opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
5 Feb 2016
Donald Trump: Sore Loser

It was the shortest speech anyone can remember him giving. He was clearly in a state of disbelief. How could … Read More.

3 Feb 2016
Rubio's the One

You can pick your headline for Iowa: "Trump Didn't Win!" "Hillary Didn't Lose!" "Rubio's the One!" I prefer … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
Donald Ducks

"I'm for Trump," the man across the room from me said. We were in the ICU family waiting room, and by that point,… Read More.

With All Due Respect


The purpose of being a columnist is not to win friends. It is not to provoke silent nods of agreement. The goal is to strike a chord, hit a nerve — which is to say, at least sometimes, make people mad. Controversy is good, not bad.

So you write what you think, and if people don't like it, they send in comments or write letters to the editor, which is generally considered a good thing for a column and a columnist. Provocative is a positive adjective in my business. Then you move along to the next topic, whatever it is.

But — and this is my but, not everyone's — it still upsets me sometimes when I offend people and don't mean to, when there is a risk that I've hurt people I didn't mean to hurt, especially if those people are already suffering. I don't care if you think I'm stupid or ill-informed or just plain wrongheaded, but I don't want you to believe that I'm mean. Mean is not OK.

Last week, I wrote a column about the tragic death of Jeremy Lusk, a young motocross driver, a superstar at a sport that I'll be the first to admit I don't get, involving flying through the air and doing tricks while hanging on to the seat of a motorcycle. He died after attempting a difficult and dangerous maneuver before thousands of paying fans in a stadium in Costa Rica.

Many of those who wrote to tell me that I didn't appreciate the sport I was writing about (fair enough) and didn't have any business criticizing it also complained that I had insulted Mr. Lusk and his memory, trivializing his accomplishment and literally piling pain onto his already grieving family.

I did not mean to do that. If I did, I apologize — to his memory, his family and his fans. I extend my sympathies for the tragic loss of a young and gifted man.

Mr. Lusk was obviously a man of unbelievable talent, tenacity and determination.

You don't get to be the best at what you do — whatever it is — without not only the physical gifts that many sports demand, but also the grit, drive and discipline to push yourself time and again, over and over, harder and harder to be the best.

He had legions of fans because he was the best in the world at something most of us couldn't do if we wanted to, no matter how much we tried and practiced and worked.

It's the risk piece on which we'll have to agree to disagree: the value of taking risk, the spectator sports that are based on watching people risk their lives, the lessons we take from them and the values they reflect. Is it any different from what we do when we pull over or slow down at the scene of an accident, the more grisly the better? Is it any different from watching Houdini bury himself, watching boxers bloody each other or, for those of us who are animal lovers, watching horses pushed beyond the limits of their anatomy or dogs whipped to take the lead?

I'm a lawyer; I can do the differences of degree and how differences of degree are sometimes differences of kind. But I'm not sure I'm persuading anyone, much less myself. Where is the line between the danger that is acceptable, that is "sport," and the risk that makes it abuse? Is it the willingness of the individual to take that risk, or are we — who watch, who pay, who create the audience that shapes their judgment — ultimately responsible?

Those are the questions I intended to raise in writing about Jeremy Lusk. I did not mean to hurt his family or fans, or to demean his death. We have much we can disagree about, but hopefully not that.

My sympathies are with those who suffer loss. I have known too much loss in my own life ever to take pleasure in the pain of others, or to want to use it to prove a point or fill space. May he rest in peace. And may the rest of us continue to struggle, with civility and mutual respect, to answer the questions raised by his death.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



34 Comments | Post Comment
Thank you for your column expressing regret over any possible insult to Mr. Lusk. I commented on the first column. And I trust I was one of those whose response was among those you labeled "fair enough".

I did, however, make the mistake of reading some of the other responses.

Oh my. Even accounting for apparent youth and passion, many of the comments were very personal, very ugly and not very well aimed.

I suppose you receive such response often enough that it is no longer shocking. It was to me.

