OT: PBS Frontline episode: League of Denial

[Coachmarkos]

You can stream it from their site.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/

Something football fans should watch.

[oneinchpunch]

Need new helmets or no helmets at all.

I think the first to go will be High School and Peewee football.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I watched it too and there are a lot of well-made and troubling points. Leigh Steinberg's recounting of post-concussion conversations with Troy Aikman were chilling.

I've been a fan of Frontline for many years, but I do acknowledge some of the techniques they use which fail to balance things out.

One that I observed in last night's show regarded the 2007 "concussion pamphlet" distributed to players. The red underlined part showed that the NFL took the position that "current research" did not show that there was a connection to permanent problems beyond more than one or two concussions if they injury was treated properly. The show's point was that the NFL essentially told players not to worry. And that was that.

However, I think it is important to read the rest. I rewound the video so I could see the following paragraph. I've attached an excerpt of this pamphlet here. The underlined part shows what Frontline showed. The bold is the part they did not include.

Current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one or two concussions leads to permanent problems if each injury is managed properly. It is important to understand that there is no magic number for how many concussions is too many.

Research is currently underway to determine if there are any long-term effects of concussion in NFL athletes.

What is the treatment for a concussion?

The treatment for concussion usually consists of rest. Medication may sometimes be prescribed by your team doctors for symptoms such as headaches and dizziness. If your team doctor prescribes medication, be sure to follow his directions and those provided with the prescription.

It is important that you avoid drinking alcohol. Also, if you intend to use over-the-counter medication, vitamins or supplements, tell your team doctors. They may want you to stop taking them.

You should avoid caffeine and make sure that you do not become dehydrated.

1. It is true that many players might have read the first paragraph and ignored the second one, having heard what they wanted to hear. But information on uncertainty and precaution is PRESENTED.

2. It is also true that perhaps the NFL should have done more than distribute a pamphlet. But if the pamphlet is good enough to be used as evidence that the league tried to put the issue to bed, it is also good enough to show that a)the issue was deemed important enough to player safety to distribute it in the first place, b)acknowledge that there was uncertainty around long-term effects for repeated head trauma, and c) acknowledge that scientific inquiry on the subject was underway but incomplete.

3. The work of Omalu and McKee on Webster, McHale and others seems to me to be disturbing but anecdotal. Without sufficient numbers to make a scientific pronouncement on causation (especially considering the other factors at work in these cases, such as drug and steroid use), I am not surprised that the NFL didn't move more aggressively. Where I think I have issue is that they seemed completely dismissive of directional data and didn't at least say, "Hmmm. Maybe we ought to look into this more closely." Even now, there is not sufficient statistical data to make a pronouncement. Not by a long shot. I'm not trying to be an apologist for the NFL, but the numbers required are the numbers required. That said, 45 of 46 cases (IIRC) is enough to justify taking this seriously at the NFL level. The more disturbing questions involve college, high school and youth players.

4. The many crass and dismissive actions on the NFL's part certainly outweigh whatever positives (even as a CYA) came from distributing the pamphlet. But if Frontline is going to use the pamphlet, perhaps they shouldn't just cherry pick information delivered out of context and present a more balanced and complete view of the pamphlet.

And as a side question, I am unclear on why the NFL made BU the "preferred brain bank of the NFL" and then fought to have Seau's brain studied by NIH. The only thing I can figure is that, sensing the coming storm of media attention and lawsuits, that they wanted to elevate study to the NIH level. But the downside is that BU is at the forefront, so NIH is going to be playing catch up with BU.

[Coachmarkos]

I watched it too and there are a lot of well-made and troubling points. Leigh Steinberg's recounting of post-concussion conversations with Troy Aikman were chilling.

I've been a fan of Frontline for many years, but I do acknowledge some of the techniques they use which fail to balance things out.

One that I observed in last night's show regarded the 2007 "concussion pamphlet" distributed to players. The red underlined part showed that the NFL took the position that "current research" did not show that there was a connection to permanent problems beyond more than one or two concussions if they injury was treated properly. The show's point was that the NFL essentially told players not to worry. And that was that.

However, I think it is important to read the rest. I rewound the video so I could see the following paragraph. I've attached an excerpt of this pamphlet here. The underlined part shows what Frontline showed. The bold is the part they did not include.





1. It is true that many players might have read the first paragraph and ignored the second one, having heard what they wanted to hear. But information on uncertainty and precaution is PRESENTED.

