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

[orangenirvana]

Meeting with Tucker on Wednesday.

Start the meeting off by apologizing for yelling at him over the phone.

Then if by the end of the meeting he still doesn't budge on the whole DQ situation, throw in an extra F_Bomb for me.

 

[Shaggy1]

If Dungey was cleared, I have to believe the expert opinion from 3 others would force Tucker to clear Steven.

 

[Deuga]

Historically, I have found that doctors rarely give opposing opinions when given the opportunity. So to have three opposing opinions I find to be really compelling.

I'm surprised SU is using a 70ish year old doctor. It seems they might want to establish an appeals process that involves other docs. For example, a team of 3 docs who meet and decide on the oddball cases should there be an appeal request. They might consider adding an age limit on the docs.

 

[texascpa]

Historically, I have found that doctors rarely give opposing opinions when given the opportunity. So to have three opposing opinions I find to be really compelling.

I'm surprised SU is using a 70ish year old doctor. It seems they might want to establish an appeals process that involves other docs. For example, a team of 3 docs who meet and decide on the oddball cases should there be an appeal request. They might consider adding an age limit on the docs.

Be careful with that.

 

[Toga]

If Dungey was cleared, I have to believe the expert opinion from 3 others would force Tucker to clear Steven.

We don't know the background on the Dungey situation, but the appropriate people do.

 

[bcubs9497]

Historically, I have found that doctors rarely give opposing opinions when given the opportunity. So to have three opposing opinions I find to be really compelling.

I'm surprised SU is using a 70ish year old doctor. It seems they might want to establish an appeals process that involves other docs. For example, a team of 3 docs who meet and decide on the oddball cases should there be an appeal request. They might consider adding an age limit on the docs.

SU could, I suppose, implement an appeals process that would activate when an attending doc gives a diagnosis that would DQ a player. However, that process would apply to docs subordinate to the team doc. The team doc, per NCAA, has the absolute final say as to medical DQ. Can't be overruled, period. SU can't do anything other than fire a team doc and hire another one.

 

[sufandu]

Maybe this jas been addressed, but is Tucker the one that is conservative or is he being comservative at the university's request. That certainly matters with all of the suggestions that the university should replace him. He may be acting exactly as they want him to.

 

[bcubs9497]

Maybe this jas been addressed, but is Tucker the one that is conservative or is he being comservative at the university's request. That certainly matters with all of the suggestions that the university should replace him. He may be acting exactly as they want him to.

No one knows.

 

[RF2044]

Maybe this jas been addressed, but is Tucker the one that is conservative or is he being comservative at the university's request. That certainly matters with all of the suggestions that the university should replace him. He may be acting exactly as they want him to.

And just to expand on that, the "University" has a lot of stakeholders -- the administration, the athletic department, and the coaching staff -- who all might have different "wants."

 

[care taker]

I assume Babers is aware of all this , and the AD , something should be done asap

 

[SUOrange44]

Historically, I have found that doctors rarely give opposing opinions when given the opportunity. So to have three opposing opinions I find to be really compelling.

I'm surprised SU is using a 70ish year old doctor. It seems they might want to establish an appeals process that involves other docs. For example, a team of 3 docs who meet and decide on the oddball cases should there be an appeal request. They might consider adding an age limit on the docs.

FYI...Dr. James Andrews is 74. Should he be bounced because of an arbitrary line?

SUOrange44

 

[bigmike]

Repeal and replace..

 

[bcubs9497]

I assume Babers is aware of all this , and the AD , something should be done asap

Yes.

 

[care taker]

This is why when I win the lottery I'm going to buy and island . It will be called common sense island , no rules, no laws just common sense ! If the player has multiple Dr's clearing him and the player and the parent sign a hold harmless agreement than What is the problem ??????????????????

 

[Deuga]

Be careful with that.

Yes, I hesitated posting it when I wrote it. Probably not legally viable. I would presume SU has a periodic review and retention process for people who serve from outside the university like docs. A policy could for example require the university to conduct a new physician search every X number of years regardless of perceived performance. Doesn't mean the current physician would not be retained, but you'd execute a process of considering alternative candidates by policy mandate. Maybe we already do that though.

