Concussion doctor says he found CTE in living NFL player(mercurynews.com)
mercurynews.com
Concussion doctor says he found CTE in living NFL player
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/16/renowned-concussion-doctor-says-he-found-cte-in-living-nfl-player/
210 comments
I think a lawsuit stopping the sport is highly unlikely. It’ll die off gradually as the game is starved off of young participants, which sap it of both elite players and viewers. See: boxing.
And I think it’s much too soon to say other sports with occasional head impacts are bad to do now that football is known to be unsafe. Football has head to head collisions as a matter of course, every play. Soccer, with the header, is much more likely to be next to come under scrutiny IMO.
And I think it’s much too soon to say other sports with occasional head impacts are bad to do now that football is known to be unsafe. Football has head to head collisions as a matter of course, every play. Soccer, with the header, is much more likely to be next to come under scrutiny IMO.
[deleted]
Boxing had a similar problem, but the solution was that they changed the rules and the fan base dwindled after that. "Football" will likely take a similar path.
I don't think a lawsuit will stop it. There's too much money and citizen support. One way or another, they would settle and it would go away.
as soon as there's a precedent that schools (particularly high schools but also colleges) are financially responsible for CTE in football players (and possibly other sports) they'll be unable to get insurance which means those programs will be shut down
without school programs as a pipeline the nfl probably can't continue to exist
without school programs as a pipeline the nfl probably can't continue to exist
The NFL has a minimum salary of $450,000. 3-4 years in NFL at that will earn you more than the average American earns in a lifetime. That's probably a rational economic trade-off for the risk of CTE.
NFL salaries aren’t guaranteed by default. That 450k is paid weekly during the season and the player can be cut at any time. I don’t know what the median amount of money earned by NFL players is but it is likely well below 1.5 million.
I didn't grow up playing or really understanding sports. I was one of those guys who joked about "sportsball" and stuff like that. When I started really taking weight training seriously I started having a frame of reference for understanding sports and started really appreciating them. Football is a sport that is designed to really allow people to showcase the limits of the human body. The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL and when you think about the things that happen in any single game, they truly are spectacular. OBJ's "The Catch" is one of the most impressive things in the history of sports period. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=818_M8gOnqQ
But the NFL is finding itself in a really tough position. I love this sport, but I find it ethically difficult to watch now. It would be one thing if the NFL was doing everything it could to protect its athletes, but it's absolutely clear they are trying to bury their heads in the sand on this one:
> “We need a couple million of dollars. What is stopping us is the money. We’re ready to roll.”
Think about this: we currently have no way to diagnose CTE in living people, we think we may have a way, the "we" in that is pretty credible as its the person who discovered CTE, and it will cost roughly $2mm, and the NFL isn't tripping over themselves to write the check for some reason. It would cost 12 seconds of superbowl ad revenue to fund this, and in fact the NFL has pledged $100mm to investigate CTE, but basically they just aren't doing it: http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/20509977/nfl-takes-c...
This is kind of shameful, and as a fan of this sport I really hope they figure out how to have a better position on this issue, because what's going on right now is not sustainable.
But the NFL is finding itself in a really tough position. I love this sport, but I find it ethically difficult to watch now. It would be one thing if the NFL was doing everything it could to protect its athletes, but it's absolutely clear they are trying to bury their heads in the sand on this one:
> “We need a couple million of dollars. What is stopping us is the money. We’re ready to roll.”
Think about this: we currently have no way to diagnose CTE in living people, we think we may have a way, the "we" in that is pretty credible as its the person who discovered CTE, and it will cost roughly $2mm, and the NFL isn't tripping over themselves to write the check for some reason. It would cost 12 seconds of superbowl ad revenue to fund this, and in fact the NFL has pledged $100mm to investigate CTE, but basically they just aren't doing it: http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/20509977/nfl-takes-c...
This is kind of shameful, and as a fan of this sport I really hope they figure out how to have a better position on this issue, because what's going on right now is not sustainable.
That’s a highly cultural-specific viewpoint. For example Rugby union, league, AFL etc are all contact sports with huge followings - I can’t understand let alone (and probably because of my lack of understanding) stand NFL which I personally think culturally encapsulates an American approach to the world - this is the offence team, this is defence, let’s pad up and beat the shit out of the opposing side. Compared to the other three which display to my way of thinking a fluidity and flexibility that I believe to be more skilful and also a reflection of a deeper cultural flexibility. But now my cultural biases are flooding out heavily.
What is interesting however is that neither rugby union, league or AFL have anywhere near the level of concussive damage, maybe because the lack of protection leads to a different approach to bodily harm. Full disclosure, one of the products my company makes and is commercialising in Australian Rugby Union is a concussion monitoring system so this is a deep interest of mine both from the tech/commercial side but also the medical side.
You are right though, greater awareness of the risks is going to endanger these sports. A parting word of hope - we still allow boxing, and CTE is medically known as ‘punch drunk syndrome’ from the first reported cases of the medical literature.
Concussion management is a rapidly evolving field and my sister (for whom I built the side project which we are now commercialising) thinks that being able to have a biochem test like we do for heart attacks would totally change the field - big head knock, troponin-like test, then follow up and treatment as appropriate. It’s super interesting and we need to put players first whatever we do
What is interesting however is that neither rugby union, league or AFL have anywhere near the level of concussive damage, maybe because the lack of protection leads to a different approach to bodily harm. Full disclosure, one of the products my company makes and is commercialising in Australian Rugby Union is a concussion monitoring system so this is a deep interest of mine both from the tech/commercial side but also the medical side.
You are right though, greater awareness of the risks is going to endanger these sports. A parting word of hope - we still allow boxing, and CTE is medically known as ‘punch drunk syndrome’ from the first reported cases of the medical literature.
Concussion management is a rapidly evolving field and my sister (for whom I built the side project which we are now commercialising) thinks that being able to have a biochem test like we do for heart attacks would totally change the field - big head knock, troponin-like test, then follow up and treatment as appropriate. It’s super interesting and we need to put players first whatever we do
>>That’s a highly cultural-specific viewpoint.
What is? That the NFL has the best athletes in the world?
If the NFL athletes trained for a year to do anything else, or you put all the athletes in the world into a decathalon of power/speed/strength specific events, it would be an insane blowout.
NFL players would crush every other group of athletes individually and probably combined, and I say this as someone who has worked with Rugby Union and AFL players in Australia. There is no comparison, they are the best athletes in the world for any fair value of athletics you want to use.
What is? That the NFL has the best athletes in the world?
If the NFL athletes trained for a year to do anything else, or you put all the athletes in the world into a decathalon of power/speed/strength specific events, it would be an insane blowout.
NFL players would crush every other group of athletes individually and probably combined, and I say this as someone who has worked with Rugby Union and AFL players in Australia. There is no comparison, they are the best athletes in the world for any fair value of athletics you want to use.
"Best athlete" is a function of the event, where physical strength, speed, and agility alone do not guarantee success. Doesn't matter how much time you give to NFL players, they wouldn't outplay Giannis Antetokounmpo or LeBron James, or out-race Eliud Kipchoge, or out-dribble Messi, or out-swim Olympic swimmers, or out-climb Alex Honnold, etc. Those are all fair measures of athletic ability.
Your argument might be more reasonable if you were trying to compare top NFL athletes to somebody like Ashton Eaton (world decathlon record holder).
Your argument might be more reasonable if you were trying to compare top NFL athletes to somebody like Ashton Eaton (world decathlon record holder).
How about a literal decathlon?
But come on, there are tremendous differences difference between the body types and skills involved in swimming, gymnastics, bobsled, trick snowboarding, 100 meter dash, marathon, boxing, sumo, table tennis, basketball, archery, rock climbing, ballet, ... https://imgur.com/a/cOTTF
You can’t just say “these particular athletes matching a particular archetype are ‘the best’, and could be retrained to beat anyone at anything”.
But come on, there are tremendous differences difference between the body types and skills involved in swimming, gymnastics, bobsled, trick snowboarding, 100 meter dash, marathon, boxing, sumo, table tennis, basketball, archery, rock climbing, ballet, ... https://imgur.com/a/cOTTF
You can’t just say “these particular athletes matching a particular archetype are ‘the best’, and could be retrained to beat anyone at anything”.
Are you saying that almost all of the best athletes in the world just happen to be born in America? Or are you claiming that the NFL training regime is so good that it allows them to beat everyone else in the world? Why would that be? It can't be the money. There's a lot more money in soccer, and unlike NFL it has a pool of talent that covers the whole world.
And no salary caps, and no closed-shop leagues.
Their horsemanship is, by and large, terrible.
Someone once explained to me that rugby is a contact sport, and American football is an impact sport. The padding allows players to hit each other harder without bruising or direct impact, while the brain still bangs around in the skull.
We have an intuitive understanding of impacts that don't reflect the reality of the risks...
Boxers wear gloves to protect hands, not heads, and those big pillows mean harder hits mean more brain damage. Bareknuckle boxing is better for the brain.
No rugby player is lining up his skull and charging other players skulls like a ram or a goat, that would hurt, so they don't do it. Football players really need less protection for their heads so they stop doing things that are dumb for their brain.
The challenge with football is that the obvious corrections to the game would seem to be quite fan unfriendly... Touch football is hard to imagine on FOX SPORTS.
Boxers wear gloves to protect hands, not heads, and those big pillows mean harder hits mean more brain damage. Bareknuckle boxing is better for the brain.
No rugby player is lining up his skull and charging other players skulls like a ram or a goat, that would hurt, so they don't do it. Football players really need less protection for their heads so they stop doing things that are dumb for their brain.
The challenge with football is that the obvious corrections to the game would seem to be quite fan unfriendly... Touch football is hard to imagine on FOX SPORTS.
In the old days they had soft helmets, probably should go back.
Yeah my uncle played rugby for over 30 years with no major injuries when you don't have pads it definitely changes the nature of the game and ironically for the better.
Though Rugby can still break your spine, I think?
Yes, mostly at amateur level. Rugby (union) also has problems with serious injury, and it shouldn't be considered a better, or safer American football. At national level many teams play a very direct style - smash repetedly into the opposition until you create a hole. I think the IRB should make whatever rule changes are neccessary to encourage more running-rugby, and make "the hit" less important.
> the IRB should make whatever rule changes are neccessary to encourage more running-rugby
Turn it into rugby leage?
Turn it into rugby leage?
> The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL
When I read this I immediately thought this person has never heard of Nadia Comãneci.
Nadia Elena Comăneci (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈnadi.a koməˈnet͡ʃʲ] (About this sound listen); born November 12, 1961) is a Romanian gymnast. An Olympic gold medalist, Comăneci is the first athlete in the history of the sport to be awarded a perfect score of 10.0[1]
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Comăneci
Edited to add: Here is the link to Nadia's 1976 Olympic Games perfect 10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl9QpC8_LiE
When I read this I immediately thought this person has never heard of Nadia Comãneci.
Nadia Elena Comăneci (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈnadi.a koməˈnet͡ʃʲ] (About this sound listen); born November 12, 1961) is a Romanian gymnast. An Olympic gold medalist, Comăneci is the first athlete in the history of the sport to be awarded a perfect score of 10.0[1]
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Comăneci
Edited to add: Here is the link to Nadia's 1976 Olympic Games perfect 10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl9QpC8_LiE
"An Olympic gold medalist, Comăneci is the first athlete in the history of the sport to be awarded a perfect score of 10.0"
But then imagine that, in that same olympics, there was a 6'5" tall human, weighing 320 pounds, that scored a 7.
What Nadia did was amazing. What NFL players are doing in the 21st century is otherworldly.
But then imagine that, in that same olympics, there was a 6'5" tall human, weighing 320 pounds, that scored a 7.
What Nadia did was amazing. What NFL players are doing in the 21st century is otherworldly.
> I can’t understand let alone (and probably because of my lack of understanding) stand NFL which I personally think culturally encapsulates an American approach to the world - this is the offence team, this is defence, let’s pad up and beat the shit out of the opposing side.
