Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Bulletin 61 print

Contacts

| Feature | No.61 May 2011 |

Sport and Physical Education after the Cheetah Legs
Gregor Wolbring
Introduction
European citizens often see sport as an important vehicle to transmit essential values such as team work, discipline or friendship, to fight against all types of discrimination and to promote ethical and social values. Indeed, participation in sport is seen to have much health, social, economic and environmental benefits including for self-concept, self-esteem, reduced depressive symptoms, decreased stress and anxiety, improved self-acceptance, changes in anti-social behaviour and enhanced psychological well-being (CPRA, 1997; Torjman, 2004). According to the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), sport is of particular relevance to people with disabilities and how they live their lives; it is seen as beneficial to the physical body, the independence of the disabled person but also beneficial to integrating disabled people into society (IPC, 2008). The European Parliament resolution on the situation of people with disabilities in the enlarged European Union: the European Action Plan 2006-2007 (2006/2105(INI) states: “The European Parliament, stresses the important role of sport as a factor for improving the quality of life, self-esteem, independence and social integration of people with disabilities” (European Parliament, 2006). Canada has an active strategy to increase the participation of people with disabilities in sport, physical activity and recreation (Canadian Heritage SCB, 2008). Yet although there 12.4% of the Canadian population have a disability, they represent only 1% of the membership of National Sport Organisations (Canadian Heritage SCB, 2008). Attitudes of disabled and so called non-disabled people towards sport is more or less the same at college level (Delforge, 1973). According to Brittain, “experiences of physical education within school have a long-term effect upon the participation, or otherwise, of individuals with disabilities in sport in later life” and schools play “a role in constructing self-perceptions of sport and physical education in relation to people with disabilities” (2004). Several international treaties, charters, conventions and declarations address the issue of discrimination in sport, including discrimination against people with disabilities (Burchfield, 2008; Shafallah Forum on Sport Ability, 2008; United Nations, 2007). To quote from a UN Chronicle Online Edition “Persons with disabilities have the right to participate in sporting and recreational activities at all levels; organising and participating in sports; receiving the necessary instruction, training and resources; and accessing sporting, recreational and leisure venues. In addition, children and youth with disabilities have the right to play and the right to equal access in sporting, recreational and leisure activities, including those within the educational system” (Farkas, 2004). Although, many perceive inclusion into sport disciplines as essential for people with disabilities, this endeavour encounters various problems (European Parliament, 2007; Sherrill, 2004). So far, most of the troubles that many disabled people have experienced in regard to equal access in sporting, recreational and leisure activities is based on the reality that the physical environment, the design of sport events, physical education and high school team sports are tailored towards species-typical functioning. This has left disabled people as outsiders who do not take part in sport activities or disabled people have had to participate in sports performed by other disabled people, in a segregated fashion.
Recently, a controversy appeared around the participation of disabled athletes in Olympic sport events, which was based on the fact that therapeutic body devices developed to mimic species-typical body structures and expected body functioning, as a side effect, increasingly allowed the wearer to outperform the species-typical body in various functions. A lot of attention has been generated by the `cheetah` prosthetic legs worn by the South African Paralympic Amputee Oscar Pistorius and his demand to be allowed to try out for the South African Olympic team. His therapeutic device the `cheetah legs` were labelled as a `techno doping` enabling device (Jones & Wilson, 2009; Wolbring, 2008) as they were seen to be able to give him an unfair advantage over so-called non-disabled athlete. So far, the focus around Pistorius and his `Cheetah legs` has increased speculation about the relationship between the Olympics and Paralympics and their future. However, various athletes with disabilities in many sport disciplines use `Cheetah legs`. Indeed, they are not just worn by Pistorius but by various Paralympic athletes and not just in racing but in various other sport disciplines. They are also already used outside sport such as by Aimee Mullins using it on the catwalk (TED Talks, 2010; Romon, 2010). Cheetah legs are already worn by children (searching4surf, 2011) and the elderly (YouTube, 2011) and prosthetics exist that enable amputees to go back to active military duty (Pitman, 2010) and more are under development for that purpose (Tobin, 2011). Furthermore, it seems reasonable to expect that more `enhancement enabling therapeutic devices` will be developed for and used by people with disabilities in the future. Indeed, people with disabilities are seen to play a key role in mainstreaming and increasing the acceptance of body techno enhancement (Hughes, 2004). This raises not only questions for the Olympics and Paralympics or high performance sport but also for recreational sport, sport in high schools and physical education. This paper, however, focuses on non-high performance sport and what these enhancement enabling therapeutic devices mean for disabled students` participation in sport.
