Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:04 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 1999 1:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 5986
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
Wondering how everyone feels about the court case involving a dojo that refused admission to an HIV student. I saw a couple of posts on the subject, but until today, didn't know the details. GEM

The plaintiff-appellant was Luciano Montalvo, the father of Michael Montalvo. The defendants-appellees were James P. Radcliffe II of Southside Virginia Police Karate Association, Inc. and U.S.A. Bushidokan and Donna Radcliffe. The Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, Virginia filed a brief on behalf of the Montalvos.

A synopsis of the case is as follows:

"Michael Montalvo, a 12-year old boy with AIDS, was denied admission to a traditional Japanese style martial arts school because of his HIV-positive status. In this action, brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability by places of public accommodation), the district court denied Montalvo relief because his condition posed a significant risk to the health or safety of other students and no reasonable modification could sufficiently reduce this risk without fundamentally altering the nature of the program."

James Radcliffe claims that:

"...to progress 'through the belt,' a level of achievement, a student must 'engage in combat activity fighting. You have to do the self-defense. It involves contact, that's what we do.'", and "...sparring often results in injuries which, while minor, are bloody" such as "...'consistently scratched skin, scratches, gouges, bloody lips, bloody noses, things of that nature.'"

The sequence of events that lead to the initial suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia:

"In May 1997, Luciano and Judith Montalvo applied to enter their 12-year old son, Michael, into group karate classes at U.S.A. Bushidokan because Michael wanted to learn karate with some friends who had already begun lessons there. Luciano Montalvo signed a 'Membership Application and Agreement' form in which he warranted that Michael was 'in good health and that [he] suffer[ed] from no illness or condition ... which would possibly be infectious to others' and that the Montalvos understood that 'no member [would] use the facilities with any open cuts, abrasions, open sores, infections, [or] maladies with the potential of harm to others.' In fact, however, Michael had AIDS. The Montalvos did not disclose that fact to U.S.A. Bushidokan because they were afraid that U.S.A. Bushidokan would not enroll Michael if it knew of his HIV-positive status.

"Later, on the same day that the Montalvos submitted Michael's application, Radcliffe, having received information from an anonymous source, telephoned the Montalvos to inquire whether Michael had AIDS. Luciano Montalvo demanded to know the source of the information and adamantly and repeatedly denied that Michael had AIDS or was HIV-positive. After the Montalvos gave U.S.A. Bushidokan an affidavit from Michael's treating physician, Dr. Suzanne R. Lavoie, stating her medical opinion that Michael was 'fit to begin karate classes,' Michael began participating in karate classes at U.S.A. Bushidokan. After the first class, however, Radcliffe telephoned Luciano Montalvo to tell him that Dr. Lavoie's letter 'wasn't sufficient' and to request that Michael have an AIDS test. This request prompted Luciano Montalvo to admit finally that Michael had AIDS.

"Radcliffe then met with the Montalvos and informed them that Michael would not be allowed to participate in group karate classes at U.S.A. Bushidokan because of the risk of transmitting HIV to other students through frequent bloody injuries and physical contact. Radcliffe, however, did offer to give Michael private karate lessons. Luciano Montalvo immediately rejected that proposal because 'the whole reason' he signed Michael up for lessons was that Michael 'wanted to be with his friends.'"

The District Court found that:

"Placing plaintiff directly into the martial arts classes at U.S.A. Bushidokan would present a direct threat to the health and safety of the instruction personnel and the students in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182[(b)](3). Forcing U.S.A. Bushidokan to alter the format of its instruction towards a 'softer,' less-rigorous style would be equally hazardous; it would eliminate the function of the training at U.S.A. Bushidokan and comprise an unreasonable modification in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2) and well-established case law. Finally, in light of the rigor and intensity of training at U.S.A. Bushidokan, defendant's offer to provide plaintiff with private lessons in lieu of class instruction is a 'reasonable' accommodation under § 12182(b)(2). The court rejected the state law claims for the same reasons it rejected the claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Other facts the District Court found when making its ruling:

1) "...U.S.A. Bushidokan taught 'hard-style Japanese karate ... with a heavy emphasis on sparring and actual-fight simulation.'" 2) "...[There] was 'a high frequency of minor but bloody abrasions among the students' and that the blood from such injuries was 'extremely likely' to spill onto the students' hands, uniform, mouth, or 'even onto the students with whom he or she is training.'" 3) "...[It] was 'impossible' for U.S.A. Bushidokan to detect and attend to each injury immediately despite 'conscientious and effective treatment procedures.'" 4) "Based on the expert testimony offered by both sides, ... HIV can be transmitted by 'introducing the blood of one person who is HIV-positive into a wound of another person,' or even 'when contaminated blood is splashed into the eyes or onto the skin, even in the absence of an open wound.'" 5) "...the transmission risk if Michael were to participate in group classes at U.S.A. Bushidokan would be 'significant.'"

