Battle of the Nations - Live steel fighting

[Berkut]

I think it's dangerous to the point where the sport, as it exists, should not be allowed to continue.  Maybe if they banned blows to the head completely it might be safe.  But problem is that a metal helmet isn't going to do a darn thing to prevent a concussion.

Why should it not be allowed to continue? They're consenting adults. I just don't get that nanny state attitude.

Same with calling it stupid. Stupid would be doing it not knowing the risks. Believe me these guys know what they're getting into.

Because the risks of CTE are not at all obvious, occur slowly over time, and can only be conclusively diagnosed upon death.

There are thousands of former NFL players who say they did not, in fact, know the risks.

Yeah, but just because they say they didn't know the risks doesn't mean they didn't know the risks.

[Malthus]

I think it's dangerous to the point where the sport, as it exists, should not be allowed to continue.  Maybe if they banned blows to the head completely it might be safe.  But problem is that a metal helmet isn't going to do a darn thing to prevent a concussion.

Why should it not be allowed to continue? They're consenting adults. I just don't get that nanny state attitude.

Same with calling it stupid. Stupid would be doing it not knowing the risks. Believe me these guys know what they're getting into.

I agree the fact that the risks are obvious makes a civil lawsuit less attactive.

As far as criminal regulation goes - there has to be some theoretical limit to what one can legally consent to, even with full foreknowledge, however - I think most people would agree that actual full-on gladatorial sports in which deaths and injuries are expected should not be legal, even if totally voluntary with perfect knowledge of the dangers.

Difficult to draw the line though.

[Berkut]

There has always been this blurry line in sports when conduct on the field could potentially become criminal.

Many sports include as part of their routine conduct acts of violence which would obviously be assault outside the sport. When do those acts of violence cross the line and become criminal acts due to their not really being part of the actual sport?

If in the heat of the moment of a live steel match, I hack at someone neck in a manner that is clearly a violation of the rules of the sport, have I just broken the rules, or did I just commit assault - maybe even homicide if I kill someone in the process?

[Barrister]

There has always been this blurry line in sports when conduct on the field could potentially become criminal.

Many sports include as part of their routine conduct acts of violence which would obviously be assault outside the sport. When do those acts of violence cross the line and become criminal acts due to their not really being part of the actual sport?

If in the heat of the moment of a live steel match, I hack at someone neck in a manner that is clearly a violation of the rules of the sport, have I just broken the rules, or did I just commit assault - maybe even homicide if I kill someone in the process?

There has been litigation about on-field (or on-ice) violence, and when it reaches the point of criminal prosecutions.  The actions have to be well beyond what would be expected in the course of the game.

R v Bertuzzi is probably the most famous:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2004/2004bcpc472/2004bcpc472.html

[11B4V]

  It's not really worse than bungee-jumping or sky diving.  Both will kill you without the right/working equipment.

What 

[alfred russel]

I agree with Meri in that I think the risk of concussions is going to be what is dangerous in this sport.

Where I disagree with Meri is that I think the risk of concussions is HUGE.  She even admits that they are "not uncommon".  That is not a good thing.

There was a story in the news this morning about how the family of Derek Boogaard was suing the NHL.  Boogaard was a hockey enforcer for several years - which meant he fought.  A lot.  Then he died of a drug overdose.  Autopsy revealed he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, caused by blows to the head.  Also there are several thousand former NFL players suing the NFL - all about head trauma.

The more we learn about head trauma, the worse it seems.  A lot of what we thought about the risks of concussions has turned out to be far understating them.

Now this is going on in Eastern Europe, which is one thing.  BUt I doubt it'll get much traction in North America.  If it ever did it would be sued out of existence within a efw years.

BB--I think you miss a key dynamic. Football and hockey are vunerable to lawsuits because there are deep pockets. This is a sport that is (I presume) basically non commercial. If they just keep the umbrella enthusiast organizations thinly capitalized there will not be a party worth suing.

Boxing has been very popular in North America for over a century. Concussion lawsuits have not gotten traction, despite the fact that post concussion problems associated with the sport have been known almost as long (being "punch drunk"). Why? There aren't deep pockets.

[Barrister]

I agree with Meri in that I think the risk of concussions is going to be what is dangerous in this sport.

Where I disagree with Meri is that I think the risk of concussions is HUGE.  She even admits that they are "not uncommon".  That is not a good thing.

There was a story in the news this morning about how the family of Derek Boogaard was suing the NHL.  Boogaard was a hockey enforcer for several years - which meant he fought.  A lot.  Then he died of a drug overdose.  Autopsy revealed he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, caused by blows to the head.  Also there are several thousand former NFL players suing the NFL - all about head trauma.

The more we learn about head trauma, the worse it seems.  A lot of what we thought about the risks of concussions has turned out to be far understating them.

Now this is going on in Eastern Europe, which is one thing.  BUt I doubt it'll get much traction in North America.  If it ever did it would be sued out of existence within a efw years.

BB--I think you miss a key dynamic. Football and hockey are vunerable to lawsuits because there are deep pockets. This is a sport that is (I presume) basically non commercial. If they just keep the umbrella enthusiast organizations thinly capitalized there will not be a party worth suing.

Boxing has been very popular in North America for over a century. Concussion lawsuits have not gotten traction, despite the fact that post concussion problems associated with the sport have been known almost as long (being "punch drunk"). Why? There aren't deep pockets.

Insurance.

I agree there are no deep pockets here.  But any kind of event organizer is going to try and get liability insurance (there are any number of incidents off the field of battle that could lead to lawsuits against organizers).  But their premiums could go through the rough...

[alfred russel]

Insurance.

I agree there are no deep pockets here.  But any kind of event organizer is going to try and get liability insurance (there are any number of incidents off the field of battle that could lead to lawsuits against organizers).  But their premiums could go through the rough...

I'm not the lawyer here, but why not just organize as a non profit and obtain limited insurance that excludes the combat/weapon related stuff? If someone gets killed/maimed and you get sued, then declare bankruptcy, dissolve, and reorganize for next year...