Kids and Concussions

[Latrinsorm]

I read a really deep (http://grantland.com/features/mlb-catcher-concussions-home-plate-collisions-rule/) article about catcher concussions today. I recognize that not too many people care about baseball, least of all catchers, but one big takeaway was that baseball is the least concussion-prone sport of the big three and more at the scholastic level. Like anyone else who played Little League I remember kids throwing 120 MPH three inches from my face, which seems like it would have a lot higher concussion risk than basketball, where nobody but Karl Malone and Metta World Peace think it's appropriate to go anywhere near someone's head. The terribly formatted data is here (http://www.momsteam.com/softball/concussion-in-high-school-sports-rising-fifteen-percent-new-study-finds) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2140075/table/i1062-6050-42-4-495-t01/), and I'm gonna go ahead and make it a lot more legible:

Rates of Concussion

Boys
Football - .54
Lacrosse - .30
Soccer - .20
Wrestling - .18
Basketball - .08
Baseball - .06

Girls
Soccer - .36
Lacrosse - .20
Basketball - .19
Field Hockey - .10
Softball - .09

Now, three things stand out to me:
1. Football is ridiculous.
2. Nobody cares about ice hockey? Nobody cares about ice hockey.
3. In both soccer and basketball, girls are dramatically more susceptible to concussions than boys. This is especially odd because the reverse is true for lacrosse.

But the big takeaway is that if you're concerned about concussions for your kids, baseball/basketball is the answer for boys and softball/field hockey for girls. The trend towards plate sports being safe is wildly exaggerated at the college level, and especially with new MLB rules presumably at the professional level as well.

.

The point of this thread: knowledge is power.

[Gelston]

Can you turn this into a pie graph? Thx

[subzero]

We should just make ping-pong the national sport. I don't think you can get too badly hurt playing ping-pong.

[Archigeek]

Also, you left out cheer leading.

[cwolff]

3. In both soccer and basketball, girls are dramatically more susceptible to concussions than boys. This is especially odd because the reverse is true for lacrosse.

Girls lacrosse really frowns on contact. You can see the difference in the depth of the basket which holds the ball. The womens basket is flat and the mens basket can be the depth of the diameter of a lacrosse ball. For the women, lacross is more like keep away.

My niece is on the U.S. Womens under 18 national soccer team. Heading to Spain next week to represent the stars and stripes as a matter of fact. She's been in some pretty rough games over the years so I can see how they would get concussed.

[Latrinsorm]

Also, you left out cheer leading.By choice.
Can you turn this into a pie graph? ThxI can, but I absolutely refuse to.
We should just make ping-pong the national sport. I don't think you can get too badly hurt playing ping-pong.I'm not a big believer in "national sport" as an empirically verifiable term, and if it's not then what the hell good is it? Anyway, I gotta say that I don't really get your thought process. Are you arguing that parents shouldn't consider the risks before making decisions for their children? Are you generally complaining that your favorite sport is empirically more dangerous when it comes to concussions? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
My niece is on the U.S. Womens under 18 national soccer team. Heading to Spain next week to represent the stars and stripes as a matter of fact. She's been in some pretty rough games over the years so I can see how they would get concussed.Has she met Pinoe??? She's pretty much my idol.

[subzero]

I'm not a big believer in "national sport" as an empirically verifiable term, and if it's not then what the hell good is it? Anyway, I gotta say that I don't really get your thought process. Are you arguing that parents shouldn't consider the risks before making decisions for their children? Are you generally complaining that your favorite sport is empirically more dangerous when it comes to concussions? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.

Why not a national sport or pastime? We've got a national flower, song, bird, and so on.

As for parents weighing the risks, weigh away. It's not going to stop people from doing things they enjoy and want to do. We do still have people willingly enter the military and I'd wager that landing in combat is far more dangerous than playing any sport. And no, I'm not complaining about foosball being more dangerous than other sports; I couldn't care less. If people want to box or enter MMA, it's their choice. They know and accept the risks. Same with sports.

[Warriorbird]

Gib is going to be so upset with you. He cares about ice hockey.

[Ker_Thwap]

I grew up in suburbia where we routinely played 9 on 9 baseball, tackle and touch football, street hockey and ice hockey games pretty much every single day. We played with hard pucks, had no masks or helmets. The rule was "you kept the puck down." I went home fairly often with a black eye, split lip, road burn, and other bleeding wounds, but was never concussed from a neighborhood game. The only concussion I ever suffered was from standing up into a cabinet door.

