NFL and CTE, again

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Nonsense. We had no idea of the risks. Kids now should.

Not making any comment on what should or shouldn't be done about it, or whether I'd have played anyway, but to say players knew the risks is false and revisionism.

Did you know you were at a much higher risk of neck injury and possibly becoming a paraplegic / quadriplegic? This would IMO be a worst case scenario for most people. An extremely healthy & active person turned instantly into someone who cannot move. Everyone knows this risk, yet they still play.
How can you compare this to a brain injury that might 0r might not happen. And if it does, may be years down the road before manifesting?

[seannx]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

Did you know you were at a much higher risk of neck injury and possibly becoming a paraplegic / quadriplegic? This would IMO be a worst case scenario for most people. An extremely healthy & active person turned instantly into someone who cannot move. Everyone knows this risk, yet they still play.

Aren't they two very different kinds of injuries? One happens suddenly, and can result in a physical disability, but the brain isn't affected.

In CTE, the damage is accumulative, and without monitoring by periodic MRI exams, the 15% +/- of players who get this disease, won't know until it is far too late. Also, even for those who don't get full blown CTE, there can still be diminished brain health, not as debilitating, but enough to affect their quality of life.

I don't think the average fan dismisses CTE as a risk of the game. Who wants to see one of their favorite players suffer so much in later life? I would be very surprised if the majority wouldn't prefer to put all reasonable safeguards in place, whether they are medical tests, or changes to the game that will help minimize the risk of concussion and injury, similar to protections put in place over the years for quarterbacks. I didn't notice any negative affect on my enjoyment of watching pro football from those rule changes. If anything, I felt relieved. Did anyone here watch Joe Theisman's career ending injury? While LT's hit was perfectly within the rules and standards of play, it was the most sickening moment I can remember. Every time I watch a receiver leap up for a pass, when their body is in the most vulnerable position, and get brutally slammed, I'm always relieved when they get up uninjured.

Hopefully what's described in the link below will result in some intelligent and responsible changes.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-quarterbacks/

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

Did you know you were at a much higher risk of neck injury and possibly becoming a paraplegic / quadriplegic? This would IMO be a worst case scenario for most people. An extremely healthy & active person turned instantly into someone who cannot move. Everyone knows this risk, yet they still play.
How can you compare this to a brain injury that might 0r might not happen. And if it does, may be years down the road before manifesting?

Yes, we all knew we could get hurt in countless ways. A lot of parents didn't let their kids play.

No one knew anything about CTE or other brain disorders resulting from the occasional or frequent concussion.

I don't think we're discussing whether football is dangerous. I think we're discussing whether what happens during "normal" play can affect people in ways they never could have imagined or predicted. No one made the choice to go back in after that 4th concussion of the season and tough it out thinking "this might turn me into a vegetable later on." And no one knew what the NFL knew about brain injuries but was suppressing.

Different discussions.

[Fatstrat]

You're obviously purposefully ignoring my obvious point. Of course they are two different kinds of injuries. Both very severe. One inherently obvious. You're at a very high risk of serious neck injury that can dramatically change your life instantly if you play football. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. But they play anyway.
How can anyone say that if players were aware of possible brain injury that manifests in so many different ways, and possibly not until years after their careers are over, that this would cause them to not play?
Football is a violent inherently risky sport. And ALL the players know going in that they are PUTTING THEMSELVES at increased risk for debilitating injury.
"See there's becoming an instant quadriplegic over here. That's not so bad and they're willing to risk that. But BRAIN INJURY that might not manifest for years, and might be mild or severe, well that's different. No one would risk that!"

