The Question: What is special about the Paralympics?

The Answer (my opinion): The combination of high performance and inspirational stories.

Let’s face it – if we, as disabled athletes, could divorce the inspirational side of the storyline, we are left with performances that in 99% of cases don’t reach the Olympic level. We have no party, we have no games, nobody but friends and family would give a $hit – cold, I know… but likely true. Even Oscar Pistorius would just be some South African guy who “might” qualify and then probably get blown away in the early rounds of the Olympic 400m event. Internationally (and likely nationally) nobody would know about him or care.

The media is not stupid… they know what sets the Paralympics (and disabled sport generally) apart – it is the inspirational stories, and that is why they keep coming back to them time and time again. Paralympians aren’t singled out for this attention though…It’s also why the media was all over Silken Laumann, Joannie Rochette, and any athlete who has a somewhat decent story more powerful than “boy he or she is fast!”

The “inspiration” is the Paralympic X-factor and without it the little media attention that exists would drop to zero.

On the topic of the ceremonies – the points here are interesting, and something I hadn’t considered while watching them.

I see where Courtney was coming from but one could look at it from a different perspective and see the following: an opening ceremony based on celebrating the participants and their disability (or “ability” as the marketing department states) it is still WAY more “athletes first” than if the content is Joni Mitchell, beavers, maple syrup etc. Also, with Terry Fox (a worldwide symbol of Canada AND disabled sport) I think the CanCon was pretty huge.

I have always found Olympic Opening Ceremonies to be a bit overly nationalistic and not focused enough on the sporting event itself. (Aren’t we opening a sporting event not a folk festival?) I love the Olympics for the sports and always find the cultural part a tad over-the-top… Give me more backflips and athletics (like breakdancing I guess) and less wheatfields… but that’s just me probably.

Are Paralympians athletes? Yes they are. Do they need to be treated like Olympians? This sounds a lot like when someone gets upset that the LPGA isn’t being treated the same as the PGA. Lady golfers are equally as talented as men golfers but yet viewership of PGA events is higher than LPGA. Consequently the purses in PGA events are also higher. The solution? The LPGA is branding/marketing itself so that it isn’t seen as a clone of the men’s game. This means they have to focus on their uniqueness and look for non-traditional golf sponsors.

From an organizers perspective, the Paralympics benefits greatly from following the Olympics. Just think if the Paralympics came before the Olympics and all the Para-athletes had to suffer through venues that are not finished on time, staff/volunteers that are green or equipment that has not arrived yet. The public didn’t see it but there were a lot of logistical issues and disasters on the first two days of the Olympics.

I see the grass as being greener on the Paralympic side of the fence and see no reason to be a copycat of the Olympics. Especially when you have something so uniquely special, something that is better.

I will be watching as much of the 2012 games as humanly possible-in my house, everything stops when the Games are on. I am really hoping that London sees fit to liberally televise its Paralympic games. Watching them here at home in 2010 was fantastic-I’d always wondered what went on at the Paralympics and I found the competition of Paralympic athletes as exciting and compelling as the Olympians’. I’ll be hugely disappointed if London fails to give the Paralympics decent air time.

As you, and our review of the research, suggest(s), while the prosthetics provide a large mechanical advantage, Pistorius is faced with adopting to a new running style, which includes teaching muscles to contract in uncommon ways. Some might consider Oscar’s style of running “bounding.”

From our point of view, Pistorius’ success and overwhelming desire to be pushed in competition is a positive for both the Olympics and the Paralympics. He is an engaging athlete–he challenges established categories, he is experimenting with new technologies, and he appears as a charismatic personality. And isn’t that what competition is really about? Laying all your cards on the table against someone else, and seeing who comes out on top? Albeit, there is the notion of keeping things fair, and we recognize that newly emerging technologies that make athletes faster, stronger, and better, are opening up many new challenges to those enforcing a “level playing field.” But sometimes, the popularity of uncommon arenas emerges because of one, or a few, engaging people, and Pistorius may be exactly what international competition, both the Olympics and the Paralympics, needs now.

