The case of Blake Leeper v. the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics) centered on whether Leeper, a bilateral transtibial amputee sprinter, could compete in able-bodied events using his running-specific prostheses (RSPs) without gaining an unfair advantage. The dispute arose under IAAF Rule 144.3(d), which prohibits mechanical aids unless the athlete proves they do not provide an overall competitive advantage. Leeper, a Paralympic medalist who had achieved times faster than the Olympic qualifying standard, argued the rule was discriminatory and that his prostheses conferred no advantage. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the rule's interpretation, emphasizing it should be construed purposively to avoid absurd outcomes. The key question was whether Leeper’s RSPs provided an overall advantage, assessed by comparing his performance with prostheses to a hypothetical performance without disability or mechanical aid. The panel also addressed the burden of proof, ruling that if a rule is discriminatory, the burden shifts to the governing body to justify it as necessary, reasonable, and proportionate to a legitimate objective.
Leeper had competed successfully in both Paralympic and able-bodied events, running the 400m in 44.42 seconds—faster than the Olympic qualifying time. However, the IAAF maintained he had not proven the absence of an advantage. The case did not broadly address disabled athletes' inclusion in able-bodied competitions but focused narrowly on the rule’s application to Leeper’s circumstances. The panel considered extensive evidence, including biomechanical analyses, but ultimately upheld the IAAF’s decision, concluding Leeper had not met his burden of proof. The ruling highlighted the complexities of balancing fairness, inclusion, and competitive integrity in elite sports.
Leeper’s journey began with fibular hemimelia, a congenital condition leading to amputations and painful surgeries. Despite these challenges, he excelled in sports, setting records in Paralympic events before transitioning to able-bodied competitions. His performances raised questions about the fairness of RSPs, prompting the IAAF to enforce Rule 144.3(d). Leeper argued the rule was discriminatory, as it disproportionately affected disabled athletes, and criticized the lack of a clear process for proving no advantage. The IAAF countered that the rule ensured fairness, citing concerns that RSPs might provide benefits like reduced fatigue or enhanced stride length.
Expert testimony was divided. Dr. Grabowski’s report concluded Leeper’s RSPs did not provide an overall advantage, noting disadvantages in acceleration and curve running. However, the IAAF’s experts, including Dr. Weyand and Dr. Bundle, argued RSPs conferred significant advantages, such as increased leg length and reduced metabolic demands. The panel found Grabowski’s conclusions implausible, as they implied Leeper would break world records with biological legs. The IAAF’s experts estimated Leeper’s RSPs provided a net advantage, citing his ability to maintain speed in race segments where able-bodied athletes typically decelerate.
The CAS panel ruled the burden of proof should not fall on the athlete, declaring that part of the rule unlawful. However, it upheld the IAAF’s finding that Leeper’s RSPs provided an overall advantage, barring him from using them in elite able-bodied competitions. The decision underscored the challenges of integrating disabled athletes into able-bodied sports while maintaining competitive fairness. It also highlighted the need for clearer, more equitable rules and processes for assessing mechanical aids in athletics. The case remains a landmark in the ongoing debate over technology, disability, and fairness in sports.