Content uploaded by Margaret Gold
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margaret Gold on Mar 10, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://rsh.sagepub.com
the Promotion of Health
The Journal of the Royal Society for
DOI: 10.1177/1466424007077348 2007; 127; 133 The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
John R. Gold and Margaret M. Gold Access for all: the rise of the Paralympic Games
http://rsh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/127/3/133
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
can be found at:The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health Additional services and information for
http://rsh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://rsh.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
JRSH 2007;127(3):133-141 Access for All ARTICLE 133
May 2007 Vol 127 No 3 Copyright © 2007 The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health JRSH
ISSN 1466-4240 DOI: 10.1177/1466424007077348
Access for all: the rise of the
Paralympic Games
Authors
JJoohhnn RR.. GGoolldd
BSc (Econ), MSocSci,
PhD, Professor of Human
Geography, School
of Social Sciences and
Law, Oxford Brookes
University, Gipsy Lane,
Headington, Oxford, OX3
0BP, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)1865 483784
Fax: +44 (0)1865 483937
Email: jrgold@brookes.ac.uk
MMaarrggaarreett MM.. GGoolldd
BA, MA, MA, Dip (URS),
School of Business,
London Metropolitan
University, 277–281
Holloway Road, London
N7 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7133 3214
Fax: +44 (0)20 7133 3076
Email:
m.gold@londonmet.ac.uk
CCoorrrreessppoonnddiinngg aauutthhoorr::
John R. Gold, as above
Key words
Disability, inclusiveness,
Olympics, Paralympics,
Stoke Mandeville
INTRODUCTION
Few developments have challenged existing ways of
thinking about sport and disability more than the
rise of the Paralympic Games. Seen as the summit of
disability sport, the Paralympic Games have played a
major part in changing attitudes by emphasizing
achievement rather than impairment, by accelerating
the agenda of inclusion and by helping to promote
the concept of a barrier-free environment within
town planning and architectural discourse. The
Games themselves have had considerable impact on
those parts of the world where disability was
ideologically problematic, forcing changes in official
attitudes, if only to accommodate international
opinion in order to win the bidding process to hold
the event. Above all, they have raised the status of
disabled sport to the point where participants earn
esteem as athletes in their own right, thereby
challenging prevailing assumptions and stereotypes
about ‘disability’.
This article charts the development of the
Paralympics from small beginnings as a competition
for disabled ex-servicemen and women in the
grounds of Stoke Mandeville Hospital in England to
the present day ambulatory international festival. In
doing so, it reflects on the transformation in
disability sport over the years from an emphasis on
what athletes cannot do and their deviation from the
norm to an emphasis on excellence.1The changing
understanding of the word ‘Paralympics’ itself is
Abstract
The Paralympic, or Parallel, Games for athletes with disabilities have played a major role over
the past half century in changing attitudes towards disability and accelerating the agenda for
inclusion. This article charts their development from small beginnings as a competition for
disabled ex-servicemen and women in England founded shortly after the Second World War to
the present day ambulatory international festival of Summer and Winter Games organized in
conjunction with the Olympic Games.
The Paralympic Games trace their origins to the work of Dr (later Sir) Ludwig Guttmann at the
National Spinal Injuries Unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire who used sport
as an integral part of the treatment of paraplegic patients. A sports competition was held at the
hospital to coincide with the Opening Ceremony of the London Games in July 1948. This
became an annual event attracting the first international participation in 1952, after which it
became the International Stoke Mandeville Games. From 1960 onwards attempts were made
to hold every fourth Games in the Olympic host city.
Despite initial success in staging the 1960 Games in Rome and the 1964 Games in Tokyo,
subsequent host cities refused to host the competitions and alternative locations were found
where a package of official support, finance and suitable venues could be assembled. In 1976,
the scope of the Games was widened to accept other disabilities. From 1988 onwards, a
process of convergence took place that saw the Paralympics brought into the central arena of
the Olympics, both literally and figuratively. In the process they have embraced new sports,
have encompassed a wider range of disabilities, and helped give credence to the belief that
access to sport is available to all. The Paralympics also underline the change from sport as
therapeutic competition to that of elite events that carry intrinsic prestige, with growing rivalry
over medal tables. For the future, however, questions remain as to whether the current
arrangements of separate but supposedly equal festivals assist the continuing development of
the Paralympics or perpetuate difference.
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 133
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
134 ARTICLE Access for all
JRSH The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health May 2007 Vol 127 No 3
symptomatic of this change in thinking. The
International Paralympic Committee (IPC)
admits that the term was originally a pun
combining ‘paraplegic’ and ‘Olympic’,2
effectively confronting Olympian traditions
of celebrating excellence and the perfectly
formed body with the realities of disability.
Over time, reinterpretation occurred. This
was driven partly by the Games gradually
embracing participants with forms of
disability other than paraplegia but also
resulted from a convergence that has seen
the Paralympics embraced within the
Olympic Movement. The approved
etymology currently asserts that the first
syllable of ‘Paralympics’derives from the
Greek preposition ‘para’, meaning ‘beside’ or
‘alongside’. Viewed in this way, the
Paralympics constitute a parallel Games to
the Olympics, existing side-by-side with the
event commonly regarded as the ‘World’s
Games’.3, 4 Indeed, with 3806 athletes
competing at Athens in 2004, the
Paralympics are now the second largest
international sports gathering of any type
after the Summer Olympics.
