The Future of Football: NYTimes Links Big Tobacco with NFL Concussion Study

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
The Times piece left out Exponent when making the tobacco connections. It's quite interesting.
PFT is now mentioning that angle:

To summarize, the New York Times cobbled together an article nearly 3,000 words long that criticized the NFL for flawed concussion research from 1996 through 2001 and that pointed out superficial connections between pro football and Big Tobacco (leaving out, curiously, the fact that the supposed smoking-gun scientific expert from #Deflategate once opined that second-hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer), and the NFL issued not one but two lengthy statements taking issue with specific aspects of the Times article
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/25/new-york-times-responds-to-nfls-response-to-new-york-times/
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
This is a joke right?
Justin Barney ‏@JustinBarneyTU 49m49 minutes ago
NFL commish Roger Goodell will be honored next week in Jacksonville with the JSMP Leadership in Sports Health, Safety & Research Award.


There are numerous other sports commissioners who are more deserving of that honor...
---

Also, they spent money on ad's to fight the NYT!
When the New York Times published a detailed investigative report on Thursday calling into question the National Football League’s research on concussions, the league responded with a 2,500-word rebuttal.

On Friday the league upped the ante, running ads on the Times’ website, including the very article that caused the firestorm.

The Times’ online sports section, even non-football stories, featured numerous ads from the NFL highlighting the changes the league has taken to improve player safety as a debate rages over the medical effects of concussions.

The banner ads could be seen early Friday across the top of stories, with a larger half-page ad on the right side. (See the screenshots embedded in this article.) By mid-afternoon on Friday, Wall Street Journal reporters could no longer find the ads on the site. A Times spokeswoman said the ads were still in circulation, however.
A spokesman for the NFL said the league bought the ads because it wanted to present information directly to readers, rather than have it filtered through the Times’ editorial staff. The league contends that it was transparent about the limitations of the data used in the research the Times cited.

“We wanted readers to have all the information about all the work that we’ve done to improve the safety of the game,” said NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy. “We were concerned that our message was being mishandled by the Times.”

Mr. McCarthy said this was the first time the NFL has purchased display ads to counter such a story. He said the NFL also paid to promote its message on Facebook and Twitter.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nfl-runs-ads-in-new-york-times-concussions-story-to-counter-it-1458936048
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Guilt by association. I mean, sometimes it is just easier to compare X to Y in an unfavorable way to get people to see that X is bad.
...
So...the Times linking one band of KNOWN evil fuckfaces (Big Tobacco) to another (the NFL) helps establish the NFL as evil fuckfaces with the average fan.

This place is WAY more aware of brain injury stuff than most every other fan forum in the world. I've researched this. It is KNOWN.

But weak connection or not...this linkage between evil organizations helps the Times (and all of us desperate for this issue to get more attention) shed more light on a subject that is mostly hidden or brushed aside.
This is an essentially an argument that the ends (of this journalism) justify the (duplicitous and illogical) means.

The abyss is gazing back into you a bit, I'd say. If Stephen Colbert can effectively explain to America why Snowden mattered, I'm willing to bet there is a gifted enough communicator out there that they can make the public understand CTE enough to care. Maybe Will Smith wasn't that communicator, but I'd wager someone's out there who could.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
are the people who are rewarding Goodell with this award living under a rock? How are they not aware of everything going on with the NFL and concussions?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
are the people who are rewarding Goodell with this award living under a rock? How are they not aware of everything going on with the NFL and concussions?
This is better. He'll look even worse, like Eugene Robinson, once this continues to blow up.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
This is an essentially an argument that the ends (of this journalism) justify the (duplicitous and illogical) means.

The abyss is gazing back into you a bit, I'd say. If Stephen Colbert can effectively explain to America why Snowden mattered, I'm willing to bet there is a gifted enough communicator out there that they can make the public understand CTE enough to care. Maybe Will Smith wasn't that communicator, but I'd wager someone's out there who could.
John Oliver?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
are the people who are rewarding Goodell with this award living under a rock? How are they not aware of everything going on with the NFL and concussions?
This reminds me of when Donald Sterling was due to receive an NAACP award like a week after his scandal broke.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
This is a joke right?
Justin Barney ‏@JustinBarneyTU 49m49 minutes ago
NFL commish Roger Goodell will be honored next week in Jacksonville with the JSMP Leadership in Sports Health, Safety & Research Award.