So I thought I'd add that I found your second column to be particularly gracious in light of the comments by those who were not so inclined.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Bill Van Luchene
Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:16 AM
I agree with your concern in general about risky sports. Skiing (for me) is risky enough -- but people flipping over several times and coming down (hopefully) on their skis seems insane. But (as an Alaskan) I can tell you that dogs are very rarely whipped to take the lead, and it wouldn't help if one did whip them -- the best trainers and strategists win dog-sled races, with dogs who love to run.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Rick Wicks
Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:28 AM
Ms. Estrich,
This article goes a long ways in filling in the gaps of the previous article, further explaining your view point. I can now see where our viewpoints actually differ now. This was a much needed follow up and kudos to you for having the journalistic integrity to explain your points.
Comment: #3
Posted by: JeremyRiesenberg
Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:52 AM
I appreciate your follow up. I agree with Jeremy that this went a long way to clarifying your earlier statements
It seems to me that much of your concern is not necessarily with the people participating, but more with the idea that having an audience encourages them to take risks that are not worth the compensation provided (would any compensation be worth risking our lives?) This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.
Much like people that skydive, deep water dive, bungee jump etc., there is a thrill that some people must experience to feel alive. These people are not motivated by money or even fame but the endorphin rush they get while performing their stunts. Specifically discussing freestyle motocross, these riders have been performing stunts for years, frequently out in the desert with safety equipment and personell miles and hours away. So in many respects the stunts you see performed in these shows are much safer than what these people do on there own because of the controlled environment and the proximity of qualified safety personell and equipment. Do we want to make sure that promoters are taking precautions to limit the risk? Absolutely. But if you think eliminating the forum would reduce the risk, I believe you are mistaken. In fact all you would do is remove an opportunity for these people to earn a living doing something they love, and were doing anyway.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Roy Davis
Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:34 PM
With all due respect to Susan Estrich, I do not accept her apology nor do I believe it is sincere. First, she is a elitist liberal Democrat who has demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past that she has selective morality/integrity. Restated, she only follows a moral code when doing so suits her political or personal objective(s). ----------------------------------- Second, Lets examine this “apology”. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan states: “it still upsets me sometimes when I offend people and don't mean to, when there is a risk that I've hurt people I didn't mean to hurt, especially if those people are already suffering.” ----------------------- Really? Well let us review what happened and what Susan said about what happened. Jeremy Lusk devoted his short life to freestyle motocross. He worked diligently daily until he was one of the top in the sport. But even the best make mistakes and Jeremy made one that cost him his life. --------------------------------- What did Ms. Estrich have to say about the death (almost before he was even in the ground with the family still grieving)? She said: “Why risk your life doing a flip on a motorcycle? Best I can tell, the activity has no particularly redeeming purpose, evidences no particularly useful social skill, amounts to nothing but an electronic envelope that you're trying to prove you could push further than anyone else. . . . The short answer to why Lusk is dead might be that the wind in the stadium was not quite right, or that the money was too good not to try, or that he wasn't smart enough or scared enough to believe that risking your life doing motorcycle jumps wasn't worth whatever they were paying. According to new reports, he had been riding motorcycles since he was 3. That should be against the law, at least.” ---------- Restated, Susan contended that Jeremy was an idiot who wasted his life doing nothing useful. And Susan wonders how a reasonable person could be offended by such a comment? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Susan has the nerve to state “Many of those who wrote to tell me that I didn't appreciate the sport I was writing about (fair enough) and didn't have any business criticizing it also complained that I had insulted Mr. Lusk and his memory, trivializing his accomplishment and literally piling pain onto his already grieving family. I did not mean to do that. If I did, I apologize — to his memory, his family and his fans. I extend my sympathies for the tragic loss of a young and gifted man.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note what she says carefully: “Many wrote to tell me . . . that I insulted Mr. Lusk and his memory, trivializing his accomplishments and piling pain on his already grieving family . . . IF I did that, I apologize.” Note she never admits to doing anything, just that people told her she did. A typical elitist non apology that admits to nothing and apologizes for nothing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not accept Ms. Estrich's non apology. She and the rest of her elitist Nazi friends who feel they are entitled to impose their beliefs on the rest of us simply because the believe they are smarter can kiss you know what.
Comment: #5
Posted by: William Simmons
Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:04 PM
There is a large difference between expressing one's opinion in a respectful manner and angering an entire community with your opinions. This "article" in no way makes up for the hurtful, completely disrespectful things you wrote in your first article about Jeremy Lusk. You wrote the article in a tone which was condesceding: blatantly giving no thought to the fact that a family is grieving for their son, a wife for her husband and beloved friends for one of their own. I respect that you don't see freestyle motocross, and other extreme sports, as "sports". However, you could have expressed that and still shown some respect or a least a bit of human decency, by not insinuating that this amazing young man who the world just lost was "stupid" and "insane".
Also, I respect and look up to Brian Deegan, as well as the other members of the Metal Mulisha and a vast number of other people who ride or have ridden motorcycles. I respect Deegan not because of his abilities on a motorcycle but because he stood up against the politics of motocross in the '90's and helped to pioneer a sport which he loves and believes in.
Jeremy Lusk was an amazing young kid. I am absolutely disgusted by the things you said in your first article. I feel your arrogance and ignorance is so pervasive in that article, there is nothing you can say to make amends for it. Do you honestly expect people to believe that a grown, educated woman did not think a grieving community would find a remark like, "How do you represent your sport very well by dying for nothing" offensive? To answer your stunningly ignorant question, I would assume Brian Deegan meant that Jeremy Lusk was a good person with a strong faith, a great love for his wife, and a relationship with his parents that most of us would be envious of.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Rebecca
Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:38 PM
Re: Rebecca
I agree, --------------- Susan Estrich's article on Jeremy Lusk is a very clean window into her soul that provides a HD quality image of the ugliness that resides there. The only thing she is truly sorry about is that she slipped and let others see the "real her."
Comment: #7
Posted by: William Simmons
Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:47 AM
Why I appreciate your viewpoint, I most repectfully disagree. In your own words.... You don't care about what you wrote disrespecting anyone, or else you wouldn't have wrote it. This is more disrespectful having you try and apologize for something you obviously don't care about. I'm taking serious action on this. Good luck.
Comment: #8
Posted by: NeroFMX
Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:01 AM
This is the worst apology I have read in a long time. Anyone who was offended at your previous article knows that this is not sincere and there is a long list that proves this. Just one would be that you never said a tragedy in your first article, but now that is what you call it. Anyone could write an article on something they know nothing about and criticize. That is the easiest thing you could do in this situation. What makes you so much better than him and what makes your profession more credible than his? You wrote that he died for nothing. That statement alone should call for your termination. You have no integrity after writing something like that and put yourself in his families shoes and imagine that your brother or son how would you feel?

