Written evidence submitted by Jane Freebody MCSP
Written in collaboration with six senior classifiers on the National Athletics Classification Advisory Group (CAG), on behalf of national classifiers that work within Athletics.
Executive Summary: This paper describes the highly sensitive nature of classification, its difficulties and the professionalism of the volunteers who carry it out. It outlines
About us: I have written this submission in collaboration with the six senior UK Athletics classifiers, between us we have over 150 years experience of athletics for people with physical impairments as athletes, coaches, physiotherapists and classifiers. For clarification, national classifiers that work within Athletics are volunteers. We sign a detailed legal contract with UK Athletics, providing our own professional liability cover, but are not employed by them.
Our reason for submitting evidence to the enquiry is in an attempt to redress the balance and present ‘our side of the story’. To explain, the constraints under which we have to operate, to complexities and imperfect nature of the process, and the lengths we go to achieve the fairest possible outcome in all cases. I hope this submission will go some way to achieving that aim.
The UK athletics classifiers use the exact same classification system as used by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) Athletics, recently renamed World Para Athletics (WPA), a decision made several years ago. The exact same process, procedure and tests are used, with one exception, namely that the assessments are carried out at classification clinics during the winter (off season) not at competitions. The outcome is then confirmed by observation during the summer competition season. The classifiers have to work with the tests and procedures set down by WPA and implement the system as prescribed. –Described in more detail in a later section.
The stakes involved in classification are higher than ever before – higher profile, media scrutiny, with large sums of sponsorship available for those athletes at the top of the world rankings. In the same way that in other professional sports there are professional fouls, in disabled sports there is a determined effort by a few to gain an advantage for themselves or disadvantage a rival opponent for the sake of the ultimate goal. ‘Gamesmanship’ is considered by some as an acceptable way to behave.
There are many ‘arm chair classifiers’ amongst coaches, athletes, parents and ex athletes who think they can do a better job than the classifiers and classify someone simply from watching their performance or how they move around. The comment “I/ my child can’t do that so they can’t be the same class as me/my child” is often heard but equally often untrue. It denigrates the huge effort made by dedicated athletes to overcome the adversity of their impairment, realise their potential and be the absolute best they can be.
Confidentiality
As classifiers we cannot speak out on individual cases, all assessments are subject to a medical confidentiality clause, during the assessments we are party to highly sensitive medical information that we cannot share or discuss. We are not at liberty to discuss or defend our decisions.
If an athlete or coach thinks that they have been wrongly assigned there is a protest and appeal procedure (National Classification Protest and Appeal Policy: http://www.uka.org.uk/world-class/british-athletics-parallel-success/national-classification/)
Impartiality.
Some question our impartiality; a few of our number are ex athletes or coaches, the majority are physiotherapists and we have a few medical doctors.
Classifications are conducted by two classifiers as a panel, agreement has to be reached before a decision can be made; at every event there is a chief (a more experienced classifier) who can be called on to assist with difficult decisions. The UK Athletics classification senior coordinator allocates the panels and as far as is possible avoids any conflicts of interest.
A recent BPA internal audit/ review was very favourable and found only a few things that required change – all the recommendations of this audit have been accepted, some have already been implemented, the remainder will be implemented as soon as practicably possible.
Responsibilities of a Classifier
All classifiers take their responsibilities very seriously and always conduct themselves in a professional manner whilst carrying out classification duties. All classifiers are required to sign and adhere to the code of conduct, violation of this code can result in disciplinary action and or removal from the list of classifiers. Currently the potential sanctions on classifiers are far more onerous than those on athletes or coaches. For a medical professional any substandard practice could lead to sanction by the professional body with reputational damage and possible loss of earnings.
Duty of Care
Classifiers completely understand the huge impact decisions can have on an athlete’s career, and particularly the impact of ‘getting it wrong’. Many athletes have worked for years to reach this point and their funding and world rankings can be jeopardised by a wrong decision- or a right one if they have been labouring under a false misapprehension. In some circumstances the psychological welfare of the athlete is also at stake. We strive to reach the correct decision the first time every time but this is not as easy at some seem to think.