"The [District Court] acknowledged the existence of "'universal precautions' -- established procedures for handling blood safely - but found that even 'a strict adherence' to such precautions would not prevent the spillage of blood and other bodily fluids and the attendant risk of HIV transmission."

The basis for the appeal was that:

"[The appellant] established their case for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act based on Michael's exclusion from karate classes because of his having AIDS and that the [District Court] clearly erred in finding (1) that 'Michael's condition posed a "direct threat" to the health and safety of other class members' and (2) that 'U.S.A. Bushidokan's offer of private lessons to Michael was a reasonable accommodation [for] Michael's disability.'"

The ADA in section 12182(a) states that:

"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."

And, section 12182(b)(1)(A)(I) defines "denial of participation" in a program offered by a place of public accommodation to be an act of discrimination. However section 12182(b)(3) provides that "a place of public accommodation is entitled to exclude a disabled individual from participating in its program 'where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others'" since Congress found that "...the need to protect public health may at times outweigh the rights of disabled individuals." In the same section, a "direct threat" is defined as "a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services."

"U.S.A. Bushidokan [conceded] that its karate school is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III ... and that Michael Montalvo is disabled for purposes of the ADA by virtue of being HIV-positive or having AIDS.... U.S.A. Bushidokan also [conceded] that it denied Michael participation in group karate classes on the basis of his HIV-positive status, the condition that concededly constitutes his disability. But U.S.A. Bushidokan [contended] that its exclusion of Michael was legally justified because Michael posed a 'direct threat' to other members of the karate class. This contention presents two issues: (1) whether Michael's condition posed a significant risk to the health or safety of others and (2) whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures were available to eliminate the risk as a significant one."

The Court conceded that the question of whether Michael posed such a risk is a "fact intensive determination." However, concluded that "...the evidence in the record before [them was] ample to support the district court's conclusion that Michael posed such a risk."

Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court's ruling stating:

"Even though Michael Montalvo's condition posed a significant risk to the health or safety of others, U.S.A. Bushidokan would still be required to admit him to group karate classes if a reasonable modification could have eliminated the risk as a significant one." "The only modification which was both effective in reducing risk to an insignificant level and in maintaining the fundamental essence of U.S.A. Bushidokan's program was its offer of private karate classes to Michael.

"In considering other modifications, U.S.A. Bushidokan was entitled to reject the modification that would soften the teaching style of its program. U.S.A. Bushidokan's unique niche in the martial arts market was its adherence to traditional, "hard-style" Japanese karate, and the contact between participants, which causes the bloody injuries and creates the risk of HIV transmission, was an integral aspect of such a program. To require U.S.A. Bushidokan to make its program a less combat-oriented, interactive, contact intensive version of karate would constitute a fundamental alteration of the nature of its program.

"The ADA does not require U.S.A. Bushidokan to abandon its essential mission and to offer a fundamentally different program of instruction." "Similarly, U.S.A. Bushidokan was not required to implement further 'universal precautions' such as using eye coverings and wearing gloves. The [District Court] found as a fact that these modifications would not accomplish their goal of eliminating or reducing the otherwise significant risk Michael would pose to his classmates. As Radcliffe testified on behalf of U.S.A. Bushidokan, the suddenness of injuries, the tendency of some wounds to splatter blood, the continuing movement and contact, and the inability to detect injuries immediately all would undermine the effectiveness of these precautions, particularly for places not protected by eye coverings, gloves, or other similar coverings.

"U.S.A. Bushidokan did propose the effective modification of giving Michael private karate lessons, and the [District Court] found this modification reasonable. But the Montalvos rejected this proposal. While an ADA plaintiff is under no obligation to accept a proffered, otherwise reasonable modification, see 28 C.F.R. § 36.203(c)(1) ("Nothing in this part shall be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation ... that such individual chooses not to accept"), such rejection does not impose liability on U.S.A. Bushidokan for failure to modify its program."

All quotes are from the Emory University Law School document.

