I hesitate to wade into this issue as it becomes emotionally charged and there is still so much we don't know. All that can be said with any certainty are that concussions and repeated blows to the head can cause CTE and the condition appears to be linked to the increased presence of the protein tau in the brain.
It is also clear the NFL has tried multiple times to prevent the release of any CTE info that damages its brand with the most recent news just being the latest example. The league's behavior in all of this has been substandard at best and devious at worst. I can turn a blind eye to how the commissioner has handled player discipline (as inconsistent as it may be) but he should fall on his sword for how the CTE issue has been handled. Instead of trying to hide in hopes it would all go away, the league should have pursued an aggressive and public campaign to re-educate tackling, change helmet design, change playing turf, promote youth flag football, and fund studies to prevent/treat CTE that include new medication and therapy. Many of these things are in fact going on, but this is a battle of public opinion, and the league office is not getting its message out or highlighting enough of the good faith efforts it is making to fight CTE.
All this brings me to the following story about late BMX biker Dave Mirra who committed suicide following complications from CTE. I lay immense amounts of blame at Roger Goodell's feet for how the NFL has handled CTE, but CTE is not football's fault. By that I mean the condition is not unique to football. There may be higher incidents of CTE in football but we don't really know. Extreme sports, rugby, water polo, hockey, boxing, and ultimate fighting all carry CTE risks, some to a great degree. This is a serious issue that encompasses many contact sports, and right now I feel we are on two extremes.
One that says this is all overblown and professional athletes make choices and are well compensated. I'm not unsympathetic to this argument because the facts are true, but it ignores the impact on youth sports and how much info did players really have at their finger tips. The other extreme takes us down the road of a severe reduction in participation in contact sports because of CTE fears. While I sympathize with these thoughts (we all want to protect kids) but are we willing to go that far? Are we willing to eschew all the sports I listed above because some athletes could develop CTE? I don't think so or at least I hope not.
Maybe it's just my view on life but you waste your time and others if you live every moment of every day trying to eliminate every possible risk. Sure you make calculated risks and we all have our own formula. Human beings are natural risk takers, it's what makes us great. People climb Everest (and many die), some sky dive and bungee jump, there are ultra marathon runners, and how much you want to bet NASCAR drivers who have been in more than a few crashes have some CTE.
Human beings do dangerous and reckless things all the time, that's not going to change. Now that doesn't mean we just let our young people do foolish things. They deserve protection and parents deserve unbiased info. Does football carry risks? Absolutely and the NFL needs to do everything possible to alleviate that risk. I'm all for no tackle football until at least 16 along with other safety measures. But society must be careful that in our desire to protect we lose sight of the consequences. There is a lot of fear out there at the moment and decisions are being made in a vacuum. Yet another reason why the NFL needs to be out in front on this issue. Short of putting everyone in a bubble, there is always risk. The NFL needs to be more proactive in managing risks inherent to the sport. Otherwise the impact could be felt far beyond football.
Late BMX biker Dave mirra had CTE - (
New Window )
I'm not sure what your argument is, to be honest.
I'm not sure what your argument is, to be honest.
I completely agree with what you wrote above (I am pretty sure I wrote earlier that the NFL should disclose all information). Of course everything related to player safety should continue to be studied and improved if possible. My point is that I do not believe the prevalence of CTE among retirees will ever be high enough to kill football. It's a matter of degree. For example, see the survey data I just posted on self-reported mental health and cognitive problems in NFL retirees.
However, I think it will help evolve football into a game we probably won't enjoy watching as much. Quality of play is already lacking for numerous other reasons, but if big time adjustments to tackling happen, the game will just be pointless. And with so many other sports continuing to increase in popularity, sports fans will have plenty to choose from.
Quote:
In comment 12970206 Rick5 said:
Quote:
is going anywhere. If there were a 1 to 1 relationship between playing in the NFL and CTE, then there would be a serious problem for the future of the game. Without a 1 to 1 relationship, I expect many people to continue to assume the risks even with full knowledge that CTE is a possibilty. Hell, you'd have to be living in a cave to not realize it's a risk right now. This has been beaten to death in the media. There is no way that anyone in the current draft class could claim that he was unaware of any risk.