Out of curiosity have you ever watched the NFL? Like, given it a good chance for at least a few games? Because in pop culture that's how the NFL is portrayed and marketed, but it's not really like that and honestly I'd venture to say that's not why most people like watching it - because there's not really much literal "beating the shit" out of the opposing side anyway, and to give an example: if you listen to the live crowds, you rarely, if ever, hear them lose their shit when the occasional gruesome helmet-to-helmet play or injury occurs, as someone on the outside looking in might expect. On the flipside, any time contact is avoided by the home team to make a good play, the crowd collectively loses their shit, because really what football is about is using physical strength as well as skill - mental and physical - to outsmart and outmaneuver your opponent and "beat the shit out of them" that way.
I've been watching football for years and I still barely understand how, at its core, the game works. Nevermind how physically skilled they are, which is a given - there is so much that goes into the game mentally it's mindboggling. Don't even get me started on the quarterback position which is arguably the most mentally-intensive position in any of the major sports, not just because it requires intelligence but it requires intelligence, FAST, while a bunch of guys are clawing at your offensive line trying to run into you and bring you down for the sack.
Out of curiosity have you ever watched the NFL? Like, given it a good chance for at least a few games? Because in pop culture that's how the NFL is portrayed and marketed, but it's not really like that and honestly I'd venture to say that's not why most people like watching it - because there's not really much literal "beating the shit" out of the opposing side anyway, and to give an example: if you listen to the live crowds, you rarely, if ever, hear them lose their shit when the occasional gruesome helmet-to-helmet play or injury occurs, as someone on the outside looking in might expect. On the flipside, any time contact is avoided by the home team to make a good play, the crowd collectively loses their shit, because really what football is about is using physical strength as well as skill - mental and physical - to outsmart and outmaneuver your opponent and "beat the shit out of them" that way.
I've been watching football for years and I still barely understand how, at its core, the game works. Nevermind how physically skilled they are, which is a given - there is so much that goes into the game mentally it's mindboggling. Don't even get me started on the quarterback position which is arguably the most mentally-intensive position in any of the major sports, not just because it requires intelligence but it requires intelligence, FAST, while a bunch of guys are clawing at your offensive line trying to run into you and bring you down for the sack.
I’ve watched a handful, particularly when I was living (studying) in the states, and no doubt it is a game of strategy, and no doubt I don’t understand it well (as I mentioned). I hesitate with your strong endorsement of the intensive mental stress of it however, particularly when compared to the sports I mentioned, particularly Union, which lacks the long pauses and set pieces of NFL and requires more dynamic and on-the-fly thinking without coach or other input. I’m not saying it’s less than, but to use an analogy, I think for example Union is like the US Marine Corps (browsing their wiki article last night) where the outcome is the goal with the methods to be determined by the players, whereas NFL seems to be a continual discussion of strategy and set plays with sideline input, something not overly possible in union
> NFL which I personally think culturally encapsulates an American approach to the world - this is the offence team, this is defence, let’s pad up and beat the shit out of the opposing side. Compared to the other three which display to my way of thinking a fluidity and flexibility that I believe to be more skilful and also a reflection of a deeper cultural flexibility.
Team sports emulate warfare, and determining who wins or loses is based on achieving goals. Thus the strategy and goals adopted by these sports end up reflecting how each society believes how war should be fought and how wars are won. Thus europeans favour sports and strategies which are focused on achieving the goals without any emphasis on unnecessary manhandling or violence (not because of any pseudo superority or morality, but mainly because it needlessly wastes energy, degrades our side's athletic capabilities and performance, and also lowers the value of what is expected to be conquered) while the US favours a scorched-earth approach where winning is confounded with decimating the enemy in a humiliating manner, without any care preserving any value on which is about to be conquered.
This US-centric view of warfare is very well represented in Ender's game.
Team sports emulate warfare, and determining who wins or loses is based on achieving goals. Thus the strategy and goals adopted by these sports end up reflecting how each society believes how war should be fought and how wars are won. Thus europeans favour sports and strategies which are focused on achieving the goals without any emphasis on unnecessary manhandling or violence (not because of any pseudo superority or morality, but mainly because it needlessly wastes energy, degrades our side's athletic capabilities and performance, and also lowers the value of what is expected to be conquered) while the US favours a scorched-earth approach where winning is confounded with decimating the enemy in a humiliating manner, without any care preserving any value on which is about to be conquered.
This US-centric view of warfare is very well represented in Ender's game.
>What is interesting however is that neither rugby union, league or AFL have anywhere near the level of concussive damage, maybe because the lack of protection leads to a different approach to bodily harm
This is often cited as the cause for the discrepancy, but it doesn't consider the actual rules of each game. Like you said, games like rugby union, league, and AFL are more about fluidity and flexibility than American football. American football is about getting set, lining up, and going at your opponent as fast as you can. The end result is that the number of full speed collisions in American football is much higher since the players are often charging directly at each other. In the other sports the two opposing teams are often moving in the same direction so high impact head on collisions are rarer.
A lot of the head trauma in American football is really just from the brain rattling around in the skull as people collide at full speed. The helmets basically act as air bags in a car crash. They are there to prevent fractured skulls, but they do very little to prevent concussions and other head trauma.
This is often cited as the cause for the discrepancy, but it doesn't consider the actual rules of each game. Like you said, games like rugby union, league, and AFL are more about fluidity and flexibility than American football. American football is about getting set, lining up, and going at your opponent as fast as you can. The end result is that the number of full speed collisions in American football is much higher since the players are often charging directly at each other. In the other sports the two opposing teams are often moving in the same direction so high impact head on collisions are rarer.
A lot of the head trauma in American football is really just from the brain rattling around in the skull as people collide at full speed. The helmets basically act as air bags in a car crash. They are there to prevent fractured skulls, but they do very little to prevent concussions and other head trauma.
>The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL and when you think about the things that happen in any single game, they truly are spectacular.
That seems like a wildly opinionated statement in an otherwise good comment.
That seems like a wildly opinionated statement in an otherwise good comment.
> The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL
If you're going make such outrageous claims at least give some explanation? How do you measure how impressive an athlete is?
If you're going make such outrageous claims at least give some explanation? How do you measure how impressive an athlete is?
Context-neutral speed, strength, power metrics would all go to NFL players if you had a worldwide combine of running/jumping/lifting/etc. It would be laughable.
See my bio if you think this opinion is subjective.
See my bio if you think this opinion is subjective.
> Context-neutral speed, strength, power metrics
But if you choose these traits then naturally it's going to benefit those athletes who compete in sports where it's more beneficial to get.. big..
That's like saying tennis/table tennis/badminton players are all mediocre athletes because they aren't able to lift as much weight even though it isn't as beneficial or is even potentially harmful to be very heavy in those sports but of course any serious athlete is going to optimize their training for their sport.
But if you choose these traits then naturally it's going to benefit those athletes who compete in sports where it's more beneficial to get.. big..
That's like saying tennis/table tennis/badminton players are all mediocre athletes because they aren't able to lift as much weight even though it isn't as beneficial or is even potentially harmful to be very heavy in those sports but of course any serious athlete is going to optimize their training for their sport.
Your bio has no data to prove what you claim.
[deleted]
First of all, you misappropriated "The Catch" from 1981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catch_(American_football).
Second, OBJ's one handed catch has been one-up'd by himself and other many times.
Saying "the most impressive things in the history of sports period" is hyperbolic, and simply wrong. You're neglecting every other sport, olympic achievment, or otherwise. The NE England Patriot's comeback in last year's superbowl is more like something we could talk about as being the greatest sports achievement of all time.
Second, OBJ's one handed catch has been one-up'd by himself and other many times.
Saying "the most impressive things in the history of sports period" is hyperbolic, and simply wrong. You're neglecting every other sport, olympic achievment, or otherwise. The NE England Patriot's comeback in last year's superbowl is more like something we could talk about as being the greatest sports achievement of all time.
> OBJ's "The Catch" is one of the most impressive things in the history of sports period.
As someone not familiar with football (not from the US), can someone explain to me what makes this catch particularly impressive? Is it the speed (difficult to assess from a video)?
As someone not familiar with football (not from the US), can someone explain to me what makes this catch particularly impressive? Is it the speed (difficult to assess from a video)?
At that distance, at the complete edge of the field (could’ve easily gone out of bounds), swarmed by two guys, with one hand. Most impressive things in history of sports might be a bit hyperbolic, but it’s pretty incredible.
Impressive but yeah I don't really get that quote. Look at cricket just because I know it. It don't have the fight with other players but talk about the reflex time needed for the close catch, athleticism and presence of mind to make sure the ball doesn't go over the boundary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boHfs7nopHc
But they are all really different. Different sports required different skill calling one set of skills most athletic is really weird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boHfs7nopHc
But they are all really different. Different sports required different skill calling one set of skills most athletic is really weird.
I'm not very familiar with football either, but I can say that OP is heavily exaggerating and probably not familiar with sports history at all.
Heck, I'm not huge sports fan, I can come up with half a dozen more impressive feats in sport off the top of my head.
* Beamon's long jump record in 1968 Olympics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEt_Xgg8dzc
* Maradona's goal of the century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wVho3I0NtU
* Zidane CL final, won Real Madrid its 9th CL title: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFfomw-Z4uE
* O'Sullivan, fastest 147[1] in history (snooker = 4D chess in my opinion): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3C7I5lRZII
* Sotomayor's high jump world record in 1988 Olympics (his lowest time and still 0.01 m higher than anyone else since then!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n6NhV4CaiU
* Usain Bolt
[1] 147 is the maximum number of points you can get in a game of snooker. The only way to do this is to alternate pocketing a red ball then a black ball until all red balls are off the table; this nets you 120 points. Once this is done, you need to pocket the remaining colored balls, ending with the black ball, for an additional 27 points. All this must be done without conceding a single point to your opponent (i.e., no mistakes). Start watching from 1:10 for the action.
Heck, I'm not huge sports fan, I can come up with half a dozen more impressive feats in sport off the top of my head.
* Beamon's long jump record in 1968 Olympics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEt_Xgg8dzc
* Maradona's goal of the century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wVho3I0NtU
* Zidane CL final, won Real Madrid its 9th CL title: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFfomw-Z4uE
* O'Sullivan, fastest 147[1] in history (snooker = 4D chess in my opinion): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3C7I5lRZII
* Sotomayor's high jump world record in 1988 Olympics (his lowest time and still 0.01 m higher than anyone else since then!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n6NhV4CaiU
* Usain Bolt
[1] 147 is the maximum number of points you can get in a game of snooker. The only way to do this is to alternate pocketing a red ball then a black ball until all red balls are off the table; this nets you 120 points. Once this is done, you need to pocket the remaining colored balls, ending with the black ball, for an additional 27 points. All this must be done without conceding a single point to your opponent (i.e., no mistakes). Start watching from 1:10 for the action.
One of these is not like the others. I'm as big a Ronnie fan as any body else, but Snooker is less physical/athletic than any of the other sports in that list. I am not discounting the skill by any means, however - Ronnie in full form is unlike any other snooker player, perhaps except jimmy white.
I'm pretty certain society will look back on football at all levels, most likely the younger "tackle" leagues especially, and think how barbaric it was in hindsight, specifically with the information we have about head injuries.
This is sad, because I really enjoy relaxing fall/winter Sundays watching NFL games, but as you said, I'm starting to really struggle with the morality of it.
I remember thinking I had just watched a player die on the field with the Ricardo Lockette injury a few years back - not a dirty hit, or anything, just the result of a violent game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEx1BqTlhI
This is sad, because I really enjoy relaxing fall/winter Sundays watching NFL games, but as you said, I'm starting to really struggle with the morality of it.
I remember thinking I had just watched a player die on the field with the Ricardo Lockette injury a few years back - not a dirty hit, or anything, just the result of a violent game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEx1BqTlhI
>>I'm pretty certain society will look back on football at all levels, most likely the younger "tackle" leagues especially, and think how barbaric it was in hindsight, specifically with the information we have about head injuries.
