Slashdot Mirror


Brain Disease Found In NFL Players

SternisheFan sends this excerpt from ABC: "On the heels of the latest NFL suicide, researchers announced today that 34 NFL players whose brains were studied suffered from CTE, a degenerative brain disease brought on by repeated hits to the head that results in confusion, depression and, eventually, dementia. The study was released just days after the murder-suicide of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher. It's not yet known what triggered Belcher's action, but they mirror other NFL players who have committed suicide. Researchers at Boston University's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy published the largest case series study of CTE to date (abstract), according to the center. Of the 85 brains donated by the families of deceased veterans and athletes with histories of repeated head trauma, they found CTE in 68 of them. Of those, 34 were professional football players, nine others played college football and six played only high school football. Of the 35 professional football players' brains donated, only one had no evidence of the disease, according to the study." It's a good thing we protect our youth from conditions like this.

271 comments

  1. Did we really need a study for this? by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do we really need a study to show that repeated hits to the head result in confusion, depression and dementia? If so, I'd like to sign up to be the guy on the research team that whacks this researcher on the head repeatedly so he can discover the effects.

    I just want to help. Really I do.

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, they need to expand the study and find out what performance enhancers might be in use as well.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do we really need a study to show that repeated hits to the head result in confusion, depression and dementia? If so, I'd like to sign up to be the guy on the research team that whacks this researcher on the head repeatedly so he can discover the effects.

      I just want to help. Really I do.

      We know that hits to the head result in all that and more, but now there's actual quantized data. With hard facts it's harder to muddle the issue with "but they wear protective helmets" or some other wishy washy double talk.

    3. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do we really need a study to show that repeated hits to the head result in confusion, depression and dementia? If so, I'd like to sign up to be the guy on the research team that whacks this researcher on the head repeatedly so he can discover the effects.

      I just want to help. Really I do.

      If we want information on such minor questions as "how often repeated?", "Just how hard?", "Are the effects merely additive, or does one hit make the next more dangerous?", "Are hits with no clinicially observable effects safe or do they add up?".

      It has never been news that hits hard enough to produce immediate, observable, effects are a bad plan. That hits with no effect, or from which you appear to recover, are a very serious risk for degeneration in the mid to long term? That isn't immediately obvious.

    4. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Maybe not obvious but certainly already well known. There will always be people that want to deny such things however. So the more evidence the better. Since most people who play football (of any sort) aren't exactly what you'd call intellectuals in the first place, the practical question for them is when will they actually become drooling vegetables unable to take care of themselves?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    5. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by xQx · · Score: 4, Funny

      In other news, this study was repeated using NFL supporters as a control group.

      In that study, no statistically significant differences were found between the level of brain damage found in the control group compared with that of the group studied.

    6. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do people become stupid from playing football or does football attract stupid people?

    7. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do people become stupid from reading slashdot or does slashdot attract stupid people?

    8. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It will take a lot of data to break through the (conveniently not-at-all-self-serving) 'Just rub some dirt in it and don't be a pussy" school of sports medicine, I fear.

    9. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One thing I wish would change is barring the expression "got his bell rung" for any hit to the head. What a stupid way to minimize what just happened when people take a huge hit to the head. I've seen people get hit, have the commentators say that and then the player lays on the field for 10 minutes while medical staff attempt to assess if it is even safe to move him.

    10. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because the sports industry is fighting this research as hard as possible because they see it as the end of their cash cow. Read Sports Illustrated and check out how they portray this as pseudoscientific bullshit.

      If we can conclusively prove that concussive sports such as football and boxing lead to degenerative brain disease, every company invested in those sports will be looking at the end of their livelihood. Rather than do what's right for the players, they are working hard to spread FUD about such research.

      So yeah, we need the study. We are going up against the entire sports industry, and they have deep pockets.

    11. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, having been in that position on a (thankfully) few occasions (not related to sports), "got his bell rung" is actually a pretty good description of the sensation involved. It feels very much like a ringing bell sounds.

    12. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They should do a study on Rugby (australian/england/wales etc.) , where the players don't wear helmets. This obviously means greater chance of serious injury in case of head hits, however because no player is wearing helmets, everyone avoids head hits. Conclusion helmets should be banned in NFL :p

    13. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by GarretSidzaka · · Score: 1

      yeah muddy the topic why dont you.

    14. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the wave of insanely monstrous lawsuits coming down the line will do that. And the NFL isn't the only one facing this. The NHL isn't far behind.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wherever there is money to be made, there will be industry people doing everything they can to keep the money rolling, even if it means insane amounts of damage.

      But hey, it's America. Jesus loves a winner. Jesus hates taxes, Mexicans and poor sick people. Jesus loves the guy that gets thirty major concussions in his NFL career and suffers advanced dementia in his fifties.

      God bless this great country!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      First of all, it's pretty much been determined that helmets offer little more than a false sense of security, meaning the hits being taken are that much worse. I'll wager, as counterintuitive as it seems, that rugby players don't actually suffer the same degree of head injuries as sports like football or ice hockey, where helmets are sold as not only protection, but an excuse to keep smashing skulls.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then you are not thinking this through properly.

      I, on the other hand, would like to volunteer for the study that seeks to prove that receiving oral sex to completion from large breasted women is pleasurable.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    18. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by hedleyroos · · Score: 2

      It is illegal to tackle above the shoulders in rugby. You must also perform a tackle using your arms, not shoulder a player. We have very few cases of head trauma.

    19. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes

    20. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would expect the players to suffer slightly less brain damage, at least they have the excuse that they are getting payed a shitload to be involved with the game.

    21. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the sports industry is fighting this research as hard as possible because they see it as the end of their cash cow. Read Sports Illustrated and check out how they portray this as pseudoscientific bullshit.

      People letting other people suffer and die to make a buck? Surely you jest.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    22. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      But hey, it's America. Jesus loves a winner. Jesus hates taxes, Mexicans and poor sick people. Jesus loves the guy that gets thirty major concussions in his NFL career and suffers advanced dementia in his fifties.

      Wrong about that last one; Jesus only loves the team owners that profited off of it.

      (Unless it's those socialistic Green Bay Packers.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    23. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by robbie73 · · Score: 0

      "payed", huh? brain damage is already setting in?

    24. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by bogjobber · · Score: 2

      Yes, actually, we do. It was previously thought that only hits hard enough to cause visible concussion symptoms resulted in brain damage. Now we know that consistent low-level impacts have a far more significant impact on CTE. Another thing that was not understood was how prevalent brain damage was in the sport. Obviously in a game featuring violent impacts you're going to end up with some brain damage, but the fact is that *nearly all* professional football players show some sign of CTE, and even kids as young as 15 or 16 are showing signs of the disease. This has brought about *massive* changes to the way we practice and officiate the sport, particularly at the high school level.

      This is a really fascinating subject for anyone that is interested:
      The Women Who Would Save Football
      Concussions among adolescents
      Concussions in the NHL

      Oh wait, I forgot this is slashdot, and the hivemind looks down on athletics. OHMAGEERRRRD, FOOTBALL IS SO STUPID.