This the same "reasoning" successfully used by the tobacco companies to forestall action on the negative health effects of tobacco use.
The argument boiled down to the idea that smoking does not inevitably cause cancer. There were/are people who smoke their whole lives and who die of some cause not really related to smoking.
The reasoning used by the tobacco companies was that there was no "conclusive" proof that tobacco use carries health hazards.
This sort of doubt-promotion is very similar to what the NFL is using to muddy the water and, as a consequence, prolong their ability to make money off the sport regardless of how it impacts the participants.
I don't understand your point(s). Nobody in 2016 can claim they aren't aware that playing football carries some (as yet undetermined) degree of risk of CTE. More broadly, no one could ever claim that it hasn't been known since its inception that playing football comes with "health hazards." It's a violent game. Tens of millions of Americans continue to smoke in 2016, but I am not sure what that has to do the possible future of the NFL (which is what I wrote about).
Simple, the NFL depends on the "it may happen to others, but won't happen to me" syndrome. Add to that the allure of wealth far beyond what most players could gather elsewhere combined with that youthful feeling of invincibility.
Understand, I'm talking well-established, time tested industry tactics here. That's why I used tobacco (not just smoking) as my example of the use of such tactics. The tobacco industry gained 50 years of profits by using these tactics. The same can be said for climate change, pesticides, or any other product.
If a company is making profit off a product known to be harmful, it is going to do everything in its power to protect its profits. It's simply the bottom line and the inevitable by-product (along with many positive by-products) of Capitalism.
The NFL knows that the longer it can sow the seeds of doubt, the longer it can enjoy its profits. Do players benefit from the large sums of money many receive? The answer is mixed, with shorter-term gains outweighing long-term losses.
The short-term gains are going to win out over long-term losses, especially if those losses are presented as "well, there's no proof," or "not every player will get CTE," or "Nobody in 2016 can claim they aren't aware that playing football carries some (as yet undetermined) degree of risk of CTE."
Pretty much the same I take out of any survey; that it doesn't adequately cover the subject and appears to come to a foregone conclusion. It's essentially meaningless in relating to my points, so why bring it up?
Same arguments I made to Rick5 apply here.
This is right out of the doubt-creation playbook and is eerily similar to what other industries under fire in the past resorted to. It isn't a guarantee that the results have been massaged, or the interviewees pre-selected, or any other chicanery, but it certainly raises legitimate doubt regarding the results.
Yeah I don't really understand these posts. It isn't for you to care about, you don't play in the NFL. Of course there's risks, the argument is transparent information. This isn't black and white at all, its almost all a grey area which the NFL hid in until now. Again, that's the entire point of why people think so lowly of the NFL and its "standards" of safety.
This is right out of the doubt-creation playbook and is eerily similar to what other industries under fire in the past resorted to. It isn't a guarantee that the results have been massaged, or the interviewees pre-selected, or any other chicanery, but it certainly raises legitimate doubt regarding the results.
Sorry, but I can't respond to that. I am not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to university-based research with hundreds of respondents. If you are going to dismiss scientific data outright, then I don't have anything else to add.
However, I think it will help evolve football into a game we probably won't enjoy watching as much. Quality of play is already lacking for numerous other reasons, but if big time adjustments to tackling happen, the game will just be pointless. And with so many other sports continuing to increase in popularity, sports fans will have plenty to choose from.
That may happen. BTW, I think saying you can't test for CTE until death is a media oversimplification. While technically true, there are many well-validated and standardized psychological and neuropsychological tests to evaluate all symptoms of CTE. For example, we can determine if there is cognitive impairment in any current or ex-NFL player right now. We can also quantify the degree of impairment. Nobody needs to be dead to measure and quantify the psychological and behavioral manifestations of CTE.
Quote:
...One more question. Who commissioned and funded the study you used? Answer, the NFL.
