12/21/24
December 01, 2003
With December 1 being World AIDS day, I found it interesting that one of the largest stories recently involoving athletes with AIDS has gone largely unreported outside of the gay community. Recently, Matthew Cusick, an HIV positive gymnast, was fired from Cirque du Soleil after they discovered his health status. The Cirque claims that it is a safety precaution, and not a discriminatory act, but HIV positive former figure skating champion Rudy Galindo has a different point of view, saying "My sincere hope and prayer is that Cirque du Soleil reconsiders their grossly unfair and heartless decision, and that they reinstate Mr. Cusick immediately -- wishing him well and supporting his determination to be the best athlete and entertainer he can be," (more inside)
posted by Ufez Jones to culture at 12:35 PM - 7 comments
Ufez, not for nothing but circus != sports. I think that in any situation where blood and other bodily fluids may transfer from one person to another, significant caution is called for. Ice hockey or figure skating, for instance, should look long and hard at allowing HIV positive players or refs while baseball and track and field don't have quite the same issue.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:40 PM on December 01, 2003
Ufez, not for nothing but circus != sports. No, the circus is not sports, but if you've seen any of the Cirque du Soliel performances, you know that they are certainly athletes. And IMO, Cusick's firing is akin to the banishment of an athlete from a league, hence I thought it was worth discussing here, especially on World AIDS Day. I agree with you that sports need to take a long hard look at things of this nature, but do the NBA and NHL, who do not permit anyone with an open wound or any blood flow on the court/ice not do enough? Would that make you personally feel safe enough? And what about those athletes who either don't know or haven't released to the public that they are HIV positive?
posted by Ufez Jones at 02:22 PM on December 01, 2003
I don't think the risk of transmission is high enough for an aerial trapeze artist to justify HIV-based job discrimination. There are certain activities where it would be -- such as boxing -- but this one wouldn't meet that standard. Even if the guy took a header off the trapeze, rescue personnel would be at no more risk than paramedics if he were in a car accident.
posted by rcade at 02:50 PM on December 01, 2003
This thread proves once again that what John Q. Public knows about HIV transmission would fit in an ant's tooth, and leave ample room for his motivation to learn more. Figure skating? Figure skating??? You are joking, right? It is furthermore ironic, coming as it does on World AIDS Day -- ironic, because the ignorance in question creates much more danger than it solves. In the United States, the incidence of HIV-positive people who do not know that they are infected is believed to be on the rise. How, then, can you hope to create a safer environment in a sport by banning HIV-positive people, when you don't and can't know who they are? All you will do is create an environment in which HIV-positive people have even more incentive to hide. At the same time, in the erroneous belief that they have made your sport "safe" by banning all the naughty nasty infected people, the proponents of such policies will fail to take proper precautions to prevent transmission of blood-borne pathogens -- a great many of which, it should be noted, are far more transmissible than HIV. HIV can survive only a very short time outside the human body; Hep B can survive for a week or more. Witch-hunts don't make you safe. Facts, not fear.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:38 PM on December 01, 2003
HIV caused boxer Tommy Morrison to retire from boxing...(Upon Googling for link, found his "unretirement!") I remember after Magic made the announcement, and listening to the prevailing wisdom, and hearing the same argument Ufez mentioned - low risk of transfer v. high incidence of blood. And I remember thinking, well, it's not like picking up a cold, it's like picking up a much more sophisticated disease. And I would personally choose to exert much care to protect myself from it, given the choice. I wouldn't hold it against a basketball player who chose not to compete against Magic. That would be like bitching at somebody for not using a condom. I mean, you knew for a fact he had contracted it. Ufez, kudos on the way you brought the topic to SpoFi...
posted by vito90 at 08:44 PM on December 01, 2003
lil brown bat, figure skating means sharp blades and even small cuts from flying bits of ice, plus all I meant was that there's a range of risk and people involved should make judgements based on that.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:56 PM on December 01, 2003
I guess my question is this: When Magic Johnson made known to the public that he was HIV-positive, the backlash was pretty big, with many players reportedly refusing to play in a game with him, citing potentail risk. Magic did go on to play 32 games in the '95-96 season before going back into retirement. So, at what point do we say "enough, you're too much of a risk to everyone else" or say "look, the odds of you contracting this disease during the course of the performance/sport are so minimal that you need to chill"? Would you ever play with or against an HIV positive athlete? And please, can we keep this civil?