All these pads and protective equipment are the problem. Kids will self regulate otherwise.

Oh, also the Evel Knieval phase where we jumped our crappy bikes over various home made ramps.

[Latrinsorm]

Why not a national sport or pastime? We've got a national flower, song, bird, and so on.The latter are all by Congressional decree. To that extent, I am happy to talk about a national sport. I suspect that this is not what you were referring to, though.
As for parents weighing the risks, weigh away. It's not going to stop people from doing things they enjoy and want to do. We do still have people willingly enter the military and I'd wager that landing in combat is far more dangerous than playing any sport. And no, I'm not complaining about foosball being more dangerous than other sports; I couldn't care less. If people want to box or enter MMA, it's their choice. They know and accept the risks. Same with sports.For a guy who insists that people know the risks, you seem to be awfully quick to decry any statement of those risks.

As for stopping people from doing things they enjoy, would you say cigarette use has increased or decreased since the advent of surgeon general warnings?
All these pads and protective equipment are the problem. Kids will self regulate otherwise.Would you trust your child to design their own diet? Their own hygiene? These are far more straightforward processes than concussion safety protocols.

[Ker_Thwap]

?Would you trust your child to design their own diet? Their own hygiene? These are far more straightforward processes than concussion safety protocols.

No and no. But I don't see how those questions are remotely analogous to trusting your child to play properly. Children self regulate when they play, with a minimum of rules, or at least they used to.

I have no problem with concussion protocols for organized youth sports. I simply wonder if the hard heavy safety equipment is the biggest part of the problem.

[Latrinsorm]

They are analogous because: how can a child avoid concussions if they don't really know what they are? Children have to know on some level what safe behavior is to seek it, whether consciously or subconsciously. I'm a grown ass man and I'm not confident in my ability to diagnose someone with a concussion, surely I couldn't have as a child, right?

If you think kids "used to" never get concussions, I must inform you that your personal experience was not representative. It's not that kids never got concussions, it's that no one cared. You might say that this takes subzero's (et al) theory that everyone knew the risks of sport X and absolutely blows it out of the water, but I would be a little more diplomatic about it.

[Gelston]

You seem to have the belief that children are responsible, logical humans. They are not. They may know something is very dangerous, but they'll do it anyways. I know when I was a child I pretty much felt I was immortal and that nothing could happen.

[Ker_Thwap]

They are analogous because: how can a child avoid concussions if they don't really know what they are? Children have to know on some level what safe behavior is to seek it, whether consciously or subconsciously. I'm a grown ass man and I'm not confident in my ability to diagnose someone with a concussion, surely I couldn't have as a child, right?

If you think kids "used to" never get concussions, I must inform you that your personal experience was not representative. It's not that kids never got concussions, it's that no one cared. You might say that this takes subzero's (et al) theory that everyone knew the risks of sport X and absolutely blows it out of the water, but I would be a little more diplomatic about it.

First, I don't think children never got concussions. I think they used to get less concussions before we started wrapping them in giant weapon helmets, and hard plastic armor designed for offensive action. I agree, children make rotten doctors, I suggest you never ask one about your concussion symptoms. But they do make excellent self regulating play people. Ever been in a snowball fight? There's always that one idiot that gets lazy and tosses a hunk of ice. In my neighborhood, if you tossed a hunk of ice twice, you got punched in the face. No one ever tossed a hunk of ice three times. Children running free will immediately correct behavior among their peers, be it face level slapshots, ice throwing, or slurs.

My 120 pound nephew got concussions in high school football, and got booted from the field. My idiot sister and her husband were all convinced he was going to be the next Wes Welker, so again concussion protocol is good in organized sports that have a lot of extraneous equipment.

For Gelston, you seem to think I have a belief that I don't.

[Johnny Five]

Adults know shit is dangerous but do it anyways. America will be the land of the pussies and it won't matter about this discussion. Next thing you know the only channel will be PBS muwahahaha.

[ZeP]

Oh I would throw ice three times in your neighborhood. Never a motherfuckin doubt.

[Johnny Five]

But I agree with Ker, when we played hockey it was always "No Raise", baseball was no smashing it right at the pitcher, yada yada, as a group it was pretty much regulated by everyone. If you didn't like the rules you could gtfo.

