The Concussion Lawsuit

[Smeefers]

I'm actually kind of surprised there isn't a concussion lawsuit thread. There's two seperate posts about Levens and Chewy joining, but nothing where everything can really be discussed, so I figured I'd start one up.

:soap:

You know what really grinds my gears? This stupid lawsuit against the NFL for head injuries. These guys act surprised that getting tackled by Clay Mathews might be hazardous to their health. It's a contact sport, everyone's told from pee wee on up that the possibilities of injury or even death are very real. Participate at your own risk. This is bullshit. This is like suing the the boxing confederation because boxers get concussions. This is like suing baseball because you might have to live with life long pain from a torn rotator cuff or ACL. This like suing McDonalds because you ate there every day and got fat. This is stupid.

What happens if they win? Do you think the NFL will just pay em a bunch of money and things will go on as normal? Goodell has already seen the writing on the wall, why else would he be pumping so many fines for hard hits? What happens to the game if the NFL has to seriously attempt to limit concussions. What do they do? Get rid of helmets and pads? That's the only half way decent suggestion I've yet to hear and that thought is terrifying. Not to mention what happens to all this money these guys are making? Take away big hits and you're going to loose a lot of your audience. The NFL is not untouchable. It's not to big to fail. It's like these guys don't even recognize how god awful lucky they are to be able to play football for a living and get paid what they do. They've forgotten what a privilege it was/is to play and now are just grabbing for cash where ever they can.

What about High school sports? Do you really think there's going to be a district out there that will allow sports to continue if they can be sued for a student recieving a concussion? You're not just talking football there.

What I think will happen is that the NFL is going to set something up with the NFLPA to agree to pay for some hospital bills or something along those lines if the former players drop their suit.

[mraynrand]

I think eventually tackling will be banned. Flag football is the future. In the meantime, you have to equip helmets with crumple zones and extra padding:

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/GazooRodgers2.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

I think eventually tackling will be banned. Flag football is the future. In the meantime, you have to equip helmets with crumple zones and extra padding:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_T3kcfzwSN6A/SJk3heYVpKI/AAAAAAAABsU/CBcAq7EEEII/s200/gary-spivey.jpg




http://packerrats.com/member.php?130-mraynrandFixed.

[swede]

I have no idea what is up with that avatar picture. Sometimes I think it is James T Kirk from Star Trek episode #17, The Trouble with Tribble Toupees. Other times I think it might be a still from Mike McCarthy's audition for a Head and Shoulders Extra Foamy shampoo commercial with Troy Palamalu.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I have no idea what is up with that avatar picture. Sometimes I think it is James T Kirk from Star Trek episode #17, The Trouble with Tribble Toupees. Other times I think it might be a still from Mike McCarthy's audition for a Head and Shoulders Extra Foamy shampoo commercial with Troy Palamalu.

It's Gary Spivey, the world's greatest predator on weak people's brains... I mean psychic.

Anywho, my buddy had a great quote the other day about this. "Granted, that will only be 10 years from now but be prepared to tell your kids about how football once had tackling and excitement."

[Patler]

Football, hockey, LaCrosse, skiing, soccer, basketball, baseball, boxing. You mean I could bump my head and get hurt? Honest? Huh!

Well, I guess I could always go biking, rollerblading, motorcycle riding or skydiving instead.

[sharpe1027]

I understand that players get concussions and suffer for it, but what is it exactly that the players are claiming the NFL did wrong? Did they try to hide the truth about concussions from the players? Did they act negligently in treating players?

[red]

these guys get paid shit loads of money to put their bodies on the line for our amusement.
if gladiators were around today they would be suing too for all the limbs they lost

[Scott Campbell]

This story line is blowing up.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/schlichter-has-brain-damage/

[Kiwon]

I understand that players get concussions and suffer for it, but what is it exactly that the players are claiming the NFL did wrong? Did they try to hide the truth about concussions from the players? Did they act negligently in treating players?

Exactly.

Here is the original thread where we discussed the development of the concussion lawsuit - http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?23783-HOFer-Lem-Barney-wishes-he’d-never-played-football.

[MadtownPacker]

I can understand players from way back in the days when they didnt get shit for $$. These MFers now can save that buillshit because they are getting paid plenty for their suffering.

[mraynrand]

This story line is blowing up.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/schlichter-has-brain-damage/

I think Art Schlichter is going to have a tough time convincing anyone that his brain wasn't damaged prior to football

[Tony Oday]

Oml are you telling me that if you repeatedly get hit in the head at high speed its bad!? Next you will tell me smoking is bad and fatty foods could kill my heart.

[Joemailman]

Not sure exactly what the lawsuit alleges. Players do have the right to be told the truth. If they were suffering concussions but being told something else by the training staff, they may have a case. If they knew they were suffering concussions but chose to continue playing anyway, probably not.

[sharpe1027]

Not sure exactly what the lawsuit alleges. Players do have the right to be told the truth. If they were suffering concussions but being told something else by the training staff, they may have a case. If they knew they were suffering concussions but chose to continue playing anyway, probably not.

Does it really matter what the players knew or didn't know if the NFL didn't know either? If the NFL knew there were serious issues and hid it from the players, they've got a problem. On the other hand, if new research has come out after the fact and the NFL made changes in response to the new research, that's a very different story.

