See the athlete, not the wheelchair
Last Thursday, December 2, 2004, Athletics Canada awarded the Jack W. Davies Trophy for the track and field athlete of the year to two of Canada’s finest athletes.
One of fhe athletes, Chantal Petitclerc, has refused to accept the award, and her high profile within Canada has vaulted this story into the news (see Petitclerc refuses Athletics Canada award). She felt that sharing the award underlines how Athletics Canada views Paralympians as second-class athletes and not on the same level of their able-bodied brethren
.
Here are the details of the performances of the two athletes sharing this award:
- Perdita Felicien, Canada’s Gold medal winner from the World Indoor Championships in March, 2004. She had previously won gold at two other indoor events this past year. She was touted as Canada’s best, legitimate hope for a gold medal in the Athens games. Felicien hit the first barrier in the 100 metre hurdle finals and did not finish the race.
- Chantal Petitclerc, one of Canada’s best track stars (who just happens to compete in a wheelchair) won gold in a demonstration event in the Athens Olympic Games, and continued to compete in the Paralympic Games (also in Athens). In total, she won no less than five gold medals and set three world records, and one paralympic record.
Why, exactly, is it that she wasn’t considered Canada’s best, legitimate hope for a gold? Petitclerc’s history of winning medals speaks for itself. (Note: that link is a content page shown outside of its frameset. Yes, the irony is not lost on me — Chantal Petitclerc’s web site isn’t exactly accessible to people using screen readers, or other assistive technology, but that isn’t my point, and most likely has nothing to do with Petitclerc’s beliefs or philosophy)
Living in a country that is fairly inclusive and mindful of the rights of all citizens, I’m not in the least surprised that Athletics Canada considered Petitclerc for the award. They apparently considered other paralympians as well — they awarded the Fred Begley Memorial Trophy (top athletes in marathon and off-track race-walking events) to Kelly Smith (silver medal, wheelchair marathon, Paralympics) and Tim Berrett (set Canadian record in the 50 kilometre race walk, but didn’t finish top 30 in the Olympics).
But that’s just the point, isn’t it? They have considered them as paralympians instead of as olympians, or as athletes. I don’t know much about how they determine their award winners, and I’m sure the process is fair and appropriate. I’m also not trying to trivialize what must have been a difficult decision. I can’t help but wonder, though, what the situation would have been if Petitclerc didn’t compete in a wheelchair.
What if Petitclerc had won 5 gold, set three world records, and one olympic record in the Olympics rather than the Paralympics? Would Athletics Canada have selected two winners for the award? In my opinion, Petitclerc’s performance easily justifies her as the sole winner. No contest. The performances speak for themselves. Let me say it again: World indoor gold and a DNF in the Olympic final versus 5 gold medals, three world records and an Olympic record.
I saw an interview on television with an Athletics Canada representative where he indicated that in the future they would ensure that there won’t be co-winners, and each award will be given to one individual. While this is great for the future, it is too late ladies and gentlemen of Athletics Canada. You already blew it. You had the opportunity of a lifetime to recognize an athlete – not as a the best paralympian or a wheelchair athlete – but as the best athlete, among all athletes.
Image is a Canadian Press file photo
17 Responses
Comment by Russ Weakley — Dec 06 2004 @ 7:35 am
Wow, Jonathan, that does seem kind of harsh.
Shouldn’t we be judging athletes on their success in their particular sports – regardless of what sport that may be? And, regardless of whether it is at the olympics or paralympics?
Some athletes may be great at running, others swimming and others wheelchair racing. Does it matter which? They are all sports that involve skill and dedication.
You would think that in an ideal society, the award for best athlete should go to the one who has achieved the most success, inspired young athletes and/or advanced the cause for their particular sport (or whatever criteria they use) – regardless of the actual sport or the athlete’s handicap.
In other words, an award based solely on merit.
just my AU2cents
Comment by Derek Featherstone — Dec 06 2004 @ 8:37 am
Jonathon:
If competing in the olympics like all other athletes, she would likely come in last and noone would know who she is.
Perhaps, perhaps not. This issue isn’t so much about about competing in the same events, as it is about recognition that Petitclerc had an outstanding season in her sport and deserved recognition – not as a wheelchair athlete, but as an athlete, period.
I won’t use Petitclerc as an example, but consider a runner that has an artificial leg made specifically for running. Also consider that the athlete competed in the marathon or a 5 or 10 kilometre race at the Olympics along side everyone else. In order to do so, they would have to qualify, like everyone else, and I suspect that if that person came in last at the Olympics, everyone would know who that person is, for quite some time.
In the end, all it'll do is in some(/most?) years, no one will even know of paralympians who achieved greatness. They'll simply be forgotten.
I’m not exactly sure what “it” you are referring to in your statement above “all it’ll do…”, so I’m not exactly sure what point you are making here. Let me say though, that in my mind, had they named Petitclerc the sole winner of that award, she’d be anything but forgotten.
