The case revolves around Markus Rehm, a professional long jumper and Paralympic champion who uses a running-specific prosthesis (RSP) due to a below-the-knee amputation. Rehm sought eligibility to compete in the able-bodied long jump event at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, sparking a legal and regulatory dispute with World Athletics (WA). The core issue was whether his RSP provided an overall competitive advantage, as per WA Technical Rule 6.3.4, which governs mechanical aids in competition. The rule does not explicitly require athletes to seek prior permission for such aids, nor does it outline an appeal process to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Rehm had faced similar challenges in 2014 when the German Athletics Association (DLV) barred him from the European Championships, citing a biomechanical study suggesting his RSP offered an advantage. In 2016, a working group was formed to examine prostheses in competition, but no definitive resolution was reached before the Tokyo Olympics. Rehm attempted to qualify for the Olympics in 2021, achieving jumps of 8.47m, 8.29m, and 8.42m in German competitions, though these were recorded separately and not officially recognized. He also set a T64 world record of 8.62m at the World Para Athletics European Championships. The DLV nominated him conditionally, ensuring no other German athlete would lose their spot, but WA denied his eligibility, citing Rule 25.3, which requires prior assessment of mechanical aids.
The CAS, led by Sole Arbitrator James Drake QC, addressed key legal questions. It clarified that WA Technical Rule 6.3.4 does not mandate prior approval for mechanical aids but emphasized cooperation with WA for equipment evaluation. The panel ruled that WA bears the burden of proving whether an RSP provides an overall competitive advantage, with the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. Expert testimony from Prof. Potthast and Prof. Weyand indicated that Rehm’s RSP provided significant advantages in take-off velocity and energy efficiency, increasing his jump distance by 40–49 cm compared to non-amputee athletes. While Rehm argued that his RSP compensated for his disability and did not confer an unfair advantage, the CAS concluded that the evidence supported WA’s position.
The case highlighted the complexities of integrating disabled athletes into able-bodied competitions, particularly when technological aids are involved. The CAS dismissed Rehm’s appeal, affirming that his RSP provided an impermissible competitive advantage under WA rules. The decision underscored the need for clearer regulations and evidence-based assessments to balance inclusivity with competitive integrity. It also revealed unresolved questions about the classification of prostheses as mechanical aids and the biomechanical impacts of such devices in elite sports. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving athletes with prostheses, emphasizing the importance of fair and transparent evaluation processes.
Ultimately, Rehm’s participation in the Tokyo Olympics was barred due to procedural and regulatory hurdles, reflecting broader challenges in reconciling inclusivity with the preservation of competitive fairness in sports. The case serves as a catalyst for ongoing discussions about the role of technology in athletics and the need for adaptive frameworks to accommodate athletes with disabilities while maintaining a level playing field.