Long Term Physical Impacts Of Sports

[sufandu]

Am I not allowed to have an opinion? Oh, I'm sorry, I guess because of my occupation I'm not supposed to comment on anything outside of my little world.

You have every right to have an opinion and comment on what you'd like, just as I have the right to have an opinion about your lack of perspective for a physically demanding job.

 

[texascpa]

You have every right to have an opinion and comment on what you'd like, just as I have the right to have an opinion about your lack of perspective for a physically demanding job.

I never questioned your right. You did, however, question mine.

Just because I sit at a desk doesn't mean I don't take other physical risks in my life. Is that my choice or am I forced by someone to take that risk?

 

[sufandu]

What about the guys coerced into playing after that minor little injury known as a bell-ringing? Your opinion is based on text book economics.

Additionally, owners and coaches have taken advantage of the fact that the physical toll of football is not felt until many years later combined with the innate belief of most young adults (especially physically gifted athletes) that they are indestructible. They are nothing more than a resource that is meant to be used up and discarded.

 

[sufandu]

I never questioned your right. You did, however, question mine.

Just because I sit at a desk doesn't mean I don't take other physical risks in my life. Is that my choice or am I forced by someone to take that risk?

If someone is making loads and loads of money off of that physical risk, part of the compensation should be appropriate heath care.

 

[sufandu]

I never questioned your right. You did, however, question mine.

Just because I sit at a desk doesn't mean I don't take other physical risks in my life. Is that my choice or am I forced by someone to take that risk?

I never questioned your right either. Just the validity of your opinion.

 

[sufandu]

They could buy their own health insurance and pay for it throughout their lives, just like other people do

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Personally acquired health insurance quite often doesn't cover preexisting conditions like group plans do. Many people also recieve health benefits as part of retirement packages. There's no reason the NFL couldn't make this available.

 

[Shenexon]

Most NFL careers are relatively short compared to other jobs, especially for those with significant injuries sustained before most players reach their full potential. There is a segment of NFL players that have astronomical earnings, but many players' lifetime earnings from the NFL is more in line with other career options. Considering the potential for catastrophic injury, it seems to me to be in the best interest of players, their union, owners, and the NFL to have something in place to deal with injuries that cause long term disabilities. Additionally, if college football is the farm system for the NFL perhaps any solution to football-related disability needs to address catastrophic injuries to college players as well.

 

[tep624]

I'm absolutely making the statement that people 50 years ago had no clue about the longterm ramifications of concussions. Neurological research is lightyears beyond what it was 50 years ago and we still don't know all that much about it. If the neurologists of the time were clueless about it, how would the players have any idea about it.

You do realize that there's a reason why both 50 years and today that most people don't start their day off by running head first into a wall? There's a big difference between being naive and being in denial.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that sticking your hand under the tail end of a rocket is not a good idea. You also don't need to be a neurologist to know that hitting your head on things is not good.

Again degenerative disorders as a result of the wear and tear football takes on a body when the professionalism of the sport was relatively new is one thing - I can easily see the naive angle there in regards to joints, cartilidge, etc. But the head thing - denial at best.

Likewise, if you do any research, you'll find that serious injuries and deaths were occuring on the football field in the early 1900's - the sport has always been a violent sport and the sport has always had signficant risks associated with playing it. There was 50 years worth of examples of players who suffered severe injuries or even death that existed in the game prior to the 50's to 70's era players that have been chronicled as being naive to the severe risks of the game.

 

[billsin01]

You do realize that there's a reason why both 50 years and today that most people don't start their day off by running head first into a wall? There's a big difference between being naive and being in denial.

This analogy makes no sense particularly b/c if you paid them enough people probably would start their day by running head-first into a wall. I mean, you've seen jackass right? But even so it's a grossly inadequate analogy, at least if you were intending it to further your point.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that sticking your hand under the tail end of a rocket is not a good idea. You also don't need to be a neurologist to know that hitting your head on things is not good.

No kidding but there is a long way between "some lingering effects of concussions" and "full-blown alzheimer's at 50" or "a string of crimes culminating in a murder-suicide stemming from severe clinical depression." We're not talking about whether or not hitting your head is a good thing. We're talking about the severity of the ramifications.