Absolutely. It's a ridiculous sport and the NFL specifically themselves are completely unethical scum for perpetuating the myth that they care about player safety. Yet I find more contempt in my heart for the NFLPA, whose union has got to be the least competent and least effective group of organized workers in the United States, if not the world.
Absolutely. It's a ridiculous sport and the NFL specifically themselves are completely unethical scum for perpetuating the myth that they care about player safety. Yet I find more contempt in my heart for the NFLPA, whose union has got to be the least competent and least effective group of organized workers in the United States, if not the world.
OBJ's "The Catch" is one of the most impressive things in the history of sports period.
Every sports record is hailed as the most impressive thing in sports ever. I think your enthusiasm for the sport might be leading you into a bit of hyperbole here.
Every sports record is hailed as the most impressive thing in sports ever. I think your enthusiasm for the sport might be leading you into a bit of hyperbole here.
Yeah it's an impressive catch but I can recall a number of equally impressive catches from cricket too.
I will see your 50 MPH catch and raise you 100: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX8EQXMtX8w
While OBJ's was impressive, I have seen even more crazy catches in Cricket and Baseball!
While OBJ's was impressive, I have seen even more crazy catches in Cricket and Baseball!
Funny thing when I thought of fantastic catches the first thing I thought about the first catch in that video of yours. I remembering seeing that live and I think that was the first time in cricket history someone consciously did that double step catch. It seems in recent days (I haven't followed much lately) that thing has become a lot more common even two players in tandem doing it. It's so interesting that once you know something's possible a lot more people can do it. But yeah that first one was special at points, both the reflex and the speed of thought to find a way to do this that never been done before. I think he single handedly raised the level of fielding in cricket by showing what's possible and that it can truly be a game changer in terms of producing result.
The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL
Call me when one of them free-climbs El Capitan.
Call me when one of them free-climbs El Capitan.
Why would the NFL fund this? Then they might actually find the CTE, in people who were still alive to sue. They know that success means the end of their sport in its current form. This is like asking why the cigarette industry doesn't fund cancer research.
> Football is a sport that is designed to really allow people to showcase the limits of the human body.
Not really; depending on dimension, gymnastics, ballet, marathon, short-distance sprinting, powerlifting, and any number of other sports and physical arts are far better at showcasing the extremes of what the body can do.
> The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL
Well, “impressive” is subjective, and all this really says is that you are particularly prone to being impressed by the kind of display that the NFL provides.
Not really; depending on dimension, gymnastics, ballet, marathon, short-distance sprinting, powerlifting, and any number of other sports and physical arts are far better at showcasing the extremes of what the body can do.
> The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL
Well, “impressive” is subjective, and all this really says is that you are particularly prone to being impressed by the kind of display that the NFL provides.
> "The Catch" is one of the most impressive things in the history of sports period.
So I finally got around to watching the catch. Cool catch, but isn't the catching ability of a receiver augmented by tact gloves?[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protective_equipment_in_gridir...
So I finally got around to watching the catch. Cool catch, but isn't the catching ability of a receiver augmented by tact gloves?[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protective_equipment_in_gridir...
I have been wat hung football since i was kid but like you the past couple of years it has become harder to justify watching these big hits and traumatic injuries knowing the damage it is doing to players when they get older.
When NFL players can be diagnosed while they're still playing, or even identify how much their Tau proteins increase after a big hit, that will have a big impact. It seems like it's still easy enough to not think about dying early when getting concussed.
CTE - Chronic traumatic encephalopathy[0] for anyone else who was confused. The author uses it countless times without explaining what it is.
More details - Currently, CTE can only be definitively diagnosed by direct tissue examination after death, including full and immunohistochemical brain analyses.[15] The lack of in vivo techniques to show distinct biomarkers for CTE is the reason CTE cannot currently be diagnosed while a person is alive...[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
More details - Currently, CTE can only be definitively diagnosed by direct tissue examination after death, including full and immunohistochemical brain analyses.[15] The lack of in vivo techniques to show distinct biomarkers for CTE is the reason CTE cannot currently be diagnosed while a person is alive...[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
The very first line of the story says what it is: Researchers have identified the degenerative brain disease known as CTE...
It's a newspaper rather than a scientific journal so I think they can be forgiven for not expanding the acronym, just as newspapers commonly report heart attacks rather than myocardial infarctions.
It's a newspaper rather than a scientific journal so I think they can be forgiven for not expanding the acronym, just as newspapers commonly report heart attacks rather than myocardial infarctions.
They do expand the acronym in the second paragraph:
... to identify chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the living.
... to identify chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the living.
common table expression?
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...
This would be a game changer and potentially life saving for hundreds of athletes in all contact sports but mostly American football. I they can find the funding they need to further their research.
The problem is that the NFL stifles and blocks as many methods as possible in this regard. Though I'll admit it's rapidly changing, and for the better.
The best way to start saving lives is to get people to stop playing these types of sports.
Does the difficulty in diagnosis stem from the fact that it is hard to differentiate CTE from other degenerative brain diseases, or is it just hard to diagnose in the living altogether? I mean, is the presence of Alzheimer's-like symptoms a necessary but not sufficient condition? Being able to rule out the condition would be very valuable to former contact sport athletes worrying about the disease.
All brain diseases are really difficult to diagnose - almost all of them remain pathological diagnoses - that is, even if we say ‘alzheimers’ we mean ‘likely Alzheimer’s until we can biopsy or autopsy to determine completely’.
Also, just diagnosing (at present, and aside from the aims of the article) doesn’t help as we can’t really treat. We know that, for example, being knocked out more than twice in your life doubles your risk of ‘brain disease’, and having a second concussion within a week or so of the first also is a massive risk multiplier. So we need to have appropriate management and identification strategies in place to ensure we don’t allow that to happen, restrict play after concussive injuries etc
Also, just diagnosing (at present, and aside from the aims of the article) doesn’t help as we can’t really treat. We know that, for example, being knocked out more than twice in your life doubles your risk of ‘brain disease’, and having a second concussion within a week or so of the first also is a massive risk multiplier. So we need to have appropriate management and identification strategies in place to ensure we don’t allow that to happen, restrict play after concussive injuries etc
from what I understand, it is currently a chemical test that requires a biopsy or tissue sample, which is difficult to get from the brain because well, you remove part of the brain, which is bad.
Right, that is to diagnose CTE post-mortem. But does CTE also cause other phyiscal symptoms which are just indistinguishable from regular Alzheimer's? For instance, would a person with CTE also have visible plaques on an MRI, or is the disease really invisible in the living?
The fact that they found CTE in 110 out of 111 NFL players post-mortem should indicate that they had a pretty good idea about which players to pick for autopsy. Was those picks based on their history of psychological issues alone, or were there other indicators such as definite signs of Alzheimer's?
The fact that they found CTE in 110 out of 111 NFL players post-mortem should indicate that they had a pretty good idea about which players to pick for autopsy. Was those picks based on their history of psychological issues alone, or were there other indicators such as definite signs of Alzheimer's?
Many brain disease don't show on MRI (schizophrenia, depression, bipolar etc).
brain biopsies are routinely performed for brain tumors so its not that uncommon.
But that's to characterize a known lesion, which may require aggressive treatment depending upon its type, and will likely require excision in any case because its simple presence is likely causing some degree of pathological effect.
This is a rather different situation, and while I'm not myself a neurosurgeon or indeed anything at all in the medical field except possibly an occasional annoyance, I tend to think that "hey, let's see if we'll find anything this time!" is probably not considered a sufficient reason to perform brain surgery. I could totally be wrong about that, though!
This is a rather different situation, and while I'm not myself a neurosurgeon or indeed anything at all in the medical field except possibly an occasional annoyance, I tend to think that "hey, let's see if we'll find anything this time!" is probably not considered a sufficient reason to perform brain surgery. I could totally be wrong about that, though!
"The most impressive athletes in any sport in the world are in the NFL"
What a ridiculous statement to make! Even probabilistically this makes no sense, since the players are selected out of 3e8 out of 7e9 humans. Check out socker players, marathon runners, climbers etc and you will see that every sport has their very own geniuses.
What a ridiculous statement to make! Even probabilistically this makes no sense, since the players are selected out of 3e8 out of 7e9 humans. Check out socker players, marathon runners, climbers etc and you will see that every sport has their very own geniuses.
That depends on what the metrics are that make up "impressive" in this context. Since those are entirely subjective (I may be impressed by an athlete's endurance, but the author may be impressed by physical strength, etc) the quoted statement is meaningless anyway.
> Researchers are working to develop a test for people still alive so they can begin to study the disease more comprehensively.
What more is there to study? Getting knocked in the head for years is bad for you. Do we really need scientists to tell us this? Who in their right mind thinks getting hit in the head on a regular basis will have no negative affects on their well-being? The solution is not some new treatment - it's to... uhm, stop getting your head knocked on a regular basis.
What more is there to study? Getting knocked in the head for years is bad for you. Do we really need scientists to tell us this? Who in their right mind thinks getting hit in the head on a regular basis will have no negative affects on their well-being? The solution is not some new treatment - it's to... uhm, stop getting your head knocked on a regular basis.
That will be the logical thing to do, but you know... money... the NFL doesn't seem to care about anything else.
Why blame the NFL? It's not like the players are doing it for free.
Because the NFL could "easily" change the rules to minimize the effects of CTE. Easily is in quotes because it's easy except for a fear of losing money.
It really can't. There are many potential smaller changes that could shave a percentage point or two of the risk factor (and the NFL has already made a handful of those type of changes), but the game of football is setup in such a way that head trauma is a guaranteed byproduct. As other pointed out, the cigarette argument is apt. You can make things marginally safer, but there is never going to be such a thing as a "safe cigarette".
It's like a game of gladiators... You can't take the fun off of it.
Because the NFL is making the bulk of the money and they control the game. Who else should be the obvious group to take action here?
Aaron Hernandez (New England Patriot, murderer) had severe CTE when he died at 27
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/09/health/aaron-hernandez-brain-c...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/09/health/aaron-hernandez-brain-c...
The article contradicts the title. The tau protein test using markers is unable to diffentiate between CTE and Alzheimer. And by the way there are already FDA approved Tau protein tests on the market so from the article it is not clear what is the new discovery about.
"I can't believe people were so dumb about smoking in the 1950s.. how were they so dumb? did they not know it caused cancer?"
this is a kinda modern equivalent, imo..
this is a kinda modern equivalent, imo..
The thing is that both activities were always clearly likely to be harmful, if you took a step back from the cultural perspective that accepted them so thoroughly.
Smoking tobacco is inhaling an acrid a mix of chemicals that makes you cough, kind of feel sick and lightheaded, smells awful and leaves a tan stain - it’s not hard to guess that it’s not healthy. Remember that half of people who die from tobacco die from heart disease, too, not cancer.
Same with football. I was never attracted to sports where participants beat each other in the head repeatedly, whether it’s boxing or football. I don’t think it’s surprising to find out that people who experience concussions every week as part of their jobs and hobbies end up damaging their brains.
Edit to add, It’s a bit frustrating, because surely if one was to stand up 30 years ago and say “hey, I don’t think this high school football program is a good idea because I’m worried about all these young people knocking their heads together with full force”... The response would have been to mock you and dispute it, if they paid any attention at all.
Smoking tobacco is inhaling an acrid a mix of chemicals that makes you cough, kind of feel sick and lightheaded, smells awful and leaves a tan stain - it’s not hard to guess that it’s not healthy. Remember that half of people who die from tobacco die from heart disease, too, not cancer.
Same with football. I was never attracted to sports where participants beat each other in the head repeatedly, whether it’s boxing or football. I don’t think it’s surprising to find out that people who experience concussions every week as part of their jobs and hobbies end up damaging their brains.
Edit to add, It’s a bit frustrating, because surely if one was to stand up 30 years ago and say “hey, I don’t think this high school football program is a good idea because I’m worried about all these young people knocking their heads together with full force”... The response would have been to mock you and dispute it, if they paid any attention at all.
