League of Denial: The NFL's Concussion Crisis

[Mowich]

I never thought I would ever question my love of football but after watching this program last night, I am now. The instances of CTE - Concussive Traumatic Encephalopathy in the brains of former football players as young as 18 years of age, is not to be taken lightly considering the appalling effects of the disease on the players and their families.

There is as yet no way of determining whether or not a player will succumb to the disease but the instances of it having been found in the brains of over 80 former NFL players is without question. How many others there may be walking around with this potential time bomb ticking away in their head will only be answered after their deaths and if their brains are then scanned for the disease.

Matt Dunigan has become an outspoken proponent of CTE research having suffered multiple concussions during his career and is admittedly dealing with the long terms effects on a daily basis. Mark Cohon - our CFL commish - has also taken a proactive approach to traumatic head injuries instituting new rules designed to protect players, fines and/or suspensions to players stepping over the line and a program of continuing education about concussions.

This is a timely topic considering that the Edmonton Eskimos chose to put Mike Reilly back in as starter last week only a few days after he suffered a concussion and, they have stated they will also have Mike back for the game against the Riders this weekend. That decision is in sharp contrast to how the Montreal Alouettes chose to deal with their star QB Anthony Calvillo after he suffered a concussion early this year. Anthony is still sidelined and will not be coming back until he is completely symptom free.

When it comes to something as important as quality of life after one's playing days are over, every team in our league should at the very least err on the side of caution. In my estimation, Mike Reilly should still be on the injured list. Edmonton's chances of winning a play-off spot are all but dashed - they would have to win every game and have Montreal lose everyone of theirs in order to do so. Playing Mike Reilly in those circumstances does not appear to be a very well though out decision by the team or Mike himself.

 

[coldstream]

I saw the program and found some problems with it. I'm always skeptical when PBS gets on one of its crusades because it can be flagrantly sensational and selective in its 'facts'.. as it has been in its fear mongering for what is now becoming clear as the trumped up AGW fraud.

We know from boxing that continued concussive head trauma can cause cognitive impairment. But this show inidicated that virtually everyone who played the game would be afflicted with chronic traumatic encephalopolis.. whether they'd a concussive injury or not.. and that doesn't square with the actual incidence in NFL players. They interviewed Steve Young... former QB of the 49ers who had 7 concussions.. and was clearly alert and cognitively sharp years after his playing career.

Some of the researchers reminded me of the AGW fanatics.. casting aspersions on the motives of anyone who would doubt on their findings.. even though the small sample of brains examined would not pass any clinical muster. In fact even their findings of protein deposits on the brain as 'proof' of the disorder is proposed without any clear testing regimen.

That would have to include correlating.. over time with examination of the existence of the deposits in control groups.

1. CTE incidence in football in general, and expecially in players with concussion histories
2. CTE incidence in the general population.. not involved in sports with head traumas.
3. Players with concussion histories who do not have CTE.
4. Isolation of head trauma from issues related of performance, enhancing drugs, recreational drugs, painkilllers, alcohol, diet in general and family medical histories.

None of that was done.

Frankly the researchers seemed very defensive of their work.. characterising anyone who question their findings.. even its the methodology and comprehensiveness.. as deniers of an obvious 'truth'.. or even sexists.. or racists... at the very least driven by greed and arrogance. That kind of slander i usually associate with people who can't rely on their evidence.

In fact not only have they not clearly defined the indicators.. they have not defined the symptoms. They brought in Junior Seau suicide at the end.. but Seau's life was falling apart.. his finances, marrriage, substance abuse. You cannot say with any certainty that head trauma caused this.. it might just be bad lifesyle choices.

I tend to think there is much more of complex and personal equation to the long term effects of head trauma and you can't just pick out people who clearly have been affected and say this is the whole story.

 

[karrie]

I question why we worry so much about brains but have no qualms about the severe damage done to players' bodies.

Personally I hate watching contact sports. I see my younger brother suffer due to the damage hockey did to him at a young age. He was needing surgery on his shoulders by 20. He'll be lucky if he can do physical work past 40.

Add to it the risk to the brain... it all seems so gladiatorial.

 

[Zipperfish]

If you're a soccer coach in Canada, like me, you know that you will lose many of your best athletes to hockey. That's the Canadian way, and it's why we're the best in the world at hockey and abysmal in soccer. But I have noticed that there are more parents now opting out of hockey and steering their kids to basketball and soccer, becasue they don't want their kids to be on their third concussion by the time they are 18.

