I'm certainly not blaming any of this on the players as a whole for the reasons you mentioned. But that's kind of the point...it's an insanely violent game as it is, so when you see guys spearing others with their helmets, or hear about bounties, it makes you realize that if the players aren't the ones most concerned about safety, the ability for this problem to get fixed is pretty tough.

Was anyone watching the Cincinnati/Duke bowl game? I happened to catch a decent amount of it, and let me describe what happened.

Cincy ball. They have a big TE named Kelse, guy is a good 6'6" 250+ I'm sure. He catches the ball, turns his body, and a Duke safety named Byas drops his head and goes in for the tackle. They go helmet to helmet and down. Kelse is shaken a bit, but Byers gets up and does that wobbly dance where he stumbles for about 5 yards before catching himself (aided by a teammate). Five years ago we probably laugh at it. But there was very little doubt that he had suffered a concussion, or at least no doubt that he was displaying symptoms, so in watching, I'm not laughing...just assuming he'll be pulled out of the game, as did the commentators.

Fast forward TWO PLAYS. Big man Kelse catches the ball, and guess who is there to tackle him? Byas...and he drops his head again going in for the tackle and they crash down together. This time he's pretty much knocked out so he stays down. Thankfully this time he didn't return to the field.

I'm sitting there thinking how the hell did anyone let this kid back on the field that night, much less two plays later? If I'm anyone in authority at that school, or anyone associated with the doctors on the sideline, there's hell to pay the next day. The announcers were shocked that he got back on the field, and were legitimately concerned about his health. And you could tell they were awkwardly holding the conversation in a way that wouldn't allow them to just say "those doctors were being negligent".

So, now they know they have suffered brain damage, which can lead to depression, etc., how many of them are seeking treatment for all of this? I honestly don't know the answer to the question. Anyone out there actively looking at stuff before they lay on a shotgun and pull the trigger? Or are we just looking at brains after the fact?

Is the kid in question an adult - if so then so long as he's informed of the situation and able to make a decision surely its down to him?

Mainly asking because I played in a university soccer team with a goalkeeper who was awesome but had a dodgy shoulder - he'd dislocated it badly years ago and so routinely dislocated it when playing.

He'd just get up grimace and ram it against the goal post until it went in again ..... no one tried to stop him playing despite the fact it was obvious it was painful and hurt him as a matter of course, he was an adult he knew the risks.

(similarly we had a player on our team who had been thrown off the Man Utd youth team because of a badly broken leg, he'd been told never to play again because a bad challenge could have serious consequences - but again it was his choice and he was an adult so he played ... what can I say us English are stupid ;) )

What I'm trying to say is - at what point does 'safety' intrude upon 'freedom' ...

That is very few things in life are 100% safe, however as adults we have to choose which we want to risk and undertake.

For instance my eyesight is shot to pieces, probably not helped by my chosen career programming computer games - I knew the risks involved, but I love my job ... hence its a risk I'm willing to take.

Should someone have assessed me and said 'no you can't make games for a living' ? .... if not then what is the difference between that and playing a sport?

I think it all becomes different when talking about concussions because it's not "are you an adult?" but instead "are you of sound body and mind?". The dude with the shoulder injury might be a bit of a brick-head but he knows what he's doing. The guy who gets knocked loopy and then is back on the field again 2 plays later may not even remember getting hit loopy, or may not be thinking straight enough to make proper decisions.

Well, without getting into statistical power (because they are likely not powered enough). Is it a stretch to believe that repeated trauma to your head could cause damage? Whereas it does not always result in suicide or some other crazy thing, it would matter where the damage occurred. I would think it would be in their best interest to add some control groups, as well as people who kill themselves that never play football.

But yeah, it isn't too surprising that they find excessive brain damage in people who have smashed their heads against things for 20+ years.

Ya, I definitely buy this is not a terrific activity for your health, It's just a hard to make sense of what it all really means when everybody (or almost everybody) who ever played football, even at just the high school level, has it.

