[url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/76-of-79-deceased-nfl-players-found-to-have-brain-disease/76 of 79 Deceased NFL players found to have brain damage[/url

The scary thing about this is that neurological studies show it's not the "big hits" which do the damage. Rather it's the cumulative effect of smaller impacts going right back to college and even school.

Granted, gridiron and RL are different games. But there are similarities in the nature and frequency of collisions. I'm certain any kind of similar study in RL would likely reveal congruent issues.

Right now the NFL really is in danger of being sued into non-existence. I doubt it will cease to exist. But some kind of compromise will have to be made the consequences of which may well be profound.

Apologies for not having time to read the article, but what would the brain damage ratio be for normal humans through their life?

This bit's important, although it's obviously still very concerning. It's also worth noting, I think, that the types of collision in NFL are different from those in rugby. I recall reading a piece a while back about how the use of helmets and massive shoulder pads (armour, really) had led to "tackles" which effectively involved players launching themselves head first at each other, often resulting in very heavy contact to the head. In RL, while such head contact does occur, it's almost always accidental, and less frequent or high-speed than in NFL. There's an average of 1 concussion in every two NFL games, which is a sod of a lot every weekend. I don't think RL tots up quite so many.

Having said that, I have no doubt that these developments in the states are behind the recent moves to take concussion much more seriously in the RL, and that's a good thing. I've already "sent off" a lad in an amateur game this year who appeared to be knocked out briefly in a tackle. He was all for carrying on, but I wouldn't continue the game until he was off. I was expecting more resistance from his team, but actually they were entirely in agreement : I think the message is getting through about not mucking about with head injuries.

It's a mistake to think these injuries are brought about solely through head-to-head tackles. For sure they are a factor. A big factor. But the scientists looking at this problem seem to think relatively minor knocks (such as your head hitting the floor) are a much bigger issue. Head on tackles, whilst representing a tremendous amount of concussive energy, happen comparatively rarely next to your regular "rough and tumble" impacts which are less damaging but might occur five, ten or twenty times more often.

Slow and steady wins the race unfortunately.

Even more worrying is the fact that brain scarring was present right back to the early teens. The doctors doing the trial were absolutely shocked wend they discovered this.

To be honest, I reckon football faces even bigger problems with all the heading that goes on. But you can bet this issue will arrive on SL's doorstep - especially if some tragedy is associated with such in the near future. There are lawyers who will be positively salivating at the possibilities.

Yup, up until recently, getting knocked out was seen as a badge of honour in RL. You got up and played on and you were a hero. RL will have a problem with this, most importantly because the sport doesn't have anything like the insurance cover or access to funding as the NFL has. I remember a young player at Saints who had a reputation for getting knocked out every week, but can't remember his name.

But isn't this what disclaimers were invented for? I.e these are our anti concussion procedures to minimise the possibility of brain injury, but sign here to say you accept it's your will to play regardless?

As mentioned this is all being pushed by the lawyers. NFL is suffering, but it won't be long until other sports are picked up. I'd imagine motor sports will be bad for this as well. How does boxing fare in this regard? You'd have to imagine that everyone who ever boxed for a few years would be showing signs? Pro wrestlers, MMA fighters? Hopefully the instances in RL are few and far between as inbetween worrying about the financial ruination of the sport, there would be a guy with brain damage causing it. This highlights the shoulder charge debate, I think everyone misses the old big hits. They would fire up an entire stadium and turn a dour game into a frenzy. But the impacts of those challenges were often conducive to concussion injuries through either impacting the head directly or causing it to collapse forward during impact.

Well, that's the thing. Aside from removing the last shred of uncertainty we really had no need of a prolonged and likely expensive study to find a link to brain injury. The relationship between being repeatedly punched in the head and serious brain ailments has been known of in boxing for in excess of a century.

Signing some kind of disclaimer absolving the sport of all responsibility sounds like a nice, neat solution. But whether such could ever be an acceptable avenue under current legislation is doubtful.

My guess is some disclaimer will come into being with the individual sports required to set aside a percentage of profits to cover a lifetime's medical bills. But even this might not be robust enough to survive repeated legal challenges.

I think this is why I'm not unduly panicking about the end of contact sports. The impact of boxing on the brain has long been understood. Far more people in this country play rugby (of both codes) than box, yet even with that huge potential sample, we haven't seen any obvious notable epidemic of such long-term effects. I guess that's why it's lawyers pushing this, rather than doctors at this stage.

I also agree that in this country, if it's going to emerge, I'd expect football to see it happen more. I'd rather tackle prop forwards 40 times in a game, than head a long cross once !

I think there have been studies into football which yielded some worrying results. But it's very hard to conduct the type of definitive research because the money just isn't there. Not to mention the political and peer pressure.

I didn't think it would get as far as it has with Gridiron. Unfortunately the nature of American society inevitably saw terms such as "ex-professional football player", "depression" and "gun-owner" and voila!

[url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264856Shontayne Hape's case[/url is anecdotal evidence, in the modern era. I expect he's at the tip of the iceberg.

With this kind of injury, you're stuck with observational studies for ethical reasons, as much as anything else ("Come 'ere, son - we're going to coat your twin in bubble wrap, then whack you in the head every couple of days for 20 years" may not get you past the ethics board). But, as you say, we know plenty about the cause-and-effect relationships between repeated blows to the head/whiplash/concussion, and the subsequent cognitive difficulties and brain damage. An expensive study isn't really necessary for that.