Commitment
Classifiers are all volunteers, with other salaried employment. Our services to carry out classification are carried out at weekends in our own time. The most experienced classifiers sit on a Classification Advisory Group (CAG): review questions and enquiries online and have regular evening Skype meetings to assist the UK Athletics classification senior coordinator with decisions. Then CAG is also responsible for setting the agenda for and leading the annual training weekend.
Training
It takes a couple of years of training to become an athletics classifier, a primary requirement; knowledge of and association with athletics is now required to commence training. There is a documented structure (Accreditation and Training of UK Athletics National Classifiers) for trainees moving on to level one and level two, with theoretical teaching, practical observation and supervision all overseen by senior classifiers who have teaching and clinical supervision expertise in their ‘day jobs’.
There is an annual in house Continuing Professional Development (CPD) weekend at which the experienced members provide updates on training. Outside experts are invited to provide updates on specific relevant topics –most recently a psychologist. We are fortunate to have 4 internationally qualified athletics classifiers in the UK able to provide most recent updates and training. International classifiers in other countries envy the UK training system.
Classifiers always strive to improve their practice, the goal being to provide the fairest possible competition for all athletes. As the task becomes more onerous and labour intensive there is a risk that UK Athletics will not be able to find suitably qualified people willing to take on the role on a voluntary basis.
Professional integrity
All of the above demonstrates our integrity and dedication to performing a difficult and often challenging task to the very best of our ability. When our professional integrity is called into question I wonder why any of us want to do this and why we continue to do it, particularly in a voluntary capacity. We do it because we want to play our part in ensuring the fairest possible competition.
Classification: process and system.
The purpose of classification is to enable a wide variety of athletes with physical impairments to compete together on a level playing field and to make the competition as fair as possible. Given that each athlete with a physical impairment is unique and there is a finite limit to the number of classes available in to which any athlete can be assigned, athletes with similar impairments are grouped together and an assessment made of the impact that their unique impairment has on their ability to perform their chosen discipline. With such a system there will obviously be athletes across the range within the class, most in the middle with some nearer the top and others nearer the bottom of the range.
Classification is not an exact science, nor is it a perfect system. The system has evolved over years and is still evolving, having to take account of both medical and technological developments that both reduce, treat or control impairment and improve function. Various research Institutes worldwide (https://www.paralympic.org/classification/research) are currently undertaking research to find answers to some of the most difficult questions posed by progress, this takes time. Until the research investigations are concluded we can only continue to administer the tests we have been given to the best of our ability.
The Classification process is published on line (https://www.paralympic.org/athletics/classification/rules-and-regulations) for transparency and openness; an inevitable consequence of this approach is that athletes train for the tests and coaches read the document and come to the assessment prepared to challenge decisions. This is particularly true when the athlete and coach know that the athlete’s class is potentially borderline. Their interventions can be intimidating.
Coaches and athletes compare notes on their classification experience and assume that if the classifier does not perform every test with each athlete or does something with one person and not another that the process has not been ‘fair’. However because, as previously mentioned, each athlete is unique and our role is to assess physical impairment and it’s effect on potential performance it may be necessary with some individuals to make a more detailed assessment e.g. those with more complex or multiple impairments compered with others with a more standard or classic presentation.
The desired outcome from a classification differs between the athlete and the classifier. Namely the athlete wants to be assigned to the class where they have the most likelihood of success i.e. winning a gold medal, whereas the classifier wants to make a confident decision that the athlete is assigned to the class most appropriate to their physical impairment. Often the athlete, coach and Classification panel are in agreement but not always. As a general ‘rule of thumb” in our experience it is possible to confidently assign a class to 80% of athletes at a first assessment. However it is the other 20%, by virtue of their complexity or multi system impairments, that provide the most challenge and take the longest time and sometimes several review assessments to establish the correct classification.
