I've heard grumbling from time to time over the years about the Paralympics from various sectors of the Olympic community: organising committees, broadcasters, volunteers, law enforcement. I talked to one bid committee member who told me they should have the option of hosting-or-not-hosting the Paralympics as they see fit. Costs were mentioned most as a factor. I heard volunteers in Atlanta who were turned down for "real" Olympic volunteer jobs being steered to the Para side. I recall in the application that I signed for 1996, that I understood that this was a Paralympics volunteer application also. Broadcasters say there's not enough interest to justify the cost. Law enforcement says the security concerns aren't as great as the regular Olympic Games. Who's right?
Everyone is...up to a point. I've heard talk from certain sectors saying that they would go ahead with a Summer Games bid if they didn't have to take on the Paralympics also. I've always felt that it should be up to the various Organising Committees if they wanted to take on this task.
I've always maintained that the Games for disabled sport should stand on their own and not piggyback the big event. I'll go one step further---and say it is discriminatory to disabled athletes to steer them away from the regular Olympic Games, and I am very surprised that a disabled athlete hasn't sued the pants off the IOC in this regard.
Some people will say it's a safety issue---you don't want an amputee competing with the likes of an able-bodied athlete who just won gold in his last event. I say it's a lack of opportunity issue and I really don't see the reason why athletes should be separated like this, if the IOC truly wants to equalize sport.
Give the athletes a CHOICE in how they compete---and the organising committees that same courtesy.
It will be a win-win on both sides of the medal stand.