Thanks for the interesting blog!

A recent survey of Canadian coaches by Reade, Rodgers & Norman (2009) find: Successful female coaches tend to be young, single and without a family. Their careers are short lived as they are found to leave the coaching profession much sooner than men. Those who do coach typically hold part-time positions and are less likely to coach male athletes.

Mentors: All of the women I interviewed had male mentors. Many reflected that they would love to have a female mentor but realistically at this point in history there just aren’t many women with the experience needed to mentor them as elite coaches.

Responsibilities: Like guiding, coaching requires time & financial sacrifices. For most people, coaching is not a particularly lucrative activity. Since, women continue to be primarily responsible for family/domestic duties many of the women in my study reflected that having a spouse that supports your passion for coaching is key.

Recruiting Female Coaches: A few of the women I interviewed struggle to encourage young females to go down a path they know is difficult (e.g. sexism & gender discrimination).

Perceptions: The idea that women lack qualifications or credentials to be appointed to senior coaching positions within Canadian sport is the most common discourse used to explain the underrepresentation of women in this field. Further, since men are believed to be the ‘sport experts’, coaching has been labeled as a masculine role. As a result, women face countless questions regarding their competency as coaches because it is generally assumed they lack the necessary physical size, strength and mental toughness required of the position. Therefore, they experience difficulty meeting the masculine athletic and leadership standards to which they are compared.

Athletes Don’t Want Female Coaches: There is plenty of research that indicates both male and female athletes prefer male coaches. While my participants stated they had great relationships with both male and female athletes they told me it took time to establish these relationships…I’d say the biggest factor contributing to this perception is the lack of exposure to capable female coaches—I believe this goes back to one of Andrea’s earlier arguments something about having only 5 female coaches versus 100+ male coaches…When discussing some of my findings the other day I took a poll in class to see what the students had to say. Most said they would prefer a male coach. Interestingly, not many had actually ever been coached by a female…those who had didn’t really like them because they felt they were too inexperienced to help them…

Solution: I agree with many of you, elite sport targets a very select group of people. I like many of you & some of those students I quizzed feel that the solution requires starting at the bottom of the sport system. The new NCCP aims to expand their coach education program to target grass root & community level coaches. Perhaps if young athletes are exposed to more capable female coaches (who have undergone training) these perceptions will change?

Female guides: Having said all this, there is one key difference between a coach and a guide. In fact, the difficultly in addressing the issue of a lack of female guides in Paralympic sport really goes back to the 1 key barrier Jess highlighted back at the beginning of this blog. In one’s search for a qualified female guide, an elite athlete requires a guide who has the physical ability to ski just slightly ahead of the competitor. Unfortunately it would appear that there does not seem to be a very large pool of women to draw on to fill this role.

Rowing takes this notion of levelling the playing field to a whole new level that borders on ridiculous. First, not only do they require all visually impaired rowers to wear goggles, they also restrict the number of blind athletes (maximum of 2 and of those two only one can be a B3) in a mixed coxed four. Visually impaired rowers are the only classification within rowing that is actually “disadvantaged” in the boat. All other classes can use whatever modifications they need to to maximize their rowing ability. To a degree I understand the notion behind the blind rowers wearing goggles, but what I absolutely disagree with is restricting the number of blind rowers in the crew. If FISA is so concerned about the blind folk taking over rowing, they should create a separate boat class of just blind rowers rather than restricting the number of blind rowers in the crew. The result of these restrictive rules, will be countries not necessarily sending their best rowers to the Paralympics, but sending the requisite composition of rowers that meet the restrictive criteria. Eventually this is going to halt the growth of rowing among the blind and visually impaired.

I think the one thing we can all agree on, is that no Paralympic sport is so flush with athletes that they can afford to turn them away on a technicality.