Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 03:59:29 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Sports / Fantasy Sports  |  Topic: The death of football 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The death of football  (Read 72038 times)
naum
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4262


WWW
Reply #105 on: May 09, 2012, 11:15:52 AM

Naum's article states my belief and concern. I think the vast majority of NFL players are using them, so much so that it's a standard practice to be involved at the NFL level. That's where my concern about the lower levels comes from. If you create a barrier to entry based on illegal methods, you are responsible for people using those methods to attempt to get in.

I don't know much about that doctor (Yesalis), but at every juncture where I would waver into the realm of credulity, this line keeps gobsmacking me:

Quote

The drugs are readily available and they work. Multi-millionaires can get whatever they want.

"Should the batman kill Joker because it would save more lives?" is a fundamentally different question from "should the batman have a bunch of machineguns that go BATBATBATBATBAT because its totally cool?". ~Goumindong
Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #106 on: May 09, 2012, 11:31:33 AM

The missing bit of information here is exactly how many of these players use PEDs.  There is no way that the number that we hear about is the actual number, but I seriously doubt it is that high.  For the NFL to be held culpable I would think that it would have to be a requirement to use PEDs to perform at that level, and that's clearly not the case. 

I don't think the percentage of people using PEDs is even relevant for whether or not the NFL should be held responsible. The fact is people who are not NFL players, who use PEDs, are still not NFL players and thus not under the NFL's rules. That was the original comment in question.

Barrier of entry or not, a non-NFL player makes a CHOICE to use PEDs on their own if that is what they thought was needed for them to gain entry into the NFL. No one forced them upon them, the NFL doesn't have a clause in their player contracts stating that players must use PEDs, and there's nothing saying if people wish to one day be in the NFL that they must use PEDs. I do agree that the NFL should crack down on PEDs (and for fuck's sake - stop giving players warnings when they'll be tested, that shit needs to stop). Doing this is the right way to do things, and holds the correct people responsible for making their own choices, and those people are players and staff under the NFL's jurisdiction. Also, no I'm not saying that there is no motivation for younger players to take PEDs, it's obviously there, but will be minimized when/if the league cracks down on their use.



ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #107 on: May 09, 2012, 11:35:24 AM

Well that seems super reliable.  Maybe it's the guy's mustache and Ron Burgundy face posing.   DRILLING AND MANLINESS
naum
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4262


WWW
Reply #108 on: May 09, 2012, 11:51:51 AM

I don't think the percentage of people using PEDs is even relevant for whether or not the NFL should be held responsible. The fact is people who are not NFL players, who use PEDs, are still not NFL players and thus not under the NFL's rules. That was the original comment in question.

Barrier of entry or not, a non-NFL player makes a CHOICE to use PEDs on their own if that is what they thought was needed for them to gain entry into the NFL. No one forced them upon them, the NFL doesn't have a clause in their player contracts stating that players must use PEDs, and there's nothing saying if people wish to one day be in the NFL that they must use PEDs. I do agree that the NFL should crack down on PEDs (and for fuck's sake - stop giving players warnings when they'll be tested, that shit needs to stop). Doing this is the right way to do things, and holds the correct people responsible for making their own choices, and those people are players and staff under the NFL's jurisdiction. Also, no I'm not saying that there is no motivation for younger players to take PEDs, it's obviously there, but will be minimized when/if the league cracks down on their use.

But Paeolos point is that if that is the standard (to take PED) at the pro level, it's going to matriculate down to collegiate and high school level.

And your remarks do not address the fact that (a) most fans do not care if professional athletes use PED and (b) without full scale assault of rigorous testing (which professional leagues will NOT do, given the negative PR and existence of point (a))

Anecdotally speaking, a good friend (closer friend to my brother, but we all hung together) who played in NFL (a lineman), shared that "90-95%" cite was not far off the mark, that it's super-competitive, and any edge that can be had, is going to be utilized.

Finally, a study of head impacts in youth football:

Quote
In a groundbreaking study, researchers at Virginia Tech placed instrumented helmets on 7 and 8-year-old football players and collected data on more than 750 hits to the head over the course of a season.

The findings provide the first quantitative assessment of the acceleration and risk that young brains are exposed to in youth football.