Again degenerative disorders as a result of the wear and tear football takes on a body when the professionalism of the sport was relatively new is one thing - I can easily see the naive angle there in regards to joints, cartilidge, etc. But the head thing - denial at best.

Likewise, if you do any research, you'll find that serious injuries and deaths were occuring on the football field in the early 1900's - the sport has always been a violent sport and the sport has always had signficant risks associated with playing it. There was 50 years worth of examples of players who suffered severe injuries or even death that existed in the game prior to the 50's to 70's era players that have been chronicled as being naive to the severe risks of the game.

I don't even know where to start. First of all, you're backwards. The list of lingering football injuries were not only well-documented, but a badge of honor for many of these players. The effects of concussions were not. I mean, I honestly don't know how you'd argue that everyone was so well-aware when even 5 years ago everyone was using the cute phrase "getting your bell rung" and sending players back onto the field in the same game with the consent of the team doctor. If your team doctor is saying, "You're all good son, but if you want to tell the coach you don't want to play, then ..." then you're playing and you're certainly not really informed of your condition.

Secondly you seem to be ignoring the fact that these players wear helmets which they thought were cushioning these blows. Right? Isn't that the whole point of the helmet? Little did we know they weren't doing a thing.

The bottom line is this: Yes, playing football is bad for you and has inherent risk. Yes banging your head on a wall is bad. No, I don't think an employer has to foot the bill for everyone's health care, etc.

However, if you run a league where you not only encourage violence but you encourage players to ignore injuries and continue playing AND you have medical staffs that somehow sign off on this as perfectly fine protocols, then you should feel compelled to help these guys out when it is discovered that there is an alarming rash of traumatic brain injuries. You should also change your practices (which the NFL is doing) and at least educate current players on the risks and the importance of long-term health insurance. I'm not even really sure what the debate is with any of this.

 

[tep624]

This analogy makes no sense particularly b/c if you paid them enough people probably would start their day by running head-first into a wall. I mean, you've seen jackass right? But even so it's a grossly inadequate analogy, at least if you were intending it to further your point.




No kidding but there is a long way between "some lingering effects of concussions" and "full-blown alzheimer's at 50" or "a string of crimes culminating in a murder-suicide stemming from severe clinical depression." We're not talking about whether or not hitting your head is a good thing. We're talking about the severity of the ramifications.



I don't even know where to start. First of all, you're backwards. The list of lingering football injuries were not only well-documented, but a badge of honor for many of these players. The effects of concussions were not. I mean, I honestly don't know how you'd argue that everyone was so well-aware when even 5 years ago everyone was using the cute phrase "getting your bell rung" and sending players back onto the field in the same game with the consent of the team doctor. If your team doctor is saying, "You're all good son, but if you want to tell the coach you don't want to play, then ..." then you're playing and you're certainly not really informed of your condition.

Secondly you seem to be ignoring the fact that these players wear helmets which they thought were cushioning these blows. Right? Isn't that the whole point of the helmet? Little did we know they weren't doing a thing.

The bottom line is this: Yes, playing football is bad for you and has inherent risk. Yes banging your head on a wall is bad. No, I don't think an employer has to foot the bill for everyone's health care, etc.

However, if you run a league where you not only encourage violence but you encourage players to ignore injuries and continue playing AND you have medical staffs that somehow sign off on this as perfectly fine protocols, then you should feel compelled to help these guys out when it is discovered that there is an alarming rash of traumatic brain injuries. You should also change your practices (which the NFL is doing) and at least educate current players on the risks and the importance of long-term health insurance. I'm not even really sure what the debate is with any of this.

It's one thing to make the argument that the NFL is culpable because team physicians looked the other way and told players that they were ok to play when they weren't. It's one thing to say that the NFL and the Players association should have better long term plans for the players, including retirement plans and healthcare plans. I'm on board with that. To me that is part of the cost of the product that they put on the field.

But being naive to the potential for severe injury (again, what I was responding to was the assertion that 50 years ago people had no idea that if you repeatedly slammed your head into something you could have some long-term problems), and getting coerced back onto the field under the guise that you're healthy are two different things entirely. And yes with the studies that have come out recently and the specific emphasis the media has placed on head injuries in the NFL, there naturally has been more research done. But that aside, logically, if you repeatedly damage any part of your body, you're likely to have long term effects as a result of it. I guess for me, I'm just dumbfounded as to why anyone would be naive to that.

