The horrific death of 21-year-old Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili in an Olympic training run today was horrible to hear about. Sports are supposed to be an outlet full of recreation and entertainment, an escape from the gloomy world of the front pages, but far too often, the grim realities of life intrude. Whether it's fatal NASCAR crashes, athletes like Mickey Renaud dying from heart failure, young athletes killed in gang violence or old legends slipping away after health challenges, or the tragic impact of concussions on the lives of former athletes, illness and death all too frequently find their way into our escapist world.
CTV, one of the main Canadian networks broadcasting the Olympics, did their best to maintain that escapist illusion today. They gave the Kumaritashvili crash a passing mention before dashing back to their glowing propagandic coverage of the torch relay. Bruce Arthur of the National Post called their treatment of the situation "Orwellian" and "macabre", two statements I strongly agree with. There are even reports (from CFL Manager of Digital Media Jaime Stein) that CTV has been removing comments critical of their coverage of the crash from their website. Trying to sweep tragedies under the rug is never the right approach. To be fair, we probably shouldn't expect better from CTV, given that their entire buildup to the Olympics (including having their own staffers carry the Olympic torch) shows that they're more interested in propaganda than journalism. This is still disappointing from them, though.
This crash demands more coverage because, like most sports-related tragedies, it isn't an isolated incident. Jeff Blair of The Globe And Mail had an excellent piece last Saturday on the Olympic sliding track, which will be used for luge, skeleton and bobsleigh events. The track is so steep that it set records for the fastest speed in both luge and bobsleigh on the World Cup circuit. It also features turns of up to 5 Gs, and sleds routinely average 2.5 to 3 Gs on their way down the track.*
*For those who need a physics refresher, g is the gravitational constant of acceleration, or how fast you'd accelerate towards Earth in free-fall if there was no air resistance. It's approximately 9.81 metres/second squared. Thus, three Gs is three times the normal acceleration due to gravity, and about 30 metres/second squared. It's also about the amount of maximum acceleration encountered during a Space Shuttle launch. The effects of G-force, and how much humans can tolerate, depends on the duration of the acceleration and the direction it's coming from, but suffice it to say that 3-5 Gs is a hell of a lot.
It's not just that the track is fast; in fact, Kumaritashvili was clocked at 144.3 km/h, well below the track record of 153.9 km/h. The problems arise from combining an extremely fast course with high G-force twists and turns. According to the above Montreal Gazette story, the crash came on the final turn, Turn 16, known as "The Thunderbird", when "Kumaritashvili hit the track's inside wall, flew in the air up and over the outside wall and struck the girder". His crash is far from the only one, though; we've seen tons of athletes crashing on the course during World Cup events and during this practice week. The track is so intense that according to Blair's story, the IOC has already told organizers for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi to keep their sliding course more restrained.
The question is now what should come next. Chris Chase has a well-reasoned piece up at Fourth-Place Medal arguing that the track's too dangerous for luge, and the entire event should be cancelled. I'm not sure that that's the correct solution, but it absolutely has to be considered. If the luge event is to go on, there must first be a careful investigation and precautions taken to avoid a reoccurence of this tragedy.
In my mind, this tragedy and the others mentioned above speak to a broader dilemna in sports, though. There are fine lines to be walked, and many questions that must be asked. In luge and bobsleigh, there must be a balance between speed, thrills and safety, but where should it lie? In football and hockey, there has to be a distinction between physical play and head shots, and the need to reduce concussions has to be balanced with the need to deliver a hard-hitting product, but which side should we err on and where do we draw the line? Should all athletes be tested for heart conditions, and if so, at what age do we start? If an athlete is found to have a heart condition or some other defect, should we ban them from sports to preserve their safety, or should we let them play at their own risk?
In my mind, there are no black-and-white answers to any of these questions, and they all need to be looked at, researched, analyzed and debated. We need more detailed coverage of these tragedies, not less, even if it damages our goal of escapism. That's why CTV made the wrong move, going from a depressing story that needed to be covered to a potentially uplifting one that didn't need to be focused on. In my mind, we need to take a hard look at these situations despite their tragic nature, rather than sweeping them under the rug and moving on to the next feel-good moment.
Showing posts with label concussions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label concussions. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Heads Up, Part II: Independence
[This is the second part of a three-part series on concussions. See Part I here. The final installment will run later this week.]
One of the absolutely essential areas to consider when assessing and treating athletic concussions is the independence of doctors and medical personnel. Generally, injuries are assessed by team medical staff, which is problematic. As in any industry, there are certainly good and bad team doctors out there, but the unique position of a team physician means any less-than-honest ones can cause a lot of harm. These doctors and trainers are paid by the teams, not by their patients, and teams' interests don't always coincide with their players' best interests. Sometimes, it's in the team's favour for a player to return more quickly than he probably should. The classic example of this is James Woods' brilliant portrayal of Dr. Harvey Mandrake in Any Given Sunday, still one of the best sports movies of all time in my opinion. Here's a clip of his confrontation with head coach Tony D'Amato (Al Pacino) after it's discovered that he was mistreating players on the owners of owner Christina Pagniacci (Cameron Diaz), who promised to reward him financially for doing so. (Warning; some NSFW language)
Of course, this is a Hollywood movie, not a documentary. Still, there's more truth behind this portrayal than many would expect. Much of the movie was based on the book You're Okay, It's Just a Bruise: A Doctor's Sideline Secrets. That book was an expose of the shady side of medical treatment in the NFL, written by Robert Huizenga, who worked as a doctor with the Raiders for eight years.*
*Huizenga later testified in the O.J. Simpson trial and various congressional hearings, including this year's hearing on brain injuries on football, which has kick-started much of the recent progress on concussions. Lately, he's also appeared on The Biggest Loser.
Huizenga's book set off a massive controversy about football injuries and the methods of treatment used, and he also frankly discussed the prevalence of steroids in football. This 1991 interview he did with Sports Illustrated shortly after he left the Raiders* is fascinating, as is this 1994 article about how the Raiders mistreated Curt Marsh, where Huizenga is quoted. Both articles lay much of the blame at the feet of former Raiders' team doctor Robert T. Rosenfeld, upon whom Woods' character was reportedly based. The medical parts of Any Given Sunday may seem unrealistic at first, but there's a surprising amount of evidence backing them up.
That doesn't mean that this sort of thing is necessarily still going on. There's much more scrutiny of injuries and treatment these days, which would make this kind of skullduggery considerably more difficult to get away with. However, there's still a huge conflict of interest when medical personnel are responsible for treating players, but are paid by the organizations that employ those players. This conflict hasn't been solved; in fact, more evidence of it came out recently with the resignation of Dr. Ira Casson and Dr. David Viano, the heads of the NFL's concussion committee.