In a statement that the Rutherford Institute made about the case on their web site at http://www.rutherford.org/news-main.asp, they "'... remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that a grave injustice has been done...." ("The Rutherford Institute is an international nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights" with a focus on 1st amendment, freedom-of-religion issues for Christians. [Therefore, you have been fairly warned.])

[This message has been edited by gmattson (edited 03-12-99).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 1999 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 148
Location: Boca Raton, FL
George,

Just a couple of points that might be interesting to discuss here:

1 - Is this case being appealed to the state or federal Supreme Court? If it is being appealed at the federal level, then there could be some far reaching consequences based on the outcome.

2 - The parents blatently lied about their son's physical condition to the instructor. What recourse, if any, is he left with under these circumstances?

3 - In applying the rules of the ADA, do the rights of the individual now outweigh the rights of the majority? This has been played out here in FL already under religious issues where a young baseball player was "offended" by the team "prayer" since he was of a different religious persuasion (as were all the team players). The team prayer was abolished so as not to "offend" our sensitive little snot and his sensitive parents.

4 - The ADA refers to "prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability by places of public accommodation." Exactly what is a "place of public accommodation?" I am not required by any law to let everyone who wishes to, study with me. Is there such an entity as a "place of private accommodation?" We hear of private men's/women's clubs, private social clubs, etc. A dojo is not the corner supermarket - or is it?

Some food for thought.

Moe Mensale


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 1999 12:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 5986
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
You raised a lot of very interesting questions Moe. . . to which I have no answers. Thats why I posted the thread to this forum. Would like to hear from some of our legal karate-ka.

------------------
GEM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 1999 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
George:

While I see your concern, it seems to me the court took a very reasoned approach to balancing the needs of a child afflicted with a devastating disease against the needs of other students in the dojo. If HIV is an instant barrier to any kind of karate study, then what other barriers to do we have. Far more prevalent, and as I understand it, every bit as contagious, are various forms of hepatitis. What diseases and conditions are acceptable, and which aren't? How many people should we exclude? The school offered this student reasonable accomodation. It is what the law and basic human compassion require.

As to the "little snot" who stood up for his First Amendment freedom, god bless him. Would his critics be more understanding of his objection if the coach was leading the team in satanic verse?(satanism is a protected form of religious expression) In a heterogenious society, it would be amazing to get a baseball team of folks attending the same the church to agree on a prayer, let alone a team comprised of individuals with their own valid and divergent beliefs. And, as some writer once observed, anyone who doesn't believe in school prayer should be in a classroom just before a final, anyone on the team is free to pray to his or her heart's content...as long as it doesn't constitute delay of game, and with two on and two out, I would be willing to bet most batters are saying a rosary and most pitchers are invoking the blessings of all the saints.

Are dojo's public places? Depends. My guess would be that almost any karate school is a place of public accomodation. And, most are engaged in interstate commerce (got a phone, get mail, log on the net) which would require them to comply with a whole bundle of statutes and regulations with regard to non discrimination in all forms. Certainly, any dojo operators in California would do well to consult the state's Unruh Act before deciding to restrict access to instruction.

Can one restrict access to classes. Sure. Many dojo operators may need to limit the class size due to safety code restrictions (ever have the fire marshall drop by and post an occupancy limit?) I am sure most instructors limit participation based on the level of skill of the students (black belt night). And of course, failure to pay dues, is certainly grounds to exclude a student.

Finally, do the rights of the few out weigh the rights of the many. Sometimes. In America, we call this the rule of law. It is the rule that allows a home owner to stop progress on a highway (wouldn't it be better for all of us if he would just move and let the interstate come through the family home). It is the rule that says we will all get our day in court. It is the rule that says we are all entitled to due process of law, and that government has limits. Without this rule, we are a mob at best. I for one, feel blessed to live in a nation that strives to live by the rule of law. The alternative is just too terrible to contemplate.

Peace.
Robb in Sacramento


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 1999 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 148
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Robb,

Before I continue, let me clarify a couple of things:

1 - I am not a cold-hearted monster. I have great sympathy for any child who suffers from the insidious HIV disease. I would pray that my children and all children would not have to suffer the heartache and anguish that comes from this unbelievable calamity upon mankind.

2 - I am a fervent supporter of 1st Amendment rights. I have and do financially support the Rutherford Institute and others like it.