Sports and Disabled People: The Deficit
Despite the fact that sport is seen as important to how disabled people live their lives (IPC, 2008) and that it is “a factor for improving the quality of life, self-esteem, independence and social integration of people with disabilities” (European Parliamant, 2006), there a various problems. According to Sport England, disabled people are less likely to take part in sport and physical activity than so called non-disabled people although disabled people “want to be physically active and healthy by having more opportunities to take part in sport” (Sport England, 2004). Disabled people are underrepresented in sports on various levels, from participants (Brittain, 2004; Kew, 1997; Collins and Kay, 2003) to leadership positions in the sport industry (Masteralexis Pikes, Barr and Hums, 2008). Problems for disabled people also exist in schools within physical education classes. A 2007 European Parliament report on Physical Education acknowledges that many PE curricula are designed for, and favour, the physically able as does the traditional emphasis on competition leading to winning as an essential component of the PE experience. Disabled children are often excluded from out-of-school activities, mainly due to lack of transportation and the competitive nature of clubs etc – a traditional team environment. (European Parliament, 2007). According to the USA Women`s Sports Foundation, individuals with disabilities are almost three times as likely to be sedentary as individuals without disabilities (Lakowski, 2008).
Sports and Disabled People: Laws and Regulations
Beside the international treaties, charters, conventions and declarations already mentioned, national laws such as those in Palestine (Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, 1999) and the UK (Sport England, 2004) also cover sports and disabled people. In the USA, on April 7th 2008, the Maryland General Assembly passed the Fitness and Athletics Equity for Students with Disabilities Act and Maryland became the first State to pass Sports Equity Law for Students with Disabilities “that requires schools to provide disabled students with access to high school sports teams, either among themselves or with able-bodied students” (Maryland General Assembly, 2008; Carey, 2008). The law was generated to fight “a culture of exclusion and discrimination against individuals with disabilities within school systems” (Lakowski, 2008). In actuality, the bill “requires that schools ensure that students with disabilities have equal opportunities to participate in physical education and athletic programs, develop policies and procedures to promote and protect the inclusion of students with disabilities, and provide annual reporting to the Maryland State Department of Education detailing their compliance with these requirements” (Lakowski, 2008). However, many documents highlight various problems and how implementation of laws are lacking (THENAPA, 2003; European Parliament, 2007; Fitzgerald, 2009) and in some places the danger exists for disability sport to go backwards (Member of Parliament UK, 2010).
The Future of sport (non- Olympic and Paralympic) for disabled people
Doping, the hidden use of performance enhancement products with the purpose of obtaining an unfair competitive advantage, by high performance athletes has influenced sport for a long time and is under intense scrutiny. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) works towards a vision of the world that values and fosters a doping-free culture in sport (WADA, 2010). However, a 2007 literature review performed on behalf of WADA (Backhouse, McKenna, Robinson and Atkin, 2007) finds very few studies that looked at doping within the context of high schools.
Therapeutic `techno-doped` artificial body parts were not a topic for sport until the Paralympian Pistorius asked for permission to try out for the South African Olympic team. The story of Pistorius, as it played itself out so far, focused on three issues: a) do the therapeutic devices the Cheetah legs give him an unfair advantage and is the label of techno doping correct?; b) should he be allowed to compete directly against Olympic athletes?; and c) what does the Pistorius case mean for the relationship between the Olympics and Paralympics and the meaning of the Olympics and Olympism. The Pistorius discourse has so far missed the issue of the bionic `Cheetah legs` used in possible Olympic events (Wolbring, 2008) and it missed the impact on non-Olympic/Paralympic sport as well as the impact on disabled children in schools. The question remains as to whether the Cheetah legs are a positive game changer for the participation of disabled people in sport or not?
Therapeutic `techno-doped` artificial body parts (Cheetah legs) and school sport
Although the `Cheetah legs` are associated with Paralympic athletes, they have already moved beyond them and into society in general. `Cheetah legs` are already worn by elementary school age disabled children (searching4surf, 2011). Disabled children that are educated in mainstream schools are often not involved in school sport, whether its physical education or high school sport teams, because of “lack of appropriate infrastructure; difficulties with facility and equipment provision (50%); lack of staff expertise (21%) and resources (10%); difficulties with severity of the disabilities (15%); the lack of official policy legislation (2%) to address and to raise broader awareness of integration issues; physical barriers to access; class management inadequacies; programme content; and class sizes” (European Parliament, 2007). The report states further, “In mainstream schools, many PE curricula are designed for, and favour, the physically able. The traditional emphasis on competition leading to winning as an essential component of the PE experience can result in embarrassment, demotivation and development of negative self-concept. Competition and tradition are powerful inhibitors of change in PE with the Games discourse an anti-inclusive item” (European Parliament, 2007).
