Concussion Expert Says Letting Kids Play Football Should Be Considered Child Abuse

[bnw]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/08/08/concussion-expert-football-child-abuse-cte-nfl/

 

[SteezyEndo]

This is seriously going to stir up some controversy now. He does make a point...

I don't have kids, yet. However; what I know now about the sport of football, and concussions I would think about it twice.

 

[FaulkSF]

View: https://youtu.be/vlv6BrrxD_4

 

[Mackeyser]

When 110 of 111 NFL players studied had CTE, that's beyond significant.

Moreover, the more we learn about CTE, the more we learn that it's not always the major concussions that cause CTE, but more often it's the sub-concussive impacts that still cause minor capillary brain bleeds.

More than anything else, the science is coming in that for players that play, they're going to have those sub-concussive impacts and almost guarantee themselves a level of CTE.

And yes, there are a significant percentage of just former HS players who have CTE (greater than 40% iirc, I can't find the study atm), let alone former college players.

I think it's safe to say that it won't be long before Pop Warner and youth football goes away. Why? Insurance. At some point, medical science will be able to scan for the remnants of minor brain bleeds and when they do, any kid who gets scanned and has even the slightest trace won't be insurable. My eldest son who's high-functioning autistic survived a very serious car accident when he was 8.5 months old and was left with a lesion in his brain. Even though the lesion is the size of a pinpoint, he was still uninsurable for contact sports like soccer and football.

As tends to be the case, it won't be social awareness, but some systemic factor, in this case insurance, that will force the changes.

As to whether playing one's child in youth/HS football is child abuse, that's tough. I disagree that "kids will get hurt" as an inevitability. Not every kid does. That said, especially as the science improves, a legal case can be made that putting a child into a situation which statistically almost guarantees injury... well, that might be abuse.

I think Dr Omalu is right about that. Now, we can debate the appropriateness of that in light of a sanctioned league (meaning that how can a parent be prosecuted for putting their kids in an activity that it licensed through a municipality or state?), but the activity itself is inherently dangerous.

Again, it may be systemic. It may be a DA who makes clear his/her intentions and a city or cities that refuse to sanction youth football because of the...insurance. The liability of being sued by the family of an injured child.

I won't get into the legal arguments as others are better situated to do that and I don't want to make it political. I'm a systems guy and very often, things change because of systemic change, not because of social political, legal or moral pressures.

In the end, we may be seeing the end of youth football. I dunno that parents will be prosecuted for child abuse, but the liability may simply end it.

 

[OldSchool]

If the 111 came from random players it would be a better study. When you stack the deck by taking people who worry about having an issue but not random people who don't think there's an issue that's an issue. I'm not saying there isn't an issue but this study was stacking the deck.

 

[fearsomefour]

Then the expert takes his kid in his vehicle....will let him ride a bike....let him ride a dirt bike.....eat fatty food....ect.....a very dumb point of view.

 

[shovelpass]

Then the expert takes his kid in his vehicle....will let him ride a bike....let him ride a dirt bike.....eat fatty food....ect.....a very dumb point of view.

Though I don't agree with calling it "child abuse", I certainly don't think playing football is the same as the things you listed. They're not even close, for a number of reasons.

 

[fearsomefour]

Though I don't agree with calling it "child abuse", I certainly don't think playing football is the same as the things you listed. They're not even close, for a number of reasons.

Agreed they are not the same.
Something like riding a dirt bike is profoundly more dangerous in terms of serious injury rates. Riding in vehicles, in terms of death and serious, life changing injuries, is much more dangerous.
Is football dangerous? Yes.
Comparing children and how they play to how athletically, very fast very large adults play is silly. There is a lot to learn certainly.
Big jumps taking place with folks this guy, well extended or not.

 

[shovelpass]

Agreed they are not the same.
Something like riding a dirt bike is profoundly more dangerous in terms of serious injury rates. Riding in vehicles, in terms of death and serious, life changing injuries, is much more dangerous.
Is football dangerous? Yes.
Comparing children and how they play to how athletically, very fast very large adults play is silly. There is a lot to learn certainly.
Big jumps taking place with folks this guy, well extended or not.

Dirtbikes, sure that's a hobby that a percentage of the population partakes in. Vehicles on the other hand are much different. Yes they are infinitely more dangerous, part of that is the because of the volume of drivers, but unfortunately driving is a necessity for millions of americans. People drive because they have too, people play football for fun. Things like riding bikes, or in vehicles can be dangerous when an accident happens, football injuries are basically an accepted part of the game.

