It is currently Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:11 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9664
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu ... le/2645104

110 out of 111 brains of deceased former NFL players donated for study evinced CTE.

Let the armchair discrediting and dismissing begin!

I don't know how many will find this study convincing, but at a certain point it seems to me that the empirical evidence is going to reach an inflection point.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Posts: 1243
Still Lit wrote:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104

110 out of 111 brains of deceased former NFL players donated for study evinced CTE.

Let the armchair discrediting and dismissing begin!

I don't know how many will find this study convincing, but at a certain point it seems to me that the empirical evidence is going to reach an inflection point.


I don't buy it. I don't see how anyone that played in the NFL could not have a brain injury.

_________________
Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
SteelPro wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104

110 out of 111 brains of deceased former NFL players donated for study evinced CTE.

Let the armchair discrediting and dismissing begin!

I don't know how many will find this study convincing, but at a certain point it seems to me that the empirical evidence is going to reach an inflection point.


I don't buy it. I don't see how anyone that played in the NFL could not have a brain injury.


Evinced means there WAS evidence of damage, correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Posts: 1243
Steelcody36 wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104

110 out of 111 brains of deceased former NFL players donated for study evinced CTE.

Let the armchair discrediting and dismissing begin!

I don't know how many will find this study convincing, but at a certain point it seems to me that the empirical evidence is going to reach an inflection point.


I don't buy it. I don't see how anyone that played in the NFL could not have a brain injury.


Evinced means there WAS evidence of damage, correct?


Correct. Which means one somehow didn't. Probably a kicker

_________________
Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:55 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:12 pm
Posts: 481
Yes.

_________________
"All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:06 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3131
The report is heavily biased in that the family members donating the brains had stated they thought their loved on had brain damage. Can they spread this out to cover boxing, MMA, soccer, and combat vets/soldiers? Basically any profession that get concussions more often than the average person.

Not saying that this wrong or bad data. CTE is caused by repeated concussions. But this particular report is heavily biased.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11317
jebrick wrote:
Can they spread this out to cover boxing, MMA, soccer, and combat vets/soldiers?


And I've wondered what impact PED's have as far as elevating the risk and/or severity.

But, yeah, without random sampling and control groups you can't gauge how much higher the risk is. Obviously NFL players have higher risk of CTE than office workers, but they need to quantify the increased chance of CTE and the chance it causes problems (i.e. all NFL players could have some amount of CTE, maybe grade 1-10 and only grade 10 presents significant risks).

Anyway, we're probably only 10-15 years away from our "pro athletes" being robots controlled by nerds who never played a sport in their life.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
Steelcody36 wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104

110 out of 111 brains of deceased former NFL players donated for study evinced CTE.

Let the armchair discrediting and dismissing begin!

I don't know how many will find this study convincing, but at a certain point it seems to me that the empirical evidence is going to reach an inflection point.


I don't buy it. I don't see how anyone that played in the NFL could not have a brain injury.


Evinced means there WAS evidence of damage, correct?


Correct. Which means one somehow didn't. Probably a kicker[/quote]

I didn't understand your comment. "I don't buy it". You don't buy what? Only one didn't show damage, and the study is biased. It only had families who lost a former player. They were all damaged goods. The majority don't have that damage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11317
Steelcody36 wrote:
They were all damaged goods. The majority don't have that damage.


That's not necessarily a true statement. The majority didn't show outward signs of impairment, at least not enough for the family to consent to an autopsy.

100+ players is still a lot, and there were enough issues for the family to volunteer, and those issues were confirmed. I've not heard of a large number of players in other sports having these issues.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 13509
Worth a view...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/latest-rou ... 03329.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9664
Steelafan77 wrote:


Nothing more than loose correlation in the study I linked, but the evidence is mounting.

A study that showed HS players do not end up with these problems is unimpressive bc CTE is likely cumulative and if you only play 4 years of serious contact ball, you aren't begin exposed as much.

