Athletes,support staff,and classifiers opinions on intentional misrepresentation in Para sport

Abstract

The Paralympic Games have enjoyed a recent acceleration in profile, commercial value, and investment. Meanwhile, intentional misrepresentation (IM) – athletes’ attempting to game the classification process – has emerged as the greatest threat to the integrity of Para sport. Despite classification being essential to Para sport, the phenomenon of IM remains significantly underexplored. To deepen understanding of IM, 26 individuals familiar with the classification process from 11 Para sports were interviewed (nine in-person and 17 online). Six themes were identified: (1) the increasing professionalisation of athletes and support staff; (2) the role of classifier being voluntary; (3) the lack of training and development for classifiers; (4) athletes’ lack of understanding of procedures; (5) capacity to intentionally misrepresent dependant on inherent conditions; and (6) the low number of IM cases that have brought a sanction. The discussion explores how each theme aligns with the limited existing research into Para sport and examines similarities and differences with other sport integrity issues. This study provides a deeper understanding of IM, empowering the Paralympic Movement to address the threat the phenomenon poses to the integrity of Para sport.

Keywords

cheating classification sport integrity Paralympic disabled people impairment

Introduction

Over the past two decades, the Paralympic Games have experienced an acceleration in profile, competitiveness, commercial value, and investment from governments aiming to increase medals won by nations (Pankowiak et al., 2023; Pullen et al., 2020). During this time, several integrity issues specific to Para sport have emerged. These include: boosting – where an athlete takes advantage of their inability to feel pain below their spinal injury and deliberately self-harm immediately prior to competition, to provoke a bodily response of increased heart rate and blood pressure that can enhance performance (Sparkes and Brighton, 2020); and elective surgery – where athletes have a limb amputated at a specific point, with the primary aim of becoming more competitive in their sports class (McNamee et al., 2014). However, it is attempts to cheat Para sport's own classification system – defined in its rules as intentional misrepresentation (IM) – that has been identified as the greatest threat to the integrity of Para sport (Blank et al., 2023).

Research into classification, including studies exploring IM, has been mostly limited by its application of the medical model of disability, focusing on improving procedures that measure how impairment limits capacity to execute sport-specific skills (Lawson et al., 2022). These studies aimed to establish methods to objectively prove that IM has occurred – these methods remain in development and have yet to be put into practice (Altmann et al., 2022; Paix et al., 2021; Ravensbergen et al., 2018). Meanwhile, with the phrase ‘integrity of sport’ being under conceptualised and used by different actors within and beyond the sports industry in different ways, Gardiner et al. (2017) propose a conceptual framework for developing the concept, practice, and effective governance of sport integrity – personal integrity, organisational integrity, and procedural integrity. Applying this framework to the existing research on IM, it becomes clear that the medical model's dominance has resulted in the prioritisation of procedural integrity, with personal integrity and organisational integrity receiving scant attention. Therefore, there is a need to broaden the scope of investigation into IM beyond establishing objective methods of measuring impairment and examining the people, organisations, and procedures that take part in and influence the classification process.

IM is defined and explicitly prohibited by the global governing body of the Paralympic Movement, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), in its Classification Code (hereafter: the Code). Similar to the World Anti-Doping Code, the International Federations (IFs) that govern Para sports must have classification rules and procedures that comply with the Code (Makitov et al., 2024). The Code stipulates that any attempt to ‘intentionally mislead or attempt to mislead an IF or any of its representatives (such as Classification Personnel) in relation to Classification’ constitutes ‘intentional misrepresentation’ (International Paralympic Committee, 2024: 61). Any participant found to have committed IM is subject to a default ban of 4 years. This punishment can be increased up to a lifetime ban for aggravating circumstances or repeat offenders, reflecting the seriousness of the charge (Makitov et al., 2024). The scope of these sanctions includes both athletes and support staff (International Paralympic Committee, 2024). The Code also provides examples of how athletes can intentionally misrepresent, including forging paperwork as part of their medical diagnostic information submission; deliberately underperforming during tests that require maximum voluntary effort; and deliberately fatiguing themselves prior to classification. Support staff are prohibited from inducing, instructing, assisting, or encouraging athletes to intentionally misrepresent (International Paralympic Committee, 2024).

Were an athlete able to intentionally misrepresent their impairment during the classification process, they may be allocated an incorrect sport class intended for athletes whose impairment effects have a greater impact on the outcome of competition, gaining an unfair competitive advantage through deception. Therefore, IM presents a two-pronged attack on the IPC's ability to achieve its vision ‘to make for an inclusive world through Para sport’ (International Paralympic Committee, 2023: 7). First, it undermines perceptions of competition validity in Para sport that recognises its winners as worthy (Makitov et al., 2024). Second, it reinforces a common narrative that a significant proportion of disabled people who claim welfare benefits offered by the state to meet the extra living costs associated with impairment are undeserving ‘benefit cheats’ (Geiger, 2025).

Both existing research and the IPC's revised Classification Code identified IM as a major threat to the integrity of classification and Para sport (Blank et al., 2023; International Paralympic Committee, 2024). It is a regular topic of conversation within the Para sport community (Lawson et al., 2022; Powis and Macbeth, 2020), it is receiving growing interest from the media (Alexander et al., 2022) and is difficult to detect, prove, and mitigate (Makitov et al., 2024). Despite this, IM has received scant focused attention from the scholarly literature. There is a particular paucity of research into IM that examines the experiences of those who take part in the classification process – athletes, support staff, and classifiers (Makitov et al., 2024). While Gowans et al. (2025) recently conducted an online survey of IM with participants with experiences of the classification, there is a need to deepen the understanding of IM by qualitatively exploring the experiences and opinions of the Para sport community.