There are numerous other sports commissioners who are more deserving of that honor...
-- snip --
This is a link to the 2016 Symposium the JSMP is putting on April 2nd. I presume that would be where Goodell gets the award.

"This year’s theme focuses on concussions and a variety of conditions that affect athletes involved in middle or high school sports, as well as those involved in other physical activity." Um hello... is this thing on???

List of presentations during the symposium:
• When the cheering stops – the after effects of concussions – Steven Broglio, PhD, ATC
• Shoulder Pain in the Throwing Athlete – Kevin Farmer, MD
• Elbow Injuries in the Thrower – Kevin Farmer, MD
• Management of Acute Knee Injuries in the NFL – Kevin Kaplan, MD, FAAOS
• Acute and Chronic Issues involving the Athlete’s Hip – John Redmond, MD
• Emerging Foot and Ankle Injuries in Elite Young Athletes – Bob Duggan, LAT, DPM, FACFAS
• Current Treatment of Foot and Ankle Overuse Injuries – Bob Duggan, LAT, DPM, FACFAS
• Managing Conflict of Interest in Sports Medicine Today – Scott Trulock, ATC, LAT, Jacksonville Jaguars
• Eyes, Ears, Mouth, Nose – common facial injuries in sport – Mac Thurston, MD
• Hey Doc, What’s this? Skin Infections in Athletics – Jason Read, MD
• Impact Mechanics in Football Athletes – Steven Broglio, PhD, ATC
• Concussion Recovery, Is Rest Best? – Steven Broglio, PhD, ATC

I can't believe this... you would think someone somewhere at the JSMP would read the NYT piece, read the blurb about the focus of the symposium and say that maybe this needs to be rethought?

Someone needs to tweet this symposium link @keithlaw He might split his other 2 obliques laughing. I don't do the twitter thing.

Oh and is there any truth to the rumor that he was recommended for the award by the NFLPA? lol
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
As long as we are talking about science attacks and Exponent, here's a piece on what Exponent has done for asbestos cancer denial:

In 2001, toxicologist Dennis Paustenbach got a phone call from a lawyer for Ford Motor Company.

The lawyer, Darrell Grams, explained that Ford had been losing lawsuits filed by former auto mechanics alleging asbestos in brakes had given them mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer virtually always tied to asbestos exposure. Grams asked Paustenbach, then a vice president with the consulting firm Exponent, if he had any interest in studying the disease’s possible association with brake work. A meeting cemented the deal.

Paustenbach, a prolific author of scientific papers who’d worked with Grams on Dow Corning’s defense against silicone breast-implant illness claims, had barely looked at asbestos to that point. “I really started to get serious about studying asbestos after I met Mr. Grams, that’s for sure,” Paustenbach testified in a sworn deposition in June 2015. Before that, he said, the topic “wasn’t that interesting to me.”

Thus began a relationship that, according to recent depositions, has enriched Exponent by $18.2 million and brought another $21 million to Cardno ChemRisk, a similar firm Paustenbach founded in 1985, left and restarted in 2003. All told, testimony shows, Ford has spent nearly $40 million funding journal articles and expert testimony concluding there is no evidence brake mechanics are at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. This finding, repeated countless times in courtrooms and law offices over the past 15 years, is an attempt at scientific misdirection aimed at extricating Ford from lawsuits, critics say.

“They’ve published a lot, but they’ve really produced no new science,” said John Dement, a professor in Duke University’s Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
[...]
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/16/19297/ford-spent-40-million-reshape-asbestos-science

Really, it's not Exponent who's at fault here. If they didn't do this work, someone else would step up to get paid. Science denial for tobacco, asbestos, climate change, and here for concussions is all about the money. If you are a company with billions of dollars at stake, why NOT spend a few tens of millions to run a denial effort?
 
Last edited:
Apr 7, 2006
2,505
Those of us vibing for Anonymous or other "Hacktivist" organizations to dig into emails and data at 345 Park Ave. might be better served siccing them on Exponent instead. Expose DFG AND all their phony cancer studies for corporations.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
What I don't understand is this:
There are millions of Americans that believe in conspiracies to hide aliens, conspiracies where the government orchestrated 9/11, conspiracies that the UN is going to take over the US, conspiracies involving Obama.

