I think this movie will change the NFL

[MattFancy]

Just to kind of drive home the point of how little we still know, the first study to really show a direct link between concussions, decline of cognition and changes to the brains anatomy was just published this year in July.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25985094

 

So much for "we've known this for years".

 

This will be a really interesting question of parenting for millennials and generations after us. I don't ever plan on having children but if I do, there is no way in hell any of them are playing football at any level.

 

My wife and I were watching Hard Knocks the other night. She looked at me and said, "our kids are never playing football, right?"

 

We only currently have a 3y/o daughter, but I agreed with her. And I even played football throughout HS.

[tshile]

1) fund a pool to pay for care of past employees that suffered from this (this has already happened to some extent...right?)

2) begin to contribute continuously into the future into a fund to pay for care for existing and upcoming players

 

Right, but here's where I straddle the fence.

 

Side note: Yeah... it's annoying when people constantly play both sides... I get it... but I have conflicting view points and I don't know how to resolve them.

 

So I'm in agreement that the league has responsibilities here, also that they are liable for their effort to (at best) keep the information from the players (at worst... one could argue there should be a serious investigation with potential criminal charges...)

 

My problem is with the compensation end of it.... It's just so complex...

 

Pre-awareness there's a huge case to be made that those players should receive a lot of money. The league really dropped the ball in post-play healthcare, the players weren't paid much to begin with, and the league made its name on those players. They're the foundation for what the NFL is today.

 

Post-awareness? These players know the risks and are making an absurd amount of money. So what does the league owe them? Is there a difference in what the league owes between the 2nd string lineman that played for the league minimum for 10 years but took hits to the head all day every day in practice and the star LT that made millions a year over the same period?

 

How does the players responsibility not only for his own health, but for his financial situation, weigh on this?

 

You cannot possibly suggest someone like Trent Williams, who will go into 9 figures in career earnings (I believe at the end of his current contract he'll just be over 100 million, and will likely get another contract), needs more money to take care of his health?

 

The mentality seems to be that the NFL should pay for it because they can afford it. I don't like that mentality...

 

 

Okay? That's it.

That's all you have to say is ok in some passive aggressive manner?

 

What do you want him to say? He disagrees and it seems evident there's no middle ground/compromise to be found here.

[mcsluggo]

i agree 100% on the past players... and completely see your point on the current and future players.   my counter point is that when looking forward, the fund comes out of the collective pool (so both owners and current and future players ultimately will pay for it)... and then there is the society angle:  we KNOW that as a group, NFL players have a higher propensity toward being knuckleheads even before their brains start to fall out of their heads.  we KNOW that there are going to be broke 50 year old ex-NFL players with addled heads and diminished capacity to care for themselves (caused by their playing)

 

Q:  who SHOULD pay for that?   

 

Soceity at large through the general welfare system?   Why?  when the future consequences are so clearly visible today?  WHen  a negative externality is so easily identifiable, we (the greater society) owe it to ourselves to make an industry internalize the externality.  (sorry to drop into geekonomics speak!)

[tshile]

I don't know... i definitely don't have sympathy for the guy that made millions and is broke after retirement.

 

But I also don't think it should go through the welfare system... never really looked at it like that.

 

If the players and owners are contributing to the pool that's fine. My only issue is just with the idea that the owners are the only ones responsible. They're responsible, and liable, for their deceit (to put it nicely), but that ship has sailed, all that's left is determining punishment.

 

Going forward I don't see how they're solely responsible, and if we make them solely responsible then to me it seems like The League is living on borrowed time...

[mcsluggo]

Right, but here's where I straddle the fence.

 

Side note: Yeah... it's annoying when people constantly play both sides... I get it... but I have conflicting view points and I don't know how to resolve them.

 

...

 

personally, I PREFER people that "play both sides of the fence", at least the way you describe it here, which is basically saying:

 

 

when i look at the issue, i see A B and C ... but then i also see D E and F..... 

i think ABC is more important than DEF... right?

 

Versus most people, who like things black and white, and are inclined to say:

 

 

A B and C.   

Scoreboard beeatches.  now stfu!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't know... i definitely don't have sympathy for the guy that made millions and is broke after retirement.

 

But I also don't think it should go through the welfare system... never really looked at it like that.

 

If the players and owners are contributing to the pool that's fine. My only issue is just with the idea that the owners are the only ones responsible. They're responsible, and liable, for their deceit (to put it nicely), but that ship has sailed, all that's left is determining punishment.

 

Going forward I don't see how they're solely responsible, and if we make them solely responsible then to me it seems like The League is living on borrowed time...

 

Out of curiosity, are you morally opposed to Workers Compensation systems?

[mcsluggo]

I don't know... i definitely don't have sympathy for the guy that made millions and is broke after retirement.

