More bad news for the future of football: CTE and oxycodone played role in Cullen Finnerty's death
Sad findings from former GVSU QB Cullen Finnerty's autopsy:
According to the autopsy report, Finnerty died of pneumonia, complicated by chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), which is linked to concussions. Dr. Stephen Cohle also believes a build-up of Oxycodone in Finnerty's system also played a role in his death. Oxycodone is a pain medication Finnerty was prescribed for back injuries, which he most likely suffered during his football career.
I hate that football played a large role in the death of such a young guy, just 30 years old. Selfishly, I would be devastated to see football go away or rules changed drastically but it's becoming hard to justify. My hopes rest in the scientists and doctors to find a helmet that can save the game from disappearing.
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/264127/14/Autopsy-Cullen-Finnertys-death-linked-to-concussions
August 8th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
August 8th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
August 8th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
August 8th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
August 8th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
It's really sad that he died so young but I'm not seeing a whole lot of added pressure on football with what is already going on? Seems like its going to become now that the risks are known player's are making more informed decisions about whether they want to play. I really don't see the game going anywhere.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
I'm not totally up on what's going on with head trauma research and where the conversation is happening, but it seems like this case is notable for being a college player. Former NFL players tend to be the focus, but Finnerty and that player from Penn (Owen Thomas, maybe?) are the only two instances that come to mind of college-only players exhibiting this type of trauma.
Not saying that your general point isn't true, that this won't significantly alter what's already happening, but this case does seem to be further evidence that long-term problems can develop early in playing careers.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
The problem for football is that mothers (and fathers) of five, six, seven year old kids are going to start viewing the sport in the same light as boxing. Take a look at the list of all-time hockey and soccer greats from the US compared to Canada or the UK to know what happens when most of the very best athletes are playing a different sport.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
That's absolutely a possibility but I'm still going to have to see a significant drop off to believe it. The money that can be made playing football will still compel plenty of people into it I think. Until viewership drops I don't see that changing greatly.
But IMO that is the serious problem in all of this, other than the current health concerns obviously.
August 9th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^
You may not notice it, and there isn't any "proof," but it's already happening. As I see it, modern equipment gives the illusion of impunity, while spikes and better training allow players to apply more force to each other on a regular basis.
Here's a way they could fix things:
No spikes. Let them hit each other in standard shoes. There is a lot less leverage.
No equipment that can be used as a weapon. This means soft pads on the shoulders and the development of a leather style helmet with a much smaller form of face mask.
Rules tweaks:
Don't reward players for big hits; penalize them instead.
No more change of possession on fumbles.
Count all passes caught as complete. If a player is hit immediately after a catch and drops it, give the offense possession where the ball came loose.
No hitting the QB after he passes the ball, no exceptions. Every QB is hit after nearly every pass attempt under the current "rules."
Once there is no incentive for the "big hit," no chance at causing an incompletion or a fumble by hitting someone, and unncessary roughness is called for any attempt to hurt another player, concussions and injuries would lessen.
People would complain at first, but they would eventually decide that it's the closest thing to their "old" football, and still be ardent fans. And it would give older people another great "opportunity" to bitch about the "good old days."
I would rather watch a game where the players can live real lives after they are finished, than know they are damaging themselves, permanently and inexorably, for my "enjoyment."
Football ain't for the weak and the weak of heart.
as a reply to me? If so I'm thoroughly confused.
Huh? Because brain trauma really isn't something you can "toughen up" against, unless there is some exercise that builds scabs around your brain and also installs little cushions inside your skull.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^
I wish (if true that this was football related, we don't know that) this death did not have the impact of endagering football (along with the other injuries we know about). In my minority view, all that is required is that every player know precisely, to the best of our current ability, what the risks are of playing. Then the entire choice should be up to them, and no one else. But that view is minority and unfortunately IMO won't win the future debates to come.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
Finnerty's concussions at GVSU were documented, so I think we do know at least the CTE is very likely to have been caused by football.
I agree that knowing the risks would mitigate future liability and could save the game at the professional level, but how about kids? Does a 10 year old have the ability to make that decision? And without youth football, what is college and the NFL? I don't have the answers, it just doesn't seem good.
My understanding was that he only had one "official" concussion while playing, and that was his freshman year. That's probably less a problem now as most HS and college programs keeps decent tabs on injuries like that, but I still do wonder if the slow acceptance of this phenomenon will lead an uptick in these findings as kids who "toughed it out" even 10-15 years ago are going to start showing signs of trauma.
Another part of the problem is that a recent Cleveland Clinic study has shown brain damage occurring from non-head impact due to the rapid deceleration when two players collide, which impact is exacerbated by a whiplash effect from the neck. Assuming you can solve the problem DLup06 points out with rotational tearing, and I don't think that will be easy, how do you deal with non-head impacts?
