Aaron Hernandez had CTE

[VirtualLarry]

Obviously football should be banned at all levels immediately. It is simply too dangerous to allow any more Americans to be harmed by it. We have computer games that the kids can play instead.

Suddenly, adding "e-sports" to the real Olympic Games, makes more sense now. (Not that they played "American Football" during the Olympics anyways, but the point still stands.)

 

[jackstar7]

Yeah, I was throwing out a number in between what the biggest stars make and the lower end people. Yet it remains a risk-benefit. A given person may decide it wouldn't be worth the risk for $450K but would be for say $2 million. It's an individual choice.

Sure. I expect there will remain enough money to lure people into this kind of thing for many years to come.

 

[woolfe9998]

Interesting, seems I was wrong.

That said, the other parts stand. The damage to the person will be enough that the league will change the rules and each change will make the sport less popular. The guys are simply too big and too fast to hit each other the way they do now. When Football was created people were much smaller and thinner.

They've already changed the rules to some extent. Roughing the passer used to have a narrower definition and was called way less often. Any hits to the head area are now much more consistently called as penalties, etc.

I don't think it's going to go much farther because it doesn't make economic sense. They can water down the game to avoid the bad publicity, but once they get to the point where the resulting decline in viewership and attendance outweighs the bad publicity, that's when they'll realize they've changed as much as they can feasibly change without going out of business. My prediction is that we're not quite done with the rule changes, but we're getting close.

I'm pretty sure boxing is at least as dangerous as football and probably more so, yet it still exists, and in a form fairly similar to how it's always been. This in spite of high profile cases like Mohammed Ali having Parkinson's Disease.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

That may be, and if so, they could be subject to liability from some players with bad health outcomes. Which has nothing to do with whether they ought to water down the rules to the point where the game becomes a bore.

At this point it doesn't matter. The NFL is a dead man walking. It's going to be 50 years until it happens, but the die is cast. Youth football participation is dropping. High School football participation is dropping. As as more and more information on lifelong brain damage from football gets out that's only going to accelerate. High schools and youth programs won't be able to get insurance and *poof*, they're going to be history. The same will go for many colleges. Only a select few will be able to afford to have programs, that means pretty much every DII and DIII program is living on life support. THAT is what is going to kill the NFL. It's not assumption of risk and it's not rule changes, football will die from the roots up, not the top down. Once kids stop growing up with football in their blood they won't give a shit about whether the NFL is two-hand touch, they won't be watching anyway.

And that being said, the NFL is going to be forced to continue ratcheting the violence downward. You can't market a death sport.

And WTF is going to happen when a brain damaged 25 year old sues his parents for knowing the risks and allowing him to participate in youth football?

 

[realibrad]

They've already changed the rules to some extent. Roughing the passer used to have a narrower definition and was called way less often. Any hits to the head area are now much more consistently called as penalties, etc.

I don't think it's going to go much farther because it doesn't make economic sense. They can water down the game to avoid the bad publicity, but once they get to the point where the resulting decline in viewership and attendance outweighs the bad publicity, that's when they'll realize they've changed as much as they can feasibly change without going out of business. My prediction is that we're not quite done with the rule changes, but we're getting close.

There have been many more. Defenseless player rules, leading with the helmet ect. More and more people are not wanting to see the big hits, and as such the NFL is changing.

The players are also changing. They are now wanting protections after they retire, and its more expensive to treat the side effects than to simply stop them.

 

[Stokely]

There's a big difference between "taking risks" and being almost sure that you will end up being brain-damaged. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of players don't realize the facts about this stuff, and of course the facts are still being brought to light. That is, if the NFL doesn't hide them away.

It does raise an interesting question about the parents and kids though. If it is shown that contact in pre-adult ages is enough to cause this (as I think I read one study presented), then would the parents not be responsible? Perhaps even legally? Kids don't make a choice to play football, parents make those choices yay or nay. Not that I think things would go this way, cynically there's way too much $ involved and as someone said, we do love our blood sports. I probably won't watch if some of these studies are borne out, but that's just me.

 

[woolfe9998]

At this point it doesn't matter. The NFL is a dead man walking. It's going to be 50 years until it happens, but the die is cast. Youth football participation is dropping. High School football participation is dropping. As as more and more information on lifelong brain damage from football gets out that's only going to accelerate. High schools and youth programs won't be able to get insurance and *poof*, they're going to be history. The same will go for many colleges. Only a select few will be able to afford to have programs, that means pretty much every DII and DIII program is living on life support. THAT is what is going to kill the NFL. It's not assumption of risk and it's not rule changes, football will die from the roots up, not the top down. Once kids stop growing up with football in their blood they won't give a shit about whether the NFL is two-hand touch, they won't be watching anyway.