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

You're obviously purposefully ignoring my obvious point. Of course they are two different kinds of injuries. Both very severe. One inherently obvious. You're at a very high risk of serious neck injury that can dramatically change your life instantly if you play football. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. But they play anyway.
How can anyone say that if players were aware of possible brain injury that manifests in so many different ways, and possibly not until years after their careers are over, that this would cause them to not play?
Football is a violent inherently risky sport. And ALL the players know going in that they are PUTTING THEMSELVES at increased risk for debilitating injury.
It's asinine to try to categorize debilitating injury in the manner you are attempting.
"See there's becoming an instant quadriplegic over here. That's not so bad and they're willing to risk that. But BRAIN INJURY that might not manifest for years, and might be mild or severe, well that's different. No one would risk that!"

I wonder if you missed my first post.

[I'm]Not making any comment on what should or shouldn't be done about it, or whether I'd have played anyway, but to say players knew the risks is false and revisionism.

My comments were limited to CTE. If you want to make the case that people who decide to play football do so knowing it's dangerous, you'll need to find someone else to whom you can vent in all caps. No argument.

This appears to be another of those topics where certain participants object to one possible logical conclusion of facts, so they attempt to re-create the the facts to fit their worldview.

In other words the, "I don't want to see the world sissified" [my paraphrase of my interpretation of the macro-argument] worldview becomes a reason to reject the simple fact that no, no one knew about CTE when they started playing football unless they started in the last 5 years. There are many conclusions which might be drawn from this fact. Limiting the game to avoid hits, not letting kids play, having players sue the NFL, all seem like threatening conclusions. They are not the only conclusions, and even if they were, they don't change the facts.

There is no logic to letting the conclusion one doesn't want changing the facts as they exist. There are the facts and then there is what one does with those facts. Let's just say it's not the only topic on which this errant mindset drives both drama and mis-information.

IMO.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Nonsense. We had no idea of the risks. Kids now should.

Not making any comment on what should or shouldn't be done about it, or whether I'd have played anyway, but to say players knew the risks is false and revisionism.

+1.

The FIRST time I heard someone talk with any meaningful concern about repeated concussions was near the end of Steve Young's career and neat the end of Troy Aikman's career, so around the mid-90's. No awareness or discussion whatsoever of CTE at that time. I think the most aware players thought they were MAYBE setting themselves up for some knee replacements late in life. So a really intelligent kid who is playing in college now maybe had some reason to consider that his brain might not work optimally if he played football...but even then, no reason to expect anything as pervasive and as devastating in its effects as CTE. That possibility came even later.

And even if folks knew all the details decades ago, it is indefensible from a public health perspective to dismiss CTE as being the consequence of just another choice that is similar to smoking. It will probably come down to that way of construing the situation, because like the case with tobacco, there is enough money behind football to trump importsnt public health concerns and issues.

But, in my opinion, we are chumps for supporting that kind of money madness in our society, and to allow it to be reframed (as was done successfully by Big Tobacco) as being about "choice".

[RustyZombie]

The long term effects on the players is one of many reasons I hope that football becomes more popular than American football here in the states. But I know that isn't likely to happen, at least not anytime soon.

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Yes, we all knew we could get hurt in countless ways. A lot of parents didn't let their kids play.

No one knew anything about CTE or other brain disorders resulting from the occasional or frequent concussion.

I don't think we're discussing whether football is dangerous. I think we're discussing whether what happens during "normal" play can affect people in ways they never could have imagined or predicted. No one made the choice to go back in after that 4th concussion of the season and tough it out thinking "this might turn me into a vegetable later on." And no one knew what the NFL knew about brain injuries but was suppressing.

Different discussions.

Just in last weekend games the announcers told about an injured player that ELECTED to have a radical treatment for a broken bone injury ( Many screws vs, a few screws and longer recovery time). Because he wanted to get back in the game ASAP. So yes, I am saying that IMO many if not most players would willingly make the gamble in favor of getting back in the game vs. possible future health problems.
I also don't buy the proposition that NFL team doctors are the ONLY sources of medical info that players have available.

