With the recent deaths of Ray Easterling and Junior Seau, and the prominence of head-shots within the Saints bounty scandal, football-related brain injuries have returned to the news. Unfortunately for the general public, news reports don’t contain much useful information on these injuries and their causes, diagnoses, and treatments. Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to listen and speak to Dr. Stefan Duma of Virginia Tech and Dr. Jeffrey Barth of the University of Virginia, both of whom are leaders in the field of head injury research.
Here’s some of what they had to say: http://secondlevelfootball.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/football-and-brain-injury/
I truly don’t intend to make head injuries in football, or any other sport, less than they are and my condolences are extended to the families of both of these former athletes who’s lives ended too soon.
However, where’s the “control” in the arguments that are coming out in the news? How many former athletes have hit their 40s in the past 10 years? What percentage of those athletes committed suicide? Now, what’s the percentage of individuals in the general population who’ve committed suicide in the same time line?
I certainly hope that hits on the field had nothing to do with these suicides, but I know that we need a better “control” before we automatically jump to conclusions.
If you’re wondering, I play hockey and I’ve suffered concussions in the past. No, I’m not a professional and I won’t be anytime in this life time, but I do know what a concussion feels like and I do understand the aftermaths.
The best data we have is an epidemiological study focused on cardiovascular mortality in retired NFL players; it incidentally included information on violent death (self-inflicted and otherwise): http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(11)03387-X/fulltext
For folks not familiar with epi. studies like this, they use general population data as a control group. The study showed a lower suicide rate than expected (as compared to the general population), but given the study’s nature, limitations, and use of standardization, there’re a million and one reasons why you could say it’s relevant to today’s concerns or not. When I first saw it a few months back, I looked at the suicides and CNS ailments out of curiosity, but personally didn’t think it was worth drawing conclusions from.
That brain tissue pic was scary! Glad I didn’t play ball for that long