This is right out of the doubt-creation playbook and is eerily similar to what other industries under fire in the past resorted to. It isn't a guarantee that the results have been massaged, or the interviewees pre-selected, or any other chicanery, but it certainly raises legitimate doubt regarding the results.
Sorry, but I can't respond to that. I am not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to university-based research with hundreds of respondents. If you are going to dismiss scientific data outright, then I don't have anything else to add.
Oh come now, that's not what I said at all. But if you're going to be petulant about it, forget I cared enough to post.
If you don't know that "studies" and "surveys" have been slanted in the past and are still being used to disseminate disinformation, then perhaps YOU are the one who needs to seek out more info. I refer you to the history of the (now defunct) Tobacco Institute as a start.
I enjoyed UCONNs comments as well. I think it supports the points that this controversy isn't so much about CTE as it is how the NFL has handled CTE. If its possible, I would describe myself as a cynical optimist. I think far too often it's the natural inclination of humans and organizations to do the "easy" thing which is often the "wrong" thing, but I also believe that when armed with information, shared interests, and public support it becomes far easier and beneficial to do the "right" thing. I think the NFL has that chance. I think much can be done to lessen the instances and consequences of CTE. They just need to get aggressive about it. And overall, I guess my point was this just isn't about football and playing football. Ultimately, this is about contact sports and other extreme sports in general, and whether we (we as in society) are going to continue to see them as acceptable and viable activities. I personally do, and probably always will. But as Homer said, "I'm only one man Marge."
5-10 years away, according to the head of the BU project. (Link).
Of course, BU doesn't count because the NFL doesn't like them, according to the just-finished NFL investigation.
Also, symptomatic diagnosis will probably arrive even sooner than that. It has already been done in a few cases.
Link - ( New Window )
No sweat, man. It's a hot topic issue and, as of today, too little is known to make any pronouncements. I think in a lot of cases, those of us who are pretty invested as fans in a team don't want to see the sport changed to something we don't care to watch.
5-10 years away, according to the head of the BU project. (Link).
Of course, BU doesn't count because the NFL doesn't like them, according to the just-finished NFL investigation.
Also, symptomatic diagnosis will probably arrive even sooner than that. It has already been done in a few cases. Link - ( New Window )
That's all well and good, but CTE manifests in psychological, cognitive, and behavioral problems that can be observed and tested right now. Just like we don't need a medical test to figure out whether or not someone has schizophrenia, the problems associated with CTE are measurable right now.
Quote:
It's all good. I regret posting that. Sorry. Take care.
No sweat, man. It's a hot topic issue and, as of today, too little is known to make any pronouncements. I think in a lot of cases, those of us who are pretty invested as fans in a team don't want to see the sport changed to something we don't care to watch.
Yup. I agree.
5-10 years away, according to the head of the BU project. (Link).
Of course, BU doesn't count because the NFL doesn't like them, according to the just-finished NFL investigation.
Also, symptomatic diagnosis will probably arrive even sooner than that. It has already been done in a few cases. Link - ( New Window )
Manh - I don't know anything about the future of these medical tests for CTE, but it will be interesting to see what the reality ends up being. As an example, medical tests for major psychiatric disorders were 5-10 years away during the 1980s. You could pick any random year between about 1985 and 2016 and some researcher would tell you the tests for psychiatric disorders are "right around the corner." The brain is a tricky thing. I hope they do figure out as much as possible, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Most major metal illnesses are actually a collection of illnesses, with varying causes.
From Wiki:
On a microscopic scale the pathology includes neuronal loss, tau deposition, TAR DNA-binding Protein 43 (TDP 43) beta-amyloid deposition, white matter changes, and other abnormalities. The tau deposition occurs as dense neurofibrillary tangles (NFT), neurites, and glial tangles, which are made up of astrocytes and other glial cells[6] Beta-amyloid deposition is a relatively uncommon feature of CTE.