They kind of lost me when Chris Benoit's brain was described as "resembling an Alzheimer's patient" - even though until the day he died, he traveled the world independently, remembered lines, and performed complex physical activities. I'm sure there was truth to that and the key word was "resemble", but the Benoit apologists immediately jumped on that to proclaim that what happened wasn't his fault because he didn't know what he was doing, because, well Alzheimer's patients don't know what they're doing and that's what his brain resembled. Since almost all football players have this same "disorder" CTE, is the logical extension that football players aren't responsible for any of their actions? Even when the crimes occur when they're still playing football and taking part in society and such? What about their personal foul penalties, are they really even responsible for them if they're so so brain damaged? And if almost all football players have this, then some number of non-football players must have it too, especially other athletes, or people that have had head injuries in other contexts. Are they responsible for their actions? Are any of us? That's the tricky path here that I'm wary of.

It's very gray because, well, it really depends on where the damage is. If it's in the brain stem, it could affect motor functions, if it's in the cortex, it could affect anything from vision, personality, cognitive behavior, etc. I agree with you that CTE probably means little in and of itself, but it's clearly an issue and the focus needs to be not just preventing it, but detecting it.

I assume when they say Chris Benoit's brain look like an Alzheimer's patient, they may have been referring to amyloid plaques (though I don't know). Depending on where the plaques are, they can have different effects. Also, since it's the brain, it's also quite unpredictable. The thing about neural disorders is that people can be normal one minute, then present symptoms the next...it's even harder to pinpoint when it's emotional as that person may not even be aware.

I agree with the concussion argument and in those circumstances safety should be adhered to.

Finally in the case of long term brain damage I doubt this is often caused by concussion in soccer; more by repeated blows (ie. heading the ball) over time ... in a similar manner if you're a professional Footballer then chances are you could avoid concussion but get repeated minor blows and gain such an 'injury' - does that mean all sports should be non-contact or simply that people should understand the risks and potential consequences?

(its also worth balancing the risks inherent in contact sport against the fitness and mental stimulation etc. that you gain from such activities imho - ie. is the risk of injury better than the risks from potentially not exercising for the individual concerned?)

I also think there's a matter of degrees and getting the right information out there to make an informed decision. For instance, we suspect that the air we breathe in most cities is pretty crappy. But how bad? Like "I'm going to cough when I get to be 90" crappy or "I should move to the country because my life expectancy went from 90 to 60" crappy? That's a pretty wide gulf. Same with water pollution. Carrying a cell phone? Living under power lines? Living near power lines? I mean- there are a lot of things in our everyday life that we really have no clue about exactly how bad they are for us even if we suspect they are bad.

Heck, I was talking to my Grandpa over Christmas and asked him about smoking. When he was in the navy in the 40s, they were rationed cigarettes as they were viewed positively as keeping the soldiers calm. Sure, in retrospect, it should have been easy to see that lighting something on fire and sucking on it was a bad idea, but not if you don't have a great idea of how the body interacts. (Granted, he said he traded his for sweets because he preferred them :D)

SI

I found this article really interesting - glad to see at least one team is taking a step forward to start gathering data on football hits - I mean as far as I know, the science on what causes sports concussions has a long way to go, so more data, as Stanford is doing here, seems a good idea to me.

Stanford Investigates the Hits that Cause Concussions | KQED QUEST

Junior Seau's family has now sued the NFL over his death.

Former football star Junior Seau's family sues NFL, Riddell helmets - CNN.com

I coach for a club lacrosse team with 60-70 players in each grade 4th-12th, and we're working on a deal where all our players get free baseline testing in exchange for the researchers doing it getting to use the data because there is just so little of it out there.

It's interesting to see some of the attitudes present at the HS level. My school started requiring a baseline test for everyone playing a contact sport last year, but at least one neighboring district refused to do them - partly because the science is unclear, but also partly with the thinking that it opens the school up to liability and lawsuits. There's also the issue of players reporting symptoms - there's a larger discussion going on between myself, the AD, and a few other coaches on whether there should be a mandatory 3-week vacation for anyone diagnosed with a concussion, and what exactly the threshold to trigger that is. We've had 2 players in 4 years where it was obvious they were concussed, and both were done for 3+ weeks, but we've had a number of other players who took a pretty hard hit and refused to say/admit anything to the trainer for fear they would be done for 3 weeks when they didn't really have a concussion. I always err of the side of caution and pull them from that game/tell them and their parents to monitor it and go to a neurologist if they want to, but it's walking a line between being willfully ignorant and needlessly overprotective. I feel it's best to have some trust where the kid can be honest with me without that triggering an automatic response, but even that won't solve the issue (I definitely got a concussion 2 summers ago playing co-ed soccer, to the point I was speaking sentences out of order, and got called out on doing so at halftime by 2 friends, yet adamantly denied having a concussion and played the 2nd half. If that's the mindset of someone like me for a meaningless adult co-ed game, I know how futile it is to hope that HS/college/pro players will ever voluntarily pull themselves from games.)

how many times is this guy gonna die?