[seannx]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

You're obviously purposefully ignoring my obvious point. Of course they are two different kinds of injuries. Both very severe. One inherently obvious. You're at a very high risk of serious neck injury that can dramatically change your life instantly if you play football. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. But they play anyway.
How can anyone say that if players were aware of possible brain injury that manifests in so many different ways, and possibly not until years after their careers are over, that this would cause them to not play?
Football is a violent inherently risky sport. And ALL the players know going in that they are PUTTING THEMSELVES at increased risk for debilitating injury.
"See there's becoming an instant quadriplegic over here. That's not so bad and they're willing to risk that. But BRAIN INJURY that might not manifest for years, and might be mild or severe, well that's different. No one would risk that!"

From Wikipedia

Catastrophic injuries—defined as serious injury to the spine, spinal cord, or brain—and fatalities are uncommon in football; both have become less and less common since the 1970s, although a small number of them still occur each year. Both concussions and catastrophic injuries can be caused by helmet-to-helmet collisions as well as impact against the ground or other players' knees; in other cases, they can be caused by players who have sustained a head injury returning to play, which can place the player at risk of sustaining a severe injury. Despite the downturn in catastrophic injuries, a greater number of players at the NFL level reported major injuries and shortened careers from the 1970s onwards, in part due to the increasing size and speed of players and the use of artificial turf.

In many cases, injuries sustained while playing can cause long-term damage. In addition to neurological damage caused by hits to the head, injuries to the mid and lower body can force players to retire or lead to nagging ailments in later life. Various methods have been used to reduce injuries in football, including rule changes such as the abolition of large wedge formations; a sharp decline in cervical spine injuries since the 1970s has been attributed to rule changes that altered blocking and tackling techniques. More recently, rule changes to protect players from head injuries have been instituted. Equipment like the football helmet and pads are used to give players a level of protection from injuries, while other factors such as cleat size are used to minimize the risk of injuries due to field condition.

Maybe you don't see any difference from the perspective of risk. Okay. But the risk for CTE is hidden at present. An MRI exam at the start and finish of each season, as well as after any concussion, would be a huge improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if such testing would find significant damage for some rookies, coming from their high school or college play. Combine that with mandatory retirement for a player whose exam showed evidence of sufficient damage to put the player at significant risk for CTE, and that would minimize risk in a responsible manner.

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I wonder if you missed my first post.



My comments were limited to CTE. If you want to make the case that people who decide to play football do so knowing it's dangerous, you'll need to find someone else to whom you can vent in all caps. No argument.

This appears to be another of those topics where certain participants object to one possible logical conclusion of facts, so they attempt to re-create the the facts to fit their worldview.

In other words the, "I don't want to see the world sissified" [my paraphrase of my interpretation of the macro-argument] worldview becomes a reason to reject the simple fact that no, no one knew about CTE when they started playing football unless they started in the last 5 years. There are many conclusions which might be drawn from this fact. Limiting the game to avoid hits, not letting kids play, having players sue the NFL, all seem like threatening conclusions. They are not the only conclusions, and even if they were, they don't change the facts.

There is no logic to letting the conclusion one doesn't want changing the facts as they exist. There are the facts and then there is what one does with those facts. Let's just say it's not the only topic on which this errant mindset drives both drama and mis-information.

IMO.

It's not about "sissification" of society, although I do think some aspect of that applies. It's about personal choice. Does the the govt or society have the responsibility, or even the right and authority to protect people from themselves? Football is in the crosshairs now. But where does it end? There are many sports that have a high possibility, even probability of serious injury. Just driving a car is inherently dangerous. Far more people are injured/killed in auto accidents ever year than the in the NFL.
If we start down this road, it will eventually reach you. Just like bans on smoking that began in airplanes expanded. And have now branched into attempts to tell you what foods you can eat or how big a soda you can buy.
Football today, hockey, rodeo, skiing, and many other sports are probable next conquests.
The people that play these sports do so because they want to. Knowing that the sport is dangerous and accepting the risks. And they are very well paid for it by fans who like to watch.