I was upset by the first article, but your followup one is even worse with a fake apology that means nothing to you. Wonderful job on the standard PR apology. I only write this in hope that you realize how truly wrong you were.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Nick
Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:13 AM
I'm betting you "get" women's gymnastics...
In a 5-year study of women gymnasts, 70 participants (i.e., one woman for one season) sustained 66 major injuries (i.e., brought to the attention of a physician and produced disability). Forty-seven of the 70 athletes sustained injuries. The trunk had the lowest incidence of injuries (11), the upper extremity had 20, and the lower extremity had the highest incidence (35 injuries). Two categories, stress or trauma, segregated the injuries and provided rationale for the high incidence of injuries on this team. These athletes were of national caliber. They were constantly trying to improve performance. They engaged in intensive practice and difficult maneuvers. The self-motivation of these women increased the number of injuries caused by stress (a total of 21); the combination of intensive practice and the maneuvers is responsible for the traumatic injuries (45). From this evidence, women's gymnastics should be rec organized as a hazardous sport for the competitor. Risk factors should be evaluated constantly by her, the coach, and the team physician.
Comment: #10
Posted by: John
Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:32 PM
Ms. Estrich-

You shouldn't have even bothered to write a response since it was only for your own purposes.

Maybe trying to clear your concience and explain away your disgusting article that obviously has many writing how heartless a person you really are and lack of understanding of this particular sport. And lack of any condolence initially is about as meanspirited as one can be.

And you still question whether this is sport or some form of abuse? .

I think you should quit since you continue to insult a death; making your condolences meaningless.
Comment: #11
Posted by: AndyMoto
Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:41 PM
Most of these people already took the words right out of my mouth. So I'm left to say that Susan you are a POS. You barked up the wrong tree and now your going to pay. May justice be served.
Comment: #12
Posted by: mx4life
Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:41 PM
Ms. Estrich,

Please publicly announce when someone close to you, your industry, your hobby, or an immediate family member dies. This will help us know when to write you a friendly f*ck you letter. In addition we will be able to point out how they are completely stupid for living, doing what they do best, and having fun. Jeremy was a great guy, had faith, religion, friends, family and a heart for others he didn't even know, many things you will never understand.

I hope you sleep well tonight!