"As to the "little snot" who stood up for his First Amendment freedom, god bless him." The little snot didn't do anything, he was just a pawn used by his parents who pushed the issue. This baseball team was comprised of players from varied religious backgrounds (Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, Protestant, even an Athiest). They all came together in a union of friendship to play baseball. In a tradition that was many years old, the team coach would bring the players together for a post-game prayer, win or lose, where they could offer their prayer to their god of choice, or just remain silent. Even the Atheist child offered his own form of gratitude.

The problem came when Mr. & Mrs. Snot (who were Jewish) decided that they didn't want their little darling offended or sullied by all these prayers to "other gods" and "non-gods." Mind you that there were other Jewish parents and players on this team (this IS south Florida, after all) who in no way were offended by or objected to any of this. They fought just as hard, and right along side the other parents to have the case thrown out of court.

Anyway, as is the case so often these days, the court found for the Snot's and the practice of the traditional, years-old, post-game prayer was halted. Is this what you consider to be First Amendment rights? BULL****!! This is nothing more than religious intolerance of the ugliest nature.


"Finally, do the rights of the few out weigh the rights of the many. Sometimes. In America, we call this the rule of law." No, they don't. Never. The United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. The "rules" which you mentioned, as well as all laws, are prolmulgated for all the people, not just the elite few. For too many years now, the court system in this country has made a mockery of our founding constitutional documents and has perverted the underlying foundation of this country in an effort to, as Abraham Lincoln said, "assuage the anguish of [the] bereavement" of the elitist few who feel they have somehow been offended and must therefore demand redress.

Personally, I would have filed a countersuit against the Montalvo's for (1) false misrepresentation and (2) for attempting to cause great bodily harm and suffering through the use of a highly infectous disease.

Sorry, I am just as sympathetic as the next person, but enough is enough. When you attempt to force me to do something that goes against my principles, then I am going to fight back.

Moe Mensale


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 1999 10:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Moe:

Sorry. I was not suggesting you were either a monster or anti American. Indeed, the passion of your principles is wonderful.

BUT, I am still on the side of the "little snot" or his parents. I don't care how many others of divergent beliefs are willing to set aside their religious practices to keep a baseball tradition alive. If it offends my religious beliefs, I will protest. I play baseball to play baseball, not to engage in a spiritual pursuit (apologies to those who do pursue baseball as an outlet for finding the devine). When I want to pray, I can find an appropriate forum. The baseball field is not the appropriate forum.

Apparently, our perceptions of who founded this country are at odds. I do believe this nation was founded by a group of elite middle class white guys who were tired of paying taxes. When they founded this nation, they excluded women, people of color, indigenious persons, and for voting purposes, those who did not own property. Where they screwed up, was in putting forth ideals that would come to embrace equality and equal opportunity for all of those whom they initially excluded. Of course, we still fight the battle today for inclusion of all in our system (hence the crime of driving while black). But dispite this, we have the best system in the world.

I am not sure what you are being forced to do against your principles. But, if you enter the marketplace, and offer your karate skills and instruction for sale, you do so with all the other burdens we place on any other merchant of any other product. One of these burdens includes equal treatment of those who would purchase our wares.

As for your counter claim, I suspect the reason the instructor did not bring a claim for misrepresentation is that he apparently did not rely on the representations of the family concerning the child's health. A key element, in most states, for the tort of misrepresentation, is detrimental reliance on the part of the person receiving the information. Here, the instructor apparently had reason not to believe the parents, and apparently did not believe the parents. As the instructor had no belief in the truth of the parents statements, it is unlikely he would prevail in an action for misrepresentation.

As to your second cause of action, I am unfamiliar with it.

Again, I don't believe you are monster, nor do I discount the validity of your concerns for the health and safety of yourself and your students with regard to exposure to HIV. It is one of the concerns we all face in any athletic endeavor. How do we know the people on the opposing softball team are disease free? How do we know the people at the pick-up basketball game are disease free? How do we know the guy who just coughed in the elevator hasn't just exposed us to some nasty bug? We don't. We cannot. It's a risky world. You never know when a virus, or a germ, or a drunk driver, or a stray bullet, or a bolt of lightning may get you. But, I am not sure this is cause for automatically closing our doors to 12 year olds who want to learn karate.

Peace.
Robb in Sacramento


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 1999 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, VA
Hi all: I've dropped a few comments on this problem in the forum in the past. I live about 20 miles north of where this occurred and have watched issue closely.

After the fear of infection, my next worry is the cost of litigation. What if I get sued? What if I'm sued because someone contracts an infectious disease in a class I teach?

