OT: League of Denial: The NFL's Concussion Crisis
The Frontline documentary aired last night. Nothing new here but a compelling portrayal of the NFL. The preview was vetted on the board by wisecrakker over a month ago - but I would like to hear reaction from any of you who saw it. The lawsuit settled by the NFL is probably the best course for them. Some of the language of the settlement though now seems unpalatable given the picture drawn and story laid out by Frontline. This is from the settlement proposal...
“This agreement lets us help those who need it most and continue our work to make the game safer for current and future players. Commissioner Goodell and every owner gave the legal team the same direction: do the right thing for the game and for the men who played it,” said NFL Executive Vice President Jeffrey Pash.
That is anathama to the facts as laid out by Frontline last night. The subset of players who are or who have played since Mike Webster's disability claim was settled -where the league admitted football caused his injury - might have a larger stake than this settlement lays out.
The whole documetary is viewable online. There is a live chat in a couple hours with the reporters, the producer and Mike Webster's son on PBS.
Michigan is doing some concussion work this year. I'm not familiar with the extent of it but I remember it being mentioned in some of the many CTE threads. Hoke is forthright about letting the trainers do their job. The 2010 ND game with Dayne Crist's concussion still strikes a chord in my on going respect against ND. Regardless of the connections ... this is probably the story of our lives with regard to football and how it is played on every level. This documentary is another step. OT'd but it seems germane to any football blog.
October 9th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
There was an article posted sometime last year I think about the work of Dr. Jeffrey Kutcher and the research he is doing using Michigan football players. He's affiliated with the hospital, but I believe he is essentially the team's staff neurologist.
I can't remember all of the specifics, but the research is fairly wide in its scope and involved actually collecting data from in-helmet sensors as well as optimizing the design of gear to mitigate concussion risk. As I recall, it is fairly extensive.
Actually, I believe Kutcher's work was instrumental in revising the guidelines for handling concussions in sports for the American Academy Of Neurology per the news headlines on the hospital's sports neurology page (again, this is going back a while).
October 9th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^
nice to have this type of talent in the program. He seems very cutting edge. Clearly this is an evolving science. Not surprisingly there is a Michigan difference lurking under the surface.
http://theconcussionblog.com/tag/dr-jeffrey-kutcher/
October 9th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
Every helmet should have a huge electromagnet wrapped around it. That way, no two helmets can collide at all -- they 'd magnetically repel each other. And have similar magnets on each player's hands, elbows, and knees, so they'd repel helmets too. Hell, just have every player surrounded by a massive magnetic field. Then no players can ever touch each other, they just repel each other and bounce around the field. It would be funny as heck, and NO concussions. And the football can be reverse-charged, so when the QB throws it, you can't miss -- it's magnetically attracted to the receiver's hands. Or the lineman's butt, whatever.
OR -- they cancel football forever and just play soccer. I'd lke to see Derrick Green as a midfielder, barrelling down the field over scrawny Mexican defenders...
October 9th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
I don't mean to discount your electromagnet discussion, as I believe that has quite a lot of merit, but to your soccer comment, I have wondered a number of times what the landscape of American soccer would look like if some of the top-tier athletes from other sports like hockey, basketball, and football had more of an incentive/interest in soccer.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:50 PM ^
......is non other than soccer
I would not be surprised if there is a movement to outlaw headers in the future. They just need their Mike Webster
October 9th, 2013 at 3:21 PM ^
I believe - based on my zero years of formally studying medicine - that the brain rocking back and forth against the skull is what causes concussions, not impact as such. Thus you can suffer a concussion in a car crash even if your head doesn't hit anything.
Odd fact: Female soccer players are apparently much more likely to incur concussions than male soccer players.
October 9th, 2013 at 9:16 PM ^
Female soccer players have the highest concussion rates of any sports, including football.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:57 PM ^
They did. His name was Jeff Astle. They blamed heavier soccer balls from the past.
And they moved on, just like football will do.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^
can defy magnetic fields.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
It's all about Risk Homeostasis.