 

But I also don't think it should go through the welfare system... never really looked at it like that.

 

If the players and owners are contributing to the pool that's fine. My only issue is just with the idea that the owners are the only ones responsible. They're responsible, and liable, for their deceit (to put it nicely), but that ship has sailed, all that's left is determining punishment.

 

Going forward I don't see how they're solely responsible, and if we make them solely responsible then to me it seems like The League is living on borrowed time...

 

Future revenue is divided between owners and labor.  if there is a stream of contributions to a pool, it will come out of both shares whether or not there is an explicit arrangement splitting contributions to the pool.  

 

On the other hand, players bear 100% of the future damages.  

[tshile]

Out of curiosity, are you morally opposed to Workers Compensation systems?

 

Nope.

 

I'm really conflicted on it. The shared payments into a pool is likely the best way forward; after all, there's plenty of money for that. My main concern is with the law suits and what it'll mean for the league going forward.

 

The legal and medical aspects of it are out of my wheelhouse. I'm just dumb football team fan opining from the couch. I realize that.

 

To me the liability of the league, in terms of suits, beings and ends with how much they've lied about the situation. The people playing today and tomorrow are aware of it and they're making a calculated decision because of risk/reward. League minimum for a rookie is 435k, for a 10 year vet it's 970k. If they want to spend it on cars, clothes, clubs, and boats then that's their prerogative. I'm not really interested in them complaining because they're broke and need help when they're 50+. Those that actually make a career out of it will make, in one year, almost 1/2 what someone making 50k/year will make after a 25 year career in just their rookie year alone. Over the course of a 5-10 year career they'll make a hell of a lot more.

 

I guess the counter to that is they're being paid a market price and workers compensation is in addition to that, regardless of what market value is...

 

*shrug* like i said, i'm really conflicted...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Nope.

 

I'm really conflicted on it. The shared payments into a pool is likely the best way forward; after all, there's plenty of money for that. My main concern is with the law suits and what it'll mean for the league going forward.

 

The legal and medical aspects of it are out of my wheelhouse. I'm just dumb football team fan opining from the couch. I realize that.

 

To me the liability of the league, in terms of suits, beings and ends with how much they've lied about the situation. The people playing today and tomorrow are aware of it and they're making a calculated decision because of risk/reward. League minimum for a rookie is 435k, for a 10 year vet it's 970k. If they want to spend it on cars, clothes, clubs, and boats then that's their prerogative. I'm not really interested in them complaining because they're broke and need help when they're 50+. Those that actually make a career out of it will make, in one year, almost 1/2 what someone making 50k/year will make after a 25 year career in just their rookie year alone. Over the course of a 5-10 year career they'll make a hell of a lot more.

 

I guess the counter to that is they're being paid a market price and workers compensation is in addition to that, regardless of what market value is...

 

*shrug* like i said, i'm really conflicted...

 

 

I think when people get into this salary stuff, you are going down a rabbit hole, the average career is 3 years or so. Even for the good players, you need to essentially make all the money you will need for the rest of your life between the ages of 22 and 29....when you are probably least suited to make decisions impacting the rest of your life.

 

Moreover, it's a generally accepted principle in nearly all industry that employers are responsible for treatment of work-related injuries. If a steel worker gets paralyzed, that company is paying for his care until the end of his life. I don't fully understand why Chris Samuels would be a different situation.

[tshile]

 If a steel worker gets paralyzed, that company is paying for his care until the end of his life. I don't fully understand why Chris Samuels would be a different situation.

 

Not saying it's the correct view, but for me it's simple.

 

The steel worker didn't necessarily choose that career, and the ones that did certainly didn't do it because it was a highly lucrative career choice.  A lot of dangerous jobs like that are filled by people with a lot less options in life. I don't think a steel worker goes to work saying "I might get paralyzed today, but damn the money is so good."

 

Whereas Chris Samuels had way more opportunity in life to pursue a different career. He could have used his talent to get a free education and do damn near anything he wanted; he chose to pursue it at a professional level.

 

That seem significantly different to me.

 

To a certain extent I'm being a hypocrite because I complain about 'can afford it' arguments and in a way I'm doing the same thing. I'd like to think I'm focusing more on the fact that it's a choice though...

[grhqofb5]

I think the person who comes up with a concussion proof helmet is going to be RICH! You know the flak jacket that all QB's wear? That started with 2 guys who came up with the idea and snuck into a Houston Oliers hospital room when he broke his ribs and said "I have something that will enable you to play this week".

 

someone, somewhere will come up with a helmet that reduces concussions and it will be the answer...