The health club has offered to pay me for giving classes. Students have offered to pay me for more classes. My answer is no. I take no money to maintain a purely amateur type of status. If something like this errupted, and I was told to risk the many for an individual I'd take my gi and go home. Maybe go fishing. I have no contractual obligations. Its good to have a 'day' job.

Now, do I ask if anyone in the room has AIDS or hepatitis? Nope. Do I tell people to stay home if they are sick? Yes. No doubt, with 30 plus active students there is someone with something that I do not know about that would be cause for concern. I just hope that all concerned are thoughtful and honest..
Rich


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 1999 12:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Rich:

Good question, what if you do get sued. Whether you take money or not, it is likely that by placing yourself in the position of being an instructor you have created a duty of care to those you teach and those who participate in class with you. What is that duty of care? Does it require you to screen every member of your class before you begin to ascertain whether anyone has an infectious disease, an injury that might be exacerbated by participation in class, a lack of sleep that would render them inattentative and therefore a risk to others, or if anyone has had a really bad day and plans on taking out on a training partner...

Where would it end?

I don't know what the standard of care is for you. But for most of us, it has to do with what would a reasonable person do. What type of reasonable inquiry would a reasonable person make of students. What type of instructions concerning health risks and staying away from class when ill would a reasonable instructor make? These are the issues you face.

Frankly, my greatest fear as an instructor is that someone will abuse what I have shown them and cause another harm. While it is unlikely, due to issues of proximate cause, that I could be held liable for the actions of a student with regard to application of a technique, it is still a concern of mine. Whether I am legally responsible or not, such misuse is a moral and ethical responsibility that I take quite seriously.

Karate is an inherently dangerous activity. Like other sports, one must accept the risk of injury when one participates. As one judge once put it, the meek need not attend.

In the case that started this thread, the court recognized the inherent risks of the karate class. The court balanced these risks and the needs of the class participants against the rights of a child who is suffering from a serious illness. Frankly, there is no good answer to this problem. The answer the court came up with recognizes the rights of all the parties involved, and strikes a balance that allows the child to receive the instruction he seeks, and the other students to train without fear of exposure to the childs illness.

This type of balancing is not unique to karate. What may be unique, is the deep and abiding concern many of us have for this art. This concern is reflected in your comments and Mr. Menale's comments. While I have never met either of you, from your comments here, I would be honored to train with either of you.

Peace.
Robb in Sacramento.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 1999 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 148
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Hi Robb & Rich,

"Again, I don't believe you are monster," Thanks, Robb, I needed that. Now I can proudly hold up both my heads as I go dragging my knuckles down the primrose path....la, lala, la, la, lala.

I think that you and Rich and I have put forth some interesting food for thought with this thread. BTW, where are all the legal eagles on this forum? Isn't this supposed to be "Martial Arts And The LAW? Oh, well.

"When I want to pray, I can find an appropriate forum. The baseball field is not the appropriate forum." I guess the gridiron, or the court, or the rink aren't appropriate places to give thanks either. You're crazy if you think I'm going to go tell a dozen 300 pound linemen to go find a "more appropriate forum" in which to give thanks and stop screwing up my Sunday afternoon TV viewing with religious "stuff."

"Apparently, our perceptions of who founded this country are at odds." No they're not - I know the same bunch of self-centered elite middle class white guys that you do.

"Where they screwed up, was in putting forth ideals that would come to embrace equality and equal opportunity for all of those whom they initially excluded." Well, I'm not sure if they really screwed up or had astounding insight into the future of what they were embarking upon or maybe they were just damn lucky! The problem I have is when our liberal left-wing court system keeps carving up and dissecting our founding documents in order to appease and mollify minority interests at the expense of the majority of the populus.

"I am not sure what you are being forced to do against your principles. But, if you enter the marketplace, and offer your karate skills and instruction for sale, you do so with all the other burdens we place on any other merchant of any other product. One of these burdens includes equal treatment of those who would purchase our wares." One of my dear friends in the arts down here is a wonderful gentleman who is SOKE and Founder of his own system of jui-jitsu. He is/was a student of Professor Visitacion of New York for some 50 years. We happened upon each other by accident several years ago and after many discussions he "invited" me to visit his school. After a couple of visits, he "invited" me to particpate in the classes. He, like Rich, takes no payment for the lessons, just some minor association dues. You cannot join his dojo. You cannot ask to be a student. He decides who he wishes to teach or not teach based on his personal criteria. He does very minor advertising and he does not do this for a living. The point (finally) - is this still "a place of public accomodation" as referred to by the ADA or is this, as I querried, a place of private accomodation? I don't know the answer or if there is one.