This study aimed to deepen the understanding of IM through semi-structured interviews with the three actors that participate in the process – athletes, support staff, and classifiers. By achieving a deeper understanding, similarities and differences can be drawn between IM and other sport integrity issues, and more effective methods can be proposed to mitigate this threat to the integrity of Para sport.

Method

Positionality

The first author identifies as disabled and holds a social relational model approach to disability. This model draws a distinction between impairment effects as the direct and unavoidable impacts that impairments have on individuals’ lives, and disablism as the avoidable restrictions created by society on the lives of disabled people (Thomas, 2012). The first author accepts and echoes Townsend et al.'s (2015) challenge to contest the medical model of disability as the dominant mode of thinking in Para sport research and considers the social relational understanding of disability a useful approach ‘for centring the needs and experiences of athletes’ throughout the classification process (Lawson et al., 2022: 529). The first author also considers the purpose of classification: ‘to minimise the impact of impairment on the outcome of competition’ (Tweedy and Vanlandewijck, 2011: 259), to be fully aligned with the social relational model of disability. In that, classification seeks to measure direct and unavoidable impairment effects relating to sport performance and group athletes with similar sport-specific impairment effects into sport classes – to allow disabled athletes to compete against each other – and challenge disablism. The first author also subscribes to the social role valorisation principle (Wolfensberger, 1983). In that, the Paralympic Games is a platform that can successfully challenge disabling attitudes and perceptions, by placing disabled people into the elite sport environment, one of the many spaces they have traditionally been excluded from (Pullen et al., 2020). The first author also recognises that the Paralympic Games, on their own, cannot address the deep-rooted constraining social and systemic barriers disabled people face (Brown and Pappous, 2021).

The first author conducted all the interviews and was previously a Paralympic athlete, retiring from competition in 2000. He identified as a retired Paralympic athlete to the study's participants from the outset and therefore led this study as both an ‘insider’ – as he shared some group identity with the participants who were also Paralympic athletes – and as an ‘outsider’ – as his current position as a researcher gave him significant influence over the study (Braun and Clarke, 2013: 9). The first author recognises their background may have influenced data collection and analysis in various ways. His familiarity with the classification process helped facilitate a rapport during the interviews, while his belief that the classification process is a necessary and essential function of Para sport, which in turn is an effective tool in challenging disablism, may have influenced the phrasing of interview questions and the interpretations of participant responses. The second, third, fourth, and fifth authors have over 20 years of experience in published research in Para sport and classification, sport integrity, and athlete welfare, and the fourth author has been an international classifier for over a decade. Overall, this gave the team a broad insight into the subject matter, as well as first-hand experience of the classification process. Throughout the study, the first author engaged in regular discussions with the second, third, fourth, and fifth authors and, as ‘critical friends’, they challenged the first author on the wording of the interview guide, the recruitment of interviewees, and interrogated the first author's interpretations of the data.

Instrument

Semi-structured interviews allowed rich and detailed insights into participants’ views and experiences. At the same time, consistency and comprehension were achieved through all interviewees being asked the same main questions. These main questions were not rigidly adhered to in their precise phrasing, and the order in which questions were asked varied from interview to interview, as did follow-up and probing questions, with the interviewer encouraging participants to discuss the issues that were important to them (Braun and Clarke, 2013). The interview guide was structured using Gardiner et al.'s (2017) concept of sport integrity, with interviewees being asked about how they perceive the individuals, organisations, and procedures that make up the classification process relate to IM. The authors’ experiences of discussing IM with the Para sport community meant that the phrases intentional misrepresentation and cheating classification were used interchangeably (Blank et al., 2023; Makitov et al., 2024).

Data collection and participants

Twenty-six individuals from 11 sports participated in the interviews between July 2022 and May 2023. Of which, 14 (54%) were athletes, seven (27%) were athlete support staff, and five (19%) were classifiers. Nine of the athletes were still actively training with a view to qualifying for the Paris Paralympic Games in 2024, two had retired following the Tokyo Games, two had retired within two months prior to the interviews, and one retired in 2019. The support staff and classifiers were all active at the time of the interviews. Thirteen of the athletes were eligible to compete in Para sport because of physical impairment, one because of vision impairment. Four of the classifiers classified athletes with a physical impairment, and one of the classifiers classified athletes with a vision impairment. Nine interviews were in-person, with 17 taking place online via Microsoft Teams. Sixteen of the interviewees identified as male, and 10 as female. Twelve interviewees identified as British, 12 as Australian, one as Canadian, and one as Dutch. Interviewees came from the sports of athletics, boccia, cycling, goalball, equestrian, judo, powerlifting, swimming, triathlon, wheelchair basketball, and wheelchair rugby. The average (mean) age of interviewees was 39.2 years, with a standard deviation of 8.1 years. The average interview duration was (mean) 54 min and 27 s, with a standard deviation of 1 h, 5 min, and 27 s.