ORIGINS
The first stirrings of disability sport date
back to the late 19th century, primarily
involving the work of activists in the deaf
community. The first Sports Club for the
Deaf was founded in Berlin in 1888 and, by
1924, national sports federations for the
deaf had emerged in Belgium,
Czechoslovakia, France, Great Britain, the
Netherlands and Poland. Collectively, these
six federations sent 140 athletes to Paris in
1924 to participate in the First
International Silent Games5– the gathering
that marked the birth of a four-yearly cycle
of ‘World Games for the Deaf ’.
Subsequently divided into Summer and
Winter festivals after the fashion of the
Olympics, these were later recognized by
the International Olympic Committee
(IOC) as the Deaflympics.
The Deaflympics were important as an
indication of possibilities, but retained a
separate existence from the movement that
would create the Paralympics. Rather, the
latter stemmed from the treatment of spine-
injured servicemen at the end of the Second
World War and particularly the work of
Ludwig Guttmann, a figure whose role is
comparable with that of Baron Pierre de
Coubertin in reviving the modern
Olympics.6Guttmann, a prominent Jewish
neurosurgeon, had arrived in Britain as a
refugee from Germany in 1939. After
appointment to research posts first at
Oxford University’s Department of
Neurosurgery and then at the Wingfield-
Morris Orthopaedic Hospital, Guttmann
became director of what would become the
National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke
Mandeville Hospital (Aylesbury,
Buckinghamshire). Guttmann7later
commented that paraplegia was the ‘most
depressing and neglected subject in all
medicine’ at this time, characterized by low
morale among nursing staff and difficulty in
recruiting specialist physiotherapists.
His approach challenged the orthodoxy
prevalent before the Second World War that
accepted low survival rates and permanent
hospitalization for severely paralysed
patients. It instituted a programme of ‘total
care’, having patients turned every two
hours day and night to prevent pressure
sores and improving standards of bladder
hygiene to help tackle problems of
infection. Physiotherapy assisted limb
flexibility and, for some patients, increased
mobility. A pre-vocational work regime and
various forms of recreation including
concerts, visits and competitive sports,
designed to keep patients busy and create a
sense of purpose, complemented the
medical regime. In this context, therefore,
sport transcended mere leisure. Not only
was it ‘the most natural form of remedial
exercise’restoring physical fitness, strength,
co-ordination, speed, endurance and
overcoming fatigue, but it also had a
psychological impact of restoring pleasure
in life and contributing to social
reintegration.8In essence, Guttmann
believed that sport was a pathway that
might help even severely disabled people to
live a healthier, happier life, to gain
confidence and self-esteem and to achieve a
degree of independence.9
Developing these ideas, Guttmann
formulated the idea of a sports festival for
the disabled that would promote contact
with other patients and address attitudes
about the capabilities of the disabled. On
28 July 1948, an archery competition took
place on the front lawns of the hospital,
involving 16 competitors arranged into two
teams: one from Stoke Mandeville and the
other from the Star and Garter Home in
Richmond. The event was consciously
chosen as a demonstration of potential,
symbolized by being held on the same day
as the Opening Ceremony of the London
Olympics, with archery seen as second only
to swimming in its ‘physiotherapeutic value
... for the paralysed’.10 In 1949, Stoke
Mandeville hosted a larger competition,
involving 60 competitors from five
hospitals participating in what became a
steadily widening group of sports (Table 1).
During the meeting, Guttmann gave a
speech in which he hoped that the event
would become international and achieve
‘world fame as the disabled men and
women’s equivalent of the Olympic
Games’.7
The Stoke Mandeville Games soon
acquired an international dimension. In
1952, another Olympic year, the
involvement of a group of Dutch war
veterans presaged wider European
participation. In 1953, teams from Finland,
France, Israel and the Netherlands joined
the Games, along with a Canadian team. An
American team first participated in 1955,
followed by an Australian team in 1957 – by
which time the Stoke Mandeville Games
had commonly gained the nickname
‘Paralympics’.11 These international links
reflected connections that Stoke Mandeville
had developed through training visiting
staff, staff mobility and ex-patients who
spread knowledge of and enthusiasm for the
Hospital’s approach to paraplegic care and
the role of sport in rehabilitation. In the
early days, the vast majority of competitors
were patients, but the Games soon attracted
significant numbers of ex-patients living
independent lives. Over time,there was a
gradual but inexorable shift from
therapeutic uses of sport to the
development of training and fitness
programmes that sought to promote the
health and well-being of the disabled
through sport.12 As such, the disabled
athlete would gain enhanced physical
fitness, but would also gain from sport as a
motivational force that encouraged athletes
to achieve their potential and to develop
‘competitive spirit, self-discipline and self-
respect’.12 Noticeably, the Games also
developed away from organization on a
hospital basis to the emergence of national
teams, which would eventually operate
squad systems in a manner similar to
conventional international sport.
