(02-26-2013 04:02 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  From a team standpoint (college and pro), I understand the liability concerns in these litigious times. Even a signed waiver from the athlete might not hold up in court. So even if a team's best opinion based upon their medical reports is that it isn't a serious problem, they still have to ask whether it's worth taking on the financial risk if something should happen.

But I don't especially get all the fans who think they know best that he shouldn't play. To me it's pretty clear he'll have a ton of expert opinions to help with his decision and clearly some highly rated doctors think it shouldn't prevent him from playing (despite the fact they are similarly incentivized to say he shouldn't play). As long as HE understands the potential risks, I support his decision either way. If his preference continues to be to play, I hope he gets the opportunity.

Well, I haven't heard the names of any physicians who think he can still safely play, so I'm not sure if they're highly rated or not.

I'm going by what I've read as far as highly respected opinions varying:

Quote:The opinions, strangely enough, have varied across the board. While orthopedic surgeons have more often sided with the original diagnosis, several highly respected neurosurgeons have adamantly disagreed, professionally advising Stewart that he is completely capable of having a full and healthy NFL career.

Let me be clear that I have no idea which surgeons are correct. But it is worth noting that they are pretty much all incentivized to say "no" if they have even the faintest remote doubt. It's risk-free on their part. Conversely, if they say "yes", they'll get a lot more fingers pointed at them if omething does happen (even if the medical condition wasn't necessarily the cause), than credit if he continues to have a long healthy career instead.

Quote: Plus, regardless of Walter understanding the risks, asking an organization to also take the risk of having a dead player on the field may be too much for most to bear with regards to potential liability, conscience, and bad pr.

Yeah, I talked about the liability problem already and it certainly could turn out to be the deal-breaker regardless of what Walt chooses. As far as conscience and bad pr goes, I submit that depends upon what you believe in terms of actual additional risk. IMO, Walter Stewart himself is the best judge of what risks he wants to take in his life - especially when it's pretty clear he's getting the best info available (even if is unfortunately conflicting) to make that decision .

One of the things going for Walt's mind is that the risk is not the result of an acute injury, but is the result of something he was born with. He has been rolling the dice since he first started playing football back in middle school (or whenever he started) but didn't know it.

I'm in agreement with Bearhawkeye here. This is Walt's decision and if he wants to live his dream who am I to take that away from him.

the NFL is already facing big time liability issues with concussions. I am sure that they are a bit gun-shy at this point re: taking on additional liability.

(02-26-2013 04:35 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 04:02 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  From a team standpoint (college and pro), I understand the liability concerns in these litigious times. Even a signed waiver from the athlete might not hold up in court. So even if a team's best opinion based upon their medical reports is that it isn't a serious problem, they still have to ask whether it's worth taking on the financial risk if something should happen.

But I don't especially get all the fans who think they know best that he shouldn't play. To me it's pretty clear he'll have a ton of expert opinions to help with his decision and clearly some highly rated doctors think it shouldn't prevent him from playing (despite the fact they are similarly incentivized to say he shouldn't play). As long as HE understands the potential risks, I support his decision either way. If his preference continues to be to play, I hope he gets the opportunity.

Well, I haven't heard the names of any physicians who think he can still safely play, so I'm not sure if they're highly rated or not.

I'm going by what I've read as far as highly respected opinions varying:

Quote:The opinions, strangely enough, have varied across the board. While orthopedic surgeons have more often sided with the original diagnosis, several highly respected neurosurgeons have adamantly disagreed, professionally advising Stewart that he is completely capable of having a full and healthy NFL career.

Let me be clear that I have no idea which surgeons are correct. But it is worth noting that they are pretty much all incentivized to say "no" if they have even the faintest remote doubt. It's risk-free on their part. Conversely, if they say "yes", they'll get a lot more fingers pointed at them if omething does happen (even if the medical condition wasn't necessarily the cause), than credit if he continues to have a long healthy career instead.

Quote: Plus, regardless of Walter understanding the risks, asking an organization to also take the risk of having a dead player on the field may be too much for most to bear with regards to potential liability, conscience, and bad pr.

Yeah, I talked about the liability problem already and it certainly could turn out to be the deal-breaker regardless of what Walt chooses. As far as conscience and bad pr goes, I submit that depends upon what you believe in terms of actual additional risk. IMO, Walter Stewart himself is the best judge of what risks he wants to take in his life - especially when it's pretty clear he's getting the best info available (even if is unfortunately conflicting) to make that decision .