But those same people can't see the real story behind concussion denial, or climate change denial, or tobacco cancer denial. When those science denial cases are so much simpler. The executives at Philip Morris or Ford sit in a room with the general counsel. They discuss the possible liability. When liability risk is big- $1B for Ford, an existential risk to an industry valued at $20B in the case of the NFL, profits at stake for oil and energy companies - there is a straight business case to spend $50M on denial efforts. Why would those executives not spend that money (beyond moral reasons)? It's totally worth it when business risks are large.

I don't fully get why so many people are afraid of the UN overthrowing the government, yet those same people blindly follow what oil companies say about climate change or the NFL says about concussions.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Yea you do. It's because people want to hear what they want to believe. They want to believe that driving their huge cars is fine. They want to believe that the politician they don't like isn't a "real American" like them. They want to believe that smoking isn't going to kill them, and they want to believe that there's nothing, absolutely nothing wrong, with watching men destroy each other on the football field.

And exponent and the NFL and Philip Morris know that.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Werder: Excellent work, Tom. And you're right. But players have long known the dangerous realities of their risky profession
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Curran: "If they said to me, 'I've seen future This is what happens.' Of course, I would stop playing immediately," KTurner
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Werder: Excellent work, Tom. And you're right. But players have long known the dangerous realities of their risky profession
Ya, no they haven't. Which is the point. Broken bones and even concussions? Sure. But not fucking early onset dementia and crippling depression.

That's like saying in 1995 that it doesn't matter that the tobacco industry kept their findings on cancer secret, because smokers have long known that it makes you cough and turns your teeth yellow.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Ya, no they haven't. Which is the point. Broken bones and even concussions? Sure. But not fucking early onset dementia and crippling depression.

That's like saying in 1995 that it doesn't matter that the tobacco industry kept their findings on cancer secret, because smokers have long known that it makes you cough and turns your teeth yellow.
Right. Joe Montana (or even Namath)v. Jim McMahon. Or Jim Otto v. Mike Webster.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
This is exactly what the NYT is doing. And it's beneath them (or at least it's beneath what they put on airs of being).

I disagree that it helps the cause. Big Tobacco was sui generis -- selling a legal product that is more addictive than heroin and kills 400,000 Americans a year due to its intended use. Comparing pretty much anything to that is the hallmark of an unserious argument. The public intuitively knows this. So does the NFL, and they pounced. And now the public debate will focus on the merits of the analogy rather than the science, and what the NFL may have done to obstruct or cover it up.
Eh, I am unmoved and unimpressed by "better than" arguments. The NYT is a news organization that needs readers, not a public institution that needs an unimpeachable reputation - no matter what they like to pretend. They can pretend to be better than (for example) the National Enquirer, but they are not, and I refuse to hold them to a different standard because a certain slice of the populace has bought their bullshit.

And I vehemently disagree this does not "help the cause". What the NFL has done is systematically hide that 89% of its players will end up with brain damage. Did 89% of smokers end up dead? Not even close.

The American public - today - is never going to focus on the merits of the science. And yeah, I'm absolutely biased by my personal experience of screaming into the wind on this exact issue. No one - even the most educated and best-informed sports fans on the planet (i.e. this place) gave a shit, maufman.

Drawing attention to how the NFL has covered up this issue - by any means necessary - is OK with me. I've tried the reasonable, thoughtful, integrity route. It has not worked. The NFL has literally been lying - and getting away with it - for decades. Anything that helps expose their hypocrisy is helpful, IMO.

This is an essentially an argument that the ends (of this journalism) justify the (duplicitous and illogical) means.

The abyss is gazing back into you a bit, I'd say. If Stephen Colbert can effectively explain to America why Snowden mattered, I'm willing to bet there is a gifted enough communicator out there that they can make the public understand CTE enough to care. Maybe Will Smith wasn't that communicator, but I'd wager someone's out there who could.
No, not even close. First, I am dubious of any "but what about the (journalism) ethics?" argument on general principles and I am especially dubious in cases where there is some apocalyptic end-point prophetcized - like we didn't pass an end-point on journalistic ethics a long time ago, in a scandal, far, far away.

And goddamn it, this has nothing to do with Snowden, which is just the favorite thing for anyone to invoke, as if it means something, when it is oranges to the NFL's apples.

