Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GP1

The Concussion Thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

It's troubling, but at this point, anyone who plays football knows the risks. Joe Thomas is on record for saying he knows what football has done to his body and brain, but he knew the risks when he signed up to play football. 

 

Professionals?  Yes I agree, professionals do accept that risk absolutely when they sign the doted lines of their contracts.  What about High school students? Children?  What about families of lower middle-class to poor backgrounds.  Do they truly understand the risks associated with signing up to play football, and are people actively communicating those risks when their children/young-adults are signing up?  These are more with what I'm concerned with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Professionals?  Yes I agree, professionals do accept that risk absolutely when they sign the doted lines of their contracts.  What about High school students? Children?  What about families of lower middle-class to poor backgrounds.  Do they truly understand the risks associated with signing up to play football, and are people actively communicating those risks when their children/young-adults are signing up?  These are more with what I'm concerned with.

its not hard to google. Families of lower middle-class to poor backgrounds can go to a library if they have no other means of connecting to the internet to curb their curiosity.  Surely its not too radical of an idea for parents to make their children aware of the risks or even prevent them from playing if deemed too risky. I find the fact that you think lower-middle class to poor families can't educate themselves to be quite disturbing. Talk about demeaning.

Edited by LZIp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Balsy said:

 

Professionals?  Yes I agree, professionals do accept that risk absolutely when they sign the doted lines of their contracts.  What about High school students? Children?  What about families of lower middle-class to poor backgrounds.  Do they truly understand the risks associated with signing up to play football, and are people actively communicating those risks when their children/young-adults are signing up?  These are more with what I'm concerned with.

Their parents are all Trump supporters surely.:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

Professionals?  Yes I agree, professionals do accept that risk absolutely when they sign the doted lines of their contracts.  What about High school students? Children?  What about families of lower middle-class to poor backgrounds.  Do they truly understand the risks associated with signing up to play football, and are people actively communicating those risks when their children/young-adults are signing up?  These are more with what I'm concerned with.

 

I'm assuming most if not all leagues have some sort of warning system now where they hand out papers with the risks. We're in a lawsuit-happy society now, and to avoid negligent liability, that's pretty standard practice (again, I'm assuming). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

I'm assuming most if not all leagues have some sort of warning system now where they hand out papers with the risks. We're in a lawsuit-happy society now, and to avoid negligent liability, that's pretty standard practice (again, I'm assuming). 

In my limited experience geography-wise as a OHSAA and youth official, the Summit, Stark, Portage, Geauga, Wayne and Cuyahoga Counties HS and youth leagues and schools do a solid job in presenting and discussing head injuries and concussion management and protocol for ALL sports, not just football.  The school ADs hold mandatory parent meetings prior to start of seasons and usually bring in a health professional, whether, doctor or trainer, to discuss and ask questions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

Their parents are all Trump supporters surely.:unsure2:

 

Some yes, some no.  None of that, however, had anything to do with this conversation. So thanks for that insight.

 

1 hour ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

I'm assuming most if not all leagues have some sort of warning system now where they hand out papers with the risks. We're in a lawsuit-happy society now, and to avoid negligent liability, that's pretty standard practice (again, I'm assuming). 

 

Risk of injury and concussion is one thing.  Longterm affects including CTE is something entirely different right?  

 

1 hour ago, ZipsVoice said:

In my limited experience geography-wise as a OHSAA and youth official, the Summit, Stark, Portage, Geauga, Wayne and Cuyahoga Counties HS and youth leagues and schools do a solid job in presenting and discussing head injuries and concussion management and protocol for ALL sports, not just football.  The school ADs hold mandatory parent meetings prior to start of seasons and usually bring in a health professional, whether, doctor or trainer, to discuss and ask questions....

 

That's awesome, thanks for the info!  (and I'm not saying that sarcastically).  Though I doubt they, right now, discuss CTE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our (my) cultural fixation on football does not always lead to reasonable decisions.  For instance, the notion of playing in the NFL has so little chance of coming true,  even the really good players, yet it motivates so many, even much lesser players who are getting no objective support for the possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A major problem I have with CTE paranoia is failure of researchers to study the brains of the general (non-football playing )public.  This weakness is included in the following link which points out other methodological shortcomings of existing studies.

http://torontosun.com/2017/07/27/conclusion-drawn-in-boston-university-cte-study-troubling-toronto-neuropathologist/wcm/34ccbab7-0546-4629-8184-91af40032655

 

Other interesting considerations are presented in:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2017/07/the_press_is_overhyping_the_latest_study_on_cte_in_the_nfl.html

 

 

Edited by Zipmeister
dumbed down my comments to increase the probability that people with different opinions than mine can grasp the material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

Some yes, some no.  None of that, however, had anything to do with this conversation. So thanks for that insight.

