Introduction

The recent investigations concerning the alleged disability classification fraud by the Belgian para-athlete, Mr. Maxime Carabin has spurred conversations about the overall integrity and transparency of the paralympic classification process. Mr. Carabin, who is a two-time paralympic champion in wheelchair racing is currently under investigation by the International Paralympic Committee following complaints from athletes from Switzerland and Austria about his disability classification. They have alleged that there is a significant discrepancy between the level of movement of his leg compared to the disability that Mr. Carabin has been formally classified under. These doubts have been further accentuated by the fact that Mr. Carabin had been originally ruled as ‘ineligible’ by the concerned governing body at the national level (i.e. the Ligue Handisport Francophone) but was subsequently declared as eligible by the IPC. 

While Mr. Carabin’s case is currently under investigation, it raises important questions concerning the medical examination of para-athletes, the criteria used for classification of para-athletes and the overall integrity of the paralympic movement. These questions and the consequences of the lack of clarity surrounding the same were exposed in a recent classification issue (“Protest”) involving a Slovenian Sitting Volleyball Player, Mrs. Valentyna Brik, before World ParaVolley prior to the 2024 Paris Paralympic Games.

What is the case about?

Mrs. Brik is a Slovenian Sitting Volleyball Player who had been classified by World ParaVolley (“WPV”) under the Sport Class – ‘VS1’ category to participate in sitting-volleyball competitions that were sanctioned or organised by WPV. Her classification was confirmed in 2018 following a detailed medical evaluation, which demonstrated that the level of flexion of her left knee was less than 45 degrees. She subsequently represented the Slovenian Sitting Volleyball team in various competitions and was also a key member of the team in their final Olympic qualification competition in Dali, China in April 2024. 

During this competition, there were several ‘experts’ and ‘classifiers’ that were authorised by WPV to review the para-athletes in competition and initiate appropriate actions in case anyone was found to be displaying a level of movement that did not correspond to their medically determined Sport Class. Such in-competition review was aimed at ensuring the continual check of para-athletes and the overall integrity of the competition, which has its basis in equity. These classifiers did not raise any issue against Mrs. Brik either before the competition, during the competition and immediately after the competition in Dali, China. 

The Slovenian Sitting Volleyball Team subsequently qualified for the 2024 Paralympic Games and Mrs. Brik was monumental in this feat. 

However, shortly after the arrival of the team in Slovenia, Mrs. Brik and the Slovenian Paralympic Committee were notified by the Chief Classifier of WPV that Mrs. Brik’s classification was under doubt owing to the level of flexion of her knee from a social media video that had been posted by the Slovenian Sitting Volleyball team on Instagram. The Chief Classifier considered that such level of flexion did not correspond to the VS1 category. 

Mrs. Brik duly responded to this notification and also provided an independent medical report to confirm that there was no change in her Sport Class. Despite this, the Chief Classifier of WPV did not examine the veracity of the contents of the medical report and merely remarked that Mrs. Brik had provided a short medical report. Furthermore, no further expert or medical evidence had been provided by the Chief Classifier except for the link to the social media video. On this flawed basis, WPV initiated a Protest (i.e. a challenge against her classification) against Mrs. Brik and changed her Sport Class Status from “Confirmed” to “Review”. This meant that until the resolution of her Protest (i.e. a medical examination of the para-athlete to confirm if there was any change in her disability), Mrs. Brik was prohibited from participating in any competition. Unfortunately, this also meant her disqualification from the 2024 Paris Paralympic Games as the resolution of the Protest could only take place during a WPV sanctioned competition, and there was no sanctioned competition in which the Slovenian sitting volleyball team was taking part in prior to the 2024 Paris Paralympic Games. Her classification could not take place during the Paralympic games as well because this was a “zero-classification” event as per the Classification Rules of WPV. 

Mrs. Brik therefore had to wait until the next WPV sanctioned competition (which was in 2025, after the Paris Paralympic Games) to resolve the Protest. Even though there were three months from the date of initiation of the Protest to the start of the Paris Paralympic Games, WPV was unwilling to resolve the Protest and determine if Mrs. Brik could take part in the Paris Paralympic Games or not. 

Added to her plight, there was no provision of appeal within the classification rules of WPV that enabled her to appeal the Protest on its merits. The only appeal provisions that were available, concerned the appeal against the classification procedure but they were redundant as they could not over-turn a Protest, or even change the Sport Class Status of the para-athlete from “Review” to “Confirmed”. Interestingly, the appeal provisions were also not directly contained in the Classification Rules of WPV but had to be specifically requested for by the para-athlete, as to the procedure of the appeal. This also constrained the rights of Mrs. Brik against WPV in case any appeal on the procedure was to be raised. In this case, WPV responded to Mrs. Brik and provided her with the rules of appeal four days after she requested for it – which also prejudiced her rights to appeal further as the time limit of an appeal was only 15 days from the date of the decision (albeit, not from a Protest).  