The `Cheetah legs` do not decrease the problems listed in the last paragraph however there are two exceptions. They might allow the disabled person to become part of the group of the physical able, being able to take on the normative abled person performance wise. However, the child with `Cheetah legs` will face the same issues as Pistorius. If Pistorius` legs were a techno doping device, so would be the child`s `Cheetah legs`. Disabled people can define their relationship towards the so-called non-disabled in two ways. One being that they perform their activities outside of the normative bodied and abled world (e.g. some prefer segregated schools); the other being that one wants to be with the normative bodied and abled. Pistorius` wish of wanting to run against Olympic athletes could fit into the second category. He did not ask for his own Olympic event of `Cheetah leg` racing. The author submits that if there had been a chance that the Olympic runners would have competed in the Paralympics, he would have been fine running against them there. It is less clear whether he would have still asked to run against Olympic runners if he would have been challenged more by existing Paralympic athletes. In the moment, his argument is one of wanting to be challenged; his argument is one of performance, not integration. How will the Pistorius line of reasoning play itself out at the school level? For one, in mainstream schools the chance that the `Cheetah leg` child can compete against other `Cheetah leg` children is slim, so the only competition could be against the normative able. However, if the legs` label as a techno doping device stands, they will not be allowed to compete against them either. They might run with them for leisure to fulfill sport class attendance but they could never be part of the school athletic team. Furthermore, even at the leisure level, leg-normal children might resent being outrun by the `Cheetah leg` children. Maryland became the first State to pass Sports Equity Law for Students with Disabilities `that requires schools to provide disabled students with access to high school sports teams, either among themselves or with able-bodied students” (Carey, 2008). However, the language of the law is ambiguous. There is no per se requirement to allow `Cheetah leg` student to be part of a leg-normal team. Especially if there are enough `Cheetah leg` students, they might be given their own team. At competitions between schools, one might not per se see `Cheetah leg` students being part of normal-leg student teams leading to a unified team result but the `Cheetah leg` students of different schools might compete against each other in separate events. However, according to the Women`s Sports Foundation (Lakowski, 2008) neither the National Federation of State High School Associations nor the NCAA officially sanctions any intercollegiate or interscholastic program, event, or competition for individuals with disabilities. In the present situation, the `Cheetah leg` children might be able but have few ways to live out their ability in school sport; if they do, they run the risk of being stigmatised, as they gain abilities that people are not used to them having. It is interesting that the UK Paralympic team has the problem of a higher average age because, for example, very few wheelchair athletes are generated today within the mainstream school system (Brittain, 2004). The `Cheetah leg` children might face many of the same problems of the school wheelchair athlete and decide not to perform sport with the cheetah legs. Today, in many countries, segregated school systems still exist. In these, the `Cheetah` children can perform against each other like the Paralympic athletes perform against each other. They might also compete against other segregated schools. However, as the Pistorius story stands so far, they will not be allowed to compete as teams directly against normative able teams.
Beyond the legs
Therapeutic devices that could be classified as techno doping devices might also appear for other body parts such as arms, which would influence other sports such as Shot put, Hammer throw, Javelin throw and Discus throw. Therapeutic `techno doped` artificial body parts such as arms and legs might also be usable in swimming events, baseball, basketball, volleyball and various gymnastic events. In all of these sport disciplines, the same problems might occur. In the case of team sport, the consequences for the wearer of the techno-doped body part might even be more devastating because there has to be enough participants and enough people with the same sporting interest and same techno-doped body part in order to be able to have a team. In case people with techno doped body parts form their own events, the question is how, much recognition do these athletes receive? Brittain and others highlighted that Paralympic athletes feel undervalued (2004; EurActiv, 2006). However, if events based on techno-doped body parts become popular with the audience and sponsors, which might breed resentment among the normative able people especially at the school level where sport plays such a big role in people`s self-perception. Furthermore, the wearers of therapeutic techno-doped devices might also generate resentment from other disabled people for whom no device exists to be able to compete with the normative able.
