Markus Rehm: The Blade Jumper and the Olympic Long Jump

Timeline

1. 2012Rehm wins Paralympic gold in the long jump in London.
2. Jul 2014He wins the German championships against non-disabled athletes.
3. Aug 2014He is left out of the European Championships over concerns about his prosthesis.
4. 2015He jumps 8.40 m at the Para athletics world championships.
5. 2016A study finds mixed effects; Rehm is not allowed to compete at the Rio Olympics.
6. Oct 2020CAS rules in Blake Leeper's case that the governing body, not the athlete, must prove an advantage.
7. Jul 23, 2021CAS rejects Rehm's bid to compete at the Tokyo Olympics.
8. Jun 2023Rehm sets a world record of 8.72 m.

The ethical issues

• Technological advantage: whether a prosthesis helps or hinders.
• Burden of proof: who must show an advantage.
• Separate competitions: whether Para and Olympic sport should remain apart.
• Inclusion: the value of Para athletes competing with non-disabled athletes.
• Scientific uncertainty: measuring advantages in complex events.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Markus Rehm	The opportunity to compete at the highest level.
Para athletes	Recognition and inclusion.
Non-disabled long jumpers	Fair competition.
World Athletics	Consistent eligibility rules.
Prosthetics makers	Technology and its regulation.
Fans	Integrity and inspiration.

The case

Markus Rehm’s right leg was amputated below the knee after a wakeboarding accident. He jumps off a carbon-fiber blade prosthesis and has won four Paralympic, six world and five European titles in the long jump.^[1]

Background

Rehm was born in 1988 in Göppingen, West Germany. He competes for TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen and trained as a medical specialist.^[1] He won Paralympic gold in the long jump at London 2012, and Germany chose him as its flag bearer at the 2016 Paralympics.^[1] His Olympic ambitions followed a precedent. In 2012, Oscar Pistorius became the first athlete to run at the Olympics on blades, and Rehm sought to become the second bladed athlete at the Games.^[1] He set a long jump world record for his category of 8.62 meters at the 2021 European Para championships in Bydgoszcz, Poland, before improving it in 2023.^[1]

The rules and governance

The governing rule changed during Rehm’s campaign. After his 2014 national title, the IAAF changed its rules so that an athlete with a prosthesis had to have the device qualified by proving it gave no advantage over non-disabled athletes.^[1] Before Rio, the IAAF ruled that Rehm and Germany had not met that burden.^[1][2] The scientific question was hard because the evidence pointed in two directions: a disadvantage in the run-up and an advantage at takeoff.^[1]

The 2020 CAS ruling in Leeper’s case shifted the burden of proof to the governing body. But World Athletics still relied on its rule treating prostheses as mechanical aids, and CAS upheld its decision to exclude Rehm from Tokyo.^[3] The Paralympic system separately classifies athletes by impairment so that they compete against comparable athletes, which is why the question arose only for open competition.^[1]

Against non-disabled athletes

In 2014, Rehm won the German national championships, competing against non-disabled athletes, with a jump of 8.24 meters. Some competitors protested that his blade gave him an advantage. His title stood, but he was left out of the European Championships after a ruling that the blade, which made his amputated leg several centimeters longer than his natural leg, gave him an unfair advantage.^[1] In 2015, he won the national championships again, but the federation said his results would not count toward the title because an advantage could not be ruled out.^[1]

The evidence

In 2015, Rehm jumped 8.40 meters to win the Para athletics world title in Doha.^[1][4] That would have beaten Greg Rutherford’s winning jump at the 2012 London Olympics by nine centimeters.^[4] Before the 2016 Rio Olympics, IAAF rules required amputee competitors to prove that their prosthesis gave them no advantage.^[1][4] Rehm commissioned a scientific study to try to meet that test.^[4] The study, involving the University of Cologne, found that the prosthesis was a disadvantage during the run-up but an advantage during takeoff, and it did not establish an overall advantage.^[1][4] The study found that amputees like Rehm had “a less efficient start but a more efficient jump.”^[4]

That left the question unresolved, and under the rule an unresolved question counted against the athlete. In June 2016, the IAAF ruled that he had not proved his case, and he did not compete in Rio.^[1][2][4] The outcome was not hostile. The IAAF described its talks with Rehm as “extremely constructive and positive,” and Rehm said he would work with the federation on a rule change, hoping to compete at the 2017 World Championships in London.^[4]

Tokyo

In October 2020, a case brought by American sprinter Blake Leeper, a double amputee, changed the legal ground.^[3][5] The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) held that the World Athletics rule on mechanical aids was “unlawful and invalid to the extent that it places the burden of proof upon an athlete” to show that the aid gives no overall competitive advantage.^[5] The panel accepted that the rule had a legitimate aim. It should let disabled athletes compete against able-bodied athletes with aids that “compensate for the effect of their disability,” but not with aids that “do more than compensate.”^[5] With the burden on World Athletics, the panel still ruled against Leeper. His prostheses let him run “several inches taller than his maximum possible height if he had intact biological legs,” which gave him an overall advantage in the 400 meters.^[5]