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 134
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Access for all ARTICLE 135
May 2007 Vol 127 No 3 The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health JRSH
BUILDING CONNECTIONS
As the Games grew, demands for greater
professionalism towards the organization,
funding and management of international
sport for the disabled saw the establishment
in 1959 of the International Stoke
Mandeville Games Committee (later
Foundation, hence ISMGF). This ran and
developed the annual Stoke Mandeville
Games and oversaw the organization of a
parallel four-yearly ‘Olympic’ competition
until 1972 (see Table 2). However,holding
aspirations for Olympian status, and all this
implied for the image and reputation of
disabled sport, was one thing; building
substantive connections was quite another.
The process of drawing the Paralympic and
the Olympic movements together would
prove long and tortuous, despite highly
promising beginnings. In 1956, during
ceremonies at the Melbourne Olympics, the
IOC had awarded Guttmann the Fearnley
Cup for ‘outstanding achievement in the
service of Olympic ideals’,7a remarkable
degree of recognition less than a decade
after the foundation of the Stoke
Mandeville Games.
Further convergence seemed likely after
the decision to stage the Stoke Mandeville
Games in the Olympic host city had led to
Games held in Rome (1960) and Tokyo
(1964). Such arrangements depended on the
goodwill of the host city, coupled with
sponsorship and public funding to cover the
cost. The Rome Games, for example, had
the cooperation of the Spinal Unit at Ostia,
gained sponsorship from INAIL (Italian
National Insurance Institute Against
Accidents at Work), and had the support of
the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI).
The 400 disabled athletes used the Olympic
Pool and Village, but last minute changes
meant that those parts of the Village
equipped with lifts were unavailable.
Moreover, withdrawal of an offer to use
nearby Olympic facilities meant that
competitors were perforce bused 40 minutes
to the Tre Fontane sports ground.13 The
1964 Games followed on from the Summer
Olympics in Tokyo, with competitors
accommodated in the Village and sharing
facilities recently used by the Olympic
athletes. The Opening Ceremony, with the
Crown Prince and Princess acting as
patrons, attracted 5000 spectators.
Nevertheless, it was another 24 years
before disabled athletes again competed in
an Olympic city (Seoul 1988). The IOC,
which handled the bidding process for the
Olympics, was only interested in candidate
cities’ ability to meet the needs of elite
athletes and made no stipulation that the
Olympic city must host parallel games for
athletes with disabilities. This absence of any
inclusive philosophy regarding athletes with
Paralympic sports
Year included in the full
Summer games Paralympic programme
Archery 1960
Athletics 1960
Boccia 1984
Bowls 1968–1988, 1996
Cycling 1988
Equestrian 1996
Football 5-a-side 2004
Football 7-a-side 1984
Goalball 1976
Judo 2004
Powerlifting/Weightlifting 1964 men
2000 women
Rowing 2008
Sailing 2000
Shooting 1976
Swimming 1960
Table Tennis 1960
Volleyball – standing 1976–1996
Volleyball – sitting 1980
Wheelchair Basketball 1960
Wheelchair Fencing 1960
Wheelchair Rugby 2000
Wheelchair Tennis 1992
Winter Games
Alpine Skiing 1976
Ice Sledge Hockey 1994
Nordic Skiing – Cross Country 1976
Nordic Skiing – Biathlon 1994
Wheelchair Curling 2006
Sources: International Paralympic Committee. About the IPC. Bonn: International
Paralympic Committee. Available online at: http://www.paralympic.org (accessed 29
October 2006).
Table 1
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 135
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
136 ARTICLE Access for all
JRSH The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health May 2007 Vol 127 No 3
Summer Paralympic Games
No. of No. of No. of sports for which Disability
Year Aegis Location countries athletes medals awarded groupsb
1952 Stoke Mandeville Stoke 2 130 6 SI
Hospital Mandevillea
1960 ISMGC Rome 23 400 8 SI
1964 ISMGC Tokyo 21 357 9 SI
1968 ISMGC Tel Aviv, 29 750 10 SI
Israela
1972 ISMGF Heidelberg, 43 984 10 SI
West Germanya
1976 ISMGF Toronto, 38 1657 13 SI, A, VI,
ISOD CanadaaLA
1980 ISMGF Arnhem, 42 1973 12 SI, A, VI,
ISOD HollandaLA, CP
1984 ISMGF Stoke 41 1100 10 SI
Mandevillea
ISOD New Yorka45 1800 14 A, VI, LA, CP
1988 ICC Seoul 61 3013 18 SI, A, VI,
LA, CP
1992 ICC Barcelona 82 3021 16 SI, A, VI,
LA, CP
Madrida73 1400 5 ID
1996 IPC Atlanta 103 3195 19 SI, A, VI, LA,
CP, ID
2000 IPC Sydney 122 3843 19 SI, A, VI, LA,
CP, ID
2004 IPC Athens 136 3806 19 SI, A, VI,
LA, CP
2008 IPC Beijing 150 4000 20 SI, A, VI,
expected expected LA, CP
2012 IPC London 150 4200 20 na
expected expected
aYears in which the Paralympic Games did not take place in the Olympic location.
bSI = spinal injury; A = amputee; VI = visually impaired; LA = les autres; CP = cerebral palsy; ID = intellectual impairment.
Sources: International Paralympic Committee. About the IPC. Bonn: International Paralympic Committee. Available online at:
http://www.paralympic.org (accessed 29 October 2006); Scruton J.