As a last resort, Mrs. Brik also filed a suit for temporary injunction before the Commercial, Cantonal and Insolvency Court, Harlem (the place of domicile of WPV) to seek, inter alia, that WPC change her Sport Class from “Review” to “Confirmed” or at least amend it in such a way as to enable her to participate in the Paralympic Games. However, the request was defined as the court ruled that WPV was entitled to change the Sport Class Status of Mrs. Brik within the framework of the WPV Classification Rules. 

Ultimately, Mrs. Brik could not resolve the Protest prior to the Paris Paralympic Games. The entire nature by which the Protest had been initiated without any medical or expert opinion, as well as the fact that there was no provision to internally appeal the decision made, smeared the classification process as arbitrary and biased. It made it seem as though the decision was pre-determined despite all medical evidence provided by her. Furthermore, the arbitrariness of the whole system was highlighted by the fact that a Protest against her classification could be raised at any time, but the resolution of the same could only be done during a fixed and specified window, namely – a WPV sanctioned competition. This is despite the classification rules of the IPC providing that Protests must be resolved timely. These inconsistencies and opaque rules shattered Mrs. Brik’s paralympic dreams – not because of her own fault but because of the bureaucracies of the system that she was a part of. 

What is the underlying problem?

The case of Mrs. Brik, and presently, the case of Mr. Carabin underscores the main problem affecting paralympic sports – there is no clarity as to the criteria of the classification and further, the system of classification actually works to the detriment of the para-athletes, rather than in the interest of maintaining and upholding fairness, transparency and integrity of the competition. 

Moreover, as evidenced by the efforts of Mrs. Brik to seek for a temporary injunction before the courts in Netherlands, against WPV, it is clear that such efforts go in vain as the courts will not interfere if the procedure by which the Protest was initiated was in accordance with the classification rules. However, if the rules, by their very initiation and form are arbitrary, can there be any recourse for the athletes before the sport governing body and also courts? 

The only real option therefore is to point out the cracks in the classification system and enforce a change, through dialogue with the governing body. It is these cracks in the system that this article intends to highlight, (and also initiate further discourse on these issues), in an attempt to ensure that the case of Mrs. Brik is not a common occurrence in paralympic sports. 

As a disclaimer, however, please note that the author was part of the legal team that represented Mrs. Brik in her challenge against the Protest that was initiated against her but has authored this article to emphasize on the larger issues of the fairness and transparency of the classification process. 

A peak into WPV’s classification process

To provide regulatory context to the matter, the Classification and Protest procedure of World ParaVolley has been detailed in brief below: 

1. Sitting Volleyball and its Classification Procedure

Sitting Volleyball is a paralympic sport that is regulated and governed by World ParaVolley at the International level, which in turn is affiliated to the International Paralympic Committee. As a paralympic sport, there is a necessity to ensure the strict application of the rules of the sport, especially in regard to the eligibility criteria of athletes. This is to enable athletes compete with other athletes having equitable levels of impairments. Without a strict application of the same, the sport is susceptible to athletes faking their impairments and ailments to gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. With this intention in mind, World ParaVolley had constituted various Classification Rules in 2018 to govern the procedure of classifying athletes in various ‘Sport Classes’ on the basis of their varying degree of physical impairment. 

In Sitting Volleyball, there are two categories of Sport Classes, namely, ‘VS1’ and ‘VS2’. Both of these indicate the level of disability of the athlete. The former indicates that the athletes’ impairments significantly affect the core functions in sitting volleyball and the latter indicates a minimal effect on the core functions of the athlete in sitting volleyball. Accordingly, a sitting volleyball team can comprise of 14 players, with a maximum of two players having a Sport Class of VS2. If however, the athlete does not have an impairment which meets this standard, they are declared with a Sport Class – Non Eligible and are ineligible to participate in Paralympic Sports.

The determination of the Sport Class is done by carrying out a detailed Athlete Evaluation (medical assessment) of the para-athlete at an event sanctioned by World ParaVolley. There are specific experts and classifiers assigned for this purpose to carry out testing of the para-athlete (Article 11 – 14 of the Classification Rules).

