Chris Henry Had CTE Before Death, And Why That Matters So Much
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 29, 2010 8:00 AM CDT
in Iowa Hawkeyes Football
Email
PrintThere are no mentions of Iowa sports in this post, but rest assured it will affect all of football very soon.--AJ
As the football world has come to better understand the causes and effects of brain damage in its sport, three general assumptions about Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) started to take hold:
- It is a result of concussions, particularly multiple concussions
- It happens to people with long, contact-filled careers
- Its onset happens later in life
Basically, the general consensus was that Mike Webster was the poster child for CTE.
And then Chris Henry died, and now there's evidence that blows up all three of those assumptions. And that is just about the worst news possible for the sport of football.
In fact, not only does Henry satisfy none of those three conditions, he doesn't even come close. Down the line:
It is a result of concussions, especially multiple concussions: If Henry ever suffered a concussion, it was news to his teams; Henry never missed a game to head injury during his career at West Virginia or Cincinnati.
It happens to people with long, contact-filled careers Chris Henry spent four years at West Virginia, then five in the NFL. But even those numbers are both somewhat inflated; Henry redshirted one of those four years at WVU, declaring for the draft after his junior year. Once in the NFL, Henry was suspended for half a year due to arrests--some of which included erratic, violent behavior. So of those nine seasons after high school, Henry was actually playing for just 7 and a half.
Further, Henry played wide receiver, one of the least contact-intensive positions in sport. Yes, Colin Sandeman can surely attest to how violent the worst hits can be for wideouts. But the repetitious, incessant helmet contact that we've been led to believe (and not unfairly) causes CTE and that linemen, linebackers, and safeties face just isn't there.
Its onset happens later in life Henry died at 26. And not only did he exhibit classic signs of CTE, his brain was already in advanced stages of decay:
Finding CTE in a current pro football player wouldn't surprise Robert Cantu, whose Boston University research group has received funding from the NFL.
"It also wouldn't surprise me that somebody as young as 26 would have it, either," Dr. Cantu said of Mr. Henry. "What would be a big surprise is if the amount of Tau protein. ... would be as excessive as it is in people who had much more lengthy careers and died at a much later age."
"It didn't look like the brain of a 26-year-old," said Dr. Omalu, a former Allegheny County pathologist who first found CTE in an autopsy of Mr. Long in September 2005.
A picture of the tissue study of Henry's frontal cortex, compared to that of a normal brain, is here. As one researcher put it, "you should never see" the red stainings evident in Henry's brain. One would expect them in an Alzheimer's patient.
The absolute worst thing that could happen to the NFL is if multiple players routinely died as a direct result of their play--that the sport had become too brutal for humanity. And not even in a sense of shortened lifespans by 10-20 years, but Jack Trice situations happening left and right. The sport would surely collapse quickly, because human life trumps all.
The next step down from life itself is quality of life, and by that we don't mean how nice your house is or how often you smile. It's how close to "normal" your body and mind are. The lasting physical tolls of football on that quality of life are as well-known as they are devastating. Gnarled fingers and fused joints abound. Earl Campbell can barely walk. The life expectancy of an NFL veteran is currently under 60. Again, well-known, and more or less accepted by everyone involved. Would you accelerate the degenerative effects of aging for a few years of glory and fortune in the league? Many men would.
Mental degeneration, however, is a different beast altogether. When the brain goes, everything goes. The stories of Webster, Terry Long, and Justin Strzelzcyk were all characterized by CTE, depression, substance abuse, violent and erratic behavior, and early, awful deaths. And those were just three guys from one franchise.
It's hard to tell right now what lasting effect a substantial football career has on today's NFL and collegiate players, mainly because CTE can only be conclusively identified during an autopsy. The former athletes who are dying today are primarily in their 60s, 70s, and 80s; they mostly played in an era that didn't involve such violent and repetitive blows to the head. This is not to say that football was ever not a nasty sport, but the players are larger and faster now than they used to be a generation or more ago. Yes, that goes the same for both hitters and hittees (new word alert), but the one thing that hasn't gotten any more suited to contact on either side is the brain.
The NFL has been getting more proactive about concussions recently, but this news puts basically every player in the league--punters and kickers can probably sleep well at night--at substantial risk for serious mental health problems down the road, regardless of whether they've ever actually suffered a concussion. That's not to definitively say that every player's brain is self-destructing, but there's really no way to tell if any of them are suffering from those disastrous effects until the symptoms begin. And by then, frankly it's too late.
The worst case scenario is eradication of the sport as we know it. That likely won't happen, although rules of contact may change substantially. To put it coldly, it depends on whether it's worth it for everyone involved. Money talks--especially when billions are on the table. What's more likely is that the NFL will be more explicit to its entering players about the significant dangers to quality of life if one pursues a life on the gridiron. How much farther they go than that will have to depend on the results of ongoing research. From what we know right now, it's not terribly inspiring.
There's an old phrase about Bernese Mountain Dogs: "3 years a young dog, 3 years a good dog, 3 years an old dog; the rest is a gift from God." This news about Chris Henry might mean career football players are something close to the same: "20 years a young man, 20 years an athletic man, 20 years an old man; the rest is a gift from God." As an avowed and diehard football fan, I hope so much that, in the face of the evidence unfolding in front of us every day, it's not true.
215 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My god...
This gives me such a sinking, “my god, what have we done?” feeling. Not only for my own mere six years of football trauma to my then adolescent and still-growing brain, but to also as a fellow die-hard fan for being part of the problem by the very nature of being such a die-hard fan. Not that any of us are directly, personally responsible for the proliferation of CTE, but as fans in the arena, cheering on our favored Gladiators, we are a part of the culture that creates it. Like Adam, I hope with all my heart and my still-functioning brain that the Bernese Mountain Dog analogy is untrue, but… deep down I know it is.
So. I too highly doubt we will see football go away entirely. Money has always and always will outweigh any negative effects on the actual people involved. And, not to be too cynical about it, the greater the potential for death on the field, the greater the ratings and ad revenue potential. Ok, that’s pretty cynical …but it’s true.
I guess the most logical step, then, is to drastically alter the rules of contact, or come up with a helmet technology so advanced that it negates the detrimental effects of contact as much as possible. But to truly do that, we’re talking sci-fi force field-type technology. And even then, the brain would still slosh about in the skull and there would still be potential for concussion.
Maybe no helmets at all?
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
I haven't heard anything about impact sensing helmets for a while
like these, but even with the cost, I don’t understand why they’re not in wider use, especially at the college and pro levels in terms of research alone
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions
What is really sad...
is that any player that wears equipment that might actually protect their brain a bit more, usually gets made fun of in the media about it. Two examples come to mind: David Wright in baseball (below), and some guy for the 49ers in the 1990s that wore an extra shell over the top of his helmet (couldn’t find a photo).
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions
You're right
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Hawkeye State
by Bama Hawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Thank you, Bama.
Do you remember his name? As a 49er fan, I am disappointed in myself that I can’t remember it.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Steve Wallace
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Hawkeye State
by Bama Hawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 9:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Bills players
Don Beebe and Mark Kelso also wore “shell” helmets. I remember Beebe showing up in a game with one of these a week after receiving a concussion. He didn’t wear it every game after that, just a few weeks if I remember.
by KinnickNorthHawk on Jun 29, 2010 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Helmet technology
Purely anecdotal. My father played high school football in maryland in the 1960s, back when teaching kids the spear tackle was considered best practice throughout the sport. He said that there was a marked increase on his team in the number of concussions that occurred after his team moved to the air helmet from the old suspension-style helmet.
by AmosAlonzoStaggParty on Jun 29, 2010 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
helmet tech
is a big issue, but not leading with the head is really more for the protection of the tackler. It helps them not break their freakin’ neck.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Sure, it helps the tackler
But I’d have to think the spear tackle led to a lot more helmet to helmet than when our coaches were telling us to put our facemask on the ball or just get our heads in front of the player to stop upfield movement.
by AmosAlonzoStaggParty on Jun 29, 2010 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Helmet improvement probably won't help
In fact, it may have the opposite effect. In fact, I believe it was written about in ESPN the magazine a little while back, if I remember correctly. With improvements in helmet technology, players may feel as though they can be more reckless. Not only that, but no matter what type of helmet they devise, until they figure out how to keep the brain from sliding around inside the skull, it’s really a moot point, since that is what causes the concussion.
All that said, I must say I do worry about my bro, since he played 4 years of college ball in addition to his high school and junior high years. Obviously there’s no way to know if/how badly he was affected, but hopefully minimally.
Seriously, Adam
Your best work.
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Hawkeye State
Concur.
And that’s saying a lot.
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions
This is a touchy subject
but researchers and the NFL need to make ever effort to get consent from loved ones to do tests on the brain tissue of former players who die. The older players are important, but this shows that younger players are critical for the research.
