With the introduction of a new Adaptive Athlete Policy this season, athletes may find themselves questioning their eligibility. Recently, athletes with neuromuscular impairments shared some frustrations in the correspondence between CrossFit leadership (see “Ineligible Athletes Call for Transparency from CrossFit”). Now, athletes in the upper extremity division are sharing some of these difficulties. Two of these athletes are Richie Rausch and Emily Cairns.
Richie Rausch applied to the upper extremity division based on impaired passive range of movement in his right wrist. Rausch sustained this impairment when he underwent surgical removal of 3 bones in the wrist due to an infection. This left Rausch unable to flex or extend his wrist, and the joint stuck in a permanent neutral position. “I use a strap to create a front rack position. If I need to do something like a push-up I just stay on my fingertips.”
A portion of the eligibility process requires a medical professional to perform a series of test on video. Rausch’s physical therapist performed the necessary tests for passive range of movement. For the wrist (and fingers), the minimum impairment criteria are (Appendix, 1.5.1):
- Wrist ankylosed in > 50 degrees of wrist flexion or wrist extension
- Any four (4) fingers with ≤ 10 degrees of flexion or extension at the metacarpophalangeal joint
“CrossFit informed me a few days before 23.1 that I wasn’t eligible. I asked for clarification on the minimum criteria, because I do have an ankylosed wrist with less than 50 degrees of passive range of motion. The greater than is confusing. I’m being kept out because I have less range of motion than the other athletes?”
CrossFit has yet to provide additional information on why Rausch was found ineligible. Rausch shared that he spoke with his physical therapist (who had performed the eligibility tests) about his ruling, that they had read the Adaptive Athlete Policy to try to better understand the decision from CrossFit.
“[The physical therapist] and I both have questions that CrossFit needs to answer. I’m okay if they say I can’t compete, I just want to fully understand the rules and why I don’t belong [in this division]”, Rausch said, “When a medical professional is asking for clarifications on the rules and medical exams, I think CrossFit needs to [provide] clarity.”
Interestingly, Rausch’s score remains on the leaderboard. “I’m competitive, so having a leaderboard where I could compare my [performance] with athletes similar to me has been great. I don’t know if I’ll get to stay [on the leaderboard], but I’m enjoying the experience for as long as I can. It’s something I’ve missed.”
This may cause some to call into question the legitimacy of the adaptive leaderboards. If ineligible athletes are currently on the leaderboard, how fair is the competition? CrossFit may intend to disqualify athletes, but there has been a history of disqualified athletes remaining on the leaderboard and dictating who qualified for the Games (See: “Should Chris Schmulbach Have Qualified for the CrossFit Games?”).
Emily Cairns situation mirrors Rausch’s story in many ways. If you’ve been following the adaptive division this season you might have come across Andrew Hiller’s video about Emily. If not, check it out below.
Like Rausch, Cairns completed the eligibility process for the upper extremity division under the criteria of impaired passive range of movement. However, Cairns has been eligible for the upper extremity division the last two years. “My physio works with para-Olympians, and he couldn’t believe I wasn’t considered adaptive by CrossFit. How was I not eligible?” Cairns shared. Cairns immediately reached out to CrossFit leadership for clarification.
Reflecting on the events she said, “I got pushed up the chain and no one ever answered my main question: did I apply under the wrong criteria? I felt ignored and a bit belittled. They just kept repeating that I didn’t meet the minimum impairment criteria.” Cairns shared that CrossFit informed her they did not watch her workout portion of the eligibility process due to her range of movement not meeting the minimum impairment criteria (Cairns reported her extension measured at -10 degrees).
Cairns has since reapplied for the upper extremity division under the criteria of impaired muscle power and is aware of the weight her situation holds. “I hope that my case in a wake-up call,” she explained. Cairns has already completed the necessary medical examination for the impaired muscle power criteria.
“I know I don’t meet the minimum impairment criteria. I have a grade 2, but you need two,” Cairns said. Cairns shared that her physio thought the tests being used by CrossFit were missing the severity of impairments. “I struggle with everyday tasks, I can’t do a front rack or an overhead position with a barbell, I can’t do push-ups or handstand walk. But these tests are saying that my impairments aren’t severe,” Cairns added.
Cairns’ situation is unique from Rausch’s, however, as she has a multitude of impairments (e.g., impaired range of motion, impaired muscle power, limb length discrepancy). The issue is her impairments cannot all be captured in the current adaptive policy. “I think they’re trying to make it fair, and I get that. But I think choosing certain tests and then making you go into that small box isn’t how to do it. It needs to be a more holistic approach and look at the whole person. Just looking at my muscle power impairment doesn’t show you my entire impairment,” Cairns explained.
Cairns spoke on the emotional struggle of the situation, “Growing up I wanted to be a dancer and I trained so hard to be great at it. During that journey, [someone] told me that my arm didn’t fit the aesthetic of what a dancer should look like. My physical performance wasn’t enough to hide my disability. When I found CrossFit, I thought that had finally changed. I thought I had a place where my arm wouldn’t hold me back. Now I’m being told I’m not disabled enough to be here. It takes me right back to that moment as a dancer, except now I’m being told I’m not disabled enough [to be allowed] to compete.”
When asked what CrossFit could do better, Rausch responded, “Who is the [CrossFit] Open for? The Open is for everyone, and it serves athletes in a variety of ways. This has been a basic tenet of the Open for years. I think that’s one reason so many love the Open, or maybe it’s a more of love-hate thing. If this is still the vision, and I think it should be, they need to ensure divisions allow for inclusion of all. Everyone needs a place to play. I know it can be challenging especially determining fairness in competition, but I’m confident smart people can figure it out. If this isn’t the case anymore, they need to own it.”
The Barbell Spin will continue to cover the appeal process of Richie Rausch and Emily Cairns as the stories develop.