2. It is also true that perhaps the NFL should have done more than distribute a pamphlet. But if the pamphlet is good enough to be used as evidence that the league tried to put the issue to bed, it is also good enough to show that a)the issue was deemed important enough to player safety to distribute it in the first place, b)acknowledge that there was uncertainty around long-term effects for repeated head trauma, and c) acknowledge that scientific inquiry on the subject was underway but incomplete.

3. The work of Omalu and McKee on Webster, McHale and others seems to me to be disturbing but anecdotal. Without sufficient numbers to make a scientific pronouncement on causation (especially considering the other factors at work in these cases, such as drug and steroid use), I am not surprised that the NFL didn't move more aggressively. Where I think I have issue is that they seemed completely dismissive of directional data and didn't at least say, "Hmmm. Maybe we ought to look into this more closely." Even now, there is not sufficient statistical data to make a pronouncement. Not by a long shot. I'm not trying to be an apologist for the NFL, but the numbers required are the numbers required. That said, 45 of 46 cases (IIRC) is enough to justify taking this seriously at the NFL level. The more disturbing questions involve college, high school and youth players.

4. The many crass and dismissive actions on the NFL's part certainly outweigh whatever positives (even as a CYA) came from distributing the pamphlet. But if Frontline is going to use the pamphlet, perhaps they shouldn't just cherry pick information delivered out of context and present a more balanced and complete view of the pamphlet.

And as a side question, I am unclear on why the NFL made BU the "preferred brain bank of the NFL" and then fought to have Seau's brain studied by NIH. The only thing I can figure is that, sensing the coming storm of media attention and lawsuits, that they wanted to elevate study to the NIH level. But the downside is that BU is at the forefront, so NIH is going to be playing catch up with BU.

I agree...they aren't really fair...they pick their points.

But the documentary is pretty damning

[Coachmarkos]

This post has been up nearly all day, not many comments.

Either people haven't seen it, don't want to see it, or are just sticking their heads in the sand.

Just the way the league wants it, I guess.

[oneinchpunch]

This post has been up nearly all day, not many comments.

Either people haven't seen it, don't want to see it, or are just sticking their heads in the sand.

Just the way the league wants it, I guess.

I only saw part of it. Heard a lot about it today at work and on the radio.

I almost don't want to see it. Because I'll probably want the sport to die in some way

[blahblahblah]

This post has been up nearly all day, not many comments.

Either people haven't seen it, don't want to see it, or are just sticking their heads in the sand.

Just the way the league wants it, I guess.

It's long. People work.

[6025]

It's long. People work.

Exactly. Last thing I want to do is watch a long video on my computer. BKR's commentary works for me.

[TTK]

This post has been up nearly all day, not many comments.

Either people haven't seen it, don't want to see it, or are just sticking their heads in the sand.

Just the way the league wants it, I guess.

I just finished watching it. I feel the same after I watch any kind of story on big business doing everything in their power to screw over others for the almighty dollar.

I think it's just a matter of time before the sport will need to change drastically. The NFL is doing it's best to drag it's feet to delay the inevitable.

A lot of diehard fans curse the NFL and Goodell for ruining football with all these new safety rules and while IMO they're just doing it to cover their asses down the road, it is the right thing to do.

[Beerman]

Players willingly play the sport and get paid extremely well to put their health on the line. As long as there are players willing to play, the NFL isn't going anywhere. It is what it is. I can understand the older players having issues with how the NFL handled concussions, but any new player going into the league clearly knows about the risks now.

[Faded blues]

The players are playing russian roulette and need to realize two realities that exist with these lawsuits.

1. They win and the game is changed beyond repair. I don't think the players as whole understand, no game, no pay.

2. They lose, and the NFL can continue on its paith of 18 game schedule, everythursday, and so on...which clearly shorten players careers.

The players should have sought a settlement and used their position to prohibit the thrusday night games and 18 game schedule.

This all or nothing approach will backfire.

[oneinchpunch]

Players willingly play the sport and get paid extremely well to put their health on the line. As long as there are players willing to play, the NFL isn't going anywhere. It is what it is. I can understand the older players having issues with how the NFL handled concussions, but any new player going into the league clearly knows about the risks now.

But more and more parents will know the risks. And from what I see, with 3 boys, parents aren't putting their kids into football. And kids will be held out of HS football. The NCAA will start facing lawsuits and them the NFL product won't be what it was