Edit to add, It’s a bit frustrating, because surely if one was to stand up 30 years ago and say “hey, I don’t think this high school football program is a good idea because I’m worried about all these young people knocking their heads together with full force”... The response would have been to mock you and dispute it, if they paid any attention at all.
30 years ago? I bet you’d get this reaction today in large swaths of America. I’m positive you would have gotten it 5 years ago.
30 years ago? I bet you’d get this reaction today in large swaths of America. I’m positive you would have gotten it 5 years ago.
Quite true, some of the stuff I was reading related to the study includes some coaches currently telling parents that they are overprotective fools if they are concerned about letting their children play football.
A couple that’s related to me had their kid play football in a rural area of the US. She’s a lawyer, and he has some memory issues from high school football. It blows me away that their kid plays.
First: smoking and nicotine usage is harmful to you, full stop.
That disclaimer out of the way, nicotine's prevalence is mostly due to it's addictive qualities. However, the usage of nicotine in WW2 and the industrialization of it's manufacture shortly before the war cannot be missed when talking about nicotine's prevalence mid-century.
Nicotine, like any drug, has a multitude of effects. In certain situations, these effects can be beneficial. The only reason I can think of is: if you have a reasonable suspicion of major bodily trauma occurring before the side effects of nicotine wear off (you are about to die). Nicotine promotes alertness, calmness, and an adrenal response, lowering the flow of blood to the periphery and increasing blood pressure. At high concentrations, it also causes sedation.[0] Also, there is interesting research about those sedative properties in connection with schizophrenia.[1]
Smoking a cigarette while on/near a battlefield is not a terrible decision. You may be more alert, calm and less panicked, already primed with adrenaline, and may experience less blood loss to limb wounds. Back at camp when you can smoke to your heart's (mal)content, you can sedate yourself as well. I'm not certain on the effects with PTSD, but as a sedatory drug, I would imagine it would lessen PTSD (no evidence here, just speculation).
So, if you sling crack and have been sought after by your creditors, you may want to pick up a pack. If you are a SWAT team member about to go into a building, you may want to chew some gum. If you are in Aleppo currently, you may want to light up.
Other than that, stay away from the stuff like the life killing poison it is meant to be.
That said, when it comes to these types of sports, benefits may exist as well. For some people, those HS/Pop-Warner football years may be the best they have. The concept of 'hoop-dreams' is alive and well 30 years later [2] and is not just limited to basketball.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects
[1] http://www.schizophrenia.com/nicotine.benefits.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoop_Dreams#Aftermath
That disclaimer out of the way, nicotine's prevalence is mostly due to it's addictive qualities. However, the usage of nicotine in WW2 and the industrialization of it's manufacture shortly before the war cannot be missed when talking about nicotine's prevalence mid-century.
Nicotine, like any drug, has a multitude of effects. In certain situations, these effects can be beneficial. The only reason I can think of is: if you have a reasonable suspicion of major bodily trauma occurring before the side effects of nicotine wear off (you are about to die). Nicotine promotes alertness, calmness, and an adrenal response, lowering the flow of blood to the periphery and increasing blood pressure. At high concentrations, it also causes sedation.[0] Also, there is interesting research about those sedative properties in connection with schizophrenia.[1]
Smoking a cigarette while on/near a battlefield is not a terrible decision. You may be more alert, calm and less panicked, already primed with adrenaline, and may experience less blood loss to limb wounds. Back at camp when you can smoke to your heart's (mal)content, you can sedate yourself as well. I'm not certain on the effects with PTSD, but as a sedatory drug, I would imagine it would lessen PTSD (no evidence here, just speculation).
So, if you sling crack and have been sought after by your creditors, you may want to pick up a pack. If you are a SWAT team member about to go into a building, you may want to chew some gum. If you are in Aleppo currently, you may want to light up.
Other than that, stay away from the stuff like the life killing poison it is meant to be.
That said, when it comes to these types of sports, benefits may exist as well. For some people, those HS/Pop-Warner football years may be the best they have. The concept of 'hoop-dreams' is alive and well 30 years later [2] and is not just limited to basketball.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects
[1] http://www.schizophrenia.com/nicotine.benefits.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoop_Dreams#Aftermath
"Both activities were always clearly likely to be harmful".
With the benefit of 70 years of medical research this is an easy statement to make, but at the time this was far less clear - smoking was for a long time actively promoted as having health benefits [1][2]
It's easy from a modern perspective to look back and apply our accumulated wisdom, but it was not self-evident that smoking was necessarily bad. Otherwise millions would not have signed up for an early death.
[1]https://www.healthcare-administration-degree.net/wp-content/...
[2]https://i.pinimg.com/736x/40/50/4f/40504f0de983d78f3c0f0b22c...
With the benefit of 70 years of medical research this is an easy statement to make, but at the time this was far less clear - smoking was for a long time actively promoted as having health benefits [1][2]
It's easy from a modern perspective to look back and apply our accumulated wisdom, but it was not self-evident that smoking was necessarily bad. Otherwise millions would not have signed up for an early death.
[1]https://www.healthcare-administration-degree.net/wp-content/...
[2]https://i.pinimg.com/736x/40/50/4f/40504f0de983d78f3c0f0b22c...
And yet the stereotype of the dumb football jock who's had his head knocked a few too many times has been prevalent as long as I can remember. It's just that previously it was used as a punchline in sitcoms rather than seen as a serious health risk to our children.
Except for 'Varsity Blues' (1999) I guess, and I'm sure other examples, where the evil coach telling the kid to play when another head injury could kill him was a main plot line.
Except for 'Varsity Blues' (1999) I guess, and I'm sure other examples, where the evil coach telling the kid to play when another head injury could kill him was a main plot line.
That may be so, but the widespread knowledge that most/all football players sustain serious brain damage was not there yet. Big hits that left the opponent slow to get up or unsteady on his feet were celebrated, on the assumption that he’d be able to shake it off after a day or so.
That said, I do think the destructiveness of football in knees and backs has long been known. I remember them being detailed when reading “where are they now?” articles in Sports Illustrated as a kid (I’m 30).
That said, I do think the destructiveness of football in knees and backs has long been known. I remember them being detailed when reading “where are they now?” articles in Sports Illustrated as a kid (I’m 30).
The scientific knowledge was not there yet, but I feel like it’s not hard to put together that football players and boxers suffer damage from being knocked in the head to dozen times a day for decades. My guess is probably this would have been figured out earlier if there wasn’t such a strong cultural desire to keep playing these sports.
It's true that smoking was promoted as healthful by parties with a financial interest. By clearly harmful, I mean that the indicators I listed should inform one's common sense that it is likely to be harmful, because physical senses perceive many things about tobacco smoke as unpleasant.
For example, lore is replete with stories of young people's initial experiences with smoking involving coughing, choking, turning green and feeling nauseous or vomiting. There's also the fact that nicotine has long been known to be a poison as strong as cyanide, and has been used for insect control by Europeans as far back as 1763.
For example, lore is replete with stories of young people's initial experiences with smoking involving coughing, choking, turning green and feeling nauseous or vomiting. There's also the fact that nicotine has long been known to be a poison as strong as cyanide, and has been used for insect control by Europeans as far back as 1763.
The same can be said for exercising: you’re out of breath, your heart is racing, you can get dizzy and nauseous, you’re covered in sweat, and the next day all your muscles are aching. Surely, such an activity can’t be healthy!
Of course after the first few sessions you’ll start to get used to it, and actually feel better after exercising. Just like how you feel better after smoking once you’re addicted.
Of course after the first few sessions you’ll start to get used to it, and actually feel better after exercising. Just like how you feel better after smoking once you’re addicted.
It seems like a stretch to compare the most normal activity ever, moving your body, to intentionally ingesting poison.
For one, if exercise makes you dizzy, nauseous, sweaty, and all your muscles ache, you are either severely out of shape are overdoing it.
I smoked for a fair portion of my life. The main motivation for addicts is to relieve the craving for tobacco. It’s pleasurable in some ways other than that, but cigarettes did not leave me feeling well most of the time.
For one, if exercise makes you dizzy, nauseous, sweaty, and all your muscles ache, you are either severely out of shape are overdoing it.
I smoked for a fair portion of my life. The main motivation for addicts is to relieve the craving for tobacco. It’s pleasurable in some ways other than that, but cigarettes did not leave me feeling well most of the time.
You're wrong about exercise (ask any water polo player...)
> cigarettes did not leave me feeling well most of the time.
Sounds like an easy habit to kick!
> cigarettes did not leave me feeling well most of the time.
Sounds like an easy habit to kick!
No, not an easy habit to kick and that’s exactly the issue with cigarettes. Even though they’re not really that pleasant, they chemically trick your body into wanting them.
Extremely vigorous sports is different than your average exercise. I’m still happy to assert that it’s a twisted analogy - If you compare the feeling from exercise to cigarettes, it’s obvious that they are not qualitatively similar, despite the fact that each involves some unpleasant sensations.
Another significant thing to note is that over time, exercise clearly has positive effects on your body – you feel healthier, more muscular, lose weight, breathe easier. Cigarettes do not have a healthy effect on your body over time, and it doesn’t take a doctor to tell or modern medical technology to tell they are staining your teeth, making your breath bad, making you cough, and so forth.
This was not lost on Europeans went tobacco was first introduced.
Extremely vigorous sports is different than your average exercise. I’m still happy to assert that it’s a twisted analogy - If you compare the feeling from exercise to cigarettes, it’s obvious that they are not qualitatively similar, despite the fact that each involves some unpleasant sensations.
Another significant thing to note is that over time, exercise clearly has positive effects on your body – you feel healthier, more muscular, lose weight, breathe easier. Cigarettes do not have a healthy effect on your body over time, and it doesn’t take a doctor to tell or modern medical technology to tell they are staining your teeth, making your breath bad, making you cough, and so forth.
This was not lost on Europeans went tobacco was first introduced.
> Sounds like an easy habit to kick!
This is an odd view on the nature of physical addiction. I personally know more smokers that hate their smoking than smokers who are ambivalent or actually enjoy it.
This is an odd view on the nature of physical addiction. I personally know more smokers that hate their smoking than smokers who are ambivalent or actually enjoy it.
I think addiction itself acts as a vastly profitable and effortlessly marketable boogeyman today, moreso than a Sisyphean defect of the human condition, if you catch my drift...
> "[...] the wound itself is its own healing when seen from another standpoint." [0]
> "As for smoking tobacco, Shapiro argues that quitting is hard because smoking does not disrupt the smoker's life, not because of the mild effects of nicotine on the brain" [1]
etc. I expect up-in-arms responses to views like mine, but even neuropharmacologically, speaking there is really less of a danger to ~"the disease known as addiction"~ than there is to codifying addiction as a metonym for "sepulcher for all the lost people". I say this for all substances, even something as malicious and unforgiving as carfentanil..
[0] https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/slavoj-zize...
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=dcK6-h1ngtcC&pg=PA281&lpg=...
> "[...] the wound itself is its own healing when seen from another standpoint." [0]
> "As for smoking tobacco, Shapiro argues that quitting is hard because smoking does not disrupt the smoker's life, not because of the mild effects of nicotine on the brain" [1]
etc. I expect up-in-arms responses to views like mine, but even neuropharmacologically, speaking there is really less of a danger to ~"the disease known as addiction"~ than there is to codifying addiction as a metonym for "sepulcher for all the lost people". I say this for all substances, even something as malicious and unforgiving as carfentanil..
[0] https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/slavoj-zize...
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=dcK6-h1ngtcC&pg=PA281&lpg=...
We had similar problems with football over 110 years ago.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/teddy-roosev...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/teddy-roosev...
> this is a kinda modern equivalent, imo..
Nah, the modern equivalent is sugar.
Most people don't do enough sports to suffer from it (except for broken bones etc.)
Nah, the modern equivalent is sugar.
Most people don't do enough sports to suffer from it (except for broken bones etc.)
re:sugar - true that!!! generations of fucked up neuroendocrinological functioning.. is very bad.. and yet many people will dismiss "low carb is just a fad"
Sugar != Carbohydrates
Talking about sugar will make many enemies. For example, the dairy industry. Or worse, fruit-farming. How do we convince people their smoothie is actively bad for health?
