Syracuse football defensive tackle Steven Clark's career put in jeopardy by blood clots

[JHarris44]

My wish is to see him play on Sunday's (if he wants to...) And if that means sitting out a year of football and training, transferring to play again, whatever it is, I believe he's got enough talent and without a doubt the work ethic (and with that comes the measurables/eye test) to be as good if not better than old friend Jay Bromley. If memory serves, Steven was flirting with the idea of transferring to UAB(?) as a grad student to finish up playing. Maybe now that opportunity comes early.

 

[Alsacs]

You are talking about something you have no knowledge of. One, we don't know exactly what the other dr's said. We often hear what we want to hear. the guy with the responsibility to make these decisions has said he can't play. I'm sure he was deliberate when he made this decision. He may be wrong. But you and I aren't dr's.

By the way if it was in the best interest of this kid to never play football again that is exactly what I would support. He isn't going to make or break our season. I just think that if the father has two doctors say otherwise and our doctor for the university is being overtly conservative that isn't right.

 

[CuseOnly]

My first call would be to an attorney after the conversation with the doctors. I would argue that a genetic medical condition was exacerbated by an inept medical staff causing a young man to have his football career ended.

Just my opinion.

 

[bcubs9497]

My first call would be to an attorney after the conversation with the doctors. I would argue that a genetic medical condition was exacerbated by an inept medical staff causing a young man to have his football career ended.

Just my opinion.

As of now, we're churning things over. Spitballing our options, so to speak. Couldn't even begin to hazard a guess as to what Steven's plans will be. Could be anything from staying put and finishing out his BS to becoming a priest.

 

[OrangePA]

We asked for a THIRD opinion and were rebuffed. Tucker was adamant.

I just don't understand this.

Why should one guy - a GP from what I understand - wield so much power?

It seems to me that a panel of doctors should make the assessment with specifically designated specialists included in the specific panel.

Who is this guy anyway??

 

[chakka3421]

There are two specialists that the family has a history with and whose main concern is for the player that have both cleared Steven to play vs 1 specialist in Syracuse whose main concern may be the potential liability of the school. To let a family practice doctor make the final decision over the two specialists the family knows is nonsense in my opinion. My wife is a physician and I hear all the time about some of the egregious mistakes that other doctors make and I know lots of doctors through her, some of which I would never trust my health or that of someone I care about to them - to say that none of us has the right to judge a doctor is just silly.

I said this once early on in this thread and I'll say it again - on very good authority - Tucker is an amateur when it comes to having any formal process in place when it comes to decision making including a validation process (including second opinions, formal meeting and joint decision making processes) that is followed by other top shelf universities.

What I don't know is this - what requirements are in place for Tucker's continuing education in sports medicine. I've heard practically nothing is in place as required by other universities.

I know I might get beat up here but this is a very similar situation to what happened to our Strength & Conditioning coach (forgot his name) not keeping up with modern S&C techniques used by other universities either.

Professionals need to keep up with advances in their fields of specialties and not keep to antiquated methods where they are simply just trying to hold out until they can retire.

 

[texascpa]

what would happen to our football program if we played him after all of this and something tragic happened?

You could say that for many athletes. Point is, the risk is undeniably low.

 

[texascpa]

I said this once early on in this thread and I'll say it again - on very good authority - Tucker is an amateur when it comes to having any formal process in place when it comes to decision making including a validation process (including second opinions, formal meeting and joint decision making processes) that is followed by other top shelf universities.

What I don't know is this - what requirements are in place for Tucker's continuing education in sports medicine. I've heard practically nothing is in place as required by other universities.

I know I might get beat up here but this is a very similar situation to what happened to our Strength & Conditioning coach (forgot his name) not keeping up with modern S&C techniques used by other universities either.

Professionals need to keep up with advances in their fields of specialties and not keep to antiquated methods where they are simply just trying to hold out until they can retire.

Babers cleaned house with the exception of one area. I wonder if he wishes he could start over again.