[Warriorbird]

RE: football. Discussion of things has helped. More kids have left teams after serious concussions in schools I teach at than ever would have when I was in high school.

[Latrinsorm]

I agree, children make rotten doctors, I suggest you never ask one about your concussion symptoms.You're not the boss of me. :grr:
Ever been in a snowball fight?They told me the record would be sealed!! ...ahem. No, no I have not.
There's always that one idiot that gets lazy and tosses a hunk of ice. In my neighborhood, if you tossed a hunk of ice twice, you got punched in the face. No one ever tossed a hunk of ice three times. Children running free will immediately correct behavior among their peers, be it face level slapshots, ice throwing, or slurs.I appreciate your expounding, but if the solution to concussion-causing behavior is a different concussion-causing behavior, I respectfully suggest that adults need to step in if our goal is unconcussed children.

[Candor]

I agree, children make rotten doctors, I suggest you never ask one about your concussion symptoms. But they do make excellent self regulating play people. Ever been in a snowball fight? There's always that one idiot that gets lazy and tosses a hunk of ice. In my neighborhood, if you tossed a hunk of ice twice, you got punched in the face. No one ever tossed a hunk of ice three times. Children running free will immediately correct behavior among their peers, be it face level slapshots, ice throwing, or slurs.

Maybe in your neighborhood groups of kids never pick on a single kid who is somehow different and not part of the crowd, but it definitely happens in my area. And I can assure you in such an instance, children do not make excellent self regulating play people.

Children need supervision. It doesn't have to be constant or always right nearby, but it needs to be there.

[Ker_Thwap]

Maybe in your neighborhood groups of kids never pick on a single kid who is somehow different and not part of the crowd, but it definitely happens in my area. And I can assure you in such an instance, children do not make excellent self regulating play people.

Children need supervision. It doesn't have to be constant or always right nearby, but it needs to be there.

Oh, we had rules, lots of rules, and someone's mother was always within a few houses. It wasn't Lord of the Flies where we were competing for food. There were even rules about fights. Never hit a girl, only girls kick, never hit someone who's down, never start a fight, never pick on the little kid, never hit someone in the junk, I'm sure there were more I've forgotten. With 20 or so of us, there was also always someone to step in and break up a fight if it went too far. (Yes, we were a bit sexist back then)


You're not the boss of me. :grr:They told me the record would be sealed!! ...ahem. No, no I have not.I appreciate your expounding, but if the solution to concussion-causing behavior is a different concussion-causing behavior, I respectfully suggest that adults need to step in if our goal is unconcussed children.

Eh, a little punishment early can be effective in prevention of bad habits. A three pound hunk of ice to the noggin can kill you, a child sized fist to the nose isn't going to cause as much damage.

[subzero]

The latter are all by Congressional decree. To that extent, I am happy to talk about a national sport. I suspect that this is not what you were referring to, though.

What's to say Congress couldn't be persuaded to declare a national sport? Doesn't matter to me much either way, but if you need the suits to tell you it is so, start putting the pressure on. Ping-pong for 2020!


For a guy who insists that people know the risks, you seem to be awfully quick to decry any statement of those risks.

What? I've never said there weren't risks. These sports have always had risks, people have always known there were inherent risks, and I'll be watching the NFL fire up games here again in August. I just get sick of all this pussification bullshit; people overusing sanitizers, 'oh noes, Johnny bumped his head! The world is ending!' (Good god, how did we make it this far?), kids getting suspended from school for 'finger-guns', the recent bullying buzz, etc. It's being over-done and it's ridiculous. I'm tired of hearing about concussions and bullying in particular. Did anyone think getting your brain knocked around inside your dome was anything other than bad? Punch-drunk boxers, anyone?


As for stopping people from doing things they enjoy, would you say cigarette use has increased or decreased since the advent of surgeon general warnings?

I don't think anyone has the information to know the answer to that for sure. Do I think that people who wish to smoke quit because of the warnings? Some maybe. Many continue to do it whatever their reason. I do believe we've seen a decline in younger people smoking, but I don't think it's necessarily because of a label that most people probably don't read. I'd say it's fairly common knowledge that smoking anything in general isn't very healthy. Perhaps that combined with the overall nastiness of being around cigarette smoke, that the populace as a whole isn't so high on smoking as they used to be, and the restrictions on smoking in public being more common have led to the decrease more-so than a warning label or commercial (though I will say the ones with people who have lost their larynx have to be far more effective than, say, frying an egg in a pan and telling you that is your brain on drugs. The latter clearly being a horrible, pathetic, failure of a joke).

