The case of Blake Leeper v. World Athletics (WA) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) centers on the eligibility of double-amputee sprinter Blake Leeper to compete in able-bodied track and field events using running-specific prostheses (RSPs). The dispute revolves around WA Technical Rule 6.3.4, which prohibits the use of mechanical aids unless the athlete can demonstrate they do not provide an overall competitive advantage. Leeper, a successful Paralympic athlete, sought to transition to competing against able-bodied athletes, including in events like the Tokyo Olympics, using RSPs that made him taller than his "natural height." WA's Mechanical Aids Review panel rejected his application, concluding the prostheses conferred an unfair advantage. Leeper appealed to CAS, arguing the rule was disproportionate and discriminatory, placing an undue burden on disabled athletes to prove their aids do not provide an advantage.
The legal and scientific debate in the case highlights broader issues of fairness, inclusivity, and the regulation of technology in sports. The CAS panel examined whether Rule 6.3.4 was necessary and proportionate to ensure fair competition, considering whether viable alternatives existed. The rule requires comparing a disabled athlete's performance with RSPs to their hypothetical performance with intact biological legs, rather than against able-bodied athletes. WA argued this comparison was essential to prevent artificial enhancements from undermining competitive integrity. Leeper contended the rule unfairly disadvantaged disabled athletes and lacked scientific validation, particularly for Black athletes, whose anthropometric differences were not fully accounted for in the Maximum Allowable Standing Height (MASH) rule used to determine his "natural height."
The MASH rule, adopted by WA in 2018, estimates an amputee athlete's natural height based on torso and limb measurements, aiming to prevent RSPs from providing an unnatural advantage. Leeper challenged the rule's applicability and accuracy, especially for Black athletes, arguing it was derived from Caucasian populations and inadequately validated for others. WA defended the rule, citing studies that validated its methodology across diverse populations, including Japanese and Australian subjects, and emphasized its inclusion of an error margin to account for biological variations. The panel acknowledged the rule's limitations but found it sufficiently scientifically grounded, encouraging further research to improve its accuracy for underrepresented groups.
Scientific testimony played a central role in the case, with experts debating whether RSP height affects sprinting performance. Leeper's experts argued that increased height did not necessarily confer an advantage, citing studies like the Taboga 2020 Paper, which found no consistent relationship between prosthetic height and maximum speed. They also highlighted disadvantages Leeper faced, such as slower acceleration from starting blocks and difficulty running curves. WA's experts countered that longer legs inherently enhance running speed by increasing ground contact length, supported by mathematical models and observational data from Paralympic athletes. They attributed Leeper's disadvantages to the disproportionate length of his RSPs rather than the prostheses themselves, noting that shorter RSPs reduced these issues.
The panel ultimately sided with WA, concluding that Leeper's RSPs provided a net competitive advantage and that Rule 6.3.4 was a proportionate measure to maintain fairness. It found no practical alternatives to disallowing RSPs that exceeded MASH-determined heights, rejecting proposals like time handicaps as unworkable. The panel emphasized that the rule's impact on Leeper was limited, barring him only from select elite competitions while allowing participation in other events. It also noted Leeper had no legitimate expectation to use non-compliant prosthetics, as WA had consistently enforced the rule's intent to prevent advantages from "running tall."
The case underscores the complexities of integrating disabled athletes into able-bodied competitions, balancing inclusivity with competitive fairness. While Leeper's determination and achievements were acknowledged, the panel upheld WA's regulatory framework, affirming the need to ensure outcomes are determined by natural ability rather than technological aids. The decision reflects the ongoing challenges in adapting sports regulations to accommodate athletes with disabilities while preserving the integrity of competition. The panel encouraged further research to refine rules like MASH, ensuring they are scientifically robust and inclusive, but ultimately dismissed Leeper's appeal, upholding WA's authority to enforce its standards for fair play.