I’m not surprised by this result, but I have to admit that it’s terrifying. It makes me wonder about many incidents where a player does something stupid off the field, is this an early sign that the damage is already impacting judgment. How long does it take to actually show up in behavior. And if Chris Henry’s brain, that of someone who didn’t have a diagnosed concussion, was already this badly impacted at this age, how bad are the guys who have several known concussions already? How much of this is genetic, as we see plenty of older players who don’t appear to suffer from such obvious brain trauma. We need to know.
In regards to the Bernese Mountain Dog analogy, I’ve had one Grandparent die who had a lingering brain injury. He was unrecognizable at the end. There was simply nothing there, no comprehension of anything that he communicate. Another was fine mentally, but her body completely failed and she was completely bed-ridden for almost 2 years before dying. Sometimes the rest isn’t a gift. It’s heartbreaking.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 8:32 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
In regards to the Bernese Mountain Dog analogy, I’ve had one Grandparent die who had a lingering brain injury. He was unrecognizable at the end. There was simply nothing there, no comprehension of anything that he communicate. Another was fine mentally, but her body completely failed and she was completely bed-ridden for almost 2 years before dying. Sometimes the rest isn’t a gift. It’s heartbreaking.
My maternal grandpa and grandma lived on the same farmstead as my parents and I while I was growing up. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents, obviously, as most any kid would if their grandparents were that close. They both passed within a year of each other, as a result of Alzheimer’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease respectively. Complete brain failure on one hand, complete body failure on the other hand.
“Sometimes the rest isn’t a gift. It’s heartbreaking.” Horrible, but in my experience, very accurate. This sort of brain damage story really, really hits home.
I do have more rhymes than Jamaica got mangos.
by LuebkeSwims! on Jun 29, 2010 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions
In regards to the Bernese Mountain Dog analogy, I’ve had one Grandparent die who had a lingering brain injury. He was unrecognizable at the end. There was simply nothing there, no comprehension of anything that he communicate. Another was fine mentally, but her body completely failed and she was completely bed-ridden for almost 2 years before dying. Sometimes the rest isn’t a gift. It’s heartbreaking.
Both of my grandmothers died of cancer, one when I was a child. The more recent one to pass also had Alzheimer’s in addition to a cancer that was Stage 4 when it was diagnosed. I have all of these memories of who she was when I was growing up, and then how she was the last few years of her life. It’s only been a few months, but sometimes, it feels like yesterday. I guess “heartbreaking” is the closest word in any language to it, but I’m sure you would agree that the word barely touches the full extent of it. And yet, I wouldn’t trade a minute of it for anything. It’s heartbreaking, true, but as someone who had the privilege of helping take care of her in her last days, it was worth it.
Cynicism is that blackguard defect of vision which compels us to see the world as it is, instead of as it should be.
- Ambrose Bierce
by Dorsett Case on Jun 30, 2010 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Well written. However, I must disagree with one point:
The former athletes who are dying today are primarily in their 60s, 70s, and 80s; they mostly played in an era that didn’t involve such violent and repetitive blows to the head.
Up until 1977, the head slap was not outlawed. Obviously, helmets were less and less protective as we go farther into the past. Helmet-to-helmet hits have only been given a rule recently (within the last 5 to 10 years?) I would like to say that concussions are treated more carefully today, but Henry’s case might indicate that players and others just hide it or ignore it more today. I’d say these factors make it seem more like players from the 1980s and before were still at a very high risk.
Of course, they play more games now, at higher speed, so maybe that is a factor that puts current players in more danger.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
But that's the thing
We’re now learning that CTE can probably be caused by sub-concussive impacts—and, apparently, less than one would expect.
So it’s not that these guys are hiding concussions (hardly an easy task) because they want to look tough and it’s contributing to brain damage. It’s that the concussions might not be as big a contributing factor to begin with. And that’s terrifying.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Right.
And, it’s likely a cumulative effect. So, you could have a player who has never officially had a concussion, yet still develops CTE simply as a result of the repeated impacts – even if, comparatively speaking, those impacts are rather minor.
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions
That's not entirely true
at the NFL level, guys do try to hide concussions, especially the low level ones. That’s the culture shift that needs to happen.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions
No, I wasn't trying to insinuate that it's impossible to do so
Just that it was both difficult (concussions are frequently noticeable) and potentially unnecessary for CTE to begin taking effect.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
I know
I’m just saying that there is often a deliberate and conscious decision by the players to not tell the coaches and/or medical staff about the immediate effects of a big hit.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions
True.
It doesn’t take a concussion to start this ailment on its tracks.
However, you now have rules on concussions that make players have to sit out a certain number of games (which puts their reputation and livelihood at risk) if they do seek help for head injuries. I can’t speak for whether this (hiding your injury) happened to Henry, but I would be shocked if it wasn’t happening in around 50 to 75% of NFL and major college teams.
And you are correct, it is all troubling and terrifying.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm lucky that in my 6 years of playing football I never had any concussions or serious injuries
I cringe any time I see any football player taken off the field for a concussion.
Former Northwestern player (1967-1971) and current Chicago Sun-Times columnist Rick Telander has been writing a series of stories about for the last few days about CTE, brain damage, and how his former teammates have fared since. I highly recommend reading it
by LincolnParkWildcat on Jun 29, 2010 8:46 AM CDT reply actions
One small thing I’d like to add about this terrible topic – Chris Henry played receiver. Not RB, OL, DL or LB, receiver. The game is going to have to change.
Yes, thank you
I had that part in there, edited it out to put it somewhere else, then forgot to. Amending at once.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Uffda
I’m both grateful and sad that I only played 2 years of football. After that I’d stopped growing, was just too small to be any good, and joined the cross country team. I loved playing football, I’ve remained an almost obsessive fan, but jeez . . . maybe I’m glad I stopped playing (?). I dunno. And what if my wife and I have a boy someday . . . what’s the risk involved in letting them fall in love with the sport? He’d probably be better at soccer or wrestling or track, but what if he’s like me (and every other Hawkeye boy ever) and wants to be the next Nick Bell or Shonn Greene, but wants to stay with it longer than I did? The uncertainty is pretty scary.
i'm reminded of the brutal hit on Sandeman during the MSU game
the week after that game I was listening to an ESPN affiliate out of western michigan (I heart radio app FTW!) and they started blathering on about how players just need to grow up, take the hit, and not complain. Players in my dad’s day had to share helmets and it was only a thin slap of a pigs ass! I called in and asked a simple question: how many linebackers back then ran a 4.4 – 4.5 40 and weighed 260 lbs? That shut them up pretty quick. Bigger faster stronger has its price.
Keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either, Dude.
by AcrimoniousAngerererer on Jun 29, 2010 9:04 AM CDT reply actions
Yeah...
I don’t know why, but it seemed like a lot of people (media, MSU coaches, etc) were very ready to call Sandeman a wuss and call the refs dumb for making that call. It is probably a call that should be made MORE often, not less.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions
It's really interesting....
Because Spartan Stadium was so outraged with the call that the fans booed while Sandeman was helped off the field. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but really, regardless of team affiliation, there needs to be a culture change, as has been said above. My two cents is that the change needs to come not only in the locker room, but in the stands, the press box, the networks, and in the ivory towers.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
And, just to clarify...
I’m not slamming any Michigan State fans. I’m just as guilty of cheering a mind-fucking hit as anybody on this site. What comes to mind is Marshall Yanda, even though that wasn’t quite helmet-to-helmet, or any tackle made by Bob Sanders. Like I said, if we are going to change football, we need to change the locker rooms and the fans.
As an aside, Yanda didn’t look happy in that video. He wasn’t doing any of the normal jackassery, jumping up and down and the like. So kudos to him.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
Probably because Herb Grigsby ran out of bounds or whatever after like, only 6 yards.
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions
And I think he realized pretty quickly (as everybody in the stadium did) that the guy (I feel bad for not knowing his name) was seriously injured
At first reaction it was “wow look at that” then on replay after replay the stadium got increasingly somber. Of course, the obvious difference with the MSU play is that Yanda was more or less run into by somebody with their head down, there wasn’t anything you could possibly have called on Yanda for that.
rashawn parker was the isu player who got knocked out there
i remember being at that game, and the crowd reaction was just like you put it.
"Stats from the spring," he said when handed the numbers. "I can take those down to the spare bathroom in the house. We can put them to use down there."
- Paul Rhoads
Agreed
I’m not trying to generalize all big hits or anything. There’s an obvious difference. I just couldn’t recall any major helmet-to-helmet hits in recent history. I swear, my memory is konking out way too early.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
…my memory is konking out way too early.
In two months, when you are out in the street urinating into your mailbox, we’ll all just say “it’s because he played FOOTBALL.”
/sarcasm’d
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions
It wasn't my intent in that comment
to trivialize the neurological injuries suffered by football players. Apologies if that’s how it appeared.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
Yet we all are still in awe of Timmy D destroying that AZ player
When he was clearly concussed… That was a memorable moment in Iowa football history and I’m as guilty as anyone. It’s just tough to only cheer for hits up to a certain point. I dunno…???…
Fuck tOSU
This is a wonderful article. Thanks very much for providing further perspective to this issue.