 

 

Risk of injury and concussion is one thing.  Longterm affects including CTE is something entirely different right?  

 

 

That's awesome, thanks for the info!  (and I'm not saying that sarcastically).  Though I doubt they, right now, discuss CTE.

You’re right Balsy, they don’t.  Just kinda the basics, but nothing really about repeat brain trauma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure football parents know the risks. The thing is you could ask 100,000 people how they define "acceptable risk" and get 100,000 different answers. All of them different from yours. 

 

I knew the risks when my sons played football, and they knew it. One went on to fight in MMA. Do you think that somebody who climbs into the ring with a muscle-bound behemoth who wants to knock your face loose, doesn't realize the risks? It's not always about the dream of being a professional, or make millions of dollars. More often it's about the love of the sport. It's what you want to do. It's what you enjoy.

 

I played football in high school. I've been a part time firefighter for 30 years. I know the risks, hundreds of them. And it seems every day there's more that we're aware of now, like strange cancers, modern building construction methods that could wipe out an entire department. But when the tones drop, we still leave our homes and drive to the station and go do it again. Not to be heroes, or for the money. We just like to do it. The comraderie with the best guys I know, teamwork, overcoming challenges, being a part of something. The feeling after a good "worker". Sound familiar?

 

All these people want to take football away from the players who love it. Who know the risks. What's next? Are you going to take away my bicycle? Make people stop skiing? Outlaw motorcycles? Scuba diving? Rock climbing? Hand gliding? Drinking alcohol? Do you have a profession or a hobby that is not absolutely 100% safe? 

 

Some may choose to live in a bubble, which is fine. But they should not dictate how everyone else lives. And I'm not pointing any fingers toward anybody here, just the do-gooders who want to protect us from ourselves. 

 

Now if you'll excuse me I have to figure out which bike trail to explore next. 

 

Unless the fire pager goes off. ;)

Edited by Spin
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zipmeister said:

A major problem I have with CTE paranoia is failure of researchers to study the brains of the general (non-football playing )public.  This weakness is included in the following link which points out other methodological shortcomings of existing studies.

http://torontosun.com/2017/07/27/conclusion-drawn-in-boston-university-cte-study-troubling-toronto-neuropathologist/wcm/34ccbab7-0546-4629-8184-91af40032655

 

Other interesting considerations are presented in:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2017/07/the_press_is_overhyping_the_latest_study_on_cte_in_the_nfl.html

 

 

You should have left the original post alone. It would have been much more entertaining watching the useful idiot(s) try to shoot you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spin said:

But they should not dictate how everyone else lives.

 

First of all, thank you for your service. 

 

Second of all, I am a HUGE advocate of the above statement. If football eventually dies, let it be because of the choices of the individuals after they are well informed on the matter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 10:37 PM, Spin said:

I'm pretty sure football parents know the risks. The thing is you could ask 100,000 people how they define "acceptable risk" and get 100,000 different answers. All of them different from yours. 

 

That's equivalent to saying that all smokers knew the risk of smoking in the 1950s.  The medical community in regards to epidemiological research was pretty clear, yet it took the public nearly 40-years to catch up.

 

On 6/28/2018 at 9:19 AM, Let'sGoZips94 said:

Second of all, I am a HUGE advocate of the above statement. If football eventually dies, let it be because of the choices of the individuals after they are well informed on the matter. 

 

Couldn't agree more, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

 

On 6/27/2018 at 10:37 PM, Spin said:

All these people want to take football away from the players who love it. Who know the risks. What's next? Are you going to take away my bicycle? Make people stop skiing? Outlaw motorcycles? Scuba diving? Rock climbing? Hand gliding? Drinking alcohol? Do you have a profession or a hobby that is not absolutely 100% safe? 