These doctors, both on the payroll of the league, had denied any link between concussions and pro football for years despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, and were conducting their own severely flawed study in an attempt to try and disprove the relationship between NFL careers and long-term brain damage. Their resignation is a very positive step, as is the announcement that the NFL will work with Boston University on its concussion study; BU professors have done much of the work in this field and have the academic independence necessary for believability. They've already been very critical of the NFL's policies, so this isn't going to turn into a whitewashing study along the lines of the one the league was conducting.
Another very positive step is that the NFL will soon require teams to consult with independent neurologists on concussions. There are still questions on how exactly this will work, and Mike Freeman points out that these neurologists may not be as independent as many of us would like, but this is still a move in the right direction. Other leagues will hopefully follow suit and move to independent specialists as well.
There are a couple of simple options that could dramatically improve independence, though. The key problem is still that these neurologists will be paid by the team who employs the player they're treating. It's not as bad as in the case of full-time team doctors, as their entire employment income doesn't come from the team, but it's still problematic. Freeman suggests the players' association paying these specialists, but that might be a tough sell to the NFLPA; for one thing, it shifts the costs of medical treatment from owners to players, and for another, not every player will use the services of these specialists. If the NFLPA would go for it, this would be a good solution, but it would be difficult to implement and would have to be negotiated through a collective bargaining agreement.
However, what could be done without significant problems would be to shift the doctors and specialists' employers from individual teams to the league as a whole. There still would be some issues, but the conflict of interest is significantly reduced. For example, consider the recent neck injury to DeMarcus Ware, which I talked about in Part I of this series. I'm not sure if he was evaluated by a specialist or just the regular team doctor, as he reportedly had no concussion symptoms. Under the present system, though, either would have been paid by the Cowboys. The Cowboys had a significant interest in Ware's ability to play Saturday against the Saints, and he wound up being crucial to their victory. That doesn't necessarily mean that the team interfered with these doctors at all, or that their diagnosis of Ware was at all impacted by finances, but in a situation like this, there's at least a potential conflict of interest. Even if an actual conflict of interest didn't develop, it still doesn't look good from the outside.
If the league as a whole was paying these specialists, the potential for a conflict of interest greatly decreases. The Saints have at least as much interest in Ware not playing as the Cowboys do in him playing, and there are 30 other teams that have no real stake in the outcome. Moreover, medical personnel and specialists could be put in their own unique branch of the NFL, separate from the teams (much as referees are); accountable only to the head of the medical division and the commissioner, not individual teams.
There still could be problems if the league encouraged doctors to let players return early across the board, but this is where the media responsibility I discussed in Part I kicks in. Governments sometimes employ people who investigate the government itself, such as ombudsmen, auditor-generals or people in the Justice Department. When those governments attempt to interfere with those positions (for example, the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal), it's the role of the Fourth Estate to bring this information to the public. The sports media should act in the same way, as a check on the power of the league. This would also be much easier with league-wide medical departments and policies.
One final crucial part of independence is that it has to work both ways. It's obvious why coaches and owners shouldn't be involved in medical decisions, but it's less obvious why players shouldn't be allowed to decide if they'll play or not. This is just as important, though. The macho, team-focused culture of sports means that players can't make good decisions about if they should play or not; if they do what's best for their long-term health, they get blasted as wimps and bad teammates.
A key example of this comes from Hines Ward's ridiculous attack on Ben Roethlisberger after team doctors decided that Roethlisberger should sit out the Steelers' game against the Baltimore Ravens. Fortunately, in that case, the decision was out of Roethlisberger's hands; if he had the option to play, he probably would have played, which could have had serious conseqences if he was hit again. You can't blame him when his teammates react that way. If he had chosen to sit out, he would have been blasted even more by teammates and the media, and might have acquired a reputation as a bad teammate, which could have damaged his future earning potential. This is why so many players play through serious injuries, and why all injury decisions, not just those around head injuries, need to be made by doctors, not players or coaches.
The environment of professional sports makes it impossible for athletes, coaches or teams to make the right call on their own. It needs to be out of their hands. This is why independence for doctors is so crucial. The NFL's made some promising steps on this front lately; let's hope this continues, and that other leagues follow suit.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Heads Up, Part I: Media Responsibility
(This is the first part of a three-part, three-day series on concussions. See a list of links to some of my previous writing on concussions here.)
Concussions have been getting a lot of attention in the media lately, which is great to see. For far too long, they've been the dirty little secret of sports. As fans, we love to sit in arenas or stadiums and watch violent hits, but we don't often like to think about the consequences of such entertainment. There's a good reason Toronto neurosurgeon Dr. Charles Tator called out Don Cherry last week; Cherry's certainly not the only one to blame, but he has promoted hard-hitting hockey and fights for years, has consistently taken stands against any kind of headshot ban, and makes plenty of money from his "Rock Em, Sock Em" video line, featuring the most violent hockey moments and plenty of head shots. Of course, Cherry completely missed the point in his Coach's Corner, saying he had nothing to say to Tator and was not to blame;
Of course, Cherry's far from the only one at fault. Our entire sports culture, especially in football and hockey, is rooted in the set of macho ideals Cherry frequently espouses. There's continual speeches about toughness and playing through pain, regardless of the long-term consequences. Part of this is from a lack of education about the severity of head injuries and how they differ from the standard sort of injuries. From an early age, players are taught to "tough it out" and "be a man", so it's hardly a surprise that they continue that behaviour when they get to the pro ranks. In fact, even with all the recent information about the long-term effects of concussions, we still get incidents like the recent one where Pittsburgh Steelers' wide receiver Hines Ward called out quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for not playing a week after suffering a concussion.
The media treatment of concussions plays a crucial role in how players, coaches and fans see them. Scientific research on the subject is critical, but it doesn't mean anything if the word doesn't get out to those actually involved in sports. We've known of some of the dangers of concussions for decades (see William Nack's excellent Sports Illustrated piece "The Wrecking Yard" from 2001 for one example, but there hasn't been a lot of media coverage of head injuries until the past few years. This isn't necessarily all the fault of the media; most outlets and reporters are working on tight, day-to-day deadlines and don't have the time for the kind of long investigations often needed for concussion pieces.
Additionally, beat reporters writing about individual games generally have to rely on what quotes they can get. Even if they notice a potential concussion during the game, it's frequently difficult to get players or coaches to talk about it, especially as there's a (often well-justified) fear out there that admitting to a head injury will make you a target for future hits. Gare Joyce, an excellent hockey writer (I reviewed his book Future Greats and Heartbreaks way back when, and heartily recommend it), wrote a great column for Sportsnet.ca today about the difficulties involved in reporting concussions (and mentioned my Queen's Journal piece on Alyn McCauley to boot); it's well worth a read.
