Sports injuries raise their 'head' again.

jacothelad

. A story today details a mass-tort (duty of care) lawsuit involving 126 former NFL players because of the long-term impact of repeated concussions and head injuries.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/27/rypien-lead-plaintiff-lawsuit-nfl-head-injuries/

The lawsuit alleges that the NFL was aware of the risks of repetitive traumatic brain injury but hid the information and misled players, resulting in permanent brain damage or neurological disorders. “It’s scary the extent to which these guys have been hurt,” said Gene Locks, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney. “When we played football, broken bones, busted noses, tears of tissue were kind of expected. Nobody said you’d get a head injury. These injuries are insidious, they are latent, degenerative, and it gets worse and worse as you get older in certain players.”
According to the lawsuit, former Redskins QB, Mark Rypien “suffers from various neurological conditions and symptoms related to the multiple head traumas.” The same language is used for each of the 125 other plaintiffs.

molloyjh

jacothelad wrote: »

. A story today details a mass-tort (duty of care) lawsuit involving 126 former NFL players because of the long-term impact of repeated concussions and head injuries.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/27/rypien-lead-plaintiff-lawsuit-nfl-head-injuries/

The lawsuit alleges that the NFL was aware of the risks of repetitive traumatic brain injury but hid the information and misled players, resulting in permanent brain damage or neurological disorders. “It’s scary the extent to which these guys have been hurt,” said Gene Locks, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney. “When we played football, broken bones, busted noses, tears of tissue were kind of expected. Nobody said you’d get a head injury. These injuries are insidious, they are latent, degenerative, and it gets worse and worse as you get older in certain players.”
According to the lawsuit, former Redskins QB, Mark Rypien “suffers from various neurological conditions and symptoms related to the multiple head traumas.” The same language is used for each of the 125 other plaintiffs.

I would have thought head trauma was part and parcel of the game there? Remember the ad years ago of the player getting knocked out and being asked who he was...."I'm Batman!". How can anyone claim that the head traumas were hidden from them? Fair enough they may not have known the long term affects of constant head traumas, but again is this not fairly common knowledge?

lologram

molloyjh wrote: »

I would have thought head trauma was part and parcel of the game there? Remember the ad years ago of the player getting knocked out and being asked who he was...."I'm Batman!". How can anyone claim that the head traumas were hidden from them? Fair enough they may not have known the long term affects of constant head traumas, but again is this not fairly common knowledge?

No, it isn't. That's the point of neuro medical research into brain trauma. It is, among other things, attempting to measure and quantify the long term effect. This effect is not common knowledge. There's a massive difference between intuitively saying "getting a hit to the head probably isn't good for you" and "here is the exact implication of it". In the absence of empirics you have nothing to rely on but the intuition. A lot of the good research is only recent.

To clarify I don't know the story of these players that well, but if they believe that the NFL had seen research showing how the damage was even worse and either did not divulge this/did not take any better precautions, then I would guess that is what their case is built upon. It is not true to say that just because they play in the league means that they accept all future damage that accrues to them from it, particularly if they were denied access to more informative research on the danger.

molloyjh

lologram wrote: »

No, it isn't. That's the point of neuro medical research into brain trauma. It is, among other things, attempting to measure and quantify the long term effect. This effect is not common knowledge. There's a massive difference between intuitively saying "getting a hit to the head probably isn't good for you" and "here is the exact implication of it". In the absence of empirics you have nothing to rely on but the intuition. A lot of the good research is only recent.

To clarify I don't know the story of these players that well, but if they believe that the NFL had seen research showing how the damage was even worse and either did not divulge this/did not take any better precautions, then I would guess that is what their case is built upon. It is not true to say that just because they play in the league means that they accept all future damage that accrues to them from it, particularly if they were denied access to more informative research on the danger.

But surely if empirical evidence is only starting to come to light now then the NFL were as ignorant as the players.

Either way I don't need empirical evidence to know that constant head trauma is bad for me. I might need it to know exactly what is going to happen but I'd know enough to know it isn't good. That would be like saying we couldn't have known that being around people suffering from the flu was potentially bad for us until it was scientifically proven, but people knew long before then that was the case.

There's a certain amount of common sense that doesn't require proof. All parties involved (the NFL, the players, the coaches, teams and fans) had their part to play in this.

As for how it relates to rugby I think union has been far more proactive in this area given that the professional game is still less than 20 years old. There's still a lot of work to be done, but again from a lot of what we hear much of that has to be done on an individual player level as much as anything. Was it Jackmans book that said that players were able to fudge their way through medicals etc?

prospect

Anyone who has to be told that, repeated head trauma over an extended period will cause long term adverse effects, needs their head examined.

oh wait......

Podge_irl

The NFL has made big strides in how seriously they treat potential concussions this season. A lot of players have missed games because of them, though there is still some concern that most of them finished the game/the half after receiving the concussion. It is by no means a job done though - a lot of players would still be expected to 'shake it off' (particularly non-QBs who can hide their symptoms better).

A lot of the progress has had to do with this impending class action though. It may take something similar for the IRB to get as serious. They are taking steps, such as the concussion bin, but it also requires education of players and officials to take it seriously enough.

Fight_Night

Very big difference in the amount of concussions in an NFL game and a 6N game. Not necessarily saying that the IRB are amazing at concussion protocols but american football is in a whole other league when it comes to head injuries.

davegrohl48

players being allowed back on who minutes earlier struggled to walk and often fall over after a big hit is wrong It us happening now more frequently where you see guys walking like Bambi on ice

nice_guy80

the helmets actually cause more damage than the supposed protection that they offer

Higher

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the helmets actually cause more damage than the supposed protection that they offer

Sort of like motorcycle helmets then...

Podge_irl

The helmets don't cause more damage, it's the fact that players wearing helmets idiotically lead with their heads in the tackle cause they're wearing them.