And that being said, the NFL is going to be forced to continue ratcheting the violence downward. You can't market a death sport.

To some extent, any prediction is no better than an educated guess, but I think those parents who would not allow their kids to participate may have already done so. Sensitivity to risk varies. Your assumption is that "more and more" information will come out. In reality, these dangers have been discussed ever since I've been watching football, in the early 80's. Much more information has come out over the past 10 years. Unless there is terribly much more to this risk that we don't already know about, I think we're going to see this decline stabilize. Since it's been studied for decades now, I have my doubts that we're going to discover anything new.

And as I said above, boxing is the same or worse, and yet it continues. Football is big business. In America, big business finds a way.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Not even close.

Beat me to it.

 

[1prophet]

Steroids do not build muscle. Steroids allow you to heal faster after a workout which means you get more gains during a workout. If you take steroids and stop working out, you will lose muscle.

Purely semantics, nobody takes steroids and then sits on the couch expecting to build muscles, they are used in conjunction with intense workouts to achieve physical results not possible naturally whether it is bulk, stamina, or strength so in laymens terms they make you bigger, faster, and stronger, the workout part is understood.

 

[realibrad]

Purely semantics, nobody takes steroids and then sits on the couch expecting to build muscles, they are used in conjunction with intense workouts to achieve physical results not possible naturally whether it is bulk, stamina, or strength so in laymens terms they make you bigger, faster, and stronger, the workout part is understood.

I don't think it is semantics. There are many that take steroids that are not looking to gain muscle.

 

[abj13]

In reality, these dangers have been discussed ever since I've been watching football, in the early 80's. Much more information has come out over the past 10 years. Unless there is terribly much more to this risk that we don't already know about, I think we're going to see this decline stabilize. Since it's been studied for decades now, I have my doubts that we're going to discover anything new.

I wouldn't say that is true at all. Frontline did an excellent story about this very issue. The title of the episode? "League of Denial." It has only been really within the past decade that the NFL has changed its stance about concussions and long-term neurological consequences. They give a very insightful timeline of the issue here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ial/timeline-the-nfls-concussion-crisis/#2005

One of the best examples? Here is Dr Ira Casson, who chaired the NFL's concussion committee when asked about chronic effects of concussions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4NbU_HaB3Y

Hence, he earned the nickname Dr. No.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wouldn't say that is true at all. Frontline did an excellent story about this very issue. The title of the episode? "League of Denial." It has only been really within the past decade that the NFL has changed its stance about concussions and long-term neurological consequences. They give a very insightful timeline of the issue here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ial/timeline-the-nfls-concussion-crisis/#2005

One of the best examples? Here is Dr Ira Casson, who chaired the NFL's concussion committee when asked about chronic effects of concussions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4NbU_HaB3Y

Hence, he earned the nickname Dr. No.

Which part exactly is untrue? The part about how there has been public discussion about football's relationship to brain damage since at least the early 1980's, or the part where I said we've learned much more over the past decade, which is pretty much what you said above. Whatever the state of public knowledge 10 years ago, the public is pretty well informed today.

The fact is, this has been researched for decades. In any given kind of inquiry, the amount of newly discovered information will decline over time as there is less and less to discover. The notion that all kinds of new information about heretofore unknown risks will come out is based on the assumption that such unknown risks exist, which by definition is...something we cannot know. But we do know it's been studied for a long time which suggests there may not be much more to discover.

If something new and important comes out, I'll reconsider my position. Until then, I will stand by my assumption that the public is largely informed at this point, and that the consequences of that are at least near fully realized as of today.

 

[Zorba]

It's exceptionally rare for someone to pick up football in high school and make it to the NFL down the line regardless of athletic ability. We can't have one without the other.

I know, and I agree with you. The research also seems to show the longer you go the higher your probability of CTE. I'm just saying if someone chooses to keep playing football in the NFL at this point, they know what they are getting themselves into and are willing to take on the risk for the reward. Going forward I see a lot less people going into it.

 

[brycejones]

Even if he was suffering from CTE when he committed his crime it doesn't really matter he was convicted of the premeditated planned execution of his victim. Not exactly an angry outburst that is usually associated with CTE. The guy was a shit period.

 

[abj13]

Which part exactly is untrue? The part about how there has been public discussion about football's relationship to brain damage since at least the early 1980's, or the part where I said we've learned much more over the past decade, which is pretty much what you said above. Whatever the state of public knowledge 10 years ago, the public is pretty well informed today.