The state of discourse on concussions in the sports media is a long way from where it was, but there's still work to do. One key example came last week, when Dallas Cowboys' linebacker DeMarcus Ware was stretchered off the field on Sunday, Dec. 13 with a neck injury, but came back and played a crucial role six days later in the Cowboys' win over the New Orleans Saints Saturday. Ware played well, but it's very questionable if he should have been involved in that game, and that should have received a lot of attention and coverage from the media. The whole process that saw Ware cleared to play deserves substantial scrutiny, but it didn't receive much; instead, most of the coverage saw Ware lauded as a hero for his performance, with little discussion of how he was cleared to play. According to an AP pre-game piece, Ware didn't have concussion symptoms, but given how fragile the head and the neck are, resting him would have made a lot of sense.
The problem isn't necessarily that Ware was cleared to play; I could understand that if the NFL media had looked into it a bit more and reported how his neck injury didn't threaten further damage. If it really wasn't that severe and there was no evidence of any kind of concussion, that should have been clearly laid out, with full explanations of why Ware's injury was an exception to the NFL's recent moves towards having players sit out after head injuries. The problem is how little attention Ware's clearance to play got, and how many people praised his play without questioning if he should have been in the game at all. That's only going to encourage the play-through-pain culture, especially at the lower levels. Even if Ware's injury wasn't that severe, how many minor football or hockey players will watch his performance and then demand to play a week after suffering a head injury of their own, and how many coaches will let them?
Like it or not, professional athletes are role models to many young athletes, especially when they display the kind of toughness and machismo we often glorify. It's important for us in the sports media to make head injuries a consistent issue. We need to get the message out there that these injuries are a serious threat, and playing through them isn't always the way to go.
The media can have a substantial effect, especially with consistent pressure. After far too long, the NFL has finally gotten rid of its resident head-injury deniers, largely thanks to ongoing media pressure that led to a congressional investigation, and the league is making progress on many fronts. Randy Starkman of The Toronto Star has done some great work on concussions in hockey, especially with this 2007 series. Another key moment on the NHL front was the extensive media coverage of the recent revelation that former NHL star Reggie Fleming had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a concussion-linked disease that had previously been found in football players and boxers, but never hockey players. Concussions have become an issue at the league level recently, and that's a good step.
It's especially worth discussing concussions in leagues where they aren't yet a prominent issue, such as in Canadian and American university sports and women's sports. As Alan Schwarz reported in a 2007 New York Times piece, girls suffer concussions even more frequently than boys in many sports. A lot of those concussions take place in sports like soccer and basketball, not traditionally renowned for being hard-hitting. Another area where concussions only recently hit the radar screen is the CFL; Vicki Hall of the Calgary Herald did several great pieces on concussions during Grey Cup Week and turned the league's concussion policies into a significant issue.
These are all small steps, but we are making progress. Leagues, coaches and players at all levels are starting to realize the serious nature of head injuries, and that's a great thing. There are other steps that they can take to help deal with the problem, and I'll be covering a couple of those in the coming days. On the media side, though, the most important thing we can do is make sure that concussions remain a significant issue. We can't afford to let them slip off the radar screen, and we need to keep asking the tough questions about team policies and player injuries. Hopefully, some athletes and coaches will read or watch something on concussions, educate themselves on the dangers involved and behave more safely as a result. There's a great opportunity here for the sports media to actually do something positive for the games that we cover by keeping this issue alive and pushing for real, significant change. Let's not let that opportunity go to waste.
Concussions have been getting a lot of attention in the media lately, which is great to see. For far too long, they've been the dirty little secret of sports. As fans, we love to sit in arenas or stadiums and watch violent hits, but we don't often like to think about the consequences of such entertainment. There's a good reason Toronto neurosurgeon Dr. Charles Tator called out Don Cherry last week; Cherry's certainly not the only one to blame, but he has promoted hard-hitting hockey and fights for years, has consistently taken stands against any kind of headshot ban, and makes plenty of money from his "Rock Em, Sock Em" video line, featuring the most violent hockey moments and plenty of head shots. Of course, Cherry completely missed the point in his Coach's Corner, saying he had nothing to say to Tator and was not to blame;
Of course, Cherry's far from the only one at fault. Our entire sports culture, especially in football and hockey, is rooted in the set of macho ideals Cherry frequently espouses. There's continual speeches about toughness and playing through pain, regardless of the long-term consequences. Part of this is from a lack of education about the severity of head injuries and how they differ from the standard sort of injuries. From an early age, players are taught to "tough it out" and "be a man", so it's hardly a surprise that they continue that behaviour when they get to the pro ranks. In fact, even with all the recent information about the long-term effects of concussions, we still get incidents like the recent one where Pittsburgh Steelers' wide receiver Hines Ward called out quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for not playing a week after suffering a concussion.
The media treatment of concussions plays a crucial role in how players, coaches and fans see them. Scientific research on the subject is critical, but it doesn't mean anything if the word doesn't get out to those actually involved in sports. We've known of some of the dangers of concussions for decades (see William Nack's excellent Sports Illustrated piece "The Wrecking Yard" from 2001 for one example, but there hasn't been a lot of media coverage of head injuries until the past few years. This isn't necessarily all the fault of the media; most outlets and reporters are working on tight, day-to-day deadlines and don't have the time for the kind of long investigations often needed for concussion pieces.
Additionally, beat reporters writing about individual games generally have to rely on what quotes they can get. Even if they notice a potential concussion during the game, it's frequently difficult to get players or coaches to talk about it, especially as there's a (often well-justified) fear out there that admitting to a head injury will make you a target for future hits. Gare Joyce, an excellent hockey writer (I reviewed his book Future Greats and Heartbreaks way back when, and heartily recommend it), wrote a great column for Sportsnet.ca today about the difficulties involved in reporting concussions (and mentioned my Queen's Journal piece on Alyn McCauley to boot); it's well worth a read.
The state of discourse on concussions in the sports media is a long way from where it was, but there's still work to do. One key example came last week, when Dallas Cowboys' linebacker DeMarcus Ware was stretchered off the field on Sunday, Dec. 13 with a neck injury, but came back and played a crucial role six days later in the Cowboys' win over the New Orleans Saints Saturday. Ware played well, but it's very questionable if he should have been involved in that game, and that should have received a lot of attention and coverage from the media. The whole process that saw Ware cleared to play deserves substantial scrutiny, but it didn't receive much; instead, most of the coverage saw Ware lauded as a hero for his performance, with little discussion of how he was cleared to play. According to an AP pre-game piece, Ware didn't have concussion symptoms, but given how fragile the head and the neck are, resting him would have made a lot of sense.
The problem isn't necessarily that Ware was cleared to play; I could understand that if the NFL media had looked into it a bit more and reported how his neck injury didn't threaten further damage. If it really wasn't that severe and there was no evidence of any kind of concussion, that should have been clearly laid out, with full explanations of why Ware's injury was an exception to the NFL's recent moves towards having players sit out after head injuries. The problem is how little attention Ware's clearance to play got, and how many people praised his play without questioning if he should have been in the game at all. That's only going to encourage the play-through-pain culture, especially at the lower levels. Even if Ware's injury wasn't that severe, how many minor football or hockey players will watch his performance and then demand to play a week after suffering a head injury of their own, and how many coaches will let them?