 

This is a strawman if I ever saw one.  There have been exactly zero people I have seen say they want to take football away from people who love it.  The question is; are they really getting all the information on all the risk.  Citing my smoking analogy above; there was a relentless campaign to undermine and belittle well-intentioned health professionals and epidemiological researchers for nearly forty years.  Eventually the public did come around on the subject because of a relentless push back by scientists and empirical research; and there are far less smokers today then there were in the 40s, 50s and 60s.  Does that mean that nobody smokes today?  No, of course not.  Did we get rid of something that people love to do?  No, of course not.  

 

People choose to accept risk, yes.  But people should be allowed to accept risks with all the information.

 

23 hours ago, ZippyRulz said:

It will be the insurance companies, judges and juries more than anyone else that will change the game.

 

Judges and juries I disagree with; unless there is a conceded effort by a profitable organization to cover up information then yes I do agree.  Insurance companies totally agree with.

Edited by Balsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 8:03 PM, Zipmeister said:

A major problem I have with CTE paranoia is failure of researchers to study the brains of the general (non-football playing )public.  This weakness is included in the following link which points out other methodological shortcomings of existing studies.

http://torontosun.com/2017/07/27/conclusion-drawn-in-boston-university-cte-study-troubling-toronto-neuropathologist/wcm/34ccbab7-0546-4629-8184-91af40032655

 

Other interesting considerations are presented in:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2017/07/the_press_is_overhyping_the_latest_study_on_cte_in_the_nfl.html

 

A point I have made previously on this topic.  I just don't like the mocking tone people take when something new comes out about it.  The smart money is on there being a direct link between high contact environments and CTE; and football being a high contact environment...

 

On 6/28/2018 at 8:24 AM, Hilltopper said:

You should have left the original post alone. It would have been much more entertaining watching the useful idiot(s) try to shoot you down.

 

Funny you don't credit me with saying this exact same point on this very discussion previously.  :rolleyes:

Edited by Balsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Balsy said:

Couldn't agree more, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

 

I must have missed that, and instead read into your takes as implied attacks on the sport of football. 

 

3 hours ago, Balsy said:

The smart money is on there being a direct link between high contact environments and CTE; and football being a high contact environment...

 

What an incredibly hot take. :rolleyes:

Edited by Let'sGoZips94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 2:16 PM, Let'sGoZips94 said:

I must have missed that, and instead read into your takes as implied attacks on the sport of football. 

 

Yes, you did.  I love football, but I'm also objective enough to not let my love of the sport overshadow rationality.  There is a tremendous incentive for people and organizations to muddy the waters on objective science; to petty-fog the issue because of $$$$.  Just because I post on something, doesn't mean I am attacking it.  You can love something, but be objectively critical of it at the same time can't you?  Hell, it's the people who love something that need to be THE MOST critical of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how often it's brought up in the media I don't know how it's possible for anyone to not know that football can lead to concussions which can lead to permanent brain damage. At this stage I have to believe it's as widely accepted as smoking leads to an increase chance of getting lung cancer. What I don't believe parents are aware of is that putting their kids in soccer instead of football, they're actually increasing their kids chances of getting concussions, not reducing it.

Edited by kreed5120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LZIp said:

 

Interesting.  I don't agree with the summary presented to bluntly however.  In the methodology states "Injury proportion ratio (IPR) was defined as the ratio of total estimated concussions to total estimated injuries. Concussion rate was defined as the number of concussions per 10,000 athlete-exposures"

So you can end up having a higher IPR for a certain sport just by having less overall injuries.  Less overall players would mean you have less overall injuries, which would mean the potential for a higher IPR.  So saying the concussion-rate is higher for one sport in this research, DOES NOT MEAN that they suffer more concussions.  Rather, it means you're more likely to sustain a concussion as compared to any other injury in that sport.  

In the conclusion the researchers write "The concussion rate for girls soccer is also increasing rapidly, and is now nearly tied with boys football"

This directly contradicts the Football Scoop's title that Concussion rates are greater for girl sports than for boys.  That's not the case in the research.  Incidence of concussion  to other injury (IPR) IS higher; not the actual concussion rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sergeant Zip said:

Limas Sweed filed a $5 million suit alleging negligence against the NCAA because of concussions.

 From what I saw in his professional career, it would explain a lot. Good luck to him. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...