EVALUACION Y CONTROL DEL PLAN DE MERCADO

One strategy, experienced by some interviewees, involved athletes being less selective in which events they competed in. Rather than an athlete only training and competing for their 'best' event, athletes could also compete in other events, thereby maintaining the number of participants within an event. This strategy was experienced by two interviewees, themselves former Paralympic swimmers. Teresa, a swimmer with a severe impairment, recollected that at the 1988 Paralympic Games:

From my experience, given I was a class 2 and 3 in swimming...swimmers were expected, if you were going to go abroad, you had to be a jack of all trades, in that you weren't really allowed to specialise in any particular event or distance which, for non-disabled swimmers it would have been a complete nonsense to expect that. So I remember swimming loads and loads of races.

Michelle expressed having had a similar experience when she competed at the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games:

at [Sydney 2000] Paralympic games I swam what I would say are 'off events' but I think it was more to try and save events and get the numbers so that it wouldn't be deleted for the next cycle...my coach being quite aware of what was going on at the international level would put me into events which weren't necessarily my best events so that there would be the numbers.

Michelle expressed mixed feelings about being an athlete and being used to make up the numbers in events she did not wish to compete in. I would argue

149 

she was concerned that any symbolic capital accrued from being viewed by others as a legitimate elite swimmer would be tarnished, even nullified, by her less impressive performances in her 'off events'. Michelle commented:

I think at the time I was really frustrated by it [swimming in ‘off events’], 'I look ridiculous in this event, it's not my best event, it makes me look silly and doesn't make me look like a serious athlete' sort of thing, but I think politically you know, they were trying to do a good thing...I guess you just do those sorts of things and other people try to do the same too...looking back now it might not have projected the high performance athlete image, but if it saves an event, it saves an event…I think [now] in Paralympic sport; people are getting more specialised in their events...competition is getting better and it's harder to dominate across events.

It remains to be proven whether long term this increasing specialisation will result in less athletes competing in classes, thereby preventing events from being feasible and thus not staged at the Paralympic Games. There is a risk whereby athletes in striving to represent more closely the professionalised, specialised model of elite able-bodied sport find themselves limited by the specific circumstances of the Paralympic field. Alternatively, if Paralympians did participate in several sports, thereby boosting small athlete populations, would their performances still be perceived to lack credibility. This may occur as Paralympic events are won by athletes who are not seen to dedicate themselves to excellence within a single sport, but instead participate in many.

Strategy 2: Combine athlete classes

An alternative strategy discussed with interviewees, in part a response to the small athletic populations within the Paralympic field, is the combining of Paralympic classes, thereby creating a larger number of athletes within certain events (Daly and Vanlandewijck, 1999; Sherrill, 1989). The importance of creating equivalent athlete populations when combining classes (Howe and Jones, 2006) was evident to Barry: “The problem always, from a governance point of view, is to assure yourself, or be comfortable with the idea, that you're not disadvantaging someone who is already

disadvantaged, by putting them with a group who has got slightly less impairment than the other”. The aim is for an athlete's success to stem from their sporting ability not their impairment. Combining classes can bolster athlete numbers within events also creating time and space at the Paralympic Games into which other events can be included. Barry provided an example of one event where he felt combining classes could be advantageous:

I wouldn't say you'd get all 342 [visual impairment classes] capable of competing against one another but these two [F12 and F13] could do shot, discus, javelin you could put them together...If you run a marathon, you could virtually put all 3 [visual impairment classes] together because I've seen lads totally blind running a marathon in two hours thirty-four [minutes] and I think that year that was the fastest blind marathon runner in the world.

Combining classes is however an intensely divisive issue due to the potential for impairment groups to be removed or systematically disadvantaged by having to compete with differently impaired athletes. Somewhat controversially during interview Connor suggested that to overcome small athlete populations; arm amputees and some athletes with cerebral palsy could compete in the same event:

if you've got an arm amputee running 800metres you might only have eight or ten of them in the world at a good standard who, I was going to say deserve an opportunity, who are at that level, who could quite easily be compared to minimally disabled cerebral palsy athletes, who at the top level there are probably only four or five running the 800 metres.

However, I would argue this would inevitably lead to arm amputees winning each race, as the restriction to a runner of an amputated arm is arguably less than the limiting effect of CP on an athlete's gait and running proficiency. Seemingly breaching the notion that sport should above all be equitable, Connor suggested:

We need to find compromises to allow athletes to compete even if neither group is 100% fairly catered for. We have to find a way of getting the best athletes, whatever the disability, to the track in some way or 'other, and one of the problems over the last 20

151 

years has been that lack of a compromise, from all sorts of people.

