A Week Later: 5 Questions from the Darren Chiacchia Arrest
Hey Anon, thanks for the comment. In response:
1) Could you please point to a particular sentence or phrase where we report that Darren has been "already tried and found guilty?" I promise you that if we were reporting that, we would say something like "Darren has been tried and found guilty." I can point to several sentences where we have specifically reported that Darren has NOT been tried and found guilty, such as "Thankfully, in the United States, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and anyone who makes assumptions of guilt at this point is being absurd." in our 'Darren Chiacchia HIV Case Update' post.
2) Your point about simply providing volunteers with gloves and a medical briefing is an excellent one, and probably the best solution that I have heard so far. Excellent point.
3) I agree with your identification of other victimless crimes, I just posed the question as something to think about.
It would make far more sense just to educate all volunteers in the principle of universal precautions. You treat ALL bodily fluids as if they can infect you with a deadly infection. That is the standard practice for any medical professional or trained first aid responder; this is how you (a) maximize your safety (since patients will not necessarily know they are infected at the time of incident so any disclosure policy just gives you a false sense of safety), and (b) respect the privacy and dignity of all patients at the same time.
This is basic first aid training; it's not difficult to provide the same information to volunteers along with all the other event info they get. How easily they can employ universal precautions without practice/formal training, or without the right supplies readily on hand, etc. will vary, of course. But those variables would not be changed by their knowing that the person was infected.
One question I had about the law was what was meant by "multiple violations" (or words to that effect) making it a 1st class felony. Unless there is a list of definitions in the law that I missed, that could mean either multiple victims, or multiple exposures/acts. The risk to the partner increases with each exposure, so it would seem that multiple exposures would make it a more severe offense regardless of how many separate victims there were. Obviously this would be very hard to prove within the context of a relationship whereas it's much easier to "prove" multiple partners.
I think it is also important to raise a 6th question, and that is whether eventers need to be better educated about the possible lasting effects of head trauma on personality and decision-making skills. Independent of whether the charges are true, we have a teachable moment regarding the risks of our sport that should not be wasted. Bones can mend; brains often cannot.
>>Anonymous: I agree that education for volunteers is a good solution, but, as always, the implementation will lead to more regulations and hassles for organizers. Will this information have to be conveyed to the volunteers at briefings before each event? If so, a qualified instructor would have to be on hand at that time, and we all know how rushed those 7:30am fence judge meetings can be. Perhaps that means we should go to a volunteer certification program, but of course we already have issues finding enough volunteers as it is.
As for your question about the law, I do not have an answer. While my parents might want me to go to law school, I have held out so far, and I do not want to speculate with my uneducated interpretation. Thanks for you comments.
Give me a break, he knew he was HIV positive, had sex with his partner, it's only pure chance his didn't contract the disease. He could have easily contracted it as not. So you hold up someone at gunpoint and shoot them- and they don't die- so that's ok, since they didn't die? His actions were reckless and without regard to the consequences of his actions, which clearly have the potential to be deadly. Where did personal accountability go? If he cared one iota about his condition, he would have had protected sex, but he didn't care about his sexual parnters who could easily die from his condition. That my friends- is criminal.
Give me a break, he knew he was HIV positive, had sex with his partner, it's only pure chance his didn't contract the disease. He could have easily contracted it as not. So you hold up someone at gunpoint and shoot them- and they don't die- so that's ok, since they didn't die? His actions were reckless and without regard to the consequences of his actions, which clearly have the potential to be deadly. Where did personal accountability go? If he cared one iota about his condition, he would have had protected sex, but he didn't care about his sexual parnters who could easily die from his condition. That my friends- is criminal.




1. You are still reporting this as if Darren were already tried & found guilty.
2. Disclosure of medical information, as a topic, is interesting, but you have taken a very narrow viewpoint regarding HIV. It would be better to brief volunteers and provide them with a rubber glove/CPR mask emergency kit - as they are unlikely to check the medical armband prior to touching a downed rider anyway. Especially in light of this whole incident - volunteers should not assume any rider's fluids are safe - and how on earth would you enforce a rule requiring disclosure of medical information? Secretaries can't be expected to start searching peoples' medical records, surely?
3. There are plenty of crimes that are "victimless", if that's how you choose to characterize them: conspiracy, attempted murder, attempt to defraud etc. In this case, the language of the crime is clear - it is not whether the other party contracts HIV, it is whether the alleged criminal fails to disclose his or her HIV status.