The fact is, this has been researched for decades. In any given kind of inquiry, the amount of newly discovered information will decline over time as there is less and less to discover. The notion that all kinds of new information about heretofore unknown risks will come out is based on the assumption that such unknown risks exist, which by definition is...something we cannot know. But we do know it's been studied for a long time which suggests there may not be much more to discover.

If something new and important comes out, I'll reconsider my position. Until then, I will stand by my assumption that the public is largely informed at this point, and that the consequences of that are at least near fully realized as of today.

Its your original first and last statements, and now your above statement that this has been researched for decades are at issue. The topic hasn't been well discussed, and certainly hasn't been well researched until recently. In 1994, how can there be any objective discussion when the league commissioner says "On concussions, I think is one of these pack journalism issues, frankly… There is no increase in concussions, the number is relatively small… The problem is a journalist issue." How can anyone have an objective discussion when the chairman of the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee (who has zero experience in traumatic brain injuries) says in 1994: "We discuss it on the list of things every time we have a league meeting … We think the issue of knees, of drugs and steroids and drinking is a far greater problem, according to the number of incidents.”

The NFL only started to research the issue in response to scattered publications finding associations between concussions and downstream consequences in the late 90's, early 2000's and the NFL group concluded that there was no significant concern of concussions. They went as so far to state in 2004 that "As a result of this winnowing process, those players who ultimately play in the NFL are probably less susceptible to MTBI and prolonged postconcussion syndrome than the general population." Really? Let that sink in for a moment. They really argued that NFL players were at lower risk for post-concussive symptoms. The connection between football and long term neurological consequences was only recently made. Amalu's case report of Mike Webster's brain is barely 12 years old now, and that was a major trigger of the research (and focal point of the NFL's vitriol). And if you read the publications published by the NFL, they throw as much shade as possible into the research of others at the time, whenever anyone found a piece of evidence associating football with long-term neurological consequences. Instead of taking the more objective route and saying that more research is necessary, they follow the same argumentative techniques of Big Tobacco, going as far as to demand Omalu to retract his study. They make repeated statements like this from their October 2004 publication: "These players did not have evidence of pyramidal, extrapyramidal, or cerebellar dysfunction. They did not have clinical dementia. They clearly did not have chronic encephalopathy such as that seen in boxers." Deny, Deny, Deny. This is why you have people like Dr. Casson repeatedly denying that there's any connection between multiple head injuries and long term neurological symptoms into 2007.

Why was it only until December of 2009 that the NFL finally admits a connection between concussions and "long-term problems?" Its only after that admission do you actually see the league act by changing rules and concussion protocols. This was not a result of decades of open discussion, it was in direct result of the evidence published in 2005-2009 suggesting a connection.

Ultimately, the data that everyone wants to understand the risk of playing football, simply, does not exist. Everybody wants to know: "If I were to play 1/5/10/20 years of football, starting in childhood/HS/college, what is my risk of developing CTE?" This is exactly the critique that many in defense of the NFL had in the recent publication by McKee in JAMA that found 110 out of 111 NFL football players had CTE (in addition, 3/14 high schoolers and 48 of 53 college players had CTE). At worst, CTE occurs in at least 3.7% of NFL players, but that makes many assumptions (namely that the 12 NFL players who had an autopsy, 12 of them had CTE. If we presume that all other players who died between 2008-2010 did not have CTE [321], that's how 3.7% only results), and is probably a gross underestimation. Why does this even occur in high schoolers? Is it one traumatic event? Is it the summation of subclinical events? These are valuable and reasonable questions at this point, for which there is a paucity of data.

 

[zinfamous]

Do you really think his stance on disrespecting the United States flag and polarizing the NFL and their fan base is a benefit to the left and Democrats as a whole? I don't, I think it's a pretty large negative.

LoL. So now he's a leftist. "I hate him disrespecting muh flage, so call him a leftist!"

The funny thing is, you're one of those bedw-etters that defends nazis, and you think that is a huge positive for your conservative friends? I mean, shit, what do you do when the designated security force of your country is outright murdering your race on the streets? What do you do, tajjy, what do you do? Let's get with some of that legendary conservative empathy and see what you have to say, faced with his reality that for you, will only ever be some AM-radio psycho fantasy about some dystopian shithole where the glorious whities are fed to dogs and sold as hunting trophies to the conquering mussulmen.

 

[zinfamous]

Therein lies a problem. Because obviously Hernandez was a criminal thug long before he got into the NFL and it takes an incredible leap of logic to assume that CTE had anything to do with his choices in life. And while this is probably going to be the start of every criminal that ever played football playing the CTE victim card, maybe, just maybe, some of them really are not in their right minds and are committing crimes due to CTE.