The assertion, that the intentional loss of fair competition within the Paralympic field is a worthwhile trade-off to combine more classes and permit a certain package of sporting performance to be exhibited at the Paralympic Games, is deeply concerning (Richter et al., 1992). Especially as this idea is being voiced by an individual who has operated in a highly influential position within the IPC sub-field.

These discussions with Barry and Connor also raise the question of how far a sporting competition should be engineered to ensure certain impaired bodies still compete at the Paralympic Games. Some may argue Paralympic classes of athletes should not be safeguarded, instead left to sink or swim, within the Paralympic field. This issue will now be discussed.

Sink or Swim

The issue of which events warrant inclusion within the Paralympic Games was discussed in detail with some interviewees. Connor outlined some athletes, for example T42s43, were safeguarded in the Paralympic Games, even though there is only a small number of these athletes: “You almost ring fence that small group of [T42] athletes...You go through each of the disability levels and groups to try to do the same thing, but you've still got to get to a stage where you say you can't do it with that group. There isn't a representative group there to do it with”. Limited time and resources mean all athlete populations cannot be included in the Paralympic Games, and thus some will inevitably find their events cut or combined (Sherrill, 1989). Selecting events for the Paralympic Games proves to be a significant challenge as decisions are made about the value of Paralympic classes created from dramatically different athlete populations (Richter et al., 1992). To illustrate this point Connor discussed the differences between dwarf athlete and wheelchair athlete populations:

the dwarf population, it isn't a large population of people, but at the elite end, there are fifteen or twenty athletes who are very close together in terms of performance, so is that a valid group

to be in the Paralympic level? If you compare that group to athletes in a wheelchair for the 1500m; within 5 seconds of one another you might have 300 athletes. So how do you compare that [wheelchair athlete] group with that [dwarf athlete] group? Do you find a place for both of them in the Games or does one get moved out?

To remove an event because there are insufficient athletes to justify its inclusion, arguably leads to additional concerns about the forcing of impaired bodies into certain sports. This was apparent when interviewing Connor, who talking about T51s44, stated:

if we continue to create a quota for them [T51s] the athletes will turn up because they get a chance to go to the Paralympics and maybe they will get a medal because there's only half a dozen of them, but is that sport? Or are we better off saying there are opportunities somewhere else in the Paralympic Games. If those athletes are ambitious to get to the Paralympics they need to play [wheelchair] rugby or Boccia or whatever.

This could legitimise certain sports as viable, moreover desirable, sports for certain athletes with specific impairments to compete in. These events, and athletes, are then laced with the symbolic capital of legitimacy as certain sports may be are accepted as credible manifestations of Paralympic sport. However, athletes in other sports might be unable to exchange their cultural capital into other forms of capital, such as symbolic capital and/or economic capital, as legitimated Paralympic sports monopolise capital resources for a particular disability group. Thus certain sports/events become the domain of certain impairment groups. This potential dilemma was ignored by Connor who stated:

If they [T51s] just enjoy athletics, let them enjoy athletics at home. If there's enough of them...they will get an opportunity in the national team or the European championships, the steps will then get created because the pressure comes to put the events in.

However, I would suggest Connor is over-emphasising the ease of re- including former Paralympic events considering the limit of around 4000 athletes (Mason, 2002) and desires of other sports to enter the Paralympic

153 

Games. As such, instead of waiting for sports to drop out, only to later consider re-instating them with greater athlete numbers, it may be important to safeguard certain Paralympic events now to increase participation amongst this impairment group in this current Paralympic event. However, which events justify having their position safeguarded within the Paralympic Games. The dilemma of removing or attempting to improve participation within a particular event was discussed with Cameron, who stated:

For credibility, at the Paralympics if there's not enough people doing the sport then yes they should disappear. But equally it's easy to be on an ivory tower and say that, but people should be supporting and getting people into those sports as well and in some countries the National Paralympic Committees is all that exists, so they concentrate on the sports that work for them, don't look at developing other sports. So they cut off what doesn't work, and eventually you end up with a very tiny [participation] pyramid.

The need for Paralympic events to act as sanctuaries where sporting role models can encourage increased participation was alluded to by Connor:

You've got this conflict between the T54 track person who, the best in the world has 500 behind him who would like to beat him and the Cp5 100 metre runner, severely disabled ambulatory runner, who probably only has 12 people behind him who want to be the Paralympic champion. Part of that is people don't realise that as a severely disabled ambulatory athlete they're capable of running the 100 metres because probably all their lives they've been told they're not capable of doing it.