Stoke Mandeville: road to the Paralympics – fifty years of
history
. Aylesbury: Peterhouse, 1998.
Table 2
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 136
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
disability saw a succession of cities
effectively refusing to stage the Paralympics.
The reason lay in a combination of different
factors, inter alia, the costs of rectifying
inaccessible building design, shortage of
funds to invest in an event with what was
then regarded as having low revenue-raising
potential, and the steady growth in scale of
the Paralympics – especially after the
admission of a wider range of disabilities
after 1976 (see Table 2).
Despite having sent three observers to
Tokyo, Mexico City declined the Games in
1968 because of ‘technical difficulties’. They
were held instead at the sports centre of the
Israel Foundation for Handicapped
Children in Ramat Gan near Tel Aviv
(Israel). In 1972, the University of
Heidelberg staged the Games rather than
Munich, as plans for the post-festival use of
the Olympic Village had meant transferring
the site to developers for conversion into
private apartments immediately after the
Olympics’ Closing Ceremony.13 Lack of
suitable accommodation plagued
subsequent events. In 1976, Toronto acted as
host rather than the Olympic City of
Montreal, but the designated
accommodation at Toronto and York
Universities proved less than ideal given the
distance between the Village sites and
between the Olympic Villages and the
stadia. When the Moscow Olympic
organizers failed even to respond to a
request to stage the Games, the 1980 festival
took place at Arnhem in the Netherlands.
Here, too, the available accommodation (an
army barracks) was inconveniently located
for access to the sports venues. In 1984, the
Americans agreed to host the Games for all
disabilities, but not in the host Olympic city
(Los Angeles). Instead,they were to be split
between New York and the University of
Illinois at Champaign, an arrangement that
foundered when the latter withdrew,
through funding problems, just four
months before the Games. As a result, the
wheelchair events were hurriedly rearranged
at Stoke Mandeville.13 Ironically, these were
the first Games that the IOC officially
recognized as the Paralympics.
The early Winter Games for the disabled
fared little better (Table 3). Established in
1976, they also did not initially take place
in the Olympic venues or countries. The
first Games were in Örnsköldsvik (Sweden)
rather than Innsbruck (Austria). These
were followed in 1980 by Geilo (Norway)
rather than Lake Placid, Innsbruck in 1984
rather than Sarajevo (although an
exhibition event was held in the Winter
Games there) and Innsbruck again in 1988
rather than Calgary, which declined the
Paralympics.
This regression from the pattern seemingly
established in the early 1960s greatly
disappointed the Paralympic movement.
Guttmann denounced the thinking that had
prevented Mexico City or Munich from
holding the Games, commenting on ‘the
lamentable lack of appreciation of the place
thousands of disabled sportsmen and women
have earned for themselves in the field of
international sport’.8Partly as a result, a new
complex of buildings was constructed at
Stoke Mandeville, comprising a Stadium for
the Paralysed and Other Disabled (opened in
1969 and later renamed the Ludwig
Guttmann Sports Stadium for the disabled)
and an ‘Olympic’Village in 1981.6These
facilities finally detached the sporting
facilities from the hospital itself and from the
notion of ‘illness’, which reflected the fact that
disabled athletes were now achieving elite
status with an emphasis on performance.
Problems of the definition of disability
and competing jurisdictions of relevant
organizations also affected progress. The
Stoke Mandeville Games originally confined
entry to medically controlled paraplegics,
but other groups pressed for participation
in internationally organized sports festivals.
The foundation of the International Sports
Organization for the Disabled (ISOD) in
1964 created opportunities for the blind,
amputees and individuals with other
locomotor disabilities.1ISOD collaborated
with ISMGF in broadening the scope of the
1976 Toronto games to include amputees,
visually impaired and ‘Les Autres’(other
disabled groups). Competitors with cerebral
palsy joined the 1980 Games.
The expanding scope of disability sport
quickly generated new international
disability organizations. The need to
coordinate their activities and eliminate
duplication of events required further
institutional arrangements, leading in
particular to the foundation of the ICC
(International Coordinating Committee of
the World Sports Organizations) in 1982.
This brought together nominated senior
representatives from the four major
International Sports Organisations:
ISMWSF (the International Stoke
Mandeville Wheelchair Sports Federation,
previously the ISMGF), ISOD, IBSA (the
International Blind Sports Federation) and
the CP-ISRA (Cerebral Palsy International
Sport and Recreation Association). These
were later joined by CISS (International
Committee of Sports for the Deaf) and
INAS (International Sports Federation for
Persons with Mental Handicap – later
changed to Intellectual Disability). Thus
constituted, the ICC gave the disabled sports
movement a single voice for the first time. It
also allowed greater clarity in developing
relations with the IOC and Olympic Games
Organizing Committees, which found
immediate expression in the final
geographical convergence of the Summer
Games at Seoul in 1988 and the Winter
Games at Albertville in 1992.
THE ICC GAMES
The ICC oversaw the Games held in
Olympic cities in 1988 and 1992, with the
exception of the Winter Games in Calgary
in 1988. The 1988 Seoul Olympics and
Paralympics had separate Organizing
Committees, but sufficient coordination to
allow the sharing of venues, equipment and
key personnel. With the Olympic Village
unavailable after the Olympics, a specially
designed Village was constructed for the
Paralympians. They also received the same
spectacular Opening and Closing
Ceremonies as the Summer Games, watched
by capacity crowds of 75,000.