The MX community.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Show some RESPECT
Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:58 PM
Controversy is the reason we have civil wars. Is that a good thing? No! Controversy usually comes when one has absolutely no idea about what they are talking, writing, or fighting for, that is careless and disrespectful. We wander why we quit watching the news now days. It is because of the discredit, it and its members have brought down on itself. And to set the record straight, controversy would have 2 sides, one side to fight for your side and one to fight our side. There is absolutely no fight to your side, no justification at all besides your narrow mindedness. You are in the wrong with your disrespect and that is why this is not 2 sided. All you have done is hurt yourself and the Motocross families, especially the Lusk family. A person that kicks another while they are down is nothing but a hypocrite in everyone's eyes, so stick to writing about stuff you know about and you understand and work out your own problems before you start telling everyone else's theirs. I know kindergarteners that can write better apologies than that.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Brad Moore
Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:55 PM
Roy Davis is on the money with a point others have overlooked.

Ms Estrich, your lack of knowledge on the sport from the start gave you a warped viewpoint that did no favours when you decided to write an inflammatory article before doing your research. If you had done said research, you'd have discovered that EVERY Freestyle Motocross rider that sticks with the sport, does it not for the money. Not for the fame, the fortune, the crowds or the rockstar status. We all recognise the risks we take, we know they aren't worth those things. Some people get hurt once and realise the sport isn't for them, their risk outweighs the reward. The rest, ride purely for the love of it, for the feeling it gives and the live it allows us to lead. We do believe the risk is worth that. And we would be doing the exact same thing whether there were stadiums full of people waiting to watch, or if we were in an empty field with a jump and a video camera.