Lead researcher, Stefan Duma, a professor of Biomedical Engineering, has been gathering data on head impacts among college players at Virginia Tech for nine seasons.  In his new study, he reports some head impacts in youth football equal in force to some of the bigger hits he sees at the college level. “Nobody expected to see hits of this magnitude,” says Duma.

"Should the batman kill Joker because it would save more lives?" is a fundamentally different question from "should the batman have a bunch of machineguns that go BATBATBATBATBAT because its totally cool?". ~Goumindong
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #109 on: May 09, 2012, 12:16:49 PM

This article, written in 2005, claims that only about 3% of NCAA football players used PEDs in 2001, down from about 10% in 1989.  I don't believe that it suddenly jumps up to 100% for pro athletes. 
Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #110 on: May 09, 2012, 12:24:44 PM

But Paeolos point is that if that is the standard (to take PED) at the pro level, it's going to matriculate down to collegiate and high school level.

And your remarks do not address the fact that (a) most fans do not care if professional athletes use PED and (b) without full scale assault of rigorous testing (which professional leagues will NOT do, given the negative PR and existence of point (a))

Anecdotally speaking, a good friend (closer friend to my brother, but we all hung together) who played in NFL (a lineman), shared that "90-95%" cite was not far off the mark, that it's super-competitive, and any edge that can be had, is going to be utilized.

Finally, a study of head impacts in youth football:

I thought I had indirectly addressed the influece that standard NFL usage of PED has on lower levels previously, but will do it again - there's no way to even think that NFL usage doesn't influence  younger players, but I don't believe the NFL should be held responsible (remember, accountability was the original discussion, which is what I've stuck to) for those younger players doing so as they never made it a requirement for barrier of entry. Additionally, those younger players are not NFL players and thus not under NFL jurisidction. It's a fine line, yes, but one that isn't to be disregarded imo. Standard or not, people choose to take the path of least resistance (using PEDs) or the harder but honest path (not using PEDs).

As for fans caring, that wasn't needed to be addressed because it wasn't a topic. If it needs to be addressed, or if I need to comment on it then I'll do so now. Here - Do fans care? IMO, not when watching, only when talks like this come up. Just like people don't want to know where their hot dogs, hamburgers, fur coats, or other forms of animal maiming which will provide goods to them come from, they don't want to know the residual effects of people beating the crap out of each other for their entertainment 3 hours per week. As for point (b), "without full scale assault of rigorous testing" ...what about it? Or am I misreading that line and not seeing the point being made by (b)?

I do find that youth football study interesting. I'm guessing for them to come with the calculation that youth hits are sometimes just as hard as college hits is adjusting for softness of their skull or something? Otherwise I'd call BS or be very doubtful of their methods (haven't read the study yet but will try to at home later, thanks for that link as I hope the read is worth it).
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #111 on: May 09, 2012, 12:27:30 PM

This article, written in 2005, claims that only about 3% of NCAA football players used PEDs in 2001, down from about 10% in 1989.  I don't believe that it suddenly jumps up to 100% for pro athletes. 

My personal experience from the late 80's says that article is LOL worthy.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #112 on: May 09, 2012, 12:38:28 PM

Segoris I understand where you are coming from about personal choice and responsibility for your own actions. You can always just turn away from football, not inject yourself with HGH, and become a $50,000 a year insurance salesman.

My point stems from the fact that the NFL is creating unreasonable barriers to entry. The NFL is a monopoly in America. As such, people who try to be a part of that group must be subject to their rules, written or unwritten. However, if it requires illegal activity to gain entry, that is wrong.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #113 on: May 09, 2012, 12:40:27 PM

This article, written in 2005, claims that only about 3% of NCAA football players used PEDs in 2001, down from about 10% in 1989.  I don't believe that it suddenly jumps up to 100% for pro athletes. 

My personal experience from the late 80's says that article is LOL worthy.

Do you think that a 90-95% estimated rate for pro is reasonable?  It just seems awfully high to me.  But then again there's cycling which has I would say near 100% penetrance for PED use.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #114 on: May 09, 2012, 12:47:11 PM

Do you think that a 90-95% estimated rate for pro is reasonable?  It just seems awfully high to me.  But then again there's cycling which has I would say near 100% penetrance for PED use.

I was more laughing at the 3% Div I number.  The percentage in the NFL would depend entirely on their definition of PED.  Designer steroids, HGH, etc. are obvious.  What about lesser used enhancers?