The first 12 individuals were recruited from one of the author's networks using convenience sampling. To achieve a diversity of perspectives from individual and team sports, as well as a balance of roles of athletes, support staff, and classifiers, the remainder of participants were recruited using snowball and purposive sampling. Both online and in-person interview methods were selected to maximise the geographical spread of interviewees. This also ensured barriers to transport, which disabled people often face (Ives et al., 2021), did not exclude participating in the study. Interviewees were limited to those over the age of 18 years, with experience of international Para sport competition from January 2013 onwards.

Ethical considerations

The first author's university Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the study. Interviewees gave informed consent to participate in the study by signing and returning a consent form. An easy-read guide of the study, complementary to the participation information sheet and with a Flesch Reading Ease score of at least 60%, was produced to enhance interviewees’ capacity to consent (British Psychological Society, 2020).

Data analysis

Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The first author then reviewed each transcript against its audio recording to ensure accuracy. Braun et al.'s (2016) six-phase model of thematic analysis was then adopted to analyse the data. (1) The first author then re-read each transcript for familiarisation. (2) A third read-through of each transcript was then conducted by the first author, with noteworthy quotes highlighted, copied, and pasted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with participants given pseudonyms. In total, 225 quotes were copied and pasted into the spreadsheet, which allowed for the generation of 31 initial codes of common responses. Examples of initial codes included ‘Trust in Individuals – Athletes – Impairment Type’ and ‘Trust in Individuals – Classifiers’. (3) Next, the codes were grouped into possible themes. This involved the first author sharing the themes’ title, description, and supporting quotes with the second, third, and fourth authors, for discussion and revision. (4) The authors repeated the discussion and revision of themes several times over, (5) before deciding on the six themes listed in the Results section. (6) Amendments to Theme 5, in particular, continued during the write-up of the study.

Gardiner et al.'s (2017) conceptual framework of sport integrity was used to structure the interview guide, which influenced some of the initial codes. However, in line with Braun et al. (2016), our analysis included both inductive and deductive elements. Although the analysis was largely driven by the content of the interviews, it was also influenced by existing research into sport participants’ perspectives of efforts to deter doping (Williams et al., 2024). This influence came from comparisons of IM to anti-doping rule violations, made by both existing literature (Blank et al., 2023; Makitov et al., 2024) and unprompted by the study's participants. This movement between the content of the interviews and existing research continued until distinct themes were established, relevant to the chosen quotes. As an example, Theme 5 saw the greatest amount of revision. It evolved from a candidate theme dominated by the initial codes of ‘trust in individuals/athletes/impairment type’ and ‘procedures – no notice testing’. It was then developed into a theme of ‘advance notice of testing’, then refined to ‘advance notice of testing for athletes with certain impairment types’, before being named as ‘only certain athletes have the capacity to participate in, and benefit from, intentional misrepresentation’. Before being finalised during the study's write-up of ‘capacity to intentionally misrepresent dependant on inherent conditions’.

Results and discussion

The aim of this study was to use semi-structured interviews with the three actors that participate in the classification process – athletes, support staff, and classifiers – to deepen understanding of IM. The medical model of disability has dominated research into classification, with priority given to improving the measurement of impairment and experiential elements of the classification process being ignored (Lawson et al., 2022). This includes the initial studies into IM whose scope was limited to developing methods that would provide objective evidence that cheating had occurred (Altmann et al., 2022; Deuble et al., 2016; Paix et al., 2021; Ravensbergen et al., 2018). In contrast, by adopting the social relational model of disability, the scope of this study was broadened. It examined and harnessed the experiences and opinions of the three actors involved in the classification process – athletes, support staff, and classifiers. By analysing the interviews of 26 individuals, six themes were established relating to IM: (1) the increasing professionalisation of athletes and support staff; (2) the role of classifier being voluntary; (3) the lack of training and development for classifiers; (4) athletes’ lack of understanding of procedures; (5) capacity to intentionally misrepresent dependant on inherent conditions; and (6) the low number of IM cases that have brought a sanction.

This section will explore where the limited existing research into Para sport and classification supports our findings, as well as examine each theme for similarities and differences with other sport integrity issues, such as anti-doping and match-fixing. Recent research has acknowledged the importance of recognising the convergences and divergences between Olympic and Paralympic sport and the impact that athletes being disabled has on policy implementation (Pankowiak et al., 2023).

Theme 1 – The increasing professionalisation of athletes and support staff

Athletes, support staff, and classifiers acknowledged that there is more motivation than ever to commit IM because of the rewards that success in Para sport can bring, which has accelerated in recent years. Interviewees also recognised the impact that the outcomes of the classification process can have on a Para athlete's sporting career.

It's not just changing classification. That change in classification just lost them a spot on a national team, lost them a gold medal, potentially lost them a free university education, the opportunity to travel the world. That is the amount that's at stake with classification. (Anne, Athlete)

With the money behind the athletes and the potential for them to earn and lose that, beating the system or getting a best place in the system is fundamental now, rather than just fair competition. (Chris, Classifier)

Certain athletes that I've competed against haven’t been in the right class. It's affected how successful I am and affected other avenues and financial opportunities. (Alison, Athlete)

Athletes and classifiers also acknowledged that professional support staff's employment is dependent on their athletes winning gold medals.