I find myself most troubled by the implications of such news on my status as a football fan. I see above that Hawkeyes are talking about the Sandeman hit. I was at the game, rooting for the Spartans, and when that hit was made, I cheered and jumped up and down. When the flag was thrown, I booed. It’s a reaction that takes place on a very visceral level. In retrospect, I’m not proud of any part of my reaction, but it’s a reaction I’ve had many times, in person or at home in front of the TV in the aftermath of a big hit.
I’m wondering now how I should change my reaction to football. Is it possible to censor out the bloodlust (what else to call it?) and watch the game rooting for a less physical, more technical game? What does football become when we truly begin to care more about the long-term impacts that the game is having on its participants than the short-term impact that the team’s performance has on us?
Is there a way to play and enjoy football that doesn’t involve the sort of violence and injury that has come to be part and parcel of the game? And if, as seems likely, football does not adequately respond to this news, how should I change my relationship to the game now, before any changes are made?
As it stands now, in the shadow of the new season, I’m left with one overarching question. How can I continue to enthusiastically support a game that may be condemning its participants to brain damage, emotional and psychological turmoil and early death?
Good questions, all, and ones we should probably all be considering.
Because we’ve all been there. Did/do any of us find Tim Dwight’s hit on that Arizona punt returner inappropriate or over the line? No. We lustily celebrate it even now, 10+ years later, and laugh that the Arizona player starts to walk off the field toward the wrong bench. Same applies to the Yanda-ing of that ISU player in 2006, the Bob Sandersing of everyone, and so on.
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions
I admit...
I love to see a hard hit on the football field. However, I don’t really enjoy seeing helmet-on-helmet hits. No matter who gets called for it, I don’t get angry at the refs (and I boo them for almost any other mistake they make).
I don’t get too angry at fans making a quick reaction. What ticked me off was people continually bitching about the call for a few days after.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think Ware was trying to lead with his helmet
It just happened that way during the collision. By definition it was an illegal hit, but it was unfortunate for Jeremy Ware nonetheless as he made a great play. Now with this information we all are going to wonder about what condition Colin Sandeman will be in 20-40 years down the line as a result of these type of hits.
I think that advances in equipment could prevent these type of injuries, like CTE, in players. High impact absorbing helmets are used and have been for at least 10 years, if these helmets can be improved upon anymore to protect the players I hope everything that can be done will be done to do so and that athletic departments, at all levels, will provide this equipment for the players.
"If Ron Zook were an ice cream flavor, it would be praline and retard"
-Garth Algar
by Tree Meister on Jun 29, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Not as unfortunate as it was for Colin Sandeman...
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions
obviously
I figured that was a given with the topic at hand. It was unfortunate for Ware because he was intending to make a great clean play, and unfortunate for Sandeman because of the resulting injury.
"If Ron Zook were an ice cream flavor, it would be praline and retard"
-Garth Algar
by Tree Meister on Jun 29, 2010 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, as this is showing...
…it may have been just as bad for Ware who also took some effects of the HTH shot. He may have gotten up quickly, but clearly that kind of repeated contact could have the same results.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 29, 2010 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't want to turn this into a referendum on fans (or MSU fans, in particular)...
But I was at that game and the thing that disgusted me the most was not that MSU fans cheered the hit or booed the flag; those are part of football (for good or ill) and the flag in particular was perhaps thrown a few seconds later than it should have. What bothered me was the fact that the fans in the stands continued to think that he was faking it or milking it or that he hadn’t really been hit that hard and were booing him for not getting up sooner… when he was clearly in bad shape. Heat of the moment reactions are one thing, but not being able to respect the fact that a player might very well have been hurt badly is another.
But, again, I don’t want to condemn all MSU fans — there were many perfectly fine people there that night and not every single person reacted that way… but enough did in my area (which was opposite from the students, so I couldn’t even chalk it up to “oh, that’s just the idiot drunken students”) that there was an ugly undercurrent in the air. I have little doubt that you could find reactions like that among most (if not all) fanbases.
As to your larger point… I don’t know. Pro wrestling has been dealing (or, more accurately, NOT dealing) with many of these very same issues for years and years and it’s negatively impacted my ability to enjoy that product. I know I liked pro wrestling a hell of a lot less after it chewed up and spit out some of my favorite guys to watch (Guerrero, Benoit* to name a few). I love football far more than I ever liked pro wrestling, but it’s certainly going to be harder to watch it knowing what some of the possible effects of playing the sport are.
- Not to open a very messy can of worms here… I certainly don’t mean to let him off the hook for what he did because he’s ultimately culpable, but there’s also no denying that pro wrestling and the lifestyle it engendered was a big factor in fucking his brain six ways to Sunday.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I just found another head injury article.
It made me realize how safe football is when compared to some other, more violent sports.
http://www.mmafighting.com/2010/06/28/michael-kirkham-dies-following-pro-mma-debut/
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
Are you serious?
You do realize that football is often considered the most dangerous and violent sport in the world, right?
There have been two reports of death that resulted from MMA, EVER. Your ignorance is astonishing.
by The Mexican't on Jun 29, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree in general, but...
I am curious to see what the long-term effects of an MMA career are, though. We’re just starting to see the first generation of MMA fighters wrapping up their careers, so we’ll have to see what their lives and physical conditions are like. We simply don’t know yet.
We have decades of experience to draw upon for looking at the effects of a career in pro football or boxing or what have you.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I won't go as far as to say that MMA is the safest sport in the world
But the unfortunate death of Michael Kirkham is more a sign that MMA needs amateur rules (head gear, heavier gloves, etc). It was a sanctioned event, and the commission was on hand so it is definitely something that must be addressed. However, linking to it and claiming that football is definitely safer than MMA, IMO, is absurd.
Kirkham’s death is tragic. Using it as a way to lambast MMA is stupid.
That said, this isn’t a discussion about MMA, so that’ll be the end to my rant.
by The Mexican't on Jun 29, 2010 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, yes.
I wasn’t trying to defend Chazz’s point, just going off on a slightly different tangent and pointing out that we don’t know the long-term effects of MMA careers yet.
Then again, we thought we had a handle on the effects of playing football and here we are learning all kinds of horrifying things about long-term and short-term effects on the health and well being of the athletes involved…
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I wasn't exactly lambasting MMA.
As I watch it from time-to-time. And I certainly don’t think football is completely safe, as I suffered two injuries in it in high school.
But, at least from a head injury standpoint, I consider MMA less safe than football. You don’t have a helmet in MMA. One of the goals of every match is to knock the opponent out with a punch or kick (unless you only do submissions, and few dudes are like Royce Gracie).
Now, I know MMA has some rules about how long guys have to sit out after being knocked out, or no shots to the back of the head, or limited elbowing of the head, or the ref being able to stop the fight if a fighter isn’t able to protect themselves. But, if you really think MMA fighters are better protected than football players, I must disagree.
Of course, MMA players can’t get a 20 yard running start before they hit someone either.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Good point
There are a number of contact sports (particularly combat sports) that don’t have a significant number of aging veterans, for lack of a better word. MMA obviously comes to mind, but there are also a number of other sports. Time will tell which sport is safer, or if “safe” can only be used relatively in these cases.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
Outstanding work, Adam.
5 years ago I was on a high school staff that was scared shitless because of a number of concussions our players had suffered. I can only imagine that things are going to get much worse for HS coaches because of the fact that we as a whole have less training identifying concussions, and there aren’t always enough trainers to be everywhere they need to be.
Everyone fails. The successful learn from their failures. I just wish we'd quit giving ourselves so many learning opportunities.
by WhiteSpeedReceiver on Jun 29, 2010 9:45 AM CDT reply actions
I wonder if it's time to seriously consider
getting rid of helmets.
Before you call me crazy, consider other violent sports (rugby and its associated varieties come to mind) that don’t feature nearly as many head injuries and head-to-head hits, partly because the players don’t have the perceived protection that football players get from helmets.
You're not crazy
and you’re not the only one to make such a proposal. More realistically they would get rid of the hard-shell helmet. Not going back to the old leatherhead days, just not a hard shell. Experts have said that to be effective, they would need helmets big enough to make them look like Marvin the Martian, and that isn’t going to happen.
What will probably happen is the elimiation of the 3 point stance. Lineman take serious G-forces to the head on every play, and a big reason is the power they can get ffrom the stance.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
While unlikely
I think it is a valid consideration. I have also wondered if a leather helment would maybe more appropriate. I know people have said that they would need to be huge, but if they also remove should pads (or at least not that hard plastic) they may be effective enough.
Ankles! We don't need no stinking ankles!
by three and out the kok story on Jun 29, 2010 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions
To go along with removing of helmets (and plastic pads)
football players lead with their helmets and not only use it for protection, but as a weapon. That is dangerous for ball carrier as well as the tackler.