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #115 on: May 09, 2012, 01:07:38 PM

Segoris I understand where you are coming from about personal choice and responsibility for your own actions. You can always just turn away from football, not inject yourself with HGH, and become a $50,000 a year insurance salesman.

My point stems from the fact that the NFL is creating unreasonable barriers to entry. The NFL is a monopoly in America. As such, people who try to be a part of that group must be subject to their rules, written or unwritten. However, if it requires illegal activity to gain entry, that is wrong.

We're really just at a difference of opinion on key words ("fact" and "require" being the ones for me). So at this point I'll agree to disagree and step out while saying no more - unless new life is given to the PEDs and the accountability of their usage topic.

ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #116 on: May 09, 2012, 02:02:05 PM

Do you think that a 90-95% estimated rate for pro is reasonable?  It just seems awfully high to me.  But then again there's cycling which has I would say near 100% penetrance for PED use.

I was more laughing at the 3% Div I number.  The percentage in the NFL would depend entirely on their definition of PED.  Designer steroids, HGH, etc. are obvious.  What about lesser used enhancers?

After re-reading the article, I don't really know what schools the 3% encompasses.  It may or may not include the old 1-AA schools or other levels.  I suspect that if you polled the SEC you'd have much higher than 3%, but that would be common sense. 

As for the NFL, I have no idea.  I'm probably naive when it comes to this stuff, but I was thinking that maybe 15-20% max would be using some form of PED or "gray area" substance.  To claim that 90-95% just seems ludicrously high to me, and suggests that all forms of screening for these drugs should just be abandoned.  They should have hung it up in cycling a long time ago-  it's clear that they lost that battle, and to weed out only a couple every year that are unlucky enough to get caught while the entire rest of the peloton is using seems stupid.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #117 on: May 09, 2012, 02:08:15 PM

There are plenty of available metrics involving the size and speed of NFL players over the last 25 years. Go ahead and take a look at that research. The increases are frankly astonishing, especially amongst line players.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #118 on: May 09, 2012, 02:21:33 PM

Well, maybe you're right.  There's really no point in trying to screen or monitor if it's that bad.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #119 on: May 09, 2012, 10:51:00 PM

Random shooting from the hip:

- For certain positions (O and D lines, linebackers), I would bet the PED usage rate would be close to 100%.  It is not otherwise possible to become both that big and that fast.  For many of the skill positions, I would bet it would be much less, simply because they don't benefit from it in the same way.  It is perfectly possible, for example, to become a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady without PEDs.

- I could care less if they use PEDs in any sport.  What, we're worried about them harming their own bodies?  Of course we aren't.  Unfair advantage?  Nope, if they're all using them then it's a level playing field.  Tainting the records of the long dead people that came before them?  Fuck that, we want to see someone hit 80 HRs.  The only thing cooler than seeing someone break a record is apparently is the part when we get to tear them back down again because of a failed piss test.  Other than feigned outrage, I struggle to find a legitimately good reason to get excited about PED use.

- I only have minor sympathy for the risks NFL players are taking with head injuries...not because those injuries don't bother me, but because they ALL know the risks they are taking.  Any reasonable person understands the risk.  They accept it whole heartedly and almost every one of us would trade places with them in an instant.  I have more sympathy when you get to the lower systems, because the kids may not entirely understand the risks.  BUT THEIR PARENTS ABSOLUTELY DO, so that makes them responsible as far as I am concerned.


"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
caladein
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3174


WWW
Reply #120 on: May 09, 2012, 11:41:02 PM

- I think when you look at how NFL teams evaluate personnel, skill position players stand to benefit quite a bit more than you realize.  It's important to remember that PEDs aren't just about star players breaking records, but also marginal players trying to stay in the league.  5% slower Peyton Manning is still Peyton Manning, but 5% slower Mr. 4th WR is no longer on the roster.

- Sports are entertainment, but I think there's a line that they need to stay above to be anything more than meaningless spectacle.  A "wink wink nod nod" approach to PEDs or fixing games or what have you is just unacceptable to me.  I also think they have to make a genuine effort to be a fair competition to determine the best/fastest/strongest if that's what they set out to do.  (To the point that I don't really like March Madness as while it's really good at being entertaining, it's really bad at determining who the best team is that season.  Also that revenue college sports are ethically problematic for a quadrillion reasons.)

