With CTE, The N Does Not Equal One
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 29, 2010 1:35 PM CDT
in Iowa Hawkeyes Football
Email
Print
In light of the discussion started this morning, some have pointed out that examining Chris Henry's case and trying to interpolate conclusions from it is necessarily bad science and logic. That's fair, though such a response is often made to discourage further thought about the subject, which is not fair.
But in the interest of furthering the dialogue, it would behoove us all to know that Henry's chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is not, in fact, one isolated incident. As Malcolm Gladwell reported last year (amid an intriguing but ultimately specious comparison between the NFL and dogfighting), the researchers working on finding evidence of CTE in deceased athletes have a larger sample size, and the initial returns are not promising:
[Bedford, MA Veterans Hospital director of neuropathology Ann McKee] has now examined the brains of sixteen ex-athletes, most of them ex-football players. Some had long careers and some played only in college. Some died of dementia. Some died of unrelated causes. Some were old. Some were young. Most were linemen or linebackers, although there was one wide receiver. In one case, a man who had been a linebacker for sixteen years, you could see, without the aid of magnification, that there was trouble: there was a shiny tan layer of scar tissue, right on the surface of the frontal lobe, where the brain had repeatedly slammed into the skull. It was the kind of scar you’d get only if you used your head as a battering ram. You could also see that some of the openings in the brain were larger than you’d expect, as if the surrounding tissue had died and shrunk away. In other cases, everything seemed entirely normal until you looked under the microscope and saw the brown ribbons of tau. But all sixteen of the ex-athlete brains that McKee had examined—those of the two boxers, plus the ones that Nowinski had found for her—had something in common: every one had abnormal tau.
Of note: the tau here, as mentioned before, is a protein that inhibits brain function, and is primarily seen in Alzheimer's patients and victims of other similar dementia. It was also prominently present in Chris Henry's brain tissue study. More:
The other major researcher looking at athletes and C.T.E. is the neuropathologist Bennet Omalu. He diagnosed the first known case of C.T.E. in an ex-N.F.L. player back in September of 2002, when he autopsied the former Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster. He also found C.T.E. in the former Philadelphia Eagles defensive back Andre Waters, and in the former Steelers linemen Terry Long and Justin Strzelczyk, the latter of whom was killed when he drove the wrong way down a freeway and crashed his car, at ninety miles per hour, into a tank truck. Omalu has only once failed to find C.T.E. in a professional football player, and that was a twenty-four-year-old running back who had played in the N.F.L. for only two years.
The last player mentioned is almost certainly Fred Lane, the 24-year-old Carolina tailback who was shot to death by his wife before his 3rd year of play. In a particularly wry case of irony, Lane's Wikipedia picture shows him taking a helmet-to-helmet hit that pops Lane's hat off. But his scan came back clean, so it's not as if one bad hit like that is all it takes. The effects, again, are likely cumulative.
It's also worth mentioning that these researchers have generally depended on families offering the brains to the researchers, with the help of sports activist Chris Nowinski. So families who never saw any evidence of brain damage could have lacked the motivation to send a recently passed loved one's brain off for testing.
Further, as football is, for the most part, a relatively new sport, many of its former players are still alive, if aging. Those that have healthily lived into their 70s, 80s, and beyond are likely free of serious neurological side effects that would have manifested long before now. So their health ironically drives the percentage of known CTE sufferers higher, since the Tau proteins can only be discovered upon autopsy.
And yet, that minimum of 20 players that had been tested when this article was written exhibit what's starting to look like a consistent pattern, regardless of their age at death. It's still too early to draw conclusions without mountains of more data, but it's also too late to call Chris Henry's early onset of CTE an isolated incident.
61 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
America's Most Useful Comment
That would be interpolating, not extrapolating.
Leave it to a Michigan fan...
But yes, that is the more correct term for what I was trying to describe.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
actually you were right the first time
extrapolating would be the correct term in this instance. I know it is not important, and you point comes across fine with either term, but as a scientist I must put my two sense in on something that vaguely relates to what I do for a living! And more related to the actual issue being discussed, while I am no neuroscientist, I have done quite a bit of brain research and seeing the image of his frontal cortex that was linked in the first post is quite startling.
by SeattleHawkeye on Jun 29, 2010 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
All I can say is
that if I ever have kids, they will not play football.