[channtheman]

I can understand players from way back in the days when they didnt get shit for $$. These MFers now can save that buillshit because they are getting paid plenty for their suffering.

This. The players of today are compensated very well for any risk to their health. If they don't like the risk, they can always take up kicking.

[pbmax]

I understand that players get concussions and suffer for it, but what is it exactly that the players are claiming the NFL did wrong? Did they try to hide the truth about concussions from the players? Did they act negligently in treating players?

Well, I bet there is a lot they did wrong or poorly, even if they ultimately bear no legal culpability.

For instance, having a rheumatologist as the co-chair of you committee on Mild Brain Traumatic Injury would be a start. Having no neuropathologists on the panel would be another. Ignoring and dismissing the claims of neuropathologists without further study on the specific issue would be a third. The reason a pathologist would be important is because the single largest medical issue facing NFL retirees is an early death.

Commissioning studies that showed that living NFL players suffered no more ill effects from head trauma than other high risk occupations would be another (it tends to omit the most affected former player group, the dead ones). That, plus there are serious questions about the studies in the first place.

Most concerning to me would be the head in the sand effect. It took one single determined Pathologist a year (working partly at home) to determine what had happened to Mike Webster outside of the heart attack that was the proximate cause of his death. This was the discovery of CTE in football players. Had the NFL (or the Players Association for that matter) taken the decreased life expectancy of NFL players seriously, such an investigation might have yielded results much sooner.

But probably of most concern to the players would be the coaches who taught techniques to use the head and the helmet as a weapon in the game. This, despite ample evidence that doing so caused trauma (getting your bell rung). This would also apply to any program the team used to encourage the players to maintain today's incredible weights. Weight gain probably helps explain both an increase in head trauma and worsening numbers in player life span.

Also, don't be fooled by columnists sudden love of the 20 year argument. That NFL players, who by some studies have current lifespans of 55 years, are losing 21 years of their life to football. Life span and life expectancy are two different measures. Both can be calculated with precision (ask your life insurance company about both your life expectancy and life span), but they are different measures. The smaller a subgroup you study, the more likely the span will vary from the expectancy.

[MadtownPacker]

Can they really prove the damage happened in the NFL years? How do we know it wasnt caused by peewee football hits when their brains where still developing?

[pbmax]

One other item about risk and compensation. The NFL and NFLPA jointly administer a disability fund, to pay out benefits to players who suffer from current disability. The more complete the disability and the more its cause can be traced to football, the larger the payment.

Mike Webster had to take the NFL/NFLPA to Federal Court to get a ruling that his head injuries were football related and that he was 100% disabled and therefore entitled to the full disability payment. How many other players are entitled to their disability yet have been denied by the disability board?

Everyone could see Jim Otto suffered from football when they watched him walk or bend over. When Mike Webster could not keep a job, gave away all his money or squirted Super Glue to patch his rotting teeth, the NFL/NFLPA thought he was only partially disabled.

Of course the players assumed the risk, but the NFL and the NFLPA were in no hurry to admit exactly what exactly that risk was. This was out of self interest and self protection of the business that was writing their paychecks.

If you passed a picture of Mike Webster in his final years around to high school football players, would the kids still play? Or would it be like looking at a diseased lung of a smoker?

[pbmax]

Can they really prove the damage happened in the NFL years? How do we know it wasnt caused by peewee football hits when their brains where still developing?

That will be defense strategy #2. First, they won't want to admit the damage is known to be football related. But if that issue gets by them, then issue of early age football will be brought up.

However, I think its a combination of technique and weight gain (both legal and not) that have produced the terrible results seen today, not simply the number of years or age.

[Pugger]

I understand that players get concussions and suffer for it, but what is it exactly that the players are claiming the NFL did wrong? Did they try to hide the truth about concussions from the players? Did they act negligently in treating players?

The only thing I can think of is not that long ago if you got your bell rung they gave you smelling salts and you went back in the game. Now if you get a concussion they take you out, hide your helmet and you can't play again until you past a series of tests. This also tells me they may have suspected the dangers of head trauma but maybe not how much damage it can cause and the league might be found negligent here.

[sharpe1027]

Well, I bet there is a lot they did wrong or poorly, even if they ultimately bear no legal culpability.

For instance, having a rheumatologist as the co-chair of you committee on Mild Brain Traumatic Injury would be a start. Having no neuropathologists on the panel would be another. Ignoring and dismissing the claims of neuropathologists without further study on the specific issue would be a third. The reason a pathologist would be important is because the single largest medical issue facing NFL retirees is an early death.

Commissioning studies that showed that living NFL players suffered no more ill effects from head trauma than other high risk occupations would be another (it tends to omit the most affected former player group, the dead ones). That, plus there are serious questions about the studies in the first place.

Most concerning to me would be the head in the sand effect. It took one single determined Pathologist a year (working partly at home) to determine what had happened to Mike Webster outside of the heart attack that was the proximate cause of his death. This was the discovery of CTE in football players. Had the NFL (or the Players Association for that matter) taken the decreased life expectancy of NFL players seriously, such an investigation might have yielded results much sooner.