People engage in all manner of risky activities, and sometimes the risk profile is well-understood. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that more total collisions, more frequent collisions, and more energetic collisions might raise the overall risk of repeated small brain injuries that could lead to lasting damage. That could implicate not only collisions in a competitive match, but also collisions during training. As the intensity of training - as well as of competitive matches - has ramped up with professionalism, has the overall risk for a player also increased? Do we understand that risk profile in RL? I don't know.

But, with the GPS data that clubs are collecting routinely during training, it may be possible to relate results of cognitive tests (as a proxy for brain damage) to historical data regarding collision frequency and intensity - at least, for some professional players. It'd be observational and a bit messy, but maybe it might have enough power to detect an effect? A study like that might already be going on, for all I know.

The problem is for any kind of study you need access to raw data. Unfortunately, much of it is tied up with the sport. And they aren't likely to be too co-operative with any study which the end results of mean potentially serious and expensive upheaval.

Gridiron lucked out with players donating their brains for further research. Outside it's the chicken-and-egg situation - no one is likely to donate his brain to a non-existent issue. But without the studies it's difficult to know there is an issue.

You may, sadly, be right. A club truly concerned about player welfare would be hypocritical to withhold the data. Concerned players (or League13) might still submit an FOI request, but I don't know if it would get anywhere. The cynic in me suggests it might not - the defence of "we incompetently lost it" would all too plausible

FOI is fine but the DPA would override this.

The Data Protection Act 1998 also covers the rules regarding use of "sensitive personal data"; that is data that consists of information about an employee's:
racial or ethnic origins;
political opinions;
religious beliefs;
trade union membership (or non-membership);
physical or mental health or condition;
sex life or sexual orientation;
criminal (or alleged criminal) activities; or
criminal proceedings, criminal convictions (or any sentences imposed by the courts).

Sensitive personal data must not be held on a personnel file without the employees express consent - unless held to comply with an employer's legal obligations. This data may also be retained for so long as may be necessary for the original purpose.

is the only exemption I see being relevant. If the player asks for their own information, the DPA would require the club to hand over the data (by my understanding). If the data is not health data but instead [iperformance[/i data, I wonder how that might be interpreted.

To answer Mugwump's original question: looks like [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32525472tonight[/url.

Bizarre, did Mugwump know about this?

Any possibility he'll take action against anyone? Flower even? Or am I reading too much into it? If he didn't have symptoms before the GF and does now it looks bad.

They would have to show a causal link between that incident and the symptoms he is suffering from now. It could be tricky.

Why? He'd no doubt have medical records showing he was fine before and medical records showing he was injured afterwards. He would surely have gone for assessment after the Grand Final as a precaution as well, which would state the injuries evident at the time. I'm not saying he would persue Flower/SL/Wigan/Saints/RL, but it does seem plausible.

He's spent 13 years as a professional in the premier collision sport on the planet. Demonstrating that Flower's punches were what caused his condition is likely to be difficult.

Where there's blame, there's a claim. If I was Flower, or Wigan, I would be very worried, this is going to hang over them for years. I would also suggest that the big money lawyers will have Wane in their sights. The bad news for them is that Lance is retiring to the U.S., he is going to be bombarded by ambulance chasers, particularly on the back of the NFL cases.

The original post is the issue though. All the evidence I've seen points to the problem being due to cumulative effects rather than one-offs. IIRC smaller knocks can be the worst, because players won't necessarily show any symptoms but have suffered bruising/swelling of the brain. As a result they aren't taken off the field as they nowadays are when clearly concussed, and take more hits to an already bruised brain.

As an aside, this is the sole reason why shoulder charges were banned. RL would indeed have found itself in deep legal poop if the sport continued to not just condone but glorify shoulder charges. The NRL saw the future issues arising from the NFL and banned shoulder charges almost overnight as a result.

You can defend your sport being tough, contact etc and that players are aware of general physical danger. But if the prosecution for an ex-player (or even worse a whole bunch of them) cracked open a highlights reel of RL shoulder charge 'big hits' together with commentators having verbal orgasms, crowds cheering' the 'tackling' player being high-fived by teammates whilst his opponent is either unconscious or staggering around on jelly legs and the ref waving play on, it would be pretty hard to explain to a court (most likely not containing RL fans) how the sport had really fulfilled its duty of care to players.

Legal teams are a bit smarter these days, medical evidence and player intent to injure are taken on board in a more serious manner.
I,m sure the Smith v Stankavitch case or the Newton v Long assault would have had a different outcome if it was dealt with today.

You can definitely define the likely age of brain injuries. It was on 'Bones' last night. And that guy had been through an industrial mincing machine.

Hopefully this is all a non-issue. Hopefully Lance will be fine and not have any long term problems.

Once you accept that a sport has a duty of care to players you really do become hostage to the next round of legal one-upmanship. I mean, suing the sport over a stress-fracture of the toenail sounds incredibly unlikely - not to mention silly. But if you look at it as the furthest possible milestone in a series of consecutive legal challenges which move the bar incrementally forward from cases we deem "serious" today it suddenly becomes not so outlandish an end-result.

As far as I know, SL club Dr's have been reporting Head injuries/concussion to the RFL (paper based) since SL was started. The event itself, the injury, the environment, the weather, state of the pitch etc. Thats an awful lot of good data which is sitting there at Red hall.