There is always going to be pressure on support staff and Performance Directors to find athletes that fit into certain classifications that are ‘weak’. (Andrew, Athlete)

It's always so fixated on gold medals. And I think cause their jobs are based on how successful they are, so let's try and push the boat a wee bit, almost, how much can we get away with? (Alison, Athlete)

I would be less surprised if it was a coach that was involved in intentional misrepresentation, because they’ve got a vested interest. (Charlotte, Classifier)

Furthermore, support staff and classifiers felt that support staff were often better placed than classifiers to identify if an athlete was intentionally misrepresenting. Full-time support staff, in particular, had the opportunity to understand how the athlete's impairment presents day-to-day. Overall, support staff were seen as influential in how athletes behaved during the classification process.

I actually think support staff are better placed than classifiers to spot intentional misrepresentation. In most cases, the classifiers might not have met the athlete before, so, they don't know what the baseline is for that athlete. If we're seeing that our athletes aren't giving 100%, we need to tell them. I think it's important that support staff understand that that could be one of their roles. (Stuart, Support Staff)

I can think of two examples, fairly recently, where it was national support staff who alerted the classifiers and were quite embarrassed by it. The support staff were upset by the way the athlete was behaving. (Charlotte, Classifier)

Financial rewards for sporting success have been a long-established motivating factor to cheat in sport for non-disabled athletes (Morente-Sánchez and Zabala 2013). However, rewards for success in Para sport are a more recent phenomenon. Weber et al. (2022) attributed this increasing monetarisation to an increase in doping behaviour in Para sport. Makitov et al. (2024) proposed that the growing financial rewards available in Para sport are the main driver for Para athletes attempting IM.

Furthermore, Para sport is distinct because, as disabled people, Para athletes come from a disadvantaged social group and are more likely to experience adverse socioeconomic outcomes than their non-disabled peers (World Bank, 2024). Bundon et al. (2018) found that because Para athletes were more likely to expect discrimination in the workforce, they were more likely to fear the end of their athletic career, than their non-disabled counterparts. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that financial rewards are a more pertinent motivation for Para athletes to cheat, compared with their non-disabled counterparts. However, Powis and Macbeth's (2020) study found that accusations of IM were common even amongst disabled athletes competing in sports that did not benefit from the financial rewards of featuring at the Paralympic Games. Which suggests that while growing financial rewards for success in Para sports may be a motivational factor for Para athletes to attempt IM, it shouldn’t be considered the sole reason.

Our finding that professional support staff influence athlete behaviour during the classification process is similar to findings of previous studies into non-disabled athlete behaviour and values in the anti-doping environment (Engelberg and Moston, 2016; UK Anti-Doping, 2022). However, what appears to be unique to the classification environment is that support staff have an advantageous position to identify when an athlete is intentionally misrepresenting, due to the support staff's familiarity with how the athlete's impairment presents day-to-day. Our finding echoes Birchall et al. (2023), who found that the Para sport coach's role during classification included preparing athletes for classification and ensuring fairness throughout the process. Birchall et al. (2023) were also critical of the lack of formal and informal training resources available to allow Para sport coaches to better understand classification. Meanwhile, with both support staff and classifiers being predominantly non-disabled, a clear power imbalance exists in the unique environment of the classification process. That power imbalance increases when the significance of the athlete's impairment effects increases, as this increases the athlete's reliance on physical and medical support from staff (Evans, 2022; Tuakli-Wosornu et al., 2024).

The increasing rewards for success in Para sport are a consequence of the accelerating success of the Paralympic Movement itself and are unavoidable. When considering the perceived low risk of being caught cheating classification (discussed in Theme 6), the ‘reward’ for cheating classification continues to grow, while the ‘risk’ of being caught remains stagnant.

Theme 2 – The role of the classifier being voluntary

Athletes, support staff, and classifiers perceived the role of classifier being voluntary as a significant issue and felt that the professionalisation of the role would have a positive impact on how they perceive classifiers’ ability to identify and call out IM.

We have amazing classifiers, but I don’t think you can hold people accountable if they’re not employed. (Susan, Support Staff)

I’m not sure classifiers get enough repetitions each year to know the small, subtle, things that athletes might do when trying to intentionally misrepresent. … The fact that it's a volunteer type of thing, people are gonna need to take time off of work, they’re gonna have to add that to their current workload. I don’t think it will ever be as good as it can be until it becomes a profession. (Anne, Athlete)

Being professional, our levels of consistency, experience and exposure will be guaranteed more. (Chris, Classifier)

Despite the increasing professionalisation of elite sport, including Para sport, volunteers continue to be an essential part of sport's workforce. However, volunteers in sport tend to be found either at major multi-sport events where localised, short-term positions are required, or long-term at local community sports clubs and associations (Wicker, 2017). Given the crucial role classifiers play in Para sport, the voluntary nature of their role feels like an outlier in elite sport. It also contrasts with Para athletes and their support staff who are increasingly working within a culture of professionalism – discussed in Theme 1. The meaning of the word ‘volunteer’ is often aligned with the word ‘amateur’, which in turn is aligned with an unskilled novice (Kawatoko and Ueno, 2003). This association may be undermining athletes’ and support staff’s confidence that classifiers have a high degree of knowledge and skills needed to carry out their role (Lawson et al., 2022; Molik et al., 2017). Furthermore, the role of the classifier being voluntary reinforces a narrative that disabled people rely on charity and that Para sport is a more benevolent, charitable, and therapeutic pursuit, compared to other elite sport competitions (Alexander et al., 2022).