Barcelona pioneered the organizational
integration of the two sets of Games by
giving overall responsibility to COOB92,
the Organizing Committee of the
Barcelona Games, with a separate Division
charged with overall responsibility to plan
the Paralympics. This ensured explicit
attention to the needs of disabled athletes
and comparable treatment with
Olympians. The Paralympic Games now
had their custom-designed Opening and
Closing ceremonial spectacles.14 Free
admission to Paralympic events ensured
large numbers of spectators and there was
substantial television coverage. At the same
time, COOB92 imposed its own decisions,
cutting the number of sports to 15 and
Access for all ARTICLE 137
May 2007 Vol 127 No 3 The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health JRSH
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 137
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
138 ARTICLE Access for all
JRSH The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health May 2007 Vol 127 No 3
refusing to allow the mentally impaired to
participate in the Paralympics. Instead
INAS held an officially recognized
Paralympic Games in Madrid in which
1400 athletes from 73 countries competed.
This took place after the Barcelona
Paralympic Games.
EVOLUTION OF THE IPC
The final stage in the evolution of the
institutional basis for the Games came with
the establishment of the International
Paralympic Committee (IPC) in 1989.
Based in Bonn (Federal Republic of
Germany), it serves as the umbrella
organization for 162 National Paralympic
Committees, five regional bodies and four
international disability specific sports
federations. It also acts as the international
federation for 13 of the 24 Paralympic
sports.15 Its vision is to enable ‘Paralympic
athletes to achieve sporting excellence and
inspire and excite the world’and it
professes an 11-point mission which
includes sport development ‘from
initiation to elite level’.16 Crucially, since
1992 it is now the sole coordinating body
for Paralympic sport recognized by the
IOC.
As the IOC and IPC moved closer
together, there was clarification of areas that
had produced conflict, notably, the use of
the term ‘Olympics’ (which the IOC regard
as their copyright) and the Paralympic Logo.
The IPC Logo, originally introduced at the
Seoul Games, comprised five traditional
Korean decorative motifs (Tae-Geuks) in the
Olympic colours (blue, black, red,yellow
Winter Paralympic Games
Participating Number Number Disability
Year Aegis Location countries of athletes of sports groupsb
1976 ISOD Örnsköldsvik, 17 250 2 VI, A
Swedena
1980 ISOD Geilo, 18 350 2 VI, A, SI,
ISMGF NorwayaCP, LA
1984 ICC Innsbruck, 21 457 2 VI, A, SI
AustriaaCP, LA
1988 ICC Innsbruck, 22 397 2 VI, A, SI,
AustriaaCP, LA
1992 ICC Albertville, 24 475 2 VI, A, SI,
France CP, LA
1994 IPC Lillehammer, 31 492 3 VI, A, SI,
Norway CP, LA
1998 IPC Nagano, 32 571 4 VI, A, SI,
Japan CP, LA
2002 IPC Salt Lake 36 416 3 VI, A, SI,
City, USA CP, LA
2006 IPC Torino, 39 477 4 VI, A, SI,
Italy CP, LA
2010 IPC Vancouver, 45 650 4 VI, A, SI,
Canada expected expected CP, LA
aYears in which the Paralympic Games did not take place in the Olympic location.
bSI = spinal injury; A = amputee; VI = visually impaired; LA = les autres; CP = cerebral palsy.
Sources: International Paralympic Committee. About the IPC. Bonn: International Paralympic Committee. Available online at:
http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sections_Menu/IPC/About_the_IPC, (accessed 29 October 2006).; Scruton J.
Stoke
Mandeville: road to the Paralympics – fifty years of history
. Aylesbury: Peterhouse, 1998.
Table 3
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 138
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and green). Given that the IOC felt this was
too close to their five-ring symbol, the IPC
reduced the five Tae-Geuks to three in 1994
and replaced them completely as part of a
rebranding exercise in 2003. The new logo,
comprising three ‘agitos’ (from the Latin
‘agito’meaning ‘I move’), was first used at
the 2004 Athens Games, along with the new
motto ‘Spirit in Motion’.17
Four agreements between the IOC and
IPC signed between 2000 and 2006 clarified
the relationship between the two
organizations, set out the principles for
further cooperation and provided financial
support for the IPC. An agreement in
October 2000 brought the workings of the
two organizations closer by co-opting the
IPC President to the IOC and including an
IPC representative on 11 of the IOC
Commissions, including the Evaluation
Commission – the body that examines the
competing bids from cities seeking to host
the Olympic Games. The IOC also
undertook to pay an annual subvention
towards IPC administration costs (US$3
million per annum), annual sums for
development projects, and specific
assistance to help athletes from developing
countries attend the Salt Lake City Winter
Paralympic Games and the Athens Summer
Paralympics.18 An agreement in June 2001
clarified the organization of the Paralympic
Games, confirming that the location would
always be the Olympic host city and would
take place ‘shortly after’ the Olympic Games
using the same facilities and venues. From
the 2008 Summer Games and 2010 Winter
Games onwards, there would be full
integration of the two organizing
committees.19 An agreement on revenues for
broadcasting and marketing the
Paralympics (August 2003) guaranteed IOC
payments to the IPC of US$9 million for the
2008 Games and US$14 million for 2010
and 2012.20 The final agreement (June 2006)
extended these arrangements through to
2014 and 2016, increased funding for the
IPC and clarified the respective roles of the
IOC and IPC in the planning, organization
and staging of the Paralympics, the use of
technical manuals, the sports programme
and the number of accredited individuals.21
The move towards a ‘One City, One Bid’
approach to the selection of Olympic host
cities was of vital importance to the IPC.