I hope this shines some light on things for you and gives some perspective, we are not crazy yahoo's with so self respect or fear, we take calculated risks and try to minimize them, because we believe the juice is worth the squeeze.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Grant Cross
Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:19 PM
Ms. Estrich, A reporter named Alex Markels once wrote a horrifically incorrect and damaging article about me and the company I started (Ride Snowboards) in the Wall Street Journal. After getting lambasted with mail and calls from my employees and peers (much like you are now), he called and apologized and he did write a follow up (like you did today). But the problem was, the damage was already done. In one day, he managed to ruin the reputation I had worked a lifetime to build. Like you, he knew nothing of the sport or person he was reporting on. Like you, he spent no time finding out anything about the person (and family) he would later ruin in print. Like you he felt horrible and tried to recant. And like you, he still has a job. I do give you credit for making an apology, but it's clear to me you still don't get it. Jeremy, just like my friend Craig Kelly who died in an avalanche several years ago, died a hero! These men represent a spirit of raw human energy and accomplishment that people like you and Mr. Markels may never understand. Like test pilots, astronauts, Olympians and even our soldiers, they are the men and women that push the envelope of their abilities to achieve the unachievable. Mr. Markels article hurt me and I can't image the pain you've caused the Lusk family. I hope you've learned your lesson: take the time to understand who and what you're writing about before you write it, and that public apologies are only self-serving.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Tim Pogue
Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:47 PM
you look like rat.
Comment: #17
Posted by: hellNO
Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:22 PM
You look like scream off scary movie 1
Comment: #18
Posted by: Scream
Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:24 PM
nah just playin but you are ugly. you look like scream
Comment: #19
Posted by: hellNO
Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:24 PM
please tell me you have a husband.... probably looks like ichabod crane
Comment: #20
Posted by: hellNO
Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:26 PM
Comment: #21
Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:48 AM
Ms. estrich I wrote you previously about your last article. I kept my last letter I believe professional and I apologize for those who have written hateful things towards you. Thank you for having the guts to take in to play others opinions. It really is a shame that even after an apology that I do believe was heart felt that you are still getting attacked. Everyone is allowed an opinion. to each there own. All though I don't agree with what Ms. Estrich has to say I WILL NOT BE ONE OF YOU WHO IS ATTACKING HER. Have some class, she got our point. Thank you again for being an adult about this.
Comment: #22
Posted by: 2WheelGirl
Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:11 AM
My issue with this, as it often time is, is ... when do you draw the line and who gets to draw the line. Lots of sports are risky. You can die driving a NASCAR stock car. You can get paralyzed playing football. Why, you could probably get an eye put out throwing darts. The point is, I don't want any whinny a** liberal intellectuals sitting around deciding for me what risky sports I can and can't participate in. With all of the extreme sports over the years we have seen continual improvements in the equipment and the safety. Talk about economic stimulus. We have entire industries that have sprung up around these sports giving smart people a chance to create and innovate and (oh my gosh ... cover the children's ears) make money. The argument is really ridiculous. Most sports are dangerous (to some degree) and people know that when they participate. Leave those of us who want to participate and/or spectate.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Vinnie
Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:32 AM
Susan: There is no reason for you to apologize. Your Live To Risk column raised some serious questions that are given little attention. The public needs to examine the issues you raise, even if it hits a sensitive nerve. The Lusk family, of course, is hurting; They are mourning the loss of a loved-one. But that should not stand the way of an intelligent discussion that comes out of Jeremy's untimely death.
Comment: #24
Posted by: S.M.Harvard
Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:14 PM
I suppose the 2 issues for me are the adult "professional" who doesn't foresee the backlash that came from such a cool & callous article, mere days after someone's death. And number 2, the comparisons, still, after learning that this is the first death of an FMX rider during a competition, demo, etc. You don't like it, don't watch it. I feel the same way about boxing... change the channel.
Comment: #25
Posted by: HH
Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:45 PM
I can understand how you can disagree with the sport of freestyle. I am an avid motocross rider, and even i don't think the risk to reward ratio is enough to send me through the air, upside down, hanging off the back of my bike. However, to condem the whole sport, those who participate in it, and those who chose to watch it, just because you don't understand it, is enfuriating to me.
You said your self that people risk their lives climbing mountains, but that is ok because of the strength they gain, both physical and spiritual. I ask you, have you ever seen a fat freestyle motocross rider? The answer is no. The sport takes imence physical training to achieve the profesional level. And as for the spiritual aspect, well I can't begin to explain the feeling of freedom that comes from jumping a motorcycle, it is an emotional high that rivals even sex.
Now I don't expect you, or anyone who has not riden a dirt bike to understand that kind of a feeling, or what one will do to experience it. But you CAN NOT say that the risk is not worth it, as if that is an absolute truth. You can only say that FOR YOU, the risk is not worth it.
The next time you feel the need to express your opinion, first, please make sure you express it as an opinion and not an absolute fact. And second, might I suggest that you at least TRY to to be even slightly informed about the subject you are talking about. Those two things might help you avoid another incident such as this.
Comment: #26
Posted by: David
Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:55 PM
Thank you for the apology. I met Jeremy at 08 X games and was hurt by his loss. When I read your article I was hurt. I felt it was way too soon and that if the familty read an article that negative they might feel they losst him in vain. I have a cousin who is a freestyle rider and if anything happened to him it would hurt. But people die everyday and it was something that Jeremy loved more than anything how could it be a waste? It was not. Thanks for the apology and I understand why you write articles but please take into mind family especially of a man who just died.
Comment: #27
Posted by: sean couevas
Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:42 PM
