Syracuse football defensive tackle Steven Clark's career put in jeopardy by blood clots | Page 41 | Syracusefan.com

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Always two sides to every story. Obviously we're not going to hear the other side of things. Steven isn't being forced to stay at SU, if he wants to play he can go elsewhere. I'd like him to play here but the sky isn't falling.

Hmm. Normally agree with you on stuff - but not this.

If 5 other doctors are in agreement on a diagnosis and they have more expertise in that specific area than Tucker, than the other side just doesn't matter. Unless if by "other side" you mean "we screwed up with the brace, our liability is too great." Which is a whole different can of worms, IMO.
 
You're accusing him of being incompetent because you don't like the outcome?

It's simple - I don't think he's incompetent. I think he's not doing his job. If your building a bridge and you get info from 5 people who build bridges who tell you what's what - and you don't have any the specific qualifications they do - you should listen and probably go with their opinions over your own.
 
I'll take the opinion of #3.5 specialists to that of the family practitioner representing the school that caused him to have the problem in the first place.

That's exactly what all other P5 level schools are doing...clearing Steven to play based upon expert opinion...I really hope Steven gets other SEC and hopefully ACC school offers. Most likely too late for Steven here at SU but incriminating evidence against Tucker.

Also hearing FB coach & staff are extremely frustrated with the medical DQ process (or lack of one actually). They can't publicly say anything of course. Not good, not good at all.
 
Last edited:
Small sample size, especially with a bunch of doctors who have nothing to risk by giving him that second opinion. It's terrible about the brace and the clots, it really is. But I can see why SU is being cautious here.
I don't see caution, I see paranoia, and out of proportion to other risks that they accept simply by fielding a team.
 
I would trust my doctor. I'm not trying to defend Tucker, but I'm saying I can understand why he's made the call he has. Regardless if he's right or wrong. And I'm not calling other doctors biased, but if Steven went into those other specialists and told them what was going on, of course they'd clear him. Because they're not liable.

That's not true at all. If a second, third or fourth doctor provide a medical diagnosis (which they did), then they are just as liable as the first doctor.
 
I would trust my doctor. I'm not trying to defend Tucker, but I'm saying I can understand why he's made the call he has. Regardless if he's right or wrong. And I'm not calling other doctors biased, but if Steven went into those other specialists and told them what was going on, of course they'd clear him. Because they're not liable.
Why would specialists provide an opinion if they didn't believe in it? They are doctors - why would they give a false diagnosis? Conversely you correctly point out that liability can be a driving force behind a doctors decision.
 
Small sample size, especially with a bunch of doctors who have nothing to risk by giving him that second opinion. It's terrible about the brace and the clots, it really is. But I can see why SU is being cautious here.

Aren't you doing what you are accusing others of doing by questioning the integrity of the doctor's who provided the second opinions?

I have no issue with SU being overly cautious in the best interests of the players health. What is at issue here is that there seems to be a unanimous consensus of independent and expert medical opinion that Clark is not at increased risk. It does not seem unreasonable to me to question what is driving the decision making process given what we have been told by the family with first hand knowledge of the process.
 
I would trust my doctor. I'm not trying to defend Tucker, but I'm saying I can understand why he's made the call he has. Regardless if he's right or wrong. And I'm not calling other doctors biased, but if Steven went into those other specialists and told them what was going on, of course they'd clear him. Because they're not liable.
You can understand Tucker?
Nobody can understand Tucker. He does whatever gets Syracuse least likely sued. That isn't what a doctor's respondibilty is. Then he ducks the patient when they want a meeting.

Tucker isn't an expert. The Knapp situation was incompetence on his part. The kid went to UPMC and was diagnosed when Tucker couldn't do it himself. Then when the kid gave the information to Tucker he refused to change when he couldn't even properly diagnose the 3rd concussion.

Tucker is doing what the adminstration wants rather than what is in the best interest of his patient. If he thinks the kid should be DQed and 5 experts feel otherwise that is hard to give the benefit of the doubt too.
 
You're accusing him of being incompetent because you don't like the outcome?

no because 5 specialists think he can play, and Tucker the GP is the one who doesn't. Ask Cubs, Ask Kyle Knapp's dad, hell ask the Dungey's about the man, guessing they will agree with me.
 