Now, I understand that it’s a tough argument to make, reducing padding that is intended to protect players, but I think it’s one that needs to be made to save the players as well as the sport.
by Buddy Light on Jun 29, 2010 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Perceived protection...
…so true. I was just talking to a coworker the other day about bicycle and snowboarding with helmets, and how I’ve seen a massive increase in the number and severity of childhood injuries to the upper body (neck, collarbone, etc.) since the inception of helmet laws/rules.
They are there to protect, but they make people feel like they’re covered and invincible, so they take much bigger risks and try things that they aren’t ready for, and they suffer for it.
Football is like that to the Nth degree. It’s “armor” for the “warriors of the gridiron.”
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 29, 2010 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions
as a rugby player
we have ‘scrumcaps’. the difference is the form in which we tackle. it is essentially a penalty to NOT wrap and take an opponent to the ground….
Gotta get up to get down
The scrumcaps are optional, but advisable for anyone that plays in the scrum
which I will start doing since I play hooker, which probably leads me to be most vulnerable.
As for the tackling, I didn’t think it was a penalty not to wrap up, there are just very few instances where you wouldn’t. I can think of only two times where I went for a collision rather than a tackle. Once it was because the guy running with the ball was easily 300+ lbs and trying to run down the sideline, so I did what I could to push him out. The other instance wasn’t even a tackle situation, it was a hospital pass from the other team that I came down with.
How many tricks must one turn while playing the hooker spot?
/sarcasmed
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Jun 30, 2010 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions
It's a demanding position, especially in the scrum
You’re surrounded by 15 men and you have to have the ability to handle balls with your feet.
Waaaaait....
You’re surrounded by 15 men and you have to have the ability to handle balls with your feet.
Are you sure you’re talking about rugby?
Master of the convoluted IOWA cheers!
by EnergizerHawk on Jun 30, 2010 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions
some of this
lioli you are right, ‘frowned upon’ should be a better term. and hooker jokes are always (never) hilarious. played it for a few matches…sucks. bottom line my point was they are 2 completely different sports and rugby has a safer approach to tackling.
Gotta get up to get down
They aren't funny to rugby players, but hilarious to everyone else
You gotta know your audience. Anyways, I love playing at #2 but I can definitely see why you wouldn’t enjoy it so much.
And I completely agree rugby’s tackling is much safer, and often more effective too. And I think once you take away the option of players leading with their head, you will see it much more often in football too.
It's a Choice
Nobody makes these guys play the game. If they feel inclined to make a living/get a college education by playing football than that is their decision. Many many blue collar jobs come with just as big of price to pay as football. Its just the nature of the beast. Nothing more.
Haha, yeah, fuck 'em!!!
Buncha goddamn sallys! Amirite? High five!
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions
/sarcasm font, naked molerat, etc…
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
so because football has been dangerous
we shouldn’t try to make it less dangerous?
by jschooltiger on Jun 29, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
And while we’re at it, what’s the big deal with child labor?
by NickFantana on Jun 29, 2010 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions
That would not classify as a "choice"
Being it a child and all…..
by Jonnycakes28 on Jun 29, 2010 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions
I participated in football for...
7 years, and also was a child laborer in a metal shop. I must have a death wish.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Ahh, yes, that old saw
Here’s the thing, not one aspect of the illumination/research effort is designed to remove this choice, only to provide more information to those making it.
And wtf ‘nothing more?’ It’s a lot fucking more.
Crack is wac
I have no problem with the research and helping the athletes make a more informed decision. But that is all it needs to provide – an informed decision on making a career path. Cuz once the “higher ups” get some pressure applied and start imposing regulations….football will become the U.S. of the 21st Century….completely fucked.
by Jonnycakes28 on Jun 29, 2010 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
This isn't the appropriate time or website for you to push that crap.
I know this vein of political paleo-anarchy, and it’s not going to fly here. No politics. Contribute to the thread like an adult or go somewhere else.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 29, 2010 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Not to involve politics (Why would I? BHGP is too friendly for that)
But I’d really rather the respective leagues (NCAA, NFL, NAIA, etc) solve this terrible problem than Congress. Not that I’m some sort of “Screw the government” type, it’s just that I’m of the opinion most of the expertise is located in the leagues, and it’s just common sense to go where the brains are for problem solving.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
I'm not trying to start an argument...
but the leagues tend not to do something until they have to (see baseball and roids).
Of course, Congress doesn’t do anything until there is serious money or public opinion at stake.
We almost need players and fans to help each other be strong enough to face this problem.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
And since the NFL doesn't have the antitrust exemption, there is even less leverage
Trying to frame this as business and law not politics. It will be hard to force the NFL to make changes to its business and labor practices given the current legal situation in which the league finds itself (at least that is my impression).
True
I’m surprised that the NFL hasn’t been given an exemption or been broken up by the trust-busters(see: USFL). And if anybody happens to act, I’ll bet it’s the NCAA or NAIA that goes first, simply because the people involved are students, and public outcry (and the fact that the institutions involved are non-profit) would be horrendous if students started having large problems farther down the road, as it should be.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
I see it as...
an organization like OSHA finding a way to tell someone like the NFL how to protect its employees. That would seem to be easier than various states delving into this issues on a school-by-school (or even conference-by-conference) basis.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
But that's the thing
Many of these guys don’t know the full extent of the risks involved, particularly when it comes to mental health. Do you think Terry Long would have played football if he’d known that it could lead to long-lasting orthopedic problems? Maybe. Probably.
Do you think he would have played football if he’d known that it could lead to brain damage, depression, and him drinking antifreeze to kill himself at 45? Not so sure.
It’s time to cut out the macho bullshit in this debate and start thinking like an adult.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 29, 2010 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions
It’s time to cut out the macho bullshit in this debate and start thinking like an adult.
Exactly.
by NickFantana on Jun 29, 2010 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions
But, but, but...
96% of my repertoire is macho bullshit.
The other 4% is a mixture of petty mind games and ill-advised humor.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions
It's a choice
that guys have been making without full knowledge of the possible consequences. We also need to include their parents in the decision loop here since they start in high school or before. I think pee wee football in Davenport started in kindergarten.
A lot of parents are not going to let their sons sign up when they know what can happen.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
I’ve been telling my 9 year old lineman that if he wants to play in HS, he needs to be in the local tackle league this fall, not the flag football league. That particular line of arm twisting is over. With my other kids, I might arm twist TOWARD the flag football end. This is scary stuff. I might be over-reacting at the moment. But brains are pretty important, IMHO.
I understand what you are saying...
…but football authorities at all levels try to keep this information from coming out so they don’t look like they’re intentionally killing their players.
But the players of the sport deserve to be as informed about the consequences as possible. If someone said “You can be a welder and work for X amount of time before losing your mind and dying a horrible death” there might be less welders in this world. There are always folks who don’t care and will do it anyway, but at least they know what they’re getting into from the start. I people know what’s up and still like playing, there might be a “so be it” case to be made, but we don’t adequately KNOW the actual effects so 14/18/22 year olds are making uninformed decisions about their adult futures (something the average 18 year old has trouble doing even when they are informed- – think smoking… I started because 40 seemed so far away when I was 22, but after a while I began to understand the short and long term consequences).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 29, 2010 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Oops, just read the other comments like mine.
Drunk Great minds think alike.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 29, 2010 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions
What I don't want to see
Is the sport collapse. Of course facts should come out, but not for the price of football ceasing to exist. It’s unlikely, yes. However, look at Amari Spievey. Not the best background, probably wouldn’t have gotten a great education, save for one thing: He’s a damned good football player. That’s a route out of sub-prime situations that, if avoidable, should not disappear.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
the other aspect of this that might need to be remembered...
is the affect of such trauma on behavior. in the wake of the accusations of sexual assault by ben roethlisberger there were a few stories written asking if this may have been a factor in his self-destructive behavior. this wasn’t simply a case of sportswriters looking for a news hook. brain injuries often lead to dramatic personality changes that most sufferers can never completely overcome.
here’s an excerpt from just one of any number of articles you can pull up on the subject:
As more individuals survived head injuries, it became painfully clear that the major long-term problems faced by head injured individuals and their families were in the area of cognition and behavior. Physical problems, while important, were managed more readily than the decreased memory, impulsivity, poor judgment, and social inappropriateness which frequently accompanied head injury.
it used to be this type of analysis was aimed at people who had suffered a major trauma as from an auto accident of freak fall. more and more, it’s becoming clear that it applies to concussion victims. ask yourself if this verbiage sounds familiar: “memory and judgement deficits, lack of impulse control, and poor concentration are all common.”
so while the danger of shortened lifespan is certainly the main focus of this concern there is also the very real issue of these situations causing devastating mental problems that aren’t as simply categorized as the subtraction of x number of years from an athletes’s expected life expectancy.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
So what do we do?
Start testing every football player that starts acting crazy? Ocho Cinco…TO…line up.