Because at the end of the day, we don't know for sure. There are of course, some benefits to eating fruits. There are also likely downsides as well.
I don't want to poop on keto but I suspect a lot of people can't follow it through and even if they could, I don't know if it is good for them.
Talking about sugar will make many enemies. For example, the dairy industry. Or worse, fruit-farming. How do we convince people their smoothie is actively bad for health?
Because at the end of the day, we don't know for sure. There are of course, some benefits to eating fruits. There are also likely downsides as well.
I don't want to poop on keto but I suspect a lot of people can't follow it through and even if they could, I don't know if it is good for them.
At least it's limited to a small few playing a sport, vs. pretty much every adult.
Well over 1 million American boys and young men play football every year. The game is a rite of passage. Further these studies have implications for head contact that occurs in other sports and in general.
>these studies have implications for head contact that occurs in other sports and in general.
Football is clearly the worst offender, but at the high school level the rate of concussions really isn't that far behind for hockey, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, and basketball. Even a complete non-contact sport like baseball has a concussion rate that is 10% of football's rate. So the question isn't really what percentage of American children play football, it is what percentage play any sport and how can these sports be changed to increase safety.
Football is clearly the worst offender, but at the high school level the rate of concussions really isn't that far behind for hockey, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, and basketball. Even a complete non-contact sport like baseball has a concussion rate that is 10% of football's rate. So the question isn't really what percentage of American children play football, it is what percentage play any sport and how can these sports be changed to increase safety.
Most importantly addressing behaviour is the only way to get injuries down, buying more useless protection gear does not work. The cult of the helmet need to stop.
I have said it elsewhere in the thread, but will repeat it and expand on it here. The helmet is a big red herring in the brain trauma debate. The trauma in football is caused by a simple physics problem.
Imagine a person moving at full speed. That person collides with an identical person moving at the same speed in the opposite direction and they both hit each other at their center of mass. These two people now come to a complete stop. Newton's laws of motion say that every part of their body wanted to continue moving forward, but this collision causes a chain of events that stops the entire body. First their torso might stop. Their extremities might lurch forward until they are eventually stopped by the pull of the bodies muscles and ligaments from the stopped torso. But even as the head stops, the brain still has inertia of its own. The brain doesn't stop until it collides into the front of the skulls. This is the type of trauma that is common in football and will occur regardless of whether a player wears a helmet or not.
The reason other full contact sports like rugby aren't as dangerous is because football is unique in that it has regular stoppages that realign all the players in the direction of their objective. You therefore have offensive and defensive players colliding head-on regularly on each play. In rugby this doesn't happen because the game is mostly continuous so offensive and defensive players are often moving in the same direction so collisions are less intense.
For a little video evidence, this [1] is the first result for "rugby biggest hits" on Youtube and this is the first result for "football biggest hits" [2]. Notice how in a majority of the rugby hits either the offensive or defensive players is at a complete standstill before the hit while in the majority of the football hits the players are both moving towards each other. It is a physics and rules problem not a problem with protective gear.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1A06stpydY
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-1MQ0Cnbhs
Imagine a person moving at full speed. That person collides with an identical person moving at the same speed in the opposite direction and they both hit each other at their center of mass. These two people now come to a complete stop. Newton's laws of motion say that every part of their body wanted to continue moving forward, but this collision causes a chain of events that stops the entire body. First their torso might stop. Their extremities might lurch forward until they are eventually stopped by the pull of the bodies muscles and ligaments from the stopped torso. But even as the head stops, the brain still has inertia of its own. The brain doesn't stop until it collides into the front of the skulls. This is the type of trauma that is common in football and will occur regardless of whether a player wears a helmet or not.
The reason other full contact sports like rugby aren't as dangerous is because football is unique in that it has regular stoppages that realign all the players in the direction of their objective. You therefore have offensive and defensive players colliding head-on regularly on each play. In rugby this doesn't happen because the game is mostly continuous so offensive and defensive players are often moving in the same direction so collisions are less intense.
For a little video evidence, this [1] is the first result for "rugby biggest hits" on Youtube and this is the first result for "football biggest hits" [2]. Notice how in a majority of the rugby hits either the offensive or defensive players is at a complete standstill before the hit while in the majority of the football hits the players are both moving towards each other. It is a physics and rules problem not a problem with protective gear.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1A06stpydY
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-1MQ0Cnbhs
The bigger problem with helmets is that they feel like they protect you from concussions when in reality they don't at all. That makes people go out there feeling invincible and leading with the head.
I don’t think concussion rate is the right metric. Football’s CTE risk is supposed to be from the incidental head to head contact that happens every play.
You are right, it isn't a perfect metric, but it is the best one we have until further studies are done about sub-concussive hits. Measuring hits like that would change the relative rankings of the each sport (soccer probably becomes more dangerous while baseball less so), but the overall point still stands that most sports involve some risk of head trauma.
I'm not trying to diminish the suffering/risks/etc of a million people, but that is about one-third of one percent of the US population so I think woolvalley's comment is pretty on point.
It's a much larger percent though of just male children say ages 12 to 18. And there's a new set of victims every year.
That’s just the quantity that are actively playing it now. The important thing is, what proportion of adults played as children? According to statistics online, football is the most popular high school sport, with participation twice that of the nearest, basketball, and 2/3 of children participate in organized sports.
I looked it up, and apparently the stats for tackle football are about 4.5% of kids 6-12 and 9% in the 13-17 range.
I looked it up, and apparently the stats for tackle football are about 4.5% of kids 6-12 and 9% in the 13-17 range.
How many kids play tackle football in High School?
How many young people play tackle football in college?
How many parent allow this?
How many young people play tackle football in college?
How many parent allow this?
I think a closer modern equivalent is soda-pop and diabetes.
If anyone is curious, this is the doctor played by will smith in the movie concusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io6hPdC41RM
From the article:
> Now the San Joaquin medical examiner, Omalu was featured in the movie, “Concussion.”
> Now the San Joaquin medical examiner, Omalu was featured in the movie, “Concussion.”
I’ve never been a huge football fan but never avoided it either. Until, that is, when we started hearing about CTE and how the NFL tried (still tries) to cover it up and downplay it.
Today I find football unwatchable. Every time I see players slamming into each other at full speed I feel queasy. I’m also ethically against watching it because I don’t want to support the football industry. There are many other sports in the world I’d rather watch.
Today I find football unwatchable. Every time I see players slamming into each other at full speed I feel queasy. I’m also ethically against watching it because I don’t want to support the football industry. There are many other sports in the world I’d rather watch.
The rules of football make for a really interesting game, but the fact that the NFL/NCAA are such awful organizations + the growing concerns about its safety make it impossible for me to actually enjoy it. Hopefully we'll have robots playing it for us one day.
More importantly "110 of the 111 brains of former NFL players examined had CTE". So how stupid can you be?
In a healthy society this sport would be forbidden by law.
In a healthy society this sport would be forbidden by law.
> In a healthy society this sport would be forbidden by law.
Give me a break.
Are we going to ban football at home, too? Or just at school? What about community leagues?
In a healthy society, the dangers would be well-known, minors would always have a right to refuse and forcing a minor to play would be considered child abuse, and children would have to be old enough to form rational opinions before being eligible for leagues or scholastic play.
It is not the role of law to keep people from being able to do dangerous things. Law exists to keep people safe from others, and to keep people from being a danger themselves, but not from being a danger to themselves. Consciously choosing dangerous behavior in exchange for some reward is an inalienable human right.
Such a draconian law has no place in a healthy society.
Give me a break.
Are we going to ban football at home, too? Or just at school? What about community leagues?
In a healthy society, the dangers would be well-known, minors would always have a right to refuse and forcing a minor to play would be considered child abuse, and children would have to be old enough to form rational opinions before being eligible for leagues or scholastic play.
It is not the role of law to keep people from being able to do dangerous things. Law exists to keep people safe from others, and to keep people from being a danger themselves, but not from being a danger to themselves. Consciously choosing dangerous behavior in exchange for some reward is an inalienable human right.
Such a draconian law has no place in a healthy society.
It has. Compare to healthy societies.
Could you elaborate?
Well first, football trainers in highschool and college would face a lot of lawsuites, supporting and even causing death threatening concussions on innocent teens. Which would lead to reforms, like amateur boxing helmets. Which would not be enough, given the football rules and mindset.
But loosing the support from amateur sports would lead to less support in the professional killing game. Mom's have a lot of power.
There's a lot of hate towards the NFL but the NCAA is an even worse actor on CTE. 70,000 college players every year, and they aren't paid professionals like the NFL. But NCAA programs make billions of dollars off of the players (and their coaches millions). Destroying brains for profit, in the context of the education system, is truly evil.
NCAA programs do not make billions of dollars. All NCAA programs combined might have that much total revenue.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
Clemson, where I went to school and the current defending champs had a budget of $104,000,000. Of that, they spent $103,000,000. If you'd be so kind as to identify the shareholder who's rolling in that $1 million profit I'd appreciate it.
When I was in school around 2000 it was a $30,000,000 budget. All of that extra money happened because of Tivo and Netflix making it so much easier to skip commercials on anything that you didn't need to watch live...which make live sports (that people watch) the most viable advertising channel for traditional broadcasters. Couple that with college sports having the added benefit of mostly aiming advertising at the eyeballs of alumni and you have the most valuable advertising resource in TV.
In the mean time, have a look at the new facility that the team gets to enjoy.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18614393/tak...
In regard to not being paid professionals, if you'll explain walk-ons...the people without scholarships who work to join the team on their own dime and have to meet the exact same requirements to be on the team yet might not ever see the field. The ones who clearly seem to think that there's enough value that they'll pay for the chance to participate.
Or then this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-growing-student-l...
I'm sorry, but this whole "everybody get the NCAA" thing is just getting tired.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
Clemson, where I went to school and the current defending champs had a budget of $104,000,000. Of that, they spent $103,000,000. If you'd be so kind as to identify the shareholder who's rolling in that $1 million profit I'd appreciate it.
When I was in school around 2000 it was a $30,000,000 budget. All of that extra money happened because of Tivo and Netflix making it so much easier to skip commercials on anything that you didn't need to watch live...which make live sports (that people watch) the most viable advertising channel for traditional broadcasters. Couple that with college sports having the added benefit of mostly aiming advertising at the eyeballs of alumni and you have the most valuable advertising resource in TV.
In the mean time, have a look at the new facility that the team gets to enjoy.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18614393/tak...
In regard to not being paid professionals, if you'll explain walk-ons...the people without scholarships who work to join the team on their own dime and have to meet the exact same requirements to be on the team yet might not ever see the field. The ones who clearly seem to think that there's enough value that they'll pay for the chance to participate.
Or then this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-growing-student-l...
I'm sorry, but this whole "everybody get the NCAA" thing is just getting tired.
$104M was the budget, Clemson produced $45M in revenue last year, notably less than half of Alabama the other national championship team. But these two teams are likely outliers, way less revenue per school on the long tail.
http://www.businessinsider.com/football-revenue-alabama-clem...
http://www.businessinsider.com/football-revenue-alabama-clem...
Why in God’s name should an institution of higher learning have a nine-figure athletics budget? That is just pure lunacy. The NCAA represents everything that is sleazy and wrong with the relationship between colleges and athletic programs, that is why everyone hates them. When the reckoning finally comes, and it will, we will look back upon this period and marvel.
Why shouldn't they, exactly?
As earlier stated, they supporting multiple programs with multiple facilities, scholarships, Title IX, coaches, strength programs, trainers/medical support, practice facilities, etc.
Of all of those programs, at most schools only 1 or 2 actually MAKE money. At Clemson, the football program supports EVERY other scholarship sport that competes at the D1A level.
As earlier stated, they supporting multiple programs with multiple facilities, scholarships, Title IX, coaches, strength programs, trainers/medical support, practice facilities, etc.
Of all of those programs, at most schools only 1 or 2 actually MAKE money. At Clemson, the football program supports EVERY other scholarship sport that competes at the D1A level.