Well, just my opinion, but as far as making a rational decision I don't know if Walter is in the end the best judge because of his strong desire to continue playing football which may indeed cloud his judgment. He is an adult though, and adults have the right to do plenty of irrational things. It remains to be seen if any NFL organization is willing to go along with it. With all the bad press the league is getting over head injuries and CTE, the stink over putting RG III back on the field after he was hurt, etc... makes me wonder if they'll be eager to allow a player with a potentially fatal congenital spine abnormality to play.
As far as highly respected physicians saying he can play, still have not heard any actual names who have given a thumbs up, so I will continue to reserve judgement on that one.

I'm going by what I've read as far as highly respected opinions varying:

Quote:The opinions, strangely enough, have varied across the board. While orthopedic surgeons have more often sided with the original diagnosis, several highly respected neurosurgeons have adamantly disagreed, professionally advising Stewart that he is completely capable of having a full and healthy NFL career.

Let me be clear that I have no idea which surgeons are correct. But it is worth noting that they are pretty much all incentivized to say "no" if they have even the faintest remote doubt. It's risk-free on their part. Conversely, if they say "yes", they'll get a lot more fingers pointed at them if omething does happen (even if the medical condition wasn't necessarily the cause), than credit if he continues to have a long healthy career instead.

Quote: Plus, regardless of Walter understanding the risks, asking an organization to also take the risk of having a dead player on the field may be too much for most to bear with regards to potential liability, conscience, and bad pr.

Yeah, I talked about the liability problem already and it certainly could turn out to be the deal-breaker regardless of what Walt chooses. As far as conscience and bad pr goes, I submit that depends upon what you believe in terms of actual additional risk. IMO, Walter Stewart himself is the best judge of what risks he wants to take in his life - especially when it's pretty clear he's getting the best info available (even if is unfortunately conflicting) to make that decision .
[/quote]

I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life.

In you're earlier reply you touched on incentives and how they may play on objective analysis of a condition. Such a stance could potentially be construed to be undermined by not also acknowledging the breakdown in objectivity and incentives that could occur on Walt's behalf as he assesses risk in this situation. If he has even the faintest glimmer of hope, and it's fair to say he does, he would/ could be disproportionally optimistic in his assessment of his risk. Now, by no means am I espousing a nanny medical state. He is, as noted elsewhere, an adult and free to make decisions as he sees fit, however due to the circumstances at hand I see negligible evidence that he is the best judge of what risks he should be taking with his life. It's also important to realize that ppl are generally HORRIBLE assessors of risk. While fairly objective, give or take, in the assessment of risk for others, humans tend to be overly optimistic in personal decision making and/ or risk assessment.

From an organizational level (UC/ NFL teams) I'd absolutely steer clear. Unless the talent was elite i'd look at the labor market, which is quite plentiful, and move on to other comparable options.

Clearly this is just one man's opinion.



mc

(02-26-2013 02:21 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  From a team standpoint (college and pro), I understand the liability concerns in these litigious times. Even a signed waiver from the athlete might not hold up in court. So even if a team's best opinion based upon their medical reports is that it isn't a serious problem, they still have to ask whether it's worth taking on the financial risk if something should happen.

But I don't especially get all the fans who think they know best that he shouldn't play. To me it's pretty clear he'll have a ton of expert opinions to help with his decision and clearly some highly rated doctors think it shouldn't prevent him from playing (despite the fact they are similarly incentivized to say he shouldn't play). As long as HE understands the potential risks, I support his decision either way. If his preference continues to be to play, I hope he gets the opportunity.

I am not making any judgement here?...Just presenting the facts! He will be very lucky to have just a few teams willing to take the leap of faith vs. not taking on the possible liability...You also need to look at the negative PR aspect of allowing a guy to permanently injure himself ?

(02-27-2013 09:00 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life.

Because it's his life and he's the one who will have to live with the risks/results of his decisions. If not him, then who is the best judge of what risks he should take in his life? YOU? ME? Seriously I'd like an answer of who better than him.