One would think that a number of these could be measured in living humans. In football players, for example, I can envision a time when every rookie entering the league is given a brain scan. Then, if potential symptoms of CTE begin to show, a second brain scan would show changes in the size and relative size of various areas of the brain. As I understand it, the problem with identifying deposits such as tau is that they are microscopic, and can only be seen on a slide.
But, again, CTE has a very specific set of physiological symptoms--it's a "brain illness"--so it shouldn't be that difficult to identify changes that aren't occurring at a microscopic level.
A simple example is driving 30 MPH and braking suddenly. For a brief moment, your car is reduced to 0 while your brain continues forward into the front of your skull.
Also, and this angers me a bit, the referees at these soccer matches call less fouls than games in the English premier league. IMO, they need to cut down on the collisions by calling tighter games. Granted, they make $30 a game but they should be trained to blow the whistle more. Number one for a ref in youth soccer and even high school is safety.
Also, and this angers me a bit, the referees at these soccer matches call less fouls than games in the English premier league. IMO, they need to cut down on the collisions by calling tighter games. Granted, they make $30 a game but they should be trained to blow the whistle more. Number one for a ref in youth soccer and even high school is safety.
Most major metal illnesses are actually a collection of illnesses, with varying causes.
From Wiki:
Quote:
The primary physical manifestations of CTE include a reduction in brain weight, associated with atrophy of the frontal and temporal cortices and medial temporal lobe. The lateral ventricles and the third ventricle are often enlarged, with rare instances of dilation of the fourth ventricle.[6] Other physical manifestations of CTE include anterior cavum septi pellucidi and posterior fenestrations, pallor of the substantia nigra and locus ceruleus, and atrophy of the olfactory bulbs, thalamus, mammillary bodies, brainstem and cerebellum. As CTE progresses, there may be marked atrophy of the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and amygdala.
On a microscopic scale the pathology includes neuronal loss, tau deposition, TAR DNA-binding Protein 43 (TDP 43) beta-amyloid deposition, white matter changes, and other abnormalities. The tau deposition occurs as dense neurofibrillary tangles (NFT), neurites, and glial tangles, which are made up of astrocytes and other glial cells[6] Beta-amyloid deposition is a relatively uncommon feature of CTE.
One would think that a number of these could be measured in living humans. In football players, for example, I can envision a time when every rookie entering the league is given a brain scan. Then, if potential symptoms of CTE begin to show, a second brain scan would show changes in the size and relative size of various areas of the brain. As I understand it, the problem with identifying deposits such as tau is that they are microscopic, and can only be seen on a slide.
But, again, CTE has a very specific set of physiological symptoms--it's a "brain illness"--so it shouldn't be that difficult to identify changes that aren't occurring at a microscopic level.
Manh, my point was that we can measure the impairments right now. We don't have to wait years to get good data. They can do batteries on former players right now to get an excellent sense of how many are likely to develop impairment in the future and also to what degree.
Quote:
CTE is a physiological disorder with very specific physical manifestations
Most major metal illnesses are actually a collection of illnesses, with varying causes.
From Wiki:
Quote:
The primary physical manifestations of CTE include a reduction in brain weight, associated with atrophy of the frontal and temporal cortices and medial temporal lobe. The lateral ventricles and the third ventricle are often enlarged, with rare instances of dilation of the fourth ventricle.[6] Other physical manifestations of CTE include anterior cavum septi pellucidi and posterior fenestrations, pallor of the substantia nigra and locus ceruleus, and atrophy of the olfactory bulbs, thalamus, mammillary bodies, brainstem and cerebellum. As CTE progresses, there may be marked atrophy of the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and amygdala.
On a microscopic scale the pathology includes neuronal loss, tau deposition, TAR DNA-binding Protein 43 (TDP 43) beta-amyloid deposition, white matter changes, and other abnormalities. The tau deposition occurs as dense neurofibrillary tangles (NFT), neurites, and glial tangles, which are made up of astrocytes and other glial cells[6] Beta-amyloid deposition is a relatively uncommon feature of CTE.
