Corcaigh Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Further proof that major athletes are all mentally unstable. More than 50%: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/phys-ed-will-olympic-athletes-dope-if-they-know-it-might-kill-them/?_r=0 "There’s a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I guess you don't understand assumed risks. We all know their risks with driving. But if a car manufacturer was hiding the fact that some of their cars weren't safe and people were dying because of it, that's an issue. Are you saying that you don't understand assumed risks, or that the players are too stupid to not understand? Thing is they have all kinds of learning tools for football players to understand from pee wee to NFL. You clearly didn't read my post. We can play this game if you want, I'm not particularly interested in going further. This has been a known possible issue for hundreds of years. I would rather drive for NASCAR than drive to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I don't think the average player truly understood concussions until the last five years. And the league made a concerted effort to keep players ill informed. So, yes, everyone knew that football was dangerous. But the specific dangers were not known. I can get that. I don't know that it would have stopped any of them. the league is dirty on this, for sure,, they withheld info, and probably for the worst reason: to specifically avoid potential legal liability, not necessarily to fool guys into playing. There's no shortage of people more than willing to risk it to have a chance at that brass ring. i make no excuse for the league.. but it's a weird line to walk as an NFL fan. there is a LOT wrong with football, both as a business and as a sport. but, we love t, so we excuse a lot. How much we can each excuse is obviously a personal choice.. but soon the league won't be playing the sport we like. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Are you saying that you don't understand assumed risks, or that the players are too stupid to not understand? Thing is they have all kinds of learning tools for football players to understand from pee wee to NFL. You clearly didn't read my post. We can play this game if you want, I'm not particularly interested in going further. This has been a known possible issue for hundreds of years. I would rather drive for NASCAR than drive to work. Kosh, I know you're smarter than this man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Whatever, I'd watch it Me too Screw you, momma, for calling me out lol After Earth was bad, but wasn't THAT bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I understand that; again, the NFL was wrong but not solely at fault. The information was out there for anyone to find out about regarding head trauma and long-term effects. You should be able to trust your organization and team doctors but that doesn't remove all accountability from the players. They had the resources to understand the true effects of what this was causing. In 2007 the league issued a pamphlet to all players saying that there were no long-term health effects of repeated concussions for NFL players. I guess the players should have sought out independent medical advice outside of the team doctor, league officials, coaches, etc. Is that what you're saying? Just want to be clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Kosh, I know you're smarter than this man As are you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 As are you. At least someone thinks I am lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Have you really not been following this story for the last few years? This is a case where you really need to do your own research. Is there any irony in people saying that the players should have done their own research coming from people who, well, haven't done their own research? I suspect there might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 In 2007 the league issued a pamphlet to all players saying that there were no long-term health effects of repeated concussions for NFL players. I guess the players should have sought out independent medical advice outside of the team doctor, league officials, coaches, etc. Is that what you're saying? Just want to be clear And I'm not sure what research back in the 80s/early 90s people wanted the players to do. They couldn't just Google "concussion effects" and learn more. They pretty much relied on the team doctors and staff to set them straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 And I'm not sure what research back in the 80s/early 90s people wanted the players to do. They couldn't just Google "concussion effects" and learn more. They pretty much relied on the team doctors and staff to set them straight. Well, when they're on the sideline getting the smelling salt treatment and the coach is screaming at them to get back in the game and stop being a ****, doing "independent research" before going back in seems like a fair request of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I'm aware of it - the point I'm making, regardless of what the NFL said or didn't say, information was there to be had if someone wanted to know the true answer. And again, yes, the NFL is at fault as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 And again, yes, the NFL is at fault as well. Well, then, what left is there to discuss? Ex-players get to deal with a debilitating brain injury, early onset dimentia, depression, suicide. The league pays a financial penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 October 1994 Merrill Hoge retires due to concussions Citing the dangers of returning to football after sustaining several concussions, Chicago Bears fullback Merrill Hoge announces his retirement from the NFL. Two weeks earlier, he had taken a knee to the head, leaving him briefly unable to recognize his wife or brother. Hoge tells Sports News: “This is messing with your brain.” February 1995 Leigh Steinberg sounds a warning With growing concern for the health of his clients, Leigh Steinberg, agent to star quarterbacks Troy Aikman and Steve Young, holds a seminar on the effects of concussions in Newport Beach, Calif. Players listen to a panel of medical experts describe the symptoms and dangers of concussions. San Diego Charger Gary Plummer tells The Press Enterprise: “By their standards, I must’ve had 200 concussions.” March 1997 New return-to-play guidelines The guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology say that repetitive concussions can cause brain damage, and suggest that players be removed from the game if they lose consciousness or exhibit any concussion symptoms 15 minutes post-injury. “Repeated concussions can cause cumulative brain injury in an individual over months or years,” the report warns. May 2000 Research suggests concussions may lead to neurological problems While cautioning that their study was based solely on surveys, Dr. Barry Jordan and Dr. Julian Bailes present startling results at an annual meeting for the American Academy of Neurology. Science Daily summarized their findings: “When compared to players who did not report any concussions, the group with one or more concussions reported significantly more neurological symptoms. These included problems with memory and concentration, confusion, speech or hearing difficulties, numbness or tingling in extremities, and headaches.