- I don't think anyone actually "knows the risks".  The science just isn't at the point where we know how minimal the trauma can be to cause long-term health problems.  Besides that, when this year's draft class set out to become professional football players, who the fuck knew what CTE even was?  We are still in the process of begrudgingly accepting that concussions are a serious health issue.

"Point being, they can't make everyone happy, so I hope they pick me." -Ingmar
"OH MY GOD WE'RE SURROUNDED SEND FOR BACKUP DIG IN DEFENSIVE POSITIONS MAN YOUR NECKBEARDS" -tgr
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #121 on: May 09, 2012, 11:48:00 PM

On the whole 'they know the risks' thing - they really didn't know the risks with concussions, not until very very recently was the scale of the long-term effects really figured out.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Chimpy
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10618


WWW
Reply #122 on: May 10, 2012, 12:31:44 AM

There are high school programs in this country now that are operating in very similar ways to professional teams with year round weight training/conditioning for several hours a day, having these 15-17 year old kids drinking whatever the GNC "muscle builder" shake du jour is and vying for airtime on ESPN's national telecast. Sponsorship contracts with Nike/Reebok etc.

It is only a matter of time before that starts to trickle down farther. Just look at little league baseball. Used to be something you did with the local park district, maybe you would play a small tournament one weekend against neighboring towns. Traveling leagues were only when you got to AAU/American Legion teams in high school. Now, there are travellibg leagues that go to tournaments in cities hours away every weekend in even small towns that start at age 8 or 9.

'Reality' is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #123 on: May 10, 2012, 01:23:20 AM

- I think when you look at how NFL teams evaluate personnel, skill position players stand to benefit quite a bit more than you realize.  It's important to remember that PEDs aren't just about star players breaking records, but also marginal players trying to stay in the league.  5% slower Peyton Manning is still Peyton Manning, but 5% slower Mr. 4th WR is no longer on the roster.

- I don't think anyone actually "knows the risks".  The science just isn't at the point where we know how minimal the trauma can be to cause long-term health problems.  Besides that, when this year's draft class set out to become professional football players, who the fuck knew what CTE even was?  We are still in the process of begrudgingly accepting that concussions are a serious health issue.

- Somewhat agree, in that those things can give you the edge...but as far as being a wide receiver goes, you can be really quick and be amazing at catching a ball without PEDs, so there is some room there to succeed without.

- I can't fully agree this part.  People have known instinctively since the beginning of time that taking repeated blows to the head is bad for your health.  It is true on the subject of concussions in the same way it is true on all "risky" activities...we will always find new things about the effects of those risky activities, and we might even find out that they were even more dangerous than we thought...but that doesn't excuse ignorance.  I don't need a study to know that the activity was risky in the first place, nor does the discovery of new consequences absolve me of responsibility.

Ingmar - I had a serious concussion about 22 years ago.  I was put under close observation because there was a chance, however small, that I could actually die from it in the short term.  We have known this kind of thing forever, and all other risks pale compared to that one.  People have become paralyzed and even died as a direct result of playing football.  Discovering that it may also cause depression for you later down the road (for example) is practically irrelevant in my book.

I don't know.  I don't mean to be argumentative, I just think that we'd all be a little better off if we took more personal responsibility for stuff like this. 

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #124 on: May 10, 2012, 07:30:22 AM

You can't have old players who built the sport killing themselves because they have the brain matter of an 85 year old man, Cyrrex.

People had no idea that there was a connection between concussions and onset dementia, depression, in your FORTIES. People assumed they were engaging in behavior that MIGHT impact their lives in their SEVENTIES. That was the possible risk they signed on for, not wanting to shoot themselves at 43 because their brain no longer functions in our reality.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #125 on: May 10, 2012, 08:25:45 AM

You also have to consider the fact that many football players have abnormal brains to begin with.  Playing the sport at that level requires a temperment and level of aggression that isn't normal.  

Do you think that a 90-95% estimated rate for pro is reasonable?  It just seems awfully high to me.  But then again there's cycling which has I would say near 100% penetrance for PED use.

I chatted with a couple of friends (email chat) that played in the NFL for most of the 90's and they both agree that it was nowhere near that high.  They suggested a number of 30-50% would be much more reasonable... but this is entirely anecdotal.  It could easily be lower than that.  Of course, they consider PED to be injectable steroid use and it's virtually impossible to know who is/was using HGH without them coming right out and telling you... which no player in their right mind would ever do.  