Ugh. I couldn't get through two paragraphs of that article. So they are suing football for being a violent sport where people get hit in the head.

Can I countersue for stupidity?

Is that why they're suing? Or are they suing because people in authority making judgments about his fitness to play prioritized getting him on the field vs. his long term health?

It's really easy from the comfort of our keyboards to say "Seau knew what he was doing - football is a violent sport!" But in the heat of battle on gamedays, he's going to do whatever he can to be a team player and be on the field. It's up to the team doctors, trainers & coaches to look at the bigger picture and hold out players that are too injured to be on the field.

Okay I didn't read the article that closely. I assumed it was saying his brain problems came as a result of his getting hit in the head.

Was his brain issues something he already had? And the hits in the head WITH that problem what killed him?

And did he already know he had this problem before he died and/or before he played football?

The beginning of the article made me think the brain condition occurred as a result of football.

Is it the reverse?

This reminds me of Lawrence Taylor in Any Given Sunday...

What about doctors in college, high school, and pee wee? Can they show the damage was all done in the NFL? If my doctor doesn't specifically tell me that smoking causes lung cancer, and makes me quit smoking, does that make him libel even though I know it causes cancer? These guys know they're putting their health and well being at risk to make millions of dollars. I still can't believe these bullshit lawsuits are going anywhere.

Poor analogy. A better one would be you work in a place that has exposure to radiation. You know in general that radiation can be harmful to your health, but the specific levels of exposure are not necessarily something you know. Your place of work has experts that monitor your exposure, and you rely on them to inform you if your exposure is reaching dangerous levels.

Why, because it sounds better for the players argument? Honestly, is there any evidence the NFL was covering up evidence that they knew there were dangers? NHL players have a suit going as well? I don't know? Any proof the concussions sustained at a young age weren't more damaging? And if I'm being paid millions of dollars, and that's my only skill, what other choice do I have?

Actually, it'll be determined in the class-action suit, but it certainly appears that the NFL and Ira Casson was doing that in the early-mid 1990's, and the NFL Disability Board ruled in 1999 Mike Webster was disabled due to blows to the head, yet publicly took the opposite stance for a few years afterwards.

I think everybody kind of knew that you could get "punch drunk" from repeated blows to the head, but it seems like a stretch that the NFL knew about the extent of the dangers of concussions before the general medical community.

Because it's a much closer analogy.

Sure appears that way.

Not play.

CTE is a big deal. It's also a complicated issue. And it is not going away.

Aaron Hernandez Found to Have Severe C.T.E. - NYTimes.com

The gamechanger might be if they ever develop a test that they can perform on living folks. If kids in High School and College start knowing that they are developing this, I don't see how football survives.

I don't think it will. Participation is tanking at entry levels. 10 years from now it's not even going to be the same.

Perhaps it's because I pay next to no attention to hockey, but I find it rather interesting that there's almost no discussion of CTE on a national stage with regard to hockey or (to a lesser extent) soccer. I guess with soccer there have been reforms to eliminate headers in youth leagues, but I wonder what kind of efforts are being made to study possible CTE development in hockey players and what efforts that sport is/has made to reduce violent collisions?

As for football, I don't see it going away, but it is going to have to evolve as it did early in its history.

Football has more concussions overall (47% of all reported concussions), but other sports have concussions as a higher percentage of overall injuries at the youth levels. Soccer, hockey, and basketball are all pretty bad, with girls having concussions at a higher rate than boys at that age.

Stats on Concussions
& Sports - Head Case - Complete Concussion Managements

Girls’ soccer, basketball players have higher concussion rates than male counterparts - The Washington Post

My question, has anyone checked other brains for this?

I have had 5 concussions, all between 8 and 16, two of which were significant. I played football one year. Plus, I have had my bell rung a number of times at work, getting up and banging my head against a pipe or metal shelf. When do I need to start worrying about this?

