On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
> Kevin L Ames <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> >Everyday in this country someone is paralyzed.  It is sad to see that just
> >because one of them happens do be an athlete, a college one at that, that he
> >recieves national recognition and thus more donor money.  The story is
> >sad... but it is now a human issue rather than a hockey issue.  There are
> >many many handicapped people who need monitary assistance as much as Travis
> >Roy, but do to his athlete nature and the national attention he is being
> >exposed to his pockets will be jingling.
>
> I would say that this reflects an incredible short-sightedness on your
> part.  If you read further down in the message that I posted from and
> which you quoted, you would have seen that TR intends to do what he
> can to be a spokesman for spinal injuries, raise awareness, and "give
> something back" for all of the support he has received.
 
Mike, I'm not sure the short-sightedness really lies on Kevin's part. His
central point is well-taken, although perhaps it didn't go far enough.
Because of two incidental circumstances, A) TR attends BU, and B) TR's
injury occurred on television, he has received media coverage and
financial donations out of proportion compared to players who suffered
very similar injuries (Chick Kelly at Merrimack comes to mind).
 
> It is true that partly because of his high profile as an athlete, TR
> has benefited financially to help him get the treatment he needs.  But
> consider how much as a result he may be able to do now to help those
> other people who were not as fortunate as he was.  If you look just at
> how much "his pockets will be jingling", you truly miss the whole
> point.  TR could well help hundreds more besides himself and help
> raise for them many times what he has received.
 
Yes, that is true-- and it is my point as well. Hundreds with spinal
injuries. Is this really a priority? Third World children are starving,
hundreds of thousands are killed each year in automobile accidents in
this country, and so on. The comparison someone else made to Christopher
Reeve is telling-- they were both engaged in expensive hobbies that carry
risks for serious injuries. And they are both heralded as heroes-- for
what? For television appearances? What would it have taken for them to be
called cowards? What would they have had to do or say? This is just
another case of sympathy-- which is the point you're about to make, Mike:
 
> BTW, TR was asked yesterday why he felt so many people sent money and
> notes as they did.  He said, bluntly, that he thought it was because
> not many people had pictures of themselves breaking their necks - and
> it is something that affects people when they see it.  I think that as
> well, the stories about what kind of person he is affected people too.
> People in the Boston area found out first and got the ball rolling to
> help, and passed the story on to other people who did their part.
 
And that's why it's short-sighted. People watched the video clip on the
news and then grimaced and rubbed the back of their necks. They felt
sorry that this happened to him. I felt sorry too. But that doesn't make
him a hero-- it doesn't even make him special. Many more people face
social barriers like poverty and racial prejudice every day of their
lives with as much dignity as TR and Reeves face their injuries, but
there isn't any interesting video to go with those cases, so nobody calls
them heroes.
 
> I wouldn't suggest that other people who suffer this injury are not
> good people.  But I think it was a combination of things that resulted
> in TR getting the support he got, and a big part of it was that here
> was a person who had done so much for other people (read the SI
> article) and the people closest to him wanted to help him back and
> make people aware of what kind of person he is.  In other words, the
> fact that he was an athlete played a role, but it alone does not
> explain the entire phenomenon of what happened afterwards.  To be
> honest, I didn't know a darn thing about Travis Roy before this
> happened and neither did many people.  He hadn't had a chance to put
> his mark upon the game we follow.  The SI piece was one of the most
> amazing articles I have ever read.
 
And that emotional angle was used to create a short-sighted view of the
whole thing. If you're looking for the missing piece-- that explains why
he received all the attention above and beyond being an athelete, it's
easy-- television. (No offense to SI.)
 
> Finally, the consciousness of the hockey community, at least, as a
> whole has been raised as a result of this, and there is an attempt to
> help others besides TR who are hurt in hockey.
 
And that's where the perspective is lost (and why I won't post another
reply back to hockey-l after this). There are better places to throw
money like that to. TR is alive, has clothing, food, and shelter and a
family who loves him. He's way ahead of the game compared to many. Is it
good he will receive some protection from being gouged by the medical
community? Yes. But it should end there-- both the money and the
misplaced adulation.
 
-Dave Josselyn
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.