[subzero]

No and no. But I don't see how those questions are remotely analogous to trusting your child to play properly. Children self regulate when they play, with a minimum of rules, or at least they used to.

I have no problem with concussion protocols for organized youth sports. I simply wonder if the hard heavy safety equipment is the biggest part of the problem.

I saw a while back some company is working on a helmet with impact sensors. Apparently they'll have a red light on the back that will light up if it determines a blow to the head to be hard enough to warrant pulling a player and having them checked out.

[cwolff]

Has she met Pinoe??? She's pretty much my idol.

That's a name I've not heard but she did meet a lot of the National team while playing in WA at the Nike facility. The word I got from her was this: Abby Womback - Awesome to the kids, spent time chatting and signing autographs; Hope Solo - Bitch.

[Latrinsorm]

What's to say Congress couldn't be persuaded to declare a national sport? Doesn't matter to me much either way, but if you need the suits to tell you it is so, start putting the pressure on. Ping-pong for 2020!I do need the suits to tell me what the suits tell me, yes. Isn't that tautological? Their declarations are not valid empirical observations, if that's what you mean.
What? I've never said there weren't risks.I said you decried the statement of risks, not that you disagreed with them.
These sports have always had risks, people have always known there were inherent risks, and I'll be watching the NFL fire up games here again in August. I just get sick of all this pussification bullshit; people overusing sanitizers, 'oh noes, Johnny bumped his head! The world is ending!' (Good god, how did we make it this far?), kids getting suspended from school for 'finger-guns', the recent bullying buzz, etc. It's being over-done and it's ridiculous. I'm tired of hearing about concussions and bullying in particular. Did anyone think getting your brain knocked around inside your dome was anything other than bad? Punch-drunk boxers, anyone?Many people thought that getting your brain knocked around was a minor nuisance, like getting the wind knocked out of you. I remember Paul Maguire commentating on a college player's in-game concussion: "we'd ask him how many fingers, he'd say Wednesday, we'd say you're fine! Get back out there!" to much joviality in the booth. Tagliabue created a panel in 1994 to find out the effects of concussions, which would be pretty pointless if everyone already knew they were bad. In 2003 they concluded there were no long-term negative health consequences associated with concussions sustained by NFL players. As for punch-drunk boxers, the NFL's panel also concluded that professional football players do not sustain frequent repetitive blows to the brain on a regular basis. As far as the NFL was concerned, football players don't get hit like boxers and even when they do there aren't any repercussions.

You can claim that concussions are overemphasized, that's a matter of opinion. If you care at all about facts or supporting evidence, you can't claim that people always knew the risks of football. It's a matter of public record.
I don't think anyone has the information to know the answer to that for sure. Do I think that people who wish to smoke quit because of the warnings? Some maybe. Many continue to do it whatever their reason. I do believe we've seen a decline in younger people smoking, but I don't think it's necessarily because of a label that most people probably don't read. I'd say it's fairly common knowledge that smoking anything in general isn't very healthy. Perhaps that combined with the overall nastiness of being around cigarette smoke, that the populace as a whole isn't so high on smoking as they used to be, and the restrictions on smoking in public being more common have led to the decrease more-so than a warning label or commercial (though I will say the ones with people who have lost their larynx have to be far more effective than, say, frying an egg in a pan and telling you that is your brain on drugs. The latter clearly being a horrible, pathetic, failure of a joke).It is now, yes. If you think it was in the 50s, you're kidding yourself. It could be a coincidence that the rate of smoking has declined in step with the rate of ignorance about smoking's health impact, sure, but I respectfully suggest it's less plausible than a causal link and that you only disagree because it suits your pre-existing beliefs.
I saw a while back some company is working on a helmet with impact sensors. Apparently they'll have a red light on the back that will light up if it determines a blow to the head to be hard enough to warrant pulling a player and having them checked out.First invented in 2002. The United States military uses $300 (http://news.inventhelp.com/Articles/Electronics/Inventions/combat-helmet-sensors-12504.aspx#.Uw96I_ldUlI) versions. A version was offered to the NFL in 2006, which they declined, saying "the NFL is comfortable with the way it now monitors and diagnoses concussions." The NFL's official helmet manufacturer currently offers a package (http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/tech/post/_/id/3595/riddell-unveils-new-wireless-helmet-tech) specifically designed for football, which the NFL also passed on.

