Paralympic Swimmer Ruled "Not Disabled Enough"

Link: New York Times: Paralympic Swimmer Ruled “Not Disabled Enough”

Category: Community, Sport

Level: National

Concerning: An enacted policy that has been passed.

Why is this important/how does this affect families/individuals? This issue affects Victoria Arlen in an extremely negative way, and is a reflection on the Paralympic committee. This incident also affects individuals with similar circumstances because the ruling sets a precedent for future situations.

My Views: I believe the ruling that Victoria Arlen “is not disabled enough” and therefore ineligible from competing in the Paralympics is unreasonable. The ruling was based on the issue that she had “failed to provide conclusive evidence of a permanent eligible impairment”.  In short, because Victoria has the slightest (although extremely unlikely) possibility of regaining function in her legs, she is ineligible. I understand that the Paralympics committee must monitor their athletes and ensure authenticity of their impairments. Apparently, there have been cases in the past in which athletes have attempted to lie or exaggerate their disabilities in order to be eligible to compete. However, that is not the case with Victoria. She is legitimately paralyzed, and has been for seven years. Although doctors have a “glimmer of hope” of her walking again, it is extremely unlikely after seven years. I think it is a travesty that they are ruling her ineligible to compete. The possibility that Victoria may walk one day has no influence on the fact that she is currently paralyzed. It is ridiculous to pass a ruling on the basis of a future possibility. She is somewhat of a miracle, considering what she has accomplished after spending three years of her life in a coma. The committee should be praising her for her success, not taking it away from her on the basis of a hypothetical situation.