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Hawkeye State
by Bama Hawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Of course, that’s the other horrifying part of this. There is no test, only speculation.
by NickFantana on Jun 29, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, we still could test.
It would have the same efficacy as the buoyancy tests from Salem 400 years ago, but…
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 29, 2010 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions
These dudes down at UNC are doing some good research
Anybody else see them on Real Sports’ last coverage? I was really taken aback by those helmet sensors showing all the places the brain impacted with the skull during a routine college practice.
Crack is wac
Chris Nowinski
Is a Harvard grad vet of both Pro Football and Pro Wrestling and has founded The Sports Legacy Institute to further study brain degeneration. His website has a lot of easy-to-view info, including the Real Sports and Outside the Lines segments.
My favorite part of his research is that he’s convinced a number of current players to donate their actual brains, which seems like a good start for building pete’s ‘body of work.’
Crack is wac
that's not what i'm saying...
a lot of the roethlisberger stories came off far too much like a reasoning or even excuse for his boorish activity. it is not. and i’m not offering this as a explanation for the given behavior of certain athletes. but the importance of this makes it necessary to consider in this discussion.
there is a direct and understood linkage between behavioral problems and traumatic head injuries. we are now learning there may be substantial evidence to show that football players incur sufficient injury to fall into the category of brain injured due to the violence of the sport. it follows that any serious examination on how to address the impact of this on the players has to include this issue as well.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
I could be dead wrong on this...
but I seem to recall somebody (maybe a deadspin post, which may not be a great source) that indicated Big Ben was acting like this toward women in his college or high school days.
I’m not saying that his very early football experience could not have affected his personality/behavior. I think it is more likely that his attitudes toward women and alcohol’s involvement might be the primary factors.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
there is no established connection between roethlisberger...
and the concussions he has been documented suffering in his career. the point is that the gravity of this recent incident prompted speculation they might be connected and highlighted an oft overlooked aspect of the dangers head injuries pose to players. the issue isn’t if roethlisberger’s actions are explainable by this theory or not, it’s that the gravity of the danger makes it an important part of this issue that deserves discussion.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
This one.
The thing is a fair number of football players have had legal troubles during and after their careers, and the general judgement is something like (a) “thug athlete” or (b) how could he fuck up all the wonderful opportunities football gave him or © wow, he used to be great but now he’s just a loser, wonder what happened? Big Ben’s entourage that night was a bunch of off-duty police officers, so it may be that he was thinking VERY clearly about what was going to happen that night. But the issue is not about the particular example.
It’s less about absolving individuals of culpability for their actions (although sometimes people really do completely lose their minds) than it is about asking the tough question: Is organized football churning out significant numbers of people with degenerative, incurable, and untestable diseases that sometimes make them a danger to themselves and others? It’s doesn’t seem right for Jerry Jones and co. get to make billions and build palatial new stadiums while the players who got them rich face such agonizing and helpless futures, and we knew next to nothing about this problem when today’s football stars started playing as children.
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jun 30, 2010 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Serious questions:
Are head/brain injuries as prevalent in rugby as they are in football?
Would elimination of the helmet reduce these injuries by “slowing players down”? Just a theory I’ve seen around, I’m not sure I buy it.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 29, 2010 10:08 AM CDT reply actions
The answer to your first question is NO. Not even close.
(Note: I will use a bit of rugby jargon in this post. If you want to figure out what I’m talking about, Google or Wikipedia should help.)
I play rugby and know quite a bit about the sport. It is a far less dangerous game all around. The fact that there are no helmets and pads is a primary reason. The helmets are used more as weapons than protection and change the way players “tackle” in football. It’s changed it from a contact sport to a collision sport. As fun as watching the collisions are, they aren’t safe. A majority of plays in rugby end in a normal, wrap up tackle. It is especially important because play in rugby is continuous and possession is more important than gaining yards, so there is more incentive to just stop the play and force the other team to ruck and possibly turn it over rather than get a highlight reel play. It should also be noted that there is no blocking, which also eliminates some collisions.
When you are taught to tackle in rugby, you are taught a certain method. My coach called it “cheek to cheek”, where you go into the tackle by putting your head to the player’s side so your cheek should be by his ass cheek. You wrap up the legs and charge with your shoulder to force the player down. This is mainly taught to prevent neck injuries from players trying to tackle head-first into their chest, undoubtably because this is what most American players see growing up watching football.
Football should take away the helmets and pads and teach players to tackle normally again. The result will look quite a bit like rugby league, a form of rugby the United States is less familiar with, just with linemen and passing (especially if the Wildcat continues to grow in popularity). Other suggestions might be to make the game less territory motivated, i.e. 10-play drives with no first downs. This is an idea I took from rugby league, slightly changed to fit American football better, where you have ten plays to get to the endzone, and after the tenth play it automatically turns over to the other teams. Usually on the last play, if the team is nowhere near the endzone, you will see a punt, just like 4th downs. These would be radical changes, but it’s better for the safety of the players and might actually make the game more entertaining.
Interesting.
Great food for thought, thanks.
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Rugby is a very different game
Football almost died in its infancy due to deaths on the field that led to the use of helmets, so there is something inherently dangerous in the nature of the contact that goes beyond the use of helmets as a prophylactic/weapon. I would be completely unsurprised to learn that the force of normal collisions is increased due to the use of helmets, but many acute and catastrophic (read death) injuries have been prevented by their use.
I believe that it is time for a radical change, and one that would have several advantages. I would propose the elimination of full-contact football for all sanctioned football for individuals under age 18. This would shorten the number of years of full contact, enable coaches to teach tackling and other skills to more mature players who would have fewer opportunities to develop bad habits, and have the tangential benefit of saving schools a ton of money on equipment. A change of this magnitude is clearly unrealistic (it would be a non-starter in Texas and Florida), and it would require a re-write of the rules, but if the concern is the long term health of participants, it should be on the table.
On a side note, a good friend who is a neurologist had a junior in high school visit him last year whose cognitive function is permanently diminished after a non-concussive hit last year. I know that this is an extreme example, but it certainly makes me question whether I will encourage my sons to play football as they get older.
"How proud you are about where you’re from is inversely proportionate to how proud where you’re from is about you"
by Randy Oldgoat on Jun 29, 2010 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Violence in the early days of football was reduced by rule changes, not helmets
Helmets were allowed in football at the time but were not used very often. When President Theodore Roosevelt demanded changes to the game, this was accomplished by rule changes including banning mass formations such as the flying wedge and the addition of the forward pass The flying wedge is also not allowed in rugby because of it’s blocking rules.
Helmets came to wider usage for the next few decades after and were eventually made mandatory, but they were still made of leather at this point. For whatever reason, the popular belief soon came about that harder helmets were safer, which is where we get our modern-day helmets. I believe we now have enough proof that harder helmets don’t help at all. In rugby, there are “helmets” called scrum caps, which are closer to original football helmets in that they only use light padding. Perhaps helmets like these would be better alternatives if we don’t want to get rid of helmets completely.
Even if we assume that the Chris Henry situation was an example of someone with CTE who didn’t fall into any of the three danger zones, the conclusion that they’re not broad enough might not be correct.
Specifically, Henry having CTE does not mean that sub-concussive hits can cause CTE. It could just as easily point to a different risk category: genetic susceptibility, diet, disease, or god knows what.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to reduce the risk of brain injury in football, but it’s probably not time to jump to any of various nuclear options until there’s a decent body of work supporting the idea.
I'm wrong all the time.
Re: but it’s probably not time to jump to any of various nuclear options until there’s a decent body of work supporting the idea.
Is it time to give a nuclear jump to the importance of building that decent body of work yet?
Crack is wac
Really?
Specifically, Henry having CTE does not mean that sub-concussive hits can cause CTE. It could just as easily point to a different risk category: genetic susceptibility, diet, disease, or god knows what.
Are you a tobacco lawyer?
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
taco bell causes brain lesions, didn't you know that?
Keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either, Dude.
by AcrimoniousAngerererer on Jun 29, 2010 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Nope, just thinking about it logically rather than emotionally.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 29, 2010 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
That is a good thought.
I mean, as much as it hurts anyone who’s been familiar with stories of brain trauma and damage, one result does not a trend make. As important as it is to avoid a state of “convenient denial” to support your own views and love of football as it currently exists, it’s also important to not go on a witch hunt in the game. Many of the aforementioned stories of brain trauma came from repeated concussions and other serious, recognizable shots to the head. Now we have an outlier, Chris Henry. What do we make of this? Well….we can’t really prove anything, as far as cause goes, unless there’s some science that I’ve not yet read (in which case, please inform me. I’d hate to espouse uninformed garbage, and the more evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Jacobi discussed above, the closer we get to a solution) that lends further credibility to the idea that sub-concussive brain trauma is potentially as serious as a concussion. Until further evidence is discovered, though, we can’t really test the brains of living football players. I think they’d object.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
but adam's point is still valid...
given the gravity of the outcome – the life of the person who suffers the injury – there is an obligation to pursue the reasonable possibility there is a connection.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Oh, of course.