Cities bidding for the 2008, 2010, 2012 and
2014 Games had to show that the full
integration of the organization for the
Olympic and Paralympic Games, with
details of the Paralympic Games fully
articulated in the bid documents. Indeed,
the speed of integration has been more
rapid than these agreements stipulated, with
both Salt Lake City and Athens establishing
a single Organizing Committee20 and
information on the Paralympic Games
appearing in the official Reports of the
Olympic Games since Sydney 2000.22
THE DISABILITY AGENDA
The immediate effect of convergence after
Barcelona 1992 raised important questions
for host cities as to how they confronted
questions of disability. Although, as noted,
the requirement to integrate the two sets of
Games only became binding with the 2008
Beijing Games, hosts with an established
record in upholding disability rights and
with legislation enshrining rights of access
have enjoyed an advantage when bidding for
and preparing of the Games. Hence, cities
such as Atlanta, Sydney and London could
build on existing practice, whereas the
Games in Athens and Beijing effectively
drove the disability agenda.
There was, for example, little tradition of
disabled sport in Greece. This was addressed
in the years leading up to the Athens Games
in 2004 by developing an accessible sports
infrastructure for athletes with disability
that could be used in the preparation of
Greek athletes and to permit training by
other Paralympic teams.23 Nevertheless,
while it was possible to plan for access in the
new Olympic investment – including public
transport, venues and the public spaces
around venues – the wider environment
posed challenges. The Official Report of the
Games went so far as to call Athens
‘unfriendly’ to the disabled community and
requiring ‘drastic measures’ to make the city
accessible.23 The Organizing Committee
(ATHOC) produced design guidelines and
accessibility information for the
municipalities making up the Greater
Athens area, where much of the Olympic
infrastructure was located, to encourage
them to upgrade their public spaces,
particularly along key routes identified by
ATHOC. Furthermore, it urged private
businesses to promote accessibility in their
own premises and to raise awareness among
their staff. To this end, ATHOC and the
Chambers of Commerce of the four cities
participating in the Olympics (Athens,
Thessaloniki, Heraklio and Volos)
developed the Accessible Choice
Programme (ERMIS). Businesses compliant
with this programme earned the right to
display a symbol indicating that they
welcomed customers with disabilities and
their details were included in a directory
issued to all Paralympic delegations on
arrival in Greece. Although attendances
were less than at Sydney (850,000 compared
with 1.1 million) and some venues were less
than half-full, part of the value of the
festival was considered to lie in its pedagogic
impact. As in Australia, the organizers had
developed an educational programme to
promote greater understanding of the
Paralympics and a large proportion of the
audience were children.An accident that
killed seven students while travelling to
watch the Paralympics unfortunately cast a
shadow over this strategy,leading to
cancellation of the artistic and
entertainment sections of the Closing
Ceremony out of respect. The ceremony
continued, but with only the protocol
elements required for the completion of the
Games.23
Beijing’s plans for 2008 also reflect
significant shifts in attitude. China’s own
participation in the Paralympic Movement
is relatively recent.When invited to the
Rome Games in 1960, the official statement
declared there were no disabled in China.24
Relaxation of this stance saw Chinese
athletes start to compete in international
competitions, after the establishment of the
Chinese Sports Association for Disabled
Athletes in 1983.1A small group competed
in the 1984 Games held in New York, but
no team entered the Winter Paralympic
Games until Salt Lake City in 2002. The
increasing seriousness with which the
Chinese then took sport for the disabled is
reflected in the spectacular improvement
in the performance of their athletes –
rising from ninth in the medal table in
1996, to sixth in 2000 and first place in
Athens 2004.
This new priority reflects China’s
characteristic use of sport as an adjunct to
foreign policy, with the single-minded
injection of extra funds for facilities and
Access for all ARTICLE 139
May 2007 Vol 127 No 3 The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health JRSH
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 139
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
140 ARTICLE Access for all
JRSH The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health May 2007 Vol 127 No 3
training, as much as any root-and-branch
change in prevailing attitudes. Nevertheless,
the requirements of provision for 2008 have
focused attention on the challenge of
creating a barrier-free Games in a city where
access has only been on the agenda for a
short time and where much of the
infrastructure is anything but barrier-free.
The Beijing Municipal People’s Congress
adopted the country’s first local legislation
relating to physical accessibility when
passing the ‘Beijing Regulation on
Construction and Management of the
Barrier-free Facilities’ in April 2004. The
regulations apply to public transport,
hospitals, banks, public toilets and parks.As
a result, for instance, underground stations
are having ramps installed, disabled toilets,
tactile paths for the visually impaired and
public telephones for wheelchair users, with
disabled seats available on trains.25
LONDON 2012
Under new rules agreed in 2001, the
candidate cities for the final phase of the
Olympic selection procedure had to
complete a questionnaire with 17 themes.