But probably of most concern to the players would be the coaches who taught techniques to use the head and the helmet as a weapon in the game. This, despite ample evidence that doing so caused trauma (getting your bell rung). This would also apply to any program the team used to encourage the players to maintain today's incredible weights. Weight gain probably helps explain both an increase in head trauma and worsening numbers in player life span.

Also, don't be fooled by columnists sudden love of the 20 year argument. That NFL players, who by some studies have current lifespans of 55 years, are losing 21 years of their life to football. Life span and life expectancy are two different measures. Both can be calculated with precision (ask your life insurance company about both your life expectancy and life span), but they are different measures. The smaller a subgroup you study, the more likely the span will vary from the expectancy.

The lifespan/expectancy is not a winner in my mind. This is a classic, hey the buzz word of the day is concussions, we see an effect of lower lifespans the cause must be concussions. There could be a hundred different factors more relevant than concussions. I am not saying that concussions are not the cause, but you can't just jump to that conclusion without more. As an example that I made up, NFL football players could be selected from a group of individuals that are predisposed to shorter lifespans. Those individuals would have still had a shorter life span if the NFL did not exist.

Did they really require a neuropathologists to be on the committee? When the committee was formed, how many players were offering their brains for study after they died? Is there a reason that the committee could not review the findings of neuropathologists without one being on the committee?

I'm mostly playing devils advocate here, but what if the single determined Pathologist had found nothing linked to brain injuries? What if his single-patient study was wrong or not representative of players at large? It is one thing to deny the results of a study, which I'm not sure the NFL did. It is entirely another to require the NFL to actively fund medical research.

[pbmax]

The lifespan/expectancy is not a winner in my mind. This is a classic, hey the buzz word of the day is concussions, we see an effect of lower lifespans the cause must be concussions. There could be a hundred different factors more relevant than concussions. I am not saying that concussions are not the cause, but you can't just jump to that conclusion without more. As an example that I made up, NFL football players could be selected from a group of individuals that are predisposed to shorter lifespans. Those individuals would have still had a shorter life span if the NFL did not exist.

Did they really require a neuropathologists to be on the committee? When the committee was formed, how many players were offering their brains for study after they died? Is there a reason that the committee could not review the findings of neuropathologists without one being on the committee?

I'm mostly playing devils advocate here, but what if the single determined Pathologist had found nothing linked to brain injuries? What if his single-patient study was wrong or not representative of players at large? It is one thing to deny the results of a study, which I'm not sure the NFL did. It is entirely another to require the NFL to actively fund medical research.

In reverse order, the NFL was already investing in medical research, but it was medical research predisposed to finding out that concussions weren't a contributor in the medical problems players were having. The disability plan and lifetime benefits meant the NFL and NFLPA had actual hard data on player's health and then spent money to investigate. But the initial investment was to support the denials of the disability board for claims related to closed head trauma. Once it became clear there was going to be a link to playing football, the NFL reversed course to the one you see today. Had they spent the same money to determine what was actually happening to retired players, their argument would be stronger about their concern for player safety. Legally, I would also think they would be in a better position to resist the lawsuits. But the short term focus on disability claims will probably cost them a lot more than the medical funding did.

I could be wrong, but if the numbers on player lifetimes is in any way representative (let's say their life span appears to be 7 years shorter than comparable people in other high risk careers), then knowing how and why they die would seem vital to any viable safety program. There are also trickle down effects. A coach I know pointed out that it was not until the NFL confronted hydration publicly by advocating continuous access to water and other steps for practicing players that the old saw about withholding water during practice finally fell completely out of favor with high school coaches. My high school coach was downright progressive, one water break during each 2 hour two-a-day practice with a 3 oz Dixie cup. And we got to fill it multiple times.

When Webster's pathologist published his findings, the NFL Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee wrote a letter to the same journal. In it, they requested the article be retracted because they disagreed with it, thought it represented a complete misunderstanding of the issue and had serious flaws. 3 members of the committee signed it, each was being paid by the NFL. The journal not only didn't retract it, but they published the pathologist's next article on another Steelers' brain, belonging to Terry Long. Same findings.

[sharpe1027]

In reverse order, the NFL was already investing in medical research, but it was medical research predisposed to finding out that concussions weren't a contributor in the medical problems players were having. The disability plan and lifetime benefits meant the NFL and NFLPA had actual hard data on player's health and then spent money to investigate. But the initial investment was to support the denials of the disability board for claims related to closed head trauma. Once it became clear there was going to be a link to playing football, the NFL reversed course to the one you see today. Had they spent the same money to determine what was actually happening to retired players, their argument would be stronger about their concern for player safety. Legally, I would also think they would be in a better position to resist the lawsuits. But the short term focus on disability claims will probably cost them a lot more than the medical funding did.

Interesting. Why do you say that their the research was predisposed to a particular outcome? What do you mean be reversed course?


I could be wrong, but if the numbers on player lifetimes is in any way representative (let's say their life span appears to be 7 years shorter than comparable people in other high risk careers), then knowing how and why they die would seem vital to any viable safety program.

No doubt that it would. That's not really what I was getting at. As far as I know, it still has not been shown that the root cause of the different in life span is primarily due to brain injuries.