The classification panels’ job during the classification process is to:-
1) Confirm that an athlete has an eligible impairment; not all impairments are eligible for inclusion in disabled sport. See WPA list of eligible impairments (https://www.paralympic.org/athletics/classification) the impairment must be permanent i.e. not likely to get better. Some impairments are not measurable; for example pain cannot be classified because it is subjective and not measurable, can be altered by many things including drugs and other treatments, mood, level of arousal, naturally occurring chemicals in the body such as adrenaline and endorphins consequently the person’s performance could vary widely on a day to day basis and between classification and competition.
2) Confirm minimal impairment criterion (MIC): that is that the impairment must be significant in the impact it has on the ability to perform the sports discipline as compared to an able bodied person. A good example of this would be someone missing part of one hand. This person could be defined as an upper limb amputee however such an amputation has been shown not to impact on a person’s ability to run or jump effectively and therefore they would not be eligible to compete in disabled athletics because they would not meet the MIC for athletics. The MIC differs according to the sport e.g. it differs for swimming, athletics and cycling and the sports discipline, sprinting as compared to long distance running for example.
3) Assigning a sports class:- the class that most closely fits with the athletes’ physical impairments, that is a true reflection of their athletic potential not their performance and puts them in the same class as others with the same potential.
This may sound simple- it is not. UK Athletics require athletes to be classified ahead of entering Para specific competition nationally - this is to ensure that the athlete, coach and sport are certain of eligibility and class to allow fair competition and for the athlete to know what their pathway is within the sport. Classification is therefore done early in the athlete’s development. Past experience taught that delaying this until the athlete was well trained – whilst making the assessment easier for the classifiers led to more athletes finding out that they had wrongly assumed to be in a less impaired class than they should be – and therefore thinking they were higher up the world rankings than they were. In a few disastrous situations they discovered they did not have an eligible impairment or meet minimal impairment criterion and were therefore not eligible to compete at all.
Because the classifiers assess the impairment and movement potential not the performance’ the decision reached on new or untrained athletes or children can seem unduly harsh. Only those in the room during the assessment can truly know the degree of physical impairment as outlined in the presented medical documentation and the performance of the tests. However it is the duty of the classifiers using their knowledge and expertise and applying the rules and tests to make that assessment.
The golden rule is to allocate a sport class to an athlete that places them in the most appropriate class for their physical impairment and that does not give that athlete an unfair advantage over all the other athletes in the same class.
All classifiers are aware of situations where athletes, sometimes in collusion with the coach, have made serious attempts to ‘fool’ the classifiers into thinking they are more impaired than they are in order to gain an unfair advantage. In those situations there are procedures to follow but the onus is on the classifier to justify their reasoning for not being able to complete an assessment or assign a class and in almost every circumstance the athlete will be given another opportunity to attend an assessment. If an athlete is found to have intentionally misrepresented his/her impairment sanctions can be applied to that athlete and anyone who has encouraged them however the process is lengthy and laborious. Again this whole process is confidential between the classification team, the athlete and the athlete’s coach and or representative, if present.
AUDIT
Our annual classification performance audit demonstrates very close correlation between our decisions and those of international panels (2014, 2016 & 2017 Audit: National vs. International Classification).
Conclusion
Classification in para-sport is a difficult & often misunderstood process, using, as it must, an imperfect system. It is carried out by highly skilled individuals with professionalism, integrity and a belief at all times that they are doing it for the benefit of Para-sport. Without classification para- sport would be a much diminished and less fair competition.
Internationally and nationally classification is constantly evolving and developing as Para-sport evolves and develops. WPA & UK Athletics are very aware of this and continuously review the processes and procedures to take account of these facts. The aim always is to improve the competition for the athletes.
Recommendations for the committee
We cannot think of any recommendations we can make to the committee other than to give, if you think it appropriate, your support for the difficult work we do voluntarily on behalf of all athletes with physical impairments.
We would very much appreciate a vote of confidence from the committee for our endeavours and an acknowledgement of our integrity and commitment to fairness.
We thank you for accepting and considering our submission.
November 2017
6