    25. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      So just because Press2ToContinue thinks something is obvious, no research should be done on a subject? Fortunately science doesn't work on that principle.

    26. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Antipater · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BS; I used to get wrapped around the neck or face all the time while being tackled. You don't get impacts to the head (except from the ground), sure, but you do get it yanked, squeezed, clawed, and kicked. And nothing is worse than a large ruck collapsing and the weight of five or more large men pinning your head to the ground - that happened to me three times in the same game once. I couldn't see straight afterwards. It's true, though; you do see a lot less head trauma injuries in rugby (they are still there, though), thanks to the you-must-wrap-while-tackling rule. There is a corresponding increase in joint dislocation and ligament injuries, though, from my anecdotal experience. Tradeoffs.

      The point of football helmets has never been to protect the brain until just recently. It's been to protect the skull, the ears, the face, all the cosmetic stuff. But the brain? Nope. There's a new generation of helmets out there that are supposed to be better, but nobody wears them yet because, well, they're incredibly ugly. But with the increasing focus on concussions in the NFL this year, including the number of high-profile players who've been knocked out, I think we'll see them start to be adopted as early as next year.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    27. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "payed" is a proper alternative spelling to "paid".

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/payed

    28. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      If we want information on such minor questions as "how often repeated?", "Just how hard?", "Are the effects merely additive, or does one hit make the next more dangerous?", "Are hits with no clinicially observable effects safe or do they add up?".

      It has never been news that hits hard enough to produce immediate, observable, effects are a bad plan. That hits with no effect, or from which you appear to recover, are a very serious risk for degeneration in the mid to long term? That isn't immediately obvious.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754260/

      They started with tackling lab rats. Repeated insults to the brain were helped with mild hypothermia. Clinical trials followed.

    29. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by hedleyroos · · Score: 2

      The lower the league you play in the bigger the chance of receiving high tackles / fouls. I see this in many sports. Maybe it's due to amateur referees, maybe the players are too aggressive. If someone clawed(!) you that person should have received a straight red card.

    30. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But seriously will it matter? Not to be cruel but its not like we all didn't already know getting your brain bashed repeatedly was bad for you, hell look at boxing, not even a helmet there and we have seen so many old boxers drooling on themselves from brain damage it isn't even funny.

      But the simple fact is as long as there is huge piles of money to be made from having one guy headbrick the other guy it is NEVER gonna change. if it were ever gonna change boxing would have been outlawed 20 years ago, after all the amount of brain damaged football players is nothing compared to how many boxers get brain damage.

      As much as I wish it weren't so as long as the owners and the memorabilia companies and the food vendors and all these others are raking in the cash then these guys are just disposable, sad but true. That is why I think college football and boxing should be banned and the teams have to pay for minor leagues, if these guys are gonna risk getting busted all to hell at least cut them a check for the risk.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    31. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      You don't understand. This is management training. It's part of the process.

    32. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by telchine · · Score: 1

      Correlation != Causation

      Maybe demented people are more likely to take up American football!

    33. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by rmstar · · Score: 1

      There's a new generation of helmets out there that are supposed to be better, but nobody wears them yet because, well, they're incredibly ugly.

      They look worse than what they look now? Do you have links to pictures? I'd love to see that.

    34. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by polar+red · · Score: 0

      stop calling it football already. You don't play the ball with your foot.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    35. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Coming from the UK: maybe they should play without helmets. Helmets are banned in the sport of Rugby because they cause the players to play too rough.

    36. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Do we really need a study to show that repeated hits to the head result in confusion, depression and dementia?

      Yes and No! Plenty of anecdotal evidence existed out there, enough for most of us to conclude participating in an activity where repeated blows to the head are common would increase our risk of those things. I think most of us *supposed* as much. What studies do is enable us to *know* things, they take it out of the realm of sure seems like it to, and move it into hard facts.

      Now I hear many people, say things like "measure don't guess". That is correct position when the answer will be actionable or would effect the action you will take. For me and I would guess for you, no study is needed. I have plenty of other good reasons to try and minimize the number of times I get hit in the head; I really don't like it being a big one. So I can't use the information.

      Someone who really values football and or enjoys playing it might be able to, though. Speculation might not have been reason enough to give up something they enjoy; but if you can say "yes this is certainly damaging your mental faculties" it changes the math for them.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    37. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      It is illegal to tackle above the shoulders in rugby. You must also perform a tackle using your arms, not shoulder a player. We have very few cases of head trauma.

      Read this:

      http://www.wikihow.com/Rugby-Tackle-Everyone-That-Runs-at-You

      Pay particular attention to the bit about leading with your shoulder into their gut. You only grab them after you have slowed them sufficiently to hold on easily, first step is to dump their forward momentum as much as possible.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    38. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I played rugby for 7 years at secondary school - for the 12 week Xmas term we played 2 house games a week plus any school matches you were in (maybe 30 games total), I played in the scrum and I can remember (or rather not remember) games where I got a smack to the head early on (one was a boot to the head in a ruck) and have no memory of the rest of that day just waking up with a splitting headache the next day. This year the Premisership brought in the ability for players to be taken off for a short time to ascertain whether a concussion has occurred which I think is a great step forward as prior to that if you were subbed off (other than for a blood injury) you were off for the rest of the game (subject to a few exceptions around having enough front row qualified players on the pitch for scrums).

      Going back on what an earlier poster said about NFL players having lower than average IQ's it would actually be interesting to look at English Rugby Union players as prior to the game going professional most of the players for the big clubs were highly educated professionals - Accountants, Lawyers and even Doctors as it was seen as "a gentlemans game". Whilst that is to some extent still the case it is changing but definately I would expect the ones in their 60's now were of higher than average IQ when they started. It might allow that variable to be ruled in or out of the study.

    39. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not so sure we have quantized results from a statistical standpoint. The study group was itself baised (selection bias), leaving no control. Those same "signs of CTE" may be prevalent in the normal population or may be grouped by some other overlapping traits (maybe larger or more muscular people show those signs).

    40. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEWSFLASH: polar red hasn't yet learned that names don't have to always make sense!

    41. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Could the data be looked at differently to say that people with brain abnormalities are drawn to play sports that demand more physical contact? Also, what does, "self-injurious head banging" mean? Can I sue MTV for the years I watched "Head-Bangers' Ball?"

    42. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Not exactly like these players arn't getting anything out of the deal..

      Even knowing the likely outcome, I suspect many would still do it for the kind of money they make.

    43. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, man. I bet these people say that politicians LIE sometimes, too!

    44. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      You do, actually.

    45. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well obviously they really had to distinguish between the level of idiocy incurred from playing the game compared to the level of idiocy required to even begin playing it.

    46. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imo, this is not good data. the donated brains were donated for a reason,
      and one would think that this would lead to substantial selection bias.

    47. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by trevc · · Score: 0

      Yep - the data means nothing in this case.

    48. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is, considering the size and content of an NFL playbook, most slashdotters couldn't get through - let alone understand it.

    49. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Football(both kinds) were named as an alternative game to Polo, which was played on horseback, not foot.