Like it or not, professional athletes are role models to many young athletes, especially when they display the kind of toughness and machismo we often glorify. It's important for us in the sports media to make head injuries a consistent issue. We need to get the message out there that these injuries are a serious threat, and playing through them isn't always the way to go.
The media can have a substantial effect, especially with consistent pressure. After far too long, the NFL has finally gotten rid of its resident head-injury deniers, largely thanks to ongoing media pressure that led to a congressional investigation, and the league is making progress on many fronts. Randy Starkman of The Toronto Star has done some great work on concussions in hockey, especially with this 2007 series. Another key moment on the NHL front was the extensive media coverage of the recent revelation that former NHL star Reggie Fleming had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a concussion-linked disease that had previously been found in football players and boxers, but never hockey players. Concussions have become an issue at the league level recently, and that's a good step.
It's especially worth discussing concussions in leagues where they aren't yet a prominent issue, such as in Canadian and American university sports and women's sports. As Alan Schwarz reported in a 2007 New York Times piece, girls suffer concussions even more frequently than boys in many sports. A lot of those concussions take place in sports like soccer and basketball, not traditionally renowned for being hard-hitting. Another area where concussions only recently hit the radar screen is the CFL; Vicki Hall of the Calgary Herald did several great pieces on concussions during Grey Cup Week and turned the league's concussion policies into a significant issue.
These are all small steps, but we are making progress. Leagues, coaches and players at all levels are starting to realize the serious nature of head injuries, and that's a great thing. There are other steps that they can take to help deal with the problem, and I'll be covering a couple of those in the coming days. On the media side, though, the most important thing we can do is make sure that concussions remain a significant issue. We can't afford to let them slip off the radar screen, and we need to keep asking the tough questions about team policies and player injuries. Hopefully, some athletes and coaches will read or watch something on concussions, educate themselves on the dangers involved and behave more safely as a result. There's a great opportunity here for the sports media to actually do something positive for the games that we cover by keeping this issue alive and pushing for real, significant change. Let's not let that opportunity go to waste.
Just resting...
One problem with the holiday season is it leads to a lack of blogging time, especially when busy writing for other publications. I did manage to get some thoughts on the Roy Halladay trade and what it means for the Blue Jays up over at The Rookies However, I've finally cleared some of the backlog of work, so I should be able to get a few things up here pretty soon. One of the things I've been working on is a three-part series on concussions, which I'm planning to run today, tomorrow and Thursday. The first installment will go up shortly. Until then, here are some of the other pieces I've previously written on the subject:
- "The heads up on head injuries" (Queen's Journal, Sept. 28, 2007)
- "NHL's stance on concussions is troubling" (Queen's Journal, Dec. 28, 2007)
- "The school of hard knocks" (Queen's Journal, Jan. 29, 2009)
- "Take concussions seriously" (The Phoenix Pub, Aug. 11, 2009)
- "Football, brains and dogfighting" (The Phoenix Pub, Oct. 12, 2009)
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friday Night Football: Lions-Stampeders live blog!
It's getting close to the end of the work week as we know it, and that means it's time for one of my favourite moments each week in the summer; a B.C. Lions game. The Leos are hosting the Calgary Stampeders tonight in the second game of TSN's Friday Night Football doubleheader (the early game is Toronto against Winnipeg). I'll be live-blogging the B.C. - Calgary game here and at Out of Left Field. Kickoff is at 10:30 Eastern/7:30 Pacific.
This should be a good one. Both the Lions and the Stampeders got off to poor starts, and they both sit at 1-2 after three games. That's not what many had expected, as the Stampeders are the defending Grey Cup champions and the Lions went to the West Final last season. Still, they've both struggled early on, so both sides will be eager to get back on track tonight.
Calgary may be in good shape to do that. After a 40-27 thumping by Montreal in Week
One and a 42-30 defeat against Winnipeg in Week Two, the Stampeders responded with an impressive 44-9 win over the Toronto Argonauts in Week Three. Now, Toronto's far from the league's best, but that's still the largest margin of victory in the CFL this year. Calgary looked back in Grey Cup form, and that should help them tonight. There's a good reason five of the six writers at The Score's The Red Zone blog picked the Stampeders in this one (the lone exception was D.J. Bennett).
B.C. was not as impressive last week, but they did get it done. After losing an error-filled season opener in Regina 28-24, they were embarrassed 31-28 at home by the traditional CFL doormat, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and fell to 0-2. This past week, they didn't get off to a great start in Edmonton, but an injury to quarterback Buck Pierce sent in Jarious Jackson and he got it done in fine style, completing 19 of 28 passes for 362 yards and four touchdowns without a single interception and leading the Lions to a 40-22 victory. He was unanimously selected as the CFL's offensive player of the week for his efforts, joining teammate and frequent target Paris Jackson (outstanding Canadian) on the week's list of awards.
Jackson may have won the unanimous approval of the voting committee, but he wasn't able to win the starting job. Despite Jackson's almost-flawless performance in relief, head coach Wally Buono has elected to go back to Pierce tonight [Lowell Ulrich, The Province]. Still, Pierce is notoriously fragile and sometimes ineffective, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Buono make a change mid-game if the offence isn't running smoothly.
In my mind, though, Jackson should be the starter tonight. It doesn't even have to be a slam at Pierce; he suffered "concussion-like" symptoms last week and has a long history of concussions, so why not let him rest a bit more? If Jackson started and failed, Pierce could come in in relief. If Jackson succeeded mildly, the old order could be restored in the Lions' next game. If Jackson played well, then he could have been anointed as the starter.
To me, this is a dangerous move from a health perspective as well as a football one. I've written pretty extensively on concussions over the past few years, and putting a player back in this soon seems like something that would be frowned upon by many medical experts given Pierce's concussion history. The Lions' offensive line hasn't been great this year either, so expect Pierce to get hit at least once tonight. The problem with multiple concussions is each tends to make you more susceptible to future concussions, and they often get more damaging as you go along. That's another reason why starting Pierce tonight is concernihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifng, in my view.
In any case, it will be a fascinating game to watch. There are plenty of storylines to follow, from RB/KR Ian Smart's return to the Lions' QB situation to the Stampeders' attempts to get back into form. Come join me here for the live blog at 7:30 P.M. PST!
Related coverage:
- Ullrich has a nice piece on the Lions' motivation [The Province]
- Matt Sekeres has a good pre-game story on the rivalry between the teams [The Globe and Mail]
- Another good preview piece from The Canadian Press [CFL.ca]
- Check out Brian Wawryshyn's post on his Alberta road trip [BC Lions Den]
- Ullrich and Province sports editor Jonathan McDonald hosted an excellent game-day conversation on the Lions this morning [The Fifth Quarter]
This should be a good one. Both the Lions and the Stampeders got off to poor starts, and they both sit at 1-2 after three games. That's not what many had expected, as the Stampeders are the defending Grey Cup champions and the Lions went to the West Final last season. Still, they've both struggled early on, so both sides will be eager to get back on track tonight.