Theme 3 – The lack of training and development for classifiers

Classifiers criticised the lack of development training offered by their IFs, with national federations or National Paralympic Committees stepping in to fill the void. Managing possible IM cases was highlighted as a cross-sport skill that should be developed through classifier training.

We do a lot of training with our national federation. The international federation don’t do any continuous professional development, and I have a big issue with them about that. (Charlotte, Classifier)

We've had some kind of training by the National Paralympic Committee, but with actor athletes to practice discussing this [intentional misrepresentation] and that does help, because it is rather scary, so classifiers feel quite reluctant to apply the rules. We need education, and we need experience. Everyone is very reluctant to apply the rules that are in place. (Claire, Classifier)

[Managing potential cases of intentional misrepresentation] doesn't worry me. I know how to do it without giving upset. That's something that can be trained and developed, and it should be part of the training regimes. It's really important to have the confidence to be able to do that. (Charles, Classifier)

Training and development plans have long been established as necessary for maximising volunteer capacity and retention (De Clerck et al., 2021). In recent research on IM, Makitov et al. (2024) recommend that the IPC and IFs develop classifiers’ expertise, with specific attention to IM. Meanwhile, Gowans et al.'s (2025) Delphi study included ‘support for classifiers who suspect that cheating has occurred’ as one of four prioritised actions to reduce the threat of IM (Gowans et al., 2025: 1). We identify Lawson et al. (2022) as a starting point for a training needs analysis for classifiers. They found that effective classifiers collaborated well within interdisciplinary teams, engaged in constructive dialogue with their fellow classifiers, and had in-depth knowledge of both impairments and the sporting context. This study can add ‘managing potential cases of IM’ to Lawson et al.'s (2022) list of classifier training needs.

Theme 4 – Athletes’ lack of understanding of procedures

Despite recognising the importance of classification to Para sport, none of the athletes interviewed were familiar with the classification rules for their sport. Moreover, athletes hadn’t received information on what the differences were between each of the sport classes in their sport, what the punishment was for wrongdoing, whether there was a procedure for whistleblowing, and were uncertain which behaviours constituted IM.

I don't even know what the rules are [for intentional misrepresentation]! Like, they’re not publicised and maybe they should, they need to scare people a bit more. (Alison, Athlete)

I haven't read the rules, so I'm not very sure as to what safeguards and protocols are in place. Again, I think that's something that a lot of athletes would say. (Andrew, Athlete)

What exactly is misrepresentation? Is going into a classification session extremely fatigued, poor nutrition, no water, no sleep, and getting classed, is that misrepresentation? Or is that just your body in a non-optimal state? (Anne, Athlete)

Athletes lack of understanding of classification procedures and rules is supported by the findings of previous studies (Lawson et al., 2022; Molik et al., 2017). Similar to anti-doping's strict liability principle, athletes and support personnel must ‘be knowledgeable of and comply with all applicable regulations’ of classification (International Paralympic Committee, 2024: 69). Therefore, lack of understanding of the rules does not make athletes and support staff exempt from them (Hurst et al., 2025). Specific to studies of IM, Gowans et al.'s (2025) Delphi study of athletes, support staff, and classifiers recommended that ‘Athletes should receive compulsory education prior to experiencing classification. That education should prioritise the following content: a clear depiction of an athlete's responsibilities and what is expected of athletes during the classification process, and a values-based culture of honesty and fair play’ as its highest prioritised action to reduce the threat of IM (Gowans et al., 2025: 7). Similarly, Makitov et al. (2024) recommends that, ‘the IPC and IFs should intensify their work and explain to athletes, and coaches, the core of IM, the ranges of action that can be understood as intentional, their dangers, detrimental consequences, and possible punishments’ (Makitov et al., 2024: 15).

The IPC published an updated version of its Classification Code after these interviews were conducted. The Code now includes, for the first time, a non-exhaustive list of examples of behaviours that constitute IM (International Paralympic Committee, 2024). As some of our interviewees expressed uncertainty about what constituted IM, we welcome this development and recommend the inclusion of these examples of IM into education materials for athletes and support staff.

Theme 5 – Capacity to intentionally misrepresent dependant on inherent conditions

Athletes, support staff, and classifiers identified three inherent conditions that give athletes the greatest capacity to cheat the classification process. First, the impact of the athlete's impairment effects fluctuates. Second, the impact of the athlete's impairment responds to certain stimuli (e.g. fatigue and extreme cold). Third, the classification process places the athlete on the border between two adjacent sport classes. Athletes who did not meet the first two conditions were considered unlikely to have the capacity to cheat the classification process. Athletes who failed to meet the third condition were considered unlikely to benefit from successfully committing IM undetected. Athletes with neurological conditions, in particular cerebral palsy, were mentioned by participants as having impairment effects that fluctuate and respond to certain stimuli.

If you have a neurological impairment, the classification experience is very, very different. (Andrew, Athlete)

The ones that are much harder are the subjective assessments that we have to do, like the coordinations, the muscle powers, the range of movements. Those kind, the athlete during the medical assessment can choose to perform differently. (Chris, Classifier)

Athletes with cerebral palsy is where this is probably the most problematic, where there's a bit of subjectivity about how much effort actually you demonstrate. (Simon, Support Staff)

If they're influenced by fatigue in terms of their muscle strength then, funnily enough, they go for a massive swim or push beforehand. (Sam, Support Staff)

Interviewees noted that athletes often know several months in advance the date and location of the in-person assessment part of the classification procedure, giving those athletes the opportunity to present their impairment in a sub-optimal condition. This was contrasted with anti-doping testing procedures that operate at no advance notice.

