Case study 01

Swim meet

As part of the Swimming Australia framework, there are opportunities for children with disability to take part in swimming in a competitive way.   At these swimming carnivals, children with disability can enter any event they would like.

Sometimes they swim in specific ‘multiclass races’ and sometimes they swim with the mainstream. When they swim with the mainstream, they are often recognised and awarded in a ‘multiclass category’.

The way events at local level swimming carnivals are offered for children with disability is different from the way swimming takes place at the Paralympics—or other world events.

A child with disability racing against a child without disability –mainstream—in a competitive event is not a fair race. Even if the child with disability wins—it is not a fair race. Children with disability have a disadvantage in the contest. They have impairments that affect their functioning that others in the race do not have. The elements of the contest are changed when a child with a disability takes part.

In this short article I explain the experiences of three children with disability who entered and attended a local swimming carnival at the Cotton Tree Swimming Pool, hosted by the Cotton Tree Swimming Club. The experiences were voluntarily provided by parents of the children, to raise attention to the experiences, and how that makes a child with disability and their family feel.

This is important because the law prevents discrimination against a child with disability and is designed to prevent situations where a child and their families feel that they are not worthy, or do not matter. It is often the case that the way that a child with disability feels when the structures of sport leave them treated differently from the mainstream.

Facts

In latter half of 2024 four parents entered their children in swimming events at a local Sunshine Coast Swimming Carnival. This carnival was structured in the way swimming carnivals in Queensland are traditionally conducted, the events are multi age, and upon entry, athletes are seeded into heats based on their times. Sometimes the seeding is in age groups; sometimes there is only seeding on times. If the latter occurs, a 12-year-old and a 16-year-old might be in the same heat, if they are of similar capability, demonstrated by their entry times. This was the case at the Cotton Tree event. The children the subject of this article, all 11 years of age, were entered in the carnival in various events in various strokes. 

• Female 1 50m Fly, 50m backstroke,100m Free, 100m Backstroke, 50m Free.

• Female 2 50m Fly, 50m backstroke, 50m Free.

• Male 1 50m Backstroke, 100m Free, 50m Free.

The children were seeded and raced with the mainstream races. There were no multiclass specific events. There were a total of four female classified multiclass athletes aged between 11 and 18, and five classified multiclass male athletes aged between 11 and 16 years.

The program and information for the meet provided details about the way results would be treated.

The information provided was as follows:

Each of the children placed in their first two events and were therefore announced as placegetters in their multiclass category (based on the Multiclass Point Score System) and were awarded medals.

The Multiclass Points Score system ranks athletes in accordance with their performance against the world record. The multiclass categories can differ in their format from carnival to carnival. Sometimes the multiclass athletes are in age groups like the mainstream; but more often, there are combined groups of multiclass athletes in age bands, or the athletes are all grouped together against one another. So, whilst the mainstream athletes might be awarded in the ’12 year old’ category, the multiclass are awarded as ‘multiclass’ across all ages.

After the third of their respective events, the announcer stopped announcing the places in multiclass divisions, and there were no more medals awarded for Multiclass. The mainstream placegetters in each age group were announced and awarded medals for the remainder of the meet.

The parents approached the organisers of the event to enquire why the multiclass results were no longer being announced.  The parents were advised that there were not enough medals for the able-bodied athletes, that multiclass were not ever supposed to receive medals, and that multiclass swimmers were no longer to be provided medals.

The results for the multiclass were not read out from that time, except when the parents asked for the results to be read out, at which time the announcer simply read all previous results out.

Subsequent to the event, the organisers advised that multiclass athletes were not supposed to be provided medals at all, and that the ‘prize information’ (in the carnival promotion material) clearly only stated that only age champions would be awarded for multiclass. The organisers advised that they ran out of ‘gold first’ and ‘then silver’ medals, because multiclass athletes were given medals. They explained that because there were so few multiclass athletes in each event, many gold and silver medals were awarded. This meant that they were not going to have enough medals. So, they had stopped giving medals to the multiclass. They confirmed that it was never intended for multiclass athletes to receive medals for their events.