To some extent there seems to exist two types of Paralympians. There are those who are perceived to deserve to compete at the Paralympic Games because they face intense competition from a large population of athletes within their event. Alternatively, there are other Paralympians, who compete within small athlete populations but nevertheless can be perceived to justify inclusion by giving their athletic population a chance to expand, as Paralympians act as sporting role models for other potential athletes. This remains a contentious issue that will continue to generate conflict within the Paralympic field as members of the athlete sub-field find themselves being

divided into those who can and those who cannot compete at the Paralympic Games, on the basis of decisions made by the IPC sub-field, but also directly and indirectly affected by other sub-fields within the Paralympic field.

Issues surrounding attempts to provide small athlete populations opportunities to compete at Paralympic Games are exasperated by other factors highlighted by interviewees. Specifically, interviewees perceived there was an over-emphasis on Paralympic sport among national disability sport organisations and furthermore NPCs appeared overly pre-occupied with winning medals.

Firstly, many interviewees perceived there was too much emphasis on Paralympic sport, with other disability sport events marginalised or seemingly non-existent. For example, Cameron argued: “too much in disability sport is just about the Paralympic teams”. The issue of which events are included the Paralympic Games is intensified with disability sport provision heavily centred on Paralympic sports. Being a Paralympic event can have a significant impact upon the development of a disability sport as emphasised by Barry:

because [at the Paralympic Games] you're only offering a sample of that sport you distort the growth, because the sample you offer is the mirror nations use to look at their own disability programmes. 'There's no point in doing that, I can't put someone on funding if their event isn't going to happen '. I could have a great 10,000 runner in amputees or something - waste of time if it’s not there [at the Paralympic Games].

Making disability sport events only appear worthwhile if practised at the Paralympic Games sets a dangerous precedent undermining participation among some already limited small athlete populations. If Paralympic sport alone possesses the opportunity to access the symbolic capital that comes from the status and prestige of being perceived as an elite sportsman with a disability, this could deter individuals from competing in disability sport events not shown at the Paralympic Games. By choosing to compete in a non- Paralympic sport, an individual with an impairment may attain the social and cultural capital that can be gained through undertaking sports participation. However, this cultural capital may not be able to generate subsequent

155 

symbolic capital as the individual fails to identify as an elite athlete with a disability vis-a-vis as a Paralympian. This is a predicament viewed as inappropriate by Connor: “It would be the wrong way round to say... 'If you're a T35 CP runner there isn't a Paralympic 100metres so there's no point in being a 100metre runner'”.

The importance attached to a Paralympic event is partly reflected as Paralympians receive funding which helps contribute to the costs of training and competing as a full-time athlete. Receipt of this economic capital may signify to certain individuals that some Paralympians are legitimately elite athletes as sport is their profession, with people willing to pay for some of them to achieve sporting excellence. In this respect economic capital is able to be transferred into symbolic capital. Yet this economic capital, in the form of funding, is far from secure and relies, not only on the athletes training and performance but the decisions taken by those in the IPC sub-field regarding which events will be included in upcoming Paralympic Games, as outlined by Patrick: “the key thing today is not about funding it's about investment. So the sport is investing in you as an individual to perform. End of story. For people who don't perform they're off...if there's no [Paralympic] event then there's no funding”. If an event is included, and later combined, this can also impact on a prospective Paralympian's funding, as Patrick commented:

If it came to the Paralympic Games in London and there was going to be a combined class in 100metres, but that athlete was being funded in a single disability event and was probably odds on in that single disability event, but for whatever circumstances the entries hadn’t come in or the times hadn't been achieved by athletes and so it's a combined class and athlete 'A' rather than being odds on for a gold is now probably 3rd, 4th would they still maintain funding, yeah, but there would have to be some reflection as to what level.

Thus combining of events, while in theory may be considered pragmatic for including more events, can impact upon athletes' medal chances and income. The importance of medals in defining what resources elite athletes with a disability are given is an important issue both for athletes and disability sports administrators.

Some interviewees perceived there was an excessive concentration of resources on those impaired individuals deemed to possess potentially capital-rich bodies. Talking about the UK context, Patrick feared that a combination of the disproportionate importance attributed to Paralympic sport and winning Paralympic medals will have a negative effect on developing those athletes not eligible for Paralympic competition:

the worry for me...where the national sports federation has taken responsibility for the sport like here, UK Athletics is taking responsibility now, is that their focus is on elite sport and therefore the competitions they stage, the training programmes in place, are all about athletes who can go to the Paralympics, because the Paralympics is the only place that really matters - their funding comes from how many medals they get at the Paralympics, so their focus is solely on that.

The desire for elite athlete production, without broad grassroots participation, appears logical as participation pyramids in Paralympic sport are often very narrow. As Barry states: “I always think of Paralympic sport as one of these tomato plants or something that has been induced under hot house conditions to grow very, very tall so you have a great elevation but you don't