THE brouhaha over the terrifying brain injuries suffered by the
American Gerald McClellan in his fight with Nigel Benn has faded away.
But should we let it? There are powerful financial forces at work,
determined to protect professional boxing from a ban. Why should hard
cash dominate the debate?
The Labour Party rejects a ban, claiming that it would drive the sport
underground and that unregulated bouts, where Queensberry rules would
not apply, would prove more dangerous. The reasoning is absurd. If a
sport deserves to be banned, ban it and devise fearsome penalties for
those who break the law.
Amateur boxing -- at school age and above -- should not be banned --
it is scrupulously controlled in a way that would drive the professional
game out of business. Serious injury is almost unknown. If amateur
boxing has a problem it is that it can start some youngsters thinking
about a career on the professional side.
If this sounds like infringing civil liberties and freedom of choice,
so be it. It is an empty argument that boxers know the risks and should
be allowed to take them. There are times when governments should protect
their citizens from themselves for their own good.
What's so special about boxing? Motor racing, parachute jumping, and
horse racing are said to be statistically more dangerous. A recent
American survey rates boxing as only the 29th most unsafe sport. But in
other sports the purpose is not deliberately to inflict physical damage
on your opponents. That's what makes boxing uniquely barbaric.
Sam Galbraith, Labour MP for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, has the
courage to speak out against his party's policy. He is entitled to do so
-- as an experienced neurosurgeon who, while at the Southern General
Hospital in Glasgow, conducted a special study of head injuries in
boxing.
''This sort of assault cannot continue,'' he says. ''Medical back-up
comes in too late. The purpose of boxing is to inflict brain damage.''
That is a horrifying thought. Boxers actually want to damage each
other. When a boxer is bleeding from an eye injury his opponent
concentrates on opening up the wound further.
At the Benn-McClellan fight there were two doctors, two paramedic
teams, an anaesthetist, and an ambulance standing by, yet they could do
little until it was too late. As McClellan lay there, they placed an
electronic monitor under his skull to measure any build-up of pressure.
But the brain damage could have been inflicted at any time during the
fight -- McClellan may have been bleeding slowly without anyone
realising it. Headgear might reduce the risk of injury on the night but
it does nothing to prevent accumulative brain damage.
The opposite corners face up to one another aggressively. The British
Medical Association has long campaigned against professional boxing on
the grounds of safety and now talks of boxers ''playing roulette with
their brains''. The British Boxing Board of Control accepts that
''boxing is a dangerous sport'' but maintains that ''We do every mortal
thing we can to make it as safe a sport as possible''. With the emphasis
on ''mortal'', of course.
Ironically, Michael Watson -- who sustained similar injuries in a
fight against Chris Eubank -- watched the McClellan fight from the
ringside in a wheelchair. He has made only a partial recovery after four
years of misery and anguish.
Television should now examine its own conscience. Professional boxing
was being counted out on its feet until TV injected big money for live
coverage. It happened with wrestling, whose popularity died away when
the cameras moved on. TV has the power to make it happen again.
However, that does not absolve Government from taking its own action.
Professional boxing is a cruel, vicious sport. In the words of Sam
Galbraith: ''How many more people have to die or be maimed before we
call a halt?''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article