 

One problem that many don't realize with helmets is that there a good bit of user error involved.  I helmet that fits properly also fits snugly, and a helmet that fits snugly is uncomfortable to wear and difficult put on and take off.  If a company actually looked at this issue, and fabricated a helmet that was easier to get on and would "lock" or fit better to the user (right i know, i've seen the pump thing that increases the pressure on the top but its more the fitting across the jaw bone that holds the helmet in place), and then could be released somehow (without popping off during contact), that would go a long way in eliminating the urge to just get a helmet that fits a bit looser.  Even perhaps a user specific molded "under-helmet" fit snugly and fasten around the chin, made of a shock absorbant material that would go on under the helmet, and the helmet would then be designed for use specifically with the insert. 

[Mr. Sinister]

What do they say about being a genius or a truly elite top level performer? Usually that person is completely unbalanced in some aspect of their life, either being an asshole, borderline crazy etc because so much of their life was devoted to becoming this great thing, other areas are lacking. I can see that all over professional sports. It's not the place for well rounded normal people

Exactly. They are not normal people

[Renegade7]

What rock have you been living under?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/04/22/concussion-related-lawsuits-judge-settlement-nfl/26199011/

 

As long as I've been here, I'm not sure why you think I don't know that already or you're actually educating me.  You're thinking too much, maybe you read my post too fast.

[Bonez3]

I've said for years, the real 'bogey man' in the NFL is joint disease.

I don't want to come off as unsympathetic, but really I am. But, the more prevalent joint damage and health care consequences would trump any CTE data IMO. And, you don't need to be a doctor or 'in the dark' to have realized that. And they still willingly play.

Many sports are vulnerable to CTE, hockey, Soccer and Boxing obvious. But really, any contact sport. What I struggle with is the lack of overall case data. How many of the individuals diagnosed with CTE had underlying predispositions to other pyschiatric illnesses that may have been exacerbated.

Anyhow, now everybody's informed... Still lining up to play pro ball. Life is dangerous. Don't like the chances with football, world needs insurance and car salesmen to

[Predicto]

Out of curiosity, are you morally opposed to Workers Compensation systems?

 

 

Of course, the real purpose of Workers Compensation systems is not to compensate the workers.   It is to protect businesses against lawsuits, and more specifically, eliminate the uncertainty that ordinary rules of tort liability would have on their bottom lines.         

[Bonez3]

Just watched Concussion

 

I guess my take thus far is that a doctor that would bet his medical license on a diagnoses from a patient he never met is suspect (see OJ Simpson reference). Pretty much sums up my opinion on this. I guess when you don't really train to see patients that actually can talk back to you, you can make a diagnoses off of TV perception. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just watched Concussion

 

I guess my take thus far is that a doctor that would bet his medical license on a diagnoses from a patient he never met is suspect (see OJ Simpson reference). Pretty much sums up my opinion on this. I guess when you don't really train to see patients that actually can talk back to you, you can make a diagnoses off of TV perception. 

 

I'm going to need some elaboration on this. Doctor's diagnose people that they don't know all the time. They do autopsies all the time. They sometimes have to treat patients who can't speak or communicate at all.

 

 

While I'm on this thread, I was really surprised by how this movie just kind of came and went with almost no discussion. Just as a movie, not giving any extra consideration because it is about the NFL and concussions, I didn't think it was too hot. I also thought the scene where the NFL killed his unborn baby was pretty stupid (that's not exactly what happened… she had a miscarriage due to the stress of "someone" stalking and following her.)

[Bonez3]

My comment is less about the movie, which I enjoyed, and more about the actual issue.

 

I personally would have liked the movie to vilify the NFL more since it was so 1-sided. I mean, really go Oliver Stone on the NFL. It was somber, lacking real kick and just ok. But still, I enjoyed it, and think Will Smith was good (not great). 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

My comment is less about the movie, which I enjoyed, and more about the actual issue.

 

I understand that. I just wasn't sure what you were saying about the issue. I edited my original comment after you posted this.

[Bonez3]

I understand that. I just wasn't sure what you were saying about the issue. I edited my original comment after you posted this.

 

Yea... I see you added commentary on doctors roles. 

 

Pathologists (Will Smith's role) generally don't talk to actual patients. The fact Dr. Omalu felt he could bet his career/license on a patient he had never seen, OR READ A RECORD ABOUT, seemed to me to demonstrate extreme hubris.

 

And from what I could find, he did 4 NFL autopsies in regards to his CTE expertise. Not really something he's doing 'all the time'. In fact, I would wager something thats a very small fraction of his autopsy log.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

The fact Dr. Omalu felt he could bet his career/license on a patient he had never seen, OR READ A RECORD ABOUT, seemed to me to demonstrate extreme hubris.

