Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Doctor calls for ban under 18s playing rugby

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    By waking up you have 100% risk exposure to death....


  • Options
    #93
    flunkyfearsome
    Registered Users Posts: 74 ✭✭flunkyfearsome


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    By waking up you have 100% risk exposure to death....

    LOL by going swimming I risk drowning too


  • Options
    #94
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    flunkyfearsome wrote: »
    LOL by going swimming I risk drowning too

    Indeed.

    But every time you go swimming and survive, you don't get a cumulative brain injury that might seriously debilitate you later in life.


  • Options
    #95
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    The fundamental problem with this issue is that we won't know whether this guy is right for a long long time. His findings in NFL players only came about as a result of autopsies on long-retired players.

    So until we get to slice someone's brain open in 30-odd years, we won't know one way or another and by then it will be too late, if this guy is right.

    That said, there's no real reason to think that what has been observed in NFL could not happen in rugby. Players have got much bigger over the past 20 years so retired rugby players don't currently offer much of a frame of reference.

    And that goes for underage too. The 16 year old gym monkeys walking around with their protein shakes are a relatively new phenomenon so not only are players getting bigger, it's happening younger. A player turning pro these days is going to take many multiples of the punishment that previous players did and we have no idea how that's going to affect him.

    There's a lot of talk on this thread about high tackles and concussion protocols but the central tenet of the research is that it's not about big hits and dazed players staggering around, it's the thousands of smaller hits that build up over time. There is simply NO way to prevent that or even mitigate the risks. The "logical" conclusion is therefore to ban it.

    Now, I wouldn't agree with it and it's not realistically going to happen, but it's important to make people aware of it and let them make an informed decision about letting their kids play.


  • Options
    #96
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,960 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    He says don't play Soccer until 12. Wondering...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,585 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    He says don't play Soccer until 12. Wondering...

    and I presume he would also ban hurling and GAA football - everything in life has a risk - safer to stay at home all day and avoid risk of being involved in road accidents.
    Lets make sport safer , but banning football, rugby and boxing when they offer such relatively healthy lifestyles, whilst many medics advice us we are not getting enough exercise - So many people , especially young enjoy these sports , much more serious issues we should be concerned about for the young - drugs, alcohol, cigarettes , depression and unhealthy foods - to mention some - instead of banning sport - just make them safer .


  • Options
    #98
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,960 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    thebaz wrote: »
    and I presume he would also ban hurling and GAA football - everything in life has a risk - safer to stay at home all day and avoid risk of being involved in road accidents.
    Lets make sport safer , but banning football, rugby and boxing when they offer such relatively healthy lifestyles, whilst many medics advice us we are not getting enough exercise - So many people , especially young enjoy these sports , much more serious issues we should be concerned about for the young - drugs, alcohol, cigarettes , depression and unhealthy foods - to mention some - instead of banning sport - just make them safer .

    It's pretty annoying to be an honest. To hear an expert talk like this.

    I would prefer something like, "in my own case I have treated 86 injuries due to Rugby this year alone. 70 came from the Jackal position, 10 from high tackles etc etc What I noticed was the injury cause is very different at different levels"

    Instead what we are getting is don't even play musical statues.

    What about the point that most people who play Rugby don't even regret playing when they a few injuries because they love it so much?
    What's the point in wrapping yourself up in cotton wool and never finding something you love?


  • Options
    #99
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    D14Rugby wrote: »
    First thing he says is that kids playing contact sports have a "100% risk exposure chance of brain damage". Sorry but what sort of statement is that to make? To me that sounds a lot like trying to scare as many people as possible by putting in the 100% bit but then adding on everything after that so he's technically telling the truth.

    There's was worse when he was ask about some of the symptoms and then lists everything bad you could do in your life. It could easily have been taken up slightly wrong and people thinking their kids are all going to become alcoholics and murderers because they bump in to someone playing rugby.


  • Options
    #100
    D14Rugby
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭D14Rugby


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    There's was worse when he was ask about some of the symptoms and then lists everything bad you could do in your life. It could easily have been taken up slightly wrong and people thinking their kids are all going to become alcoholics and murderers because they bump in to someone playing rugby.

    Listed some stuff pretty much every teenager/young adult does. And the learning thing is something that has been proven to happen anyway, once you get past a certain age in your teens you ability to learn diminishes no matter what sports you do or don't play.


  • Options
    #101
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Back in my day we would have prayed for just a bit of brain damage playing sport, prayed for it!

    The modern kid is just so namby pamby. In one game alone we lost 3 kids to TB and 1 to epic diarrhoea and did you hear us complain about?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    As we know, the doctor who is the subject of this thread was the first to identify CTE - chronic traumatic encephalopathy - in NFL players.

    Well, here's some more evidence of the problem:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/study-of-111-nfl-players-brains-shows-110-to-have-suffered-cte-1.3167275


  • Options
    #103
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Evidence of the problem in the NFL. Not rugby. That does need to be stated clearly.

    There absolutely needs to be a study of rugby players. And as others have said, to really make this stand out to people we need to develop a way of diagnosing living players with symptoms. It can't be that hard it's just brain surgery.


  • Options
    #104
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,585 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    Former Former wrote: »
    As we know, the doctor who is the subject of this thread was the first to identify CTE - chronic traumatic encephalopathy - in NFL players.

    Well, here's some more evidence of the problem:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/study-of-111-nfl-players-brains-shows-110-to-have-suffered-cte-1.3167275

    the study was carried out on dead players - which is strange - most American footballers would see American football as being a positive in there life , keeping many away from an unhealthy and much more dangerous life on the streets - life is dangerous (at times) , but you got to live, - again most people I know don't regret playing the various types of football, including me who has been left with long term irreverivble damage (knee & shoulder) - but I certainly don't regret it.


