ptatc

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 03:52 PM) There are studies out there that clearly point to it being dangerous. You can dismiss anything you want at this point because we don't have 100 years of data, I guess. Your choice. No, it's not football or nothing. There are other sports or activities. And he's only good at it if you let him play in the first place. Your kid might love juggling knives, but it doesn't mean you have to let him do it. Who's in charge? Yes, I played hockey. I know where you're going, but it's not going to end how you expect it to. There are studies but no good results. As the discussion has said, since the only current data is post mortem there isn't a good relevant study. However you are right it's a choice. But to make the choice based on the current evidence isn't really an informed choice. If you feel that way regardless of the evidence that's different.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 03:02 PM) Yes, it's out there. As for your last paragraph, you can do those things without football. Plenty of other activities. Stop turning this into a football OR nothing debate. The data and the stories on TV have been out there. Everyone can use Google, and then make decisions for themselves as a parent. That's exactly the case. It's being talked about, but there isn't any hard research behind it. There are tentative links and educated guess by the researchers but no research that shows a strong correlation, let alone a causal effect.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 02:00 PM) The problem is...if the results can only be diagnosed post-mortem, in order to build up a statistically significant correlation, you'd need to establish 2 groups, one control and one playing football (preferably several groups playing for distinct lengths), record their concussions when they occur (which only has really happened the last few years), then wait 40 years for them to die. It's pretty much impossible to make a statistically significant correlation in this case until better techniques of diagnosing brain injuries and long-term damage become available. If playing football increased the chances of CTE by 10,000%, right now we wouldn't be able to say there was a strong correlation. Correct. That's why we need to find a way to determine CTE in living subjects. They are getting close to this and we should have it in the near future.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) I thought that's what the research out of Boston University has found? Not really. It's still mostly focused around concussions. The problem being that until recently, concussions weren't understood well. Back in the day it was "he got his bell rung". They sat the player for a few plays and sent him back out. There were many concussions undiagnosed so it's difficult to tell in ex-Nfl players what was from concussions and what wasn't. In the younger kids found to have CTE forming there was a history of concussions or it wasn't reported if there ewas a concussion or not and if there were other variables like drugs.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:30 PM) Yeah, there seems to be a very strong correlation with sub-concussive brain trauma and CTE, but it's not 100% well-understood at this point. I haven't seen a strong correlation with concussion symptoms and CTE let alone sub-concussion symptoms.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) I wonder if those that are saying they wouldn't say no to football would say no to anything their child wants to do? And what that might be? I allowed my son to play football but said no to him going to an overnight skateboard open house with mostly kids he didn't know.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) I dunno, this is just not enough for me to tell my kid he can't play pop warner football. It shouldn't be. It does show that if the kids plays and has multiple concussions without allowing the symptoms to go away before returning is probably going to cause degenerative brain problems later in life. However, any parent should hold their kids out of sports with concussion symptoms and not allow them to return until the symptoms are gone for a week anyway. If it happens multiple times, I would n't allow my kids to play anyway.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) It was an 18 year old who died (committed suicide I believe, maybe someone else who saw the episode remembers better than I). The key to this study is still linking concussions to degenerative brain symptoms later in life. I don't think most people would argue that multiple concussions would do this even though the link is still very thin based on all of the research. where the true discussion lies in that idea that cumulative head trauma without concussion symptoms causes CTE or degenerative problems later in life.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) It was an 18 year old who died (committed suicide I believe, maybe someone else who saw the episode remembers better than I). Got it. Makes sense then. Still need to look at symptoms and other variables. This is why single case studies are considered very low on the research hierarchy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) The frontline study sited a kid who had barely played HS football who was showing CTE. I don't believe this is accurrate. At least from the studies I've read, CTE can only be diagnosed post mortem. Even if it did I still haven't seen the link or correlation.