Nice post although your timing is a bit off. Dale Earnhardt died in 2001. I guess technically there haven't been any driver deaths in Formula One since 1994, although I do see there have been crashes that have killed spectators so that too is an issue in my eyes.

I agree in general the NFL's policy up until the past year or so has been reprehensible, although I do see some significant concessions they have made in recent times. I think they finally realized a majority of people and players wouldn't put up with them turning a blind eye anymore. Up until then, I'd liken their denials to what we see from the WWF in terms of both steroid denial and deaths to its wrestlers both on and away from the mat.

I don't understand how the public seems to have different standards when it comes to say the NFL and MLB. Even in steroid abuse, you sort of get the impression that it's acceptable in the NFL but not in baseball.

(10-11-2013 12:43 PM)Levon Manual Wrote:  I saw the documentary and read an excerpt of the book -- my opinion is that the NFL's behavior is pretty much indefensible.

The most brazen incidence of misbehavior was assembling a psuedo-science team that aggressively pushed a narrative that conflicted with nearly all medical experts. The NFL's lead concussion expert was an arthritis doctor. He was a total patsy and hiring him was completely below any reasonable standard that an organization like the NFL would normally employ. As an analogy, I 100% guaranty you they didn't hire an immigration lawyer to defend the concussion lawsuit.

In my opinion, the NFL has failed miserably in comparison to its sporting peers. Other sports leagues take on their safety issues and respond with action. The NFL had no immediate monetary incentive to change, so they didn't. NASCAR and Formula 1 both lost their top drivers to racing fatalities. Both immediately implemented sweeping safety changes and have not had any deaths since the 90's.

(10-11-2013 12:43 PM)Levon Manual Wrote:  I saw the documentary and read an excerpt of the book -- my opinion is that the NFL's behavior is pretty much indefensible.

The most brazen incidence of misbehavior was assembling a psuedo-science team that aggressively pushed a narrative that conflicted with nearly all medical experts. The NFL's lead concussion expert was an arthritis doctor. He was a total patsy and hiring him was completely below any reasonable standard that an organization like the NFL would normally employ. As an analogy, I 100% guaranty you they didn't hire an immigration lawyer to defend the concussion lawsuit.

In my opinion, the NFL has failed miserably in comparison to its sporting peers. Other sports leagues take on their safety issues and respond with action. The NFL had no immediate monetary incentive to change, so they didn't. NASCAR and Formula 1 both lost their top drivers to racing fatalities. Both immediately implemented sweeping safety changes and have not had any deaths since the 90's.

One difference is that in most sports, brain injuries and premature death are the result of accidents. The response is to make changes that reduce either the likelihood of those accidents, the severity, or both.
But in football, as George Will pointed out in his recent column, brain injuries and premature death are mostly the result of playing the game exactly the way it is contemplated. This factor may make the necessary response harder to swallow than it otherwise would be.

While this distinction may be more semantic than substantive, there is at least some substance to it.

And to be clear, I think it is fair to put the concern over brain injury in a different category from, say, knee injuries and separate shoulders. Those kinds of injuries are inherent in the nature of any field sport, and while we should not be cavalier about them, I think it's fair to say they are qualitatively different from injury to the brain.

(10-09-2013 08:06 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  ...I had a grad school prof who was very much from the game-theory/rational choice school of thought who would argue the best way to reduce traffic accidents was to ban seat belts and put a giant spike in the middle of the steering wheel...

This line of thinking has actually been applied to traffic flow, albeit it in a far less spectacular way. The idea (which goes by names that include shared space and woonerf) is that removing traffic signals, signs, striping, pavement markings, curbs, etc. from streets creates uncertainty about who has the right of way. Drivers react by slowing down and paying more careful attention to other drivers, to pedestrians, and to bicyclists. Implementations of this concept are relatively rare, since it can be very controversial.

Edit: To tie this back to football, we should obviously get rid of all of the lines on the field.

That's pretty much standard operating procedure in every developing country I've ever been in.

India, for example: they have traffic lights and the odd pavement marking, but they might as well not be there. You drive on the wrong side of the street as necessity demands. Drivers pay a lot more attention, and it works much better than an American would expect (or can stomach, really -- I decided it's always best to have a driver, and frequently best just to relax with my eyes closed).

However, there is a major cost in terms of speed. Trips take much longer than you'd expect. Also, I felt that when there were too many vehicles, the lack of rules caused things to break down, where simply no one was moving at all.

Despite the slower speeds, I felt like I saw more spectacular accidents, but I think that had more to do with the poor condition of many vehicles and/or being loaded well beyond capacity. (Voicemail from a friend: "Sorry, we have to cancel. Our nanny couldn't make it in because her bus tipped over.")

Anyone who is engaged at the player level with this sport does so at their own peril. No one has a gun to anyone's head. With that said, any governing body needs to make it plainly aware what the risks are, even if those risks are readily apparent ("getting hit in the head repeatedly may cause brain damage, derrrr...."). We'll continue to watch because it's entertaining and players will continue to play to pursue a paycheck or a free education. Nothing to see here, move along.