Now, is there some brilliant person out there who could possibly "communicate" the depth and depravity of what the NFL's done here? Sure, it's possible. But it ain't fucking likely.

I mean, Doug Farrar is as good a writer in football as there is today. And he's got quotes from former players, And... there's nothing.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/03/24/nfl-concussions-cte-admission-lawsuit-player-safety-response
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
This really does feel a little different from tobacco to me. The game plan is the same, and the techniques are the same. But the cover-up to me seems more about avoiding liability for the past than specifically intended to deny the victims of information that could cause them to make a different decision. That's repulsive, but not quite as repulsive and hopefully the courts are equipped to sort out that kind of cover-up eventually.

I believe there are some players who would have made a different decision -- especially those who now are unwell. But the bottom line is that the truth is out there now and it's not causing different behavior on a widespread basis. The victims here are a very very unique set of people, driven to play and possibly (at least most of them) beyond reason about it. Are some of them falsely being led to believe the league is "doing the right thing" now and making the risk tolerable? Perhaps. I'm skeptical. We'll know within a couple of years, because I think it's getting to the point where unless you're willfully blind the truth is out there that if you play football in the NFL, there is a nonnegligible chance you will suffer a serious brain injury. My skepticism is that even when that truth is generally accepted, if it isn't today, there will still be more who are willing to play than there are roster spots.

To me, this is about us. I know it the truth. Maybe the NFL's obfuscation delayed my understanding of the problem or the sad truth that this is going to continue. And I'm a reasonable guy. Yet, I'm still watching. I'm still playing fantasy football. I'm still paying for Sunday Ticket and adding to the eyeballs that get counted by those who pay millions for ads. And unlike tobacco, it's the third parties here who have all the power. If me and everyone like me turns off the game, players will stop getting hurt. But I don't. Everyone who doesn't is complicit with the NFL in this and the complaining about them strikes me as hypocritical. I can and do rationalize my complicity away by pretending it's the fault of the NFL for depriving me of the crucial information. But, you know what, I know it now. I don't have that excuse any more. I can pretend my vote doesn't make a difference because the NFL is still snookering others and so I'll just be a lone wolf and why deprive myself of football when I can't make the difference against this machine? That's bullshit. Curran describes the problem perfectly. He likes football. It's his livelihood. The problem I have is with his conclusion. He thinks writing an article is good enough. Just as I convince myself that being indignant about the NFL's shitty behavior when I read the NYT piece is enough.

We are killing the players we root for. I am. I should cancel my Sunday Ticket, stop watching, and not play fantasy football. I fear I won't be a leader on this. I want to be. We'll see. I expect I'll simply wait for a critical mass to develop and then follow it, but at least the Curran piece has caused me to make a new resolution. I'm done criticizing the NFL on this, until I can look in the mirror.
 

awallstein

New Member
Nov 17, 2014
101
The end of the Brady-Belichick era seems like a sensible, if hugely self-serving, compromise boycott point.

I wonder if the number of players entering (or, being allowed to enter) the football training system will diminish, now that the truth is basically understood. That those athletes who've already dedicated the considerable time and training aren't themselves sufficiently incentivized to lay down their pads on the immediate precipice of a giant pay day isn't especially revealing.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
This really does feel a little different from tobacco to me. The game plan is the same, and the techniques are the same. But the cover-up to me seems more about avoiding liability for the past than specifically intended to deny the victims of information that could cause them to make a different decision.
So it's like asbestos more than tobacco. Neither is really very inspirational.

The key similarities are the techniques and game plan. Because knowing those allows people to see the real driving forces and the obfuscation, and lets the public make an informed judgement about the issue.


The rest of your post, on morality, is also good. I'll need a bit more time to think about that one before replying.
 

ColonelMustard

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2006
219
I believe there are some players who would have made a different decision -- especially those who now are unwell. ...
To me, this is about us. I know it the truth...
We are killing the players we root for. I am. I should cancel my Sunday Ticket, stop watching, and not play fantasy football. I fear I won't be a leader on this. I want to be. We'll see. I expect I'll simply wait for a critical mass to develop and then follow it, but at least the Curran piece has caused me to make a new resolution. I'm done criticizing the NFL on this, until I can look in the mirror.
Thank you sharing this. This is beautifully written and a thoughtful perspective. What you could do is try to publish this as an op-ed in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/site/editorial/op-ed/op-ed.html
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
Thank you sharing this. This is beautifully written and a thoughtful perspective. What you could do is try to publish this as an op-ed in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/site/editorial/op-ed/op-ed.html
Nah, I save my best shit for SOSH. The Times gets my rough drafts.