When Webster's pathologist published his findings, the NFL Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee wrote a letter to the same journal. In it, they requested the article be retracted because they disagreed with it, thought it represented a complete misunderstanding of the issue and had serious flaws. 3 members of the committee signed it, each was being paid by the NFL. The journal not only didn't retract it, but they published the pathologist's next article on another Steelers' brain, belonging to Terry Long. Same findings.

Publishing an article does not make it correct. Indeed, a main purpose of publishing scientific articles is to allow for peer review.

I'm not saying the NFL is right, but the players need to prove their case first.

[Kiwon]

Publishing an article does not make it correct. Indeed, a main purpose of publishing scientific articles is to allow for peer review.

I'm not saying the NFL is right, but the players need to prove their case first.

I think this is the key point. Instead of over-reacting to the latest emotional tide and changing the game, the facts need to be established.

However, if the reporting on Junior Seau's suicide was any measure, I have my doubts that cooler heads will prevail.

[NewsBruin]

The only thing I can think of is not that long ago if you got your bell rung they gave you smelling salts and you went back in the game. Now if you get a concussion they take you out, hide your helmet and you can't play again until you past a series of tests.

Unless you're Browns QB Colt McCoy or Eagles linebacker Stewart Bradley. BTW, no league discipline on either team (to my knowledge).

I don't think this is a "they always knew the risks" issue. Hell, I thought it was cute when Bert snuck in and threw a touchdown pass on 4th down before anyone had a chance to corrall him. There's been a lot of advancement, and I don't think that someone collecting 6-8 figures makes up for a lifetime of degenerative mental illness.

That said, I'm only adding heat and little light, so I'll pipe down. The lawsuits should focus on "What did the league (and union) know, when did they know it, and what did they do once they knew?"

[pbmax]

Interesting. Why do you say that their the research was predisposed to a particular outcome?

Because the research (the part that I am aware of), by focusing on living players available to complete a questionnaire, avoided a central part of the problem; why are players dying younger? In fact, there is no report I am aware of that the NFL or NFLPA has ever undertaken any effort or study to either confirm or call into question the finding that NFL players has significantly lower life spans than their peers. I recall that the NFLPA made a public show of it participation in a longitudinal study similar to the kinds that are done with nurses about long term health. But it was not designed to specifically look at this issue. And results in these studies take years to develop and this was relatively recent.


What do you mean be reversed course?

The NFL is not simply funding research now. Its altering the game to prevent concussions for safety reasons. I doubt Roger Goodell would admit that the accumulation of Tau proteins is the thing they are trying to avoid (that is the signature damage found in the players brains), but even Roger would agree that they need to do more to protect the brains. Going from an in house group of Doctors and trainers finding that mild trauma is not a problem in football to altering the rules of the game to prevent it is reversing course. If that is not 180 enough, there are now League mandates about the steps to take to return players to the game once a concussion is diagnosed.


No doubt that it would. That's not really what I was getting at. As far as I know, it still has not been shown that the root cause of the different in life span is primarily due to brain injuries.

Part of the League's defense will be that they took all reasonable steps. Legally, that contention might carry weight depending on the standard invoked. But logically, their heads were buried in the sand. Concussions or not, they did not want to know why players lives were shorter.


Publishing an article does not make it correct. Indeed, a main purpose of publishing scientific articles is to allow for peer review.

Of course. But the NFL did not act to review, challenge, duplicate or disprove the results in the article. They wanted it retracted. Peer review cannot happen for a retracted article. A retraction would be an admission that the article did not meet an acceptable standard for research and publication. The journal decided it did and published further, similar work.

At about the same time, the NFL it pulled its cooperation for accelerometer tests of its own to test the results researchers were getting elsewhere for collisions on the practice fields.


I'm not saying the NFL is right, but the players need to prove their case first.

Well, I think this depends on their claim and the standard. But remember that the Tau proteins found in players brains (some as young as 30) is the same as damage found in patients with acute Alzheimers. And they will have decades of data on healthy brains and over 200 brains of athletes playing contact sports.

The connection to early deaths might be too big a jump, but as a claim of disability, I think they are already there. What remains is a question about damages.

Also remember that the NFL has lost two cases about this already. One was Websters' disability claim. The other was Merrill Hoge's lawsuit back in the 90s. In that lawsuit, he maintained that the NFL did not follow good medical practices in allowing him to continue to play after he was diagnosed with concussions. The League fought him and lost. Many of the practices Hoge's lawsuit insisted should be in play are very similar to rules Goodell has put into place in the last two years. That is a (roughly) 15 year gap.

[sharpe1027]

Because the research (the part that I am aware of), by focusing on living players available to complete a questionnaire, avoided a central part of the problem; why are players dying younger? In fact, there is no report I am aware of that the NFL or NFLPA has ever undertaken any effort or study to either confirm or call into question the finding that NFL players has significantly lower life spans than their peers. I recall that the NFLPA made a public show of it participation in a longitudinal study similar to the kinds that are done with nurses about long term health. But it was not designed to specifically look at this issue. And results in these studies take years to develop and this was relatively recent.