If guys didn't have a facemask, they wouldn't launch themselves head first. It's part of why Red wants to see the NCAA allow half shields.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^
I think uniforms need to be scaled back so that they don't mask pain and allow the brain to strike the inside of the cranium with no perception of damage. Athletes are now too fast and too strong. Spikes and modern uniforms give them too much leverage and an illusion of impunity. Here are some changes I think should be made.
Pads should be minimal and soft. Helmets should be leather. There should be no more spikes. Unnecessary roughness should be enforced. The game needs to be tweaked so that the "big hit" is no longer rewarded.
Roughing the passer should be enforced the same way roughing the kicker is. People take a step and a half into a passer who has already thrown the ball and aren't called for a penalty.
For those who think this would "sissify" the game, I am guessing that most of you are people who have never had a collision more violent than falling into your couch or recliner after too many beers and potato chips.
Sorry, but I don't think it's reasonable to demand that our "heroes" give up their health for us.
October 9th, 2013 at 9:43 PM ^
It would sissify the game, no doubt about it. I've taken many brutal hits, been in severe accidents, crashed a dirt bike with no helmet and landed on my face, been knocked out, etc. Just thought I'd throw that in here. College football is fine. The NFL has some issues to deal with, but leave college ball out of it.
October 11th, 2013 at 3:39 AM ^
Did you watch this show? College ball is not fine. High School ball is not fine. Pop Warner is not fine. CTE is real. Michigan players deserve the best protection and coaching to avoid these risks. Rule changes are here and more are coming.
Thank god for torts and the fear of legal action or there would be no protection for kids in this country.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
The idea that the NFL knew about how harmful this was and hid that from players or covered it up, or any conspiracy of any kind is without merit. The NFL, just as in the rest of society, had no idea in the 60's and 70's that this was an issue. EVERYONE in society and sports treated concussions as "you got your bell rung," and once your head cleared you go back in the game. Additionaly, the tough guy NFL mindset--especially in Webster's day--would never have tolerated guys not returning to games or missing games because they got woozy or knocked out for awhile--it just wasn't done. Society, as well as the NFL, knows more now and is more cautious, as they should be.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
who spoke up "with missiles."
There's no merit in the idea that the NFL tried to cover up?
October 9th, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^
which is what I was referring to, was mostly based on past behavior of the NFL, which IMO again was without merit. Mike Webster's story was agonizing and sad to watch, but blaming the NFL or anyone really during those times, is mistaken. It was just simply sad. Again, existing attitudes towards concussions were similar to the NFL's thorughout society,including Doctors, until the recent past (10 years or so). It reflected ignorance or lack of knowledge, not active malicious action.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:21 PM ^
Fair enough, and I do agree with you with respect to the players of the 60's and 70's (that's why the various plaintiff's were not thrilled when their cases were consolidated). I do think you're downplaying the point at which the NFL became more aware of the issue than the general public. The medical community was raising the issue before the general public really grasped the seriousness of concussions. The NFL was aware of the medical community's concerns. The NFL, depending on how you read the evidence, was either slow to react to or actively worked to discredit the connection between football, concussions, and permenant brain damage. It wouldn't have changed anything with respect to Mike Webster, but I think it certainly could have with respect to players like Junior Seau.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
The NFL obfuscated and delayed awareness. They sent missives to players with known misinformation. Regardless of what they are or aren't doing now since 2000 the NFL has not been entirely right in its actions.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^
That may be true for the 60's and 70's, but it's harder to argue that the NFL had no idea after about the late 80's. There's enough compelling evidence out there that society was becoming aware and the NFL was at best willfully ignoring that awareness or at worst actively undermining it.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
...can go fuck itself in the ass.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^
Both in phrasing, and in sentiment.
October 11th, 2013 at 3:22 AM ^
I rewatched this tonight.
I will never watch another NFL event until they take full ownership of the wrong they have done the game I played, watched and love. They have trifled with the game to enrich their coffers - not thinking that people could make their own decisions. It looks like they got away with it as well.