What I am very nervous about is once a school gets sued, and I belive such an action is ultimately inevitable, should there be a substantial judgment, the landscape could change quickly. A large award against a university could cripple the school and/or its athletic program. Insurance, which would have to cover a vast number of players for decades would in al likelihood be very expensive, perhaps crippling. Then there is the ethical question of a university allowing a student-athlete to assume the risk of playing by signing a waiver.
Lots of questions with few good answers.
IMO, is individual choice and respnsibility. If all HS football parents, all college and NFL players, were shown every year before pracice starts a video that represents the current state of the medical science on the risks, then those that choose to play should have no ability to sue--no one should be able to stop them from playing either, and no one should attempt to stop the game from being played.
Your second paragraph effectively illustrates something that has been a concern of mine regarding football for some time: as the negative effects of football on certain players become clearer, the consequences could spiral out of control and the game could be irreparably damaged no matter what the market demands for it are.
And your scenario is a scarily compelling one: A major lawsuit, a serious judgment, a huge insurance payout... and a sudden, drastic departure of insurance companies from athletic departments, or even NFL teams. This requires no government legislation and no organized attack on the game.
There is a parallel to this in my line of work: The rapid disappearance of 15-passenger vans from church and other religious ministries. 15 passenger vans are a useful tool for transporting mid-sized groups of people for various events, and for transporting people to religious gatherings who have transportation challenges. Unlike larger, converted school busses, they do not require additional licensing, run on conventional gasoline, and can be serviced more affordably.
However, they became known for safety problems; A decade or so ago, the large number of catastrophic accidents involving 15-passenger vans began to force insurance companies to drop all policies for them. Not all insurance companies have, and not all 15-passenger vans are gone, but they have become much less common and are rapidly disappearing from churches, typically replaced by 12-passenger vehicles or converted busses of various dimensions.
No government regulation occurred, but the insurance companies (who were acting in legitimate, economic self-interest) forced a change.
It could happen to football.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^
(and I can see where this thread could degenerate into a political thread featuring terms like "nanny state" fairly easily), but is it society's job to save 20 year olds from themselves? dunno. I do know the kids we focus on here were culled from many 10s of thousands of minors who also took risks to their heads playing football. Should society save 16 year olds from themselves? dunno. Interesting to note, though, that this board (myself included) is especially excited to watch the development of Hoke's physical (read "violent") style of football. Think of what sort of toll hypothetical daily practice collisions between Braden and Hand might take. Or Green - Gedeon. The last thing I'm doing is advocating for the end of football, but the results of what we watch are often not pretty.
It's that universities actively encourage the players to take these risks and collectively, they don't have a history of minimizing them. I think universities have much greater liability than high schools or the NFL. Michigan, for example, isn't just offering a scholarship. They sell recruits on the value of a Michigan degree and education, especially after football is over. In many cases they offer recruits only one way to get that education, accepting a football scholarship. I see a difference between the NFL offering someone a job if they are willing to assume significant risk for a substantial salary and schools offering one way to get a high quality education.
I think we are very soon going to see prospective players given detailed, up to date information on the risks of head injuries and then asked to sign a waiver. I don't know where the relevant medical research will lead, but it seems to be heading towards a point where some school administrations are going to look at the information given recruits and decide it's not worth subjecting their students to those dangers. I can see this happening at the high school and lower levels too, probably sooner.
If boxing is still a sport, then football isn't going anywhere. They even have a disorder named after their repeated head trauma neurdegenerative disease: Dementia pugilistica
(boxing = pugilism)
As a team sport, football runs on a very different institutional model than boxing. Schools couldn't ignore the potential liability issues if football were ever shown to be dangerous to the degree boxing is.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
So this is the end of Football?? Maybe its the end of Oxycodone, pneumonia and hiking in the woods? Seriously, step away from the ledge. RIP Cullen!
i would have worded it differently but good points.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
... someone died of injuries that may have been preventable with better rules, precautions, and equipment, and that's "bad news" for the future of football? I think more research and more awareness is only a good thing. If it changes the way the game is played, I'm fine with it. We speak as if football hasn't changed one iota since it's inception, when the truth is it has been changing continuously. You put the top athletes in the world together in something that looks roughly like football now and I will watch it and cheer my brains out for "my" teams.
I'd prefer to do that knowing that the players are being protected from long term brain damage.
Well, I hope you don't eat crab or drive a car, as crab fishing and oil rigs are both very dangerous professions. We probably shouldn't support the proliferation of either. There is an inherent risk and reward system that will keep these jobs, and the NFL fully stocked...