I would trust my doctor. I'm not trying to defend Tucker, but I'm saying I can understand why he's made the call he has. Regardless if he's right or wrong. And I'm not calling other doctors biased, but if Steven went into those other specialists and told them what was going on, of course they'd clear him. Because they're not liable.
I get your point but the DQ magnifies the damage & risk to Steven, it doesn't reduce the liability rather it broadens it. He has a right to expect an opportunity unless there is a medical concern not addressed by the 5 specialists.

He committed here but SU made commitments to him as well. Making him transfer damages him in several ways, if not physically in the near term.

What's the best SU can do for him at this juncture? I'm not sure that a DQ would be at the top of the list of rational options...
 
Glad to know that 90% of the syracusefan.com board are doctors. I'll definitely come on here the next time I need a medical opinion.

While I'd love Steven to be able to play for SU, I'm not a doctor, so I won't argue with the decision to disqualify him. I hope he succeeds with his degree from this institution or gets the opportunity to play at another school.

Let's pump the brakes on trying to get a guy fired for his informed medical opinion.


I have spent 8 years of my life working with doctors to improve patient outcomes and can tell you without a doubt that doctors are some of the most stubborn arrogant people on the planet.

I'm not a doctor and it was never my job to know more about the doctor but it was my job to know more about a very narrow aspect of his job. The same way a blood clot specialist may not know the best treatment for turf toe.

Over the years I have learned that having a specialist deliver the same message I already delivered went so much further than anything I could say, even if it was the exact same message. The fact that Dr Tucker a Family Practitioner won't listen to not listen to 5 different specialists in Steven Clark’s case is proof that it is time for him to go.
 
I just hate this. Here is my contribution:

Dear Mr. Wildhack,

It is heartbreaking to see the disqualification of Steven Clark when multiple experts have indicated that Steven is fit to play. The family, a very good one, has jumped through hoop after hoop and exercised proper diligence to demonstrate that he is ready to play without jeopardizing his health.

Something just seems very wrong and unfair about this. And it adds insult to injury when we see he is ready to head for Western Michigan.

I believe that the university is getting a ton of negative publicity because of the apparent intransigence in the face positive medical evaluations. I would like to see this decision reversed. If not, then the university (the athletic director and the university's doctor) needs to publicly explain and defend this decision that seems to defy logic and fair play.

Sincerely,
Robert Lovleand BS 1968, MPA 1975, football fan since before 1959, athletics contributor for 40 years
 
I got the response I assuemed I would get:
Good afternoon, PAcuse,


Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue of student-athlete medical welfare. Of paramount importance to Syracuse Athletics is the health and wellness of our students-athletes. Any decision to medically disqualify a player is made solely by our team physician. As Director of Athletics, I support the decisions of our medical staff and their commitment to the health of our student-athletes.

Thank you for your interest and support of SU Athletics.

Sincerely,
John

John Wildhack
Director of Athletics

T 315.443.8705 M 315.560.7223
jwildhac

Department of Intercollegiate Athletics
Manley Field House
1301 E. Colvin Street
Syracuse, NY 13244
syr.edu | cuse.com


I just received the exact, same response from Mr. Wildhack, even though I had sent my email to the Chancellor.

Bob
 
it's not 3, it's actually 5. 5 specialists vs 1 GP. Not sure why you keep defending Tucker and SU. This isn't a situation where the Clark's shopped around and found 1 quack to clear Steven, it's 5 specialists. The 1 quack is Tucker.

Yup, sure the group close to the program will defend this quack. The doc thats basically looking at tonsils one minute then evaluating an elite athlete a few minutes later. Give me a break. 5 specialty clearances. There is ZERO chance at defending this guy. This is on the administration.
 
You're accusing him of being incompetent because you don't like the outcome?

No way a primary physician EVER wins over a specialists opinion. I work in a hospital and primary docs are quick to defer diagnosing to readily available specialists. Thats American medicine in 2017. Meanwhile at Cuse, we have a primary physician stuck in the 70's. Do you guys realize the weight a hematologist and vascular surgeon carry in a case like this? Apparently, you dont, given this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
170,342
Messages
4,885,759
Members
5,992
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
967
Total visitors
1,063


...
Top Bottom