I wasn’t trying to say his point wasn’t valid. It’s extremely vital to the sport and to the health of participants that somebody looks into this. Unfortunately, we can’t fix it until we figure out what’s wrong.
Oh, btw, the possibility that there is a connection is quite reasonable. My apologies if my comment implied I thought it wasn’t.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
I had the same thought...
There are a great many exogenous factors to examine, as well as just…well…freakishness of this N of 1. Not to argue from personal experience, but I had skin cancer at age 11, and testicular cancer at age 17, things normally not associated with an otherwise healthy child. And we all know similarly bizarre, apocryphal tales of freaky bodily misfirings.
I endorse beginning the research, as would anyone rational, I’m sure; but I also believe that nothing is solved, for anyone involved, by coming to the edge of conclusion and leaping off.
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 29, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Henry did have...
documented incidents that involved weed, or alcohol. I think it is safe to say he used both more than the average person. I’m not sure I can say it would be more likely than football to cause his brain issues.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions
In fact, the abuse of drugs and alcohol are a symptom of TBI, rather than a cause.
by NickFantana on Jun 29, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Booze & Weed
can affect the brain in negative ways, but the damage is different. Plus, if he was drinking or smoking enough to cause major damage at 26, he would be in no conditio to be in the NFL. That would be a major alcoholic and/or somebody who would never pass the drug tests.
Alcohol can really do a number on the brain but I would assume a decentM.E. would recognize the effects in an autopsy.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Not to mention that the damage of those substances on brain development is linked to the age of the user
Teenage marijuana use has more of an impact on the brain after quitting than first use in adulthood after the brain has matured.
We also don’t know, or at least haven’t heard, about Henry’s health history in childhood. For example, my first concussion was at age 6 because I wasn’t wearing a helmet the day the training wheels came off and even falling into the grass was bad news. Continuing with the developmental stages line of argument, pee wee concussions are probably even worse than one that occur in high school. Hopefully people start looking at the entire life span of the athletes and not just what has happened since puberty.
what about physical abuse?
I have a friend who adopted a kid who has permanent brain damage from the beatings his bio father gave him. I never heard anything about Henry’s background but it is another factor
and I am NOT saying that football should not be made safer or did not contribute, it was just a thought on how it the damage could have started earlier, then been compunded later. It is just another sad detail in what is a very sad story.
Thank God I'm a "Too Country" Girl
I don't think this is something that developing a decent body of work...
Will wait for, considering how we get our hands on the proof. This is the future of what, 10s of thousands of young men? Something has to change. Christ, I feel dirty.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 10:27 AM CDT reply actions
The problem with that mentality “Do something . . . do ANYTHING” is that we might not actually be solving the problem at all. If everyone takes the Chris Henry situation as a call to do away with all contact sports ever, we might be passing up an opportunity to learn that something else is actually causing CTE, and that’s huge, because until we really know what causes it, we can’t very well treat or prevent it, except by luck.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 29, 2010 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions
So we should wait for the current batch of players to die so we can hack their brains open?
Because that’s the alternative you’re proposing.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
No, it isn’t. I’m proposing we think about this critically rather than leap to conclusions.
What I can see, though, is that this is a doom and gloom, self-flagellating thread, despite Jacobi’s best intentions, so I’ll just see my way out.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 29, 2010 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Looking for an athlete to perform an autopsy on?
Or just going to try and convince somebody else to tread water rather than make some kind of attempt at reducing or preventing injuries?
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions
With all due respect, I suggest you read my original post for content, rather than reading it just to find something to complain about. To wit:
That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to reduce the risk of brain injury in football,
My point is simply that Chris Henry is one guy who had a condition inconsistent with what we believed to be the case. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything — and it certainly doesn’t mean what everyone assumed, that any sort of contact causes CTE.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 29, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
With all due respect...
Henry is simply the “freshest” brain that researchers have been able to get their hands on. The fact that the previous beliefs as to cause aren’t applicable would seem to imply that the assumed causes were incorrect, rather than the result.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Now you’re essentially saying what I said in my first post.
We found a counter example, which means that the original list of “causes” was lacking in some way. This does not tell us anything about what that way is.
But still, this is an N=1 situation.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 29, 2010 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, and that inconsistency is very worrisome.
It’s wrong to draw conclusions at large from it, but trying to surmise where his CTE, Tau proteins, etc. came from and what it might mean for the NFL as a whole is certainly worth discussing rather than dismissing as a one-off, no?
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 29, 2010 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Absolutely, and I’m not suggesting it be dismissed, only that other options be discussed as well and that we not put too much stock in a one-off.
The obvious place to look is to expand how serious the contact needs to be to trigger CTE, but just because it’s the most obvious doesn’t mean that it’s the most correct. I think it’s important not to get tunnel vision on this (it’s more important for the scientists than internet commenters, of course, but still…).
The human brain is a complicated organ and has, countless times in our history, been discovered to not work quite like how we thought it did.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 29, 2010 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 29, 2010 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions
My sister in law is an oncologist and has always maintained that
“50 % of what we know is incomplete and the other 50% are assumptions we’ve made”.
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 29, 2010 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
And until we develop better imaging and testing that doesn't rely on self-reporting of symptoms
It is currently the best way we have of providing empirical data of the long-term effects on the brain. It sucks, but it is common with any other longitudinal study of risk factors for disease. The landmark studies for risk factors tend to follow cohorts over decades to measure the cumulative risk of lifestyle and environment. Yes, that means some people get cancer, but following them over time is the only way we have of isolating causal factors. It sounds cold, but you can’t determine what causes people to get cancer or die of a particular illness without some people getting cancer and dying of whatever illness you are studying.
That being said, I think that we need to develop better testing protocols and take steps to reduce the risks that we do know exist. But we need to not rush to judgment based on a compelling anecdote.
A good sideline test would be the first line of defense...
Ever listen to a scanner after a traffic accident? When the para calls the E.R., he/she gives a list of vital data to help hospital staff. One of those is “pupils are reactive to light.” If you took first aid you probably learned something like it. The thought is that pupils frequently — but not always — go screwy when a head injury has been suffered.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Jun 29, 2010 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree
But my understanding of concussive and sub-concussive injuries are that they don’t always present with increased sensitivity to light (I could be totally wrong, though).
I think that currently we need to focus more on testing and diagnosis than to radical overhauls of the rules. We don’t have a situation like the flying wedge quite yet, in my opinion.
and a flat suspension of play in the wake of a concussion
would be helpful as well. take the tebow situation last year. he was completely unconscious but the assessment was “he got his bell rung” and then he was lauded for his toughness when he took the field against lsu. that is a seriously dangerous dismissal of the risk factor this poses to every athlete, not just one star who could miss a start in a key game.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
There was some lauding
there was also a lot of “is it too soon?” and even a little “what a dumbass”. The attitude towards brain injury is definately shifting and the overall reaction to that hit proves it.
The only problem with mandatory time off after a suspension is that players will try to hide them even more and some coaching staffs as well.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
which is why the tebow example is so egregious
since he clearly had a major concussion and it was played off as if he didn’t. but changing this mindset has to happen, with the fans, with the coaches and with the players, if we hope to address the problem.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Also worth noting is that Florida had a bye week after the Kentucky game
and before LSU. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have been cleared to play if the LSU game was the next week. 2 weeks is a lot better than 1 week, but still not enough time for the brain to heal after a severe concussion like that.
"I shoot, I score. He shoots, I score." - Dan Gable
by ClaybornSmash on Jun 29, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions
How much time is enough time for the brain to heal after a severe concussion? Years?
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 30, 2010 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
From what I understand about concussions
It’s never fully “healed”. Ever. Sorta like once you dislocate a shoulder, it’ll never be completely right again.
Playing the devil's advocate
While I entirely believe the risk of head injury in older NFL players (Wally Hilgenberg being the saddest example) I am not buying these conclusions in this specific example. First, they have not done any testing (that I can tell) for early-onset Alzheimer’s genes (see here: http://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/publications/geneticsfs.htm). Familial AD would look identical pathologically in this case. Second, this is a WIDE RECEIVER. Without a history of significant concussive injury. Plus, he has a history of erratic behavior dating back to high school, which could be a result of his genetic neurodegenerative disease.
In summary, I think we all need to take a big deep breath and not take too much from an anecdotal case. Wait for real statistics (lies and damn lies) before pulling your kid from pop warner leagues.
As an aside, we all should read Malcolm Gladwell’s excellent piece on this very topic from the New Yorker last fall. Excellent summary (see here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell)
you had me at blood and semen
by hawkontherocks on Jun 29, 2010 10:52 AM CDT reply actions
The only problem with the early onset Alzheimers
Is that Henry was nearly 5 years out of the bottom end of the age range.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
Without a history
of reporting concussive symtoms. Just because you jump up and walk away from a play doesn’t mean you didn’t suffer an injury. Every single article I’ve read on this subject where they talk to former players has those players talk about seeing stars or getting their bells rung in practically every game. They shake it off and keep playing because that’s just the game. Well, those are basically little concussions and they all add up.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Anecdotal data
is the operative word here.