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) Im not sure that I am the best comparison for what people should do. But I do wear my seat belt, I try and avoid completely unnecessary risks, but I dont find sports to be a completely unnecessary risk. Its the same theory. You either run the numbers and create a baseline that is unacceptable risk. If football is above that threshold any non-necessary activity that is more risky than football should also be. IE You may need to drive a car to get to work. But do you really need to take your kid in a car for a ride to a baseball game, if there is a higher risk your child will die in the car getting there than playing football? I cant answer that question for you, I can only say that I accept a certain level of risk in life and I will allow my child the same. This is what every parent should do. It's just that the current literature doesn't support anything for kids and cumulative head trauma without concussion symptoms. Once concussive symptoms appear the literature is fairly solid.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) It is not arbitrary. This is like smoking in the 1980s. We now have a pretty firm grasp on what we are talking about here. Not really as far as cumulative head trauma is concerned.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) Last I saw, the group hired to investigate brains of ex-football players said 18 of 19 autopsies brains had CTE. Do you as a professional have access to other studies that aren't as compelling for CTE? I'd be curious to hear if there is another side to this. There are other studies done on individuals similar to this. So far they are similar in results. The post mortem found CTE in some, not in others. There are limitations in all of this. There is still no causal effect linking CTE and any previous symptoms or specific things like alzheimer's or parkinson's rate. The primary limitation is you can only do it postmortem so even if there is a link, we don't know if it takes 30 years of hitting to cause significant symptoms or 5. Once they find a way to evaluate it in a living person we will have a better idea. There has been a lot of concussion research lately and much better medical procedures with them. It's the idea of trauma without significant concussion symptoms that is still unknown. I'm not saying there isn't any. I'm just saying that using the current research as a reason to absolutely not let someone play is over reacting. If someone doesn't want their kids to play because they don't want the injuries, that's fine. We know that the most significant injuries ( not thing like sprained ankles) occur in football. However, to use this research to say kids shouldn't play football due to cumulative head injuries is just inaccurrate.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) I side with Bernstein there unfortunately. You can't play the "i'm the greatest and all I want to do is win, no matter the cost" card and then ignore doctors who say you can play because you're worried about your legacy, or b**** about the roster when you're not willing to make a call to help build one. I agree with the comment that said if it wasn't troll/dick Bernstein, that story would have been received positively. I think in the case of the ACL you can, to an extent. While the knee was medically sound, most athletes will tell you that it doesn't "feel normal" for 18 months. Most believe this is due to nerve healing and motor control issues. As soon as Rose said he wasn't returning until it felt normal, everyone knew it wasn't going to be in the normal 9-12 month time frame. So the question was do you send him back before he feels he is ready. Usually, that is asking for trouble. He was practicing all out and didn't feel ready.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 08:00 AM) It's not "my thread" and one of the things that a good thread does is spark conversations. It's interesting listening to people who don't have kids theorize what they will, or will not, do when they have kids. My son played from the ages of 6-12. He is a bigger, quick kid so he always played center/nose tackle. He got bored with just hitting and watching the ball. Since the age of 12, it's been nothing but lacrosse where everyone gets to play the ball, hit and run around.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 11:11 PM) http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/03/ber...ds-of-football/ The research cited in this article is similar to the others that have been published. I'ts basically, we found a few things in a few players so there must be a link. I'm not saying it can't be true but far too many people are jumping to conclusions too quickly. How about something like the reason there was a slight, not significant decrease loss in memory among the players with no diagnosed concussions was because they were taking illegals drugs. Until there are more longitudinal studies done not just individual case studies people should be careful with their reactions.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) Yes, as I'm his Dad and know what's best. Trying to say I should let him play because he "could" be the next Peyton Manning is stupid. And yes, it's absolutely my right. I think that goes without saying. Yes, I am. That's just me though. I think that should be what we believe is best. While the researchers are finding the CTE and think there is a correlation to problems. The research is mostly done with case studies that show retrospectively that people had CTE. Some players have had it others haven't. There currently is no causal effect of CTE and any behaviors. So before people overreact and ban everything, there needs to be real evidence. That being said it's pretty obvious that multiple concussions are a bad thing. I think the general rule of multiple concussions with significant symptoms would definitely keep my kids out of "contact" sports.