 

I'm not sure if that is accurately displayed in the movie. My understanding is that doctors diagnosed Mike Webster as having brain damage while he was still alive. They just couldn't look at his physical brain the way it needed to be looked at until after he died. Obviously there was some sort of physical evidence about his ailment. Again, doctors make diagnoses all the time regarding patients that they have never seen or know anything about. Laboratories diagnose Lyme's disease with just a vile of blood while the patient remains many miles away. There's no doubt that CTE is a very real thing that can be determined by looking at the patient's brain.

[Elessar78]

if anyone ever forced any of them to play i'd probably be more sympathetic.

Nobody gets to the pro level without knowing what is going on and what is expected.

they can choose to not be drafted. Choose to not sign a contract. Choose to use their college education for another career.

If they choose to play pro football, it's understood what the results can be.

A movie that would probably serve the players better is the one about how they're all broke five years after leaving the league, even though the lowest of them got paid better than the majority of people ever will.

~Bang

On some level you gotta. Our society chases fame and money so hard. We have an unhealthy relationship with sports when we, the audience, watch football knowing what it's doing to these guys. We even excuse their use of PEDs because it makes for a better show.

That We can't feel sorry for them because they are financially compensated is sad thinking. In the same vein, no one feels sad for the majority of them that are broke after 5 years of retirement.

Tragic all around.

[Bonez3]

I'm not sure if that is accurately displayed in the movie. My understanding is that doctors diagnosed Mike Webster as having brain damage while he was still alive. They just couldn't look at his physical brain the way it needed to be looked at until after he died. Obviously there was some sort of physical evidence about his ailment. Again, doctors make diagnoses all the time regarding patients that they have never seen or know anything about. Laboratories diagnose Lyme's disease with just a vile of blood while the patient remains many miles away. There's no doubt that CTE is a very real thing that can be determined by looking at the patient's brain.

That comment is in reference to his OJ remarks.

 

Anyhow, doctors (who are not pathologists) diagnose based on history and physical exam, after talking to and seeing the patient. The patient reports being in a tick endemic area, has signs and symptoms consistent with disease and than labs are ordered. It would be negligent to watch a TV broadcast and see a rash and bet your medical license it's Lymes Disease. That's hubris and that's what Omalu essentially did.

 

CTE has been discovered years before, he is not a pioneer. He found similar results on two autopsies. What is paramount is the causality. With all due respect to those who suffer or suffered from it, more casuality needs to be displayed. Frankly, the substance abuse found with these athletes seems like a very important factor.

 

Webster Huffing gas in a truck probably didn't help his encephalopathy. Junior Seau was notorious for coming to practices straight from the club. The effect of steroids on the brain is not studied in any great depth. When literally hundreds of thousands of people played they game and select few show signs, it would be prudent to pursue other causal relationships. Just like people who smoke.

 

We know it causes cancer, but not everyone gets it. We know certain peoples cellular physiology predisposes them to cancer more than others. 

 

CTE has been known for decades prior to Dr. Omalu's 'discovery'. Frankly, football is one of many sports that have been implicated but I'm not sure if it has higher rates than any of the others. More spotlight has been put on it now, doesn't necessarily mean more prevalent. I'm just waiting for the first european retired soccer player to arise...

[Elessar78]

 

 

CTE has been known for decades prior to Dr. Omalu's 'discovery'. Frankly, football is one of many sports that have been implicated but I'm not sure if it has higher rates than any of the others. More spotlight has been put on it now, doesn't necessarily mean more prevalent. I'm just waiting for the first european retired soccer player to arise...

Lots of those already. But they're more of the older retired guys. There were some cases reported in the Italian media. 

 

Training was different back then, they probably punted balls way up and asked these guys to head away a hundred every practice. 

 

But from what we understand of concussions, which I admit can change tomorrow, it's not the direct hits. It's the glancing, unexpected blows that seem to cause more concussions. When you head a ball, you are prepared for it. I've seen 3 concussions in my players in the past 12 months, but two were cleared to play ASAP by doctors. The only one that was kept out for awhile was a kid whose head bounced off the artifical turf field. Another was a glancing blow to the side/back of the head from a ball that was kicked—this kid had headaches that wouldn't go away after 15 minutes of being hit and was dizzy on his way out of arena. Surprised the doctors let him come back within a week. The third, actually happened at gym class, but I diagnosed him at practice later that day—classmate pegged him in the back of the head with a basketball at point blank. He was punch drunk some 3-4 hours after it happened, he was just kinda staggering around practice. Again, doctors and parents signed off on him to come back after a week. 

[Bonez3]

I've seen more concussions in our 11-12 year old football team last year than I probably coulda seen in 10 collective lifetimes growing up. 

 

Life imitating art. Look at me dab, look at me get concussed. Oh yea, that 10-11 year old team almost had to fold for the first time in over 50 years because of lack of players right up to first game.