They can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. French West Indian got it pretty much right on and used fewer words. There is a time and place for the ridiculous when people in power flaunt the safety of their workers and create an environment of ignorance that causes kids and young adults to unwittingly enter harms way.
We are losing elite athletes to lacrosse, soccer, track and other options (many which carry similar concussive threats) due to the lack of leadership of the NFL to respond with integrity. Boo.
Concussions happen in life regardless of sport. Instead of raising awareness and modifying the game as needed - football is likely to suffer decades of defilement and lesser play due to their lack of leadership. In high school you can only coach the guys who show up. Eventually that will come back to bite the greedy owners who can go f themselves until they apologize, admit guilt and make this good.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^
coach used to make us run into an oak tree with helmets on.
They sent little kids back into the game saying "you just got your bell rung, tough it out". 1970's, people literally just didn't know.
October 9th, 2013 at 1:57 PM ^
October 9th, 2013 at 2:38 PM ^
ESPN has NEVER promoted head injuries, I mean
They just show highlights and
HE GOT JACKED UP!
October 9th, 2013 at 2:05 PM ^
I've not yet watched the Frontline piece (plan to do so ASAP). But...
Clearly, there was a time period in the past when the knowlege was not there (for the NFL, practicing neurologists, researchers, etc.). And, clearly, there is much greater knowlege on all fronts today.
However, with regard to the NFL here, that's not really the issue. The issue is: when did they begin to learn/know about the issues surrounding football-related brain injuries, and, what action did they take at that point? If they did nothing (or worse, e.g., cover-up and/or attempt to thwart those who would bring this knowledge to light), then that's a serious problem (legal liability or otherwise).
October 9th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
Completely right. Obviously there was a time where no one had any idea about the impacts of head injuries. However, just because it wasn't widely known in society is not an excuse for the NFL to be ignorant if there was compelling evidence within the scientific community (I also havn't seen the documentary, and will be watching as soon as i get back from this business trip). If there was legitimate research getting done that showed the impact of football related head injuries, then its the NFL's responsibility to be informed and evaluate it. No different than any other employer which there may be physical risks involved in performing your job.
October 9th, 2013 at 2:38 PM ^
The NFL is a complete joke when it comes to concussions and head injuries. They really could care less about player safety. They care about money and PR (which ultimately leads to money).
If they cared about player safety, why don't they require all players to fully secure chin straps--none unbuttoned or hanging loose before a play starts; or require players to wear more protective chin straps (the padded ones as opposed to the dingy fabric ones that provide no protection to the chin/jaw); or require players to wear the latest and greatest of mouth pieces or any mouth pieces at all; or require players to wear the latest and greatest helmets that modern technology and science deem better at preventing concussions.
MANY concussions are caused by getting hit in the jaw under the facemask and helmet where there is little to no protection. You can break a jaw, teeth, and that impact where the jaw hinges causes many concussions. I had a family member receive a severe concussion from getting hit in the lower jaw with no direct contact to the head at all. I know many players are against mouth pieces because they hinder talking and communication, but it is so easy and cheap to get a fitted one that molds to your teeth and hardly hinders talking at all.
I love football, though I only played for a few years. At this point, I doubt I will let my children play tackle football unless serious changes are made. And it is not just at the NFL or collegiate level, but high school as well.
October 9th, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^
2 biggest examples of how the NFL cares about profit and not about player safety:
Thursday Night Football and the 18 Game Season. Playing 2 games with 3 recovery days in the middle is asking for players to get hurt and adding 2 more games is a pure money grab. Especially if they do it without another bye week.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^
I would add the 53-man roster to that. If they had say, 65 active players, there would be far less pressure to run injured players back out so fast. And the talent is there - the last 10-12 players cut could easily play effectively on any team.
Yes they have the practice squad but then you have to use IR, losing players for the season, or cut them.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
Even 1 step further - they still have 8 inactive players on gamedays. Why not have all 53 active?