It is staggering that 110/111 brains evince CTE and all these dudes just happened to play professional football. This is not a slam dunk. but it is disturbing.

My wife will not let our boy near football.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
Still Lit wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:


Nothing more than loose correlation in the study I linked, but the evidence is mounting.

A study that showed HS players do not end up with these problems is unimpressive bc CTE is likely cumulative and if you only play 4 years of serious contact ball, you aren't begin exposed as much.

It is staggering that 110/111 brains evince CTE and all these dudes just happened to play professional football. This is not a slam dunk. but it is disturbing.

My wife will not let our boy near football.


Is she also going to ban your kid from driving? You know in case of an accident.

Sorry, this isn't a good lesson for your kid, but I could see banning football until middle school.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9664
Steelcody36 wrote:
Is she also going to ban your kid from driving? You know in case of an accident.

Sorry, this isn't a good lesson for your kid, but I could see banning football until middle school.


"Sorry" is not something that justifies a premise.

And no, she is not going to keep my kid from diving because diving is not a contact sport that requires a helmet and virtually guarantees repeated blows to the head inside a helmet.

We will provide plenty of occasions for our son to exercise courage and endurance and toughness so that he does not end up overly soft. But thanks for you concern! It really does take a village!

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
Still Lit wrote:
Steelcody36 wrote:
Is she also going to ban your kid from driving? You know in case of an accident.

Sorry, this isn't a good lesson for your kid, but I could see banning football until middle school.


"Sorry" is not something that justifies a premise.

And no, she is not going to keep my kid from diving because diving is not a contact sport that requires a helmet and virtually guarantees repeated blows to the head inside a helmet.

We will provide plenty of occasions for our son to exercise courage and endurance and toughness so that he does not end up overly soft. But thanks for you concern! It really does take a village!


I wasn't calling your parenting into question, just the ideal that playing football is a stone cold lock to cause irreversible damage.

That's simply not the case. The 1800's and early 1900's? Abso-fuckinlutely it was a death wish. There are a lot more safe guards today than even 5 years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:35 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3131
I think you will see helmets change radically in a year or two. They are testing out a new helmet designed to prevent concussions.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:43 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:04 pm
Posts: 2823
Looks like another NFL player called it quits quite early in their career.
John Urschel from the Ravens retired this week after the report came out. In the article provided he didn't mention that concussions were the prime reason but he talks about how his mental process was diminished by a concussion.
Urschel has something to fall back on and he was probably the most intelligent person in the league.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/spor ... .html?_r=0

Have to say I worry about brain damage for I have suffered about 8-9 bad concussions in my life. Thankfully the last one was about fifteen years ago when I slipped on the sidewalk(downslope) during Winter and smacked my head hard. I missed a week of work and was so out of sorts those first few days that I have no memory of them.

_________________
Zone Blitz - Steelers Football Discussion
Discuss the Pittsburgh Steelers (Off topic threads not permitted and this forum will be strictly moderated. Threads containing political, religious or racial remarks won't be tolerated.)
Yeah, right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5490
I don't think any helmet is going to be completely safe unless it's full body bubble.

So what's the end game here? I don't get it. Maybe I'm dense.

Football, and contact sports cause damage to the brain. Those that play longer, ie: professionals, have more signs and symptoms than someone who stops in high school.

Boxing, MMA, and soccer to a lesser degree also can damage the brain. I recall studies showing brain damage from heading balls repeatedly in soccer and some people were calling for outlawing the header.....

So, once again, what is the end game? Outlaw the sports? Ban head punches in boxing? Flag football?

Are they still doing studies to find out if Boxing is healthy for the brain???


How about we recognize there is some danger, make the games as safe as possible with REASONABLE rule changes that won't change the entire point of the game, and move on.

These things seem to be happening already?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
R S wrote:
I don't think any helmet is going to be completely safe unless it's full body bubble.

So what's the end game here? I don't get it. Maybe I'm dense.