Thanks. I just re-read it, and it's a bit overly dramatic, but, screw it, it's what I felt when I wrote it. I'm really trying to talk myself into walking the walk. We'll see. Having it out there gives me some accountability maybe.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Nah, I save my best shit for SOSH. The Times gets my rough drafts.

Thanks. I just re-read it, and it's a bit overly dramatic, but, screw it, it's what I felt when I wrote it. I'm really trying to talk myself into walking the walk. We'll see. Having it out there gives me some accountability maybe.
It's completely over dramatic. I think this is like tobacco in the 70's, in that people "knew" it was bad for them, while the science continued to back this up over time. It's not news that pro football players live shorter lives. That's literally been known for a decade. Who is surprised by this CTE, concussion, or dementia news? I feel like these were known quantities.

But we're not killing the players. The players, making the decision to play the game for a variety of reasons, including fame and wealth, are killing the players. Football is a risk, but it's also a way for some players to make a tremendous living, a living that would unlikely to be replicated in any other field. And this is why some players make a lot of money in 5-8 years and then pack it in. Calvin Johnson being the latest example.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
The end of the Brady-Belichick era seems like a sensible, if hugely self-serving, compromise boycott point.
You are far from the first, or only, person to express this idea. So this is not a personal attack on you.

But holy fuck, this is the worst. Either it is bad enough to walk away OR it is not, and waiting until it is personally adventageous...is some string of invectives and ad hominems I'd like to unleash but will instead just summarize as "shitty human behavior".

It is the equivalent of liking your neighbor, who makes great BBQ, but waiting to tell the cops he's got a bunch of captives chained up in his basement because "I don't want to miss out on the next backyard barbeque."

I mean... jesus, people. If you think the NFL is actively giving people brain damage for your enjoyment and you'll only stop enjoying it AFTER you can't enjoy the wins on Sunday - you're a pretty terrible person.

Now... to be perfectly clear, I have written an article entitled "killing themselves for our enjoyment". I make my living these days because of football. So, I not only occupy a glass room in a glass house, but I do so at a level that makes those I am criticizing seem like paragons of virtue by comparison. So, I'm not saying I'm better than you are.

But waiting till the Brady-Belichick gracy train ends and then deciding to take a stand makes you... something not good. In a totally different way from me, who profits off of the ongoing brain damage directly.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
The players, making the decision to play the game for a variety of reasons, including fame and wealth, are killing the players.
Let me play devil's advocate. Imagine a promoter who promises inner city kids $5 million to play a game of Russian roulette. He sells tickets to cover his outlay. I think we all agree that the promoter is a bad guy. Are the spectators?

Obviously different in degree and legality, and the desperation and motivation of the players is also different, but I'm actually not sure there's a difference in concept with respect to my complicity point.

I don't want to come off like a crazed guy with a cause here, but I'm kind of talking myself into my position. If it's not right for this thread, or if it comes off as some self-flagellation look-at-me exercise, I can stop. But I'm genuinely trying to sort out how I feel about all this, and Curran's piece was a bit of a catalyst so, there it is.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,505
LOL. This is not a personal attack but holy fuck this shitty human behavior of yours is the worst and you're a pretty terrible person. But I'm bad too!

Happy Easter.
 

awallstein

New Member
Nov 17, 2014
101
It is the equivalent of liking your neighbor, who makes great BBQ, but waiting to tell the cops he's got a bunch of captives chained up in his basement because "I don't want to miss out on the next backyard barbeque."
Except that a prompt call to the cops would effect the relatively immediate release of the captives; while the decision to enjoy the next bbq would constitute a but-for cause of their continued imprisonment.
I'd suggest that a better analogy would be waiting for a federal tax rebate before trading in for a fuel-efficient vehicle. Yes, it was the right thing to do all along, but timing the behavior such that the personal incentives better align with the moral righteousness is hardly on a par with ignoring (let alone dismissing) the issue altogether.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
You are far from the first, or only, person to express this idea. So this is not a personal attack on you.