 

[RoofBeam]

Knowing the University's typical decision making process when it comes to anything other than its bloated and redundant administrative structures I can pretty much guess why Tucker is serving in his capacity as judge, jury and executioner: he underbid whatever competition there was (if there was any at all).

 

[bcubs9497]

I just don't understand this.

Why should one guy - a GP from what I understand - wield so much power?

It seems to me that a panel of doctors should make the assessment with specifically designated specialists included in the specific panel.

Who is this guy anyway??

I found out why. Apparently, the NCAA gives him, and all team docs, that power. Tucker's decision is pretty much iron-clad.

"The NCAA tournament physician, as designated by the host school, has the unchallengeable authority to determine whether a student-athlete with an injury, illness or other medical condition (e.g., skin infection, communicable disease) may expose others to a significantly enhanced risk of harm and, ifso, to disqualify the student-athlete from continued participation."

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2013-14 Sports Medicine Handbook.pdf

Page 34.

Pretty sure it says the same thing in the current PDF.

Doesn't preclude him from getting sht-canned, though...

 

[bcubs9497]

Knowing the University's typical decision making process when it comes to anything other than its bloated and redundant administrative structures I can pretty much guess why Tucker is serving in his capacity as judge, jury and executioner: he underbid whatever competition there was (if there was any at all).

Totally agree.

 

[orangepassion]

So becoming a Rabbi or monk is out?

As of now, we're churning things over. Spitballing our options, so to speak. Couldn't even begin to hazard a guess as to what Steven's plans will be. Could be anything from staying put and finishing out his BS to becoming a priest.

 

[bcubs9497]

So becoming a Rabbi or monk is out?

Really should've said Shaman, given his Native American ancestry. =D

 

[tep624]

I said this once early on in this thread and I'll say it again - on very good authority - Tucker is an amateur when it comes to having any formal process in place when it comes to decision making including a validation process (including second opinions, formal meeting and joint decision making processes) that is followed by other top shelf universities.

What I don't know is this - what requirements are in place for Tucker's continuing education in sports medicine. I've heard practically nothing is in place as required by other universities.

I know I might get beat up here but this is a very similar situation to what happened to our Strength & Conditioning coach (forgot his name) not keeping up with modern S&C techniques used by other universities either.

Professionals need to keep up with advances in their fields of specialties and not keep to antiquated methods where they are simply just trying to hold out until they can retire.

I know that CPA's need to do a minimum of 40 hours per year in continuing education to keep your license active. Not sure if physicians have a similar requirement.

 

[Orijinal]

More football players die from football related injuries than from blood clots caused by playing football - so based on your logic shouldn't the university just drop football because of the known risks of playing a violent contact sport? They are knowingly putting all of these kids at risk by allowing them to play football - imagine if one of them dies?

So, here's my question:

It wasn't a football injury that caused his blood clots, was it?

Wasn't it the care for his injuries that caused the clotting issue?

If that's the case, I guess the second question (and probably the biggest question here): Would any person, having received the same care, have been highly prone to blood clotting issues? If not, then in my mind it's right that Steven not take any more risks. If yes, then the physicians have hurt Steven, his family, and the fan base.

 

[OrangeMojo]

I found out why. Apparently, the NCAA gives him, and all team docs, that power. Tucker's decision is pretty much iron-clad.

"The NCAA tournament physician, as designated by the host school, has the unchallengeable authority to determine whether a student-athlete with an injury, illness or other medical condition (e.g., skin infection, communicable disease) may expose others to a significantly enhanced risk of harm and, ifso, to disqualify the student-athlete from continued participation."

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2013-14 Sports Medicine Handbook.pdf

Page 34.

Pretty sure it says the same thing in the current PDF.