Quote:In you're earlier reply you touched on incentives and how they may play on objective analysis of a condition. Such a stance could potentially be construed to be undermined by not also acknowledging the breakdown in objectivity and incentives that could occur on Walt's behalf as he assesses risk in this situation. If he has even the faintest glimmer of hope, and it's fair to say he does, he would/ could be disproportionally optimistic in his assessment of his risk.

Sure he "could" be, but none of us knows that he is. He also "could" be overly cautious. I bet he also finds the idea of a long healthy life very appealing too. By all accounts he took the original diagnosis with incredible grace and acceptance so I'd be leery of claims that his assessments are "disproportionate". The fact is there doesn't appear to be a consensus on the injury among experts to the point where it's an open question whether he faces any additional risk at all (per the article). Again, who better to weigh the information than him?

Quote:Now, by no means am I espousing a nanny medical state. He is, as noted elsewhere, an adult and free to make decisions as he sees fit, however due to the circumstances at hand I see negligible evidence that he is the best judge of what risks he should be taking with his life. It's also important to realize that ppl are generally HORRIBLE assessors of risk. While fairly objective, give or take, in the assessment of risk for others, humans tend to be overly optimistic in personal decision making and/ or risk assessment.

I'd like to see more data and context for that claim. How many of the great human accomplishments were done in the face of others saying it's too risky? Conversely, how often does something perceived as not risky end in tragedy instead? You claim there is "negligible evidence that he is the best judge of what risks he should be taking with his life". Exactly what evidence is it that you would accept to prove he is? (Read up on the guy and how he's handled the situation and get back to me.)

In the end, you can't have it both ways: you can't say "by no means are you for the nanny state" and also say that someone else would make a "better" decision about Walter's life than a sane Walter would - especially when "better" is often in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:From an organizational level (UC/ NFL teams) I'd absolutely steer clear. Unless the talent was elite i'd look at the labor market, which is quite plentiful, and move on to other comparable options.

Well his talent is arguably elite, but yeah it's a real possibility teams will take a better safe than sorry approach as everyone understands. Money talks.

Because it's his life and he's the one who will have to live with the risks/results of his decisions. If not him, then who is the best judge of what risks he should take in his life? YOU? ME? Seriously I'd like an answer of who better than him.

Clearly this isn't about you, or my ability to make the best decision. I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have all the facts. As such, I cannot offer you what you ask. I think you know that, so as such I'll steer clear of the rhetorical question.

EDIT: With that said, the NFL's individual franchise doctors are the one's who will make the decision(s). I'm fine with that either way.


Sure he "could" be, but none of us knows that he is. He also "could" be overly cautious. I bet he also finds the idea of a long healthy life very appealing too. By all accounts he took the original diagnosis with incredible grace and acceptance so I'd be leery of claims that his assessments are "disproportionate". The fact is there doesn't appear to be a consensus on the injury among experts to the point where it's an open question whether he faces any additional risk at all (per the article). Again, who better to weigh the information than him

Well for one i never said his assessments are "disproportionate." I simply said his response to a positive assessment are likely to be overly optimistic, disproportionately so even. It seems clear to me that the majority opinion is that his health is a roadblock...so I fail to see why you saying a consensus is missing.

Secondly, as I've eluded to it's a breakdown in decision making that is typical of ppl in position that ultimately leads me to believe his weighing of the risk/ reward quotient is perhaps flawed. I don't know him, so I'm not willing to say this definitely so, which makes your blanket acceptance of his ability questionable. Too much unknown. I work for a newspaper publication, i know the fallibility of the idea that you get to know someone via an article.




I'd like to see more data and context for that claim. How many of the great human accomplishments were done in the face of others saying it's too risky? Conversely, how often does something perceived as not risky end in tragedy instead? You claim there is "negligible evidence that he is the best judge of what risks he should be taking with his life". Exactly what evidence is it that you would accept to prove he is? (Read up on the guy and how he's handled the situation and get back to me.)

He, Walter Stewart, and his 'character'....while a great story/ read are ultimately immaterial b/c it's anecdotal in the grand scheme of things. I don't mean this as any sort of slight to him. At. All. His situation is statistically insignificant. This is about broader empirical evidence that suggest otherwise. That a young man in his position is probably NOT best equipped to make such a weighty decision. That is the crux of our conversation.