Northwestern Football - All games decided on the last play or your money back.
Now that this is coming to light, I would be shocked if these researcher don't also start looking at boxers and MMA fighters.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
Not nearly enough dead MMA fighters.
If you read the Gladwell article, though (might want to set aside a good deal of time for that), there’s a pretty clear correlation between boxing and CTE.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
I had a feeling after read your first article on this subject that it was pretty safe to say that Boxing, Kickboxing, etc. would be included.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Jun 29, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Is the risk worth it?
A neurologist friend told me of a patient he saw recently who was a junior in high school whose cognitive function is permanently diminished after a non-concussive hit last year. Perhaps it is time to consider eliminating full-contact football for minors whose brains are still developing, and replace it with flag football or some other less dangerous variant of the game. 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"
Definitely not a bad line of thinking to consider.
And, if as you supposed in the other thread, Texas and Florida would be across-the-board, no-exceptions “no,” fine. Then the NCAA can simply disallow any players who played full-contact football as youths to be eligible to participate in full-contact football as collegians.
"Kittens give Morbo gas."
by Bucketochicken on Jun 29, 2010 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Consistency would be very difficult
If the effect of the brain trauma is cumulative, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction with increasing participation in spring football. As a realist, I don’t expect much from the NCAA that would benefit athletes, but if more parents share concerns about the health of their children, especially those who participated in football themselves, changes to improve the safety of football for minors may be possible. Additionally, if cash-strapped schools start making parents responsible for the purchase of equipment for their children, parents may become better informed about the potential risks of football.
"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 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Has anyone considered the differences between
11 v 11 and 7 v 7 high school football? Obviously the lack of linemen in the trenches every down would take 8 more people having “collisions” out of the play (which considering that linemen show the worst signs of CTE is not a bad thing).
"I shoot, I score. He shoots, I score." - Dan Gable
i played center in HS, and lead with my head constantly
I still have my helmet, the front cage is beat to shit with metal exposed everywhere. the Riddell logo is nearly warn off and the screws are missing some of their protective plastic sheath. I knew it wasn’t smart, I had a neck injury because of it freshman year, but I never recall getting a talking to about it
Keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either, Dude.
by AcrimoniousAngerererer on Jun 29, 2010 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions
wasn't quite finished there...
I was going to add that small schools like the one i went to may not have the right coaches who’ll watch for stuff like that on a regular basis and stop you from developing bad habits
Keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either, Dude.
by AcrimoniousAngerererer on Jun 29, 2010 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly my point
Remove the guards and tackles and there are less people having those types of collisions on every play. The coaches encourage the collision mentality because it is, frankly, the most effective in run blocking. Remove those players and there are less people while still maintaining a standard of football that is played in high schools who have produced great players (Chad Greenway comes to mind) and it also removes the danger of coaches looking the other way for the success of the play.
"I shoot, I score. He shoots, I score." - Dan Gable
by ClaybornSmash on Jun 29, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not being a smartass here...
…but I was wondering if the severity and consistency of the collisions makes the difference. When someone mentioned a reduced contact version of the sport it made me think of the “other” football.
Concerning severity: Upon reading this stuff I had the thought, “well, that does it, my son will play futbol instead of football,” but then I thought about all of the soccer players who get stitched or bandaged on the sidelines after knocking heads with a defender on a longball, or simply all of the headers that they take. Could repeatedly being hit in the head with a fast moving soccer ball cause some of the same effects? Are any athletes truely safe (yes the “contact” sports are worse, but guys get elbowed in the head and take spills all the time in basketball and other sports)?
Concerning consistency: I wonder if the problem is that these guys are repeatedly hit in the head, over-and-over-and-over. Someone even mentioned spring ball, so it isn’t just a three month issue, but rather gets spread over the entire year now. At least for a good portion of the year these guys are damaging their brains without any chance for recovery (if that exists). If games were farther apart, or practices didn’t involve so much full-contact, I wonder if that would give the brain time to “heal” in between shots to the noggin. I’m thinking of other injuries: with a bum knee that isn’t allowed to truely heal, if you keep going full speed your knee will be hamburger in no time and then it’s useless— whereas if you let it heal properly, you can run on it for decades.