Doesn't preclude him from getting sht-canned, though...

is that the important section there - I don't believe Steven's condition exposes others to an enhanced risk of harm

 

[Pearl309]

late to the party. but this is absolutely nonsensical
i understand liability. but with there being an inherent liability of the sport, they're blaming a rare genetic disorder, btw if performing genetic testing on all student athletes on the same metric clark was, would preclude most student athletes from participating.
mind numbing
edit: full panel genetic testing of potential issues that could cause serious injury in a contact sport

 

[bcubs9497]

late to the party. but this is absolutely nonsensical
i understand liability. but with there being an inherent liability of the sport, they're blaming a rare genetic disorder, btw if performing genetic testing on all student athletes on the same metric clark was, would preclude most student athletes from participating.
mind numbing

Agreed.

 

[Killdozer]

what would happen to our football program if we played him after all of this and something tragic happened?

What would happen to our program if nothing happened and SU was in the playoffs?

 

[bigmike]

I don't want to turn this thread into a moratorium on healthcare and I agree with most of your post but your proposed strategy is exactly why doctors practice defensive medicine.

The litigious nature of our culture is a driving force behind astronomical healthcare costs and declining quality of care.

I think SUAD certainly needs to reconfigure their medical staff and evaluation protocol to be more inclusive and exhaustive for the betterment of the student athlete.

Nailed it!

 

[ForCuseSake]

Um, no. Liability insurance/MP litigation represents a small fraction (1-2%) of health care costs. There are many other (bigger) drivers ... technology and drugs are certainly drivers, and doctors and hospitals account for more than 50% of health care costs, for some examples. The highlighted part of your post has OTB written all over it, but as far as the thread I think the "betterment" of the student athlete is exactly why the team doctor disqualified this young man (to save his life).

You make a poor inference that malpractice premiums are the only cost of our litigious culture. No need to quote stats to me; I'd rather you reread my post and acknowledge that I never specified malpractice insurance premiums as a driving force behind healthcare costs.

Higher malpractice premiums are one of the byproducts of our litigious culture. There are many others that aren't as obvious. A doctor who orders a battery of tests to mitigate a malpractice claim while validating an obvious diagnosis is one such example.

Regulatory requirements also carry a significant cost burden. Most are good but there are regulations that provide little benefit to patients while costing medical practitioners big $$ for compliance.

I don't know what OTB means as used in your post but I'm guessing it's not complimentary given your misinterpretation of my post.

 

[care taker]

Maybe they feel more on the hook because the brace was to tight that they put on ?!?!?! Double CYA !

 

[reedny]

You make a poor inference that malpractice premiums are the only cost of our litigious culture. No need to quote stats to me; I'd rather you reread my post and acknowledge that I never specified malpractice insurance premiums as a driving force behind healthcare costs.

Higher malpractice premiums are one of the byproducts of our litigious culture. There are many others that aren't as obvious. A doctor who orders a battery of tests to mitigate a malpractice claim while validating an obvious diagnosis is one such example.

Regulatory requirements also carry a significant cost burden. Most are good but there are regulations that provide little benefit to patients while costing medical practitioners big $$ for compliance.

I don't know what OTB means as used in your post but I'm guessing it's not complimentary given your misinterpretation of my post.

OTB is the off-topic board (for politics). I don't think I misinterpreted your post ... since our "litigious culture" is not the primary driver of health care costs, not even in the top 10. Nothing personal. I also disagree with you about Clark, although that's very tough news for this young man. And I can understand why he'd want to get a second (or third) opinion. Either way, medical ineligibility may not be good for his FB aspirations (or the team), but his "betterment" certainly includes his health.

 

[bcubs9497]

OTB is the off-topic board (for politics). I don't think I misinterpreted your post ... since our "litigious culture" is not the primary driver of health care costs, not even in the top 10. Nothing personal. I also disagree with you about Clark, although that's very tough news for this young man. And I can understand why he'd want to get a second (or third) opinion. Either way, medical ineligibility may not be good for his FB aspirations (or the team), but his "betterment" certainly includes his health.

His health is just fine.

 

[dollarbill44]

The specialist in Syracuse who examined Steven recommended that he not play anymore.

There is also a growing number of physicians who recommend that no one plays football. I'm wondering if we are employing some of those doctors.