Therapeutic `techno-doped` artificial body parts and recreational sport
How much benefit do therapeutic `techno-doped` artificial body segments impart on disabled people in regard to access and quality of experience of recreational sport? Many of the same questions raised under school sport are evident here. It all hinges on whether the `techno-doped` wearer can participate with the normative abled in the same events or whether they are forced to find other `techno-doped` people. `Cheetah legs` are already worn by the elderly (YouTube, 2011). Therapeutic `techno-doped` artificial body parts such as `Cheetah legs` could be a great advancement for the social and psychological well being of the elderly if it allows them to participate in social activity and with that, recreation and leisure sport. Then very likely therapeutic artificial body parts that cannot be labelled as techno-doped would be just as sufficient to obtain this goal.
Therapeutic `techno-doped` artificial body parts and the utility of sport
Given the problems above, the question remains as to whether therapeutic techno-doped artificial body parts lead to the involvement of disabled people in school sport, which leads to team work, discipline or friendship and will it decrease discrimination and facilitate inclusion in all aspects seen as important in sport (European Commission, 2004). Do these devices facilitate the promotion of ethical and social values through sport, seen as a priority for the European Union? Which policies will guarantee the demand of the 2007 European Commission white paper adopted for “ensuring equal access to sport for all pupils, and specifically for children with disabilities (Commission of the European Communities, 2007). How can key principles in inclusive policy of opportunity, individual needs, planning and dignity mentioned in a 2007 European Parliament report on Physical Education be achieved? (European Parliament, 2007) The problems outlined, in regard to the therapeutic techno-doped artificial body parts, pose challenges such as the mandate perceived by sportsscotland`s interpretation of the UK Disability Discrimination Act means that it places “a general duty on public bodies such as sportscotland” to:

- Eliminate discrimination and harassment on the grounds of disability;
- Promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and other people;
- Promote positive attitudes towards disabled people;
- Encourage participation by disabled people in public life; and
- Take steps to meet the needs of disabled people, even if this requires more favourable treatment.

Although favourable, there are other questions that need to be answered in the context of future essays on the Paralympic Movement and it is hoped that this work will soon be forthcoming.
Key Words: disabled people rights, Pistorius, physical education, new sciences and technologies, law, enhancement.

References
Backhouse, S., McKenna, J., Robinson, S. & Atkin, A. (2007). International Literature Review: Attitudes, Behaviours, Knowledge and Education – Drugs in Sport: Past, Present and Future. World Anti-Doping Agency. Available at: (http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Backhouse_et_al_Full_Report.pdf). (accessed 10th January 2011.
Brittain, I. (2004). Perception of disability and their impact upon involvement in sports for people with disabilities at all levels. Journal of Sports & Social Issues 28(4):429-52.
Brittain, I. (2004). The role of schools in constructing self-perceptions of sport and physical education in relation to people with disabilities. Sport, Education and Society 9(1):75-94.
Burchfield, A. (2008). UPDATE: International Sports Law. New York University School of Law webpage Available at: (http://www.nyulawglobal.org/Globalex/International_Sports_Law1.htm). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Canadian Parks and Recreation Association (CPRA) (1997). Benefits of Parks and Recreation. Canadian Parks and Recreation Association (CPRA) Available at: (http://www.cpra.ca/main.php?action=cms.initBeneParksRec). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Canadian Heritage SCB. (2008). Sport Participation Strategy 2008 - 2012 . Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada. (unknown url address).(accessed 10 January 2011).
Carey, D. (2008). Blazing new trail. The Baltimore Examiner, Available at: (http://www.examiner.com/a-1331172~Blazing_new_trail.html). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Collins, M. F. & Kay, T. (2003). Sport and Social Exclusion. Routledge.
Commission of the European Communities (2007). White Paper on Sport. Commission of the European Communities.
Delforge, G. D. (1973). Attitudes of physically handicapped and non-handicapped college students toward physical activity. University of Arizona.
European Commission (2004). The Citizens of the European Union and Sport.
European Parliament (2006). Situation of disabled people in the enlarged European Union: the European Action Plan 2006-2007.
European Parliament Directorate General Internal Policies of the Union Policy (2007). Department Structural and Cohesion Policies Culture and Euducation. Current Situation and Prospects for Physical Education in the European Union. European Parliament; (2007).
EurActiv.com (2006). `Disabled access to sport must be improved`. EurActiv com Available at: (http://www.euractiv.com/en/sports/disabled-access-sport-improved/article-160198). (accessed 10th January 2011.
Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (1999). The President of the Palestinian National Authority.1999. Palestinian Disability Law Law Number 4 for the Year 1999 Concerning the Rights of the Disabled. Worldbank. (accessed 10th January 2011).