Again, what is the purpose of our universities spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year managing multiple athletic facilities, coaches, strength programs, trainers/medical support, practice facilities, etc.? How is that at all related to their core mission of research and educating young adults? If we as a society think that we should be devoting those sorts of resources to running what is essentially a shadow professional sports system for unpaid athletes, fine. But let's dispense with the fiction that this is somehow aligned with the goal of higher education.
Do you see a purpose to the non-revenue sports?
It sure would make for a more interesting discussion if you'd actually respond to any of my questions, rather than just tossing out another one of your own. Anyways, I'm all for the scholar-athlete ideal provided there's balance between the two. Many sports on campus seem to do a reasonable job of that; off the top of my head, that would include track, tennis, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, crew, baseball, etc. But the "big money" sports (football & basketball) are a complete farce on the scholastic side -- ask anyone at an athletic powerhouse who has had a class with or taught these students if you don't believe me. The fact that these sports subsidize all the rest is not a compelling argument for their continued existence. If we desire to have student athletics on campus we should be prepared to finance it in the same way that we do research and teaching, through tuition and government aid -- not by running exploitative minor-leagues-in-disguise for the NFL and NBA.
The solution to that is to actually enforce the academic requirements. Clemson actually tried this in the mid-2000s with an academic review committee called (AARC) who would tell the coaches if they didn’t think a potential recruit could succeed on his own academically and disallow them from recruiting him. This all blew up when a top wide receiver prospect who we weren’t allowed to recruit turned around and signed with UNC, who was supposed to be a higher rated academic school. Years later we found out how much academic fraud was happening there and it made more sense.
IMO that stuff should be heavily policed to the point that doing so jeopardizes accreditation.
Fans of the school will turn out to watch walkons playing as long as the field is level with all of the other teams.
One of the reasons Dabo was hired is because he understood that Clemson’s administration didn’t want to go back to the win-at-all-cost mentality of the 80s and he was actually the staff member under Tommy Bowden who attended all of those AARC reviews.
IMO that stuff should be heavily policed to the point that doing so jeopardizes accreditation.
Fans of the school will turn out to watch walkons playing as long as the field is level with all of the other teams.
One of the reasons Dabo was hired is because he understood that Clemson’s administration didn’t want to go back to the win-at-all-cost mentality of the 80s and he was actually the staff member under Tommy Bowden who attended all of those AARC reviews.
Is the profit you’re counting at Clemson including stadium outlays?
As in the cost of building/improving the stadium? Those are usually multi-year projects so I'm not sure how it figures in to the accounting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Stadium_(Clemson)#Con...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Stadium_(Clemson)#Con...
Yes, that’s what I mean. Pointing that out because athletic programs are sometimes “profitable” because they bill the school for stadiums. My alma matter charges a yearly fee straight to the students for their new football stadium.
As long as I’ve been getting donation requests, the school has touted its pride in paying for everything with fundraising in terms of facility improvements.
>Clemson, where I went to school and the current defending champs had a budget of $104,000,000. Of that, they spent $103,000,000. If you'd be so kind as to identify the shareholder who's rolling in that $1 million profit I'd appreciate it.
How does one account for the potential of Hollywood accounting when looking as just a few top numbers? If you look at the cost verses income of movies using the same standards, most box office hits were financial disasters, no?
How does one account for the potential of Hollywood accounting when looking as just a few top numbers? If you look at the cost verses income of movies using the same standards, most box office hits were financial disasters, no?
Because unlike Hollywood the books are open for examination. A large percentage of these schools publish budgets that tell you were the money is going. You are free to look through them and if you find anything suspicious you can file a Freedom of Information Act requests for more details since many of these schools are state universities that receive government money.
I don't understand these arguments. Are they forcing players to do it? If the players are well aware of health risks and still make decision to play the game, how is the sports organization to blame?
Your premise is wrong. It sounds as if it should be right, but the framing is awry
The players are not really aware of the health risks, furthermore they are young and foolish and impressionable and are following the path of glamour which has been sold to them as youngsters.
The sports organization is aware of the risks and are using the players to make vast sums for themselves, they are pushing the glamourous path and they are not supporting the discarded players. They are ignoring the debt to society incurred generating their profit and that is not good unless you think that their tax payments should cover it (do they? I don't know..)
The players are not really aware of the health risks, furthermore they are young and foolish and impressionable and are following the path of glamour which has been sold to them as youngsters.
The sports organization is aware of the risks and are using the players to make vast sums for themselves, they are pushing the glamourous path and they are not supporting the discarded players. They are ignoring the debt to society incurred generating their profit and that is not good unless you think that their tax payments should cover it (do they? I don't know..)
>The players are not really aware of the health risks, furthermore they are young and foolish and impressionable and are following the path of glamour which has been sold to them as youngsters.
I think a great deal of them would still choose to play despite knowing the risks. There are likely neighborhoods where people raise families that are less safe than playing in the NFL.
And I'm sorry, but 25 year olds are not "young and impressionable" any more, so I don't buy that defense. These are adults making adult decisions: http://www.footballperspective.com/2016-av-adjusted-team-age...
What I would buy as a defense is that NFL has a serious amount of propaganda and actively works to suppress medical knowledge which can fool anyone, child or adult.
It is a very similar kind of propaganda for selling military careers by associating it with video games to high schoolers except that you can actually join the US military at 17 with parental consent.
I think a great deal of them would still choose to play despite knowing the risks. There are likely neighborhoods where people raise families that are less safe than playing in the NFL.
And I'm sorry, but 25 year olds are not "young and impressionable" any more, so I don't buy that defense. These are adults making adult decisions: http://www.footballperspective.com/2016-av-adjusted-team-age...
What I would buy as a defense is that NFL has a serious amount of propaganda and actively works to suppress medical knowledge which can fool anyone, child or adult.
It is a very similar kind of propaganda for selling military careers by associating it with video games to high schoolers except that you can actually join the US military at 17 with parental consent.
> I think a great deal of them would still choose to play despite knowing the risks. There are likely neighborhoods where people raise families that are less safe than playing in the NFL.
Yes, some of these athletes are choosing between sports and poverty. That's another reason why it's messed up, not why it's okay.
Yes, some of these athletes are choosing between sports and poverty. That's another reason why it's messed up, not why it's okay.
And 17-18 yo is the age of accepting a football scholarship to an NCAA school.
I see what you are saying but its framed wrongly, again. That is the average age of the team players. Do you know the average age of player entering the team? (average career length might be helpful?) Also, what is the average age of the people who dream of playing on the team, or who are making decisions that would lead to them being on such a team?
I might agree that 25 is an adult but lets be realistic here.. if you can find somebody who at that age made the decision to join the sport and actually got into a pro team, well I'll be amazed!
I might agree that 25 is an adult but lets be realistic here.. if you can find somebody who at that age made the decision to join the sport and actually got into a pro team, well I'll be amazed!
> I think a great deal of them would still choose to play despite knowing the risks
Nice guess, but that's not your decision to make. I'm not sure what movie you watched that gave you such a deep understanding of the trade offs, but is it possible you don't fully understand them?
> 25 year olds are not "young and impressionable" any more
They're not? News to me. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Nice guess, but that's not your decision to make. I'm not sure what movie you watched that gave you such a deep understanding of the trade offs, but is it possible you don't fully understand them?
> 25 year olds are not "young and impressionable" any more
They're not? News to me. Maybe I'm just getting old.
> And I'm sorry, but 25 year olds are not "young and impressionable" any more, so I don't buy that defense.
I'll say this because it fits the demographic here on HN, but have you ever met mid-20-something techies in the bay area? My experience has been that many of them are still very impressionable. Being technically an adult doesn't magically make you immune to being impressionable.
Remember the state of being impressionable is about a lack of critical thinking. Given what we've seen with the recent election, it seems very plausible that many adults lack critical thinking. No?
Looking at this more objectively - 1 out of 4 college football players drops out of school and doesn't finish their degree. Also, more objectively, at the age of 25, you're only a third of the way through your expected life (~78). So, yes these people are still considered "young".
I'll say this because it fits the demographic here on HN, but have you ever met mid-20-something techies in the bay area? My experience has been that many of them are still very impressionable. Being technically an adult doesn't magically make you immune to being impressionable.
Remember the state of being impressionable is about a lack of critical thinking. Given what we've seen with the recent election, it seems very plausible that many adults lack critical thinking. No?
Looking at this more objectively - 1 out of 4 college football players drops out of school and doesn't finish their degree. Also, more objectively, at the age of 25, you're only a third of the way through your expected life (~78). So, yes these people are still considered "young".
> a great deal of them would still choose to play despite knowing the risks
Good, then this is easy: let's tell them, and make it their choice.
Good, then this is easy: let's tell them, and make it their choice.
>I think a great deal of them would still choose to play despite knowing the risks.
They would still play even if we took steps to minimize the risks.
They would still play even if we took steps to minimize the risks.
katastic(2)
It really depends on where you stand on the freedom vs society protection debate.
Some think that society should protect vulnerable individuals (in this case, mostly poor people that see in football a way to get well-off/rich) from predatory organizations (in this case, a monopolistic organization that has proven to have no regard for the health of its workers).
Notice that most people aren't asking for a ban of the sport - just some rule changes to minimize the health risks.
Some think that society should protect vulnerable individuals (in this case, mostly poor people that see in football a way to get well-off/rich) from predatory organizations (in this case, a monopolistic organization that has proven to have no regard for the health of its workers).
Notice that most people aren't asking for a ban of the sport - just some rule changes to minimize the health risks.
Admittedly I haven't looked to see what proposals are out there, but I have a really hard time picturing rule changes that could minimize the risks. The game seems designed explicitly to cause harm.
College with $50k+ of debt, if even able/eligible to get in -- versus "free" college. In many cases I suspect it's the "only chance" for some of these kids and, at best, it's extreme exhortation for most all of them.
I wasn't aware that people without college education in US suffer from mass starvation and getting it is a matter of life and death.
You jest, but I've been noticing over time that that kind of joke is, very gradually, but definitely, becoming less of a joke that gets as big a laugh as it might have in, say, 2006.
95% of the people playing contact football are minor children. The NFL and NCAA, and their equipment partners, underwrite and promote the youth sport but do little to mitigate the brain injury issue...frankly it is unethical to permit under-18 kids to play contact football.
Let us also remember that to a large swath of Americans youth, sport is seen as an avenue out of poverty. You better believe that if it was your "one shot" to change social class, you might take it at 16 without thinking about the literal brain impact.
It's literally the closest thing you can get to modern day gladiators.
It's literally the closest thing you can get to modern day gladiators.
Evil runs on volunteers better than it does coerced conscripts.
For my American cousins I thought I would mention a little more about Rugby Union. Concussion is less of a problem in Rugby than in American football, and this is not an accident. Rugby is addressing this in several ways.
1) Years of rule changes, and stricter enforcement. Now a top level player who tackles someone above the shoulder, or tackles without attempting to hold on (so no clothes-linse or body checks) will be sent off (which in Rugby is catastrophic to your teams chances). If you lift a player off the ground you are responsible for putting them down again. Drop them on their head and expect a lengthy ban. This hasn't changed the spectacle of Rugby much, if anything the skill levels have improved.
2) Protection. Around your head Rugby only allows you to wear a small soft 'scrum cap' which protects from bruising and wounds from head clashes, like the things boxers suffer with around their eyes. Their is a light collar bone protector which seems to be about 1/5th of the thickness of the equivalent Gridiron gear. That is all. The impacts are still impressive to see, indeed are perhaps more impressive on an un-armoured body, but with lower G-force to the head
3) The size of the people. In both sports their has been an increase in the mass of the players. However US football players seems disproportionately massive. In Rugby their are not rolling substitutions, so you have to carry that mass around for 80 minutes, and therefore a compromise is necessary, perhaps gridiron could restrict the number of subs, or the squad size so the bruisers actually had to run. The miracle of sports nutrition, with the characteristic protruding jaw bones, seem to be producing bigger players than they may if they had effective controls against doping. Yes I said it, from across the pond, it looks like steroid abuse is rife in several US sports.