I’m no doctor and I’m not saying I’m right, but these are the questions that I’d like to see answered (in time) by the people in the clean white coats.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 29, 2010 3:15 PM CDT reply actions
A study showed there's a "header" equivalent in soccer
And that hitting your head repeatedly on a flying soccer-ball can lead to chronic brain injury.
The brain remains a mysterious object, one that we still know little about. But we do know this: there’s a reason it’s encased in a fluid filled, self-enclosed calcified container whereas nearly everything else in your body is not.
"If you want to become a man--come to Iowa" All American IOWA LB PAT ANGERER, whose best friend is a dog.
by The Director on Jun 29, 2010 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions
In the future, there will be force fields around heads.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 30, 2010 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions
That picture of Lane is insane.
How long does it take for the tau plaques to develop? Assuming that hit was severe enough, maybe Lane’s brain didn’t show any sign of tau because the time between that hit (or any other hard hit) and his death was too little for the tau to accumulate to be found all over the brain.
by LoveItOrLeaveIt on Jun 29, 2010 3:25 PM CDT reply actions
He played his college ball at Lane College...
Presumably the people doing the tackling there wouldn’t have been as big or fast as D1 competition.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Jun 29, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
One of the biggest issues with all of this
is that we don’t really understand what’s happening.
We don’t understand the brain, not really. We have come to understand to a degree that certain effects, scarring, CTE, tau proteins, are associated with certain outcomes, such as dementia.
We know that concussions are bad. We just don’t have enough data yet to know specifics. We don’t know if there is a minimum threshold for permanent injury. We don’t know what factors effect that, age, sex, type of impact. We certainly don’t know the effect of genetics, which will probably have a huge impact.
We just don’t have enough data. And unless we are able to come up with a way to find out this information without dissecting the brain, we won’t have it for a while.
Sadly, the only thing we can hope right now is that people will do the “right” thing and work to improve conditions, information, and equipment to lesson impacts. I’m not optimistic, however.
Football is big money, and anyone who thinks that people in Texas, for example, will act to curb impacts or the age that players are allowed to participate without having either financial or personal (i.e. it’s their children at risk) motivations is not familiar with how people work.
This is going to be a big problem, and we’re just seeing the tip of it. It’s not going to be solved easily or quickly.
It never gets to be easy
This is exactly what I want to hear
Sadly, the only thing we can hope right now is that people will do the "right" thing and work to improve conditions, information, and equipment to lesson impacts.
Why not improve safety (lessening possibility of concussions), and leave extreme changes to the game (such as no more helmets, as some have suggested) until ten (arbitrary) years from now, banking on the premise that science will understand this whole situation better? I feel as if I’m somehow diminishing the severity of the current situation. If I am in your eyes, that most certainly isn’t my intent, and I’m sorry I’m being unclear and/or ambiguous.
Me gustan los estados unidos.
Maybe we simply need to go back to leather helmets and smaller pads
That way players won’t feel as ‘invincible’ as they do in the current armor equipment and would be more likely to play the game with a healthy concern for the long term consequences of so-called ‘highlight reel hits’. If players have soft padding on their heads and no protection for their faces they presumably would be more willing to stop leading with their heads when running the ball or tackling the ball carrier. It is almost impossible for a football player to strap on a hard plastic helmet with a metal face mask and not get the false feeling that he is invulnerable and therefore be more likely to throw his body around with truly reckless abandon. Many of them (particularly in the pros and major colleges) already intentionally use their helmets more like gladiatorial weapons of combat that are capable of knocking an opposing star player out of a game (thus giving their own team a significant advantage) rather than simply being content to wear them for the added protection for which they were intended.
Of course, I am no doctor so I can’t say for sure if this would work and the likelihood of football leagues at any level voluntarily doing this on their own is probably nil without some sort of government regulation, but it is something to think about.
I can’t get over the terrible irony at the likelihood modern football equipment that was supposedly designed to offer more protection than the era of leather helmets in fact had the opposite effect, at least concerning head injuries.
by HeartOfHawkness on Jun 29, 2010 8:25 PM CDT reply actions
What you'll see is s movement to protect ball carriers and receivers
the same way QB’s are protected: no helmet hits at all, and a penalty if you do.