Theme 9 related exclusively to the
Paralympic Games and contained nine sets
of questions covering the structural
integration of the organization of the
Paralympics within the Organizing
Committee, the dates and the competition
schedule, the venues, accommodation,
transport operation, travel times, disability
awareness (including staff training,
volunteer training), media facilities, vision
for the Games, finance and the Games’
legacy.26 In its bid,the London Committee
capitalized on the heritage of disabled sport
in the UK, a tradition of volunteering for
Paralympic events, anti-disability
discrimination in service provision dating
back to the 1995 Disability Discrimination
Act and a good record in disability
awareness training. The London Bid
document set out three goals: to strengthen
the Paralympic Movement; to deliver
accessible and inclusive designs for all
facilities; and to maximize media coverage.27
The bid contained eight specific
commitments for the Paralympics:27
Creating an Olympic Village that is fully
accessible to all from the outset.
Maximizing media coverage and
exposure, as pioneered by the BBC
television and radio services.
Integrating Olympic Games and
Paralympic Games planning.
Training all Games workforce in the
principles of inclusion.
Establishing operational policies that
encompass Paralympic values.
Recruiting suitably qualified disabled
people.
Promoting the Paralympic Games
nation wide.
Creating a cultural programme featuring
disabled artists.
London plans 11 Paralympic sports in the
Olympic Park, seven in the ‘River Zone’
(ExCel in Docklands and Greenwich), road
racing in Regents Park and sailing at
Weymouth. Housing the athletes in the
Olympic Village will mean that 95% are
accommodated within 15 minutes of travel
from competition venues, linked by
environmentally friendly and fully accessible
buses. Ticket holders would travel free by
public transport, with a Games Mobility
Service for disabled spectators.27
In its assessment, the IOC’s Evaluation
Committee was highly complimentary with
regard to the bid’s coverage of the
Paralympics. There was praise for the degree
of integration between the Olympic and
Paralympic Games in terms of organization,
management and physical planning with a
rich history of Paralympic sport, a
reputation in television coverage and public
support for Paralympic sport, and capacities
of UK Paralympic Sport that are ‘among the
best in the world’.28 There was a real feeling,
too, of the Paralympics coming home, given
its close associations with Stoke Mandeville.
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding the Paralympics’
chequered history and the characteristic
dissonance between bid promises and final
realities, the Evaluation Committee’s
buoyant assessment underlines the extent of
progress over the last half-century. The
Paralympics have developed dramatically
since the first competition between 130
British and Dutch athletes in 1952. In the
fullness of time, the Games have spread
geographically, have moved into new sports,
have encompassed a wider range of
disabilities, and helped give credence to the
belief that access to sport is available to all.
The Paralympics also underline the change
from sport as therapeutic competition to
that of elite events that carry intrinsic
prestige, with growing rivalry over medal
tables. Athletes with disability, in a few
instances, have enjoyed considerable
celebrity status through their sporting
prowess that, in turn, has provided them
with a platform where they can express
themselves on their own terms. Moreover, as
the Games have come progressively closer to
the heart of the Olympic movement, they
have ensured that the disabled community
has to be accommodated, figuratively and
literally, within the planning, design,
cultural and educational programmes of
Olympic cities. While cities could avoid
those obligations in the 1970s and 1980s,
the bidding process now ensures that they
must provide not only barrier-free Olympic
facilities, but also a wider environment and
society that welcome diversity.
However, two important challenges
remain to be faced. One lies in the fact that
not all disabilities are regarded equally,
either within the Paralympic movement or
by society generally. For example, while
wheelchair events are an accepted part of
Paralympic programmes and receive media
coverage, athletes with learning disabilities
find it more difficult to gain acceptance and
compete.29 The second challenge stems from
the extent that the Olympics overshadow
the Paralympics and poses the dilemma of
how far the process of integration should
proceed. The pattern of closely related but
succeeding festivals is not the only model
available. The Commonwealth Games, for
example, integrated events for athletes with
disability into the overall programme at
Manchester in 2002. All participants were
classed as ‘Elite Athletes’, with some events
designated for Elite Athletes with a
Disability (EAD).30 Notably,the disabled
South African swimmer Natalie du Toit,
who competed with distinction in both
disabled and mainstream events, won the
David Dixon Award as the most outstanding
athlete of the entire Games. By contrast, the
current view that the Paralympics and
Olympics should share facilities, venues and
cultural programmes but remain distinct
entities encounters the notion of being
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 140
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Access for all ARTICLE 141
May 2007 Vol 127 No 3 The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health JRSH
supposedly separate-but-equal; a concept
that is as uncomfortable here as in other
realms of public life. In reality, there are
considerable differences between the two
sporting festivals. The Paralympics only
usually attract substantial crowds on days
when there is ceremonial spectacle or when
organizers distribute large numbers of free
tickets, particularly to schoolchildren. They
plainly lag far behind the Olympics in
media coverage and in developing
sponsorship, especially because companies
remain reluctant to associate themselves
with Paralympians. Media coverage tends to
portray athletes with disability as being
courageous or brave and frequently Other; a
style of representation that irks many such
athletes.31
Integration with the Olympic programme
on the lines adopted for the Commonwealth
Games would bring Paralympic sport
within the commercial umbrella of the
Olympics, but would undoubtedly
encounter resistance from those intent on
maintaining the traditional identity of the
Olympics and the special qualities of the
Paralympics. It would also undoubtedly
reduce the number of events and
participants from the disabled community,
with the likelihood of concentration on the
more televisual sports such as wheelchair
racing and thereby adding to problems of
inclusiveness. It is not just vested interests,
therefore, that are likely to ensure that the
two Games will continue on their parallel
courses.
