I don't think that's a fair comparison. I love motorcycling, and the Isle of Man TT is probably the craziest spectacle I watch every year. And every year, at

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I love motorcycling, and the Isle of Man TT is probably the craziest spectacle I watch every year. And every year, at least one person dies in the race. A lot of the mechanics and race shops that build bikes for that race talk about whether or not they're doing a good thing. And as dangerous and awful as the above is, I wouldn't change the TT for anything. But I also wouldn't watch it, if it was a commercialized race with large corporate backing. I guess what I'm trying to get at, is there's a difference between letting people take dangerous risks in pursuit of something they love and giving them the means to do so, and exploiting people and pushing them to continue taking dangerous risks for spectacle and profit. Its a fine line to tread, but while typing this, I think I'm realizing that its easily discernible. In the first category, if there is a safer way of doing something, without neutering the fundamental nature of the activity, the community will embrace it. Just look at the armor improvements of motorcycling over the years. Or the quality of wingsuits and rescue equipment. In the second category though, other considerations start to take effect, like overall viewership numbers and team profits.