F5, also SP5, is a wheelchair sport classification that corresponds to the neurological level T8 - L1. Historically, it was known as Lower 3, or Upper 4. People in this class have some trunk function and good sitting balance. They have problems with hip function, that reduces their ability to rotate their spines.

The comparable class for athletics is F55. F5 competitors can be found in a number of swimming classes including SB3, S4, SB4, SB5, S5 and S6. People in this class would likely be a 2 point player in wheelchair basketball. In rowing, they would be classified as AS. The process for classification into this class has a medical and functional classification process. This process is often sport specific.

Definition

This is wheelchair sport classification that corresponds to the neurological level T8 - L1. In the past, this class was known as Lower 3, or Upper 4.

In 2002, USA Track & Field defined this class as, " Three trunk movements may be seen in this class: 1) off the back of the chair (in an upward direction); 2) movement in the forward and backward plane; and 3) some trunk rotation. They have fair to good sitting balance. They do not have functional hip movement, so do not have the ability to lift the thigh upward in sitting. They may have stiffness of their spine that improves balance, but reduces the ability to rotate the spine. With the shot and javelin, they tend to use forward and backward movements, whereas with the discus they predominantly use a rotary movement. Neurological level: T8-L1."

Neurological The neurological definition of this class in 2003 as T8 - L1. The location of lesions on different vertebrae tend to be associated with disability levels and functionality issues. T12 and L1 are associated with abdominal innervation complete.

Anatomical Disabled Sports USA defined the anatomical definition of this class in 2003 as, "Normal upper limb function. Have abdominal muscles and spinal extensors (upper or more commonly upper and lower). May have non-functional hip flexors (grade 1). Have no abductor function."

Functional People in this class have good sitting balance. People with lesions located between T9 and T12 have some loss of abdominal muscle control. Disabled Sports USA defined the functional definition of this class in 2003 as, "Three trunk movements may be seen in this class: 1) Off the back of a chair (in an upwards direction). 2) Movement in the backwards and forwards plane. 3) Some trunk rotation. They have fair to good sitting balance. They cannot have functional hip flexors, i.e. ability to lift the thigh upwards in the sitting position. They may have stiffness of the spine that improves balance but reduces the ability to rotate the spine." People in this class have a total respiratory capacity of 87% compared to people without a disability.

Governance In general, classification for spinal cord injuries and wheelchair sport is overseen by International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS), having taken over this role following the 2005 merger of ISMWSF and ISOD. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, wheelchair sport classification was handled International Stoke Mandeville Games Federation (ISMGF).

Some sports have classification managed by other organizations. In the case of athletics, classification is handled by IPC Athletics. Wheelchair rugby classification has been managed by the International Wheelchair Rugby Federation since 2010. Lawn bowls is handled by International Bowls for the Disabled. Wheelchair fencing is governed by IWAS Wheelchair Fencing (IWF). The International Paralympic Committee manages classification for a number of spinal cord injury and wheelchair sports including alpine skiing, biathlon, cross country skiing, ice sledge hockey, powerlifting, shooting, swimming, and wheelchair dance.

Some sports specifically for people with disabilities, like race running, have two governing bodies that work together to allow different types of disabilities to participate. Race running is governed by both the CPISRA and IWAS, with IWAS handling sportspeople with spinal cord related disabilities.

Classification is also handled at the national level or at the national sport specific level. In the United States, this has been handled by Wheelchair Sports, USA (WSUSA) who managed wheelchair track, field, slalom, and long-distance events. For wheelchair basketball in Canada, classification is handled by Wheelchair Basketball Canada.

History Early on in this classes history, the class had a different name and was based on medical classification and originally intended for athletics. During the 1960s and 1970s, classification involved being examined in a supine position on an examination table, where multiple medical classifiers would often stand around the player, poke and prod their muscles with their hands and with pins. The system had no built in privacy safeguards and players being classified were not insured privacy during medical classification nor with their medical records.

During the late 1960s, people oftentimes tried to cheat classification to get in classified more favorably. The group most likely to try to cheat at classification were wheelchair basketball players with complete spinal cord injuries located at the high thoracic transection of the spine. Starting in the 1980s and going into the 1990s, this class began to be more defined around functional classification instead of a medical one.

Sports

Athletics Under the IPC Athletics classification system, this class competes in F55. Field events open to this class have included shot put, discus and javelin. In pentathlon, the events for this class have included Shot, Javelin, 200m, Discus, 1500m. F5 athletes throw from a seated position, and use a javelin that weighs . The shot put used by women in this class weighs less than the traditional one at . Athletes in this class who good trunk control and mobility have an advantage over athletes in the same class who have less functional trunk control and mobility. This functional difference can cause different performance results within the same class, with discus throwers with more control in a class able to throw the discus further.Chow, J. W., & Mindock, L. A. (1999). Discus throwing performances and medical classification of wheelchair athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,31(9), 1272-1279. doi:10.1097/00005768-199909000-00007

There are performance differences and similarities between this class and other wheelchair classes. A study of javelin throwers in 2003 found that F5 throwers have angular speeds of the shoulder girdle similar to that of F3 to F9 throwers. A 1999 study of discus throwers found that for F5 to F8 discus throwers, the upper arm tends to be near horizontal at the moment of release of the discus. F5 to F7 discus throwers have greater angular speed of the shoulder girdle during release of the discus than the lower number classes of F2 to F4. F5 and F8 discus throwers have less average angular forearm speed than F2 and F4 throwers. F2 and F4 speed is caused by use of the elbow flexion to compensate for the shoulder flexion advantage of F5 to F8 throwers.

A study of was done comparing the performance of athletics competitors at the 1984 Summer Paralympics. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 1C (SP3, SP4), 2 (SP4) and 3 (SP4, SP5) in the javelin. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 1C (SP3, SP4), 2 (SP4) and 3 in the 60 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the discus. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the shot put. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the 60 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the 200 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the 400 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the slalom. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between men in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the discus. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between men in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the javelin. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between men in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the shot put. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the 100 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the 200 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 2 (SP4) and 3 in the 400 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 2 (SP4), 3 and 4 in the discus. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 2 (SP4), 3 and 4 in the 100 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 2 (SP4), 3, 4,5 and 6 in the discus. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 3, 4,5 and 6 in the 200 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 3, 4 and 5 in the 60 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between men in 3 and 4 in the javelin. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between men in 3 and 4 in the shot put. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the discus. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the javelin. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the shot put. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the discus. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the 60 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the 800 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the 1,500 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between women in 4, 5 and 6 in the slalom. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between men in 4, 5 and 6 in the discus. It found there was little significant difference in performance in distance between men in 4, 5 and 6 in the shot put. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 4, 5 and 6 in the 100 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 4, 5 and 6 in the 800 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 4, 5 and 6 in the 1,500 meters. It found there was little significant difference in performance in time between men in 4, 5 and 6 in the slalom.

Rowing