Football, and contact sports cause damage to the brain. Those that play longer, ie: professionals, have more signs and symptoms than someone who stops in high school.

Boxing, MMA, and soccer to a lesser degree also can damage the brain. I recall studies showing brain damage from heading balls repeatedly in soccer and some people were calling for outlawing the header.....

So, once again, what is the end game? Outlaw the sports? Ban head punches in boxing? Flag football?

Are they still doing studies to find out if Boxing is healthy for the brain???

How about we recognize there is some danger, make the games as safe as possible with REASONABLE rule changes that won't change the entire point of the game, and move on.

These things seem to be happening already?


Bingo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 7:58 pm
Posts: 802
I think the solution is, many parents, like Lit and Mrs. Lit, will refuse to let their kids play football, and the sport will die out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2406
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.


How's it a necessity? Public transportation, flying, walking, riding a bike, are all more safe.

How many idiots kill themselves and others driving under the influence compared to those who die because of football? The answer is there's no comparison, and scared parenting aint gonna end football.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:18 pm
Posts: 188
If you ask me, the league is not doing enough at all!

_________________
October Skies!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5490
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6314
R S wrote:
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.
Did you see the vid of the south african body builder who snapped his neck trying to do a backflip on a mat? He died. It sure was ugly.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9664
R S wrote:
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.


In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:12 pm
Posts: 1751
I think those of you taking the 'no football' stance will find it to be easier in theory than in practice. We'll see how you do when 11 year old Steeler fanatic Barry* comes home all fired up to register for 6th grade football with his friends.

* I assume many of you have a son named Barry

_________________
Get well soon, Matt Murray


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6314
Still Lit wrote:
There is nothing especially noble about football.
Unless you've been indoctrinated with Steve Sabol and NFL films.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:26 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3131
Still Lit wrote:
R S wrote:
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.


In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?


I think women's soccer has the 2nd highest rate of concussions in any sport ( that is studied). My guess is that was for team sports since everyone seems to ignore boxing and MMA as a kind of a d'uh.

So far the studies have been with pro football players. Meaning people who have played football for 10+ years. The # of years is probably higher but we can call it 10+. Until their is some study on players at the pee-wee level and high school and then college you cannot know when you might have a danger point. So unless you think your kid is talented enough to make the cut from high school to college, I would not be too worried.

Saying that, you had better have coaches who can A) identify a concussion and B) care enough about the player to pul lthem right then and there.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9664
jebrick wrote:
I think women's soccer has the 2nd highest rate of concussions in any sport ( that is studied). My guess is that was for team sports since everyone seems to ignore boxing and MMA as a kind of a d'uh.

So far the studies have been with pro football players. Meaning people who have played football for 10+ years. The # of years is probably higher but we can call it 10+. Until their is some study on players at the pee-wee level and high school and then college you cannot know when you might have a danger point. So unless you think your kid is talented enough to make the cut from high school to college, I would not be too worried.

Saying that, you had better have coaches who can A) identify a concussion and B) care enough about the player to pul lthem right then and there.


I've tried to explain to my wife that the chances of our son being good enough to play into college, let alone the NFL are so small, that he is very unlikely to play long enough for brain trauma to be an issue. I mean, because he is the product of the two of us the chances are really, really small. :lol:

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3760
Still Lit wrote:
Steelcody36 wrote:
Is she also going to ban your kid from driving? You know in case of an accident.

Sorry, this isn't a good lesson for your kid, but I could see banning football until middle school.


"Sorry" is not something that justifies a premise.

And no, she is not going to keep my kid from diving because diving is not a contact sport that requires a helmet and virtually guarantees repeated blows to the head inside a helmet.

We will provide plenty of occasions for our son to exercise courage and endurance and toughness so that he does not end up overly soft. But thanks for you concern! It really does take a village!


