Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Marlado Faulkando

Established Members
  • Content Count

    3,157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Marlado Faulkando

  1. Yes, it is. What the NFL feared was that CTE would be taken seriously, because they KNEW how that would eventually affect public perception of professional football. There was nothing inflammatory about Omalu's work (think about it, if there was, the NFL would have sued the pants off of him). ??? I do not see this being a case study that should've raised anything more than a "no-sh*t" response out of the NFL, its players & fans alike. Still waiting for a safe number of concussions a NFL player can have under his belt, yet still continue playing, then still have hopes of a good he
  2. Yes, it is. What the NFL feared was that CTE would be taken seriously, because they KNEW how that would eventually affect public perception of professional football. There was nothing inflammatory about Omalu's work (think about it, if there was, the NFL would have sued the pants off of him). ??? I do not see this being a case study that should've raised anything more than a "no-sh*t" response out of the NFL, its players & fans alike. Still waiting for a safe number of concussions a NFL player can have under his belt, yet still continue playing, then still have hopes of a good
  3. How many cigarettes can you smoke before you're locked out of smoking tobacco? How many times can you tear your knee before you're locked out of skiing? How many bipasses can you have before you're locked out of ordering Big Macs? What's important is not that you're "locked out" IMO. What's important is that you are allowed access to unfettered information about the specific consequences to your health. What you do from there is your choice. But if you're not allowing the sum total of the information to be released to the end user, you're not really giving them the choice.
  4. Yes, I am. Yes, I have. I am very familiar with that journal and what it takes to go through the peer-review process. The problem was never with Omalu's paper -- the only problem is that his findings weren't what the NFL (or you, apparently) wanted to hear. So the paper expressed a specific threshold of brain trauma that a player must endure in order to bring about CTE - can you share this with us? How is that relevant to what the NFL did with the findings once they had them? Again, the content isn't the issue here. The issue is what the NFL did with it when they had it. Josh can,
  5. Yes, I am. Yes, I have. I am very familiar with that journal and what it takes to go through the peer-review process. The problem was never with Omalu's paper -- the only problem is that his findings weren't what the NFL (or you, apparently) wanted to hear. So the paper expressed a specific threshold of brain trauma that a player must endure in order to bring about CTE - can you share this with us? How is that relevant to what the NFL did with the findings once they had them? Again, the content isn't the issue here. The issue is what the NFL did with it when they had it.
  6. I think any institution, when faced with medical evidence that has been verified, that working conditions contribute to a health detriment have an obligation to report that finding to their employees.Wouldn't you agree? I do not remember the NFL ever tellling its players it was safe to take the field. So employers are only obligated to report potential health concerns if they were otherwise considered safe? They are obligated to provide an environment that is as safe as possible, which in my opinion the NFL does. Well, I think it's fairly obvious to most everybody that in this instance
  7. I think any institution, when faced with medical evidence that has been verified, that working conditions contribute to a health detriment have an obligation to report that finding to their employees.Wouldn't you agree? I do not remember the NFL ever tellling its players it was safe to take the field. So employers are only obligated to report potential health concerns if they were otherwise considered safe?
  8. I think any institution, when faced with medical evidence that has been verified, that working conditions contribute to a health detriment have an obligation to report that finding to their employees. Wouldn't you agree?
  9. I wouldn't disagree with that. But this is an instance where the institution failed.
  10. @Clown...My end goal/dream?? To be able to enjoy watching a physical sport without anyone complaining in the background that it is now too dangerous. I think it's fairly obvious you understand that it was always a dangerous game. This is just a new potential danger that people may have had a vague understanding of that now has some more specificity. I think virtually anyone you find here on the Rotoworld Fantasy Football forum likes football, and has no interest in seeing football cease to be played or fundamentally altered. But I do think there are some people who still love football bu
  11. ...and to discover the rate of incidence, and to determine specifically what part of the brain are effected, and to analyze case studies to demonstrate what the specific results would be. These things are all important if you might potentially have it, and aren't just soapboxing.
  12. As far as I know, there weren't any high schools or parents who worked to discredit corroborated medical research which demonstrated a health risk to football players, nor the NCAA. If that happened, shame on them as well. Can't change the past, what is the NCAA doing for the health of its athletes going forward?...hoping they make it to the pros so they can escape mutual-culpability? You're right, you can't change the past. But what I would hope, moving forward, is that neither the NCAA nor the NFL, upon receiving verified medical evidence that their athletes are succeptible to actionable
