Joefox,
Your response seems to miss the point. You can call/consider/note/claim EVERY activity in the olympics as being UNSAFE! The questions and statements you responded to had nothing to do with that. At some point CMAS looked at the UNSAFE activity of JB and had to deduce whether it could be done in a manner that could be claimed safe for IOC. So it has been pointed out in some posts here, that they have not adequately pursued that same approach to CB. What is adequate? Well who knows, and that is exactly why that response is invalid. Instead it would have been fair to state, "CMAS did not have the desire to determine if CB could be done in a manner that was considered to be at the equivalent safety level as, AT LEAST, the most dangerous of the so-called SAFE activities". That would at least address the point fairly.
I do not believe anybody, especially Joefox, in support of CMAS has answered considerately the lingering question of "How can it be determined fair at the organizational level, to limit what activities a person can take part in, during their time not involved in training/competing?" Claiming that it is the same as limiting drug use, is not a valid comparison as a logician could demonstrate in a proof. I only state this again, because it seems it was the start of this whole thread and where Joefox has suggested other did not answer questions, which most of us thought were obvious and not actually expecting an answer to, this question from the opposition, has not been given the same thorough explanation.
The statement that we have the choice to participate or not has nothing to do with the question either. Let me clarify that one can still acknowledge an injust to others without it particularly affecting themself. If a person finds themself participating in JB prior to discovering anything about the activity of freediving, but later finds a passion for the idea of freediving, they may suddenly be forced to deal with the dilemna of choosing between two things that do not appear to have any logical reason to be mutually exclusive.
This leads me to two final lingering question, that have gone through this thread unanswered. What exactly is the reason CMAS claims their competitors should not participate in other unsanctioned competitions and what disciplinary actions have they decided are due?
Thanks,
Tyler Zetterstrom
So while the argument might be horrible and valueless toward the attempt at being reasonable, it may truly show its value in the arena of human irony.
I can understand you are pissed off though. We still haven't recieved an answer or a justification or the CMAS excusion policy because that debate might lead to the "killing fields". These are areas that are very hard to defend, the weak point or Achilles heel of the debate and are generally avoided like the plague by the people who don't want these points raised. 