Also, at least here in BC, they have eliminated hitting for all House league players (kids hockey is divided into House, for whomever wants to play and Rep, for elite players). I wonder if that will have repercussions for the big leagues too--kids from House won't have the same flexibility to move up to Rep now, as they won't be ready for the hitting.

Any hockey coaches out there that can comment on this?

 

[karrie]

My cousin was furious when they pulled hitting from her kid's league, because in her opinion, they should learn to hit when they're smaller and can't do as much damage. There's a lot of mixed views on it.

 

[petros]

Learning how to hit is secondary to learning how to take a hit.

 

[gopher]

While I agree that something needs to be done to limit injuries in football please note that this problem is worse in pro boxing and nothing has ever been done to compel the sport to compensate boxers.

 

[PoliticalNick]

If you're a soccer coach in Canada, like me, you know that you will lose many of your best athletes to hockey. That's the Canadian way, and it's why we're the best in the world at hockey and abysmal in soccer. But I have noticed that there are more parents now opting out of hockey and steering their kids to basketball and soccer, becasue they don't want their kids to be on their third concussion by the time they are 18.

Also, at least here in BC, they have eliminated hitting for all House league players (kids hockey is divided into House, for whomever wants to play and Rep, for elite players). I wonder if that will have repercussions for the big leagues too--kids from House won't have the same flexibility to move up to Rep now, as they won't be ready for the hitting.

Any hockey coaches out there that can comment on this?

I don't coach anymore but did until my boy hit AAA midget.

There was always much debate between coaches and league management. Most of the coaches wanted to teach the kids how to deliver and take a hit from peewee on. The idea being if you teach them how to hit clean and take a hit clean there is greater safety.

Another part of the debate in the past has been the face-cage. Opinion seems to be divided as to how much affect it has on kids playing with their sticks up. When I was very young we didn't have cages and we learned to skate and play with our sticks on the ice, that seems to have changed a lot.

To me the biggest issues are the clutch & grab. It allows stronger players with less talent to keep even with quicker more talented players. I would be much happier to see those plays removed than clean hits.

Unfortunately due to a few injuries and a bunch of parents who think their kids are made of china I don't see hitting returning to house leagues or even peewee rep anytime soon.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I never thought I would ever question my love of football but after watching this program last night, I am now. The instances of CTE - Concussive Traumatic Encephalopathy in the brains of former football players as young as 18 years of age, is not to be taken lightly considering the appalling effects of the disease on the players and their families.

I'm not saying I agree with the following, but it's interesting. Heinz Ward, the great Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver says (I'm paraphrasing) "If you want to see concussions and brain injuries decline, take away the high-tech helmets and make us play in leather caps like they did in the old days. Then we'll have to quit using our heads as weapons."

He may be right. Aussie football and Rugby do not have the head trauma problems that American and Canadian ball have, because they tackle differently, and they don't "spear."

 

[captain morgan]

My cousin was furious when they pulled hitting from her kid's league, because in her opinion, they should learn to hit when they're smaller and can't do as much damage. There's a lot of mixed views on it.

Learning how to hit is secondary to learning how to take a hit.

Factor-in that when thes ekids do incorporate hitting into the game, many of the ideas they have absorbed come from HNIC telecasts and the highlight reels that only show some poor guy getting lined-up with their head down.

I see the issue as being similar to training a kid to drive a car by studying it on paper/video and then giving them the keys to powerful sports car once they have finished the lessons

I'm not saying I agree with the following, but it's interesting. Heinz Ward, the great Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver says (I'm paraphrasing) "If you want to see concussions and brain injuries decline, take away the high-tech helmets and make us play in leather caps like they did in the old days. Then we'll have to quit using our heads as weapons."

He may be right. Aussie football and Rugby do not have the head trauma problems that American and Canadian ball have, because they tackle differently, and they don't "spear."

Include the fact that they don't have all of the body armour that provides a psychological element that they are somehow immune to the basic laws of physics... Hell, the neck/spine injuries that these athletes suffer long after their career is done is rarely reported on

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

By the way, with apologies to Mr. Ward, I just remembered his first name is spelt "Hines," not "Heinz."

My bad.

 

[Blackleaf]

He may be right. Aussie football and Rugby do not have the head trauma problems that American and Canadian ball have

And rugby players and Aussie rules players don't wear those soppy, over-the-top helmets that American and Canadian footballers wear.