Where shall I begin....well, first let's start with the human brain itself. It's not even fully developed until 25-26ish. So therefore he's not even dealing with a full deck in a risk assessment sense. Again, I acknowledge the legal definition of adulthood...and its corresponding meaning as far as making individual decisions, however I won't ultimately constrain myself to it for the sake of this discussion. Furthermore, as a male within the age range of 15-25 he is even MORE susceptible to making wrongheaded risk assessments.

Moving on, for those that are familiar with Game Theory it is well understood the many we are all easily prone to failed assessments where emotion reins. I believe you previously eluded to the fact that this is a life long dream of his. We all know the story. To imagine that emotion isn't heavily a part of this is foolish. Those further removed, emotionally speaking, are in a more ideal position....perhaps.



In the end, you can't have it both ways: you can't say "by no means are you for the nanny state" and also say that someone else would make a "better" decision about Walter's life than a sane Walter would - especially when "better" is often in the eye of the beholder.

That's such a false equivalency/ straw man argument. Again, it is his right to make this decision. That is the framework we are all operating under. For you to act like a "right" equals "most informed/ best/ better" etc is false.


Well his talent is arguably elite, but yeah it's a real possibility teams will take a better safe than sorry approach as everyone understands. Money talks.
[/quote]

I've never heard his talent described as elite from a pro prospect perspective. If you'd like to link to assessments of this prior to injury feel free. I think he was mos def a pro prospect, however elite, or even as you put it, "arguably elite" is off the table. I think he had/ (still has should he take the plunge and be allowed to) to be a productive NFL player. I wish him the best.

Bottom line, as i said....i'd like to see him in the NFL. I'd like to see him excel there. You just gotta want kids like him to get to their dream. He has been a GREAT Bearcat, on the field and off. If it turns out that no one in the NFL wants to give him a chance I hope he stays directly involved with our program.




mc

(02-28-2013 09:22 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  Because it's his life and he's the one who will have to live with the risks/results of his decisions. If not him, then who is the best judge of what risks he should take in his life? YOU? ME? Seriously I'd like an answer of who better than him.

Clearly this isn't about you, or my ability to make the best decision. I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have all the facts. As such, I cannot offer you what you ask. I think you know that, so as such I'll steer clear of the rhetorical question.

It's not rhetorical. There is and will be an answer in some form. Somebody has to decide whether Walter tries to play contact football again (which is very distinct from the question of whether someone will allow Walter to play football for them) whether it's the NFL, CFL, indoor or whatever. You said "I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life." If he's not the best judge then WHO is? But you are correct that I know you don't have an answer.

Quote:EDIT: With that said, the NFL's individual franchise doctors are the one's who will make the decision(s). I'm fine with that either way.

Yes we all know and agree for the millionth? time that teams are risk-averse when it comes to their money and they may not give him the chance due to liability concerns.

Quote:Sure he "could" be, but none of us knows that he is. He also "could" be overly cautious. I bet he also finds the idea of a long healthy life very appealing too. By all accounts he took the original diagnosis with incredible grace and acceptance so I'd be leery of claims that his assessments are "disproportionate". The fact is there doesn't appear to be a consensus on the injury among experts to the point where it's an open question whether he faces any additional risk at all (per the article). Again, who better to weigh the information than him

Well for one i never said his assessments are "disproportionate." I simply said his response to a positive assessment are likely to be overly optimistic, disproportionately so even. It seems clear to me that the majority opinion is that his health is a roadblock...so I fail to see why you saying a consensus is missing.

Got a source that there is a consensus? Per the article above, opinions vary in the extreme.

Quote:Secondly, as I've eluded to it's a breakdown in decision making that is typical of ppl in position that ultimately leads me to believe his weighing of the risk/ reward quotient is perhaps flawed. I don't know him, so I'm not willing to say this definitely so, which makes your blanket acceptance of his ability questionable. Too much unknown. I work for a newspaper publication, i know the fallibility of the idea that you get to know someone via an article.

You are the one claiming his decision making is perhaps flawed. I'm only saying that he's the best one to make the decision. (I think it's possible he decides to play and suffers a serious injury related to his condition. I also think it's possible he faces no actual additional risk in reality but decides not to play and misses out on a great opportunity. None of us "knows". I'm saying he's the best person to decide though.) And I told you to "read up" not just read "an article". Not that it is infallible, but read up on what his head coach and teammates say about him and tell me which way you lean on his maturity to make decisions about his own life. Feel free to watch video and talk to people too before deciding "I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life."