 

[djorange1989]

FYI...Dr. James Andrews is 74. Should he be bounced because of an arbitrary line?

SUOrange44

exactly. He should be bounced, not because he is 71, but because he sucks.

 

[Alsacs]

FYI...Dr. James Andrews is 74. Should he be bounced because of an arbitrary line?

SUOrange44

Andrews had to move from Mobile, AL to Pensacola, FL to continue practicing because of age laws.

Andrews has taken on a protégé to handle the surgeries. He is mainly consulting now.

 

[Toga]

Andrews had to move from Mobile, AL to Pensacola, FL to continue practicing because of age laws.

Andrews has taken on a protégé to handle the surgeries. He is mainly consulting now.

Confused. Who is Andrews vis a vis Tucker?

 

[Alsacs]

Confused. Who is Andrews vis a vis Tucker?

Dr. James Andrews is the premier sports doctor in the USA.
Every pitcher goes to him before doing Tommy John surgery.

He is a doctor I would trust his recommendation. The poster was saying old doctors can be good like Dr. Andrews. My point was he was forced to move from Alabama to Florida to continue practicing.

He didn't have anything to do with Tucker. I trust Andrews I don't trust Tucker.

 

[SUOrange44]

Andrews had to move from Mobile, AL to Pensacola, FL to continue practicing because of age laws.

Andrews has taken on a protégé to handle the surgeries. He is mainly consulting now.

If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a consultation-type position as far as willingness to clear or not clear on behalf of the University. I could be wrong but I do not believe he is in a treating capacity.

 

[chugg21]

Confused. Who is Andrews vis a vis Tucker?

James Andrews is more or less the Authority of sports medicine.

 

[Alsacs]

If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a consultation-type position as far as willingness to clear or not clear on behalf of the University. I could be wrong but I do not believe he is in a treating capacity.

The guy should be doing some practicing if he is DQing people. If all he is doing is reading charts and making determinations then SU is beyond stupid for giving Tucker final say.

Tucker doesn't have close to the credibility of Andrews.

 

[bcubs9497]

If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a consultation-type position as far as willingness to clear or not clear on behalf of the University. I could be wrong but I do not believe he is in a treating capacity.

That is correct.

 

[SUOrange44]

The guy should be doing some practicing if he is DQing people. If all he is doing is reading charts and making determinations then SU is beyond stupid for giving Tucker final say.

Tucker doesn't have close to the credibility of Andrews.

I understand your point. I think there are two issues. The first is whether there should be an age limitation on practicing and/or providing consults. The reason I referenced Andrews is because of his position, expertise and age. I don't think there should be an arbitrary line that disqualifies someone simply because of their age.

Point two is the qualification aspect. I cannot and would not comment about the capabilities of any of the physicians involved in the instant case. Obviously some here have very strong feelings about it and I would not tell them they are off base. Where I would have a concern, just like any other areas of message boards, social media, etc., are the people who are disparaging because they don't like the result and/or are parroting others, etc.

Everyone knows this is a serious situation and many are cavalier with the Ivan Drago let him sign a waiver and if he dies he dies theory. That is not the way doctors generally look at these things but they can certainly be swayed by opinions of others or what they believe their mission statement is.

Please be aware that there are A LOT of doctors who no longer practice or have eschewed their practice in favor of performing Independent Medical Examinations, Records Reviews, etc. I am not telling you it is right and I am not telling you that it is not fodder for cross examination but it is a fact.

SUOrange44

 

[sufandu]

And just to expand on that, the "University" has a lot of stakeholders -- the administration, the athletic department, and the coaching staff -- who all might have different "wants."

Exactly. It's the stakeholders that supercede the AD and Tucker that I'm refering to. If Tucker is acting with the conservative approach they prefer, no changes will ever take place.

I get that a MD independent of the AD is necessary. Obviously, it exists to protect players against self serving coaches and ADs that don't care about a player's well being. It's obvious that pendulum has swung way too far in the opposite direction here.