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/league-of-denial/timeline-the-nfls-concussion-crisis/ And yes, the NFL was very stubborn on acknowledging this. But educational opportunities have been available for the past 20 years, within the NFL, if you want to dismiss the players opportunity to consult specialists outside of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 March 1997 New return-to-play guidelines The guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology say that repetitive concussions can cause brain damage, and suggest that players be removed from the game if they lose consciousness or exhibit any concussion symptoms 15 minutes post-injury. “Repeated concussions can cause cumulative brain injury in an individual over months or years,” the report warns. And when did the NFL finally start doing this in games? 2009? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 And when did the NFL finally start doing this in games? 2009? A lot longer than they should have. I haven't deflected blame from them, I've just been saying the information has been available and talked about openly for 20+ years so players can't act like they never knew about long-term effects or that they didn't have the resources for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 A lot longer than they should have. I haven't deflected blame from them, I've just been saying the information has been available and talked about openly for 20+ years so players can't act like they never knew about long-term effects or that they didn't have the resources for it. okay, so how would you rule in a civil suit against the league? I won't even touch on the fact that you are completely kidding yourself with the above. I'm as avid a football fan as anyone you'll ever meet and it wasn't until 2010-2011 until I really started hearing any kind of chatter about how serious concussions are. But I digress. Just answer the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Yes, there were the Al Toon and Merril Hoge stories. And Bill Simmons got famous in part because of "The Aikman Face" joke. But they were considered outliers. Guys who had had dozens of concussions....or maybe one really bad concussion. Basically, they were treated the same as we treated boxers. The research the NFL was hiding was not the idea that concussions were bad. What they were hiding is the idea that NFL players are pretty much damaging their brains on every single play. And that high school players are damaging their brains on pretty much every single play. THAT was the real revelation in all this. The long-term impact of seemingly low-impact hits. My son is 7 and is pretty athletic. And I think he is going to be pretty big. And I could send him to what is arguably the most successful high school football program in the country if I filled out some paperwork; I'm in the same district as Katy High though not zoned to them. But he's not going to play football because his mother (who, I should add, loves football) is not letting it happen. I didn't really need convinced to go along with it. I'm not sure she would have been this adamant ten years ago....even though we are smart people and not dumb football players and probably could have, I dunno, read an obscure medical journal or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 zoony, i don't disagree with anything you're saying, i'm just curious how you look at the situation from the standpoint: we know of players lying about concussions (and other injuries) to their medical team, coaching staff, etc to get back in the game. our own quarterback asked his left tackle to not tell anyone that he was hurt (knee injury, not concussion, but same thing going on) the league has had to dump resources into trying to figure out when players are lying to them. there's plenty of resources available to anyone with access to google on how to try to pass these tests. i get that players 15 years ago where not doing that because the league wasn't trying to stop them. there's two different groups of players in this discussion - pre and post CTE (or just concussions in general) awareness. how do you think we should feel about those players post-awareness in regards to the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 So let's go there. Studies as far back as 1899 point to the dangers of asbestos and its use. 1899.... do I even need to finish this post? I don't think I do. I think we're good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 March 1997 New return-to-play guidelines The guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology say that repetitive concussions can cause brain damage, and suggest that players be removed from the game if they lose consciousness or exhibit any concussion symptoms 15 minutes post-injury. “Repeated concussions can cause cumulative brain injury in an individual over months or years,” the report warns. Let's actually talk about this. Around the time the first Spice Girls album came out, the medical community finally announced, "If you get knocked out during a game, you probably shouldn't play again that day." And the NFL promptly ignored this for over a decade, I might add. But the players knew. They knew that if you were a marginal special teamer and said, "Hey...I kind of lost consciousness there, guys," Jimmy Johnson would cut you on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 how do you think we should feel about those players post-awareness in regards to the above? If the league was suppressing evidence that repeated head trauma caused CTE at the time players were begging to be let back in, then who cares about the player's lack of knowledge? Going back to the 1980s when nobody knew... I don't see the NFL as liable for damage, though I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Let's also talk about the fact that the NFL policy - until very recently - was that all players had to go see doctors who were in the employ of the team. If you sought an independent opinion, you were seen as a troublemaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 If the league was suppressing evidence that repeated head trauma caused CTE at the time players were begging to be let back in, then who cares about the player's lack of knowledge? Going back to the 1980s when nobody knew... I don't see the NFL as liable for damage, though I could be wrong. Is the league still suppressing evidence? Honest question, I know it seems clear they have in the past. What is the league liable for to a player in 2015 that receives a concussion then deceives the medical officials in order to get back on the field when they shouldn't be allowed (and rules state they shouldn't be allowed)? To what extent is the league liable if that player then suffers another concussion? And another? I just don't see a way out of this that doesn't end in football being illegal (either directly through actual legislation, or indirectly due to the cost of paying out players due to an unavoidable issue). If we can't agree that at some point the players accept the risk (pick a point in time, any. 2020?) then how does the league go forward? Unless your argument is that it can't/shouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Is the league still suppressing evidence? Honest question, I know it seems clear they have in the past. I don't think so, but who knows. I think the NFL's current strategy seems to be "let's gather evidence and be as transparent as possible." (but, let's gather evidence for the next 50 years or so. Keep telling the public "we're still learning!") I just don't see a way out of this that doesn't end in football being illegal It's a possibility, but I think the concussion protocols, the equipment technology, the dedication to research, and the assumption of risk by the players is how the league can avoid future penalties. Question is, who is going to let their kids play football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.