This is interesting, because it brings up a pretty important point. What was this particular study aimed toward? Now that there is a lawsuit on issue A, we can argue that in hindsight the NFL's research did not address issue A. That being said, what if the NFL had a specifically tailored study toward issue A and the there was a lawsuit on issue B? Same result. The point I am trying to make is where does this affirmative duty to perform (open-ended?) research begin and end? How many different possible contributing factors might there still be for the lifespan issue? Will there be a follow-on lawsuit for each of them because the NFL hasn't performed enough studies? What if the long term studies end up showing that the concussions are not strongly linked to lifespan, but lifespan is instead more strongly related to training and diet techniques?


Also remember that the NFL has lost two cases about this already. One was Websters' disability claim. The other was Merrill Hoge's lawsuit back in the 90s. In that lawsuit, he maintained that the NFL did not follow good medical practices in allowing him to continue to play after he was diagnosed with concussions. The League fought him and lost. Many of the practices Hoge's lawsuit insisted should be in play are very similar to rules Goodell has put into place in the last two years. That is a (roughly) 15 year gap.

This comes mainly down to an issue of timing. When did the NFL know enough that it should have acted, relative to when it actually acted? I don't know the answer.


But the NFL did not act to review, challenge, duplicate or disprove the results in the article. They wanted it retracted. Peer review cannot happen for a retracted article. A retraction would be an admission that the article did not meet an acceptable standard for research and publication. The journal decided it did and published further, similar work.

The fact that the NFL asked for a retraction would suggest that they identified specific aspects of the article that they thought were wrong. Unless the NFL just sent a generic letter saying "retract please." I would be surprised if the NFL did not challenge the results, but I have no facts to go on so I could easily be wrong.

[pbmax]

I don't think as a rule an employer has to spend money chasing down every loose thread that might unravel and affect employees lives. But they were clearly interested/worried about the issue and spent money and time to examine it and publicize their concern. If they choose to do this, then they should be expected to do so in a competent manner, not narrow it to render it inconsequential. To do so may not entitle someone to an award of damages, but it puts the lie to where your interests rest.

As for issue A, lawsuit basis B, the notes of the task force would give you their rationale for choosing to study what they did, their budget and time constraints. If logical and consistent, there shouldn't be an basis for complaint. But as I recall, the panel was in response to increased disability claims over closed head trauma and public concern over the same. If their charge was head injuries and they did not consider long term effects (which would seem to naturally include cause of death), then they seem to not have studied A and missed B, but they seemed to have missed the point of A entirely, the worst case. In retrospect and without knowing their reasoning, it looks like they picked a time frame to study in their players life that was most amenable to the League's best outcome.

I have a lot of doubt that the League knew much more than players and teams about concussions before Hoge's lawsuit. After that, its hard to argue they shouldn't have known. Prior to that is a tough call. Getting your bell rung even back in my day was clearly more serious than anyone was willing to admit. But without a dramatic symptom, options were limited. Should they have known more earlier? Probably, but there were a lot of holes in the entire system.

One thing I will never understand is why players do not insist on independent medical reviews of their health. the team doctor is a tremendous advantage to the players, but his interests do not always align with the theirs.

Somewhere is the name of the Journal and date, I will find it and maybe we can read the letter.

[sharpe1027]

I think it goes beyond knowing that concussions are bad. Nobody is arguing they are a good thing. I think a more relevant issue is what, if any, reasonable steps were known to help alleviate the problems. It is one thing to have a list of possible solutions brought up by a plaintiff in the context of a lawsuit trying to get money from the NFL. It is another to establish that any of the solutions have been shown to provide a meaningful benefit.

To continue in my role as devil's advocate, but I doubt the player's research and accusations are not also the result of at least some self-serving analysis.

Another concern I have is that you seem to be advocating for a policy that raises the standard for someone that actually takes affirmative action to help. This would mean that the NFL would be better off never doing another study. I can't get behind that type of policy.

[Guiness]

As usual pbmax, you've got it about right. I got a little turned around when you said to insert Tab A into Slot B, but I think I've got it.

My gut feel, and I think what the findings will be, is that the league purposely turned a blind eye to where they knew there was a problem. I doubt very much that anyone would claim due diligence was done by the league looking into the problem. They took advantage of the player's machismo, the ingrained pride in 'playing hurt' that was so much part of the league.

I wonder how it all adds up. I, like pbmax, ND72 and a couple of others around here, have been carried off the field/ice/hill a few times. Was taught to bring down an RB by putting my helmet between his knees. Landed in the hospital once because I was keeping the headaches to a dull roar with Tylenol 3's. That was all before my 20th, and until recently hadn't thought about it much at all.

[pbmax]

Never had one that bad. Basically buzzing and fuzzy thinking or underwater sensation. Might have sat out a few plays. Not real common for me. However, in retrospect, the most amazing thing is the different reaction to different injuries. I was once playing an O lineman on the scout team and got an inadvertent punch in on our starting Guard. He nearly collapsed losing his lunch.

Later in the drill, he got me back. Same punch, forearm shiver to the breadbasket. Makes you not want to continue to practice and everyone understands.

But getting a shot to the head? Makes you angry that you can't think clearly and stubborn as a mule. Its embarrassing for some reason. Almost the complete reverse. Don't play on the bum ankle until you can walk it off. But head injury? I am fine dammit!