Children in this country aren't working on oil rigs or fishing for crabs. Also, there are safety regulations for both...ie - in theory - if work is done properly - no one gets hurt. Lastly, these are professions, not entertainments (for the vast majority of participants). A seventeen year old playing football can do everything right, not experience a visible injury (ACL tear etc), never see a nickle of money or scholarship value from his sport and still wind up in a world of hurt from football. Neither of your analogies fit this example at all.
But children like being in scouts. You know what scouts do? They camp in forests. You know what else camp in forests? Bears. For every head injury suicide you show me, I can probably show you a bear mauling, a kid drowning in a pool, or any number of other accidents. Let's ban pools. No?
Look up a speaker named Brene Brown, and hear what she says about our infatuation with invulnerability. Risks are always present to some degree. Don't let risk aversion drive us into a static and homogenized lifestyle. It's gross for me to think what life would be like if we were forced into NEVER doing anything risky.
... but they actually have some of the highest safety standards in the world. The job is inherently risky, but there are institutions in place (and hundres of millions of dollars in investment) that snuff out as much of the risk as possible. Do they always work? No. But that's not to say it is not a major focus of the people in that business.
Regardless, I understand your point. I just don't think changing football to better protect the players will make the sport worse. Everyone is crying about the sky falling, when in reality, we'll all still watch and cheer.
We mourned Cullen's death when it happened on this site. It's still sad, but the news from today is inherently football related.
but possibly a bit too much over-analyzing of the title. I think the bad news is that more changes that take away from one thing that we all enjoy about football...the hitting. Not that protecting life isn't important because it very much is. I don't think the OP's title is that far off the mark, but your point is valid.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^
Those sports don't rely on a youth feeder system, you can typically start those sports when you are old enough to understand the risks. To have any chance at playing college and pro football, you need to start early - way before you are of an age that you can grasp the possible ramifications.
I don't think this is true. Almost every race car driver I can think of (mostly indy car drivers at least) started in go karts at an extremely young age and have been racing their entire lives (midgets, trucks, dirt track racing).
I won't claim to know how dangerous racing is compared to football, but it would seem as if the trauma incurred in football occurs more frequently than it would in racing - so I'm not sure they're comparable.
I'd say racing is at the very least comparably dangerous if not more so. I don't think they are comparable mainly because of how the safety of participants has been treated. Safety has always been a huge issue in auto racing and back in the day many safety features (rear view mirror, fire safety, etc) were pioneered in auto racing. The denials and coverups we've seen in football are the biggest issue to me. Accidents happen everywhere but taking responsibility for them is going to be paramount to the sport continuing.
There are also thousands of kids in youth wrestling and martial arts. I brought up wrestlers because a lot of mma fighters have wrestling backgrounds. To say these sports dont rely on youth is a little silly.
Yeah, that's true. But contact in those sports is between hands/legs at whatever velocity a youth can propel his body from a standstill. Football, on the otherhand, involves contact between plastic missiles running into each other at whatever speed those youths can run at. So they may not be great comparisons either.
Yes, they are very much comparable to football.
Wait until liability comes into play. There are already lawsuits against the NFL and they may be able to deal with it (just raise ticket prices - yeahhh!!!), but what happens when it makes its way down the chain to High School and youth football??? I can totally see youth leagues eventually getting scared off by the need and cost of liability insurance and just ceasing to exist. I would hate it as much as the next guy, but not sure that it isn't inevitable.
Drugs are not good for you. Drugs cause people to do bad things. Stay off them.
PS if you are averse to risks I advise not leaving the house in the morning.
I was a pilot in the Air Force and the safety folks had a saying...if you wanted to eliminate all flying accidents, just ground the fleet. Obviously that never happened, so you did what you could to reduce risk because eliminating it was impossible.
How old are you? Do you have kids? Would you let them play football knowing the risks we are now aware of that we weren't ten years ago? Call me all the names in the book and try to make me feel stupid, but the number of parents that won't consider allowing their sons to play football anymore is increasing and will eventually threaten the game, unless progress can be made to reduce negative impacts.
I'm with Butterfield here, mostly.
My two sons are physically well-suited to football and one of them is football-obsessed. But we have had them in soccer since they were weejuns. Their school coaches would love to see them playing football, but we have encouraged them to stick with soccer due to the concussion factor and other issues.
Of course soccer has plenty of opportunities for injury, including occasional concussions (including heading the ball, along with getting kicked-elbowed-kneed in the head). And orthopaedic folks love soccer for all the interesting tests it puts a kid's joints through. It's a rough sport in its own right, but playing soccer doesn't seem as likely to incur life-changing injuries as football. (Of course if you're in the Brazilian countryside, you have to watch out for knives, decapitation, etc. We're not there, so it's less of an issue.)
Also, I agree with Butterfield that a substantial number of kids are drifting away from football toward other sports for safety reasons. Not enough to make the sport go away, but enough to impact the talent pool from which football draws.