But I suspect her refusal to accept the award had more to do with creating media attention (and possibly increased funding) than any sense of 'nobility'.
Only Petitclerc knows for sure – I listened to the audio interview with her, and it sounds to me like this turned into something much bigger than she expected or anticipated. It sounds like she intended on simply refusing the awards on the grounds that she didn’t feel she should be getting the award as a shared award. Either she deserved to win the award as an athlete, or she didn’t. If someone else deserved the award, then give it to them, but don’t add Petitclerc on as a footnote to the same award just because she competes in a wheelchair.
Is a Paralympic gold medal worth less than an Olympic gold medal? Is a Paralympic gold less of a symbol of dedication, excellence and achievement?
Comment by Jonathan Snook — Dec 06 2004 @ 10:08 am
Is a level of achievement determined solely on the number of medals achieved? What about the level of competition?
In the Olympics, Canada received a total of 19 medals. Only 3 gold. In the Paralympics, Canada received 72 medals. A total of 28 gold. One more than the US, in fact. We came in third in the medals table. It almost seems a given that a Canadian Parlympian would come home with more medals than a Canadian Olympian.
In no way am I diminishing Petitclerc’s achievements. I’m not saying that she didn’t deserve the award. I’m not saying that she didn’t work hard for it. But why couldn’t she share it? Did she accomplish any more or less than Felicien?
Comment by Robert Wellock — Dec 06 2004 @ 10:15 am
No, it isn’t any less of an achievement in most cases it will be more of an achievement as obviously some athletes would be disadvantaged when compared to a fully able-bodied athlete.
Even in the Olympics themselves many of the athletes will have disabilities for example SPLd most of them don’t tend to be physical as with the Paralympians since the sports tend to be biased towards physical performance. It was by her own discretion that she chose to declined the award.
Given the classification and award criteria loosely based upon Canada’s best, legitimate hope for a gold
Chantal was probably the more deserving athlete.
Comment by Derek Featherstone — Dec 06 2004 @ 10:30 am
Jonathon:
Is a level of achievement determined solely on the number of medals achieved? What about the level of competition?
No, it is certainly not determined based on number of medals achieved. As for level of competition, they both competed at the same level – the highest possible world stage for their respective events.
But why couldn't she share it? Did she accomplish any more or less than Felicien?
I guess that’s what this all comes down to — I, for one, believe that she did accomplish more than Felicien, and that is why I believe she is more deserving than Felicien and should have been declared the sole winner.
Comment by Jonathan Snook — Dec 06 2004 @ 10:50 am
I guess that's what this all comes down to – I, for one, believe that she did accomplish more than Felicien, and that is why I believe she is more deserving than Felicien and should have been declared the sole winner.
So, while you believe that she should have been declared the sole winner, your comments that Athletics Canada blew it and that it’s “too late” come across in a heavily negative light. Heaven forbid that TWO athletes be recognized for their achievements.
To extend the argument, would you say that we should shut down any site that is inaccessible or isn’t set to web standards? Did they blow it? Is it really “too late” for them? “They should be banished forever!” Or should we encourage them and praise them for taking a better stance next time?
Robert, be sure to check out the conditions of the Jack W. Davies Trophy. At no point is “best, legitmate hope for gold” mentioned. In fact, character is one of the bullet points. Is refusing to accept and share an award a quality that you look for in your athletes?
Comment by Robert Wellock — Dec 06 2004 @ 11:17 am
I was going by Derek’s explanation on this page not actually the award outline itself, i.e. "Harrier Athletics", etc. Which is easily definable.
I should have written that more clearly when I was referring to loosely rather than the guidelines of the said trophy, which were two different topics – I love being gifted with SPLd it makes life more fun. :)
It’s not for me to question whether a person refuses the medal I stated that was her decision it got nothing to do with me, whether it was right or wrong I won’t question that. It would be too subjective when I don’t know enough hard facts so I won’t pass judgment to that degree.
Comment by Derek Featherstone — Dec 06 2004 @ 11:25 am
So, while you believe that she should have been declared the sole winner, your comments that Athletics Canada blew it and that it's “too late” come across in a heavily negative light.
My comments re: it being “too late” are about the fact that they could have sent a real message to everyone recognizing a wheelchair athlete as their most outstanding overall athlete in Canada in Athletics. I guess my concern is that in the future, if she, or any other, was to be recognized as that award winner, there would be a public stigma attached – that they only got the award because Petitclerc complained in 2004. They had a chance to do something proactively rather than reactively. Perhaps that message wasn’t coming across clearly in my original piece…
Heaven forbid that TWO athletes be recognized for their achievements.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. Athletics Canada also awarded the Phil Edwards Memorial Trophy to both Felicien and Petitclerc. Two awards, two great athletes – select one for each. Both deserve to be recognized.
In fact, character is one of the bullet points. Is refusing to accept and share an award a quality that you look for in your athletes?
I can see both sides of this — if you believe that she did what she did because she is refusing to share, then sure, it isn’t necessarily a good character trait. If, however you believe that this is not about refusing to share, and she did what she did to stand up for what she believes is right, then I’d say that qualifies as character.