Following the determination of the Sport Class of the para-athlete, the para-athlete is also assigned a Sport Class Status. This determines whether the para-athlete maybe required to undergo further medical evaluation in the future owing to the nature of their impairment which may either improve or deteriorate with time. Accordingly, there are three categories of ‘Sport Class Status’ (Article 15 of the Classification Rules):

1. Sport Class Status ‘Confirmed’ – an athlete with this status will not have to undergo further Athlete Evaluation, except for the situation of a Protest, Medical Review, and changes to Sport Class criteria. 
2. Sport Class Status ‘Review’ – an athlete will have to undergo an Athlete Evaluation prior to competing at an event, unless specified otherwise by World ParaVolley.
3. Sport Class Status ‘Review with a Fixed Review Date’ – an athlete will have to undergo further Athlete Evaluation but not prior to the fixed date.

2. The peculiarities of the Protest Procedure

A Protest refers to a challenge that is made against an athlete’s Sport Class if either a National SGB or World ParaVolley if they consider an athlete may have been allocated to an incorrect Sport Class (Article 18 – 26 of the Classification Rules). Such a Protest maybe made at any time, not only within competition. 

The formal requirements for a valid Protest to be initiated are: 

1. Written Explanation as to why the Protest has been made; and 
2. The basis upon which it is justified to initiate the Protest. 

Once the above requirements are met, a formal Protest procedure is said to have been initiated and the Sport Class Status of the athlete against whom the Protest is made is changed from ‘Confirmed’ to ‘Review’. This means that the Athlete cannot compete in an event unless and until the Protest has been resolved. 

The resolution of the Protest can only take place at a sanctioned World ParaVolley competition and has to be resolved as reasonably soon as possible by an assigned Protest Panel. The Protest Panel conducts a new Athlete Evaluation and determines if there has been a change in the Sport Class or not. Accordingly, a new Sport Class and Sport Class Status is assigned to the athlete. Their decision is final and the Protest is said to have been resolved. 

The concerning limitation placed in regard to the Protest procedure is that an athlete cannot make an appeal against the merits of the Protest. The only appeal procedure lies against the procedure of conducting an Athlete Evaluation and if there were errors in complying with such classification process. Even upon such appeal, the appellate body can either confirm or dismiss the appeal. They cannot change or alter the Sport Class Status of the Athlete. The Classification Rules therefore crystallize the initiation of Protest, once made. 

Additionally, and what may be regarded as unreasonable, the Classification Rules also provided that in case a Protest had been made in competition and there was no opportunity for the Protest to be resolved at that Competition, the athlete could still take part in the competition with the Sport Class Status Review, pending the resolution of the Protest (Article 25 of the Classification Rules). The reasons for such an exception have not been clarified by World ParaVolley especially when in all other situations, an athlete against whom a Protest is initiated cannot compete unless an Athlete Evaluation is conducted.

What are the main issues in the classification process of WPV?

