Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: The Politics of Risk - Professional Boxing
...One aspect of the risk involved in boxing that is ignored by the BMA and understated by boxing organisations is the one in which participating in boxing reduces risks.
Taking part in boxing has significant health benefits. The practise of boxing reduces fat whilst increasing muscle mass and has significant cardiovascular benefits (Associated Content - associatedcontent.com). These health benefits can help prolong the life of participants through the avoidance of disease. It is probable that boxing has saved numerous lives, through the exercise involved and the necessary avoidance of potential killers such as tobacco.
Analysing the attempts to manage the risks involved in competing in professional boxing can be approached from two angles. Here this subject has an extra dimension as the two competing sides of the debate are both involved in managing the risks. The BMA attempts to completely eliminate the risks involved by bringing about a total ban. Conversely, organisations such as the BBBofC seek to minimise the risks involved through their multitude of rules and regulations. The safety measures in place are too numerous to mention them all thus what follows is an edited selection taken from the BBBofC’s (BBBofC - British Boxing Board of Control) rules of boxing:
The opponents in any one Contest must be engaged at the same weight
All Boxers must weigh-in not less than 24 hours or more than 36 hours before the commencement of a tournament
The Promoter shall ensure that a minimum of two doctors, one of whom must be practised in the management of an unconscious or partially conscious patient, who have been approved by the Area Medical Officer, attend at all Promotions
All Boxers shall be medically examined after the weigh-in or immediately prior to the commencement of the Promotion. Each Boxer must also be medically examined after every Contest. If the examining doctor considers it necessary to do so he shall send a report to the Board or Area Council. A doctor must be available to give immediate attention to any Boxer should this be required.
The Ruling regarding the timing of the weigh-in is a relatively new, and crucial innovation. A great deal of evidence suggested that the greatest threat to a boxer’s health in the ring came from dehydration. Previously competitors weighed-in on the day of the fight, which left them exposed to severe dehydration due to the demands to weigh-in under the limit. The tragic injuries suffered by boxer Paul Ingle in 1999 were attributed to severe dehydration and this forced the BBBofC to amend their rules and allow for at least 24 between the weigh-in and the fight itself, this, in theory, gives the competitors adequate time to safely rehydrate (The Independent | Sport | Latest Sport News). One further measure was to introduce annual, compulsory, MRI scans for boxers. Also they increased the length of time that a boxer that had suffered a knockout had to wait before being allowed to box again, from 28 days to 45 days (The Independent | Sport | Latest Sport News). This allows a more adequate recovery time, as well as protecting fighters from unscrupulous managers/promoters that may seek to place them back in the ring sooner.
Whilst medical opinion appears to be fairly united in its view that boxing is unacceptably dangerous the sport is not without some support from the medical fraternity. Dr Whiteson, the chief medical officer of the BBBofC is of the belief that boxing is not overly dangerous. He contends that chronic injuries, particularly with the brain, are extremely rare in the modern era. He also shares the concerns of many others that the banning of boxing would lead to it going ‘underground’, where participants would face far greater risk of injury. He also espouses a popular claim among the pro-boxing fraternity, that participants are often from underprivileged backgrounds and boxing provides them with discipline and can lead them away from a life of crime. He also argues that when undertaken correctly boxing is ‘one of the safest sports’ (BBC SPORT). The BMA counter this by declaring that the argument that boxing gives working class boys a chance to ‘better’ themselves is patronising and that the government should give more consideration to the provision of leisure facilities for the young, particularly in inner cities (www.bma.co.uk). This is however a flippantly dismissive attitude to a potentially key aspect to the debate.
The British Medical Association’s argument appears to be partly scientific and partly moral. This raises ethical questions as to the role science has, or should have, in campaigning on issues of morality. Perhaps the motivation of the BMA in employing such a tactic is due to an acknowledgement that complex medical opinions are not easily digested. This would suggest that the process of risk communication is largely a pragmatic one, and that actors are likely to communicate only certain portions of information. Furthermore, an overriding point of the BMA’s argument is that damage to the brain in most sporting activities is incidental but that in boxing, the damage is deliberate. This again carries moral overtones and displays a certain ignorance of the subject matter, but in this case it is probably intended ignorance. They will be aware that for many boxing is a minority sport, people are likely to read something from a respected body such as the BMA and take it as fact. Consequently they will gain support for their aim by presenting opinion with fact.
Of further interest is that both sides emphasis different areas of the debate. This creates a situation in which neither side attempts to wholly disprove the other‘s arguments but rather simply argue that the factors they themselves choose to emphasise are of the most importance. Whilst attempting to downplay the danger, boxing bodies do not claim that the sport is completely without risks, however, their main focus however is on the social aspects participants are offered. Members of the pro-boxing fraternity have an oft repeated statement that many boxers who have gone on to become world champions have declared that without boxing in their lives to give them a sense of discipline, they would have most likely ended up in a life of crime,which of cause carries inherent risks of its own (www.safesport.co.uk/boxing-dangers). The fact that boxing is widely regarded to be one, if not the most, dangerous sport is in large part due to the BMA’s long term strategy and demonstrates vividly the value of possessing an effective mechanism of communication.
There is evidence in this debate of Ulrich Beck’s work on risk society being present. It is indisputable that boxing has never been safer than it is at present, yet the controversy surrounding it and the movement for banning it have never been greater. This mirrors the fact that we as people and society have never been safer, yet have never felt more unsafe.
The Availability Hiuristic is another important aspect of the subject. People can only understand a subject by the information that is available to them. Consequently, boxing is seen as dangerous by a majority of the public, although this is not to say a majority would advocate a complete ban. People will generally only hear the dangers of boxing discussed following a high-profile injury or fatality and therefore the perceived risk of competing in the sport far exceeds the actual risk (Belton 2003 : 3-1. For many in the media good news is no news, meaning people do not hear about the vast majority of boxing matches that are concluded without injury, which is understandable considering the commonality of that situation renders it not newsworthy. Furthermore, natural human instinct leads people to remember vividly traumatic events whilst forgetting quickly happy events.
The public ignorance model states that in order for issues to be resolved science needs people to understand. It is this ignorance of the people in terms of scientific facts that prevent issues being dealt with effectively (Belton 2003 : 3). But this model relies on the premise that science in itself is value free. This case study has shown that science is neither value free, nor does it attempt to be - seen in this case through the BMA’s moral as well as scientific objection to boxing. In reality, far from being value free, scientists and science operate in the same social structure as the public or ‘consumers’ and thus their advice and evidence should be noted and considered by the public, rather than simply taken as fact.
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Youngblood
Re: The Politics of Risk - Professional Boxing
Bookmarks