  13. As far as I know, there weren't any high schools or parents who worked to discredit corroborated medical research which demonstrated a health risk to football players, nor the NCAA. If that happened, shame on them as well.
  14. From the NFL's point of view, going back to when Tags was commissioner:Assuming they have some nerds locked in a room crunching numbers regarding how many billions this will cost them... 1. What if we give the players healthcare for life, but the average lifespan increases to 120? 2. What if we delay the findings for 20 years and universal healthcare is enacted? Are we still on the hook for the same amount of damages? Healthcare for life? 3. What if we delay the findings for 30 years and a genetic component is revealed, then we can come out and say "The technology wasn't there before
  15. Wow! Talk about a red herring. Is it really that hard to say, "yeah the NFL messed up here?"
  16. They are working with professionals to improve the safety of the game...to expect them to accept FULL responsibility for any ailment a former player has after they retire is unrealistic.Are you ok with the way they sought to initially discredit medical findings on CTE? Should they have said..."yep, this is all on us!" -? It's not one or the other. There is a happy medium between accepting full legal responsibility and actively seeking to discredit agreed upon scientific medical findings. How about, "we had no idea the full extent of how head injuries are contributing to this disease. As t
  17. They are working with professionals to improve the safety of the game...to expect them to accept FULL responsibility for any ailment a former player has after they retire is unrealistic. Are you ok with the way they sought to initially discredit medical findings on CTE?
  18. I don't know about "bra burners." But I'd personally be happy if the NFL didn't try to discredit medical findings about health risks to their players anymore and instead worked in a partnership with doctors who are looking to keep players safer.
  19. Yeah, but "some kind of clue" is a far cry from "this has now happened to me."
  20. It's not about "whining or not whining". It goes back to if Randle El could reasonably expect that he might be disabled from playing football. I think the answer is yes. I think its about total disclosure. Most people who play football accept that they will suffer pain after their career is over. Disability involving permanent brain damage at the age of 35 is not something most people signed up for. That's why this is a big deal -- especially since the NFL has known for years about this. There's a reason Tagliabue was trying to rush the process so he could get elected to the HOF imm
  21. It's not about "whining or not whining". It goes back to if Randle El could reasonably expect that he might be disabled from playing football. I think the answer is yes. So you're suggesting that the distinction of what we know now about the correlation between head injury playing football and incidence of CTE is not significant in light of the information Randle-El had at his disposal while or prior to playing about other, different kinds of disabilities he could be susceptible to? Again, I would suggest if this was the case, then why would the NFL doctors seek to discredit findings on CTE
  22. Took a look. Have to agree with you. And thinking about it now it makes sense. Falling 20 feet at full speed is probably more dangerous than any hit you might sustain in the NFL. And they do it repetitively....ok? Seems like a non-sequitur, fellas. Sports are dangerous, even ones you might not consider all that unsafe at first. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2085930 I don't understand how that general observation is in any way related to this specific discussion.That's like saying some people drown in the ocean, so others shouldn't whine about shark attacks when they observe that there are
  23. I'll bite. Most dangerous H.S. sport I have ever witnessed...outlawed in certain parts of the country. Took a look. Have to agree with you. And thinking about it now it makes sense. Falling 20 feet at full speed is probably more dangerous than any hit you might sustain in the NFL. And they do it repetitively. ...ok? Seems like a non-sequitur, fellas.
  24. Definitely. I was responding to psy's comment about "not knowing that playing football can turn your brain into marshmallow." It seemed to me he was suggesting sarcastically that traumatic head injury while playing football resulted in CTE was common knowledge, and that Omalu's research was thus redundant. I'd say that this specific line of medical inquiry was not common knowledge. And that's important, because though we may have known that "getting your bell rung" might "mess your head up" we didn't really know the degree to which it might happen, the percentage of football players who ar
  25. Well, the NFL doctors did send Omalu a letter accusing him of fraud and suggesting he should retract his report, which generally results in a Doctor being discredited and losing their license, despite a near consensus agreement now on his findings.What would you call that? It's the very definition of a cover up. If you play football for 30 yrs, there's a good chance that your body will be completely shot & your brain will be part marshmallow = news flash? If Omalu's research into CTE was redundant because it was public knowledge, then why did the NFL doctors send a letter threatening th
×
×
  • Create New...