[pbmax]

Another salvo, this one from OSHA, which is apparently called NIOSH now. Players live longer than rest of male pop.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/18992637/government-study-nfl-players-living-longer-than-general-population

[sharpe1027]

Interesting find pbmax.

My concern is the tendency to take a 20/20 hindsight view of these matters. If, as some have suggested, the NFL knew enough beforehand and still didn't act then they should be held accountable. That being said, the foremost experts don't understand some of even the most basic aspects of the human brain. The type of stuff Guiness refers to certain happened, but not necessarily with all the knowledge of the potential consequences, which more is being learned about as we speak.

I am not saying the NFL is blameless, but we should be cautious against assuming individual NFL executives, coaches and trainers were negligently or intentionally exposing players to risks, whether they existed or not. This is especially true for risks that are only now being found out.

[pbmax]

Well, I think Hoge's lawsuit was a bit of a watershed moment. There is always a disconnect between what the trainer says you can do and what the doctor would prefer you to do. And depending on the Doc, the trainer might have more experience in rehab, though the Doctor knows more about the underlying issues.

Hoge's lawsuit exposed the fact that the League, both its Doctors and trainers, were completely out of date with its treatment of concussions according to the best practices of the time (90s). As I said earlier, I suspect it is a human failing to not have treated players with concussions better before this lawsuit. But it was a systemic failure not to improve the treatment after losing the Hoge case. Hoge was prattling on about baselines and recovery times long before Goodell enacted them.

The fear now is that the Hoge knowledge will become the new finish line. As you say, a lot is still unknown. I would hope the League and players spend some significant money researching those unknowns.

[sharpe1027]

That makes a lot of sense. I just hesitate to make assumptions based upon technical details when I have so little knowledge and understanding beyond broad generalizations. This is especially true when there is a clear financial motive on each side. You can find an expert to say just about anything if you pay enough so I don't know enough about the strength of Hoge's contentions.

[Pugger]

Another salvo, this one from OSHA, which is apparently called NIOSH now. Players live longer than rest of male pop.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/18992637/government-study-nfl-players-living-longer-than-general-population

It would be interesting if this study included retirees from other sports. Could it be these guys are living longer because they are athletes and in better physical condition than the general population?

[Deputy Nutz]

A couple of things need to be done to clean up concussions in the NFL but the bottom line is that they are unavoidable. Concussions have been around for ever, but the way we preceive them has drastically changed since I was playing high school footbal 15 years ago. If you missed practice on Monday and Tuesday because you got a concussion on Friday night, you were considered soft, or weak. It was rare that players missed more than a day or two of practice after getting a concussion.

I got a concussion my Sophomore year during a JV game on Thursday and then suited up Friday night and played during the varsity game. I was diagnosed with a concussion from an actual doctor. Why my parents allowed it to happen is beyond me, probably because I felt fine the next day, went to class, went to walk throughs and supposedly I felt fine. They allowed it to happen because concussion in the 1990s were still considered a minor injury in the world of athletics.

So those of you that are cutting on the players for the lawsuit don't have a real understanding of the way concussions were perceived in the past. Doctors, trainers, and coaches didn't put any concern into concussions, the only time head injuries were considered serious was when someone got knocked out.

Now that there is proof of the long term effects of concussion, teams and the NFL are taking it into account. It doesn't just start in the NFL, college football needs to change, high school football needs to change.

1. Coaches need to demand technique and proper tackling at all levels. kids stop practicing the fundamentals of tackling in college, and with the lack of padded practices in the NFL it is a wonder if they ever practice and teach the fundamentals of tackling. Because it isn't just the hits that cause concussions, it is the constant hits that rattles the brain over and over again. It is going to be unavoidable, but once proper tackling is committed to muscle memory, there will be a lot less tackles that are caused by leading with the helmet.

2. The NFL needs to enforce the players to use the equipment the way it is supposed to be used. Helmets need to be fit properly, and players need to use their chin straps appropriately, no more cloth chin straps like the one Rodgers wears and the one that Favre wore. Double and triple snaps them, no more single snaps. The NFL needs to also enforce the use of the latest and safest equipment.

3. College football needs to change. Student athletes need to be student athletes and should meet the same requirement of entrance to a university as the regular student population. Crazy idea, but what this will do is make the sport less athletic, less speed, and less size means less head injuries.

4. Astro turf is mostly gone, but if most fields are going synthetic then they need to come up with surface that offers more cushion to soften the whiplash effect when players heads bang off the turf.

[pbmax]

1. Coaches need to demand technique and proper tackling at all levels. kids stop practicing the fundamentals of tackling in college, and with the lack of padded practices in the NFL it is a wonder if they ever practice and teach the fundamentals of tackling. Because it isn't just the hits that cause concussions, it is the constant hits that rattles the brain over and over again. It is going to be unavoidable, but once proper tackling is committed to muscle memory, there will be a lot less tackles that are caused by leading with the helmet.


A plus 1 to item 1.

Also, don't believe the hype about concussion preventing mouthguards. There are a half dozen reasons why wearing a mouth guard is important, but concussion prevention is still a largely unproven claim. Those guards do absorb force, but the force is also transferred elsewhere in your head. Whether that is a good thing or not is still a matter of debate.'