@NPAT: “He was nearly 5 years out of the bottom end of the age range.” That’s “age of onset” of dementia – as diagnosed by a neurologist/neuropsychologist. Was he diagnosed with dementia? Do you think that the person with an “age of onset” of 30 has NO neurofibrillary tangles in their brain at an earlier age? NB: He absolutely could fit into the profile of Familial AD. If he had that PLUS head trauma, don’t you think it would result in an acceleration of his genetic disease?
@Flakbait: See above.
My point is that there are far better studies out there than this ONE autopsy. To make ANY conclusions from this case other than “We need to look at this more” is overreaction at best and sensationalism at worst.
you had me at blood and semen
by hawkontherocks on Jun 29, 2010 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions
This isn't one autopsy...
He’s just the youngest one showing signs of CTE.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I didn't know that, NPAT /s
Since I was the one that posted the Gladwell article that AJ has since posted. And by the way, “signs of CTE” – pathologically – are IDENTICAL to signs of early onset Alzheimer’s or similar neurodegenerative disease. So it’s disingenuous to say that CH had CTE – that’s one of the possibilities. As a medical provider, this sort of “jump to the conclusion without conclusive data” knee jerk reaction drives me nuts. Yes, chronic head injuries “can” lead to accumulation of tau proteins and neurofibrillary tangles in some football players. But to assume in this one case that his pathologic findings (which is an end response to cellular damage – ie metabolic, traumatic, or genetic) are due ENTIRELY TO PLAYING FOOTBALL is overreactive and frankly, not intelligent.
you had me at blood and semen
by hawkontherocks on Jun 29, 2010 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions
And fishing for 20 different excuses for the brain damage
When the man participated in a sport known for causing that exact type of brain damage is the kind of behavior that leads to nothing ever being done. Jack Trice’s injuries could have been caused by a fall off a building. But they weren’t. They were caused by Minnesota’s players stomping him.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Scientist fail
for you sir.
you had me at blood and semen
by hawkontherocks on Jun 29, 2010 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Some more background
I have designed and analyzed the construction of dozens of natural and synthetic sports surfaces across the United States, including several NFHS, NAIA, and NCAA football fields. Our office is concerned about the long-term viability of these fields, so we test them regularly for a number of factors, including hardness.
I could write a ton about the hardness test, but this is a good resource concerning the risk of traumatic brain injury on a sports field. In brief, when you measure “hardness” you are measuring shock attenuation—how the surface disperses the impact of an object (a head) in the milliseconds after the initial strike. For testing protocols, this is measured in Gmax—the maximum G force felt in a strike, even if for an instant. Tests for Gmax have been around since the 1960s when highways safety standards were implemented and has been adapted into a standard testing protocol for sports fields since at least the late 1990s.
Here’s a good relative graph of Gmax from different activities:
Source: Popular Mechanics
This bar chart shows 100 Gmax as a concussion, but the odds of one occurring at that level are still pretty low. 150 Gmax is definitely a bad impact.
After performing dozens of these tests, here’s what scares me:
- There are no standards or thresholds for Gmax by any organizing body for football. None. I have tested fields where individual points have registered Gmax values above 210, which is almost a guaranteed concussion. Virtually every field I test has Gmax levels above 100. The manufacturing industry has recently placed warranty that their fields will be installed with Gmax levels below 110 and below 160-170 over the life of the field, but that’s about it. When testing fields I’ll ask maintenance staff or coaches if they can indicate where players have got a concussion. In most cases, these are spots with elevated Gmax numbers.
- Synthetic fields get harder over time. As fields age, the materials tend to compact and settle. This is particularly true with synthetic fields as many crews don’t perform regular scheduled maintenance (brushing, cleaning, re-application of infill, etc). I believe the ratio is 10% for every year of use: a 100 Gmax rating will be 110 the next year, 121 the next, etc. After six or seven years, these fields can be extremely dangerous.
I’m not saying a hard field killed Chris Henry, and helmets do decrease the concussive force on a human head-but I could see how sustained hits at Gmax levels above 100 could turn a brain into swiss cheese. I love this sport, but it needs to get out of the dark ages and put in some standards to reduce traumatic head injury. It’s well past due.
by Cairo on Jun 29, 2010 11:41 AM CDT reply actions 8 recs
What this tells me
is that there are many different factors in the damage football can cause a brain. With an issue like field hardness, this is a realistic, albeit expensive, step that leagues and schools can take to protect their players. What other factors are there that we haven’t even thought about?
by hawkstormer on Jun 29, 2010 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Air quality levels?
Gatorade poisoning?
Tinnitus from the cheering/booing?
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions
VD from cheerleaders
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Perhaps
blind patriotism I mean not being an American.
by hawkstormer on Jun 29, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
That only happens at Blue Mountain State U.
I hope.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
That was at Packer Hawk.
And I’ll even get your name right this time :)
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Thanks
I’m sure that VD outbreaks on teams are probably due to sharing something other than a sex toy, if they happen.
looking at that chart
remeber that a study on Oklahoma linemen showed hits of 60 to 80, on every play.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Was that just above...
tickling?
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions
this kind of dismissive attitude to the danger
is exactly the problem we have in dealing with this issue today. the idea that a player isn’t “tough” for taking a hit is the single biggest impediment to taking the steps to making the game safer for the participants.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Chill out, kleph.
I was trying to make a joke about OU linemen not hitting hard.
Although, I do disagree with you on the football issues, also.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Chill out, Reverend, I was just trying to make a football joke at my mom's funeral.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Chris Henry died in December.
This is much more like a memorial service, reverend.
And if you didn’t expect me to make mis-timed, unfunny comments, then you really didn’t know me afterall, right OPS?
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 30, 2010 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions
very thought provoking
I think there’s two enormous benefits to softening the playing surfaces and mandating tests for greater shock attenuation..
1st you could prevent injuries due to areas of fields with excessive GMax values.
2nd, softer fields means slower players. It would be like running on a muddy field. Guys can’t accelerate as much or get to that top end speed, meaning that you will prevent the worst kinds of impacts by slowing two guys running at full speed directly into one another.
So you soften the fields, you reduce the injuries from impact with the field itself, you slow down the game a little, and you generally make everything safer. Not a bad first step for the NFL to look into.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
But
once again it comes down to money. How much would it cost for every team in the NFL to change or replace their field?
by hawkstormer on Jun 29, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think the cost argument is compelling for the 32 NFL teams and their 31 stadiums.
The cost problem is more compelling for college and high school. Without some form of subsidy, it’s not hard to envision a situation where the biggest schools/departments have safe surfaces while MAC and Sun Belt fields stay more dangerous if it’s a recommendation to change fields and not a mandate.
The issue is that these fields *are* being replaced.
Every time there’s a new head coach, there’s a new person who knows exactly what will be the ideal surface. A natural surface will be replaced by a head coach who wants synthetic, and vice versa.
At the small college and high school level, there has been a massive shift to synthetic fields. Hundreds of new fields have been constructed in recent years, and communities in decent times are usually willing to pass a bond issue to renovate a school field. Fields can be constructed and maintained safely, but until there’s a mandate to do so you won’t see it happening.
There's a "sweet spot" between noticeably soft and unsafely hard.
Around 65 Gmax is where players can start to “feel” that the field is spongy. As I said, there’s no standard, so we empirically say that under 140 is the upper limit on safety.
So at 70 Gmax, most players can’t tell the field is soft? If that’s the case, what stops the manufacturers from making all of their fields in that range? Is it more of an installation than MatEng issue? Cost?
I'm wrong all the time.
The carpet is one part of the system.
Design is critical. Just talking about synthetic in this case: there’s the carpet, the infill (little rubber bits brushed in place), a base course (usually gravel), and the subgrade of compacted soil. You could have a carpet made of sponges, but if the base course is concrete it’s worthless. Shock absorption pads are expensive, but will often drop the Gmax to safe levels.
Proper installation is critical too. Some contractors will try to save money by putting in less infill than specified. The difference between 1" and 1.25" depth of infill can be 30 Gmax.
So, would it be accurate to say that a firm like yours could design a 70 Gmax field, but once those designs leave your office, the way the university puts it all together (and what gets axed) can end up adding a bunch of firmness to the field?
Is this an area that you think schools will start taking seriously without legislative prodding?
I'm wrong all the time.
We always require in our contracts that we oversee construction.
We also have specifications that are more detailed than the industry standard. If it isn’t installed correctly the first time, we can always go back to the contract and specifications to ensure that is done right.
I don’t want to sound adversarial: there are number of great contractors that do tremendous work. They have kids too, and they don’t want to see kids hurt on fields they’ve created if they can help it.