(10-11-2013 01:44 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-11-2013 12:43 PM)Levon Manual Wrote:  I saw the documentary and read an excerpt of the book -- my opinion is that the NFL's behavior is pretty much indefensible.

The most brazen incidence of misbehavior was assembling a psuedo-science team that aggressively pushed a narrative that conflicted with nearly all medical experts. The NFL's lead concussion expert was an arthritis doctor. He was a total patsy and hiring him was completely below any reasonable standard that an organization like the NFL would normally employ. As an analogy, I 100% guaranty you they didn't hire an immigration lawyer to defend the concussion lawsuit.

In my opinion, the NFL has failed miserably in comparison to its sporting peers. Other sports leagues take on their safety issues and respond with action. The NFL had no immediate monetary incentive to change, so they didn't. NASCAR and Formula 1 both lost their top drivers to racing fatalities. Both immediately implemented sweeping safety changes and have not had any deaths since the 90's.

One difference is that in most sports, brain injuries and premature death are the result of accidents. The response is to make changes that reduce either the likelihood of those accidents, the severity, or both.
But in football, as George Will pointed out in his recent column, brain injuries and premature death are mostly the result of playing the game exactly the way it is contemplated. This factor may make the necessary response harder to swallow than it otherwise would be.

While this distinction may be more semantic than substantive, there is at least some substance to it.

And to be clear, I think it is fair to put the concern over brain injury in a different category from, say, knee injuries and separate shoulders. Those kinds of injuries are inherent in the nature of any field sport, and while we should not be cavalier about them, I think it's fair to say they are qualitatively different from injury to the brain.

I agree. I think there's also an in-between category for physical conditions like arthritis that plague retired football players. It's the same body parts that would get hurt regularly while playing, but I think most players thought they were just dealing with short-term pain. They would make the sacrifice for the team and play through it, not realizing (or not believing, or possibly not caring) that it was at significant cost to their future health.

In 2010, a depressing article on the topic was done by the Tampa Tribue on the 1979 division-winning Bucs team ( http://tbo.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avi...998&Ref=AR ). They surveyed the former players (mostly in their 50's) and catalogued their physical and mental ailments.

For all those suggesting a return to the old ways, here's an 1897 magazine article calling football "the game of manslaughter." It describes a player dying from a fatal concussion after his head was crushed while being tackled. Now I know many other things have changed as well, but it's not clear that taking away safety equipment will be all that beneficial.

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/Ameri...DEATHS_pdf

(10-11-2013 02:40 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 08:06 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  ...I had a grad school prof who was very much from the game-theory/rational choice school of thought who would argue the best way to reduce traffic accidents was to ban seat belts and put a giant spike in the middle of the steering wheel...

This line of thinking has actually been applied to traffic flow, albeit it in a far less spectacular way. The idea (which goes by names that include shared space and woonerf) is that removing traffic signals, signs, striping, pavement markings, curbs, etc. from streets creates uncertainty about who has the right of way. Drivers react by slowing down and paying more careful attention to other drivers, to pedestrians, and to bicyclists. Implementations of this concept are relatively rare, since it can be very controversial.

Edit: To tie this back to football, we should obviously get rid of all of the lines on the field.

That's pretty much standard operating procedure in every developing country I've ever been in.

India, for example: they have traffic lights and the odd pavement marking, but they might as well not be there. You drive on the wrong side of the street as necessity demands. Drivers pay a lot more attention, and it works much better than an American would expect (or can stomach, really -- I decided it's always best to have a driver, and frequently best just to relax with my eyes closed).

However, there is a major cost in terms of speed. Trips take much longer than you'd expect. Also, I felt that when there were too many vehicles, the lack of rules caused things to break down, where simply no one was moving at all.

Despite the slower speeds, I felt like I saw more spectacular accidents, but I think that had more to do with the poor condition of many vehicles and/or being loaded well beyond capacity. (Voicemail from a friend: "Sorry, we have to cancel. Our nanny couldn't make it in because her bus tipped over.")

Although I have very limited international travel experience, my impression from Shanghai was that the knowledge that someone else on the highway might have a gun and a short temper seemed to markedly improve civility on the road here in the US compared to China. At the same time, I am reminded of an old Ziggy (I think) cartoon with a pileup and road signs indicating "Left lane must turn right". Well, that's how the roll in China... literally.

(10-14-2013 11:27 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Although I have very limited international travel experience, my impression from Shanghai was that the knowledge that someone else on the highway might have a gun and a short temper seemed to markedly improve civility on the road here in the US compared to China. At the same time, I am reminded of an old Ziggy (I think) cartoon with a pileup and road signs indicating "Left lane must turn right". Well, that's how the roll in China... literally.

That's how they roll in Saudi Arabia, too. First class roads, 4th class drivers. There are lots of warnings - they just push the wrecks off into the sand next to the road - but it doesn't seem to matter. More than once I was in serious danger of needing an immediate underwear change, having been a few feet from needing a mortician.