I can tell you this: If I had access to HGH in college, I would have used the hell out of it.  The benefits far outweigh the potential hazards.  I never did steroids though.  I always worried that they would affect my speed and judgement negatively.  That and I didn't want backne (what we termed back acne). 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #126 on: May 10, 2012, 08:29:25 AM

Classic humans are bad at assessing risk.

"Me am play gods"
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #127 on: May 10, 2012, 08:31:53 AM

Classic humans are bad at assessing risk.

Obesity trends in the US seem to demonstrate this quite nicely. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
naum
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4262


WWW
Reply #128 on: May 10, 2012, 09:32:35 AM

OTOH

Quote
When ex-NFL star Junior Seau took a shotgun to his sternum last week, commentators called it a "sobering wake-up call" for the league. How could a never-say-die athlete, a proven winner on the field, give up his own life? My Slate colleague Josh Levin wondered whether this latest football suicide would finally change the way we think about the consequences of repeated head trauma.

That wake-up call may have arrived Wednesday morning. News outlets (including this one) have suddenly became aware of some surprising and important CDC research published in January in the American Journal of Cardiology. At the request of the NFL Players Association, government scientists compared the death rates for almost 3,500 of the league's retirees to those for age- and race-matched non-athletes over the same years. The football players had much longer lives: Just 334 of them had passed away, compared with an expected total of 625.

What does this have to do with Junior Seau? The CDC study was designed to look for fatal cases of cardiovascular disease among the athletes. (It found one-third fewer than expected.) But the researchers also compiled numbers for more than a dozen other categories of disease and injury, including suicide. Former players were 42 percent less likely to die of cancer, 86 percent less likely to die of tuberculosis, and 73 percent less likely to die from digestive problems. And among the athletes who regularly played professional football between 1959 and 1988, a total of nine perished as a result of "intentional self-harm," compared with an expected number of about 22. The sample size was small, but the effect is large: Ex-NFLers were 59 percent less likely to commit suicide.

This is, so far as I know, the first major attempt to compare suicide rates among former football players with those in the general population. And while it's risky to draw too many conclusions from a single study—just a handful of deaths, really, among players from a bygone era—the news from the CDC challenges the prevailing narrative about Junior Seau and all the other aging athletes who killed themselves in recent years. It's now speculated, assumed, and even asserted outright that repeated knocks to the head leave football players with a condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), and that this form of brain damage—diagnosed in the autopsied remains of ex-players like Dave Duerson and Andre Waters—might have caused their downward spiral into depression and suicide.


"Should the batman kill Joker because it would save more lives?" is a fundamentally different question from "should the batman have a bunch of machineguns that go BATBATBATBATBAT because its totally cool?". ~Goumindong
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #129 on: May 10, 2012, 10:40:18 AM

I'm glad you posted that.  I was just wondering if anyone had done that research. 

That doesn't mean that there aren't lots of good reasons to avoid multiple concussions throughout your life, however, and I think that it's good that people are now starting to at least examine the brutality of football. 
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #130 on: May 10, 2012, 12:47:07 PM

Ingmar - I had a serious concussion about 22 years ago.  I was put under close observation because there was a chance, however small, that I could actually die from it in the short term.  We have known this kind of thing forever, and all other risks pale compared to that one.  People have become paralyzed and even died as a direct result of playing football.  Discovering that it may also cause depression for you later down the road (for example) is practically irrelevant in my book.

I don't know.  I don't mean to be argumentative, I just think that we'd all be a little better off if we took more personal responsibility for stuff like this. 

I think they have been aware of the potential for single, serious injuries, or that they might be in for joint problems and the like. The awareness we're talking about here though is awareness that getting your bell rung at the 'coach just says to walk it off' level a few times can have long-term debilitating effects.

I'm not going to flame you over the brushing aside depression like it isn't anything serious thing, I can only assume you've been lucky enough to not have any serious cases of it in your family or friends to know just how bad it can be.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #131 on: May 10, 2012, 11:48:27 PM

Ingmar - I had a serious concussion about 22 years ago.  I was put under close observation because there was a chance, however small, that I could actually die from it in the short term.  We have known this kind of thing forever, and all other risks pale compared to that one.  People have become paralyzed and even died as a direct result of playing football.  Discovering that it may also cause depression for you later down the road (for example) is practically irrelevant in my book.