Calgary may be in good shape to do that. After a 40-27 thumping by Montreal in Week
One and a 42-30 defeat against Winnipeg in Week Two, the Stampeders responded with an impressive 44-9 win over the Toronto Argonauts in Week Three. Now, Toronto's far from the league's best, but that's still the largest margin of victory in the CFL this year. Calgary looked back in Grey Cup form, and that should help them tonight. There's a good reason five of the six writers at The Score's The Red Zone blog picked the Stampeders in this one (the lone exception was D.J. Bennett).
B.C. was not as impressive last week, but they did get it done. After losing an error-filled season opener in Regina 28-24, they were embarrassed 31-28 at home by the traditional CFL doormat, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and fell to 0-2. This past week, they didn't get off to a great start in Edmonton, but an injury to quarterback Buck Pierce sent in Jarious Jackson and he got it done in fine style, completing 19 of 28 passes for 362 yards and four touchdowns without a single interception and leading the Lions to a 40-22 victory. He was unanimously selected as the CFL's offensive player of the week for his efforts, joining teammate and frequent target Paris Jackson (outstanding Canadian) on the week's list of awards.
Jackson may have won the unanimous approval of the voting committee, but he wasn't able to win the starting job. Despite Jackson's almost-flawless performance in relief, head coach Wally Buono has elected to go back to Pierce tonight [Lowell Ulrich, The Province]. Still, Pierce is notoriously fragile and sometimes ineffective, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Buono make a change mid-game if the offence isn't running smoothly.
In my mind, though, Jackson should be the starter tonight. It doesn't even have to be a slam at Pierce; he suffered "concussion-like" symptoms last week and has a long history of concussions, so why not let him rest a bit more? If Jackson started and failed, Pierce could come in in relief. If Jackson succeeded mildly, the old order could be restored in the Lions' next game. If Jackson played well, then he could have been anointed as the starter.
To me, this is a dangerous move from a health perspective as well as a football one. I've written pretty extensively on concussions over the past few years, and putting a player back in this soon seems like something that would be frowned upon by many medical experts given Pierce's concussion history. The Lions' offensive line hasn't been great this year either, so expect Pierce to get hit at least once tonight. The problem with multiple concussions is each tends to make you more susceptible to future concussions, and they often get more damaging as you go along. That's another reason why starting Pierce tonight is concernihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifng, in my view.
In any case, it will be a fascinating game to watch. There are plenty of storylines to follow, from RB/KR Ian Smart's return to the Lions' QB situation to the Stampeders' attempts to get back into form. Come join me here for the live blog at 7:30 P.M. PST!
Related coverage:
- Ullrich has a nice piece on the Lions' motivation [The Province]
- Matt Sekeres has a good pre-game story on the rivalry between the teams [The Globe and Mail]
- Another good preview piece from The Canadian Press [CFL.ca]
- Check out Brian Wawryshyn's post on his Alberta road trip [BC Lions Den]
- Ullrich and Province sports editor Jonathan McDonald hosted an excellent game-day conversation on the Lions this morning [The Fifth Quarter]
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Female athletes: tougher than you might think
Neate came across a very interesting book excerpt in this weekend's New York Times magazine. It's by Michael Sokolove, and called Warrior Girls: Protecting Our Daughters Against the Injury Epidemic in Women’s Sports: well worth a read. Sokolove makes some very interesting points, and presents a balanced picture overall, but the centre of the piece focuses on research suggesting that girls who play sports like basketball, volleyball and soccer suffer significantly more concussions and knee injuries than boys playing the same sports: by a factor of five in certain cases. According to the NCAA, women's soccer players suffer concussions at the same rate as men's football players. I actually came across some of this data while doing my piece on concussions, but it didn't seem to fit with the larger angle of the story, so I didn't include it there.
The problem is what to do with this data. Those who oppose the opportunities offered to women's sports by Title IX will certainly add it to their arsenal of arguments suggesting that women cannot, or should not, compete at high levels. This doesn't seem to be Sokolove's argument, as his piece focuses more on injury prevention (although it's tough to tell from only a book excerpt) but some will undoubtably take the stats without context. It's also a problem to go too far the other way, and suggest that biological differences have zero impact on athletics: as Sokolove writes, the higher flexibility and less muscle mass that most girls tend to have, and the corresponding differences in the way they move, can put them more at risk for certain injuries, particuarly those that affect the knees and head. This doesn't mean girls should be kept out of certain sports: I'd prefer to see them playing everything possible, but they (and their parents) should be fully appraised of the potential risks involved in each sport before they sign up.
Another danger is the lack of awareness on the potential dangers of returning to sporting activity too soon. As the article points out, some of the increased injuries likely come because girls tend to play through more pain than guys. In my mind, it's important to increase the education aspect of sports, for both men and women. The long-term health of the athlete should always be paramount, far more so than any title or championship. The biomechanic coaching Sokolove discusses seems very promising: if it proves to be effective at reducing the knee injury rate of athletes, perhaps club and school coaches should receive some training in identifying athletes whose natural motion could cause injury down the road. Rather than preventing them from play, they should perhaps be referred to biomechanic specialists early on, who can help them refine their form before they run into injury problems. Athletes of both genders should also be made aware of the serious risks of playing sports, and all athletes and coaches should have it drummed into their heads that no athlete should return from injury before they're ready.
The other interesting point the article brings up is the problems with the club system and the idea of early specialization in one particular sport. I've talked to several high-level coaches who are firmly against early specialization policies, and prefer recruits who have played several different sports, as this tends to develop better-rounded athletes. Each sport builds different strengths and skills, which the athletes can then incorporate into their other sports. Thus, I agree with this portion. However, the criticisms of the club system are too harsh in my mind.
As Sokolove writes, "In many sports, a youth athlete’s paramount relationship is now with a club rather than a school team. Annual fees and travel to tournaments often run into the thousands of dollars. Parents pay for camps and private sports tutors. The guiding principle is that childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs. The quality of coaching, in terms of skills and tactics, is probably better than in past generations, but it is also narrower. Rather than being coached by educators who see them during the school day and have some holistic sense of them as children, young athletes are now mentored by coaches who cultivate only their athletic side. ... The club structure is the driving force behind the trend toward early specialization in one sport — and, by extension, a primary cause of injuries. To play multiple sports is, in the best sense, childlike. It’s fun. You move on from one good thing to the next. But to specialize conveys a seriousness of purpose. It seems to be leading somewhere — even if, in fact, the real destination is burnout or injury."
