Talk:Greg Louganis

Previous discussions without headers

I am removing the bit about his head injury and AID's, since it seems dubious at best that researchers did not know aids could not be transmitted through chlorinated water. One, chlorinated water kills just about everything (hence the point of it BEING chlorinated), and two, the whole paragraph sounds like a hark back to the 80's when drinking from the same cup from a person with AID's meant you could get the disease. Considering the constant filtering and change of water in a swimming pool (particuarly a large scale, professional olympic pool), the fact that they cleaned off the diving board of his blood, and the fact that it was chlorinated, the paragraph about his being HIV positive and hitting his head seems a stab at him. SiberioS 03:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that really was a concern at the time. Therefore, it should remain (and it has been replaced). Kurt Weber 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did he really win 2 world championships in 1982, I thought 1 per year. Go Bruce!!

There was no real reason to delete the bit about the head injury.... Nar Matteru (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, why try to rewrite history? At the time, this was a concern whether. Whether or not the concern was valid is something in hindsight. Angry bee (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking

In 1994, Louganis publicly announced he was gay and took part in the Gay Games. The following year, in 1995, Louganis also announced he had AIDS, something he had actually known since early 1988. He was dropped by all of his corporate sponsors except Speedo, which has stayed with him to this day. Did he have AIDS in 1995 or was he just HIV positive? --Eddylyons 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By all appearances (see the pix on his website). Louganis was and is merely HIV-positive to this day, although he claimed in 1995 to meet the CDC's clinical definition of AIDS . He probably did, for what it's worth. It's a curious case, like that of Magic Johnson. Both men have had HIV for twenty-odd years, yet seem to show no sign of AIDs. I've commented on this in Johnson's Talk section, where I point out the difference between him and those who are known to have taken antiretrovirals for years: the latter group are dying of accelerated old age. I suspect that neither Louganis nor Johnson are taking antiretrovirals but the matter probably doesn't belong in their articles. Eye.earth (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW many folks exhibit no outward appearances of AIDS, which is actually a medical definition of a condition rather than one disease. Everyone is different and until someone tells you what meds they are or aren't taking, it's not worth guessing. Especially with AIDS as many alter their treatments as needed. Some of the earliest cases from the 1980s remain asymptomatic. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Introduction

I have changed the introduction of this article back from reading "is a gay American diver" to "is an American diver". The change had been made recently by an anonymous contributor and did not accord with current Wikipedia editorial practice. - Mark 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Info box

At the bottom of the info box located at the top right corner of the article it says "Retired: Yes". Wouldn't it be more natural to type "Active: No"? Since it says he's an athlete the default state should be "active" imho.

accident

This article should say more about the accident. 70.92.103.13 06:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the media handled the accident was truly disgusting and cruel. It never occurred to the media to ask how badly Greg was hurt or whether his injury was dangerous or life-threatening8) and even the year that Louganis admitted his HIV-positive status (1995) as well as his concurrent admission that he knew six months before. Instead, all the questions were about whether the blood in water was dangerous for other athletes.66.65.129.159 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether you think HIV causes AIDS or not (and I don’t think it does), it was surely unethical for Louganis to compete, because he knew he was HIV-positive months before the 1988 accident. The issue is the perception of danger, not necessarily any actual danger. (The doctor who stitched up Louganis' bloody head without wearing protective gloves probably got a good jolt upon learning in 1995 about a possible exposure seven years earlier. ) I think that’s the source of the controversy, and hence the argument as to whether the accident deserves greater mention in the article. But I'm curious about those who think that the news media's emphasis on the perceived danger posed to others by Louganis' blood was unjustified. Presumably they also don't believe that HIV causes AIDS and thus object to any undue emphasis on what turned out to be a non-existent danger. Eye.earth (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Unethical? HIV is not transmittable by being in the same pool with someone who has the virus. It's debatable if even drinking their blood would cause infection, the HIV virus simply is not that tough, you need to do a more direct transfer. The only risk to the attending doctor who stitched him up would be a needle prick from a needle that drew blood from Louganis then pricked someone else. It's possible but not terribly likely in this instance. And divers in Olympic competition requiring stitches is also a rarity and that severity of an accident is the rare exception unlike team and contact sports. -- Banjeboi 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We know now that HIV isn't transmissible that way. But in 1988 things were less certain. There was a lot of unnecessary fear. As I mentioned, it's the perception of danger, not necessarily any actual danger. No one would have objected if Louganis had antibodies (as he had for HIV) against any number of not-easily-transmissible diseases, viral or bacterial. Antibodies against a specific infectious organism in the absence of symptoms indicates a functioning immune system that has defeated the infection. But the whole premise of HIV as AIDs supposes that antibodies to HIV in the absence of symptoms are a sign of ongoing latent infection that must be treated for life with chemotherapeutic drugs. If you adhere to that belief, then Louganis was unethical in competing, as indeed he (or any other athlete in a contact sport) would be today. Your comment that "The only risk to the attending doctor who stitched him up would be a needle prick from a needle that drew blood from Louganis then pricked someone else" is curious. That "someone else" was obviously the doctor, as I pointed out. As for the rarity of the event, it is indeed rare but that is hardly a valid point. The doctor was potentially exposed after the rare event, not before. The swimmers were potentially exposed at any moment, according to many misinformed people at the time. Louganis could have warned them all, rarity or not. It wasn't medically necessary as it turns out, but it surely was ethically. Eye.earth (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this moral clause rests entirely on a reasonable person thinking that Olympic diving would result in a bloody accident. If this were a more violent sport or even a team to team combat sport where injuries of this nature were more common then maybe, but this isn't that. The other swimmers were never exposed unless they were shooting up dirty needles or being the passive sexual partners in anal intercourse with him. Shall we put that in the article? There is no reasonable way anyone foresaw him breaking his head open or any other medical accident involving his blood coming out. Given the prejudice against people with AIDS as well as overt homophobia in sports it would have been a career ender for Louganis to openly discuss his HIV status with anyone who was not bound to confidentiality. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Other swimmers were never exposed." Again, we know that now. But according to the common perception of HIV at the time, Louganis' especially put the doctor's life at risk. Many of us are now perfectly sure that Louganis didn't actually do that, as we don't accept the theory that HIV is the sole or even partial cause of AIDS. As for your rhetorically asking me whether dirty needles and anal sex should be a part of the article as well, I can only quote a line from The Mystery of Marie Roget: "Observe, here, the laughable confusion of thought!" As far as I'm concerned the accident needs no further elaboration because there was, it turns out, no danger at all. HIV doesn't cause AIDS so why dwell on an accident that couldn't possibly have caused AIDS in an unsuspecting person? What is at issue is simply how HIV was perceived by many at the time, and whether the ethics of Louganis' choice merits discussion in the article. Probably it doesn't, if only because it is (obviously) too contentious to remain unedited, one way or the other, for long.

