The Fight of the Decade: facts vs. fear

LET 'S GET READY TO RUMBLE! On Sun., Nov.3, former World Heavyweight Champion Tommy Morrison will come out of retirement to take on Anthony Cooks in his first fight since he left the sport in February. As the contest draws near, everyone is pumped up, everyone is psyched, and perhaps more than anything, everyone is afraid. Why? Before his last scheduled bout in Las Vegas, Tommy Morrison tested positive for the HIV virus.

Picture any boxing match. I see jabs to the chin, low blows knockouts, cuts, and, of course, blood. Lots of blood. The public reaction to Morrison's return to the ring has been one of doubt and fear. Tommy Morrison is not only putting his opponent at risk for HIV transfer but also subjecting a body that is battling a serious disease to the rigors of a prizefight.

It seems the boxing powers that be in this country have similar concerns as well. Boxers in Nevada and Atlantic City are required to have HIV tests before fights, and positive results mean a ban from the ring. Morrison would have a difficult time attempting his comeback in the United States, and will most likely complete his boxing career overseas.

Boxing is perhaps the bloodiest sport at all, with the greatest potential for HIV transfer. But blood is drawn in other sports as well, leading to the controversial question that has emerged in both professional and collegiate athletics: should HIV-positive athletes be allowed to participate in contact sports?

Most sports have yet to adopt any firm policies regarding HIV-positive participants, except for agreeing that "HIV-infected players should not be routinely excluded from competition." But according to a University of Michigan survey, two-thirds of college athletes participating in contact sports would support a ban restricting HIV-positive players from competition.

I play collegiate rugby, and I have witnessed a lot of bloodshed on the field. Would I be wary of tackling an opponent who is HIV positive? You bet I would. Should I be? No, not really.

While the theoretical possibility of HIV transfer on a playing field is real, the actual probability is infinitesimal. In separate studies conducted by the NCAA Injury Surveillance System and the Center for Disease Control, it was found that, with the exception of boxing, the estimated chance of HIV transmission in college athletics and other sporting events is less than one in a million game or practice exposures.

A general ban on HIV-positive athletes would be ridiculous. There are nearly two million people in the United States alone with this condition. The majority of them are in "Stage-1," and can be called "healthy carriers." A person can be in this latent but highly infectious stage for up to 10 years, and during this time maintain a normal lifestyle and show no symptoms. It has been proven that exercise, and even a little competition, can be good for the carrier. If proper precautions are taken, HIV-positive athletes pose no real danger to their opponents. To ban them would serve only to encourage the prejudices that these individuals must battle in the course of their everyday lives.

Most people are familiar with the controversy that was sparked by diver Greg Louganis after an incident at the 1988 Summer Olympics. Louganis hit his head on the diving board, bled into the pool, and was attended to by a unprotected physician. Many feel that he put the doctor, as well as the other divers, in danger by not disclosing his HIV-positive status. Yet with such a high number of individuals infected with HIV, the likelihood that this situation has occurred, unrecognized, at other times in any given area of contact sports is quite high. This gives rise to two further questions: Should HIV tests be mandatory for participants in contact sports, and should the results of a positive test be disclosed?

If HIV testing were made mandatory, players would know if they posed a possible threat to others--there would be no surprises. The results of such testing would not have to be made public; an individual should have the right to keep that type of medical information private. But if the results were shared confidentially with coaches and/or attending physicians and trainers, then any possible dangerous situations which arise during the course of play could be dealt with immediately and properly, thereby minimizing, if not negating, the risk presented to other athletes.

For instance, if a player on my team incurred a severe injury during the course of play, I would probably rush to help them stop the bleeding with little or no thought about what implications it could have on my own health. But if the player and the coach knew the injured player to be an HIV carrier, they could prevent me and anyone else on the field from getting near the area of possible transfer.

There are already rules written into the handbook for several professional and collegiate sports to deal with possible problems. The "bleeding rule" is probably the most known. It states that any bleeding athlete must leave the field of play until the bleeding stops.

Some regulations go even further to mandate that a player must change out of any uniform which becomes bloodied as well. Also, attending trainers must wear latex gloves. These are good precautions, but by knowing exactly who the transfer threats are, coaches and medical aides could offer the most effective preventative measures possible.

The HIV virus is a horrible disease that affects a large number of people in this country. Infected athletes should be able to participate in whatever sport they choose so long as they are not realistically putting anyone else in danger. A risk is always involved, yet the preventative measures, such as banning HIV-positive athletes, must be representative of and not exceed that which is warranted by the risk. It is only through education of the public of how minimal the risks really are and the precautions they can take against transfer that HIV positive athletes will be able particpate in sports without being ostracized, stigmitized, or feared.