1. The lack of an appeal process against the merits of the Protest, enables the Chief Classifier of WPV to initiate a Protest on a mere whim: The procedure by which a para-athlete is classified to a particular Sport Class and Sport Class Status is meticulous and involves a detailed medical evaluation, both outside and in-competition. However, the rules enable a Protest to be initiated against a Para-athlete at any time, without any provision for appeal on the basis (merits) of the Protest. The only available procedure for appeal is against the procedure of the initial classification process, and not the procedure of initiation of the Protest. Moreover, these appeal rules are not disclosed in the classification rules but have to be specifically requested for. Nevertheless, the appeal procedure is redundant in the face of a Protest because it cannot set-aside an appeal or even change the Sport Class Status from “Review” to “Confirmed”.  This therefore crystallises the decision of the Chief Classifier of WPV and enables them to initiate Protests without the requirement of any scientific or medical opinion (as evidenced in the case of Mrs. Brik). 
2. The treatment of athletes varies in accordance with when a Protest is initiated: In general, following the initiation of a Protest, an athlete is placed under Review and cannot participate in any competition until the Protest is resolved. However, in case where the Protest was initiated during competition and the Protest cannot be resolved during the competition, Article 25 permits the athlete to compete with the Sport Class Status ‘Review’ without the resolution of the Protest. This not only goes against the very purpose of a Protest but also affects the integrity of the competition. 
3. Unjustified (and unreasonable) requirement for Protests to be initiated only within sanctioned competitions when initial athlete evaluation and allocation of Sport Class is not limited to this criterion: The underlying procedure involved in the resolution of a Protest is the medical evaluation of the athlete to determine if there was any change in the Sport Class of the athlete. This, therefore, is similar to the initial allocation procedure which is not limited to only within sanctioned competitions. Therefore, for the requirement of the resolution of the Protest to take place only within sanctioned competitions is unjustified and as in the case of Mrs. Brik, wholly unreasonable, as it could mean that the athlete is left waiting for an entire year to have their eligibility determined. This is a long time in an athlete’s career and cannot be monetarily compensated in case the Protest is found to be meritless. 
4. Conflict with the guidelines of the IPC concerning resolution of Protests: In continuation with the above, the International Paralympic Committee’s International Standard for Protest and Appeals also provides that an International Sport Federation should set up provisions to enable the resolution of Protests outside sanctioned competitions as well. This was a guideline made on the basis that it would reduce costs and also enable quicker resolution of Protests. In spite of the existence of such guidelines, WPV has not implemented the same, and also stressed in the case of Mrs. Brik that it would be an unfair application of the Classification Rules if they did permit her to resolve the Protest outside a sanctioned competition. However, when the IPC rules itself deem otherwise, is it really an unfair application of the Classification Rules? 
5. Conflict in the eligibility criteria between the Rules of WPV and the IPC: The WPV permitted every sitting volleyball team to comprise of a maximum of 14 players with a Sport Class Status of ‘Confirmed’ or ‘Review’, including a maximum of two players with a Sport Class of VS2. However, contrary to this, the IPC mandated that the teams for the Paralympic Games could only have players with a Sport Class Status as ‘Confirmed’ or ‘Review with a Fixed Review Date after 31 December 2024’. This dichotomy in the rules meant that athletes who conformed to the rules of WPV could participate in the qualification games for the Paralympic Games, but if they failed to conform to the eligibility criteria for the Paralympic Games, they would not be able to compete in the Games. Owing to such an inconsistency, there is a necessity for there to be uniformity in the rules at all levels, failing which, the criteria of fairness and integrity fails to be met. 
6. The rules do not contemplate provisions concerning the consequence of a meritless Protest to the para-athlete/team concerned: A key issue that was raised in the case of Mrs. Brik was that as the Protest was initiated against her on a flawed basis, without any contrary medical or scientific proof, there lied a strong probability that there was no change in her Sport Class and therefore, her Sport Class Status. This meant that in case it was determined after the Paralympic Games that there was no change in her Sport Class, the initiated Protest would have caused severe loss to both the para-athlete and the team concerned. The rules however do not address this issue and how such an athlete is to be compensated on the same. As there lies no appeal on the merits of the Protest, coupled with the fact that a Protest can only be resolved in a sanctioned WPV competition, such a risk of a flawed Protest is very much possible in several cases. However, without any provision on recourse to such athletes, in case of a flawed Protest, it does not really conform to the principles of the paralympic movement. On a similar note, the rules also do not address as to how other teams affected by such a Protest and may have missed out on the Paralympic Games are to be fairly compensated for the loss in opportunity to take part in the Paralympic Games. 

Concluding remarks

The case of Ms. Valentyna Brik is a troubling reminder of how rigid and arbitrary sports governance can be, especially for an individual athlete who has no independent and external means of redressal. A flawed Protest, based on nothing more than a social media video, ultimately cost her a place at the 2024 Paris Paralympic Games. The irony is that the very system that was meant to ensure fair competition instead, denied her the opportunity to compete, all while hiding behind the rhetoric of sporting integrity. What makes this case even more concerning is the absence of any real checks and balances. The inability to appeal the Protest on its merits, the contradiction between World ParaVolley’s rules and the standards set by the International Paralympic Committee, and the selective application of due process requirements all point to a system that does not cater to the protection of athlete’s rights. 

The author considers that the main issues lie in the fact that athletes and their concerns are not taken into regard at the time of formation of the rules. Therefore, when the rules are by their very nature arbitrary, it is very difficult for any recourse to be sought by an athlete at a later point as the rigid rules prevent any such actions against a sports governing body (‘SGB’). Hence, if the goal of WPV is truly to protect the integrity of sport, then transparency, accountability, and athlete representation in decision-making must become the norm rather than the exception. In this regard, this case of Mrs. Brik also serves as a call for action for all stakeholders to define and limit the scope of ‘fairness’, ‘equality’, ‘equity’ and ‘sporting integrity’ within the rules of the SGB to prevent arbitrary application of these standards against unjust punitive measures by an SGB. It may also provide an impetus for athletes to stress on the requirement for a system of a collective-bargaining agreement in the legislation and implementation of rules by an SGB. Such a requirement may also serve as an amicable solution to several challenges that SGB’s and the Court of Arbitration for Sport are currently facing in regard to their compliance with EU competition law. 

Until meaningful reforms take place in sports governance, athletes will remain vulnerable to arbitrary decisions that can derail their careers in an instant. Ms. Brik’s case is not just about one athlete—it’s a reflection of a system that desperately needs change. The question now is whether those in power will recognize this and act before another athlete’s Olympic dream is unfairly taken away by the bureaucracy within the system.