People will purposely tire themselves out before classification. I can see why, because you want to present yourself as the worst case. In anti-doping, we get random tests done. That needs to be done [in classification], because you won't be able to tire yourself out for days, because you wouldn't know when the classifier is gonna come. (Alison, Athlete)

I'd like to see in the future to come in unannounced and sit in the back row during a coaching session, we would see how hard they [the athletes] could work. (Chris, Classifier)

Our finding that Para athletes’ capacity to take part in, and benefit from, IM are dependent on inherent conditions shares similarities with another integrity threat that is specific to Para sport – boosting. Only Para athletes with a spinal cord injury at or above the sixth thoracic spinal level (T6) can participate in that practice (Sparkes and Brighton, 2020). This contrasts with other forms of cheating in both Para and non-disabled sport – such as anti-doping rule violations, or match-fixing activities – which all athletes have some capacity to take part in and benefit from (Aguilar-Navarro et al., 2020; O'Shea et al., 2021). Participants stating that athletes with cerebral palsy have impairment effects that fluctuate when the athlete is fatigued is supported by the literature (Henríquez et al., 2022). Athletes with a spinal injury (Brighton, 2018) or a vision impairment can also have impairment effects that fluctuate and respond to stimulus (Schakel et al., 2019). However, it also should be noted that the Code prohibits athletes from instructing or facilitating fellow athletes to commit IM (International Paralympic Committee, 2024). Therefore, a disciplinary charge could still be brought against an athlete whose impairment effects remain static and do not respond to stimuli, provided there was evidence that the athlete had tried to influence a teammate to intentionally misrepresent. For athletes whose impairment effects fluctuate and respond to stimulus, receiving advanced notification of where and when the in-person classification assessment is going to take place provides them with an opportunity to present their impairment in a sub-optimal state.

Theme 6 – The low number of IM cases that have brought a sanction

Athletes and classifiers said that although they believed it was a small minority of athletes that attempt IM, there were more athletes who had committed IM than the few cases that have resulted in a sanction. Defining what counts as evidence, how athletes can share evidence with their IF, and how IFs should process such evidence were all reported as issues by interviewees.

I think there are more examples of athletes getting away with it [intentional misrepresentation] than there are of athletes being penalized for it. … And it really annoys me, because we have got absolutely cast-iron evidence, and I know nothing's gonna happen about it, and that undermines my trust in the ability of the sport to deal with it. (Charlotte, Classifier)

The number of people that have been found to have deliberately misrepresented their class is minimal. Which, statistically, just doesn't sit well, there must be more. The actual regulations as they stand are very clear. But it becomes very difficult to actually implement those regulations because we need the evidence behind us to do it. (Chris, Classifier)

I was watching a documentary [on classification], and there was quite a lot of reports of cheating, but they couldn't bring anyone up on it because there was no evidence. But that's because there's no opportunities to bring stuff up, or to give evidence. (Alison, Athlete).

The belief that more athletes are committing IM than are being sanctioned mirrors beliefs that other corrupt practices in sport, such as doping and match-fixing, are taking place without sanction. Athletes overestimating prevalence rates of doping amongst their peers increases the likelihood they will participate in doping behaviour – referred to as the false consensus effect (Dunn et al., 2012). Meanwhile, Moston et al. (2015) found that the perceived likelihood of detection was a significant factor when athletes considered using a substance or method prohibited by anti-doping rules. Low rates of sanctions for IM may be an influencing factor when athletes decide to intentionally misrepresent. In short, a false consensus effect combined with a perception that the detection of intentionally misrepresenting is unlikely may be increasing the probability of individuals attempting IM. We recommend that the narrative that IM is commonplace and goes unpunished is challenged by the education materials discussed in Theme 4.

Our study found there is no formal process for athletes to raise concerns that IM may have occurred, and that classifiers felt evidence they had provided to their IF had not been acted on. This falls short of Gardiner et al.'s (2017) definition of procedural integrity, as there lack a ‘clear space for dialogue’ (Gardiner et al., 2017: 19). Recently, sport organisations have produced whistleblowing tools to allow participants to raise concerns about wrongdoing in other areas of sport integrity. Although such tools remain in their infancy and have received criticism, it would be prudent to extend the capacity of those tools to accept reports of IM. Consideration should also be given as to what guidance should be provided to athletes, support staff, and classifiers when using a whistleblowing service to report IM (Bondarev et al., 2022).

Limitations and areas for future research

Interviewees required excellent proficiency in English, as recruitment materials, consent forms, and interviews were only available in English. This limited the diversity of nationalities recruited and may have led to Anglophonic biases influencing the research. Participant diversity was further limited by athletes with a vision impairment and their classifiers being under-represented. Furthermore, this study was unsuccessful in recruiting athletes with an intellectual impairment and their classifiers.