During one conversation, the parents were accused of only being interested in medals, and that—‘lots of other children come and don’t get medals and just try for personal best times’. The multiclass athletes were offered ‘participation’ medals that had been handed out to the 7 year old athletes in the morning session.  

How the children and their parents felt

The parents of the children report that they and their children felt as though they were being treated differently from the mainstream. The parents of the four children involved in the discussions with the swimming club, felt that the club considered the children not worthy to receive medals, and that because there was so few of them, that the multiclass athletes did not count or matter.

The parents felt as though the children were treated differently, and not as favourably as the mainstream. When compared to a mainstream 11-year-old who places, a multiclass child was treated differently because they were not awarded places or medals in their event/ category. The failure to provide places or medals was justified because the multiclass child might be the only one, or one of only a few in the event.

The parents reported that in this case, the children appeared to feel that they didn’t matter, and that their event/s was not as important or valid as the mainstream. The parents reported the children displaying disappointment, and confusion at not receiving medals.

The parents reported that, to not have the results announced also made the parents and their children feel that their events didn’t matter, and they were not valid competitors.

The parents also reported that to be told that the parents and children were only interested in medals, was insulting for the parents. They felt belittled and degraded by comments that they were focused on the ‘wrong thing’, and that requesting medals was an inappropriate request. The parents were distressed at being accused of being overly competitive and only interested in medals, when all they were requesting was to have their children treated in the same way as the mainstream.

Discrimination Law

The Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) contains a provision that deals with sport. It is important to understand the specifics of the provisions of the CRPD regarding sport for people with disability, because it helps understand what it means to not be discriminated against.

Article 30.5 provides;5. With a view to enabling persons with disabilities to participate on an equal basis with others in recreational, leisure and sporting activities, States Parties shall take appropriate measures:

a) To encourage and promote the participation, to the fullest extent possible, of persons with disabilities in mainstream sporting activities at all levels;

b) To ensure that persons with disabilities have an opportunity to organize, develop and participate in disability-specific sporting and recreational activities and, to this end, encourage the provision, on an equal basis with others, of appropriate instruction, training and resources;

c) To ensure that persons with disabilities have access to sporting, recreational and tourism venues;

d) To ensure that children with disabilities have equal access with other children to participation in play, recreation and leisure and sporting activities, including those activities in the school system;

(e) To ensure that persons with disabilities have access to services from those involved in the organization of recreational, tourism, leisure and sporting activities.

Importantly, there is also the definition of ‘discrimination on the basis of disability’, which is important because it provides the context for Article 30.5, and the treatment of people with disability in sport. 

"Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation. [1]

A reasonable accommodation (also defined in Article 2) is a change to the social structures without undue or disproportionate burden, to provide a person with disability with equality.

What is not commonly understood or demonstrated by sporting organisations and society more broadly, is that the human right to non-discrimination in sport for a person with disability is more than not being provided access to a venue, or a disability specific sporting event to take part in. There are various ways a person with disability can be treated differently on the basis of disability, or when there is no reasonable adjustment made to provide them equal treatment.  Equality where a person with disability is concerned, is sometimes, being treated the same way as a person without disability and sometimes, can be different from being treated exactly the same as a person with disability—making adjustments so the treatment is on the same basis. 

Equality for a person with disability means not simply providing that they have the exact same treatment as the mainstream, but that there are provisions for a person with disability to have an ‘equal’ experience in the appropriate way. Exact same treatment is formal equality and recognised in human rights as not resolving discrimination for people with disability. ‘Substantive Equality’ or ‘inclusive equality’ means making adjustments so that there is participation in sport on an equal basis. Substantive or inclusive equality means that adjustments are made to structures to provide access or participation on an equal basis. For example, if a person in a wheelchair attends a meeting in a building that only has stairs, formal equality says that they are welcome to come in. They are not excluded. However, they can not attend like a person without a wheelchair, because the property would need to have a ramp or a lift to provide that access. That is a reasonable adjustment to the structure. Where sport is concerned, formal equality means that two people, one with and without a disability are permitted to race a 100m. However, the person with disability is not taking part in a fair contest.  This is not a common consideration where sport for people with disability are concerned. Often, the contest is not considered as the ‘thing’ or ‘activity’ the person with disability is, or would lie to be included in.