Quote:I'd like to see more data and context for that claim. How many of the great human accomplishments were done in the face of others saying it's too risky? Conversely, how often does something perceived as not risky end in tragedy instead? You claim there is "negligible evidence that he is the best judge of what risks he should be taking with his life". Exactly what evidence is it that you would accept to prove he is? (Read up on the guy and how he's handled the situation and get back to me.)

He, Walter Stewart, and his 'character'....while a great story/ read are ultimately immaterial b/c it's anecdotal in the grand scheme of things. I don't mean this as any sort of slight to him. At. All. His situation is statistically insignificant. This is about broader empirical evidence that suggest otherwise. That a young man in his position is probably NOT best equipped to make such a weighty decision. That is the crux of our conversation.

Where shall I begin....well, first let's start with the human brain itself. It's not even fully developed until 25-26ish. So therefore he's not even dealing with a full deck in a risk assessment sense. Again, I acknowledge the legal definition of adulthood...and its corresponding meaning as far as making individual decisions, however I won't ultimately constrain myself to it for the sake of this discussion. Furthermore, as a male within the age range of 15-25 he is even MORE susceptible to making wrongheaded risk assessments.

Moving on, for those that are familiar with Game Theory it is well understood the many we are all easily prone to failed assessments where emotion reins. I believe you previously eluded to the fact that this is a life long dream of his. We all know the story. To imagine that emotion isn't heavily a part of this is foolish. Those further removed, emotionally speaking, are in a more ideal position....perhaps.

Perhaps I've forgotten, but I don't think I "eluded(???) to the fact that this is a life long dream of his". I alluded to the fact that every account I've heard say he handled the original diagnosis with incredible grace and maturity. I also never said anything about emotion not being a factor so I don't understand your comments. It is a factor in a lot of ways - including the emotional pull to not risk the opportunity to live a long healthy life. The real issue, or crux if you like, remains: who better than Walter to decide? Unless your new answer is "anyone 25 or older", please skip all the red herrings.

Quote:In the end, you can't have it both ways: you can't say "by no means are you for the nanny state" and also say that someone else would make a "better" decision about Walter's life than a sane Walter would - especially when "better" is often in the eye of the beholder.

That's such a false equivalency/ straw man argument. Again, it is his right to make this decision. That is the framework we are all operating under. For you to act like a "right" equals "most informed/ best/ better" etc is false.

Given your use of them, you should have a better understanding of what a straw man argument is. I never talked about rights although I'm glad we all agree that he has that right. My point clearly remains that a sane Walter, having done his due diligence, is the best person to make decisions about his life including whether to try to continue playing football or not.

Quote:Well his talent is arguably elite, but yeah it's a real possibility teams will take a better safe than sorry approach as everyone understands. Money talks.


I've never heard his talent described as elite from a pro prospect perspective. If you'd like to link to assessments of this prior to injury feel free. I think he was mos def a pro prospect, however elite, or even as you put it, "arguably elite" is off the table.

It's been posted in another thread (at least twice in fact):

Quote:NFL NetworkVerified account
‏@nflnetwork
'If he checks out medically, he's a Top 10 pick.' Mayock on Walter Stewart, this year's best-kept secret http://on.nfl.com/CombineSec

In sum: You claimed "I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life. " Yet after all of this (much of it nonsense), you still can't tell me who is the best judge of what risks he should/wants to take in his life if not Walter himself. Unless that changes I don't see the point in continuing this exchange with you.

It's not rhetorical. There is and will be an answer in some form. Somebody has to decide whether Walter tries to play contact football again (which is very distinct from the question of whether someone will allow Walter to play football for them) whether it's the NFL, CFL, indoor or whatever. You said [b]"I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life." If he's not the best judge then WHO is? But you are correct that I know you don't have an answer.[/b]

Look man, you asked for information. I provided. We can agree to disagree. However, if you wanna get all snarky and ish, that can happen too. It is a message board after all. I guess that's abt par for the course. Never my intention here. Just had a difference of opinion.

Yes we all know and agree for the millionth? time that teams are risk-averse when it comes to their money and they may not give him the chance due to liability concerns.