    50. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      You can't remove the blame entirely from the players, especially the pros. Most of them want to do what they do. They're attracted to the big money, and there's practically no way they'd make that kind of dough in any other endeavor. Plus, there's the machismo factor.
      Uhh.. not sure wtf a Semitic dude from 2,000 years ago has to do with it though.. churches don't own football and hocky teams, do they? I'm not religious, I just don't see how it's germane to this particular discussion.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    51. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by deimtee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you a large breasted woman?

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    52. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Do we really? I didn't read the article so I'll ask in case someone reading this did. Were these players tested PRIOR to starting their football career? It is just as possible (albeit unlikely) they suffered from CTE before playing a single game. Without following them from cradle to dementia the data is incomplete. I hypothesize that the affects of CTE predispose a person to seek out activities that are physically traumatizing such as full contact sports.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    53. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      ice hockey...an excuse to keep smashing skulls

      Actually, the majority of hits to the head in hockey are illegal hits, and usually end with a player getting suspended. The NHL started taking a harder stance against hits to the head and concussions a few years back.

    54. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a job for congress!!!

    55. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They started with tackling lab rats.

      Since the rats had tackling down, they just needed to teach them blocking, passing, and kicking.

      Lab rats playing American football--DO WANT!

    56. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by clm1970 · · Score: 1

      You can't remove the blame entirely from the players, especially the pros. Most of them want to do what they do. They're attracted to the big money, and there's practically no way they'd make that kind of dough in any other endeavor. Plus, there's the machismo factor. Uhh.. not sure wtf a Semitic dude from 2,000 years ago has to do with it though.. churches don't own football and hocky teams, do they? I'm not religious, I just don't see how it's germane to this particular discussion.

      THE GODDAMN GERMANS AIN'T GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!

    57. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by FacePlant · · Score: 1

      They used to study brain injuries by whacking ferrets in their cute little heads.

      --
      My Heart Is A Flower
    58. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And similarly in boxing, before gloves were introduced, combatants rarely went for the head because it turns out that it hurts to punch hard bone.

    59. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by whitroth · · Score: 1

      I've been saying this for decades. How many times do you need an elephant to fall on you before you start loosing it all?

      Many years ago, I read that the *average* (not superstar) NFL player retires after six years with the body of a 59 yr old. And you wonder why I actively dislike football?

                    mark "American football: using your body as a blunt instrument to batter your opponants into submission"

    60. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by PintoPiman · · Score: 1

      Yes. We do need real data to test the hypotheses that the helmets are helping or that rule changes have made things better.

      It's called science. You get baseline data, form hypotheses, change things, and then test the change in outcome. If you don't like or understand science that's cool, but you're in the wrong place.

    61. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Deathspawner · · Score: 1

      I didn't use the word at all. I'm a totally different AC. And as I see it, how the word was used is fine.

    62. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I know you're being sarcastic, but many Americans really believe that tripe because they refuse to read the bibles they thump (or read anything else for that matter).

      Jesus loves a winner.

      Luke 6:24 "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.
      Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
      Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

      Jesus hates taxes

      Mark 12:13 -- "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

      poor sick people.

      Luke 6:20 -- "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

    63. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXSQUEEZE ME? Every occupation has hazards, and thus safe guards to protect against those hazards. The professions don't just go out of existence because there is danger of injury to the worker, here's an article from 2008 on deaths/injuries of construction workers in NY,

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aD_Oy8_7R6.M&refer=home

      Nobody is talking about shutting down the building of high rises or the 'end of the livelihood' for investors or workers.

      The only reason I can see for such attention being placed on head injuries is to help increase safety practices not to do away with the product..that's how occupational safety works. But in the end if people want to get paid to play a violent sport that has potential for injury just by the nature of the sport there is nothing that 'society' should do about it.

    64. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I really don't believe the comments to this article at all. In any industry all the people in the industry will do whatever it takes to 'keep the money rolling' including the workers...otherwise who has a job? Please tell me which occupation has 0 chance of injury? And can that occupation support the livelihood of the world as we know it. Just because a job is viewed as a 'sport' you believe it's 'unnecessary', sports are entirely necessary to the enjoyment and fulfillment of life, if there are people that are extremely good at it and make money from it who are we to begrudge them the opportunity...and if you really feel this way about sports etc. just don't spend any money doing anything remotely connected to a 'sport' (don't ride bikes, don't run, don't buy sneakers etc.)...

      Wow, how is occupational safety issues in sports ANY different than any other profession?

    65. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by composer777 · · Score: 1

      Wrong, you haven't been reading closely enough. Boxing is actually safer than playing lineman, which is a total surprise. They are finding the worst injury in players that don't normally have a lot of concussions, but instead who play positions where they are constantly running into someone else at slower speeds, like lineman. When you play line, you have about 2 feet between you and the other guy, so you aren't building enough momentum to knock them out or to even realize that it's causing injury, but you are hitting them every play. It's a huge number of very small blows that is causing the most damage. No one knew this. Again, this is happening in players that have never been knocked out or shown any signs of trauma. It's a complete (literal) game changer because it means that ANY amount of repeated trauma, no matter how slight, has a cumulative effect that won't show up until much later.

    66. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, on the other hand, would like to volunteer for the study that seeks to prove that receiving oral sex to completion from large breasted women is pleasurable.

      Your application has been denied due to lack of relevant practical experience.

    67. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it will eventually end up with the players completely covered in shock absorbing foam.
      Then they will be fired from cannons at each other.

    68. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's applying to be in the control group of large breasted men to verify if gender has any impact.

    69. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well there are those that argue that we should go back to bare knuckle boxing as you simply can't hit a human in the head really hard without breaking your own hand so while there were more bloody noses and cuts there was less brain injuries because without padding a hit hard enough to cause brain injury would also leave the guy throwing the punch with a crushed hand.

      But the simple fact is this, padding or no padding the human body just wasn't meant to take repeated blows over and over for years, it just wasn't. You can gloss over it, add pads, you just can't take the amount of punishment the average player of ANY of these contact sports take and end up damage free, the human body just don't work like that. Hell even baseball you end up with blown knees, screwed up shoulders, and injured backs, because the types of movements required in major league play are too much for the human body to keep doing for years.

      As far as removing the helmets...have you SEEN the steroid monsters that play in the NFL? Sure it might settle down after a few years but I have a feeling the first couple of years after removing the helmets would be a bloodbath. These guys want to win PERIOD, and if they gotta fuck you up to do it? So be it. Look at the stink now about players literally ripping the helmets off the other team because thanks to a new rule that causes the play to end at the moment the helmet is ripped off, so if the team looks like they are gonna have a good run if you can rip the helmet off the other guy you can stop them from scoring. Look up the videos on YouTube to see these guys practically trying to rip the other guy's head off to get the helmet off, they really do NOT give a fuck if they damage the other guy. I have a feeling with no helmets you'd have to have some sort of "broken nose ends the play" or something similar to keep the field from being a bloody mess which means you'd have teams that were behind aiming directly for the face, just as the stupid helmet rule has teams ripping helmets off damned near all the time.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    70. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But roughness builds character!