4) The concussion protocol. Any player that appears to have been knocked out in Rugby gets sent from the pitch to be examined by a doctor for a minimum of 10 minutes. If concussion is detected there is a mandatory period off playing. If concussion recurs this can be months! Welsh International George North suffered repeated concussions and missed most of the following year.
During this same period Rugby has become a tougher sport than ever, but without killing the brains of our young men
1) Years of rule changes, and stricter enforcement. Now a top level player who tackles someone above the shoulder, or tackles without attempting to hold on (so no clothes-linse or body checks) will be sent off (which in Rugby is catastrophic to your teams chances). If you lift a player off the ground you are responsible for putting them down again. Drop them on their head and expect a lengthy ban. This hasn't changed the spectacle of Rugby much, if anything the skill levels have improved.
2) Protection. Around your head Rugby only allows you to wear a small soft 'scrum cap' which protects from bruising and wounds from head clashes, like the things boxers suffer with around their eyes. Their is a light collar bone protector which seems to be about 1/5th of the thickness of the equivalent Gridiron gear. That is all. The impacts are still impressive to see, indeed are perhaps more impressive on an un-armoured body, but with lower G-force to the head
3) The size of the people. In both sports their has been an increase in the mass of the players. However US football players seems disproportionately massive. In Rugby their are not rolling substitutions, so you have to carry that mass around for 80 minutes, and therefore a compromise is necessary, perhaps gridiron could restrict the number of subs, or the squad size so the bruisers actually had to run. The miracle of sports nutrition, with the characteristic protruding jaw bones, seem to be producing bigger players than they may if they had effective controls against doping. Yes I said it, from across the pond, it looks like steroid abuse is rife in several US sports.
4) The concussion protocol. Any player that appears to have been knocked out in Rugby gets sent from the pitch to be examined by a doctor for a minimum of 10 minutes. If concussion is detected there is a mandatory period off playing. If concussion recurs this can be months! Welsh International George North suffered repeated concussions and missed most of the following year.
During this same period Rugby has become a tougher sport than ever, but without killing the brains of our young men
The rolling substitutions are a big thing people fail to bring up when talking about the danger of the game. Between the platoons and rolling substitutions the game is designed to be a string of never ending high impact hits. There's little worry about stamina over long stretches because you can be substituted out and if you succeed your side gets a break. Players train their bodies to be explosive instead of having high endurance.
I'm sorry but as someone in the U.S. who played competitive rugby for 7 years I have to completely disagree.
In rugby I myself had experienced concussions from collisions at least once a season. Anyone I know who has played have experienced similar.
Less protection to the head means lower g-force hits sure, but still I've seen players knocked unconscious by pure body collision hits or an accidental knee to the head (this happens a lot more than you think) ... in fact in my 4 years of high school football I rarely, if ever, saw anyone knocked unconscious... where in rugby I can recall a handful of incidents.
Rugby has no room to outshine football in this manner. Such a foolish arguement.
In rugby I myself had experienced concussions from collisions at least once a season. Anyone I know who has played have experienced similar.
Less protection to the head means lower g-force hits sure, but still I've seen players knocked unconscious by pure body collision hits or an accidental knee to the head (this happens a lot more than you think) ... in fact in my 4 years of high school football I rarely, if ever, saw anyone knocked unconscious... where in rugby I can recall a handful of incidents.
Rugby has no room to outshine football in this manner. Such a foolish arguement.
I mean.. isn't your argument just as foolish? Lets talk numbers, real numbers, not anecdotes.
Why one sport may differ (less or more) is a difficult thing to discuss, as we likely don't have clear numbers. But isn't debating something like the number of concussions for each sport silly?
Why one sport may differ (less or more) is a difficult thing to discuss, as we likely don't have clear numbers. But isn't debating something like the number of concussions for each sport silly?
even if you hit your head really hard on the front, it's the back of your brain that ends up getting wrecked, due to the rippling of the kinetic energy through your skull-confined brain matter.
The thing about concussion is that it's not the first impact that does the most damage - it's your brain sloshing and shearing/splitting itself, near the rear, against the inside of your skull as the recoil causes neuronal connections to essentially splinter..
like if you were to grab a dish-washing sponge with both hands, and tear it apart by pulling it apart by stretching it (a downwards-rolling wrist motion) you would notice the unfurling and disintegration of the middle section. essentially that's what happens during concussion; a 3 dimensional shearing tensor that is kind of like plunging your thumb into a ball of playdoh..
that's why even the mildest concussions are a seriously underrated danger
The thing about concussion is that it's not the first impact that does the most damage - it's your brain sloshing and shearing/splitting itself, near the rear, against the inside of your skull as the recoil causes neuronal connections to essentially splinter..
like if you were to grab a dish-washing sponge with both hands, and tear it apart by pulling it apart by stretching it (a downwards-rolling wrist motion) you would notice the unfurling and disintegration of the middle section. essentially that's what happens during concussion; a 3 dimensional shearing tensor that is kind of like plunging your thumb into a ball of playdoh..
that's why even the mildest concussions are a seriously underrated danger
Might be US culture vs others. Football probably has an influence on how Rugby is played in the US.
One of the problems with CTE is we still aren’t positive what is causing it. There is at least some evidence that low level repetitive hits to the head are as bad or worse than concussions in this regard. If that is true Rugby is going to have its day of reckoning in CTE (as is soccer).
Concussions are bad in any case, so it’s great that we are trying to prevent them, but I’d be very careful assuming any contact sport has a handle on the issue yet. Especially not one with a scrum.
Concussions are bad in any case, so it’s great that we are trying to prevent them, but I’d be very careful assuming any contact sport has a handle on the issue yet. Especially not one with a scrum.
> Especially not one with a scrum.
Interesting as the scrum is not a concern to me for head injuries (just spinal compression!). It is on the whole a pushing movement, not an impact.
Interesting as the scrum is not a concern to me for head injuries (just spinal compression!). It is on the whole a pushing movement, not an impact.
yes, and rule changes to the game wont adress the repetitive collisions during off season practice where former pro fotball player Brendan Schaub claims most of the damage is done.
This is an excellent point
However there are a couple of things to say
1) If the game rules changed you would stop training for hits you were not expecting to take and concentrate on other factors.
2) I wonder how much of this training is necessary, vs hitting a heavy bag for instance. Perhaps it is just bad practice (no pun intended)
However there are a couple of things to say
1) If the game rules changed you would stop training for hits you were not expecting to take and concentrate on other factors.
2) I wonder how much of this training is necessary, vs hitting a heavy bag for instance. Perhaps it is just bad practice (no pun intended)
"The size of the people. In both sports their has been an increase in the mass of the players. However US football players seems disproportionately massive. In Rugby their are not rolling substitutions, so you have to carry that mass around for 80 minutes, and therefore a compromise is necessary, perhaps gridiron could restrict the number of subs, or the squad size so the bruisers actually had to run."
You are correct that NFL players are much, much larger than comparable rugby players. NFL linemen are enormous.
And they can run. It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast. Michael Oher, the subject of the Michael Lewis book _The Blind Side_[2] is 6'4", has an actual weight of 320+ pounds, and is described to move very quickly on the basketball court.
However it is not these large players that are involved in the concussion hits. It is the "smaller" 200+ pound players who, while wearing full pads, can run as fast as olympic sprinters and launch themselves into opponents at full speed.
I'm afraid the "bruisers" can already run and the "small guys" are the size of normal rugby players. And are faster.
This is why I find the NFL so enormously compelling: In the 21st century, what happens in an NFL game is otherworldly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oher
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Side:_Evolution_of_a...
You are correct that NFL players are much, much larger than comparable rugby players. NFL linemen are enormous.
And they can run. It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast. Michael Oher, the subject of the Michael Lewis book _The Blind Side_[2] is 6'4", has an actual weight of 320+ pounds, and is described to move very quickly on the basketball court.
However it is not these large players that are involved in the concussion hits. It is the "smaller" 200+ pound players who, while wearing full pads, can run as fast as olympic sprinters and launch themselves into opponents at full speed.
I'm afraid the "bruisers" can already run and the "small guys" are the size of normal rugby players. And are faster.
This is why I find the NFL so enormously compelling: In the 21st century, what happens in an NFL game is otherworldly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oher
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Side:_Evolution_of_a...
> And they can run. It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast. Michael Oher, the subject of the Michael Lewis book _The Blind Side_[2] is 6'4", has an actual weight of 320+ pounds, and is described to move very quickly on the basketball court.
I guess the obvious comeback is that they don't also have to pace themselves for 80 minutes. There are some very fast men in Rugby but they have to trade on stamina, and strength too as everyone has to defend.
> the size of normal rugby players. And are faster
There is a huge variation in size and builds in Rugby too. 200lbs is about the minimum now (was less) for backs. 266lbs is probably the max now. Height wise 5'7" to 6'8" is the normal range. George North[0] for instance is 238lbs 6ft 4 and runs the hundred metres in around 11 seconds with his compromise physique. They tend to aim for a very fast 40m time as it is all about breaking the defensive line in Rugby. Other smaller players clock in mid 10's for 100m, again the physique is too compromised to run at full olympic pace. They are expected to tackle the big guys for a full 80 minutes. There have been genuine sprinters in Rugby, I think of Carlin Isles in particular who was a novelty in the cut down game of Rugby 7's (7 rather than 15 players, shorter in duration and designed to encourage a running game). He didn't make any headway in the full game however for the reasons above.
> And are faster > It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast
Apart from my comments about the compromise in physique required to run and tackle for 80 minutes, this just makes me believe more an more that their performances are otherwordly or at least enhanced.
> launch themselves into opponents at full speed
Which if they were not both wearing padding would result in two broken players. If you watch how a Rugby player tackles one of the fast guys, it is a much more dynamic move without sudden deceleration. You have to deflect and unbalance, not body check. It still looks cool, you shouldn't be concerned that it will hurt the spectacle of the NFL.
[0]https://genuinepace.com/category/rugby-union-2/ [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA5bwqVN5LM
I guess the obvious comeback is that they don't also have to pace themselves for 80 minutes. There are some very fast men in Rugby but they have to trade on stamina, and strength too as everyone has to defend.
> the size of normal rugby players. And are faster
There is a huge variation in size and builds in Rugby too. 200lbs is about the minimum now (was less) for backs. 266lbs is probably the max now. Height wise 5'7" to 6'8" is the normal range. George North[0] for instance is 238lbs 6ft 4 and runs the hundred metres in around 11 seconds with his compromise physique. They tend to aim for a very fast 40m time as it is all about breaking the defensive line in Rugby. Other smaller players clock in mid 10's for 100m, again the physique is too compromised to run at full olympic pace. They are expected to tackle the big guys for a full 80 minutes. There have been genuine sprinters in Rugby, I think of Carlin Isles in particular who was a novelty in the cut down game of Rugby 7's (7 rather than 15 players, shorter in duration and designed to encourage a running game). He didn't make any headway in the full game however for the reasons above.
> And are faster > It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast
Apart from my comments about the compromise in physique required to run and tackle for 80 minutes, this just makes me believe more an more that their performances are otherwordly or at least enhanced.
> launch themselves into opponents at full speed
Which if they were not both wearing padding would result in two broken players. If you watch how a Rugby player tackles one of the fast guys, it is a much more dynamic move without sudden deceleration. You have to deflect and unbalance, not body check. It still looks cool, you shouldn't be concerned that it will hurt the spectacle of the NFL.
[0]https://genuinepace.com/category/rugby-union-2/ [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA5bwqVN5LM
CTE is not about concussions. CTE is about repeated, sub-concussive hits (https://concussionfoundation.org/CTE-resources/subconcussive...)
So, I don't think it's fair to say that you're not "killing the brains of your young men". Based on the best research available, Rugby players, who may be at less risk for concussions due to the safety protocols you have outlined, are still at a high risk for CTE.