So, have we solved anything here or just opened up more questions? Ah - here's a question. There has been a slight amount of emotion brought forth in this thread. I also got quite emotional in my response on Canna sensei's recent "Fighting Mindset" topic. Sooo - What part does one's emotions and/or principles (or lack thereof) play in determining one's fighting mindset?

"While I have never met either of you, from your comments here, I would be honored to train with either of you." Cool!! So come on down to my castle and we can workout in the belltower - as long as Igor and his pals don't mind!! But, ah, I understand that Rich has been known to wear a "green" gi - that may scare off some of my little moldy critters!!

Moe Mensale

Ooops....IGOOOORR! Catch my eyeball before it rolls under the rack again!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 1999 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, VA
Yes, I do wear a green gi on occasion. And a black one as well. For really special occasions such as Fourth of July, Memorial Day, Halloween..... I have a 'Stars and Stripes' model. Bill glasheen sensei really loves that one. Bill almost always wears green himself.

The dark colors grew out of the dirty floor at the gym. It is a great hardwood surface but we follow the aerobics classes and our gis were the mops. Also, we wore them to camp as they are great for ground work on grass. We make the students wear white until they reach greenbelt, then they can wear a dark bottom. I hope none of the beginners ever take me to task for enforcing 'white' until they achieve rank. We always wear white for tests as well.

One nice thing about white when sparring is that any blood shows up quickly. Pursuant to the 'infectious disease' thread, as soon as we see blood, the match is over. I keep a pair of surgical gloves and antiseptic on hand and quickly clean up cuts and cover them with a bandaid. Minor precautions but the correct mindset.

Another point, I have a current CPR certificate. Should we ever have an event that causes heart stoppage I can give some assistance. I will eventually get one of the mouthpiees with a blowpipe and valve that allows CPR without contact with saliva or even exhaled breath.

The above precautions should help me in court if we ever had an unpleasant accident.

------------------
Rich in Richmond on the James




[This message has been edited by RACastanet (edited 03-14-99).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 1999 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, VA
Yes Igor, you can order one from KWON. I have not seen their catalog lately but I'll look around. It is a heavy weight grappling duty gi. I'll wear it for St. Patty's day. It is Bill G's favorite gi.

Rich


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 1999 5:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 148
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Rich,

Igor has expressed interest in the possible acquisition of a green gi. Could you be soooo kind as to inform him as to where he can pick one up?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 1999 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 311
Location: Washington DC area, USA
I checked out this story a little. I have the opinion that the instructor made a reasonable jesture by offering the boy private lessons.

The problem is that we don't know enough about HIV. While I personally would not feel uncomfortable training with an infected person, I wouldn't want to FORCE it on others. I don't feel uncomfortable because I don't think there needs to be all THAT much bleeding going on in the first place. Whenever I see blood I stop, whether it's mine or not, and blood is something I RARELY see. Besides, NO ONE SHOULD BE TRAINING WITH OPEN CUTS anyway. I look at it as we are training, not copulating.

But, the IF factor is what frightens people: "IF I have a cut and HE bleeds and IF it falls DIRECTLY on my OPEN cut, then I MAY be infected." And I know that in reality, despite my comfort and my tendency to view the world through rose colored glasses (or green-black-and-red-colored glasses, depending on the issue), I'd probably have to offer the kid seperate instruction if I were the teacher because it would cause too much fear, anger, panic, and commotion because people would be afraid of getting the disease. I like the point made earlier by someone about Hepatitis: it's more communicable than AIDS. So is the flu and the cold, and I can tell you I know I caught the flu once in a dojo.

Cecil

------------------
Email: <A HREF="mailto:creativebrother@yahoo.com">creativebrother@yahoo.com</A>
Web Page: http://creativebrother.freehosting.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 1999 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Dr. X:

Sorry, but us lawyers are not allowed to practice depraved indifference, tax accountants and the IRS have dibs on all forms of indifference.

Thanks for the note on HIV, and for making me feel better about getting that Hep B vaccination.

Peace
Robb in Sacramento


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HIV and the dojo
PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 1999 12:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, VA
In case you all missed the resolution, today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the lower court ruling. The instructor prevailed.

Rich


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group