 

[fearsomefour]

Dirtbikes, sure that's a hobby that a percentage of the population partakes in. Vehicles on the other hand are much different. Yes they are infinitely more dangerous, part of that is the because of the volume of drivers, but unfortunately driving is a necessity for millions of americans. People drive because they have too, people play football for fun. Things like riding bikes, or in vehicles can be dangerous when an accident happens, football injuries are basically an accepted part of the game.

Of course.
What is concerning is serious injuries.
I have seen very few serious injuries in youth football. I have seen tons with dirt bikes and even BMX biking. All sorts of studies and stats regarding mortality and those sorts of activities.
Eliminating things that don't have to be done because of injury risk is sort of a slippery slope. To each their own of course. But accepted risk is a part of life. Each person/family should be left to make own decisions in that regard.
Of course, safety should be at the forefront with football as with other things.

 

[bnw]

When 110 of 111 NFL players studied had CTE, that's beyond significant.

Moreover, the more we learn about CTE, the more we learn that it's not always the major concussions that cause CTE, but more often it's the sub-concussive impacts that still cause minor capillary brain bleeds.

More than anything else, the science is coming in that for players that play, they're going to have those sub-concussive impacts and almost guarantee themselves a level of CTE.

And yes, there are a significant percentage of just former HS players who have CTE (greater than 40% iirc, I can't find the study atm), let alone former college players.

I think it's safe to say that it won't be long before Pop Warner and youth football goes away. Why? Insurance. At some point, medical science will be able to scan for the remnants of minor brain bleeds and when they do, any kid who gets scanned and has even the slightest trace won't be insurable. My eldest son who's high-functioning autistic survived a very serious car accident when he was 8.5 months old and was left with a lesion in his brain. Even though the lesion is the size of a pinpoint, he was still uninsurable for contact sports like soccer and football.

As tends to be the case, it won't be social awareness, but some systemic factor, in this case insurance, that will force the changes.

As to whether playing one's child in youth/HS football is child abuse, that's tough. I disagree that "kids will get hurt" as an inevitability. Not every kid does. That said, especially as the science improves, a legal case can be made that putting a child into a situation which statistically almost guarantees injury... well, that might be abuse.

I think Dr Omalu is right about that. Now, we can debate the appropriateness of that in light of a sanctioned league (meaning that how can a parent be prosecuted for putting their kids in an activity that it licensed through a municipality or state?), but the activity itself is inherently dangerous.

Again, it may be systemic. It may be a DA who makes clear his/her intentions and a city or cities that refuse to sanction youth football because of the...insurance. The liability of being sued by the family of an injured child.

I won't get into the legal arguments as others are better situated to do that and I don't want to make it political. I'm a systems guy and very often, things change because of systemic change, not because of social political, legal or moral pressures.

In the end, we may be seeing the end of youth football. I dunno that parents will be prosecuted for child abuse, but the liability may simply end it.

No question about it the insurance will be the end of it.

 

[bnw]

Then the expert takes his kid in his vehicle....will let him ride a bike....let him ride a dirt bike.....eat fatty food....ect.....a very dumb point of view.

Well if the expert expects his kid to repeatedly ride his bike into a wall it would be an appropriate comparison.

 

[fearsomefour]

Well if the expert expects his kid to repeatedly ride his bike into a wall it would be an appropriate comparison.

Missing the point.

 

[bnw]

Of course.
What is concerning is serious injuries.
I have seen very few serious injuries in youth football. I have seen tons with dirt bikes and even BMX biking. All sorts of studies and stats regarding mortality and those sorts of activities.
Eliminating things that don't have to be done because of injury risk is sort of a slippery slope. To each their own of course. But accepted risk is a part of life. Each person/family should be left to make own decisions in that regard.
Of course, safety should be at the forefront with football as with other things.

The issue with youth football is the cumulative damage over time to the brain. Dislocations and broken bones heal while brain damage gets worse over time.

 

[Selassie I]

Football will be played long after we are all dead and buried... and it will continue to be played even longer after that.

Infinity squared to be exact.

 

[bnw]

Football will be played long after we are all dead and buried... and it will continue to be played even longer after that.

Infinity squared to be exact.

Sure......but will we recognize it? Future Football will probably entail a lot of bubble wrap and 4 inches deep crumb rubber field and lots of please and thank you.

 

[LesBaker]

This is seriously going to stir up some controversy now. He does make a point...