Rehm met the Olympic qualifying standard in 2021 with a jump of 8.62 meters.^[1][6] The German athletics federation proposed him for the Tokyo Games in a separate ranking, and the German Olympic Sports Confederation entered him as part of its team. The IOC referred the case to World Athletics, which declared him ineligible under its rule treating prostheses as mechanical aids.^[3][6] Rehm appealed to CAS. He asked to compete in the long jump without restriction, or failing that, outside the competition or in a separate ranking.^[6] “At some point you just have to take the next step,” he had told Sport1. “Otherwise, unfortunately, no one listens, and nothing changes.”^[6] His filing argued, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that an athlete who meets the standard that applies to everyone cannot simply be classed as disabled and assigned only to the Paralympics.^[6] The president of the German disabled sports association backed him.^[6] CAS rejected his request on July 23, 2021, the day of the opening ceremony.^[3][6]

Aftermath

In June 2023, Rehm set a world record of 8.72 meters.^[1] The legal position he and Leeper fought over remains split. The governing body must now prove an advantage, but any athlete it can show gains more than compensation from a prosthesis can still be kept out of open competition.^[5]

The core dilemma

Rehm’s blade is part of how he competes. It may help in some phases and hurt in others. Sport must decide whether such technology belongs in Olympic competition, who must prove what, and whether separate classification offers a fair compromise.

Competing values

• Inclusion vs. fairness: Para athletes’ access against equal conditions.
• Evidence vs. precaution: proof of advantage against uncertainty.
• Technology vs. natural performance: prostheses as tools or as aids.
• Separate categories vs. integration: Para and Olympic sport.

Strongest arguments

For Rehm’s inclusion: no study has shown an overall advantage, and he trained like any elite jumper. Excluding him sends a message that Para athletes cannot compete at the highest level.

For exclusion: the long jump is decided by the takeoff, where the blade helps. Uncertainty about advantage should be resolved in favor of fairness to other competitors.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks what fairness requires when an athlete’s body and technology differ from the norm. Excluding Rehm protects competitors from a possible advantage, but places the cost of scientific uncertainty on the disabled athlete. A separate ranking was one suggested compromise that would let him compete without displacing others.

Rights

A rights lens emphasizes equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation for disabled athletes. It supports the CAS ruling that the governing body should bear the burden of proving advantage, but also recognizes other athletes’ right to competition on comparable terms.

Utilitarian

Consequentialists weigh the inspiring effect of a Paralympian competing at the Olympics, and the message to disabled athletes, against the potential costs to competitors and to confidence in results. They also ask whether more research could reduce the uncertainty that drives the dispute.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a World Athletics official in 2021, deciding whether a long jumper using a blade can compete at the Olympics. The stakeholders include the athlete, other long jumpers, national federations, the Paralympic movement and fans. The codes in play are World Athletics technical rules, the CAS Leeper ruling and anti-discrimination principles.
2. Gather facts. What does the biomechanical evidence show about each phase of the jump? Who bears the burden of proof after the CAS ruling?
3. Test options. Options: (a) exclude him; (b) include him in the main competition; (c) include him with a separate ranking. Weigh fairness to competitors against inclusion and the athlete’s rights.
4. Check codes and law. Are you treating uncertainty as a reason to exclude when the burden is on you? Would your decision be acceptable to an athlete in either position?
5. Decide and document. Record the evidence, the reasoning and the rule applied.
6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate the decision openly, and commit to research and rule development that address the question for future athletes.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: Rehm’s exclusion from the Olympics; CAS rulings in 2020 and 2021.
• Contested: whether his blade gives an overall advantage; how such cases should be resolved.

Why this case matters

Rehm’s case shows how technology tests the boundaries of sport. It raises questions about evidence, fairness and inclusion that will grow as prosthetics improve.

Key terms

Equalizer vs. enhancer

Whether a technology or adaptation restores a level field (adaptation) or gives an advantage beyond it (augmentation).

Reasonable accommodation

Adjusting conditions so people can take part, without lowering the standard. Fairness isn’t sameness.

Classification

The system adaptive and Paralympic sport uses to group athletes by functional ability so that competition is meaningful.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. A study found Rehm's blade was a disadvantage in the run-up and an advantage in the takeoff. Should the effects be added together, or should any advantage disqualify him?
2. Who should bear the burden of proving advantage, the athlete or the governing body?
3. Rehm offered to compete with a separate ranking. Is that a fair compromise?
4. What would be lost and gained if Para and Olympic sport were merged in some events?
5. How should sport regulate technology that becomes part of an athlete's body?

Sources

1. Markus Rehm — Wikipedia
2. Blade jumper Rehm running out of time for Rio — Reuters
3. CAS schmettert Klage ab: Prothesen-Springer darf nicht zu Olympia — n-tv
4. Rio Olympics: Paralympian Markus Rehm will not compete in Rio long jump (June 2016) — BBC Sport
5. Media release: The CAS partially upholds the appeal of Blake Leeper (26 Oct. 2020) — Court of Arbitration for Sport
6. Cas-Entscheidung: Prothesen-Weitspringer Rehm darf nicht bei Olympia starten (dpa, 23 July 2021) — t-online