If you're sick of hearing about concussions, maybe your problem is with the NFL failing to put on its big boy pants at every opportunity.

[Latrinsorm]

That's a name I've not heard but she did meet a lot of the National team while playing in WA at the Nike facility. The word I got from her was this: Abby Womback - Awesome to the kids, spent time chatting and signing autographs; Hope Solo - Bitch.That's too bad! (Not about Solo, anyone could see that coming.) Rapinoe has been in and out of the WNT recently, though, maybe that's why.

[Ker_Thwap]

That's too bad! (Not about Solo, anyone could see that coming.) Rapinoe has been in and out of the WNT recently, though, maybe that's why.

I might watch one women's soccer game a year, and had no clue who Pinoe was, but the name Megan Rapinoe brings to mind a player.

[subzero]

I said you decried the statement of risks, not that you disagreed with them.

Saying that I'm personally not concerned about it doesn't mean I'm saying that people should ignore them or that they aren't valid or anything of the sort. It simply means that I believe people should be able to make the decisions to play or not to play for themselves. I do not think the game itself should be changed because of these risks. If, at some point the game begins to suffer as a result of people no longer wanting to participate in the current form, then it might be time for a change.

I'll go back to the topic of boxers. Regardless of what people historically knew or thought about the sport and it's dangers, we quite clearly know now that getting punched in the head a lot can have serious implications. Despite that, people still box and enter other combat sports. If people are willing to continue, should those sports be changed to further protect the fighters? I don't think so.


Many people thought that getting your brain knocked around was a minor nuisance, like getting the wind knocked out of you. I remember Paul Maguire commentating on a college player's in-game concussion: "we'd ask him how many fingers, he'd say Wednesday, we'd say you're fine! Get back out there!" to much joviality in the booth. Tagliabue created a panel in 1994 to find out the effects of concussions, which would be pretty pointless if everyone already knew they were bad. In 2003 they concluded there were no long-term negative health consequences associated with concussions sustained by NFL players. As for punch-drunk boxers, the NFL's panel also concluded that professional football players do not sustain frequent repetitive blows to the brain on a regular basis. As far as the NFL was concerned, football players don't get hit like boxers and even when they do there aren't any repercussions.

And the business aspect of the game I'm sure had absolutely zero impact on all of that. From players, to coaches, to commissioners, and the groups they hire to do 'research', money talks. There have been studies conducted in the past that 'prove' marijuana caused brain damage in monkeys. Do you believe that study was performed correctly and that their finding is factual? I don't. I have, on the other hand, seen smaller tests that indicate many hits in the NFL may be comparable to the impact seen in car wrecks. The NFL had no hand in those. I'm much more likely to believe independent studies than those coming from a group who is being funded or influenced by those who profit from the 'correct' conclusion of those tests.


You can claim that concussions are overemphasized, that's a matter of opinion. If you care at all about facts or supporting evidence, you can't claim that people always knew the risks of football. It's a matter of public record.

It's not so much that it's overemphasized exactly. The media latches on to various things at times and keep spinning the wheels which in turn over-saturates us with this information. At the end of the day, with all that is going on, are concussions in contact sports really a topic that should be so dominant in the media?


It is now, yes. If you think it was in the 50s, you're kidding yourself. It could be a coincidence that the rate of smoking has declined in step with the rate of ignorance about smoking's health impact, sure, but I respectfully suggest it's less plausible than a causal link and that you only disagree because it suits your pre-existing beliefs.

No, I agree that people back then weren't aware of a lot of things, especially to the depth we may now know them. I'm speaking of people in today's environment. Obviously, with the pervasiveness of smoking back then, people didn't think much of it; everyone did it and seemed to get along fine in their eyes. We now know that isn't the case and as a result, I believe we're seeing a decline in smoking. Ask some smokers specifically what the warning label on their cigarettes says, without them reading it for you. They might have some general information correct, but I highly doubt most have done more than casually 'read' and ignore it. I also seriously doubt anyone walking in to purchase them suddenly decided against it the day that label appeared on the package.



