Saskatchewan Roughriders linebacker Trevis Smith was arrested on charges of sexual assault twice in the last couple of months. In sports, news of this kind is not unusual, but the shocking information this case uncovered was certainly out of the ordinary. Police announced that Smith was HIV positive at the time of the arrest.
The announcement came as a shock to players, fans, and media alike. This shock has led people to question whether an athlete is responsible for sharing information of this kind.
The answer to this question is a resounding “no.” Athletes in all sports should have the choice of whether or not they want to divulge their medical problems.
“Choice” is the keyword of this discussion, as a player should be able to choose whether he can deal with the repercussions of such a revelation. AIDS is in no way something to be ashamed of, but the ignorance of many people can make it tough to expose.
Many athletes are uninformed about the disease and believe that they can be infected easily. This ignorance can spur bitterness, resentment, and anger from teammates and players everywhere, who feel that they should have been informed of such a thing earlier. That factor alone can lead to the player becoming an outcast not just around the league, but also on his own team.
Add in the scrutiny from the media, who will want to know the who, what, when, and where of his disease. Remember that this will all come to a man or a woman who has just found out that he or she is staring their immortality in the face.
Any player who feels that he can come out with his situation should look to Earvin “Magic” Johnson as an example of what to do. The three-time NBA MVP and five-time NBA champion dealt with this traumatic event over fourteen years ago.
On November 7, 1991, with courage in his pocket, Magic stunned the world when he announced that he had the HIV virus. At the time, the details of the AIDS disease were relatively unknown, which led to plenty of speculation and an assault from the media. Magic, though, was brave and honest in his admission, and took everything in stride.
Ultimately, a player must do what he or she feels is best for him and evaluate all of the factors that come with such a decision. As a society, we cannot force athletes to reveal private information and must let them make the decision that they feel is right. What’s personal is personal for a reason.
-JONAS SIEGEL
In late October of this year, Saskatchewan Roughriders linebacker Trevis Smith was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault for failing to notify at least two previous sexual partners that he was HIV-positive.
In view of the fact that many athletes often have comparatively greater opportunity for sexual contact with a wider range of partners in consequence of their prominence, wealth, and celebrity, they should be particularly sensitive of their responsibility to undergo regular testing for sexually transmitted diseases and to report any positive results to anyone who might legitimately be at risk of infection.
However, such results should never be disclosed without the consent of the individual unless their concealment entails a real threat to the safety of others.
The World Health Organization, the American College of Sport Medicine, and the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine unanimously agree that, even in contact sports, the likelihood of player-to-player transmission is so negligible as to be virtually impossible. HIV infection can occur only if the virus is sufficiently concentrated, and neither sweat nor saliva is considered a path of infection.
Teammates and opponents of Trevis Smith could only contract the virus through unprotected sex with the linebacker, or direct blood contact from needle-sharing or virus-bearing blood entering an open wound or porous mucous membrane.
The only professional sport in which athletes should be required to disclose their medical histories is boxing, where blood often flows freely and could reasonably be expected to enter a fresh cut inflicted on an opponent, particularly during a clinch, when each boxer grips the other close to support his buckled knees.
Though there is certainly no excuse for deliberately withholding knowledge when real danger can be averted by its disclosure, neither is there any justification for disclosing sensitive information when no one is legitimately at risk. It was Smith’s own obligation to inform his sexual partners of his condition; if found guilty, his failure to do so rightly constitutes a criminal offence.
-PAUL JOHNSON BYRNE
