Should dangerous sports be forbidden by law ?
The ‘dangerous sports’ implied by this title include both which may involve death or serious injury to the participant and those dangerous both to participant and onlooker.
There is no case whatsoever, for legislation against the former, indeed in a free country, such legislation would be an unwarrantable limitation of the freedom of the individual. This is limited to the natural instinct for adventure, thrills, and seen as a challenge to nerves and reflexes. It is possible to break one’s neck riding a horse, or climbing a mountain. No sane legislation would seek to bar such activities, because this would be to legislate against the development of certain qualities very valuable in youthful people, qualities which are at a premium, when a country’s prestige is at stake, or when a country is faced with war.
‘Sport’ is a very wide term, however, and includes some activities which are very much more dangerous than others; of these, motor-racing, and competitive motor-cycling are merely two. A mishap, or a fractional error of judgment can be fatal to other competitors and to a crowd of onlookers. Accounts in the press of terrible Grand Prix accidents, involving death and mutilation to perhaps fifty spectators at a time, are commonplace. It is incidents of this kind which have prompted the move to legislate against dangerous sports. The bereaved victims of such disasters may have a strong emotional case for urging such legislation.
It is sometimes urged by those who fear and dislike the baser pleasures of the masses that psychologically, many attend motor sports and other dangerous activities in the secret hope of seeing blood and disaster. The same contingent seeks to abolish professional boxing for the same reason, plus the undaunted fact that sooner or later, the boxer will suffer from brain lesion. The argument is that ultimately the public is responsible for forcing men into such pursuits. But the case is overdone; basically, the majority goes for the thrill — football, the least dangerous sport of all, is the most popular.
It may fairly be stated that legislation is required, but that such legislation should be framed in order to safeguard the public, and as far as possible, the participants. For example, crowd safety precautions at motor-racing meetings need drastic revision. The professional boxer’s license should be removed if he shows the slightest sign of mental deterioration. Perhaps, thirdly, there should be some control over the financial awards available to the stars of any sport, as the continued need for a high income often leads them into taking part, long after they have passed their peak; it also encourages the second-rate to attempt things beyond their power. Both can be disastrous.
Any attempt to ban the participants in dangerous sports is doomed to failure. The instinct of a man or woman to seek adventure or thrill cannot and should not be extinguished by Act of Parliament. Any such legislation will merely drive the sport “underground”, make it more popular, and condemn it to bad conditions. In the days when professional boxing in England was forbidden by law, it drew far greater crowds into the scheduled fields than the carefully staged promotions of the present day.