I dunno Steezy, a major motion picture was made about this guy's discovery and the cover up and it had a major marketing budget behind it paired with one of the biggest box office draws in history in Will Smith and also starred Alec Baldwin. The film only grossed 48MIL. And you never hear about it anymore. It's going to take several more big name stars killing themselves to finally effect change IMO.

More than anything else, the science is coming in that for players that play, they're going to have those sub-concussive impacts and almost guarantee themselves a level of CTE.

This is something that the medical community needs to find a way to research. Levels of CTE I mean. And they have to find a way to do it on living people not dead ones because that will dramatically speed up the work.

As tends to be the case, it won't be social awareness, but some systemic factor, in this case insurance, that will force the changes.

As soon as I read this I said to myself "Mac is right".

If the 111 came from random players it would be a better study. When you stack the deck by taking people who worry about having an issue but not random people who don't think there's an issue that's an issue. I'm not saying there isn't an issue but this study was stacking the deck.

For sure the study was flawed, but they are just getting started. I hope they clean up the research a bit because this was slightly faulty.

Though I don't agree with calling it "child abuse", I certainly don't think playing football is the same as the things you listed. They're not even close, for a number of reasons.

Climbing trees is probably the most dangerous thing kids do IMO. We used to get 20 plus feet up in trees all the time. Falling from that height can do a lot of damage and even kill someone. When I was a kid there was a tree in my front yard that was an old crab apple tree and there is/was a picture of me with my head poking out of the crown. I'm probably 25 feet off of the ground.

Eating crab apples with make you sick as fuck by the way. I learned that the first summer living in that house.

Football will be played long after we are all dead and buried... and it will continue to be played even longer after that.

I wonder what it'll be like though don't you?

Sure......but will we recognize it? Future Football will probably entail a lot of bubble wrap

No ya big dummy cus we'll be DEAD............

 

[fearsomefour]

The issue with youth football is the cumulative damage over time to the brain. Dislocations and broken bones heal while brain damage gets worse over time.

Agreed.
My issue is them looking at pro players and applying findings to youth players.
Most kids don't play for more that a couple of years....8-10 or 9-12 years old for example. The majority of kids who play youth football don't play in high school. The vast majority of kids who play in high school never smell a college football field. A small percentage of college football players play pro football.
The study showing showable effect in 110 out of 111 pro players should not be ignored of course. That is a major concern. But, it is not known what the long term affects will be even for those 110 players. End results can vary wildely. Pretending that all football is the same....that small, slow, physically weak young kids are creating impacts like grown men is silly. Applying results from a study....of guys who have played at least a decade and a half of football (safe to assume), much of it at a very high level.....meaning big, fast, strong elite athletes dealing out punishment....applying those results to kids who mostly play for a few years at a low level is silly.
I would like to see a study of kids that played a few years or played through high school. Would be interesting.
It's like comparing slap fighting with sparring a professional fighter over and over.

 

[bnw]

Agreed.
My issue is them looking at pro players and applying findings to youth players.
Most kids don't play for more that a couple of years....8-10 or 9-12 years old for example. The majority of kids who play youth football don't play in high school. The vast majority of kids who play in high school never smell a college football field. A small percentage of college football players play pro football.
The study showing showable effect in 110 out of 111 pro players should not be ignored of course. That is a major concern. But, it is not known what the long term affects will be even for those 110 players. End results can vary wildely. Pretending that all football is the same....that small, slow, physically weak young kids are creating impacts like grown men is silly. Applying results from a study....of guys who have played at least a decade and a half of football (safe to assume), much of it at a very high level.....meaning big, fast, strong elite athletes dealing out punishment....applying those results to kids who mostly play for a few years at a low level is silly.
I would like to see a study of kids that played a few years or played through high school. Would be interesting.
It's like comparing slap fighting with sparring a professional fighter over and over.

I understand what you are saying and I would agree to a point. When I was growing up 50 years ago there wasn't these steroidal middle schoolers like there is now. There are middle schoolers bigger than anyone in my graduating class of 120 grads.

 

[fearsomefour]

I understand what you are saying and I would agree to a point. When I was growing up 50 years ago there wasn't these steroidal middle schoolers like there is now. There are middle schoolers bigger than anyone in my graduating class of 120 grads.

Always been big kids. Always been small kids.
Equipment has improved. Attention to things like concussions has improved thankfully.
Long term brain damage from a typical routine football experience of youth football? I think it is intellectually dishonest of the Dr doing this study.