Comment by Jonathan Snook — Dec 06 2004 @ 11:30 am
Robert: I think you hit the nail on the head. The decision for deciding who is awarded is a very subjective process of which none of us know the entire story.
And I suppose that is the point I’ve been trying to make. We need not pass judgement on who was right or wrong as we don’t know what all was involved in coming to the final decision. Much like the web accessability decisions an organization makes, we can never fully understand the business decisions behind them unless we actually part of the organisation.
It’s often easy to criticize without knowing the whole story. Did Petitclerc deserve to be the sole award winner? I don’t know. I never saw her or Felicien race (and I’d be interested to know if Derek has) But let us not be too quick to judge those who had to make a decision on the matter.
Comment by Derek Featherstone — Dec 06 2004 @ 11:32 am
Robert:
I was going by Derek's explanation on this page not actually the award outline itself
Oops. Sorry about that Robert — I was only providing that detail to provide some background info, and my question about why wasn’t Petitclerc considered to be Canada’s best hope for a gold, was mostly rhetorical, but I see how it could have been misinterpreted as the criteria for the award…
Comment by Tommy Olsson — Dec 07 2004 @ 7:08 am
Jonathan: with that kind of reasoning, almost all awards would go to men, wouldn’t it? In most sports, women can’t achieve the same results as men, which is why men and women compete in separate classes. Isn’t it the same thing for someone with a disability? Isn’t it about being best in your class?
In Sweden, the national sports organisation decided that disabled athletes could not be nominated to the athlete of the year awards. They could only be nominated in a separate class: disabled athlete of the year. For some reason, there doesn’t seem to be any “male athlete of the year” or “female athlete of the year” classes…
Comment by Jules — Dec 07 2004 @ 12:18 pm
Tommy:
I am surprised to hear this because many of us look to Sweden as a “forward” country, not a “backward” one and on this, it appears that they have dropped the ball.
However, you raise the point that I was going to mention that if there were separate awards for abled and disabled athletes, it leads to the suggestion that a recipient of a disabled award is not of the same standards as a recipient of an abled award. Without having read the criteria for the Jack Davies trophy, it would appear that if it were on the basis of character, she should not have refused it but if it were on the basis of accomplishments, I can see her point.
Comment by Derek Featherstone — Dec 07 2004 @ 12:26 pm
Without having read the criteria for the Jack Davies trophy, it would appear that if it were on the basis of character, she should not have refused it but if it were on the basis of accomplishments, I can see her point.
It appears that the criteria for the award are a combination of character and accomplishment. The problem that I’m finding as I dig into it deeper is that there are three different descriptions of the award on the Athletics Canada web site…
Comment by Jonathan Snook — Dec 07 2004 @ 3:02 pm
Tommy:
with that kind of reasoning, almost all awards would go to men, wouldn't it?
Not sure what reasoning you’re referring to and why that would mean only men would receive the awards.
Just to reiterate… I have no opinion as to whether they should have or should not have been co-awarded.
It would seem that Athletics Canada should ‘fine tune’ their awarding procedure such that there is less of a grey area. Not that I have the solution for that either. :)
Comment by Tommy Olsson — Dec 09 2004 @ 9:43 am
Jonathan, in your first comment you wrote:
the fact of the matter is that she has a physical disability that prevents her from competing in the olympics. If competing in the olympics like all other athletes, she would likely come in last and noone would know who she is.
I read that as a claim that athletes competing in the paralympics are “inferior” to those competing in the olympics, because their results are not quite as good as those of their non-disabled counterparts.
If an elite female sprinter were to compete among the elite male sprinters, she’d probably come in last as well even though she might have won in an all-female race.
Men and women compete in different classes, just as able-bodied and disabled athletes compete in different classes.
Men have a biological advantage over women in many sports. Able-bodied athletes have a biological advantage over disabled athletes.
Thus, if a woman can be athlete of the year even though she’s not as fast (or whatever) as the best man, then a disabled athlete ought to be eligible for the same award if he or she has achieved a good-enough result.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.
Comment by Rob Waring — Mar 07 2005 @ 11:19 am
Umm, three words – Tanny Grey-Thompson
In the UK everyone who watches sports stuff knows who she is. Paralympic multi gold medal winner.
Comment by Jonathan Snook — Dec 06 2004 @ 6:53 am
Hmmm, I’m sure this comment will come off as cold as callous but the fact of the matter is that she has a physical disability that prevents her from competing in the olympics. If competing in the olympics like all other athletes, she would likely come in last and noone would know who she is.
On the web, it’s no different. It’s not a level playing field and we often have to do additional or different functionality to accomodate for people with physical disability.
In the end, all it’ll do is in some(/most?) years, no one will even know of paralympians who achieved greatness. They’ll simply be forgotten.
But I suspect her refusal to accept the award had more to do with creating media attention (and possibly increased funding) than any sense of ‘nobility’.