But holy fuck, this is the worst. Either it is bad enough to walk away OR it is not, and waiting until it is personally adventageous...is some string of invectives and ad hominems I'd like to unleash but will instead just summarize as "shitty human behavior".

It is the equivalent of liking your neighbor, who makes great BBQ, but waiting to tell the cops he's got a bunch of captives chained up in his basement because "I don't want to miss out on the next backyard barbeque."

I mean... jesus, people. If you think the NFL is actively giving people brain damage for your enjoyment and you'll only stop enjoying it AFTER you can't enjoy the wins on Sunday - you're a pretty terrible person.

Now... to be perfectly clear, I have written an article entitled "killing themselves for our enjoyment". I make my living these days because of football. So, I not only occupy a glass room in a glass house, but I do so at a level that makes those I am criticizing seem like paragons of virtue by comparison. So, I'm not saying I'm better than you are.

But waiting till the Brady-Belichick gracy train ends and then deciding to take a stand makes you... something not good. In a totally different way from me, who profits off of the ongoing brain damage directly.
C'mon, give these folks a break. It's more fun to be sanctimonious than to admit you're a fair weather fan.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,426
For what it's worth, I don't care they're giving themselves concussions.

Is that better or worse then the people were talking about here?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
For what it's worth, I don't care they're giving themselves concussions.

Is that better or worse then the people were talking about here?
It is at least honest, so I'm putting you and maufman in the "good" column for different reasons. :)

I mean, I've also decided I can live with myself for enjoying a sport in which 89% of the people playing are likely to end up brain damaged. I gotta do certain stuff to assuage my conscience, and I do so knowing I'm a hypocrite and a jerk, but it works for me.

Like I said, at least you're honest about not giving a shit.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
But waiting till the Brady-Belichick gracy train ends and then deciding to take a stand makes you... something not good. In a totally different way from me, who profits off of the ongoing brain damage directly.
Just wait until Belichick the Younger takes over and the gravy train never derails.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
LOL. This is not a personal attack but holy fuck this shitty human behavior of yours is the worst and you're a pretty terrible person. But I'm bad too!

Happy Easter.
Gonna heat quarters with a lighter and then throw them to the homeless tonight. More the merrier if you're free. :)
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
For what it's worth, I don't care they're giving themselves concussions.

Is that better or worse then the people were talking about here?
I also don't care. And I think Soxfan's post was ridiculous. I am not even sure where he was going with that. So if someone puts a fake line in the sand of when they are going to stop watching, that's horrible, but you make your living on football and you're somehow *not* horrible? I don't get it.

In a perfect world, I would prefer nobody to get hurt. But the risks are known and the players are still giving it their all to play football, because for some the rewards are extraordinary. This is similar to the study they did with the Olympic athletes a few years back where most of them said they would give up a few years of their life to win a gold medal. As I noted above, I think the players at this point know the risks. But they take those risks because of the reward. They aren't slaves in the gladiator pit, getting nothing out of their bloodspot but potential death and a life in the mines.

So play on.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
I agree and I suspect that the vast majority or football fans feel the same way about concussions. It's not some unknown risk or danger. The players have the information or at least access to the information. If grown men want to incur those risks for whatever reason they choose then I really don't care. This isn't like someone choosing to take the risk of driving drunk where they willfully endanger others. These are highly rewarded adults making a decision to partake in a dangerous activity. I small, but vocal, portion of the population here disagrees and these threads become a bit of an echo chamber.

It's fun to watch the games and the competitions. It's good that they are taking the obvious head hunting out of the game. But you'll never remove all head to head contact. I personally wish they were a lot more restrictive on when they throw a flag for helmet contact, even with a defenses receiver. There are many flags were I look and find myself asking what was the defender supposed to do differently to avoid the head? Specifically those plays where a receiver is changing their body angle to react to a ball and the defender changing into positioning to make a tackle, both running at full speed. Helmet contacts happens there. It's beyond human ability to react and move your body against your momentum in those short time periods. What's the defender supposed to do? Not try to make a play?

I know it's hard to officiate based on intent. But I strongly believe those 50/50 calls where two guys are trying to make a play should provide the benefit of the doubt to the defender.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,426
It is at least honest, so I'm putting you and maufman in the "good" column for different reasons. :)

I mean, I've also decided I can live with myself for enjoying a sport in which 89% of the people playing are likely to end up brain damaged. I gotta do certain stuff to assuage my conscience, and I do so knowing I'm a hypocrite and a jerk, but it works for me.