I think FB has gone too far to go back to rugby-style gear and play. What I think will happen is that doctors will play strong and clear roles in defining when a player can play—and when a career may be over. The lifespan of RB’s may now be measured by games rather than years—after a few seasons, if you’re showing signs of damage in any way, you’re done.
"If you want to become a man--come to Iowa" All American IOWA LB PAT ANGERER, whose best friend is a dog.
by The Director on Jun 29, 2010 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree that we are likely to see more 'skill' positions being protected like QBs (if we aren't already seeing it)
But I don’t see how they can apply the same rules to linemen who often line up head-to-head with maybe a couple feet between their helmets when the ball is snapped. It seems to me the chaotic nature of line play is just too…um…chaotic to regulate on the field without some sort of major change to the game itself or the equipment the players use. Yes, the ‘skill’ positions are more likely to take more severe hits to the head than linemen but linemen take physical punishment on pretty much every play. WRs, RBs and QBs can often have plays where there is little or no physical contact.
by HeartOfHawkness on Jun 29, 2010 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Three point (and Four point) stance
Removing it will have a noticable effect on the head-related collisions of linemen. It’s not the vague “collision” that’s the problem. The human body is rather capable of handling collisions. It’s the head-related ones that are the problem here, and forcing the linemen that normally bash their heads into each other every play to use their hands, arms, shoulders, etc rather than their heads as battering rams will noticably help.
Helmet sensors that immediately register to the refs (via an alarm, or something, on a hand held device) if two helmets touch each other...
…which could actually be a practical learning tool for the medical experts.
If people are playing without taking real headshots, and someone still develops CTE (or other injuries that we currently associate with head collisions), then we will know more about the nature of brain science. And if the problem goes away, then great. I know this would take time for real results to show up, so there obviously would need to be other developments going on, but it could significantly decrease the numbers/severity of brain truma in the meantime.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jul 2, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Certainly play, but maybe not gear. There’s so much macho BS (not to mention money) entrenched in the sport that it would take a while and, sadly, probably many, many more cases like Chris Henry. But I think there could be a chance of experimenting play without helmets and a few rule changes.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 30, 2010 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions
There would be another problem with that...
although softer helmets and no facemasks would certainly decrease the amount of head/brain trauma, those issues are not clearly visible.
However, the increased broken noses, missing teeth, and facial cuts/bleeding would be.
The problem is somewhat akin to boxing, gloves and headgear doesn’t really protect the brain (some studies suggest that the increased surface area and weight of the gloves actually INCREASES brain trauma, & anecdotally I agree-getting hit with a glove ‘rattles your brain’ far more than a bare fist) but it does prevent cuts, and broken facial bones.
Even if the public outcry against brain injury in football was enough for the effective changes of soft helmets and removal of facemasks to take place, I doubt the image of ‘bloodmasks’, gnarled noses, and missing teeth would be stomached by the public.
Hawks for the win and falafels for the vagina
by DoYouLoveHawksorHate'Merica? on Jun 29, 2010 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions
I understand what you are saying
but if it is public knowledge that the trade off for more visually gruesome but relatively minor injuries like broken noses is to decrease the likelihood of serious brain injuries then I think the public could handle that. MMA has pretty much surpassed boxing at this point and there is more blood in those matches than a typical boxing match.
by HeartOfHawkness on Jun 29, 2010 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions
It may not be that easy
As a practical matter, moving to a less protective helmet is problematic because it is very likely that players who are used to the current equipment will suffer horrific injuries as they relearn how to hit. By the time players reach the NCAA or NFL, they have had years of training learning to hit with the current equipment, and it would be almost impossible to phase in new helmets through a grandfather clause like the NHL did when it added helmets because all players would have to have comparable equipment to prevent injury. Thus, it is very likely that changes to the rules involving what constitutes permitted contact would have to precede any dramatic change in equipment design toward less-protective gear to protect players during the transition. This leads back to the real problem that changes to the rules of contact are very difficult to enact/enforce because the all-out go until you are physically stopped nature of full-contact football is what attracts many of us to the game.