[Bob Womack]

You know, the polarization of Western culture based upon living environs is sure progressing. It seems like the urban, "one-foot tall rubber monkey bars on the playground" crowd aren't going to like football. By contrast, the "Hey guys, watch this!" rural crowd see football as just another risk in a life full of risks.

If you were raised with the concept that some risk is worth taking and might just result in fun and/or profit, you'll probably be fine with football.
If you were raised with the concept that risk is carrying your iPhone without an Otterbox, you aren't going to like it.

What I don't understand are the threads where people thump their chests and demand that only one view of risk is valid, especially since those thumping their chests are usually the ones who consider those who take risks as neanderthals. Now that's irony even the neanderthals can recognize.

Proffered with tongue in cheek,

Bob

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by Teleman52

It's because no one watches boxing..

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

Boxing was killed by greed via pay-TV. When it was on for free, it was watched heavily.

Originally Posted by epluribus36

There are still boxing fans around. And folks to go get us when we wander off.

Floyd Mayweather made $105 million last year. Highest paid athlete in the world. So somebody must be watching. And according to the Forbes 100 Highest Paid Athletes list none of that came from endorsements, he earned it all strictly as a fighter.

The Forbes list is interesting - basketball players, tennis players, golfers, soccer players way up there (even a cricketer!!!).

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

Did you know you were at a much higher risk of neck injury and possibly becoming a paraplegic / quadriplegic? This would IMO be a worst case scenario for most people. An extremely healthy & active person turned instantly into someone who cannot move. Everyone knows this risk, yet they still play.
How can you compare this to a brain injury that might 0r might not happen. And if it does, may be years down the road before manifesting?

The risk of paralysis is very high relative to the general public, but by FAR the majority don't have those injuries.

CTE.. on the other hand... is thought to be a much higher incidence, well more than 50%. VERY DIFFERENT odds.

I might play knowing the risk of neck injury. Read up on CTE and see what you think.

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

It's not about "sissification" of society, although I do think some aspect of that applies. It's about personal choice.

Personal choice only happens when you have the facts. AGAIN, if you have chosen to play in the last decade then you know the risk of CTE. That is a new thing.

Again, the NFL has known for quite some time, and has done everything they could to underplay and hide the risk. That really SHOULD piss people off.

Knowing that the sport is dangerous and accepting the risks. And they are very well paid for it by fans who like to watch.

When one knows all the risks, yes.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

You know, the polarization of Western culture based upon living environs is sure progressing. It seems like the urban, "one-foot tall rubber monkey bars on the playground" crowd aren't going to like football. By contrast, the "Hey guys, watch this!" rural crowd see football as just another risk in a life full of risks.

If you were raised with the concept that some risk is worth taking and might just result in fun and/or profit, you'll probably be fine with football.
If you were raised with the concept that risk is carrying your iPhone without an Otterbox, you aren't going to like it.

What I don't understand are the threads where people thump their chests and demand that only one view of risk is valid, especially since those thumping their chests are usually the ones who consider those who take risks as neanderthals. Now that's irony even the neanderthals can recognize.

Proffered with tongue in cheek,

Bob

"Western Culture"? In a discussion of American football? Baffling.

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this polarizing post other than to elevate the rural and denigrate the urban.

Your comments are totally off-base. As anyone who lives in a city and is part of the tens of thousands of people who fill football stadiums in urban areas, who play, coach and watch football at pee-wee, high school and college levels can tell you.

Urban based football teams regularly and constantly dominate standings and level of play. Of course this is because there is a bigger pool of talent to draw from. However to ignore this and launch into some kind of philosophy that urban dwellers are risk averse and rural people are embracers is so ludicrous I can't even imagine the mindset that would produce such a statement.

Then to back off it with the "tongue in cheek" defense? That's about as passive-aggressive a commentary that I've heard in a long, long time.

This discussion is about the NFL and CTE. Some of us are trying to have an informed discussion on the topic. Some of us who have played football extensively and know of what we speak.

Please leave your thinly-disguised socio-political commentary out of it.