Farkas, A. (2004). Right to Participate, Rights to Win The Paralympic Games. UN Chronicle Online Edition 16(4).
Fitzgerald, H. (2009). Disability and youth sport. Routledge.
Hughes, J. (2004). Battle Plan to Be More than Well Transhumanism is finally getting in gear. World Transhumanist Association Webpage Available at: (http://transhumanism.org/index.php/th/more/509/ ). (accessed 10thJanuary 2011).
International Paralympic Committee (2008). History of Sport for Persons with a Disability. International Paralympic Committee webpage. Available at: (http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sections_Menu/IPC/About_the_IPC/History_of_Sport_for_Persons_with_a_Disability/). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Jones, C. & Wilson, C. (2009). Defining advantage and athletic performance: The case of Oscar Pistorius. European Journal of Sport Science 9(2):125-31.
Kew, F. (1997). Sport: Social problems and issues. Oxford, UK: Butterworth, Heinemann.
Lakowski, T. (2008). Victory! Maryland Blazes the Trail for Students with Disabilities. Women`s Sports Foundation Available at: (http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Equity-Issues/V/Victory-Maryland-Blazes-the-Trail-for-Students-with-Disabilities.aspx). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Maryland General Assembly (2008). Fitness and Athletics Equity for Students with Disabilities Act.
Masteralexis Pikes, L., Barr, C. & Hums, M. (2008). Principles and Practice of Sport Management. Third Edition ed. Sudbury, MA, USA: Jones & Bartlett.
Member of Parliament (UK). (2010). Parliamentary Business (UK). parliament uk Available at: (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101130/debtext/101130-0003.htm) . (accessed 10th January 2011).
Pitman, T. (2010). Double-amputee back on patrol in Afghanistan. THe News Tribune Available at: (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/26/1356799/double-amputee-back-on-patrol.html). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Romon, R. (2010). Double Amputee Aimee Mullins` Prosthetic Limbs Make Her Sexier and Faster Than You. Technocrati Available at: (http://technorati.com/technology/article/double-amputee-aimee-mullins-prosthetic-limbs/#ixzz15qj5vSjr). (accessed 10th January 2011).
searching4surf.2011. (2011). Ezra Running on Ossur Cheetah Leg with John Siciliano. Youtube. Available at: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ko2Wzd4ouk). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Shafallah Forum on Sport and Ability (2008). The Third Annual International Shafallah Forum on Sport and Ability Shafallah Declaration Doha, Qatar. Shafallah Forum on Sport and Ability Available at: (http://www.icsspe.org/download/documente/deklaration/Shafallah%20Declaration.pdf?PHPSESSID=b4a0db654845da8db64a1bcafd47b2cf). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Sherrill, C. (2004). Young people with disability in physical education/physical activity/sport in and out of schools: Technical report for the World Health Organization. International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education Available at: (http://www.icsspe.org/documente/YOUNGPEOPLE.pdf). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Sport England (2004). Disability Discrimination Legislation Information Note for Sports Clubs Version 1 - July 2004. Sport England Available at: (http://www.sportengland.org/iyr_london-dda_1995.htm). (accessed at 16th May 2011).
TED Talks (2010). Aimee Mullins and her 12 pairs of legs. TED Talks Available at: (http://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_prosthetic_aesthetics.html). (accessed 10th January 2011.
THENAPA (2003). THENAPA - Educational and Social Integration of Persons with a Disability through Adapted Physical Activity. ISOC Socrates Projects Database Available at: (http://www.isoc.siu.no/isocii.nsf/projectlist/111578). (accessed 1th January 2011).
Tobin, L. (2011). Soldiers could get back to active duty with the help of a `smart` prosthesis. Guardian Unlimited UK Available at: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/18/research-prostheses-armed-forces). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Torjman, S. (2004). Culture and Recreation: Links to Well-Being. Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
United Nations (2007). United Nations INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. United Nations Convention webpage Available at: (http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/). (accessed 10th January 2011.
Wolbring, G. (2008). Oscar Pistorius and the Future Nature of Olympic, Paralympic and Other Sports. SCRIPTed - A Journal of Law, Technology & Society 5(1):139-60.
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) (2010). About WADA. Available at: (http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/). (accessed 10th January 2011).
YouTube (2011). Right TT amputee running. Youtube Available at: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoCdARsIBWg). (accessed 10th January 2011).
Contact
Dr. Greg Wolbring
University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada
Email: gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca

http://www.icsspe.org/