"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 30, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
True
Bottom line: there is too much money involved for there to be a ‘quick fix’. I think Adam said it best when he mentioned the fact that most pro football players (and therefore most college players aspiring to some day be pros) would rather take the chance at long term injury or early death if it means fortune and glory in their prime.
by HeartOfHawkness on Jun 30, 2010 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions
This, and the macho nature Rambler mentioned, are reasons why I suggested...
…helmet to helmet sensors that report directly to the refs. By making it an equipment rule, you take it out of the school’s/player’s control. Then the macho nature kicks in, because either you learn how to play by the new rule, or you don’t play. No one wants to be the guy who can’t play because he just can’t stop cracking skulls. It would speak to players’ macho nature (“Are you good enough to play by the rules?”) because it would be a matter of personal pride rather than being able to complain about botched reffing/coach/whatever.
Sure, the first year or two will still be a bit rough as people adjust, but it could make a big difference in the long run.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jul 2, 2010 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions
When football season rolls around,
will many of these comments be remembered? Not easy to picture Chris Henry’s brain when hoping for the defense to “blow someone up”. Even harder to digest when you consider how young most of these gladiators are while we gnaw on our turkey legs and belch nasty Bud Lite, always yelling for more.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Jun 29, 2010 9:25 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
This is possibly the most important aspect of this whole discussion imo.
If football were less violent and more like rugby where the ball is snapped and grown men in shorts and shirts just lean and push on each other like a bad heavyweight boxing match, is it even the same sport anymore*? Will as many people want to even watch it on TV or in person?
by HeartOfHawkness on Jun 29, 2010 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions
@ PinkUrinals...
I must admit, I will be hoping to see the defense blow people up. I will hope they can do so with as little helmet-hitting as possible, but I will definitely be anticipating/cheering for big hits.
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 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions
seriously?
like rugby where the ball is snapped and grown men in shorts and shirts just lean and push on each other like a bad heavyweight boxing match, is it even the same sport anymore*?
correct, rugby and football are different sports. make legitimate comments on sports you have 1 ounce of knowledge about
Gotta get up to get down
My point was
that it is not nearly as entertaining to watch as regular American football. And all I have to do is watch a rugby game and a football game in order to form an opinion on which one is (FAR) more entertaining to watch, big guy.
by HeartOfHawkness on Jul 1, 2010 5:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Not taking sides here (I don't know any of you)...
…but perhaps what Gustav was saying, much like many soccer fans have been saying recently, is that if you have “knowledge about” a sport (as in, understand the nuance of) it is usually much more entertaining. If I’m a cricket fan and someone shows me a baseball game, I very well may think it’s boring, but if you start to understand ALL of the rules it becomes much more entertaining— and vice versa.
Once you get to know rugby it isn’t boring, and there are still bone jarring hits (though without pads a lot of guys police themselves because retribution WILL come your way if you’re acting like a jackass on the field).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jul 2, 2010 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions
That's why I like the serious nature of the discussion here...
…cause it’s thought provoking.
Though I don’t need this website to tell me there’s bloodlust in the stands (but it’s a good conversation to have, especially with the season approaching).
I learned my lesson last year against Wisconsin. I was watching at my Aunt’s house and when Clay got broken in half I screamed “Oh, my god, he’s dead! We just killed him!”— and then he didn’t move right away. I sat down, sobered by the fact that I may have just cheered while watching someone die on television. I was actually glad to see him waling around after that (damn my conscience).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jul 2, 2010 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions
By far, this is why I love this blog
BHGP, without a doubt, continues to astound me. One day it’s batshit insanity about the new basketball coach, and the next day it’s moving and engaging articles like this, sometimes by the same author. I have got to say, I love being part of this place.
If the Big Ten is looking to expand, the question isn't what schools will join, it's what the Big Ten will call itself afterwords.
by PanterHawk on Jun 29, 2010 9:47 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
and the reason I just signed up today
I’ve read some unbelievably hilarious threads here as an outsider. Today’s heart-breaking posts about Chris Henry shows the other side of the coin: smart, relevant, thoughtful discussions about the sports we love. Sorry if I sound like a commercial, but this is a place where I can waste time reading and posting, but still respect myself in the morning.
Thanks AJ for the hard-hitting (so to speak) commentary.
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jun 30, 2010 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions
BHGP...