Basically, avoidance is still better than trusting equipment to prevent it. And stop tackling with your head. Don't be Chuck Cecil.

High Schools should reverse the rules on outlawing the A-11 offense. Increasing spacing on the LOS might help alot on the repeated hits for lineman. The NFL should commit some ex NFL DCs to help develop defenses to counter it, which is why it was banned in the first place.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/nfl/story/2012/05/10/sp-nfl-concussion-lawsuit-art-monk.html

More than 60 former NFLers file concussion lawsuit in L.A.

Joining 100's of others.

The Associated Press

Posted: May 10, 2012 10:02 PM ET

Last Updated: May 10, 2012 10:01 PM ET

"More than 1,000 former NFL players are suing the league across the country, saying not enough was done to inform players about the dangers of concussions in the past, and not enough is done to take care of them today.

The league has said any allegation that the league intentionally sought to mislead players is without merit." fr. LINK

[pbmax]

Congressional Hearing: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/sports/football/29hearing.html?_r=2&scp=5&sq=concussions%20judiciary%20committee%20october%2 02009&st=cse

New Committee: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/sports/17concussions.html

The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee was formed in 1994. I had forgotten it was around that long. If anyone remembers the impetus for its formation, please post it.

More germane to the topic is the role of two members who were both ousted after NFL testimony to Congress in 2009. That was the hearing that started everything you have read since about rules changes and lawsuits. Less than a year after that testimony, the Committee had two new chairman and a new name: Head, Neck and Spine Medical Panel. None of the Doctors on the Committee were present to testify, despite an apparent invitation.

Of particular interest is the once co-Chairman of the committee was Dr. Elliot Pellman. Pellman is/was a Jets' team doctor (one of the criticisms of the panel was that it was run by those on NFL payrolls). Two of Pellman's most prominent patients were Al Toon and Wayne Chrebet. Each suffered from serious post-concussion effects that ended their careers. Outside of the signature on his paycheck, Pellman was controversial because as "primary author of many of the league’s 13 papers published in the journal Neurosurgery from 2003 to 2006 that made statements or recommended policies at odds with outside research findings and medical opinion." (the New Committee article)

The second person ousted after the hearing (there were a total of three who left and the new committee heads were given the authority to change the rest of the membership) was Dr. Ira Casson. Casson took heat at the meeting for his role in a study of retired players that was criticized by outside experts as improperly designed. He also denied that any definitive link had been established between concussions suffered in football and the damage and dementia that had been discovered by Pathologists starting in 2002.

[pbmax]

Pellman and the Jets, specifically Chrebet and Coles: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/sports/football/22concussions.html?scp=2&sq=al%20toon%20wayne%20chrebet%20post%20concussion %20syndrome&st=cse

One of the articles Pellman wrote maintained that a player who had been knocked unconscious during a game could be safely reinserted into the same game. This practice was banned by Goodell in 2007. Gene Upshaw makes an appearance too, when its recalled he resisted the idea that concussions while playing can affect a player later in life.

[pbmax]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-07-22/sports/0007220191_1_hoge-concussions-brain-damage

Hoge's lawsuit, a summary of its conclusion anyway. It might have been appealed, don't have those details.

The proximate cause of his lawsuit was a concussion suffered in Aug of 1994. He had another in October of the same year and retired after that. He maintained that had he been properly advised of his condition and the symptoms of its after effects, he might have taken a longer period to recover and been able to resume playing.

Is it anti-ironic that Hoge's suit was actually predicated on how to recover better so one could play longer? It also helps elucidate why Hoge disputes the notion of long term damage if the initial injury is treated properly.

Now what I need is a date for the formation and of Committee.

[pbmax]

Forgot this one. One of the studies the Committee did on concussions effects overlooked a few data points, such as actual player neuropsychological exams. The ESPN Magazine piece also points to a rash of concussions suffered by Troy Aikman and Steve Young, among others, as the impetus for the committee to be formed. The article also touches on the possible sources of error when the NFL studies, showing both no long term effects and no heightened risk of reinjury, contradicted other studies. The NFL studies focused on recently active players and there could be other variables such as age, equipment and medical care.

Committee changes: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2844041

Doctor Yes, Elliot Pellman: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2636795


An October story in ESPN The Magazine detailed how committee researchers didn't include hundreds of neuropsychological tests conducted on NFL players when studying the effects of concussions on the results of such tests. In response, the committee has gone back to team doctors and consultants whose data was not included and asked them for test results.

This effort, however, has not borne fruit. The committee has not received new data, according to one of its members.

"I didn't send anything back," said one former team consultant. "Why now? It's ridiculous. I talked about it with colleagues of mine who are in the same situation, and we were like, 'Now they're trying to acquire the data -- after they've published [their findings].'"

[pbmax]

Hoge's initial verdict was overturned (quite possibly on evidence ruled inadmissible during the trial that he received an insurance payout and an injury settlement). Hoge's suit was a malpractice case against the Bear's team doctor. Still not sure of final disposition or if the verdict or award damage was the subject of the reversal.