    71. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Sorry sir, but I have video evidence to the contrary.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    72. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      Up here in Canada the "evidence" from previous versions of these studies have lead to much stricter rules governing head protection and illegal hits in junior sports. In general we think of young people as being very resilient to overcoming injury, these studies showed that a concussion at age 10 can begin a process that can lead to very serious issues in mid life.

      So ya we need these studies to provide hard evidence to conventional wisdom. Mostly because some peoples conventional wisdom is not so conventional.

    73. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I vaguely recall a study of some decades ago where they did indeed conclude that "more protection equals harder hits" and that with modern helmets and such, while superficial injuries were reduced, major injuries of certain types were increased.

      It's not near as ugly as it was back a while, tho, when some teams played to hurt the other guy as much as to win. Now, you might find yourself traded to that other team, and longevity in the league (which you get partly by avoiding injury) equals wealth. So there's less incentive to play mean than in the old days. Or so it appears to me.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    74. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Geez, it looks like a brain tumor :D

      But ugly or not, it'll only take one well-known player adopting that gear, and it'll spread throughout the league quick enough.

      Remember when in baseball, only wusses wore shin protectors? Now you hardly see anyone without.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    75. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Occams · · Score: 1

      It is such an awful game that having a non functioning brain helps players and spectators.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    76. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But thanks to stupid rulings the league actually encourages dangerous behavior. look up "ripping off helmet" on YouTube to see how many guys have had the helmets ripped off recently, there are some where it looks like the guy's head is gonna come off along with the helmet but that don't matter to a player because thanks to that stupid rule you can stop a touchdown run cold, even if you are nowhere near the ball carrier, by simply ripping the helmet off ANY player on the opposing team.

      I mean sure they hit them with fines and penalties but so what? When your team is only down by 6 and every game counts towards the playoffs and it looks like the other guy is gonna score all you have to do is yank that helmet off to kill the play from anywhere on the field. look it up for yourself friend, there are plays where you'll see no less than 2 or 3 guys ALL going for the helmets to stop the play, stupid rulings like this frankly encourage the players to go for the dangerous move as those that do it get a serious in game advantage over those that don't.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    77. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      With today's salaries, fines don't cut it. About all I can see that does accomplish anything is a suspension, since that hurts the team, and if winning is everything, then being without your key players ain't gonna get you into the playoffs.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    78. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I don't even know if suspensions would cut it friend, as they'd just send the second stringers onto the field with orders to take one for the team and stop the play. remember this stupid rule means ANY player can stop a play anywhere on the field, so even a lowly second stringer can just go for a linebacker's helmet and kill the play.

      So the only way i think it would work is to give the team being unsportsmanlike some sort of scoring penalty to go with the suspension, like an automatic 3 points added to their opponents score. Considering we are talking about risking crippling or even killing the other player by ripping his helmet off in the middle of a play, often by grabbing the face mask and then just wrenching the guy whole head in an effort to get the helmet off? Then I think a 3 point penalty is very much in line for them not only trying to kill touchdown plays by using unsportsmanlike conduct but putting another player in serious danger just for the sake of ending a play.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    79. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I think that 3 point deduction is a *very* good idea, and would be a great deal more direct and to the point than any other penalty. Y'all oughta suggest it to the league office!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    80. Re:Did we really need a study for this? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The problem is the league itself simply isn't gonna give a fuck until they get enough bad press for it, just as they used to let boxing matches go on with guys that were obviously in a bad way until the stink got so bad that the league stepped in and made refs able to call a fight if it looked like they were seriously hurt.

      I mean look up the videos on YouTube Rez, this is NOT an isolated thing here, you have players obviously told that "if it looks like they are gonna score, yank the helmet off" and there are just a ton of videos on YouTube showing this taken to an obscene extreme, with players practically trying to rip the other guy's head off to get the helmet off in time to kill the play. it has gotten so bad that many players will just remove the chin strap once on the field so they don't risk getting a neck injury when some asshole tries to rip the helmet off.

      So while I would argue that a 3 point reduction would nip this crap in the bud the simple fact is Rez until some poor bastard gets crippled the league ain't gonna do shit. In a way it reminds me of Pro Wrestling, allowing teams to do this gives the fans something to boo and thus generates "heat" for the rivalries and makes fans more pumped because they want to see "that cheating player" get his comeuppance on the field. As long as it generates controversy that in turn generates sales the league ain't gonna do shit. Again look at boxing, it wasn't until the negative press got to the point it was costing more than the sales generated by letting it continue that the league did anything about it. I would argue that this is how UFC got the boost it did, when boxing quit letting fights keep going was right about the time UFC got known as the "bloody no holds barred" sport and its sales skyrocketed.

      Sadly as long as they can make more money by not doing anything the league just isn't gonna give a shit, simple as that.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. I love Sarcastiball- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    'cus it's sooooo much better than Football!

    *sunglasses*

    1. Re:I love Sarcastiball- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is cum!

  3. 1000 ziplocs anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Going to be interesting to see if Belcher's brain had this disease, seeing as it was spread all over the parking lot.

    1. Re:1000 ziplocs anyone? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Going to be interesting to see if Belcher's brain had this disease, seeing as it was spread all over the parking lot.

      One of his former colleagues shot himself in the chest instead, for precisely that reason...

    2. Re:1000 ziplocs anyone? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Funny

      Going to be interesting to see if Belcher's brain had this disease, seeing as it was spread all over the parking lot.

      One of his former colleagues shot himself in the chest instead, for precisely that reason...

      Geez, I thought you were trolling but he LITERALLY... "sent a text message to his family saying he wanted his brain to be used for research at the Boston University School of Medicine, which is conducting research into chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) caused by playing professional football" ... and then shot himself in the chest!

      This guy was the definition of team player.

    3. Re:1000 ziplocs anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Going to be interesting to see if Belcher's brain had this disease, seeing as it was spread all over the parking lot.

      One of his former colleagues shot himself in the chest instead, for precisely that reason...

      Geez, I thought you were trolling but he LITERALLY... "sent a text message to his family saying he wanted his brain to be used for research at the Boston University School of Medicine, which is conducting research into chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) caused by playing professional football" ... and then shot himself in the chest!

      This guy was the definition of team player.

      Lucky for him that his heart was in the right place.

    4. Re:1000 ziplocs anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so sad. And so funny.

    5. Re:1000 ziplocs anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A Boston University lecturer was seen hurrying away from the scene. Police are suspicious of the excellent grammar and lack of spelling errors in his suicide text.

    6. Re:1000 ziplocs anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going to be interesting to see if Belcher's brain had this disease, seeing as it was spread all over the parking lot.

      One of his former colleagues shot himself in the chest instead, for precisely that reason...

      hilarious.

    7. Re:1000 ziplocs anyone? by cavebison · · Score: 2

      This guy was the definition of team player.

      And, ironically, despite the brain damage, more interested in science than the average person.

  4. Redundancy by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

    I would have thought that the 1-line heading would be the start & end to this article, with anything else being redundant...? :-/

    1. Re:Redundancy by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. This is Slashdot. I'd hope that they'd at least include one line specifying how much more prevalent brain disease was, what the sample size was, and a statement saying their findings were statistically significant. After all, we're nerds. We need some facts to back up the things we already know.