Can anyone make the case that somebody like O.J. Simpson wasn't at least partially brain damaged when he killed Nicole and Ron Goldman? Just because CTE doesn't turn everyone into a violent criminal and just because some people are violent criminals all on their own it's possible that there is a valid link between the aberrant behavior in some retired NFL players and brain injuries suffered while playing ball.

why? at what age did he start bashing his head into other humans at top speed, how long did he do it, and when did his criminal career start? Obviously football selects for rather violent, resilient individuals that once they make it to the NFL, have survived various levels of filtering, essentially because they just keep going, beyond their natural tools. But what part of that tenacity is attributable to a point in their young lives where the damage was severe enough that they could simply tune out the further damage that they were causing; that their own interpretation of pain was forever fucked by plaque buildup in their brains?

The human brain doesn't really finish developing until your early, mid twenties. These guys are basically NFL material by that point if they are ever going to be, which means they've been doing this to themselves, likely before a point where damage could be halted. It's not an accident that many young pro-bowlers in recent years have flat our retired after one or two seasons, after the data on CTE started trickling out. After someone like Mike Ditka loudly confessed that he would never allow his kids to do this to themselves.

...I'm not excusing the murders and abusers that have committed these crimes, I'm not saying that their sentences should be reduced because "it wasn't their fault," ...but I think at some point, the NFL is really going to have to be held accountable for much of this, because they really did know what the hell was going on for a rather long time. I'm not saying that they knew they were creating murderers and criminals, but how do you punish them from not only withholding the facts of their conditions, but also rejecting insurance claims and benefits to their retired veterans that suffered because of this?

Of course these players make their own choices in life and at some point, you want to assume that they understood the risks...but the truth is that they really didn't understand the risks. It took independent groups to shine a lite on the data that the NFL already knew.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

this may be the stupidest statement you've ever committed to text

that's a pretty astounding fact if true. that bar was set so fucking low before, it had to look up to see the Mariana trench

 

[imported_tajmahal]

LoL. So now he's a leftist. "I hate him disrespecting muh flage, so call him a leftist!"

The funny thing is, you're one of those bedw-etters that defends nazis, and you think that is a huge positive for your conservative friends? I mean, shit, what do you do when the designated security force of your country is outright murdering your race on the streets? What do you do, tajjy, what do you do? Let's get with some of that legendary conservative empathy and see what you have to say, faced with his reality that for you, will only ever be some AM-radio psycho fantasy about some dystopian shithole where the glorious whities are fed to dogs and sold as hunting trophies to the conquering mussulmen.

Damn, I hope you cleaned your fsking screen after that rant. List me where I ever defended Nazis past where the American Civil Liberties Union defends free speech. "His reality"? Get over yourself FFS. and clean your screen.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

that's a pretty astounding fact if true. that bar was set so fucking low before, it had to look up to see the Mariana trench

Bah, harsher things were said about President Ford and his playing football back in the day.

 

[theeedude]

Interesting. Maybe OJ has it too?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Interesting. Maybe OJ has it too?

I would bet that any sportsperson and anyone that taken hard hits in their life, including many if not most of our military would show signs of it. Along with many extreme sports along with skiing, racing etc. Just my layman opinion, need some autopsies. Nope, not volunteering.

 

[zinfamous]

At this point it doesn't matter. The NFL is a dead man walking. It's going to be 50 years until it happens, but the die is cast. Youth football participation is dropping. High School football participation is dropping. As as more and more information on lifelong brain damage from football gets out that's only going to accelerate. High schools and youth programs won't be able to get insurance and *poof*, they're going to be history. The same will go for many colleges. Only a select few will be able to afford to have programs, that means pretty much every DII and DIII program is living on life support. THAT is what is going to kill the NFL. It's not assumption of risk and it's not rule changes, football will die from the roots up, not the top down. Once kids stop growing up with football in their blood they won't give a shit about whether the NFL is two-hand touch, they won't be watching anyway.

And that being said, the NFL is going to be forced to continue ratcheting the violence downward. You can't market a death sport.

And WTF is going to happen when a brain damaged 25 year old sues his parents for knowing the risks and allowing him to participate in youth football?

agree with this. I've been thinking for a while now that this is really just inevitable.

 

[zinfamous]

Damn, I hope you cleaned your fsking screen after that rant. List me where I ever defended Nazis past where the American Civil Liberties Union defends free speech. "His reality"? Get over yourself FFS. and clean your screen.

kaepernick keeps you up at night. that's sad.

You need better dreams. Here's someone you can fap to:

you're welcome.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No he doesn't, i actually had to look up his name, i don't watch much pro football. Is that your Dad or your Mom? Anytime.

kaepernick keeps you up at night. that's sad.

You need better dreams. Here's someone you can fap to:

you're welcome.