  • Options
    #105
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    thebaz wrote: »
    the study was carried out on dead players - which is strange - most American footballers would see American football as being a positive in there life , keeping many away from an unhealthy and much more dangerous life on the streets - life is dangerous (at times) , but you got to live, - again most people I know don't regret playing the various types of football, including me who has been left with long term irreverivble damage (knee & shoulder) - but I certainly don't regret it.

    Can you clarify this first sentence?


  • Options
    #106
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Evidence of the problem in the NFL. Not rugby. That does need to be stated clearly.

    Yeah, and I know the reaction is that hits are much bigger in the NFL and there are more hits to the head, which is true - but I thought it was interesting that the effect was seen in kickers and punters, who would get hit a lot less frequently than your average rugby player.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    There absolutely needs to be a study of rugby players. And as others have said, to really make this stand out to people we need to develop a way of diagnosing living players with symptoms. It can't be that hard it's just brain surgery.

    Well this is the problem, there isn't even a reliable diagnosis of acute concussion, let alone the cumulative effects of twenty years of getting hit.


  • Options
    #107
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    Former Former wrote: »
    Can you clarify this first sentence?

    It's pretty clearly laid out in the article you posted the link to above.


  • Options
    #108
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,585 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    Former Former wrote: »
    Can you clarify this first sentence?

    The first sentence of the link states

    "Ann McKee, a neuropathologist, has examined the brains of 202 deceased American football players"


    Does that clarify for you ?


  • Options
    #109
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    thebaz wrote: »
    The first sentence of the link states

    "Ann McKee, a neuropathologist, has examined the brains of 202 deceased American football players"


    Does that clarify for you ?

    I think the point being made is why would you think its strange that the report was carried out on all dead players... when the examine consists of slicing up the brain.


  • Options
    #110
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    thebaz wrote: »
    The first sentence of the link states

    "Ann McKee, a neuropathologist, has examined the brains of 202 deceased American football players"


    Does that clarify for you ?

    I was asking you to clarify why you thought performing such a study on dead people was strange?


  • Options
    #111
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,585 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    Former Former wrote: »

    Well this is the problem, there isn't even a reliable diagnosis of acute concussion, let alone the cumulative effects of twenty years of getting hit.

    Rugby has been played for over a 100 years , most (including many medics)would believe that it is beneficial to play - yes, you can be unlucky , but all pursuits bar chess and the like have some form of risk. The problem for many youth today is not getting enough exercise/sport. The risk of brain damage from alcohol and drugs I would think are much more a risk to our society today , than various forms of football, boxing and hurling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Former Former wrote: »
    Yeah, and I know the reaction is that hits are much bigger in the NFL and there are more hits to the head, which is true - but I thought it was interesting that the effect was seen in kickers and punters, who would get hit a lot less frequently than your average rugby player

    Place kickers and punters were tested but I'm not sure they were among those who tested positive from that article. And even if they did, its not clear they hadn't played elsewhere in school which is more common. So they have been in the 13 percent who tested negatively or in the other group who tested positive for mild symptoms.


  • Options
    #113
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,585 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    Former Former wrote: »
    I was asking you to clarify why you thought performing such a study on dead people was strange?

    I would thought it be more beneficial to conduct study on recent ex players , than those that have deceased , all or many i assume dying from different causes.


  • Options
    #114
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Was the study carried out on random players or players where they thought the guy might have had a problem?

    i.e. if it was players they thought had a problem it just confirms that but if it was carried out on random players where they didn't think they had a problem that's a very different story.


  • Options
    #115
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    thebaz wrote: »
    I would thought it be more beneficial to conduct study on recent ex players , than those that have deceased , all or many i assume dying from different causes.

    They have done that as well. There have been many studies, including those who committed suicide due to the extremely severe effects of CTE, like Junior Seau.


  • Options
    #116
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Was the study carried out on random players or players where they thought the guy might have had a problem?

    i.e. if it was players they thought had a problem it just confirms that but if it was carried out on random players where they didn't think they had a problem that's a very different story.

    It was not random players. It was players whose brains were donated specifically to this study.


  • Options
    #117
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    thebaz wrote: »
    I would thought it be more beneficial to conduct study on recent ex players , than those that have deceased , all or many i assume dying from different causes.

    You have to slice their brains open to diagnose it.

    It would help if you read the article that you're so exercised by.


  • Options
    #118
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,585 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    Former Former wrote: »
    You have to slice their brains open to diagnose it.

    It would help if you read the article that you're so exercised by.


    calm down - i don't have full access to Irish Times - never mind ,


  • Options
    #119
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Was the study carried out on random players or players where they thought the guy might have had a problem?

    i.e. if it was players they thought had a problem it just confirms that but if it was carried out on random players where they didn't think they had a problem that's a very different story.

    Yeah, the authors acknowledge that to get a "true" picture of the situation, you'd need a control group of non-symptomatic players, or players who played at underage/college level but not professionally.


  • Options
    #120
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    tbh without that control group it's a bit of a pointless result. the headline should be "ex players who thought they had CTE, had CTE"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    tbh without that control group it's a bit of a pointless result. the headline should be "ex players who thought they had CTE, had CTE"

    That wasn't the objective of the research. They set out to identify the clinical and pathological characteristics of CTE, not to determine its frequency.

    It's not a pointless result, it's incredibly important research. It's been published in probably the world's most prestigious medical journal so the methods are robust and the findings have been thoroughly reviewed.

    If anyone is genuinely interested, the full paper is available free on the JAMA website.


Advertisement