This study focused on the wider Para sport context and environment, as well as the classification process. It did not explore personality traits or cultural norms of individuals that would increase their propensity to cheat the classification process. Interviewee recruitment chose not to target the handful of people who have been involved in IM cases that have produced a sanction. Instead, recruitment focused on a cross-section of individuals who had firsthand experience of the classification process.

Future research could examine athletes’ assumptions of prevalence rates for IM, similarities and differences of opinions of communities based on impairment type, and personality traits or cultural norms that increase the propensity to commit IM. Participant recruitment could target individuals with experience of IM, and extend recruitment beyond English-speaking participants.

Conclusion

This study succeeded in deepening the understanding of IM, identified as a significant threat to the integrity of Para sport. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the three actors who participate in the process – athletes, support staff, and classifiers. Six themes were established and then examined to understand convergency and divergency between IM and other phenomena that threaten the integrity of sport, along with the limited existing research into Para sport, classification, and IM.

Previous studies into IM had been narrow in scope because of the dominance of the medical model of disability (Lawson et al., 2022). This study broadened its scope by applying the social relational model of disability (Thomas, 2012). This resulted in exploring beyond the development of objective methods that measure impairment effects, and led to examining other influences affecting IM, including disablism. As well as broadening the scope of our inquiry, the social relational model influenced the analysis of our findings. For example, financial rewards may provide Para athletes with greater motivation to cheat than their non-disabled counterparts, given the additional barriers disabled people face when retiring from sport. Also, the role of the classifier being voluntary reinforces a narrative that Para sport is a more benevolent and charitable endeavour than sport for non-disabled athletes. The power imbalance between the athlete, support staff, and classifier is also discussed. However, our most significant finding is that athletes have a greater capacity to commit IM when their unavoidable and sport-specific impairment effects fluctuate and respond to stimuli. This study's deeper understanding of IM should empower the Paralympic Movement to address the threat that IM poses to the integrity of Para sport.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Iain Gowans

References

Alexander

Duncan

Bloom

(2022) A critical discourse analysis of the dominant discourses being used to portray Para sport coaches in the newspaper media. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 14(4): 511–529.

Altmann

Hendriks

Lammens

, et al. (2022) Development of tests for arm coordination impairment in Paralympic classification. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 3: 1–9.

Birchall

Lawson

Williams

, et al. (2023) What is a Parasport coach’s role during athlete classification? Exploring how parasport coaches learn about classification and their role within this process. International Sport Coaching Journal 11(2): 1–10.

Blank

Weber

Boardley

, et al. (2023) Doping in Paralympic sport: Perceptions, responsibility and anti-doping education experiences from the perspective of Paralympic athletes and parasport coaches. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 5: 01–13.

Bondarev

Barkoukis

Lazuras

, et al. (2022) Behaviours and beliefs related to whistleblowing against doping in sport: A cross-national study. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 1–10.

Braun

Clarke

(2013) Successful Qualitative Research : A Practical Guide for Beginners. London, UK: Sage.

Braun

Clarke

Weate

(2016) Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In: Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. New York, NY: Routledge, 213–227.

Brighton

(2018) Disability, spinal cord injury, and strength and conditioning: Sociological considerations. Strength & Conditioning Journal 40(6): 29–39.

British Psychological Society (2020) Conducting Research With People Not Having the Capacity to Consent to Their Participation: A Practical Guide for Researchers. Leicester: Author.

10.

Brown

Pappous

(2021) Are mega-events a solution to address physical inactivity? Interrogating the London 2012 Paralympic sport participation legacies among people with disabilities. European Journal for Sport and Society 18(1): 18–43.

11.

Bundon

Ashfield

Smith

, et al. (2018) Struggling to stay and struggling to leave: The experiences of elite para-athletes at the end of their sport careers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 37: 296–305.

12.

De Clerck

Aelterman

Haerens

, et al. (2021) Enhancing volunteers capacity in all-volunteer nonprofit organizations: The role of volunteer leaders’ reliance on effective management processes and (de)motivating leadership. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 31(3): 481–503.

13.

Deuble

Connick

Beckman

, et al. (2016) Using Fitts’ law to detect intentional misrepresentation. Journal of Motor Behavior 48(2): 164–171.

14.

Dunn

Thomas

Swift

, et al. (2012) Elite athletes’ estimates of the prevalence of illicit drug use: Evidence for the false consensus effect. Drug and Alcohol Review 31(1): 27–32.

15.

Engelberg

Moston

(2016) Inside the locker room: A qualitative study of coaches’ anti-doping knowledge, beliefs and attitudes. Sport in Society 19(7): 942–956.

16.

Evans

(2022) Political intersectionality and disability activism: Approaching and understanding difference and unity. Sociological Review 70(5): 986–1004.

17.

Gardiner

Parry

Robinson

(2017) Integrity and the corruption debate in sport: Where is the integrity? European Sport Management Quarterly 17(1): 6–23.

18.

Geiger

(2025) Suspicious minds? Media effects on the perception of disability benefit claimants. Journal of Social Policy 54(3): 693–713.

19.

Gowans

Yilmaz

Goosey-Tolfrey

, et al. (2025) Prioritised actions to reduce the threat of cheating classification in Para sport: A Delphi study. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics: 1–23. 10.1080/19406940.2025.2521525.

20.

Henríquez

de Campos

LFC

Muñoz-Hinrichsen

, et al. (2022) Neuromuscular fatigue in cerebral palsy football players after a competitive match according to sport classification and playing position. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(10): 20831. 10.3390/ijerph19106070.