There you go
So mandate fields be built at 60 Gmax and maintained there throughout the life of the field. A little spongy, a lot safer to land on, and maybe it will slow players down a little. The thing about football is that from the fan standpoint it’s all about relative speed. Chris Johnson would still be electric to watch on 60 Gmax turf.
Realistically thought, getting 31 stadiums to replace their turf the same season and to the same uniform standards would be a big hurdle.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
Three things:
A: Good chart.
B: I’m not quite clear on parte dos of your explanation. Do Gmax ratings for fields increase indefinitely, or is there a finite limit? And how easy is it to mitigate the hardening of a field?
C: Rather than replace fields, is there any cheaper way to overhaul a playing surface for the short term while funds are raised to replace fields? Like some sort of sorcery softening syrup that you inject in the field?
Oh, and also, it’s likely a good idea to soften at least the particularly hard fields whether or not the point of this post is valid (which I think it likely is). Anything to lessen health risks to the players and the occasional referee.
And again, I liked the chart, and the explanation. Cheers, sir.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
…some sort of sorcery softening syrup that you inject in the field?
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 30, 2010 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions
A. Thanks. I found it on the interwebs.
B. Most fields are warranted for seven to eight years, so most testing stops there. There might be diminishing increases from then on. This doesn’t mean people replace the fields immediately—many schools keep using their fields beyond the warranty to delay construction costs. If a field base is designed correctly the first time all you need to do is remove the carpet and install a new one. That’s about $300K. A complete redesign will probably set you back a million dollars.
The second part of B and C can be answered the same way with maintenance and adding infill.
Mitigating it after construction can be done by using a machine that brushes the infill rubber bits. Every school should have a brush as they come with the carpet. There is also a vacuum/brush combo that does a better job, but it’s quite costly. Another good way to reduce hardness is by adding rubber infill. As I said earlier, some fields are under the infill depth so getting a couple bags of the stuff can improve the field surface markedly. Some fields, particularly those with slopes above 1.25% will have rubber slowly migrate from the center of the field to the edges from surface drainage.
Natural fields usually stay at a safe level, but if it’s rock-hard it can get dangerous. That’s just a question of aerification, top dressing, and overseeding like you would for your lawn.
No sorcery syrup, but a lot of maintenance crews put fabric softener on their fields to reduce static cling.
Dude, this should be its own fanpost.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 30, 2010 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Good stuff from Cairo...
Before I make my points, I have to call B.S. on the “Oh my God, what are we doing?” sentiment. One of the primary attractions of this sport is that you need courage to thrive in a violent environment. This is a gladiator sport, and we love it.
And this is not new, football was nearly banned at the turn of the last century because games had gotten so rough that players were dying on the field (When a man’s man like Teddy Roosevelt says to back down, you know things have gotten out of hand).That’s where helmets and padding came from.
That being said, we can do so much more to make this game safe(r?). Are players too big? Do we need to re-think how tackling is done? Do we need to change safety equipment? What about playing surfaces?
As for concussions, so much more study is needed. I wonder how/if drug and alcohol use comes into play. How is it that Chris Henry was a wreck, but Sammy Baugh lived to age 94?
One last thought: What major college/pro sport isn’t dangerous? Football, rugby and hockey are violent. Soccer is much harder on the head than we realize. Pro basketball players talk about gobbling OTC painkillers by the fistful (that can’t be good over the long haul). I come up with baseball, golf, tennis, swimming and running sports. And with golf, there’s always the danger of getting STDs from random strangers (Tiger Woods only).
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Jun 29, 2010 12:26 PM CDT reply actions
I'm no doctor, so somebody help me out here...
Is there any way to test LIVING players for brain trauma (and maybe not even specifically CTE)? Oftentimes we hear that MRIs are “inconclusive.” I like to think the human race is a pretty smart lot. We can put a man on the moon, we’re getting closer to curing cancer, we still don’t have flying cars or jetpacks, but can we come up with something to scan a brain of a living person?
by Kinnick Stadium is my Graceland on Jun 29, 2010 12:33 PM CDT reply actions
We are very close to...
flying cars.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/06/29/flying-car-may-take-off-next-year/
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Coup-contrecoup
My opinion is that the greatest risk factor for concussion is the anatomy of the brain/skull. If an athlete has a “small” brain relative to (inner) skull size, they are much higher risk for a coup-contrecoup injury causing the “soft, gelatinous brain tissue to jar against bony prominences on the inside of the skull”. I don’t think any playing surface or helmet technology is going to significantly alter the physics of the brain’s momentum carrying it into the inside of the skull.
I am not aware of any studies trying to assess this risk (ie MRI calculating brain volume/cranial vault volume and presence or absence of concussions). If you could identify the highest risk individuals and direct them towards lower risk activities (ie blogger on sbnation and/or candlemaker), perhaps we could avoid the “disaster” cases that are periodically reported.
you had me at blood and semen
by hawkontherocks on Jun 29, 2010 12:43 PM CDT reply actions
Is there a reliable way to calculate the volume of the cranial vault relative to the brain?
It’d be hard to do externally, what with varying skull thicknesses. Of course, I’m not exactly the medical researcher type, so what the hell do I know?
Me gustan los estados unidos.
Serious Question
Can we dope people’s spinal fluid to be thicker and therefore give people increased resistance to concussions? The brain is floating in spinal fluid right? There’s got to be a way we can make that fluid a little denser, hopefully w/out spinal injections.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
Better yet
have either cyborg OR entirely robot players. I know we’d probably lose a little bit of the purity of the game and whatnot, but rocket shoes on the WR’s and D backs should make up for it.
by Third Generation Hawk on Jun 29, 2010 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Making the fluid thicker would in all probability have a negative effect.
If you make the fluid around the brain harder (or more viscous) then the G forces would be greater earlier, so that when you get hit at a lower speed that would not be concussive the brain would encounter greater resistance earlier which would increase the G force on the brain tissue. You would basically be making the player more sensitive to concussions instead of the opposite.
"I shoot, I score. He shoots, I score." - Dan Gable
by ClaybornSmash on Jun 29, 2010 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Good point
Maybe I should amend my post above that the opposite may in fact be true – a smaller brain in a bigger skull may be better. Nevertheless, I do think it would be useful to identify those at highest risk to prevent injury to start with. Unfortunately, almost all of the older football players who have been asked if they would do it again knowing the risks almost universally say yes. So if you can ID those at risk will it change anything? My apologies for the circular argument in this post.
you had me at blood and semen
by hawkontherocks on Jun 29, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
And that is the key
Older players would do it again, and younger players generally feel like they are invincible. It’s hard to think of possible future outcomes when you have the immediate gratification of thousands of people cheering and the hope of being set for life financially.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Posted a follow-up for many of the lines of commentary here
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2010/6/29/1543442/with-cte-the-n-does-not-equal-one
In short: the evidence available is bad. Very bad.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Thanks for that
That article changes my thinking about this entire subject pretty substantially. Good work as always, Mr. Jacobi.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
Whether this means anything...
but I expected this issue to be somewhere on ESPN, with them doing the same thing as us; analyzing the consequences on a matter we’re highly under qualified to comment on but highly invested in. However nothing about it has jumped out at me on their site currently. Also, whereas 50% of sportsnation thinks that labor negotiations are the most pressing matter for the NFL, only 16% think the same of head injuries. That tells me that we’re thinking about this more than the rest of the country.
Why expand the Big Ten when we could just kick Northwestern out?
That....
Or ESPN doesn’t want to kill the cash cow. Just sayin’
by Kinnick Stadium is my Graceland on Jun 29, 2010 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions
You didn't look very closely.
It was high on the list of front page links yesterday morning. It’s in the NFL section’s links today, with two different stories on one line. Tim Keown also chimed in, and all three stories are well-thought out, well-cited and well-written—often mirroring the concerns expressed in our stories and comments.
There are reasons to dislike ESPN’s coverage of sports, but they don’t deserve a failing mark on this issue.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
@ Hawkstormer
…we’re thinking about this more than the rest of the country.
We are right now. And I think I have seen one or maybe two other posts about it. Otherwise, not a lot of us on BHGP talk about this very often.
Part of the fact that we are all chiming in is because there is nearly nothing else going on in sports at the moment, and certainly nothing going on in Iowa sports.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 29, 2010 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
True.
If this were a game week in October it would likely be a quickly forgotten footnote.
by HeartOfHawkness on Jun 29, 2010 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm glad
that I was wrong. This needs to be exposed by the major news outlets.
Why expand the Big Ten when we could just kick Northwestern out?
by hawkstormer on Jun 29, 2010 11:31 PM CDT up reply actions
60 Minutes did a great piece on CTE soon after Tebow's concussion...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/08/60minutes/main5371686.shtml
The video on the left of the article is really good and did a nice job of putting things in layman’s terms.
by LoveItOrLeaveIt on Jun 29, 2010 3:44 PM CDT reply actions
Great work and thanks for posting.
I just wanted to let you know that I linked this up on Silver and Black Pride.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