I don't know.  I don't mean to be argumentative, I just think that we'd all be a little better off if we took more personal responsibility for stuff like this.  

I think they have been aware of the potential for single, serious injuries, or that they might be in for joint problems and the like. The awareness we're talking about here though is awareness that getting your bell rung at the 'coach just says to walk it off' level a few times can have long-term debilitating effects.

I'm not going to flame you over the brushing aside depression like it isn't anything serious thing, I can only assume you've been lucky enough to not have any serious cases of it in your family or friends to know just how bad it can be.

I've seen those levels of depression first hand.  Anyway, that isn't really my point...I contend rather that the short term dangers are far more significant than the long term ones for the collective athletes.  I was going make a rebuttal suggesting something to the effect of what Naum posted.  The numbers in that post are shockingly positive, actually.

At the end of the day, and the thing I will keep coming back to, is that even knowing these risks, almost all of these guys would trade it for the chance to play pro ball.  I don't wish these issues on any of them, I just think claiming that they don't know the risks is a bit of a stretch.  It's like saying "hey, I know smoking could give you deadly lung cancer and forty other life-ending diseases, but OMG I had no idea it could also make you impotent!  Lawsuit!"  That's a deliberately extreme analogy.

Edit:  I think I have failed to make it clear that I am actually very supportive of measures being taken to mitigate these risks.  Medical evaluations, mandatory "time off", testing, equipment improvements and even change of culture.  My sole problem here is the litigious side of things.  People are too fucking lawsuit happy and need to take a bit more personal responsibility.  And even as Tazelbain points out that people are terrible at assessing risk, in my book that does not absolve them of the consequences.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:28:49 AM by Cyrrex »

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #132 on: May 11, 2012, 03:16:25 PM

Eh, when you have coaches pushing you to walk it off and medical staff telling you you're 'cleared' to play I think there are pretty clear grounds for legal action.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Minvaren
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1676


Reply #133 on: June 18, 2012, 12:39:57 PM

Legal action ahoy.

Quote
A class action lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia Thursday that incorporates over 80 pending lawsuits from former NFL players and the families of deceased NFL players, claiming the league hid the links between concussion-related and other head trauma and permanent brain damage.

The lawsuit aims to hold the NFL and helmet maker Riddell responsible for the damage they sustained, which range from Alzheimer's disease and dementia to Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a progressive degenerative disease found in individuals who have been subjected to multiple concussions and other forms of head injury most common among pro athletes involved in contact sports, particularly football and hockey players, and professional wrestlers.

"There are many things of which a wise man might wish to remain ignorant." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #134 on: June 18, 2012, 01:42:21 PM

This is an issue that isn't going to go away quickly.
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #135 on: July 30, 2012, 11:45:10 AM

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Police-Titans-player-dies-in-apparent-suicide-3746574.php

Another one. Only 25 this time; no idea what his injury history is yet (other than the Achilles injury), but expect the conversation around this to all be about that stuff now.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #136 on: July 30, 2012, 12:01:22 PM

Haven't they done a study that shows that the suicide rate among former and current players is actually lower than the general population? 
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #137 on: July 30, 2012, 12:09:57 PM

Yeah, although frankly the sample sizes involved are pretty small. I'm pretty sure the whole issue can't be considered conclusive either way yet.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #138 on: July 30, 2012, 12:14:29 PM

The sfgate article bit about the concussions and brain damage sounds more like a shameless grab hoping for more hits than anything.

Murdock was an undrafted free agent rookie last year, and spent the year on the IR either just before the season started or right at the beginning. He was on the IR with a hamstring injury (I believe) so there wasn't much room for any NFL head injuries there and none have been reported that I could find. Sure, there could have been a history of head injuries in college and before, but nothing has really been said about him having any (which I figure would be a much larger talking point if he did have a history since that would help link him to the possiblity of being in the same situation as Seau and Duerson)

There is probably more of a story if someone dug deep enough to find if there's a connection between him and Kenny McKinley, Murdock's teammate in college, who committed suicide with depression over debt and injury (knee)
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #139 on: July 30, 2012, 12:16:57 PM


The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Sports / Fantasy Sports  |  Topic: The death of football  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC