Real men wear..... PINK

[url=] ... randmother[/url]

I've been hearing quite a bit about the issue of wearing pink in honour of breast cancer survivors and sufferers and I think it is absolutely ridiculous that our players are not allowed to wear all of the amazing pink stuff that has been made for this purpose in a game. It's nice that they wear it in practice, but even the NFL has had a whole pink event. I don't generally agree with anything coming out of blue team land, but I agree completely that this kid should be allowed and ENCOURAGED to wear pink. What is the big deal about wearing pink gloves and such? I say the CFLPA really needs to get on this issue and at least have one weekend dedicated to wearing pink so these guys can show their support.

I 100% agree with. I read that article last night and thought the same, how ridiculous it is.

The CFL is REALLY missing the boat (No pun intended) on this one!

I hope he has a huge pink tattoo and shows it proudly. I'm not happy with this decision by the league at all and they better make up for it with something for breast cancer and soon. :thdn:

This post won't be popular, but here it goes.

I think the whole pink thing is contrived. It probably came out of the NFL marketing department as a way to appeal to women. Campaigns like "CFL Fans Fight Cancer" seems more sincere as they aren't picking one form over the others. Shouldn't we be concerned about all forms instead of highlighting one? Plus, not all jersey colour schemes are condusive to pink. On a lot of the jerseys it looks stupid.

I suspect that the problem is that pink would be the tip of the wedge. If one player is allowed to where pink to pay tribute to a relative, then another player would be allowed to wear yellow, or green, or red, or whatever other colour represents his particular cause. Probably easier to just say no to all.

I fully agree that the CFL needs to adopt this. It's easily one of the biggest killers of women and the awareness should be everywhere.

I have a personal stake in this as I lost my aunt to breast cancer when I was 19.

Sorry, a dissenting opinion.....

I have had experience with breast cancer. My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer six years go, underwent 5 weeks of radiation treatment, and thankfully has had no reoccurence.

She agrees with me that, despite the good intentions, it looks like token support for a great cause. Simply put, it looks ridiculous for grown men to wear pink.

If the CFL, or individual teams, want to highlight their support of this good cause, wouldn't it be easier and more sensible to say, fly a dozen pink flags in the stadia? That way nobody would feel obliged to perform an individual act, while still being part of a group support effort.

Yes agreed, an NFL player wearing pink may do so for any number of personal reasons, the leagues "show" of support may be viewed as negitive if targeting a desired market is what they are shooting for. Its all to open to opinion and therefore risky in all cases, I agree 100% with the CFL and its very classy approch to charitable ventures.

Some good points guys I hadn't thought of.

I'm with Ockham and Wilf on this...

Well, just read this from an online breast forum, never would have thought:

As someone in remission from breast cancer, I’m not actually a supporter of BC Awareness month and all the pink crap that goes along with it. I lean more towards the Think Before You Pink and Pink Stinks! campaigns, which were started by women with breast cancer too.

I don't think any of these guys are or should be forced to do it. You may think it is "token" but you also don't know how many of these guys are doing this because they have been touched by the disease in some way. I truly believe that if a player feels strongly enough about the issue he should be allowed to wear pink to show his support (such as the blue team player in the article) and the league shouldn't stand in his way. I also don't really care whether it's token or not because anything that gives press to the issue and gets more people interested in the cause is fine by me. Token or not, if funds are raised by the NFL events and they go to help research I don't really care if those involved have ulterior motives or if they are doing it out of a sense of obligation or for the press. If it gets results sign me up.

Lung cancer kills more women than breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers combined, but it isn't as fashionable to support lung cancer research.

[url=] ... =106033956[/url]

Me too

IMO the wearing of pink is an empty gesture. But then again, what else would you expect from a society where Paris Hilton is famous for being famous.

It just occurred to me that the opinion that wearing pink is contrived or an empty gesture might be more common in Canada than in the US.

One of the greatest Canadians died of cancer while raising funds to defeat cancer. That is real dedication to defeating cancer and it makes a millionaire pro athlete wearing a pink wristband look kind of silly.

If Terry Fox thought along this line he would have only been running across Canada for bone cancer. All forms of cancer are horrible and deserve funding for a cure. To separate one form from the others suggests it's more important.

"Cancer is a man-made disease fuelled by the excesses of modern life, a study of ancient remains has found.
Tumours were rare until recent times when pollution and poor diet became issues, the review of mummies, fossils and classical literature found."

Read more: ... z12RXWCv9D

I’m in favour of supporting research for all forms of cancer. Most of my donations go to the Canadian Cancer Society. My father is a 2 time colon cancer survivor (and a very very lucky one at that) and I would love to see more events such as these for colon and pancreatic cancer and all other forms of cancer. I’ve lost several family members to cancer of all types. I just don’t think that supporting an event like this that highlights one type of cancer is in any way taking away support from getting rid of all types of cancer. There is an increase in the number of men who are also being diagnosed with breast cancer and my hope is that these events may also draw attention to that fact. October is breast cancer awareness month and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Breast cancer awareness campaigns cause more harm than good
Friday, October 15, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

""I don't think people understand the lack of progress (achieved by breast cancer awareness programs)," Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, is quoted as saying in a recent Los Angeles Times article. Visco referenced statistics showing that deaths from breast cancer have dropped maybe two percent since they started in 1990, which is likely a statistically insignificant figure.

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice explained that breast cancer awareness campaigns have failed to keep up with developments in breast cancer research, including new research showing that most of the cancers identified with mammography are not even malignant. And as a result of continued screening, millions of women end up being treated with expensive, potentially life-threatening treatments for cancers that will never harm them.

A recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimates that for every one woman helped by a mammogram, up to 15 others are misdiagnosed and mistreated. But because of breast cancer awareness campaigns that continue to scare women and push them towards outmoded, unscientific methods of approaching the disease, many women are willing to participate in conventional screening and treatment programs anyway, even if such programs ultimately cause them needless harm and possible death.

A drug company founded National Breast Cancer Awareness Month

A quick look into the history of NBCAM reveals that its founding sponsor is AstraZeneca, a multi-national drug company that manufactures breast cancer drugs like Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Faslodex and Zoladex. And what was the original stated goal of NBCAM? To promote mammography as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer.

Most NaturalNews readers already know that mammography is largely ineffective and dangerous to health. Mammograms do not differentiate between harmless and malignant tumors, and they pump a regular dose of radiation into women's breasts that can eventually cause tumors to form. But the one thing mammograms are good at is racking up lots of breast cancer diagnoses."

[url=] ... eness.html[/url]

Absolutely agree...Of course to each his own, but any positive exposure and subsequent money raised for a good cause can only be a good thing!