One would think that a number of these could be measured in living humans. In football players, for example, I can envision a time when every rookie entering the league is given a brain scan. Then, if potential symptoms of CTE begin to show, a second brain scan would show changes in the size and relative size of various areas of the brain. As I understand it, the problem with identifying deposits such as tau is that they are microscopic, and can only be seen on a slide.
But, again, CTE has a very specific set of physiological symptoms--it's a "brain illness"--so it shouldn't be that difficult to identify changes that aren't occurring at a microscopic level.
Manh, my point was that we can measure the impairments right now. We don't have to wait years to get good data. They can do batteries on former players right now to get an excellent sense of how many are likely to develop impairment in the future and also to what degree.
Sorry. I thought you were responding to my first post, but you were probably thinking about the 2nd. My bad. Could be. I have heard lot of stories of overly optimistic timelines for medical advances. We'll see.
Football knew about CTE and about concussions and decided to either downplay it or in some cases deny it completely.
This is like saying lung cancer isn't just caused by cigarettes. While true, it doesn't make the tobacco industry less culpable for spending years trying to deny that.
That's the issue with CTE - not that only football players can get it, but that the organization that employs professional football players intentionally decided to keep that information from seeing the light of day as long as possible.
WHy are so many people willfully ignoring this?
Is there a study comparing CTE for NFL players versus the general population versus other sports? I assume there is and it is unequivocal.
The discussion about CTE is a complex one, because while it is true that CTE is caused by repetitive collisions, when an outlier in the area of another sport is found to have erratic behavior, the jump shouldn't just be made that "AHA! CTE isn't just in the NFL". Of course it isn't, but outside of boxing, where several former fighters succumbed to suicide and ended up with dementia (which CTE is referred to as - pugilistic dementia), you aren't seeing the same trends in as many numbers as with the NFL who have legions of players with brain injuries who are pretty much drooling invalids in their final days.
There are correlations - there are a number of hockey enforcers who have gone "crazy" or committed suicide. But it isn't strewn through all of sports. Soccer is known to have mini-collisions with heading the ball, but the rate of CTE incidence in that sport is thought to be very small and there aren't a lot of stories about former players who have gone off the deep end due to dementia, and there is a sample size a hell of a lot larger than the NFL. Baseball isn't known to see CTE. Basketball isn't known.
You will always have outliers, but that shouldn't obscure the situation with the NFL.
Is there a study comparing CTE for NFL players versus the general population versus other sports? I assume there is and it is unequivocal.
The NFL covering up evidence and hiding it from players is not a big issue?
And the poster who said it's the volume of the impacts to the brain is 100% correct from what I've read.
I think it's more likely we'll see a Logan's Run type of the NFL where players above the age of 30 are rare/not seen than we'll see significant rule changes.
Quote:
is a big issue.
Is there a study comparing CTE for NFL players versus the general population versus other sports? I assume there is and it is unequivocal.
The NFL covering up evidence and hiding it from players is not a big issue?
I think it is a big issue if they willfully covered up. I am asking about the conclusion that NFL players are more susceptible to CTE than the general population. Has that been proven? There are owners who question that conclusion. Maybe it is like the cigarette disaster but I do not know.
The discussion about CTE is a complex one, because while it is true that CTE is caused by repetitive collisions, when an outlier in the area of another sport is found to have erratic behavior, the jump shouldn't just be made that "AHA! CTE isn't just in the NFL". Of course it isn't, but outside of boxing, where several former fighters succumbed to suicide and ended up with dementia (which CTE is referred to as - pugilistic dementia), you aren't seeing the same trends in as many numbers as with the NFL who have legions of players with brain injuries who are pretty much drooling invalids in their final days.
There are correlations - there are a number of hockey enforcers who have gone "crazy" or committed suicide. But it isn't strewn through all of sports. Soccer is known to have mini-collisions with heading the ball, but the rate of CTE incidence in that sport is thought to be very small and there aren't a lot of stories about former players who have gone off the deep end due to dementia, and there is a sample size a hell of a lot larger than the NFL. Baseball isn't known to see CTE. Basketball isn't known.