…the one night stand you’ve been standing with for years.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jul 2, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Poll request
It would be interesting to see how many of us would allow our sons to play football if they (the son) truly loved the sport. Despite knowing the data and risks involved, my son truly has a passion for the sport and at age 9, I don’t want to deny him pursuing a passion. We’ll see with age whether my opinion changes.
you had me at blood and semen
by hawkontherocks on Jun 29, 2010 11:08 PM CDT reply actions
My four year old
Will play it if he wants to. I don’t think the question is really about that. It’s “do these guys know the risks involved?” If you know the risks, you can decide for yourself intelligently. If you don’t know the risks, then it’s no different than snorting that random white powder on the table. Is it a good drug or a bad drug? Is it paint chips? Is it anthrax? Is it rat poison?
While I am 100% for continuing to research the cause of this and other sports-related injuries, as well as making things safer (like removing the three point stance for starters) the very nature of many (most?) of our pasttimes is that they are inherently dangerous. Of the “major” sports in America, how many aren’t dangerous? To say death isn’t in play in football, car racing, wrestling, MMA, boxing, and hockey, as well as to a lesser extent baseball, would be ignorant. To say major injury isn’t in play in all those as well as basketball and soccer would also be ignorant.
My four month olds
Will not. For a few reasons. First, it’ll likely be moot. By the time they’re old enough to even ask me to sign a waiver for them to join an organized league, Chris Nowinski will have collected enough brains and Guskiewicz will have generated enough HITS data that helmets will be long gone. Second, if helmets and head collisions remain part of the game, I’m not signing that waiver.
The drug analogy is interesting tho. By banning it outright, am I running the risk they’ll find an underground pickup game replete with pads and helmets? Possibly. But this has me thinking. I’ve always ideologically thought that whatever booze/drug experience (they can get their own pieces of tail) they were gonna first try, it would be at home, with me. But, like the assignment of meaning to ‘all sports being inherently dangerous,’ it’s a matter of degree. Booze and herb can be made available, but I doubt I’ll be gung-ho enough to organize an 8ball for my sons to experiment with, and I’m sure as hell not gonna sit em down for an injection demo. Likewise, I’m not gonna hand out helmets at Christmas and tell em to go bang heads in the yard.
Crack is wac
jtot
Likewise, I’m not gonna hand out helmets at Christmas and tell em to go bang heads in the yard.
They won’t need helmets my friend. Normal kids will find other things to put on their heads to crash into things. It’s all part of their learning experience.
As for the booze and herb, I am planning on the same thing. I want to be with them to be with me for their first experience and be able to explain what happens to them doing it in excess.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Jul 1, 2010 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Sweet, let's get em all together and knock this out!
Waddya think, is 2025 too early (too late)? Our four twins will be 15. It probably won’t be a good idea to try such an experiment at a football tailgate; we’ll have to setup a camping trip or something. That way, after intoxication varieties set in and they start running around with beer cases on their heads as helmets, they’ll have only trees to knock into.
Crack is wac
Ummm, I think I just realized
I mixed you up with The Bacon Explosion. How old are your tots?
Crack is wac
My oldest is 9yo, and I have a 2yo and a 3yo.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Jul 1, 2010 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
A slightly different question is whether you would encourage your sons to play football.
For me the question is less about allowing my two sons to participate, it is more about whether I actively seek out opportunities for them to play. I am much more likely to sign my sons up to play soccer or other fall sports. I suspect that this will make it much less likely that they will ask to play football if they find that they genuinely enjoy soccer and wish to continue playing. I am quickly learning which sports are the popular youth sports in my town, and Football does not seem to be a huge draw. The information available about neurological damage related to football, scant though it may be, makes me much less likely to go out of my way to encourage my sons to play football, a sport that I really enjoyed playing, even if I would likely permit them to play if that is what they wanted.
"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 Jul 1, 2010 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh great!
Football is bad, but booze and drugs are OK?
I weep for the future.
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
my thoughts
exactly.
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
They didn't say it was "okay"...
…they were just talking about the difference between a kid doing something “dangerous” blindly, versus informing said kids about the dangers involved with different activities. And sorry, but doing a J with one’s son in the woods won’t kill anyone, whereas football has (I know drinking has killed people, but I doubt any kid will be beer-bonging a bottle of everclear when their parent is around— hopefully).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jul 2, 2010 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