I take issue with this. Playing multiple sports isn't childlike, in my mind: it can be seen as the best way to further develop an athlete's total talents. In fact, many of the best athletes have been drafted by a couple pro leagues, and some like "Neon" Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson have even been able to play in two leagues at once. Steve Nash has talked about how the skills he gained playing soccer have molded him into such a great basketball player: in fact, he's even been known to practice with MLS teams from time to time. There's a good reason a lot of hockey players warm up by kicking a soccer ball around. In short, multiple sports help develop high-calibre athletes to their full potential.
I'd also argue that yes, "childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs" - at the highest levels. I'm not in favour of forcing six-year-olds onto rep teams, but high-calibre athletes do need to be identified early and trained by professionals. European clubs are probably the best example of this, with the academy system (slowly taking hold with such North American clubs as Toronto FC and the Vancouver Whitecaps): much of Manchester United's late-90's success came from the players they brought up from their own academy, such as David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt and the Neville brothers. The academy system signs kids at eight, which is perhaps too young, but it does identify top talent early and gets professionals involved. Recreational and mid-competitive sport is incredibly valuable for those who aren't going to make a career out of the game, but we shouldn't focus on the recreational side to the exclusion of high performance. There is a "seriousness of purpose" for the top athletes, and that's a good thing in my books.
Anyways, this is obviously a very complicated topic to discuss. As Mary Jo Kane, the director of the University of Minnesota's Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport, pointed out to Sokolove, the problem with analyzing injury trends like these is they can be used as ammunition against women's sports by Title IX opponents.
"I’m not in any way suggesting that this topic should not be taken seriously,” she tells Sokolove. “We need to do everything we can do to prevent injuries. But when you look at the stories that get told, that those who cover women’s sports are interested in telling . . . it does seem that so little coverage focuses on women’s accomplishments, on their mental toughness and physical courage. There is a disproportionate emphasis on things that are problematic or that are presented as signs of women’s biological difference or inferiority.”
Sokolove made a similar point himself. "The bigger barrier, though, may be political, he wrote. "Advocates for women’s sports have had to keep a laser focus on one thing: making sure they have equal access to high-school and college sports. It’s hard to fight for equal rights while also broadcasting alarm about injuries that might suggest women are too delicate to play certain games or to play them at a high level of intensity."
This illustrates the central dilemna posed by this question. It's tough to look at ways to solve the evident injury problems in women's sports while avoiding the dangerous path of reducing opportunities for female athletes. My suggestion would be to make as much information as possible on injury risks for both men and women available to coaches, athletes and parents, and work on ways to correct movement patterns that might lead to injuries before they occur. The central goal, though, should be to allow as many athletes as many opportunities as possible. Women shouldn't be told that they're too delicate to play any sport: rather, just like the men, they should be informed of the risks and allowed to make their own decisions. Sports are dangerous, and high-performance sports more so, but that's no reason to stop people of any gender from playing.
Related:
- A great Journal column from Queen's soccer goalie (and Journal staff writer) Katie McKenna on gender equity in sports.
- Mary Buckheit's feature for ESPN's Page 2 on the six female U.S. soccer players who have continued their careers after becoming mothers: a very impressive group of athletes.
The problem is what to do with this data. Those who oppose the opportunities offered to women's sports by Title IX will certainly add it to their arsenal of arguments suggesting that women cannot, or should not, compete at high levels. This doesn't seem to be Sokolove's argument, as his piece focuses more on injury prevention (although it's tough to tell from only a book excerpt) but some will undoubtably take the stats without context. It's also a problem to go too far the other way, and suggest that biological differences have zero impact on athletics: as Sokolove writes, the higher flexibility and less muscle mass that most girls tend to have, and the corresponding differences in the way they move, can put them more at risk for certain injuries, particuarly those that affect the knees and head. This doesn't mean girls should be kept out of certain sports: I'd prefer to see them playing everything possible, but they (and their parents) should be fully appraised of the potential risks involved in each sport before they sign up.
Another danger is the lack of awareness on the potential dangers of returning to sporting activity too soon. As the article points out, some of the increased injuries likely come because girls tend to play through more pain than guys. In my mind, it's important to increase the education aspect of sports, for both men and women. The long-term health of the athlete should always be paramount, far more so than any title or championship. The biomechanic coaching Sokolove discusses seems very promising: if it proves to be effective at reducing the knee injury rate of athletes, perhaps club and school coaches should receive some training in identifying athletes whose natural motion could cause injury down the road. Rather than preventing them from play, they should perhaps be referred to biomechanic specialists early on, who can help them refine their form before they run into injury problems. Athletes of both genders should also be made aware of the serious risks of playing sports, and all athletes and coaches should have it drummed into their heads that no athlete should return from injury before they're ready.
The other interesting point the article brings up is the problems with the club system and the idea of early specialization in one particular sport. I've talked to several high-level coaches who are firmly against early specialization policies, and prefer recruits who have played several different sports, as this tends to develop better-rounded athletes. Each sport builds different strengths and skills, which the athletes can then incorporate into their other sports. Thus, I agree with this portion. However, the criticisms of the club system are too harsh in my mind.
As Sokolove writes, "In many sports, a youth athlete’s paramount relationship is now with a club rather than a school team. Annual fees and travel to tournaments often run into the thousands of dollars. Parents pay for camps and private sports tutors. The guiding principle is that childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs. The quality of coaching, in terms of skills and tactics, is probably better than in past generations, but it is also narrower. Rather than being coached by educators who see them during the school day and have some holistic sense of them as children, young athletes are now mentored by coaches who cultivate only their athletic side. ... The club structure is the driving force behind the trend toward early specialization in one sport — and, by extension, a primary cause of injuries. To play multiple sports is, in the best sense, childlike. It’s fun. You move on from one good thing to the next. But to specialize conveys a seriousness of purpose. It seems to be leading somewhere — even if, in fact, the real destination is burnout or injury."
I take issue with this. Playing multiple sports isn't childlike, in my mind: it can be seen as the best way to further develop an athlete's total talents. In fact, many of the best athletes have been drafted by a couple pro leagues, and some like "Neon" Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson have even been able to play in two leagues at once. Steve Nash has talked about how the skills he gained playing soccer have molded him into such a great basketball player: in fact, he's even been known to practice with MLS teams from time to time. There's a good reason a lot of hockey players warm up by kicking a soccer ball around. In short, multiple sports help develop high-calibre athletes to their full potential.
I'd also argue that yes, "childhood sport is too important to be left to volunteers and amateurs" - at the highest levels. I'm not in favour of forcing six-year-olds onto rep teams, but high-calibre athletes do need to be identified early and trained by professionals. European clubs are probably the best example of this, with the academy system (slowly taking hold with such North American clubs as Toronto FC and the Vancouver Whitecaps): much of Manchester United's late-90's success came from the players they brought up from their own academy, such as David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt and the Neville brothers. The academy system signs kids at eight, which is perhaps too young, but it does identify top talent early and gets professionals involved. Recreational and mid-competitive sport is incredibly valuable for those who aren't going to make a career out of the game, but we shouldn't focus on the recreational side to the exclusion of high performance. There is a "seriousness of purpose" for the top athletes, and that's a good thing in my books.