Finally, I question the presumed rarity of diving-board accidents. To watch Olympic divers in their routines is to be immediately aware of the danger of a head-hit on the board. There are plenty of videos available online of diving-board accidents, and people have been using diving boards for a long time. But this point is irrelevant to the discussion, since we both agree that the HIV in Greg Louganis' blood was not going to be causing AIDS in anyone -- even, apparently, Greg Louganis. Eye.earth (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment to leave it out for now. Louganis' own statements would have to carry this along. We don't know what medical information he had for sure, many people with HIV have to seek out specialists and do so confidentially. I would support adding a link to an article discussing the dangers of Olympic diving if one exists. And, yes agree that many thoughts can be laughable. LOL! -- Banjeboi 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment removed.Ron (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) If HIV doesn't cause AIDs, then what, in Louganis's case did: "Poppers" use? As an athlete, he may not have gone anywhere near them. It's unlikely that he was a mainliner, and he didn't suffer from malnutrition. He did, though, as a gay person, as likely as not, have unprotected sex with another male, perhaps at a time (before the early 80s)when people didn't know HIV existed.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

References

In any event, the paragraph should say something about the accident. As it stands now, it doesn't, and it needs to be inferred.

Drsruli (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to the lede?

Currently, it reads "He is best known for winning back-to-back Olympic titles in both the 3m and 10m diving events.'

Is this really accurate to be honest? If we were to have a poll of 1000 people and they were asked "What is Greg Louganis best known for?", do you really think they'd say "Oh he was the guy who won back to back olympic titles in both the 3m and 10m diving events" or would they say "He's the guy who hit his head on the diving board, and has HIV"? I think they'd say the latter. I'm not saying we need to say "Best known for hitting his head during a dive", but I think the lede as it's currently written is misleading, so I'm changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAtheist (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that "having HIV and hitting your head on diving board" is not currently an Olympic event, it seems to me 4-times Olympic diving gold medalist would be the most well-known worldwide association of Louganis. Angry bee (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Scouting tie216.160.142.78 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's germaine, but I've enjoyed the irony for Years: In the 80s, Boys'Life Magazine, the mouthpiece of the Boy Scouts of America, published two (2) articles about Greg. Of course, they both extolled his fight against predjudice and his overcoming a difficult childhood home situation. Naturally, he was held up as an example for boys of Scouting age; "you, too, can be like him." I haven't been in Scouting since 1995, but I do wonder, sometimes...did the BSA print a retraction or the likedistancing themelves from a former icon, or did they ignore the whole business and hope no one remembers? 216.160.142.78 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• They made no changes to the publishing. They also mentioned he had dyslexia and overcoming that. Seems they still are OK with anyone admiring his athletic ability if they look through old issues of Boys Life. USN1977 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

But what is he doing now?

Other than saying that he got married in 2013, there is no clue as to what he is up to these days.

The formatting is all kinds of messed up

I don't know wiki markup, but the end of this article is a mess. Can someone that's better at that than me do something about it? There are a bunch of broken tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.45.160 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)