    2. Re:Redundancy by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      You're an NFL fan, errrr, right? ;-p

    3. Re:Redundancy by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      We also need some better numbers so that we can update the subdual damage rules for our preferred tabletop RPGs. Sure, for short campaigns, you can pretend that getting a cudgel to the face only deals 4D3 subdual damage; but by the time the character is level 20? We'll have to ensure that he has accrued the correct number of effects from the CTE effects table....

    4. Re:Redundancy by smellotron · · Score: 1

      but by the time the character is level 20? We'll have to ensure that he has accrued the correct number of effects from the CTE effects table....

      Can't you repair that sort of damage with a 4th-level clerical spell? Your meat-shield should be fine unless you're playing in a gritty, low-magic setting.

    5. Re:Redundancy by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Just get a Healing Belt and you're top notch.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  5. Just like any high impact (to the head) sport. by ipquickly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has been studied time and time again.
    Any sport that involves any repeated impact to the head - whether football, boxing or soccer will result in brain injury.

    1. Re:Just like any high impact (to the head) sport. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Canadian spin on this is players who played in the Canadian Football League and suffered concussions (brain injury), and also NHL 'enforcers' where it was found that CTE was more advanced in players who's careers lasted longer, and who suffered numerically more, and also more serious concussions. Likewise Olympic skiers who suffered serious accidents. Headaches, depression, memory loss. Getting your 'bell rung' means you suffered brain damage. Getting it 'rung' once may not be bad if its not serious, but repetitive hits accumulate damage. Its almost like PTSD for professional athletes. They can put pins in legs, and replace cartilage with teflon and screws and add stainless steel plates here and there, but you only have one brain. We can't replace grey matter with silicon (yet). The disease also takes a while to develop (about 10 years), and sometimes shows up as early onset Alzheimer's or dementia. Players can't sleep, they get angry, they drink, abuse drugs, and they die young.

    2. Re:Just like any high impact (to the head) sport. by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      One in five people in the world get angry, drink, abuse drugs and die young.

      Is there actual studies that compare these people with controls?

      I mean, I know a guy who was an Engineer who was an alcoholic and shot himself, but he never bashed his head on anything, unless you count a chess board...

      Maybe heh as this illness and it's unrelated?

      Honestly haven't seen a study that didn't *only* analyze athletes, though I will admit I haven't looked hard and will probably do some research before bed...

      Just pointing out the obvious...

    3. Re:Just like any high impact (to the head) sport. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh yes, the researchers are far too stupid to use control groups. Thank goodness you came along to explain science to them.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Just like any high impact (to the head) sport. by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      If you read the second link in the comment that started this thread, you'll see that

      On average, elite male soccer players -- who often use their heads to direct the ball -- had a range of negative changes in white matter architecture compared with a group of competitive swimmers who were unlikely to have repetitive brain trauma

      I think they picked the control group from professional athletes because they are more likely to have similar lifestyles. Even so, the authors of the study are cautious and note that

      differences in head injury rates, sudden accelerations, or even lifestyle could contribute

      So, like MightyMartian said, obviously researchers do their homework, otherwise their papers would be ridiculed during peer-review.

    5. Re:Just like any high impact (to the head) sport. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hur dur, don't insult football, hur dur.

    6. Re:Just like any high impact (to the head) sport. by tibit · · Score: 1

      I agree with the sentiment, but what you meant was explaining the experimental method. Science is a wee bit broader term than that.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  6. Nonsense by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I plraled futbawl sence I wurz 5. It made my dad happy, and me happer. I never get suicidal, and I got hit in ther head hunnreds of times in those years. Preas don't look at my record and see my addiction to oxys and wife beating as any evidence to suppurt ur stupid claims either.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is too easy, you also left out how there family lives and upbringings come into play with how they deal with emotional problems. I am sure like everywhere on the internet slashdotters will start up with that racial bullshit, but this happens to any man.

      Not having a father, or mother who had to work 2 jobs a day, not talking to adults over how to deal with things (ie coaches) the list goes on and on. The atmosphere of sports that men to bitch and whine or talk about there emotional problems.
      The drugs they take even tho the league claims to have a tight drug policy, considering the players are a Union I have always questioned the drug policies in sports. I have worked for Unions (unfortunately), there are no drug policies.

    2. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besades, all of ma buddahs who dint play futbawl also beatz their bitches and does the drungs too and so it cant be just from mah hed injurahs, serusly

    3. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please excuse wbr1. One time while playing football his head was accidentially ripped from his body. Doctor says he has Dain Bramage.

  7. Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was there ever a chance that getting trauma to the head would lead to super scientists or some other type of improvement? American football. The "sport" where you get brain damage from all that kicking the ball with your feet.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lord_mike · · Score: 5, Informative

      The term "football" is in reference to playing the game "on foot" as opposed to mounted on a horse like polo. Many early versions of games called football in the middle ages involved practically no kicking of a ball at all. The direct precursors to Association Football, or Soccer, allowed one to not only touch the ball with your hands, but catch it, too (i.e. the fair catch, which still survives with Soccer's cousins Rugby and American Football).

      As for the brain damage with the North American version of the game, I'm not sure if there is much of a solution. There is a common belief that all the hard shell padding and hard helmets are to blame, and going "naked" like rugby would solve the problem. Players wouldn't feel as invincible and their instinct for self-preservation would kick in, reducing the force of their blocks and tackles. The data doesn't support this theory. There have been positive brain trauma studies of this sort going back 80 years ago during the age of leather helmets and soft padding, so reducing protection is probably not the answer. The nature of the game is simply predisposed to hard hits both in blocking and tackling players. The goal is to always get extra yardage or jar the ball loose. That's not an issue in rugby where there is no line to gain, the ball is loose after every play, and there is no blocking allowed. I'm not sure you could make the game safer without so radically changing its nature that it would essentially become something completely different from football as we know it.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or accept that this is a gladiator sport and stop being concerned for the gladiator's health over the show. Go Skins! We want Dallas!!!!!!

    3. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever, dude. You heard Costas: guns kill football players.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The term "football" is in reference to playing the game "on foot" as opposed to mounted on a horse like polo.

      [citation needed]

    5. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be interesting to see the case say Rugby Union.. Plenty more bashes to unprotected heads than American football.

        All the Rugby Union players end up as accountants, Lawyers, Surgeons and business managers.

        If american footballers went naked they would just kill themselves. Rugby has a specific set of rules and play that works for nakedness.

      Be aware in New Zealand they do play Rugby union naked. With no clothes. So go figure that one out, point dexter.

    6. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      "The term "football" is in reference to playing the game "on foot" as opposed to mounted on a horse like polo. Many early versions of games called football in the middle ages involved practically no kicking of a ball at all. The direct precursors to Association Football, or Soccer, allowed one to not only touch the ball with your hands, but catch it, too (i.e. the fair catch, which still survives with Soccer's cousins Rugby and American Football)."

      You can put it even more simply than that: the North American football codes derive directly from the sport of rugby football, as it is formally known. You know, the sport whose UK governing body is the Rugby Football Union.

