, to complete a muscle profiling of Anne’s body and report to me and the team doctor.  Her report clearly confirmed that Anne had no trunk or leg function, and completely met the profile of a T53 athlete.
• When the list of athletes to be called for classification at the Worlds came out Anne’s name was on it.  This indicated that there was a protest submitted against her by the IPC Athletics Chief Classifier Richard Brickley. Under IPC Athletics Classification rules at that time the Chief Classifier was the only one who could protest an athlete with a Confirmed classification status, a National Federation or other individual could not.
• I attended the classification of Anne with her as the official team representative in Assen prior to the start of the Worlds.  The doctor leading the classification was very well known to me, being the Australian Dr John Bourke, we had worked together for more than 10 years on the Australian Paralympic Team and he had classified many athletes I coached or presented for classification.  I did not know the female physiotherapist present as the second classifier, and cannot recall her name.
• From the very moment we entered the room John behaved extremely abruptly and was completely dismissive of anything raised by myself, Anne or the other classifier. He would not engage in any discussion at all as to what was occurring, what he was finding and why.
• I very clearly remember the physiotherapist conducting the muscle testing on the bench telling John there is no flicker (ie not function at all) while she was examining Anne’s trunk and John’s response was blunt and indicated he had no interest in that.
• Anne and I were told she was now a T54 athlete and there were no grounds at all for protest.
• In off-the-record conversations with Richard Brickley in the following years he confirmed to me that he had received evidence from one or more individuals that Anne was cheating at her international classification as a T53, and had much greater actual function than she had shown.  He would not confirm, or deny, specific questions as to who this information came from.
• In subsequent reflection on Dr Bourke’s out of character behaviour I recognised that this was how he had been when I had seen him classify, or observe in competition, athletes who were subsequently found to be cheating.  Rightly he abhorred this and had no mercy on these individuals.  Unfortunately, he had been convinced that Anne was cheating, and therefore been blind to the actual evidence in front of him during Anne’s classification in Assen in 2006.
• In 2008, I made a last attempt to get a fair classification outcome for Anne. This was done in secret, only Dr Mukul Agarwal the Team Doctor worked with me on it.  At the time Tanni had been appointed to review the UKA Paralympic Program and had made it very clear I had no place in her plans for the program in the future.
• Dr Agarwal was able to arrange for nerve conduction tests to be conducted on Anne.  The specialists advised there was zero possibility of hiding any existing function that was present and that was why we proceeded to organise these tests for Anne.  Just before I left UKA I was briefed on the outcome, which was a categoric confirmation that Anne did not have the trunk function she was said to have.  I told Anne to continue to press, through the next UKA Performance Manager, to get her classification reviewed in light of these test results.
• I have no hesitation in stating that Anne would have been a highly successful T53 competitor, without question a potential podium winner, at both the 2006 World Championships and 2008 Paralympic Games.  Her re-classification cost her so much, including many tens of thousands of pounds in Lottery funding and sponsorships from external bodies.

Example Two: Rebecca Chin

• In 2008 then 16 year-old Welsh athlete Rebecca Chin was a potential selection for the British Paralympic Team for Rio.
• At the 2008 Paralympic World Cup she was classified internationally, as part of the IPC Athletics’ program to ensure as many athletes as possible entered the Beijing Games with confirmed classifications and no likely changes.
• I was the national representative who attended Rebecca’s classification with her at this time.
• After the classification was completed I requested that the classifiers doing the classification, including the Dr leading the classification (a Greek doctor, I can’t recall his name but he was one of the most senior classifiers at that time) to be very open and clear if they had any concerns or doubt at all regarding Rebecca’s classification.  I specifically highlighted that I did not want Rebecca to go to Beijing and have any doubt on her classification raised there.  They were adamant that she was clearly and without doubt an F44 athlete.
• As part of the IPC Athletics system at that time an athlete had to be internationally classified twice before being confirmed.  Due to the fact there were no other opportunities for Rebecca to have a second classification before Beijing, she was presented for classification in Beijing.
• Anthony Hughes requested to attend Rebecca’s classification which I refused.  Although her coach he was not a team member and I was the designated person within the team to attend all classifications for Throws and Wheelchair Racing athletes in Beijing.
• Rebecca and I were sharing a 2-bedroom apartment in the Village, and I saw her doing a large amount of circuit type activities the night before the classification appointment, eg half squats, calf raises, hopping etc.  When I asked her what she was doing she replied that Anthony had told her to make sure she was as tired as possible before going to classification, and to do as many of these activities as she could the night before and the next morning, which was when she would attend classification.
• I suggested this was not a good idea, and preferred that she did not do this.  With hindsight now I should have outright forbidden her, but at the time I did not want to create any doubt in her mind about her coach being right, immediately before a Games.  I set a time limit to stop and go to bed.  I do not know if she continued in her own room or not.
• At her classification Rebecca was classified as ineligible to compete.  She was found not disabled enough, in simple terms.
• I prepared an appeal with the support of the BPA and this appeal was successful, and she was to be classified again.
• Anthony again directed Rebecca to fatigue herself prior to the classification, despite my clear direction this time to not do that.
• At her second classification in Beijing the panel (a different panel as required) classified her as eligible, as an F38.  The doctor classifying identified that she had cerebral palsy, subsequently confirmed by telephone by her family doctor, who had never told her mother she had CP.
• Rebecca’s first event was the shot put, at which she was not very good, she finished about 10th and was observed in competition by the classifiers, with no comments made.
• In the next event, the discus, Rebecca threw very well and won a silver medal.  This was determined by the points system used then as it was a combined F37/38 event.  As there were very few F38s the points system favoured the F38 athletes, which was a part of why Rebecca had such a good result.
• In the post event area Rebecca and I were advised that Rebecca had been observed in competition by the classifiers during the discus competition and classified ineligible, and therefore disqualified.  On asking I was advised that there was no avenue of appeal (although there was, but I did not know that at the time).
• The reason given was that she had shown more function in the competition than she had shown in classification – without question fatiguing herself before classification and obviously resting before competition, contributed to this outcome.  But why was this not identified in the shot put, and only when she won a medal.
• This was utterly devastating for Rebecca, the most appalling situation and incorrectly conducted on many levels by the IPC Athletics Classifiers.
• It was also a blatant attempt at encouraging cheating by the coach Anthony Hughes, and I have witnessed other similar situations with athletes coached by him, but none as closely as Rebecca, because I was there with her in the room as she did “what he told me I had to do”.
• Post Beijing I raised my concerns with Tanni Grey-Thompson.

Kathryn Periac