Like I said, at least you're honest about not giving a shit.
Yeah, I mean, I wish had the ability to be compassionate for people I don't know, I just...don't. I have a serious lack of empathy, and it's a trait I wish I had.

I know I should feel bad, but...I like football.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
Yeah, I mean, I wish had the ability to be compassionate for people I don't know, I just...don't. I have a serious lack of empathy, and it's a trait I wish I had.

I know I should feel bad, but...I like football.
It's more than just compassion or empathy. At least the point I'm trying to make is. The question is whether you're actually part of the cause, or at least a significant part.

I get that some people think that's a ridiculous sentiment, and/or that it is simply empirically untrue. That's a fine debate, and one at least on this board I appear to be losing (although the truth is I'm not actually staking out that position yet, just trying to discuss it to see if it fits).

But that's different from saying, "even if I was part of the cause, I wouldn't give a shit because I like football." Maybe you're also saying that. And I guess that's ok too -- it's a personal decision and I'm not judging. At least not yet. But cognitive dissonance is a mother fucker, so I try to at least ask myself the right questions.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
No I think you're totally right to be asking those questions, DDB. My father stopped watching boxing decades ago because he ultimately came to the decision that he was disgusted by the implications of the sport, of two people literally pounding each other into oblivion in order to stoke our brains' natural adrenaline pathways. To paraphrase him, he believed that he was better than the Roman mob clamoring for blood in the Colosseum, and to prove it, he stopped watching (and upped the amount of tennis he watched and photography he practiced). There are a near-infinite number of entertaining ways we can spend our leisure hours on this planet, it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable conclusion that we should choose those which cause us the least distress on top of being pleasurable.

I find Soxfan121's sanctimonious and deliberately insulting rants to be not just crude beyond the normal decorum of this place (yes, it damn well exists!), but also misguided. We watch sports partly to be entertained by people striving to do really delicate and challenging physical tasks, but also partly to be impressed by greatness. Most of us started following sports as kids and had favorites or idols - believing them to be possessed of admirable talents worth copying and following. I can appreciate a well-played tennis match or any old well-pitched baseball game, but I marvel at watching Serena Williams systematically destroy a rival, or a Pedro Martinez outthink and bamboozle an opposing lineup. Regional identities play a part in a choice of team, of course, but I'd argue a lot of why we watch sports in the first place is to marvel at greatness.

So when people talk about watching the NFL until Brady and Belichick retire, it's because a lot of the emotional hold that the sport has over them is tied up in watching those two, and being able to marvel at their greatness. There is a great deal to admire about them, personally and professionally. If you're trying to decide a point to quit smoking, or recognize your'e an alcoholic, major emotional life events are great causes to rally around. Maybe that's the birth of a kid or the result of friends staging an intervention. People deciding to quit the NFL when Brady and Belichick do likewise, that's just a sensible alignment of their emotional incentives. I may hop on that train myself - I've certainly been given an accelerating trend of disgusting practices by the NFL that sap my enjoyment of the product, absent B&B's greatness.

So if SF121 is going to sit here and call us babies for not having the emotional strength to quit the sport on the back of our own conscious awareness of its odiousness - that's fine. I'm sure he would have the same choice words for anyone addicted to anything: cigarettes, alcohol, drugs... "can't you just get over it, you baby? Why won't you just sack up and stop, you wuss?". Perhaps "you want to leave her, you know all the reasons you ought to leave her and end the relationship, but you can't do it! It's so easy, Paul Simon sang about it! Get after it!" I can see him taunting all of them now. Maybe if journalism doesn't work out for him, he can become a life coach.

But for the rest of us normal humans who have standard ranges and limits of emotional bandwidth, choosing B/B's retirement as a natural breakpoint for their fandom seems entirely rational to me. Quitting something you're emotionally attached to is hard, yo. Harder for Tom Curran than for us, since basically none of us make our living off the NFL. Harder still for the players whose livelihoods are at stake. Even harder, yet, for the owners (and commissioner) whose life-long wealth, status and identities are wrapped up in the idea that the NFL is something good and valuable. So I personally begrudge nobody their choice of time, place and manner when it comes to making that decision.