I am not saying we should not worry about this, but there are several other factors to consider:

1) players Ned to work on proper tackling technique rather than taking some one's head off.
2). There needs to be mandatory time off after a concussion. I know they are beginning to do this, but it needs universal enforcement.
3). This may seem counter-intuitive, get rid of helmets.

I don't think it's counter-intuitive at all. They are basically weapons. Removing helmets would have to lead to other changes too though, I would think. Some of the in-air hits in particular.

Getting rid of helmets seems like a great idea until someone accidentally leads with their head out of habit and at least one of the people involved in the collision dies.

There's a lot less hitting in hockey than there used to be. They pretty much got rid of all hitting away from the puck and started calling more charging penalties (striding towards players without, or just after getting rid of, the puck).

They also instituted something called Rule 48 that you can Google. There are still issues of course but there are HoF players from the 90s who would need to have very different careers if they played now.

Implement it below a certain age, and increase that age every year until there's nobody left who has played with a helmet. That runs into a problem when you get to college/pro, but it gets people ready up to that point. Not sure when you make the switch for those other levels.

Watch a game and pay attention to how many times heads are hit with arms and legs or how many times heads bounce off the turf.

Now imagine the blood if nobody is wearing helmets.

Now watch rugby. Obviously it's not apples to apples, and the concussion debate is happening in rugby too (albeit at a much lower volume, and prompted by the NFL debate), but the stuff you mention happens all the time. There are rules around what constitutes a legal tackle in rugby, and if helmets came off in American football it would have to be following some pretty major changes to tackling/hitting too.

Yes, CTE has been found in not just football players but rugby players, hockey players, soccer players, baseball players, boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, a BMX rider, bull riders and stunt men. Basically, any kind of activity where hard, repeated blows to the head occur may put you at risk.

CTE is a serious issue, but it's not a get out of jail free card... guy was in gangs by 17, shot a guy and left him for dead while at Florida, did a ton of other alcohol/drugs as well, and was about to be outed for (allegedly) being gay. This lawsuit should be thrown out, and while I feel a little bad for the daughter the ex-fiancee should be in jail for being an accomplice.
The few notable potentially CTE related suicides in hockey were also enforcers & they've also basically eliminated fighting in hockey.

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. Tackles only between the thigh and shoulders when head on, arms only. No leading with shoulders or helmets. It's really not that complicated to make it a safer game.

It would need to be helmets and pads that were taken away to make it safe - pads are too great a risk if the head isn't protected.

It would change the game significantly, and force people to learn to tackle more safely, and yes, like rugby.

The irony is that the tackle is a focus in rugby now at junior level, and there is a chance that kids will not play full contact until later than they currently do. I'm in two minds about whether this makes it safer: learning the correct technique at a young age has to better than trying to learn when older, when the players are bigger, heavier, faster and getting it wrong has a lot more risk.

The thing is, Rugby has no hits off the ball, no blocking and 99% of the tackles are coming from head on from a guy who is clearly trying to tackle you. Also they've taken out any contact at all with a player who is prone trying to field a kick or catch a high pass.

If you take helmets and pads away from football, you have to change the rules so much it's basically a different sport.

Yes, but was Hernandez part of a gang by 17 in part due to brain trauma from injuries playing football growing up? I doubt it was the cause, but could it have been a contributing factor?

As for hockey, good call on that one. While I miss the line brawls and guys who would fight because it was their only skill, the game hasn't lost much with that part being scaled back significantly.

Does that mean we can finally have a pro Aussie Rules Football league here, because I would get season tickets.

Well, having tackle football for a bunch of 8 year olds playing without helmets is an even better way of ending youth football.

Do you have kids, BTW?

It sure as heck wasn't the fault of the NFL or the Patriots, but Bristol Pee-Wee football doesn't have deep pockets.

And yes, considering the multitude of ex-NFL players etc who have been diagnosed with CTE but managed to avoid murdering people, I'm quite willing to say it was other factors that predisposed Aaron Hernandez to his life choices.

(Though fwiw I actually believe the lawsuit was that the NFL & Patriots hid information or should have done more to tell Hernandez about the elevated risk of suicide for (potential) CTE sufferers. And thus deprived his daughter of $20 million worth of companionship from someone who was in jail for life.)