I have to say that being a veteran amatuer freestyle motocross rider myself I was very disgusted by the article that you wrote about Jeremy Lusk's death. Far too many people in our society look at action sports as the degeneration of our people. I think the truth behind it is that our youth are bored, and that sport is a very positive way for them to stay busy. I think that most kids if given the chance to take part in something as awesome as this sport would have an easier time making good choices through their youth, I know I did!This is not a sport that should be taken lightly by any involved, I have persoanlly paid my dues in respect to the risk invloved, as have all others who play. WE the riders know the risk far better than anyone outside of our sport. Have you ever loved anything so much that you'd be willing to put your life on the line for it? I think that bit of morral fibre is what makes our sport so great. I feel that this aspect of our sport is a great quality that our society as a whole is begining to lack. How many men and women have put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms? How many have died to protect our rights? How disrespectful is it to them and their families to tell us that we don't have the right to make decisions for ourselves? That erases a few hundred years of moral integrity and beliefs instilled by our forefathers and democracy itself! By trying to make others believe that we are an out of control group of people you are hurting our society! I hope to be able to let my kids ride motorcycles one day. I believe this sport has been a huge influence over my life, as my father made me pay my way through my racing and freeriding, instilling great values and work ethic into my life that I honestly don't think I otherwise would have found. To say that this sport has made me a lesser person in the public's eye is a very hurtful thing. I don't see many people of lesser moral fiber riding motocross, it just can't be done. This sport takes far too much dedication and man hours of work to participate in. How many people got into our sport at a time in their lives when they were down and out? My father started me into racing at age 12, a few months after my mother was killed. This sport helped me to keep the straightened arrow all the way through my teenage years. If my grades fell or I was getting into trouble Dad just grounded me from my bike, which was always my most beloved posession. It kept me away from drugs and alcohol simply because I could not afford to experiment with these substances when trying to support a racing habbit off a paper route salary! It kept me broke and happy! The sport has also developed the strongest bonds I have ever had in life. The best friends I have ever had in life have been my riding partners. We have seen each other at our best and worst, picked each other up and dusted each other off at the worst times and patted each other on the back at the best. The bond between riders is one that is in many ways similar to the way that soldiers speak of their bonds with each other, riders are really the only ones who understand each other. Brian Deegan's comments about his friends are bang on! I've seen my friends through some rough times as they have I. Our sport is very risky, but the risk is calculated. We play with fire, but we understand that to the highest degree. Its crazy that you could love something so much as to come back from a life threatening injury and the only thing that got you through it was the very sport that caused it. I've been there and done that, so I understand why we do it. With your self admitted lack of previous knowledge surrounding our sport, I'd ask that maybe you'd take a half an hour to watch a video about it. Transworld Motocross magazine put out a video a few years ago titled "why?". I think this video shows what it is all about to each of us, the comradarie, the level of concentration that completely erases all the things that are bothering you in your life, even just for a second! The sights, experiences of riding and racing, and some of the experiences the great people in our sport have come through. I believe you would have a different idea of what it means to be a rider, and "why" we all love this sport so much.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Brandon Hogg
Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:07 PM
Susan, what you fail to relize is that certain people will do risky things whether there's anyone watching or not. It's about living large and beating fear itself. The fans come later. The fear was there from the beginning and will still be there long after all the seats in the stadium are empty. Rest in peace JL.
Comment: #29
Posted by: Yamahaulin
Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:25 PM
Susan, what you fail to relize is that certain people will do risky things whether there's anyone watching or not. It's about living large and beating fear itself. The fans come later. The fear was there from the beginning and will still be there long after all the seats in the stadium are empty. Rest in peace JL.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Yamahaulin
Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:27 PM
thanks for the clarification. your readers deserved it and so did friends and family of Mr. Lusk. no one has mentioned the risks that stunt doubles take to make it look like Tom Cruise or Ahnold or 007 has actually done something requiring skill or daring. Some of those things are much more risky than what Jeremy Lusk did, no matter how much planning and control goes into. Stunt Doubles have died. Does that mean we shouldn't make the movies?
Comment: #31
Posted by: Edwin Ham
Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:45 AM
I believe you're sincere in saying you had no intention of causing pain to Jeremy Lusk's family or friends. However, as a libertarian, I'm still perturbed by your question: "Where is the line between the danger that is acceptable, that is "sport," and the risk that makes it abuse? Is it the willingness of the individual to take that risk . . .?" In a word, YES. It is PRECISELY the willingness of the individual to expose himself to risk that makes the risk acceptable, no matter how foolish or meaningless that risk may seem to others. To argue otherwise is to deny adults absolute sovereignty over their own minds and bodies. And once again, you draw a false analogy between humans engaging in dangerous activities of their own free will and the abuse of animals. Ms. Estrich, please READ MY LIPS. Animals DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. People do.
Comment: #32
Posted by: Scot Penslar
Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:00 PM
In your article you wrote "Where is the line between the danger that is acceptable, that is "sport," and the risk that makes it abuse? Is it the willingness of the individual to take that risk, or are we — who watch, who pay, who create the audience that shapes their judgment — ultimately responsible?" You have to remember that there are people everyday, of all ages that participate in this sport without being paid, without the fans watching them. It is done out of pure pleasure, out of the satisfaction of sticking that sick trick you've been working on. Some people now days may participate for a meal ticket, but I think that most do it because of the comradeship and satisfaction of achievement. Jeremy Lusk's death was tragic, and I will miss him. I enjoyed watching him ride. However, using nascar as an example; when Dale Earnhardt died, it brought about awareness about the weakness in the sport and changes were made in order to promote a safer environment. As with nascar, there are already people out there trying to make changes such as making it mandatory for all riders to wear neck braces. Is it a safe sport, hell no, but it is a sport nonetheless that thousands participate in. As with everyday life, everyone takes unnecessary risks, its a fact of life. There is no one to blame for the death of Jeremy Lusk, accidents happen every where in all walks of life. I appreciate you following up with your previous articles and clarifying yourself.
Comment: #33
Posted by: Sean
Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:58 AM
Costa Rica is an animal lover's paradise and everyone looks forward to friendly encounters.For more information visit here:
Comment: #34
Posted by: Misti
Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:19 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Susan Estrich
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 6 Feb 2016
diane dimond
Diane DimondUpdated 6 Feb 2016

26 Mar 2014 The Plane

26 Oct 2010 What Should Happen in Nevada

4 Aug 2011 Heroes