 

[Kreskin]

And rugby players and Aussie rules players don't wear those soppy, over-the-top helmets that American and Canadian footballers wear.

Either they have harder heads or they don't get hit in the head as much. Which do you think is the case?

 

[captain morgan]

And rugby players and Aussie rules players don't wear those soppy, over-the-top helmets that American and Canadian footballers wear.

 

[Blackleaf]

Either they have harder heads or they don't get hit in the head as much. Which do you think is the case?

I think Rugby League players are tougher than American and Canadian footballers. And so too, to a slightly lesser extent, are Rugby Union players.

Rugby is a far more brutal game than that poncy Gridiron (Rugby League is the second toughest sport after boxing), yet you'll never see its players wearing those ridiculous oversized helmets that American and Canadian footballers wear, which are even bigger than the helmets that soldiers on the battlefield wear.

Rugby players also don't wear half a ton of kevlar body armour like Gridiron players do.

And one thing those Gridiron helmets prevent is eye gouging, which is a great spectacle (excuse the pun) in rugby.

That's football. Not rugby or Aussie rules. Different sport. But even football players often leave the field covered in blood, unlike Gridiron players. I've never seen them spill a drop of blood.

Here's the appropriately named Terry Butcher playing for England against Sweden in 1989, in an image which is now famous in the world of football:

 

[Zipperfish]

Yeah, lots of crotch grabbing in American football too. It's all a bit latent for me. Hockey is supposed to be tough because of the fighting, but I've seen more damage done in virtually every sport in fighting. the reason they allow fighting in hockey is because they can't do much damage to each other most of the time. If they allowed fighting in soccer it would be a bloodbath. Christ, in Brazil a couple of months ago, they beheaded a referee and stuck his head on a spike. :lol:

 

[captain morgan]

Hey Blackleaf; I'll raise you a small cut on the fore head with missing teeth that resulted from a cold puck in the face at 80 kmh

... And buddy can still smile

 

[Blackleaf]

Hey Blackleaf; I'll raise you a small cut on the fore head with missing teeth that resulted from a cold puck in the face at 80 kmh

... And buddy can still smile

I hope you aren't insinuating that ice hockey is a tougher sport than rugby.

Remember, in Britain hockey is a sport played mainly by schoolgirls.

 

[coldstream]

I'm not saying I agree with the following, but it's interesting. Heinz Ward, the great Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver says (I'm paraphrasing) "If you want to see concussions and brain injuries decline, take away the high-tech helmets and make us play in leather caps like they did in the old days. Then we'll have to quit using our heads as weapons."

He may be right. Aussie football and Rugby do not have the head trauma problems that American and Canadian ball have, because they tackle differently, and they don't "spear."

Something T-bones has said i agree with (finally). Rugby is an excellent example, not only are there less concussive injuries.. but there are less knee and joint injuries. The lack of padding means the tackling tends to be rotational, using the other players momentum to throw him down.. rather than the direct hit.. which directs all of the energy into the body.

It's the same principle that regulates safety in car racing .. where you see these wild spinning somersaults with bits and pieces flying off the car in accidents.. and see the driver walking away uninjured.. most of the energy dissipated in the spins. A head on shunt into a wall where there is no give and little external kinetics are the ones with serious or fatal outcomes.. it means all that energy has gone directly into the driver's body.

Far from making sports safer.. these high tech pads and helmets have made them more dangerous... as it has promoted direct, concussive tackles.. rather than the oblique, corelative tackles of games like Rugby or Aussie football.

In American Football, and to a slightly lesser extent, in Canadian Football.. players are now trained in position specific regimens.. to HIT (not tackle). The offensive and defensive lines and line backers especially. Many of these guys can't run any distance, some of the Offensive Linemen are 300 pounds plus. All are purpose built for explosive launches.. that might last a few seconds and intended to exert the maximum direct force on an opponent.. who is doing the exact same thing in the other direction. That is also something you don't see in Rugby.

 

[EagleSmack]

I think Rugby League players are tougher than American and Canadian footballers. And so too, to a slightly lesser extent, are Rugby Union players.

Dude... if rugby was a US sport we'd bury you. Americans and Canadians are straight up tougher than brits in general.

And hockey is played mostly by girls in England you say? I believe that... because it is a well known fact the British girls are tougher than Brit men.

BOOM!