1 1 De Pauw KP, Gavron SJ. Disability Sport.
Second edition. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2005
2 International Paralympic Committee. About
the IPC. Bonn: International Paralympic
Committee. Available online at:
http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sect
ions_Menu/IPC/About_the_IPC, (accessed 29
October 2006)
3 Gold JR, Gold MM. Cities of Culture: Staging
International Festivals and the Urban
Agenda, 1851–2000. Aldershot, Ashgate
Press, 2005
4 Gold JR, Gold MM. Olympic Cities: urban
planning, city agendas and the World’s Games,
1896 to the present. Studies in History,
Planning and the Environment series,
London: Routledge, 2007
5 Séguillon D. The origins and consequences of
the first World Games for the Deaf: Paris,
1924. International Journal of the History of
Sport 2002;19(1):119
6 MacAloon JJ. This Great Symbol: Pierre de
Coubertin and the origins of the modern
Olympic Games. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981
7 Goodman S. Spirit of Stoke Mandeville: the
story of Sir Ludwig Guttmann. London:
Collins, 1986
8 Guttmann L. Textbook of Sport for the
Disabled. Aylesbury: HM & M Publishers, 1976
9 Gallagher M. Athletics.Aylesbury: British
Sports Association for the Disabled, 1982
10 Special Correspondent. Games for Paralysed
Archery Tournament at Ministry Hospital.
The Times, 30 Jul 1948: 7.
11 Lord Carisbroke, Porritt A, Lord Webb-
Johnson, Lord Heyworth, Templer EM,
Londin H, et al. Games For The Paralysed. The
Times 20 Mar 1956: 11.
12 Steadward R, Walsh C. Training and fitness
programmes for disabled athletes: past present
and future. In: Sherill C, editor. Sport and
disabled athletes. Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois Press, 1986. p. 10
13 Scruton J. Stoke Mandeville: road to the
Paralympics – fifty years of history. Aylesbury:
Peterhouse, 1998
14 Rognoni G. The ideas and creativity of the
Barcelona ’92 Paralympic Ceremonies. In de
Moragas M, MacAloon J, Llinos M. (editors)
Olympic ceremonies: historical continuity and
cultural exchange. Lausanne: Comité
International Olympique, 1996. p.264
15 International Paralympic Committee. Annual
Report 2005. Bonn: International Paralympic
Committee, 2006
16 International Paralympic Committee. IPC
Strategic Plan 2006–2009. Bonn: International
Paralympic Committee, 2006
17 International Paralympic Committee, Annual
Report 2004, Bonn: International Paralympic
Committee, 2005
18 International Olympic Committee. Press
Release: IOC and IPC sign cooperation
agreement. 20 October 2000
19 International Olympic Committee. Press
Release: IOC and IPC sign agreement on the
organisation of the Paralympic games. 10 June
2001
20 International Olympic Committee. Press
Release: IOC and IPC sign amendment to
2001 agreement. 25 August 2003
21 International Olympic Committee. Press
Release: IOC and IPC sign agreement
extension for 2014 and 2016. 22 June 2006
22 SOCOG (Sydney Organising Committee for
the Olympic Games). Official Report of the
XXVII Olympiad. Sydney: SOCOG, 2001
23 ATHOC (Athens Organising Committee for
the Olympic Games). Official Report of the
XXVIII Olympiad. Athens: Liberis
Publications Group, 2005
24 Lane P. Profiling London: the Paralympics
2012. Unpublished lecture.London
Metropolitan University, 26 April 2006
25 Anon. Beijing subways improve access for
handicapped. China Daily (English language
edition), 17 August 2004
26 IOC. 2012 Candidature procedure and
Questionnaire. Games of the XXX Olympiad
in 2012, Lausanne: Comité International
Olympique, 2004
27 London Organising Committee for the
Olympic Games (LOCOC). London 2012:
Candidate File. London: LOCOC, 2004
28 International Olympic Committee. Report of
the IOC Evaluation Commission for the
Games of the XXX Olympiad in 2012,
Lausanne: Comité International Olympique
29 Grey-Thompson T. The Olympic
Generation: how the 2012 Olympics and
Paralympics can create the difference,
Inaugural Lecture, Staffordshire University.
Available online at: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/
news/article/dame_tanni.php (accessed 12
January 2007)
30 Australian Government. Melbourne 2006:
Elite Athletes with a disability.Available online
at: http://www.m2006.dcita.gov.au/funding/
elite.htm (accessed 29 October 2006)
31 Cashman R. The Bitter-Sweet Awakening: the
legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
Sydney: Walla Walla Press
References
10-077348-Gold.qxd 4/5/2007 2:14 PM Page 141
© 2007 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Oxford Brookes University on May 2, 2007 http://rsh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