We've seen boxers with slurred speech and obvious symptoms of brain damage since the late 70's and maybe even before that. A sport where you suffer repeated blows to the head. It's very evident from that alone that if you suffer repeated blows to the head, you're going to have some long-term problems. Then we have a sport where guys are suffering concussions from repeated head on collisions running at full speed and we're shocked that there are long-term effects to that.

And I'm not backwards on the joint and cartilidge issues either. I would expect the average person not to expect their joints or cartilidge to wear out from doing normal things like running, laterally moving, pivoting, jumping, sliding, squatting, lifting etc. I would however expect the average person to expect some long term problems if they keep slamming their head into something. Joints and cartilidge were made to serve that purpose, your head isn't.

 

[billsin01]

But being naive to the potential for severe injury (again, what I was responding to was the assertion that 50 years ago people had no idea that if you repeatedly slammed your head into something you could have some long-term problems), and getting coerced back onto the field under the guise that you're healthy are two different things entirely. And yes with the studies that have come out recently and the specific emphasis the media has placed on head injuries in the NFL, there naturally has been more research done. But that aside, logically, if you repeatedly damage any part of your body, you're likely to have long term effects as a result of it. I guess for me, I'm just dumbfounded as to why anyone would be naive to that.

So I guess I'm confused as to what you're suggesting -- that repeatedly banging your head against the wall will have long-term repercussions or that football players should've known that playing football would pretty significantly increase the potential for severe complications related to traumatic brain injuries stemming from concussions. I mean concussions until the last few years were largely considered very minor injuries.

We've seen boxers with slurred speech ...

I see boxing as a very different sport -- repeated blows to the head happen dozens of time in one fight. Do that for 30, 40, 50 fights and those punches add up in a hurry. These guys may bang helmets pretty often but they're wearing helmets (at least thought to be a precaution) and they're not suffering dozens of concussions.

And I'm not backwards on the joint and cartilidge issues either. I would expect the average person not to expect their joints or cartilidge to wear out from doing normal things like running, laterally moving, pivoting, jumping, sliding, squatting, lifting etc. I would however expect the average person to expect some long term problems if they keep slamming their head into something. Joints and cartilidge were made to serve that purpose, your head isn't.

Runners -- amateur runners -- have had knee issues as they've aged forever. Older atlethles are always comparing war wounds and arthritis stories. Baseball pitchers can't lift arms over their heads. hoops players have back issues ...

Anyway, I guess we just disagree on the knowledge of the future effects of concussions. That said I don't think there's any doubt the NFL owes something to retired players who were unquestionably coerced onto the field, often within the same game. And, if we do somehow disagree on that, at least work with the players union to help these guys set up insurance and give the players annual education along with the altered rules.

 

[sufandu]

You do realize that there's a reason why both 50 years and today that most people don't start their day off by running head first into a wall? There's a big difference between being naive and being in denial.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that sticking your hand under the tail end of a rocket is not a good idea. You also don't need to be a neurologist to know that hitting your head on things is not good.

Again degenerative disorders as a result of the wear and tear football takes on a body when the professionalism of the sport was relatively new is one thing - I can easily see the naive angle there in regards to joints, cartilidge, etc. But the head thing - denial at best.

Likewise, if you do any research, you'll find that serious injuries and deaths were occuring on the football field in the early 1900's - the sport has always been a violent sport and the sport has always had signficant risks associated with playing it. There was 50 years worth of examples of players who suffered severe injuries or even death that existed in the game prior to the 50's to 70's era players that have been chronicled as being naive to the severe risks of the game.

Your "running head first into a wall" anology is weak at best. These guys were running into each other and at the time never knew they were getting concussions. Also, you're completely backwards in regards to not recognizing joint damage while being in denial to head trauma. We've understood joint damage far longer than we've understood head trauma. We've had X-rays for 100 years. The only way to study the brain prior to modern imaging technology was with post-mortem dissection, and that was only fruitful if there was an awareness of neurological deficits prior to death.