      The UK spawned two football codes, rugby football and association football. Through various quirks of fate, the rugby code was the one mostly adopted in North America, and it gradually mutated into the sport played today. (Various CFL teams still had 'rugby' in their formal club names well into the 20th century, FWIW). Simple enough.

      I always like to point this out to smirking Brits who say football should be called 'handegg', and invite them to go down to their local rugby club and politely explain to the nice friendly boys there why their game should be called 'handegg'...

    7. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      Rugby tackling is much more head friendly. The ball carrier drops the ball almost immediately upon being touched by the defender. There is no incentive for the tackler to hit hard. Yes, there is the scrum, yet most of the contact in a scrum is endured by the players' shoulders. Most importantly, there is no blocking. The most frequent incidence of head contact in American football is on the line of scrimmage. Every running play involves the offensive line (and other associated players) running forward headfirst into a group of other players. There has even been talk about eliminating the three point stance to minimize helmet to helmet contact at the point of contact at the line of scrimmage.

    8. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      The Canadians brought Rugby to the States. Up until that point, the various schools played a bastardized version of Association Rules--typically without the offsides rule (Americans like their scoring). Harvard had their own unique game that was kind of like Gaelic football. No one else would play it, though, so they invited some folks from McGill University in Quebec to show them the game. They said, that's nice, but here's a better one.. and they showed them Rugby. Well, Harvard was wowed with the game and evangelized it to the other schools that would become the Ivy League. A student at Yale named Walter Camp thought that the game could be improved in several ways. He reduced the team size to 11 (after seeing a true Soccer match), allowed blocking, and implemented the system of "downs" and yards to go to prevent loose balls after every play so as to allow the possessing team to develop plays and a strategy. Thus, American Football was born!

    9. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Would be interesting to see the case say Rugby Union.. Plenty more bashes to unprotected heads than American football.

      The thing is that brain trauma is down to movement of the head. You may get more cuts and bruises playing without a helmet (and may even get more broken bones etc as well) because the force of impact is dissapated by the helmet across the whole head; but the brain doesn't know that, all that matters for it is that it is being violently thrown about.

    10. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you could make the game safer without so radically changing its nature that it would essentially become something completely different from football as we know it.

      So what, it already *is* completely different from football as *we* know it. ;)

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    11. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that mean for "handball" that it original was played walking on your hands in the field?

    12. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Rugby tackling is much more head friendly. The ball carrier drops the ball almost immediately upon being touched by the defender.

      Only if he wants to lose possesion and give it to the other team (which he does not). The aim is actually hold on to the ball when you are tackled then give it to one of your team mates behind you so they can try and score. Ideally you storm though tackle and keep running if you can by not going to ground.

      By the way though, many rugby players do wear head protection that consists of a bit of padding designed to limit head trauma. Also, this study seems to indicate that a good concussion is just as common in a game of rugby: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155428/

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  8. Re:Jealous much? by jimmetry · · Score: 0

    So, apparently having a human girlfriend is a top-notch achievement? Sorry to say this, but, it's actually a whole lot easier than you think... But here, have a gold star.

  9. Re:Jealous much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently you get bonus points for offing her and then yourself.

  10. Darwin by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

    'Nuff said.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Darwin by jamesh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      'Nuff said.

      Wrong. Completely wrong. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability. The dementia in question can strike many years after they have finished playing and breeding. You need to go and read up on how evolution works. I'll give you a hint though - if your kids are old enough to look after themselves when the effects of your stupid (or just plain unfortunate) actions are realised, it doesn't count.

    2. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin would have you losing to these guys since by the time their disease develops they have already slept with plenty of desirable women. If jumping off a cliff would make you more attractive to the opposite sex, Darwinism would make us all cliff jumpers.

    3. Re:Darwin by dryeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Baby Orcas have a way better survival rate when they have living grandparents. Seems that growing old and helping your children raise your grandchildren enhances the chances of survival of your genes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Darwin by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      Darwin would have you losing to these guys since by the time their disease develops they have already slept with plenty of desirable women. If jumping off a cliff would make you more attractive to the opposite sex, Darwinism would make us all cliff jumpers.

      Athletic Darwinism has its supporters.

    5. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If members of the opposite sex are turned off by the idea they will have to put up with a person with a damaged brain later in life, or seeing their significant suffer dementia and higher chances of suicide, then it could impact their breeding years. It wouldn't even have to be a real effect, just a perceived effect could influence their potential to produce offspring. Although considering how sports stars are treated in many places, it would just be a teaspoon's worth of water taken out of an ocean...

    6. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what those studies have to say about orcas with 7 figure trust funds.

    7. Re:Darwin by actiondan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are also animals where the survival chances of offspring is enhanced by the sacrifice of their parents.

      Maybe the financial benefits of playing the NFL, which can be passed to offspring, outweigh the potential downside of having a shorter life.

    8. Re:Darwin by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      For orcas, that is demonstrably not true. Unlike humans, orcas travel in pods and the entire pod takes care of the children, not just the parents and grandparents. The presence of a grandparent benefits the entire pod, not just the grandparent's direct genetic descendants, so the survival rate isn't due to the grandparent helping to raise the child. Having grandparents does suggest that the orca may have a better set of genes, however, which would translate to a better chance of survival.

    9. Re:Darwin by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      Except that most NFL players have relatively short careers and are making the NFL minimum wage. (Still quite well paid for playing a game, no doubt, but they aren't all making millions per year). Couple that with the fact that the types that usually make the NFL aren't exactly known for their financial acumen, and you'll find that a lot of NFL players end up broke within a few years of retirement. I don't remember the exact numbers and can't be bothered to look it up right now, but it was a fairly significant percentage, IIRC.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    10. Re:Darwin by dryeo · · Score: 1

      For the most successful NFL players that would be true. There are many football (and other sports) players who never do get rich though.
      I mostly answered to counter the GP statement that breeding is all that is involved in passing on your genes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:Darwin by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the financial benefits of playing the NFL, which can be passed to offspring, outweigh the potential downside of having a shorter life.

      But, that type of thing doesn't stand up to the new mentality of "social justice"....you can't just make a lot of $$ and give it to your kids, that's just not right, and not fair for the 99%....and....

      Oh wait, if you're a rich sports star this doesn't apply to you...only all those other filthy wealthy folks that make over $250K/yr....gotcha.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does, however, provide an adequate explanation as to why most people are getting stupider.

    13. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin would have you losing to these guys since by the time their disease develops they have already slept with plenty of desirable women. If jumping off a cliff would make you more attractive to the opposite sex, Darwinism would make us all cliff jumpers.

      Athletic Darwinism has its supporters.

      Athletic supporters?

  11. Re:Jealous much? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

    Sorry to say this, but, it's actually a whole lot easier than you think...

    Not when you look like me. It was my life goal for decades until I finally gave up. It was just too difficult. I had to go back to electrical engineering and plasma physics. Much easier. If you're a pretty boy it's easy. If you're not it actually is a major achievement.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  12. In my esteemed academic opinion: by DaneM · · Score: 1

    I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!

    Sucks that so many folks are dying, though.