First invented in 2002. The United States military uses $300 (http://news.inventhelp.com/Articles/Electronics/Inventions/combat-helmet-sensors-12504.aspx#.Uw96I_ldUlI) versions. A version was offered to the NFL in 2006, which they declined, saying "the NFL is comfortable with the way it now monitors and diagnoses concussions." The NFL's official helmet manufacturer currently offers a package (http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/tech/post/_/id/3595/riddell-unveils-new-wireless-helmet-tech) specifically designed for football, which the NFL also passed on.

If you're sick of hearing about concussions, maybe your problem is with the NFL failing to put on its big boy pants at every opportunity.

See above; we've got far more important issues that the media should spend its time on. At this point, what needed to be said about the topic has been said. Until some relevant, new information surfaces, it's time to give it a rest.

[Latrinsorm]

Saying that I'm personally not concerned about it doesn't mean I'm saying that people should ignore them or that they aren't valid or anything of the sort. It simply means that I believe people should be able to make the decisions to play or not to play for themselves. I do not think the game itself should be changed because of these risks. If, at some point the game begins to suffer as a result of people no longer wanting to participate in the current form, then it might be time for a change.

I'll go back to the topic of boxers. Regardless of what people historically knew or thought about the sport and it's dangers, we quite clearly know now that getting punched in the head a lot can have serious implications. Despite that, people still box and enter other combat sports. If people are willing to continue, should those sports be changed to further protect the fighters? I don't think so.Boxing is suffering, though, and it's easy to see football going down the same path for the same reasons. In 1981 34% (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-FOOTBALL-LEADS-AS-FAVORITE-SPORT-OF-FANS-1981-05.pdf) of sports fans followed boxing, by 1994 it was down to 23% (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-PROFESSIONAL-FOOTBALL-WIDENS-ITS-LEAD-OVER-BASEBAL-1997-11.pdf), by 2011 it's down to 19% (http://scarborough.com/press-room/news/gymnastics-figure-skating-men%E2%80%99s-golf-and-high-school-sports-rank-high-fan-interest).
And the business aspect of the game I'm sure had absolutely zero impact on all of that. From players, to coaches, to commissioners, and the groups they hire to do 'research', money talks. There have been studies conducted in the past that 'prove' marijuana caused brain damage in monkeys. Do you believe that study was performed correctly and that their finding is factual? I don't. I have, on the other hand, seen smaller tests that indicate many hits in the NFL may be comparable to the impact seen in car wrecks. The NFL had no hand in those. I'm much more likely to believe independent studies than those coming from a group who is being funded or influenced by those who profit from the 'correct' conclusion of those tests.I think if you have to believe in a national conspiracy for your position to make sense, you might want to re-examine it. Thousands of players, hundreds of coaches, all unwaveringly committed to the lie? Isn't the simpler explanation that the NFL honesty believed concussions were no big deal? Paul Tagliabue isn't a neuroscientist, and even if he was the first cases of CTE in football players were only discovered in 2002.
No, I agree that people back then weren't aware of a lot of things, especially to the depth we may now know them. I'm speaking of people in today's environment. Obviously, with the pervasiveness of smoking back then, people didn't think much of it; everyone did it and seemed to get along fine in their eyes. We now know that isn't the case and as a result, I believe we're seeing a decline in smoking. Ask some smokers specifically what the warning label on their cigarettes says, without them reading it for you. They might have some general information correct, but I highly doubt most have done more than casually 'read' and ignore it. I also seriously doubt anyone walking in to purchase them suddenly decided against it the day that label appeared on the package.The point about the warning label isn't that it alone has a direct causal impact, but that it is part of a larger campaign of information. We only know about smoking now because of the repeatedly publicized research - we're not pulmonologists. For decades after this research first started to come out, there were people who resisted that information. What new, relevant information about cigarettes do you think surfaced between 1960 and 1990? It was just beating the same drum of cigarettes cause cancer, and now "we know" the truth. This is how people work: repetition, not reasoning.

[subzero]

Boxing is suffering, though, and it's easy to see football going down the same path for the same reasons. In 1981 34% (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-FOOTBALL-LEADS-AS-FAVORITE-SPORT-OF-FANS-1981-05.pdf) of sports fans followed boxing, by 1994 it was down to 23% (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-PROFESSIONAL-FOOTBALL-WIDENS-ITS-LEAD-OVER-BASEBAL-1997-11.pdf), by 2011 it's down to 19% (http://scarborough.com/press-room/news/gymnastics-figure-skating-men%E2%80%99s-golf-and-high-school-sports-rank-high-fan-interest).