You will always have outliers, but that shouldn't obscure the situation with the NFL.
Likewise, I expect to see a rise in CTE cases with retired football players for a couple of reasons. Now that it is out there, perhaps more players submit to studies both alive and on their brains after they are gone. The nature of the game with much bigger and much faster players on average, the collisions are getting more and more violent. Additionally, you will see more players from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s from playing on the astroturf fields that basically were laid over concrete. As I said in a previous post, I would expect a big spike for RBs and perhaps WRs. The hits they take on a regular basis are from bigger players at higher speeds.
Quote:
In comment 12970982 SomeFan said:
Quote:
is a big issue.
Is there a study comparing CTE for NFL players versus the general population versus other sports? I assume there is and it is unequivocal.
The NFL covering up evidence and hiding it from players is not a big issue?
I think it is a big issue if they willfully covered up. I am asking about the conclusion that NFL players are more susceptible to CTE than the general population. Has that been proven? There are owners who question that conclusion. Maybe it is like the cigarette disaster but I do not know.
I wouldn't be surprised if hockey is the next sport to come under scrutiny.
Quote:
In comment 12971015 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12970982 SomeFan said:
Quote:
is a big issue.
Is there a study comparing CTE for NFL players versus the general population versus other sports? I assume there is and it is unequivocal.
The NFL covering up evidence and hiding it from players is not a big issue?
I think it is a big issue if they willfully covered up. I am asking about the conclusion that NFL players are more susceptible to CTE than the general population. Has that been proven? There are owners who question that conclusion. Maybe it is like the cigarette disaster but I do not know.
Some fan - I would think the more relevant study for the owners is football players to athletes of other sports. I would have to think it is almost impossible for football players not have a significantly higher rate of CTE cases than the general population. most people aren't getting hit violently multiple times a day, a few days a week, for months out of the year, for several years.
Agree, I think both analyses have relevance. But is there evidence that the incidence is significantly higher? That is my question.
I don't know how one would go about determining what constitutes a "dangerous decision" without hard data. For example, there is a huge difference between a 7% risk and a 75% risk. If the criterion becomes zero or near-zero risk, then most, if not all, contact sports would have to end permanently. We might as well stop watching right now.
Quote:
that I don't think it is OK for those who believe this to continue along the lines of "the players know the risks...". Yes they do. But, so do the owners, the fans, the media, and the medical profession. Collectively, I think it is the our responsibility to prevent these young men from making dangerous decisions. That may mean the sport has to drastically change. If that happens it also may ruin the sport. But, that may be a necessary outcome.
I don't know how one would go about determining what constitutes a "dangerous decision" without hard data. For example, there is a huge difference between a 7% risk and a 75% risk. If the criterion becomes zero or near-zero risk, then most, if not all, contact sports would have to end permanently. We might as well stop watching right now.
Quote:
In comment 12971342 Matt M. said:
Quote:
that I don't think it is OK for those who believe this to continue along the lines of "the players know the risks...". Yes they do. But, so do the owners, the fans, the media, and the medical profession. Collectively, I think it is the our responsibility to prevent these young men from making dangerous decisions. That may mean the sport has to drastically change. If that happens it also may ruin the sport. But, that may be a necessary outcome.
I don't know how one would go about determining what constitutes a "dangerous decision" without hard data. For example, there is a huge difference between a 7% risk and a 75% risk. If the criterion becomes zero or near-zero risk, then most, if not all, contact sports would have to end permanently. We might as well stop watching right now.
I agree about needing the hard data. But, the data is quickly changing and leaning toward higher incidences of cTE and similar conditions that were previously misdiagnosed or ignored. I think the data is going to start looking very different.
I don't know. Even Stern from BU apparently thinks the media hype is beyond the science. Lots of relevant quotes in the linked article.
link - ( New Window )
Wah wah blah blah
Wah wah blah blah
The fuck?
To play football professional you have to start well before you are an adult. Then by the time you are an adult you may be left with few legitimate career alternatives.