Put simply, non-discrimination in sport sometime means, if a person without disability has a fair and meaningful contest, then so too a person with disability should have a fair and meaningful contest. Elsewhere I have discussed that the human right to non-discrimination in sport means a disability specific sporting contest comparable to the mainstream, or an adjusted mainstream offering, so a person with disability can compete fairly against, and/or with the mainstream. [2]

The Discrimination Lens 

Considering this event and the experiences of the children with disability through a discrimination lens raises attention to some of the problems with the provision of sport for children with disability. The discrimination lens applies the concepts of discrimination to the experience and asks, was the treatment of the person with disability on an equal basis as those without disability? Or was the treatment, based on their disability, such that they were distinguished, excluded or restricted in their recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others? Was there any failure to make an adjustment to the rules or structures that might have provided them that equal treatment?

In the particular circumstances of the Cotton Tree Swimming Carnival, there were several instances where the treatment of the children with disability might be considered discriminatory as far as human rights are concerned.

To not provide medals for multiclass divisions in the same age groups as the mainstream, treats the children with disability differently and restricted in their recognition.  This is the case whether that was from the outset (as was intended) or after one or two events.

To stop providing an announcement of the multiclass winners, treated children with disability differently from the mainstream and restricts their recognition, and enjoyment.

To suggest that a child with disability is only competing for medals, when the mainstream are offered medals, is derogatory and condescending. It is treatment, on the basis of disability that distinguishes them and reduces their enjoyment in the event.

To claim that rewarding children with disability is not appropriate or difficult because there are so few in the contest, is derogatory and condescending. It is treatment, on the basis of disability that distinguishes them, and reduces their enjoyment in the event.  This is not treatment on the same basis as those without disability. This would not be a comment made to the mainstream—even if only one or two in a group turned up to the carnival.

There is however, a more complex issue than distinguishing the children with disability because there are only a few of them—that is the failure to provide an adjustment to the contest to provide the children with disability with an opportunity to compete against the mainstream. The excuses that the children are not to be rewarded, because there are so few of them, or that they ‘win’ easily, demonstrated that there is an opportunity to provide them true inclusion—races against the mainstream. To not provide a separate category for multiclass children, means that they do not have a fair and meaningful race. Even if they are provided a category and they are only one, or one of two in the event, they are not provided a fair and meaningful race. The mainstream are provided a fair and meaningful race.

If an adjustment was made to the contest—such as a head start, or a time adjustment, the children could take part in the contest with the mainstream. They may or may not win medals, but they will have had a contest with their peers—a fair and meaningful contest. Failing to provide an adjustment to the contest for a child with disability—particularly when a separate category is not provided—distinguishes the child, on the basis of disability, restricting their recognition and enjoyment on an equal basis with other. They do not have a fair and meaningful contest. They are excluded from a fair and meaningful contest.

Conclusion/solution

When conducting a swimming carnival, there are some simple principles to apply to ensure children with disability are not discriminated against and they are protected in their human right not to be discriminated against. First, when considering a child with disability, consider how they might feel when they take part in the contest, compared to how they see the mainstream child take part. Second, consider that a child with disability might wish to have a fair and meaningful contest—just like their mainstream peers do.

Then, the way to structure the contest is to consider these initiatives;

1. Provide children with disability a fair and meaningful contest. Provide multiclass categories for all events—they don’t have to be held separately. 

2. Provide them with announcements and medals, in the same way as the mainstream, or

3. Provide them an adjustment to the contest—a head start or time adjustment, or

4. Use the multiclass points score for mainstream as well—which would see the mainstream compete against their world record and achieve a point score out of 1000, just like the multiclass.

Resources

[1] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/61/106, 24 January 2007

[2] Pearce, S., Sanderson, J. The myth of a ‘human right to sport’: how human rights can lead to true inclusion for children with disability. Int Sports Law J 24, 223–246 (2024).