21.

Hurst

Burns

van Biesen

(2025) Athletes with intellectual impairments and their support personnel’s experience of anti-doping. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 17(5): 435–450.

22.

International Paralympic Committee (2023) Strategic Plan 2023-2026. Bonn: International Paralympic Committee. Available at: https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/2023_ Strategic Plan_ACC.pdf.

23.

International Paralympic Committee (2024) 2024 IPC Classification Code. International Paralympic Committee. Available at: https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/IPC_Classification_Code_Version_29_April_2024.pdf (accessed 31 May 2024).

24.

Ives

Clayton

Brittain

, et al. (2021) ‘I’ll always find a perfectly justified reason for not doing it’: Challenges for disability sport and physical activity in the United Kingdom. Sport in Society 24(4): 588–606.

25.

Kawatoko

Ueno

(2003) Talking about skill: Making objects, technologies and communities visible. Visual Studies 18(1): 47–57.

26.

Lawson

Williams

Latimer-Cheung

(2022) Exploring athletes’ and classifiers’ experiences with and understanding of classification in Para sport. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 15(4): 516–531.

27.

Makitov

Vanlandewijck

McNamee

(2024) Intentional misrepresentation of abilities in Paralympic sport: A conceptual, ethical and legal analysis. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy: 1–18. 10.1080/17511321.2024.2432950.

28.

McNamee

Savulescu

Willick

(2014) Ethical considerations in Paralympic sport: When are elective treatments allowable to improve sports performance? PM and R 6(8 SUPPL): 66–75.

29.

Molik

Laskin

Golbeck

, et al. (2017) The international wheelchair basketball federation’s classification system: The participants’ perspective. Kinesiology 49(1): 117–126.

30.

Morente-Sánchez

Zabala

(2013) Doping in sport: A review of elite athletes’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge. Sports Medicine 43(6): 395–411.

31.

Moston

Engelberg

Skinner

(2015) Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of deterrents to performance-enhancing drug use. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 7(4): 623–636.

32.

O’Shea

Barkoukis

McIntyre

, et al. (2021) Who’s to blame? The role of power and attributions in susceptibility to match-fixing. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 55: 1–16. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101955.

33.

Paix

Tweedy

Connick

, et al. (2021) Differentiating maximal and submaximal voluntary strength measures for the purposes of medico-legal assessments and para sport classification: A systematic review. European Journal of Sport Science 21: 1518–1550.

34.

Pankowiak

Brockett

De Bosscher

, et al. (2023) National Paralympic sport policies influencing a country’s Paralympic success. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 15(3): 435–455.

35.

Powis

Macbeth

(2020) “We know who is a cheat and who is not. But what can you do?”: Athletes’ perspectives on classification in visually impaired sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 55(5): 588–602.

36.

Pullen

Jackson

Silk

(2020) Watching disability: UK audience perceptions of the Paralympics, equality and social change. European Journal of Communication 35(5): 469–483.

37.

Ravensbergen

RHJC

Van Bree

BINA

Broekens

, et al. (2018) Detecting cheating when testing vision. Variability in Acuity Measures Reveals Misrepresentation. Optometry and Vision Science 95(6): 536–544.

38.

Schakel

Bode

Elsman

EBM

, et al. (2019) The association between visual impairment and fatigue: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 39(6): 399–413.

39.

Sparkes

Brighton

(2020) Autonomic dysreflexia and boosting in disability sport: Exploring the subjective meanings, management strategies, moral justifications, and perceptions of risk among male, spinal cord injured, wheelchair athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 12(3): 414–430.

40.

Thomas

(2012) Theorising disability and chronic illness: Where next for perspectives in medical sociology. Social Theory and Health 10(3): 209–228.

41.

Townsend

Smith

Cushion

(2015) Disability sports coaching: Towards a critical understanding. Sports Coaching Review 4(2): 80–98.

42.

Tuakli-Wosornu

Burrows

Fasting

, et al. (2024) IOC consensus statement: Interpersonal violence and safeguarding in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine 58(22): 1322–1344.

43.

Tweedy

Vanlandewijck

(2011) International Paralympic Committee position stand-background and scientific principles of classification in Paralympic sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine 45: 259–269.

44.

UK Anti-Doping (2022) ASP Research Report : Investigating Behaviours and Influences of Athlete Support Personnel on Clean Sport. Available at: https://www.ukad.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/ASP RESEARCH REPORT_UKAD_MAR22.pdf.

45.

Weber

Patterson

Blank

(2022) An exploration of doping-related perceptions and knowledge of disabled elite athletes in the UK and Austria. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 58: 102061.

46.

Wicker

(2017) Volunteerism and volunteer management in sport. Sport Management Review 20: 325–337.

47.

Williams

Patterson

Heyes

, et al. (2024) Barriers and enablers in doping, anti-doping, and clean sport: A qualitative meta-synthesis informed by the theoretical domains framework and COM-B model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 72: 102608.

48.

Wolfensberger

(1983) Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation 21(6): 234–239.

49.

World Bank (2024) 10 Commitments on Disability-Inclusion. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/immersive-story/2022/02/15/an-accessible-future-for-persons-with-disabilities-what-does-it-take#group-section-10-Commitments-on-Disability-dDqqUQC7j5 (accessed 29 March 2024).