Millionth?!? Seriously dude? You said it...what...twice? And btw, all you have is character/ narrative-driven stuff. I get it, he's a good guy, you like him, power to ppl. He has the right, therefore he is the best one to make the decision. Some how you have no problem repeating yourself ad nauseum (millionth?) on this end.

I'm putting forth that the NFL is the best decision maker....so therefore you have, and had in my previous reply, an answer. They will be the ultimate decision maker.


Got a source that there is a consensus? Per the article above, opinions vary in the extreme.

Per the article article, yes. However, per the organization he is attempting to join there IS a consensus, hence him being barred from participating.



You are the one claiming his decision making is perhaps flawed. I'm only saying that he's the best one to make the decision. (I think it's possible he decides to play and suffers a serious injury related to his condition. I also think it's possible he faces no actual additional risk in reality but decides not to play and misses out on a great opportunity. None of us "knows". I'm saying he's the best person to decide though.) And I told you to "read up" not just read "an article". Not that it is infallible, but read up on what his head coach and teammates say about him and tell me which way you lean on his maturity to make decisions about his own life. Feel free to watch video and talk to people too before deciding "I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life."

It's not an article and even so, no...that's not all i got. I spent years up in Crosley Tower studying undergrad and then graduate level Economics/ Game Theory. I simply provided you with some info that was easily accessible. I would have never spoken on it had I not had some sort of familiarity with risk assessment. I wasn't aware you had a set # in mind in order to satiate you. C'mon man.....

I say again....I get it, you love that character driven stuff. You want to believe in the heart of a lion type story lines trumping a broader set of points.....have at it. You asked, i provided. I'm not here to change hearts and minds. I just wanted to provide more information. What you do with it is up to you.


Perhaps I've forgotten, but I don't think I "eluded(???) to the fact that this is a life long dream of his". I alluded to the fact that every account I've heard say he handled the original diagnosis with incredible grace and maturity. I also never said anything about emotion not being a factor so I don't understand your comments. It is a factor in a lot of ways - including the emotional pull to not risk the opportunity to live a long healthy life. The real issue, or crux if you like, remains: who better than Walter to decide? Unless your new answer is "anyone 25 or older", please skip all the red herrings.

Yes, it is true that you never explicitly mentioned emotion. I entered that aspect in to the conversation. That's b/c it's pretty damn fair to assume that there's a great deal of emotional attachment to this ordeal for him. Again, it is more likely than not to cloud his abilities in this matter. Once again.....i'll go with the the NFL as the best party to make this decision.

Given your use of them, you should have a better understanding of what a straw man argument is. I never talked about rights although I'm glad we all agree that he has that right. My point clearly remains that a sane Walter, having done his due diligence, is the best person to make decisions about his life including whether to try to continue playing football or not.

Oh let's see....what straw man argument have i constructed? Oh that's right....the one where I said that a young man isnt perhaps the best judge of a dynamic medical issue, the set of potential outcomes? Oh, that's the one? Please. Hardly a straw man situation.

"remains the sane[?!?]" OMG, you made a grammatical error. Lol. Message board grammar Nazis slay me.


It's been posted in another thread (at least twice in fact):

[quote]NFL NetworkVerified account
‏@nflnetwork
'If he checks out medically, he's a Top 10 pick.' Mayock on Walter Stewart, this year's best-kept secret http://on.nfl.com/CombineSec

Wow. This is interesting. I think it's fair to say this guy is an outlier. To use your line of thought....there is no consensus on this. Nevertheless, this is interesting. You have once source here. Above you tried to chastise me for "an article." Interesting.....

In sum: You claimed "I cannot see how Walter is the best judge of what risks he should/ wants to take in his life. " Yet after all of this (much of it nonsense), you still can't tell me who is the best judge of what risks he should/wants to take in his life if not Walter himself. Unless that changes I don't see the point in continuing this exchange with you.


Non-sense?!? Ok, you're right. Academic study on risk assessment is non-sense. Normative analysis vs positive analysis; and in your perspective positive wins. Objectivity falls to subjectivity. Nothingness in the wake of 'will, determination, good heartness, yadda yadda yadda, etc.' I mean, bottom line that's the bigger picture we're debating here. You are swayed by what has been said about his reaction/ response/ etc. Fine.

I say again, his potential employer is the best judge. If they allow him to play, so be it. I think it's fair to say they are further removed from the emotional.





mc