Anyways, this is obviously a very complicated topic to discuss. As Mary Jo Kane, the director of the University of Minnesota's Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport, pointed out to Sokolove, the problem with analyzing injury trends like these is they can be used as ammunition against women's sports by Title IX opponents.
"I’m not in any way suggesting that this topic should not be taken seriously,” she tells Sokolove. “We need to do everything we can do to prevent injuries. But when you look at the stories that get told, that those who cover women’s sports are interested in telling . . . it does seem that so little coverage focuses on women’s accomplishments, on their mental toughness and physical courage. There is a disproportionate emphasis on things that are problematic or that are presented as signs of women’s biological difference or inferiority.”
Sokolove made a similar point himself. "The bigger barrier, though, may be political, he wrote. "Advocates for women’s sports have had to keep a laser focus on one thing: making sure they have equal access to high-school and college sports. It’s hard to fight for equal rights while also broadcasting alarm about injuries that might suggest women are too delicate to play certain games or to play them at a high level of intensity."
This illustrates the central dilemna posed by this question. It's tough to look at ways to solve the evident injury problems in women's sports while avoiding the dangerous path of reducing opportunities for female athletes. My suggestion would be to make as much information as possible on injury risks for both men and women available to coaches, athletes and parents, and work on ways to correct movement patterns that might lead to injuries before they occur. The central goal, though, should be to allow as many athletes as many opportunities as possible. Women shouldn't be told that they're too delicate to play any sport: rather, just like the men, they should be informed of the risks and allowed to make their own decisions. Sports are dangerous, and high-performance sports more so, but that's no reason to stop people of any gender from playing.
Related:
- A great Journal column from Queen's soccer goalie (and Journal staff writer) Katie McKenna on gender equity in sports.
- Mary Buckheit's feature for ESPN's Page 2 on the six female U.S. soccer players who have continued their careers after becoming mothers: a very impressive group of athletes.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The System of a Downie
Following the Philadelphia Flyers is the equivalent of watching a train wreck in slow motion, any horror movie, or even most episodes of The Office (or most other comedies for that matter)... you know things are going to go horribly wrong, but you can't turn away. The most recent calamity again has Steve Downie's handiwork written all over it, as he tried to gouge out the eye of Toronto Maple Leafs' forward Jason Blake with his thumb (after a linesman separated the two). This time, though, league discipline czar Colin "Soupy" Campbell (yes, he was actually called that during his playing days with the Canucks) decided that the act didn't even warrant a suspension, which is completely ridiculous. As James Mirtle points out, even Downie's own GM (who incidentally led the Flyers in career penalty minutes until the early 1990s) isn't defending him this time, but Colin Campbell somehow is.
Another incident in the same game that's potentially even more serious (in terms of career damage) but has gotten less attention was Derian Hatcher's head-hunting. In a moment that was both tragic and darkly comic, Hatcher tried to nail Alex Steen with an incredibly dirty jumping hit/elbow, but fails miserably. Steen ducks, and Hatcher winds up hitting teammate Joffrey Lupul, knocking his helmet off, and driving his head into the ice. You can see the video here. As one CBC commentator (I think it's Greg Millen) points out on the clip, "What is he thinking?!" The results: Lupul winds up in hospital with a spinal contusion and a concussion. If this was another team's player, people would be baying for Hatcher's blood as well as Downie's. It's tough to assess a suspension based purely on intent, but if there ever was a time to do it, this would be it. (Interestingly, Hatcher may be facing a suspension for a different incident, where he reportedly bit the finger of the New Jersey Devils' Travis Zajac. The man should change his name to Mike Tyson already!)
These incidents are merely the symptoms of the problem: the disease goes right to the organization's roots. Despite GM Paul Holmgren's attempts to evade blame in the Downie incident, he is directly responsible for a large part of the continuing stupidity involving the Flyers. It is not a coincidence that one organization has racked up five suspensions so far this season. Bobby Clarke, one of the dirtiest players who ever lived (consider his slash on Kharlamov back in the 1972 Summit Series as an example) is the former GM and current senior vice-president, responsible for much of the pervading organizational culture in Philly these days. Holmgren, a former Broad Street Bully (and the aforementioned former penalty king of the Flyers), is cast from much of the same mould, and so is head coach John Stevens, who racked up 1399 penalty minutes in 834 career AHL games. They've filled their team with Downies, Hatchers, and Boulerices (if you missed any of the earlier incidents, including Jesse Boulerice's attack on Ryan Kesler, check out my post here about them), and now they should pay the price. Kudos to the league for threatening action against the team if these incidents continue, but a giant raspberry to Campbell for neglecting to take any action against Downie or Hatcher.
Another incident in the same game that's potentially even more serious (in terms of career damage) but has gotten less attention was Derian Hatcher's head-hunting. In a moment that was both tragic and darkly comic, Hatcher tried to nail Alex Steen with an incredibly dirty jumping hit/elbow, but fails miserably. Steen ducks, and Hatcher winds up hitting teammate Joffrey Lupul, knocking his helmet off, and driving his head into the ice. You can see the video here. As one CBC commentator (I think it's Greg Millen) points out on the clip, "What is he thinking?!" The results: Lupul winds up in hospital with a spinal contusion and a concussion. If this was another team's player, people would be baying for Hatcher's blood as well as Downie's. It's tough to assess a suspension based purely on intent, but if there ever was a time to do it, this would be it. (Interestingly, Hatcher may be facing a suspension for a different incident, where he reportedly bit the finger of the New Jersey Devils' Travis Zajac. The man should change his name to Mike Tyson already!)
These incidents are merely the symptoms of the problem: the disease goes right to the organization's roots. Despite GM Paul Holmgren's attempts to evade blame in the Downie incident, he is directly responsible for a large part of the continuing stupidity involving the Flyers. It is not a coincidence that one organization has racked up five suspensions so far this season. Bobby Clarke, one of the dirtiest players who ever lived (consider his slash on Kharlamov back in the 1972 Summit Series as an example) is the former GM and current senior vice-president, responsible for much of the pervading organizational culture in Philly these days. Holmgren, a former Broad Street Bully (and the aforementioned former penalty king of the Flyers), is cast from much of the same mould, and so is head coach John Stevens, who racked up 1399 penalty minutes in 834 career AHL games. They've filled their team with Downies, Hatchers, and Boulerices (if you missed any of the earlier incidents, including Jesse Boulerice's attack on Ryan Kesler, check out my post here about them), and now they should pay the price. Kudos to the league for threatening action against the team if these incidents continue, but a giant raspberry to Campbell for neglecting to take any action against Downie or Hatcher.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
A sporting Christmas wish list
Apologies for the lack of updates over the last few days: a combination of my computer dying (or at least suffering serious injury) and the craziness associated with Christmas meant that I wasn't able to find the time to sit down and hammer out a post. Anyways, in step with the many pundits who have traversed the road before me(such as Ben Knight and my own father), here's my shot at offering symbolic Christmas presents to those I write about.