  13. Not the first time this has happened by Grayhand · · Score: 1

    "a degenerative brain disease brought on by repeated hits to the head that results in confusion, depression and, eventually, dementia." Windows Vista users suffered from a similar condition.

  14. We have to sacrifice the youth of a few.. by theascension · · Score: 1

    To satisfy our social self destructive desires.

    There's always been some sacrificial element in society, whether it be celebrity, sport or literal sacrifices in less 'civilized' days. The way I see it we're lying to ourselves if we don't accept the pornography of sport, the search for new talent to seduce with fame and throw away as soon as their purpose starts to fade. How is this any different from celebrity or young women in fashion? This research is important and should bring to light an important issue in society we can't seem to live without, but how will 'making the game safer' truly improve the lives of the players while satisfying our desires as spectators? These are the questions we have to ask when we finally take a look and realize just how damaging our practice of sacrificing youth is, be it football, olympic athletes, eenage fashion models, hollywood etc. How do we replace the desire to watch others suffer? Don't dare ever question most sports fans, their only happiness is derived from obscuring the illusion of material filth around them with the constant consumption of sport.

    Tom Payne wrote a decent book "Fame: What the Classics Tell us About Our Cult of Celebrity", that touches on the sacrifice aspect of celebrity.

    1. Re:We have to sacrifice the youth of a few.. by csumpi · · Score: 2

      What's the alternative? No challenges, no sports so kids don't get hurt? Hand them an iPad, sit them on the couch with a nanny and feed them cereal? Then get a shrink to subscribe Ritalin once they get messed up from high carb diet, no exercise and low self esteem?

      Just let them play some ball.

    2. Re:We have to sacrifice the youth of a few.. by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Sports that don't involve massive brain trauma? Last I checked, Americans were pretty keen on several of those too.

    3. Re:We have to sacrifice the youth of a few.. by Inda · · Score: 1

      There are too many alternative sports to play. I'm not sure you're asking the right question. Picturing meme of Fry...

      I've read recently that football (soccorrrrr for the Americans out there) is gaining a lot of interest in the USA because serious injuries are few and far between. The older stars from the English league, who go there to retire, are doing a fine job promoting the sport. The understanding of the game is increasing. The USA national team is no longer looked at as a joke - two USA international stars play in my own English team and they are seen as huge winners.

      What are the chances of the USA swapping football for, um, football (soccorrrrr)?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:We have to sacrifice the youth of a few.. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because all challenges in life must be physical. And obviously everyone leading a mostly sedentary life is a 400lb whale. I don't regularly exercise, but I'm not overweight, and I have no problem hiking in the mountains once a year, carrying 40-50lb on my back. Yes, the first few days I curse myself under my breath, but that passes, and I don't do it for any challenge, just to enjoy the view and the sweat. It's not about high carb diet, it's about not eating the fucking too much.

      I suggest every weekend you sit down, choose a particular idea from science or arts that you didn't "crack" yet, and get down to it. Tell me it's no challenge, ha ha. My self esteem is just fine, or, rather, I don't pay much attention to it and it's not on my list to things to worry about. It doesn't bother me.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  15. Re:Jealous much? by jimmetry · · Score: 1

    Hmm. Fair enough to some extent, but I know a lot of single women who are equally pessimistic about their hopes due to appearance. The ratio of men:women is pretty close, and polygyny is rare, so statistically speaking the situation shouldn't be hopeless.

  16. And this is why I gave up watching football by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

    Get my real time strategic sports viewing kicks from watching professional Starcraft now, knowing that the worst injuries being inflicted on the players is maybe a case of CTS, and only if they aren't careful about posture.

  17. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hand egg as it should be called would be better of if they removed the paddings and helmets ,

    as reference there has been more deaths in boxing due to padded gloves then there was before when they used to box without ,

    its just a false sence of safety

    1. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a prolate spheroid you divegrass-loving clod.

  18. Not surprising by erp_consultant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean look at the size of these guys today. Even the wide receivers are huge. Bigger, stronger, faster...all to feed our insatiable appetite for violence disguised as sport. In hockey it's the fights. In nascar it's the crashes. In football it's the big hit. Add to that the enormous sums of money available to the stars of these sports and it's no wonder they will do whatever is necessary to win. All to the delight of the fat, shirtless drunk spewing profanities on every play.

    The athletes are simply too big and strong. Could you imagine Fran Tarkenton playing in today's NFL? He would get killed. The equipment cannot protect them adequately. The NFL is stuck between giving the fans what they want on the one hand and getting sued on the other hand by crippled ex players. Cutting back on the head shots is a good start but how much can you really do to prevent permanent injury?

    1. Re:Not surprising by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'm not so familiar with football, but I know that with hockey, it's been demanded from many quarters for a couple of decades now that all leagues stop the checking and the fighting. The leagues will pay lip service to it, but the hard facts are that fans want to see violence. They want to see enforcers smashing the shit out of the fast little guy from the opposing team that keeps scoring goals. They love it when a player is smashed against the boards by some guy doing thirty miles an hour. It sells tickets. Sure the end result is some fifty year old guy with joints and spine so damaged they're physically like a 70 year old, and their brains addled because they've been giving and taking hits since they were eight years old because their old man, their coach, and every fucking person in the arena wanted to seem some actions.

      What I see happening in the football and hockey leagues is a long waver that expunges the league and team of all responsibility. The promise of big bucks, women and fan adulation will keep the bulk of players in the game. The smart ones, yeah, they'll probably go "My brains and my body aren't worth this...", but for the majority, they'll take the long term pain for the short term gain.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Not surprising by haknick · · Score: 0

      And that is why Soccer rightly so, is still the most popular sport in the world.

    3. Re:Not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The GP is wrong about football. Sure, there are some guys who want to hurt each other, but often the opposing players are friends, who might have played on the same team in the past. They're big because it gives them a competitive advantage, just like sumo wrestlers or basketball players.

      In football, a big hit, sure it'll attract attention, but a nice run or beautiful interception will attract more.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I don't watch football because I want to see big hits, nor do I know anyone who watches for this reason. Fans get more of a thrill out of things like big plays, fakes, and interceptions.

      And I don't think players are hitting hard to pander to fans. They hit hard to try to cause a fumble, which gives them a competitive advantage. I'm not defending this - I would rather not have the hard hits - but I object to the assertion that they do it simply to quench the fans' thirst for violence.

    5. Re:Not surprising by Alomex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but the hard facts are that fans want to see violence.

      This is a tautological statement. People who don't like violence turn off the TV and hence the remaining fans are the ones who like violence. But reality is that viewership would definitely go up if violence was eliminated.

      Presently, non-violent Olympic hockey gets the highest viewership figures by far both in the USA and Canada.

    6. Re:Not surprising by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Friends off the field perhaps but on the field not so much. Sure, between whistles they might exchange some chit chat and a hug after the game but during play it's game on. Look what happened with the New Orleans Saints and the "bounty" scandal. Opposing players were targeted not only to be hit but to be taken out of the game or even intentionally injured. I find it hard to believe that the Saints were the only team that engaged in this sort of thing. They just got caught.