Boxing is suffering because of the increasing popularity of MMA and possibly managerial/promotional issues, not because people don't want to get hit in the head.


I think if you have to believe in a national conspiracy for your position to make sense, you might want to re-examine it. Thousands of players, hundreds of coaches, all unwaveringly committed to the lie? Isn't the simpler explanation that the NFL honesty believed concussions were no big deal? Paul Tagliabue isn't a neuroscientist, and even if he was the first cases of CTE in football players were only discovered in 2002.

It's not that they're covering for a lie. They just didn't give a shit about being concussed because a player didn't want to be taken from the game, the coach(es) didn't want to lose said player from the game, etc. Guys have played with broken bones, separated shoulders, and countless other types of injuries, I'm sure. Why would this be any different? As far as the league itself goes, maybe they did believe concussions weren't a big deal. Maybe they also didn't care to look into it much because it was better for business if they could keep players playing the game and not making a big deal out of them.


What new, relevant information about cigarettes do you think surfaced between 1960 and 1990? It was just beating the same drum of cigarettes cause cancer, and now "we know" the truth. This is how people work: repetition, not reasoning.

Don't know. I've never had the slightest inclination to smoke a cigarette, so I've never really paid much attention to information about it because it has such little relevance to me. I've always thought it was a foul, disgusting thing that I wanted no part of.

[Latrinsorm]

It's not that they're covering for a lie. They just didn't give a shit about being concussed because a player didn't want to be taken from the game, the coach(es) didn't want to lose said player from the game, etc. Guys have played with broken bones, separated shoulders, and countless other types of injuries, I'm sure. Why would this be any different?So what you're saying is that players didn't know the risks of concussions. Good! We're agreed. :)
As far as the league itself goes, maybe they did believe concussions weren't a big deal. Maybe they also didn't care to look into it much because it was better for business if they could keep players playing the game and not making a big deal out of them.And the league didn't know either! I'm glad we could come to an agreement on this issue.

And considering that research is still very much in the nascent stage for CTE, we can surely also agree that while people know more, they still don't really know the risks in playing football.

[subzero]

So what you're saying is that players didn't know the risks of concussions. Good! We're agreed. :)And the league didn't know either! I'm glad we could come to an agreement on this issue.

And considering that research is still very much in the nascent stage for CTE, we can surely also agree that while people know more, they still don't really know the risks in playing football.

They may not have known everything, but that doesn't preclude people from knowing that being knocked out/concussed is the result of your brain hitting the inside of your skull which obviously can't be good. Anyone that thought otherwise is a fool who gets what they deserve.

[Latrinsorm]

Why wouldn't they think that a brain bruise heals just as well as an arm bruise, a liver bruise? Especially when everyone who played football had gotten concussions and no one had ever seen long term problems before. Why, Bronko Nagurski ran headfirst into a literal brick wall and nothing ever happened to him!

I trust you notice how the active ingredient is what people see, which is a very different proposition from what is actually the case. CTE didn't get invented in 2002, it got discovered: there have been football players with CTE for as long as there has been football, in the same way that there have been smokers with cancer for as long as there has been smoking.

This is why I can't take seriously your continued insistence that people always knew. I understand why you want to believe they did, but you gotta face the facts. This is a man's world.

[subzero]

Why wouldn't they think that a brain bruise heals just as well as an arm bruise, a liver bruise?

The same reason O2 is necessary for life and O3 will kill you. They're different. The brain, as evidenced by the protective skull around it, needs to be protected. We see something similar with the heart and lungs.

Oh, and because by now we've all seen the effects hits to the head have had on boxers. But I guess that could have been something about the air in the boxing ring or something else.


I trust you notice how the active ingredient is what people see, which is a very different proposition from what is actually the case. CTE didn't get invented in 2002, it got discovered: there have been football players with CTE for as long as there has been football, in the same way that there have been smokers with cancer for as long as there has been smoking.

This is why I can't take seriously your continued insistence that people always knew. I understand why you want to believe they did, but you gotta face the facts. This is a man's world.

When I say people know the risks, I don't mean they know every possible risk there could be. I mean they know that they're risking bodily injury of all sorts, including death, and yet they continue to play of their own free will. CTE: Twelve years and counting, people are still playing.