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) They've been learning that for many of these cases, it isn't the concussions. It is the accumulation of sub-concussive blows. I went to a seminar put on by the leading CTE researchers from Boston and they're saying the picture is rather bleak. However, most (roughly three quarters) of these damaging, sub-concussive blows are occurring in practice. That, we can reduce drastically. They said youth football leagues are typically the worst offenders due to lack of training and care. Did they address the steroid issues. One of the things that many of the former NFL players who participated in the studies had in common was steroid use. I think this played a significant role as well. Also much of the research shows that there isn't much higher incident of "brain trauma" symptoms in thispopulation compared to a "non-NFL" population. It did show that it had an earlier onset however.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 08:32 AM) That's not why an "Extra DH" was signed. Konerko was signed because he the owner didn't let his baseball people do their jobs in this instance. JR said Konerko could come back and since he wanted to come back, he's back. It has nothing to do with Dunn or anyone else regardless of what the team or media says. Hahn had his arms tied behind his back. i think I believe Hahn when he said he wanted PK back for his veteran leadership as well. This is looking to be a young roster. When the young players go through a prolonged slump, who will they look to on this roster who has gone through the same thing and has had prolonged success with it? I think PK is definitely here to be a "player-coach" for the promising young players and there will be alot of them this year.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 08:29 AM) I do not like Keppinger in that role for this team. We have the perfect guy for that in Garcia. While Keppinger can play multiple positions, he is not really good at any of them and is slow as dirt. I like my backup IF/OFers to be plus defenders and have speed. I agree overall with this concept. However, another quality that I think is the most important for the utility guy is being a veteran. They have a better chance to play and hit well with extended time off. I prefer inexperienced guys like Garcia to be in the minors in case someone gets a major injury then you call them up for extended playing time. with the way this roster is looking you have a young 3B and 1B who will need to work through slumps and learning at the MLB level. They should not get too much time off, barring injury. So the sub will not get much time.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 05:46 AM) That is a very compelling argument, with which I totally agree. I don't know why people don't concur. Everyone talks about what a "crap shoot" the baseball amateur draft is, and then they proceed to insist that "you take the best available talent". "Best talent" based upon what exactly? Of course, it will be a while before some of the draftees would be ready to be added to the roster, and it's true that the roster could look very different. However, why continue to stock pile a particular position, when you might have a choice to add a player where there is an obvious dearth of future candidates in your organization? As long as there is no clear consensus as to who is the third best talent in the draft, why not pick one of the top candidates based, at least in part, upon perceived needs? When in doubt go pitching. About half the roster is pitching. Most position players have limited flexibility in positions. If you stock pile pitching, you can always trade it for position players (Reed for Davidson, Santiago for Eaton). Every team needs pitching all the time.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 05:48 AM) Agreed. Although I wonder if I would like his clown act in a Sox jersey. As long as he was successful, he would be considered fun. As soon as he went into a bad spell, he would be considered a jerk and a distraction to the team.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 06:32 AM) I'd say there is not a very good chance that Keppinger is still with the Sox come opening day. If Davidson makes the team, there is absolutely no room for Keppinger on the roster. I bet the Sox dump him even if they have to pay a good portion of his salary. He would be able to play the position was is best suited for. A super sub who can give rest to any infielder and fill in for stretches when one is hurt.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 17, 2013 -> 10:04 PM) There's not a doubt in my mind that the ball had way more to do with the era than the juice. Guys have been roiding for decades and still are. The ball is what turned warning track power into tiny SS's hitting 25 HR's a year. I disagree. The ball made a difference. However there is a reason that power hitters have historically been the biggest and strongest players. Strength plays a major factor in HRs.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Dec 17, 2013 -> 03:14 PM) I wasn't making an argument about PEDs exclusively. Just that Dunn's one of the only baseball players who can hit 30 home runs. Period. edit: I haven't given any thought to a de-juiced ball theory, but I don't think that would explain why strikeouts have increased so much. I think it explains some of it. Players don't have the "strength" they used to so they need to lengthen the swing and pull the ball more to try to hit the HR. The big contracts go to the HR guys so this approach increases the Ks. It's like before the rampant PEDs, the HR hitters were high strikeout guys. It was rare to have high ave., OBP and HRs.