Dr. Pellman is a rheumatologist who attended medical school in Guadalajara, Mexico. He had lied about having a medical degree from SUNY Stone Brook. Pellman would seem to be a prime candidate to feel beholden to the team and the League for his lofty position. He was co-chair, Casson held the other chair, but he was member the NFL referred inquiries to. One more example of why the NFLPA should have every player checked out independently by unaffiliated Doctors.

One colleague recounted Pellman's own words about his approach (dates of quotes very unclear):
when he started out, he often professed ignorance about the subject in question. "I would hear him say things in speeches like, 'I don't know much about concussions, I learn from my players,' and, 'We as a field don't know much about concussions,' and it used to bother me," says one doctor. "We knew what to do about concussions, but he was acting like it was new ground."

[pbmax]

To Pellman's credit, he was advised by someone (no mention of whom) to get Al Toon to a Neuropsychologist for testing. From this point on, Pellman appears to have used the same resource to do testing and base-lining. However, this was the very same data that was selectively used in Pellman's study on the cumulative effects of suffering concussions on active players.

Pellman and his Jets' neuropsychologist consultant Barr later had a falling out over Barr's participation and comments about the NCAA concussion study. The NCAA study had helped determine that baseline tests were best to perform 7 - 10 days after injury (meaning a player diagnosed with a concussion would be out a minimum of a week). Pellman took this as an attack on the NFL's methods and Barr claimed that Pellman asked him to clear any further public comments on concussions with Pellman. When Barr refused, Pellman ended the consultancy. Pellman denies this conversation took place.

[hoosier]

Dr. Pellman is a rheumatologist who attended medical school in Guadalajara, Mexico. He had lied about having a medical degree from SUNY Stone Brook. Pellman would seem to be a prime candidate to feel beholden to the team and the League for his lofty position.

Details, details....:-)

[sharpe1027]

Dr. Pellman is a rheumatologist who attended medical school in Guadalajara, Mexico. He had lied about having a medical degree from SUNY Stone Brook.

But everyone's doing it, just ask Scott Thompson, the former Yahoo CEO.

[pbmax]

But everyone's doing it, just ask Scott Thompson, the former Yahoo CEO.

I understand wanting to have a more impressive resume when you are younger, so I understand if you are 23. But at some point you have to come clean.

Which reminds me, I need to update my resume. :lol:

[Cheesehead Craig]

All these legal updates make my head hurt.

You gave me a concussion pb, I'm gonna sue!

[Joemailman]

All these legal updates make my head hurt.

You gave me a concussion pb, I'm gonna sue!

On what grounds? Just by reading the thread title, you should have known what you were in for.

[pbmax]

All these legal updates make my head hurt.

You gave me a concussion pb, I'm gonna sue!

Mine hurts too, actually. But its a fascinating question. PR experts love to quote form former political spokespersons that to get in front of a scandal, you need to come clean and disclose the truth so that future revelations lose the power to shock and you can talk about other things (of course, few people actually practice this). I would like to know what risk experts think the proper course would be for an industry facing a potentially large, expensive, but very clouded and entangled health issue.

My guess is that the NFL listened to lawyers and practiced CYA, at least in the area of investigations.

[MadtownPacker]

All these legal updates make my head hurt.

You gave me a concussion pb, I'm gonna sue!
This will fix your headache.

http://www.common-sense-politics.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gun-control-45ACP.jpg

[woodbuck27]

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/7946834/former-new-england-patriot-ted-johnson-calls-death-junior-seau-tip-tipping-point

Ex-Patriots LB Ted Johnson speaks...Re: Concussions (and his decision to retire).

Updated: May 18, 2012, 7:15 PM ET

[woodbuck27]

http://espnmilwaukee.com/corp/page/05%2F03%2F12_Levens%3A_%27It%27s_got_to_change%27/634?feed=2

Dorsey Levens: 'It's got to change'

By JASON WILDE
jwilde@espnwisconsin.com

Comment woodbuck27: This story brought the issue of football and concussions to a new focus and attention for me.

“So I’m talking to the doctor, and he says, ‘Every time you get your bell rung, or you get dinged, that’s an actual concussion.’ That’s when I had a mini-panic attack. I’m like, ‘That can’t be right.’ I’m telling this to a doctor who’s a leading expert in this. Because it happens way too often – to everybody,” Levens said.

“For me in a game with the Packers, that happened two, three, four times a game. Or in training camp, when I got drafted by the Packers, I got drafted as a fullback, so during two-a-days, that happened four or five times a practice, so we’re talking eight to 10 times a day....." Fr. Story

[Kiwon]

Update... Plaintiffs are up to near 4,000. I'm telling you, the game will be changing in the years to come.

Someone uncovered a smoking gun? Of course, the report is a bit biased but the substance provides more ammo for the players.
.................................................. ...

"According to documents obtained in a joint investigation by PBS' "FRONTLINE" program and ESPN's "Outside the Lines," the National Football League's retirement board awarded at least $2 million in disability payments to at least three former players after reaching the conclusion that football was the cause of their brain injuries."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/report-nfl-retirement-board-paid-2-million-ex-163614698--nfl.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/nfl-board-paid-2m-to-players-while-league-denied-football-concussion-link/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

[Kiwon]

Another update:"About 4,200 of the league's 12,000 former players have joined the litigation."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9151540/court-hears-arguments-nfl-concussions