October 9th, 2013 at 4:02 PM ^
If i have this right the 8 are comprised of the 6 practice squad players, who are in addition to the 53 but can't be moved on and off active at will, and 2 inactive from the 53. But yes adding the 6 would make 59, and why not another 6.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^
Remain calm...all is well. ALL IS WELL!!!
October 9th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^
I watched the show last night and I thought it was pretty enlightening. Especially in light of the settlement the NFL made at the beginning of the season. When I read about that, I thought it was pretty much chump change. I don't particularly care for the way they went after the Mike Webster researcher. It seems like they went after the BU people. When another group came to the same conclusions based on Junior Seau, it's becoming harder for the NFL to deny there is an issue.
Of course the question that wasn't answered...what can be done about all this? It seems like just about anything they do will change some aspects of the game that many people really like.
October 9th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
October 9th, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^
was Goodell in front of Congress a few years ago, denying up and down that there was any link between concussions and CTE. They made a dead-on analogy in the doc: he looked just like the tobacco execs denying that nicotine was addictive. Terrible optics for the league.
For the people who chalk up the NFL's position to limited data available at the time, it should be pointed out that the NFL maintains that same position today: there is no linkage between playing football and CTE. That's also true for the $765M settlement in the lawsuit, which admits nothing. At some point, though, I suspect the league will decide opposing the concussion-CTE link isn't worthwhile, and that the truly scary research (in terms of damage to their business, not just health issues) will focus on repetitive sub-concussive hits and CTE, especially in youth players with developing brains.
The lawyer in me understands the instinctive reaction of the NFL's counsel (including Paul Clement, who the documentary didn't mention was the former solicitor general of the US), which is deny, deny, deny. There's the old saying, if someone accuses you of shooting their dog, your defense is (1) I didn't shoot your dog (2) your dog was never shot (3) you never had a dog.
I do think they've seen the writing on the wall, though, and are serious about trying to prevent the headhunting. That drove me crazy when it started (especially since they seemed to be particularly enforcing the rule against my Steelers) but I've really come around to their side. If anything, they need to keep going, and suspect they will.
October 9th, 2013 at 7:11 PM ^
To some very wee extent, I feel the NFL does have some merit when it says "Hold up, we don't know causation for sure, we don't know when this starts." Especially in light of those cases of players who at 18 and 21 had significant damage. It could very well be that by the time you have played football well enough and long enough to be drafted, you've already accumulated a lot of damage, and injuries that occur on the NFL's watch are just incremental.
It may also be that some players have some unknown factors that put them at higher risk for devastating effects, and we just can't see that right now because the researchers can only study the ones that had the worst outcomes.
Both of those possibilites argue against taking too firm a stance that the NFL is uncaringly putting its players at significant long-term risk.
I also reject the idea that some large number of these players would have chosen not to play if they had known more about it, or if NFL had given them a more informative brochure. These are elite athletes who seem to be prone to believing they are invincible and the exception to normal rules. The lure of a pro career is huge.
THAT SAID, the NFL still looks like a scumbag organization for taking the "DENY DENY DENY" stance. There's a big difference between "There's a lot we don't know" and "There is absolutely no link" and it looks like that difference is about $8 billion a year in revenue.
It also doesn't look good when the NFL attempts to marginalize and discredit empirical research and the doctors who are carrying it out. So I'm all for demonizing the NFL, not necessarily for the amount of blame they deserve for the injuries to players but for being complete tools about it when researchers began to question the issue.
I wonder what the effect of all this will be. People still choose to pursue careers in competitive Boxing; I imagine some will still choose football, especially if it looks like a way to get up and out of a situation that is otherwise lacking in opportunity. But I have to say I'm glad it wasn't a sport my son has chosen to play.
October 11th, 2013 at 2:33 AM ^
All those kids and parents were told concussions did not cause CTE. They were told concussions were not a health risk through heavily funded and poorly executed research.
I agree with most of your post but the NFL did wrong here and got away with it. If we weren't obsessed with the sport they would have been pilloried. As it is ... the band played on.