Does your son play any other sport besides diving? Like a team sport? My daughter plays soccer. She's in 11th grade and has played about 10 years. She was in the concussion protocol last year when she bumped heads with her own goalie, then played the last 20 minutes of the game and then the next day was told to see a doctor. The doctor didn't examine her at all, just wrote that she had a concussion and that they just say that to be safe. She missed two games and then was cleared. Soccer supposedly has a high concussion rate, but I figure she will play this year and next and that's it, she's good enough for her high school team, but I figure there's no way she's good enough for college ball. So she won't be playing another 4 years or going pro. I played high school football, but after senior year, never again did I play real football, so I feel like the problem likely stems from long term play, like 15-20 years? I guess some players get pretty banged up in high school too, but they are probably the exception. But where do you draw the line? Ban sports or any activity where you might get hurt? My daughter also does ballet and one of the girls in her dance class tore knee ligaments dancing. You can't ban everything. Although of all activities that I've tried, football is over the top brutal, it is something where you ALWAYS get hurt to some degree every season, even if it's not enough to put you out of action.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5490
Still Lit wrote:
R S wrote:
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.


In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?


I used examples that have a chance of head injuries, severe injury and/or immediate death. I really don't care how you parent. That's up to you. I won't stop my kid from playing football because there is a chance he'll have a 10 year NFL career and result in dementia when he is 60. Gymnastics thoroughly fucks bodies up. Like 16 year olds with arthritis. So yeah, that is something you should think about before letting a child get into hyper competitive gymnastics.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3760
Competitive cheerleading also has a risk of some pretty bad injuries, landing on that gym floor if the dude that's supposed to catch you misses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9664
R S wrote:
IGymnastics thoroughly fucks bodies up. Like 16 year olds with arthritis. So yeah, that is something you should think about before letting a child get into hyper competitive gymnastics.


I did not suggest I would be forcing my kid into a gymnastics program when he turns five. Gymnastics does not carry the same risks for brain trauma. And since the topic was brain trauma, not joint trauma, I reacted as I did. But, hey, with football, you can get both! Double bonus points!

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:13 pm
Posts: 1678
Honest question here:

Are the effects of brain/head injuries in football (or any other sport) as prevalent at the peewee level as they are in HS or college or beyond? Should we be taking data related to NFL & College sized guys and applying it to little kids (who aren't hitting each other anywhere near as hard)? Two jacked up adults colliding at full speed seems alot more impactful that a couple of 70lb 9 year olds hitting each other.

Just thinking out loud, and I am well aware that could be a stupid question.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
Still Lit wrote:
R S wrote:
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.


In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?


I didn't respond because it's your opinion, which you're already sold on. No reason to beat a dead horse.

BMX is dangerous as hell, much more dangerous than football. Buddy of mine races competitively and has had an assortment of injuries including a collapsed lung. Sure he loves it and makes solid money, but THAT shit is crazy. Disagree 100% on the Navy or any branch, because people die for nothing. The orange haired fuck (Add this to your list Swiss) is going to start WW3, and for what? Nothing noble about going to a pointless war between two assholes. (Kim un cock and Trump)

My main point is you can be killed doing pretty much anything, so there's no reason to ban kids from any sport. I wouldn't suggest football before Middle School, but to each their own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4408
Nick79 wrote:

I played high school football, but after senior year, never again did I play real football, so I feel like the problem likely stems from long term play, like 15-20 years? I guess some players get pretty banged up in high school too, but they are probably the exception. But where do you draw the line? Ban sports or any activity where you might get hurt? My daughter also does ballet and one of the girls in her dance class tore knee ligaments dancing. You can't ban everything. Although of all activities that I've tried, football is over the top brutal, it is something where you ALWAYS get hurt to some degree every season, even if it's not enough to put you out of action.


I think the missing link here is college football. You've got the elite programs who have significant resources/doctors and then you've got the lower tiers where they perhaps don't. I think there's a ton of damage that happens and starts in the college ranks. Guys are much bigger vs HS and much faster - that's a bad combo when colliding with each other. I think by the time players make it to the NFL, they have probably suffered a number of concussions undocumented or otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group