When Words Collide, Sentences Form

Humpty Dumpty Cracked His Head Open...Who Really Cares?

There’s something about the whole Ben Roethlisberger crashing his bike and messing up his egg head while not wearing a helmet that bothers me. And it’s not really the fact that he drives the fastest motorcycle out there without have a valid motorcycle driver’s license (reportedly) without wearing a helmet...as far as I’m concerned, let Darwinism take it’s course and wipe people out. Unless they get stuck as a veggie and we have to pay for their hospital bills because they don’t have insurance. In that case, wear a freaking helmet.

But it’s this statement from an AOL article on Roethlisberger's accident (I don’t know if the link will work for people that don’t have AOL, so sorry) that bugs me:

“Roethlisberger's accident set off debate around the NFL whether teams should take additional contractual safeguards to prevent their key players from participating in hazardous behavior. A standard NFL player's contract prohibits any offseason activity that can be harmful, but not all players have clauses for activities such as motorcycle riding, all-terrain vehicle riding and skydiving. Roethlisberger's contract apparently did not, probably because the Steelers had no indication he indulged in motorcycle riding before signing him in 2004.”

I understand teams having these contractual safeguards in place. It protects them from looking stupid when their players get themselves killed or injured or whatever because they jump out of a plane without a parachute, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or play catch with a lion. Yes, you don’t want your players engaging in risky behavior when you invest millions in them, and waste a first-round pick on a bonehead who can’t think. But why is this the debate?

Why is the debate not “Should Pennsylvania (or Florida or any other state) have withdrawn their helmet law?” or “Shouldn’t people be allowed to take part in ‘risky’ activities at their own expense, and is it a violation of their personal freedoms to tell them they can’t do something?” Not that I think it is, but if Roethlisberger and other idiots are going to argue that being forced to wear a helmet is a violation of their personal freedoms, why aren’t they crying about contracts that don’t let them go bungy-jumping with their families?

Once Humpty Dumpty is put back together, he outta buy a helmet with the insurance money he gets from wrecking his bike.

posted by Steph @ 7:56 AM