So, I don't think it's fair to say that you're not "killing the brains of your young men". Based on the best research available, Rugby players, who may be at less risk for concussions due to the safety protocols you have outlined, are still at a high risk for CTE.
> are still at a high risk for CTE.
This is a very good point. I am concerned as the Rugby players have become bigger and faster (which I put down to not so much sports science as sports chemistry) in the last 10 years and the impacts are harder. Rugby is a contact sport and is dangerous for your brain.
My argument has developed during the day due to some excellent responses. What I want to say now, is there are some lessons American Football can take from Rugby to make a dangerous game safer without risking the spectacle. Making it totally safe is going to be much harder
This is a very good point. I am concerned as the Rugby players have become bigger and faster (which I put down to not so much sports science as sports chemistry) in the last 10 years and the impacts are harder. Rugby is a contact sport and is dangerous for your brain.
My argument has developed during the day due to some excellent responses. What I want to say now, is there are some lessons American Football can take from Rugby to make a dangerous game safer without risking the spectacle. Making it totally safe is going to be much harder
While the efforts made certainly help there is no getting around the fact that it is an impact sport. That combined with a culture of being tough means that few ‘good’ players escape completely injury free. Short of touch rugby there will still be head impacts and that will have an effect of varying degrees - just maybe not noticeable.
Personally I find it difficult to understand how parents can let their kids play rugby when there is such overwhelming evidence that it’s risky at best.
Personally I find it difficult to understand how parents can let their kids play rugby when there is such overwhelming evidence that it’s risky at best.
I've hurt myself far less playing rugby than soccer, and had way more fun too.
Yes, it's a high impact sport, and that's exactly why there are a lot of rules to prevent anyone from getting seriously injured.
Also, the objective of Rugby is to get the "ball" at the other side of the camp while avoiding the most friction possible, not to hurt each other. In fact, we were often encouraged to avoid contact whenever possible and to pass the ball whenever we could.
There is also a lot of training on how to to fall and how to not hurt your opponents too, I wouldn't say it's "risky at best", quite the contrary, I'd recommend the sport to anyone young enough.
Yes, it's a high impact sport, and that's exactly why there are a lot of rules to prevent anyone from getting seriously injured.
Also, the objective of Rugby is to get the "ball" at the other side of the camp while avoiding the most friction possible, not to hurt each other. In fact, we were often encouraged to avoid contact whenever possible and to pass the ball whenever we could.
There is also a lot of training on how to to fall and how to not hurt your opponents too, I wouldn't say it's "risky at best", quite the contrary, I'd recommend the sport to anyone young enough.
>I've hurt myself far less playing rugby than soccer,
Respectfully, self-assessment is exactly the wrong approach here.
Play soccer, break a leg. Obvious - leg is broken. Play rugby, lose 5% mental ability - less obvious especially in a self(!)-assessment of one's mental ability.
>Also, the objective of Rugby
I've been on the receiving side of some nasty rugby tackles...including the type where I don't remember a lot about them. So yes I do understand the objective of Rugby and all that great stuff.
>In fact, we were often encouraged to avoid contact whenever possible and to pass the ball whenever we could.
If everyone plays a clean textbook version then that works out well. In my experience putting a bunch of determined testosterone fuelled guys on a field does not result in textbook clean though. Not even close.
Rugby/Boxing/NFL/whatever...consider this. 99% of NFL post mortems show CTE. Not just a few - 99%. Lets suppose Rugby is way better like literally halves the risk despite both similar contact sports but lets pretend Rugby is way better. Can you really "recommend the sport to anyone young enough" at 49% CTE risk? Telling me about training how to fall is just not going to cut it.
So yes "risky at best" is my assessment of the situation.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/cte-nfl-players-bra...
Respectfully, self-assessment is exactly the wrong approach here.
Play soccer, break a leg. Obvious - leg is broken. Play rugby, lose 5% mental ability - less obvious especially in a self(!)-assessment of one's mental ability.
>Also, the objective of Rugby
I've been on the receiving side of some nasty rugby tackles...including the type where I don't remember a lot about them. So yes I do understand the objective of Rugby and all that great stuff.
>In fact, we were often encouraged to avoid contact whenever possible and to pass the ball whenever we could.
If everyone plays a clean textbook version then that works out well. In my experience putting a bunch of determined testosterone fuelled guys on a field does not result in textbook clean though. Not even close.
Rugby/Boxing/NFL/whatever...consider this. 99% of NFL post mortems show CTE. Not just a few - 99%. Lets suppose Rugby is way better like literally halves the risk despite both similar contact sports but lets pretend Rugby is way better. Can you really "recommend the sport to anyone young enough" at 49% CTE risk? Telling me about training how to fall is just not going to cut it.
So yes "risky at best" is my assessment of the situation.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/cte-nfl-players-bra...
I stopped playing Rugby when before I was 18, and the final year of that was where it became serious. I have mild lasting damage to my spine which is painful rather than incapacitating and suffered one serious concussion. I also suffered some muscle strains.
The spinal damage was from playing against people in my college year group who were clearly much older than me, and should not have been playing against 16 year olds. The head injury was caused by my running towards a ruck which broke up in front of me, leaving someones head poking through to hit my face. It didn't happen in a tackle where the normal hits happen. It was a freak, but yes it would have been less likely in a tiddleywinks competition.
The other injuries I saw were a horrible broken leg from someone training in non-studded foot wear, and muscle strains typical of all athletic activities. I saw one more person knocked out in training who was simply holding a tackle pad and had their head in a very dubious position...
My point was really that the risks in American football could be reduced without ruining the game. No Rugby is not safe, neither is not taking exercise. You have to weigh up your own risks.
The spinal damage was from playing against people in my college year group who were clearly much older than me, and should not have been playing against 16 year olds. The head injury was caused by my running towards a ruck which broke up in front of me, leaving someones head poking through to hit my face. It didn't happen in a tackle where the normal hits happen. It was a freak, but yes it would have been less likely in a tiddleywinks competition.
The other injuries I saw were a horrible broken leg from someone training in non-studded foot wear, and muscle strains typical of all athletic activities. I saw one more person knocked out in training who was simply holding a tackle pad and had their head in a very dubious position...
My point was really that the risks in American football could be reduced without ruining the game. No Rugby is not safe, neither is not taking exercise. You have to weigh up your own risks.
> The spinal damage was from playing against people in my college year group who were clearly much older than me, and should not have been playing against 16 year olds.
School rugby in NZ had a great solution to this that I wish was implemented elsewhere. The teams were categorised by weight rather than age, which makes a lot more sense for school / college Rugby.
School rugby in NZ had a great solution to this that I wish was implemented elsewhere. The teams were categorised by weight rather than age, which makes a lot more sense for school / college Rugby.
I have a lifelong knee injury from football. Wish I'd never played.
> Personally I find it difficult to understand how parents can let their kids play rugby when there is such overwhelming evidence that it’s risky at best.
Frankly every time a child gets in a car they are much more likely to get injured than in a game of rugby. I guess it's time to start wrapping our children in bubblewrap every time they go out, just in case...
Frankly every time a child gets in a car they are much more likely to get injured than in a game of rugby. I guess it's time to start wrapping our children in bubblewrap every time they go out, just in case...
1) I find that hard to believe. Where did you read this? Injuries-per-minute playing rugby are surely higher than when riding a car.
2) Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily.
2) Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily.
>Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life.
That's a very America-centric point of view, and completely not true if you live in a city designed to accommodate high-density living (or at the very least one without terrible public transport).
That's a very America-centric point of view, and completely not true if you live in a city designed to accommodate high-density living (or at the very least one without terrible public transport).
This comment is pedantic and unnecessary. For people that have to ride in a car to go places, it absolutely is necessary.
It shows that it's possible to structure your life to not need a car, so you can significantly reduce the risk of a traffic accident.
It's not America-centric, it's anyplace-that-requires-a-car-centric.
If you're putting a child in a car, it's safe to assume it's not usually for recreational purposes. It's usually because it's the easiest (or only) way to move them a certain distance.
If you're putting a child in a car, it's safe to assume it's not usually for recreational purposes. It's usually because it's the easiest (or only) way to move them a certain distance.
Yes, but people can choose to structure their life in ways that don't require putting children in cars, hence greatly reducing the risk of their children being in traffic accidents. So cars are not unavoidable, they're just a trade-off.
Indeed, it’s not per minute. But measure the injuries from a year of car riding vs a year of rugby, and our collective decision to make autos part of daily life looks more interesting
It still just seems like apples-to-oranges to me. It's perfectly rational to accept the risk of transportation, as transportation is often vital. The same isn't true of things done for pleasure, like sports.
> Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily.
Exercise is a necessary part of a healthy life. If Rugby motivates you to stay fit, then maybe it improves your chances of a healthy life
Exercise is a necessary part of a healthy life. If Rugby motivates you to stay fit, then maybe it improves your chances of a healthy life
Your comment isn't really pertinent to my point. It's like saying that steak is necessary because eating is necessary.
Yes, exercise is necessary, but rugby isn't the only way to exercise, nor is it nearly the safest.
Cars aren't the only way to travel in general, but, for many people in many situations, the other options aren't viable.
Yes, exercise is necessary, but rugby isn't the only way to exercise, nor is it nearly the safest.
Cars aren't the only way to travel in general, but, for many people in many situations, the other options aren't viable.
It's not conclusive:
> But the scan also identifies protein found in Alzheimer’s patients, making it difficult for a definitive conclusion. That’s one reason Omalu performed a postmortem exam of McNeill to confirm the results.
So it indicates you've either got CTE or early signs of Alzheimer’s -- bad news either way.
> But the scan also identifies protein found in Alzheimer’s patients, making it difficult for a definitive conclusion. That’s one reason Omalu performed a postmortem exam of McNeill to confirm the results.
So it indicates you've either got CTE or early signs of Alzheimer’s -- bad news either way.
CTE
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (degenerative disease)
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (degenerative disease)
Paper: https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/advance-article/doi/10... (maybe paywalled)
most of the damage is done in practice, off season, claims former pro football player Brendan Schaub. (they butt heads over and over again).
sohatever rule changes are suggested to the game it needs to adress the off season practice as well.
sohatever rule changes are suggested to the game it needs to adress the off season practice as well.
According to the article, the doctors believed they had spotted CTE in a living person, and confirmed that their research was correct upon finding CTE after the person's death. I am having trouble understanding how finding CTE in an NFL linebacker after his death is valid confirmation that previous tests were accurate. What are the odds of finding CTE in an ex-NFL linebacker? One in two?
It's not valid confirmation- the doc said this. He is working on a diagnosis and wasn't sure he was distinguishing between Alzheimer's and CTE. On death, he examined the subject and it was CTE. He's just announcing that result to those following the story. There's a lot more testing to do before he can claim diagnosis.
Question for football fans: Would the game suffer that much if we changed the rules to reduce contact? Say, like flag football?
Yes, significantly. One of the biggest draws of football, for better or worst, is the tackling. People watch to see the big hit and the great escapes to evade the tackling. Here is just a single example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8geJp5mVLA
If the game used flags, the quarterback would have almost certainly been down. Instead he runs for a first down and keeps his offense on the field.
If the game used flags, the quarterback would have almost certainly been down. Instead he runs for a first down and keeps his offense on the field.
Spot on. As further example, check out Barry Sanders highlights:
https://youtu.be/eygZLsdKGQM
The NFL in slow motion can be beautiful to watch in slow motion. These plays aren’t nearly as exciting without the risk of contact and Sanders’ opportunity and ability to break tackles.
That doesn’t mean the game as we know it shouldn’t go.
https://youtu.be/eygZLsdKGQM
The NFL in slow motion can be beautiful to watch in slow motion. These plays aren’t nearly as exciting without the risk of contact and Sanders’ opportunity and ability to break tackles.
That doesn’t mean the game as we know it shouldn’t go.
The unspoken elephant whenever these studies come up is skiing and snowboarding. Lots more participants, and I bet the concussion rate is similarly high over X number of visits. Damn well better not make me wear helmet though, my worst injuries came when I had one on (overconfidence syndrome)