Hockey:
-To Roberto Luongo: A trophy case for those he should collect later this year. Luongo narrowly lost out to Sidney Crosby and Martin Brodeur in the Hart and Vezina Trophy races last year, but is having a better season than either to this point. He also dominated their head-to-head battles, stopping Crosby twice on late breakaways and shutting out Brodeur's New Jersey Devils in a 5-0 rout. As the Vancouver Province's Ed Willes pointed out in an insightful column yesterday, "Luongo, at this moment, is the best player in the NHL." His numbers (2.03 GAA, second only to Detroit's Chris Osgood, and .929 save percentage, second only to Boston's Tim Thomas) are impressive on their own, but look even better when you look at the shot-difficulty data Gabe Desjardins has compiled (thanks to James for the link). Luongo is sixth on his list of those who have a better GAA than expected from the difficulty of shots that they make, with a delta GAA of -0.65. Brodeur is way down the list with a delta GAA of -0.11, suggesting that many of the saves he makes are on easier shots (not surprising, when you consider that the defensive system New Jersey plays with is even more pronounced than Vancouver's). Hopefully a strong continued performance from Luongo will be enough to sway the necessary voters come June.
- To Joe Sakic and Ryan Smyth: get-well soon cards. The league is a better place with players of their quality.
- To Mike Weaver: Some toys for his new son. He's been a solid team player thus far for the Canucks, effective in his role and capable of stepping up to fill in defensive holes in the roster.
- To Buffalo Sabres and Pittsburgh Penguins players: some toques. They'll need them.
- To Colin Campbell: a clue. The NHL's discipline czar uttered some great lines to Toronto Star writer Randy Starkman on the legitimacy of concussions in hockey. "Some are legitimate," said Campbell. "I think some you might find aren't legitimate. ... I think there's a small percentage, not a great percentage, of players who use it as an excuse, `Oh yeah, I've got a concussion.' They can milk it. It's a hard thing to really say that you haven't, you know, if you're trying to get some extra insurance money out of it to get paid an extra year or something." I think Campbell is out of his mind here, especially given the hockey culture of not reporting injuries and returning far too soon. As Keith Primeau, who was knocked out of the game by concussions, said in Part Two of Starkman's series, hockey players aren't going to take themselves out of a crucial game due to concussion symptoms. "They're not going to do it," Primeau said. "Guys aren't going to think long-term. We never do." It's a little worrying to hear that the head of NHL discipline thinks players are faking concussions. I'll have more on this in a later post or column. By the way, kudos again to James for highlighting these articles in an insightful post.
- To Starkman himself: sincere commendations for the work he did on his features on concussions in hockey. Concussions in sport are a tough, often touchy topic to address, as I found out earlier this year when writing my original piece on them. Players and coaches are frequently reluctant to give out too much information on concussions for fear that it might be used against them by opponents. Yet, it can be rewarding: there's a deep issue here, as concussions bring up the tension between the manly image of playing through pain and the concern about what's best for an athlete long-term. They make us ask the question of "at what price do we value sporting triumphs?" Starkman did a fantastic job on this article, and deserves a hearty round of applause. Hopefully, more work will be done on concussions in different sports in the future: I still think that this is perhaps the most important, if rarely talked about, issue facing sports today.
- To all NHLPA members: reading lamps for them to enjoy their new gifts from Chris Chelios and Eric Lindros, Susan Foster's The Power Of Two. This fantastic book, on the work that Foster and ex-NHL star Carl Brewer did to expose Alan Eagleson's shameful activities as head of the Players' Association, should be required reading for every hockey player, particularly in light of the recent troubles the PA underwent with Ted Saskin. Kudos to Chelios and Lindros for springing for these. I'll also send the PA members Russ Conway's great book Cracking the Ice, based on the investigative articles he wrote for the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, to give a journalist's perspective on Eagleson's downfall. Both books are terrific, and should be read by anyone interested in the history of hockey.
Soccer
- To Jonny Evans: a good lawyer. He'll certainly need one.
- To Manchester United: Blinders to ignore the fallout from the Evans case. Regardless of how this turns out, it's going to be a public black eye and a distraction for the club at a very inopportune time. Hopefully, they'll be able to keep their focus on the pitch.
- To Luca Toni and Franck Ribery: some choice German sausages, beer, and Black Forest cake to make them feel at home at Bayern Munich despite Oliver Kahn's recent comments. I'm pretty sure Toni at least feels somewhat comfortable, judging by his recent four-goal performance against Aris.
- To the Vancouver city council: a desperately needed kick in the pants to get going on the new soccer stadium. Unlike every other arena deal in recent history, Greg Kerfoot is proposing this one with very little cost to taxpayers at any level. Council should stop moaning and listening to the constant grumblers, and get on board with this before Kerfoot realizes just how much better his offer is than any proposed by a sports franchise in any other city. It's a wonder that this man puts up with this city.
- To Toronto F.C.: a playoff berth next year, and an injury-prevention device. They made some great strides this year, and could have done much better if not crippled by a string of bad luck. Hopefully the support will stay strong in Year Two and the on-field success will follow.
- To the UBC Thunderbirds and the Cape Breton Capers: a belated bottle of champagne for their CIS championship wins.
- To the men and women of the Queen's Golden Gaels soccer teams: a round of drinks in celebration of a successful season, and best wishes for next year's campaigns.
- To George Gillett: success in his new stadium endeavour for Liverpool. He comes across as a guy who genuinely cares about his franchises, and the tremendous level of access he gave to the Globe and Mail's Stephen Brunt recently certainly speaks well for him.
- To the aforementioned Mr. Brunt: congratulations for a solid year's worth of work. He's written many terrific soccer columns this year, including the aforementioned one on Gillett and Liverpool and his earlier call for replacement of the Canadian Soccer Association around the Black Wednesday protest. It's great to see a columnist of such stature not only talking about soccer, but writing insightful pieces on it. He's also written some other great columns this year, including those on the imminent invasion of the NFL, Bret Hart
, and the backroom maneuverings between the NHL and NHLPA. Keep up the good work.
- To another great Globe columnist, Ben Knight: kudos for a fantastic first few months in his new digs at the Globe on Soccer blog. He consistently provides great insight into and fascinating takes on the beautiful game.
Other Sports
- To the New York Giants: superhuman strength to knock off the insufferable Patriots against all odds (and not the steroid variety: it's not worth becoming cheaters to beat cheaters).
- To Madison Square Garden head honcho Jimmy Dolan: a hint that it might be time to Fire Isiah?
- To those named in the Mitchell Report: a old-fashioned Bronx cheer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