      I'm a purist. I watch football for the nice run and the great catch and the perfect throw. It just disturbs me to see all these former players with brain injuries and hardly able to walk. What good is all that money if you can't count to ten?

    7. Re:Not surprising by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Well said. If you've got a kid with athletic ability then encourage them to take up golf or tennis. Yes, you can get injured in those sports too (back, knee, elbow) but at least you're not taking head shots every time you play.

      Unfortunately, for many kids athletics is what they see as their only way out of poverty. And for many of them it is. They play these games knowing the risks. They get shoved through college programs that, in many cases, fall far short of a "quality" education. Indeed, these kids are nothing more than meal tickets for the colleges that are concerned far more about money than providing a good education for their student athletes. A small percentage of college athletes will get drafted into the pro leagues and some of them will go on to fame and fortune. But far too many don't get to live that dream. For them they face a life with bad knees and marginal job skills.

    8. Re:Not surprising by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Now that it has become clear beyond any sort of doubt that football causes significant amount of brain damage, the NFL has become very strict about enforcing dangerous hits with fines and suspensions. They've gone over the top, actually, to cover their assess since they ignored published medical science for decades. Now that the public has caught on to the science, they're backtracking as fast as they can.

      Just like you said, some of the smarter players have seen the signs and got out early. I remember Robert Smith retired in 2000 after his best year as a professional because he had already made millions and wanted to walk away healthy. People thought he was nuts!

    9. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are some guys who want to hurt each other

      Yes, and they play for the New Orleans Saints (cash awards for crippling opposing players).

    10. Re:Not surprising by danwiz · · Score: 1

      The weight of NFL players has been increasing steadily.

      Number of players over 300 lbs:
      In 1970 - 1
      In 1980 - 3
      In 1990 - 94
      In 2000 - 301
      In 2009 - 394

      See a trend here? It's also creating health issues for active players and retired players, and is causing a shorter lifespan. This isn't your grandfather's game of fast players with leather helmets and no padding. This is a game of fat men in hard plastic armor doing a lot of blocking.

      It's simple physics. F = m * a. It's a lot easier for a players to increase their weight by 50%, than it is for them to increase their speed by 50%.

      Regardless of a high brain injury risk, such sports will still be attractive because:
      It's a chance for poorer students to get to college.
      It's a highly publicized sport, with a large fan base.
      Every player you see on the NFL field is a millionaire, and is semi-famous.

    11. Re:Not surprising by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Big plays.
      Impressive plays.

      Like Indianapolis scoring the game winning touchdown Sunday with 0:00 remaining on the clock.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    12. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Jim Brown is the classic example.

    13. Re:Not surprising by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      That's very revealing. Look at the jump from 1980 to 2000. It must be terrifying running a post route at full speed with some huge safety getting ready to blind side you. Not to mention quarterbacks. Could you imagine one of those 300+ pounders bearing down on you ready to tear your head off?

    14. Re:Not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it definitely spans the spectrum. It's still different than hockey, where people are hoping for someone to get hurt for the sake of getting hurt. People cheer sometimes because the opposing quarterback is out, but it doesn't look that cool to see someone writhing on the ground in pain.

      Even the New Orleans thing, those players lost half the season of playtime. In the future players are going to at least be more careful about hiding that kind of thing if they try it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think society as a whole needs to start pushing sports that simply don't have the impact problems. Basketball I can't imagine having too many brain injuries.

      Personally, I enjoy watching curling, and that's going to be about the least injury-causing sport out there. Sure, their ligaments in their arms or legs or whatever may be shot in the long run, but it's still an enjoyable sport, and they'll still assumingly have the same brain function as a non-curler.

      Aaaand then there's my guilty pleasure of watching UFC... which is about as far into the 'physical impact' category as you can get. In all honesty, they should be getting paid far more than most other sports. At least they have a tendancy (except for the long-runners like Randy Couture or something) to appear and then disappear after 5 or so years.

    16. Re:Not surprising by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Is your reality provable? You don't think that people who like violence would stop watching?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    17. Re:Not surprising by Alomex · · Score: 1

      No they wouldn't as they religiously watch Olympic hockey. Even if some of them went away, by now hockey viewership is so low that a 30% loss of them is more than compensated by a 0.5% gain among the non-viewing public.

    18. Re:Not surprising by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      "People cheer sometimes because the opposing quarterback is out, but it doesn't look that cool to see someone writhing on the ground in pain. " - I think it's pretty sickening to see that sort of thing. What's wrong with these people anyhow? What if that was their son or uncle or husband writhing in pain? Would they still cheer?

      I still remember the hit that Kurt Warner took against the Saints in the 2010 playoffs. Not a dirty hit but he absolutely got his bell rung and you can bet his wife and kids had a good deal to do with his retirement, announced shortly after that incident. Then he comes out and says more recently that he'd rather his kids not play football. Warner took a lot of flack for that comment but I think it was the right thing to do. Who better than him to know the dangers of football? He's made a lot of money. His kids won't have to bag groceries like he did.

    19. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember Robert Smith retired in 2000 after his best year as a professional because he had already made millions and wanted to walk away healthy. People thought he was nuts!

      You have no idea what you're talking about. 1989 was clearly his best year as a professional, as Disintegration is widely considered their finest album. 2000 was a contentious year, as reviews for Bloodflowers came in mixed, but he held off retirement - in fact, two more studio albums were released, in 2004 and 2008, and another is currently in the works. While true that he has made millions, his health is another issue, being that he has apparently struggled with weight gain for some time, earning him the nickname "Fat Bob" in certain circles.

    20. Re:Not surprising by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      There are no 300 ponders safety lol the big boys play on the offensive and defensive line. 200+ linebackers -200 to 210-215 safety, safety need speed, linebackers need brute strength and speed so you will rarely see a 300 pound line backer they would be way too slow. What needs to stop is the blind sided hits, ya know the ones where the quarterback has zero clue hes about to get creamed those should be whistled dead play.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    21. Re:Not surprising by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Yeah sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that there were 300 pound safeties. Just the same I'm sure that a 200 pound safety could deliver a pretty jarring hit. Remember, these guys are not just 200 pounds and flabby...they are a very strong 200 pounds with very low body fat. Most of them could probably bench 300 pounds without blinking an eye.

      You're right about the blind side hits. I think that quarterbacks and receivers are the most vulnerable to those types of hits and they can be devastating. Running backs are generally moving forward and can see their opponents before they get hit. Hence they are more susceptible to knee injuries, as are linemen from cut blocks.

    22. Re:Not surprising by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      Your post started out well and I was agreeing with it, but you quickly veered into shaky logic ground. Remember the axiom often repeated on Slashdot: correlation is not causation.

      Perhaps those fans that watch Olympic hockey just do it because they enjoy Olympic sports and competition among countries. After all, viewership figures for gymnastics and track and field also go through the roof during the Olympics, as compared to anytime other than the Olympics. It's not like outside those sports are full of violence outside of the Olympic environment.

      But anyway, in general I agree that it's stupid that they allow so much fighting to happen in professional Hockey, and I also believe that they lose more viewers than gain because of that.

    23. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think how many people would watch Olympic hockey if they could see Our Guys slam the shit out of the Guys From Over There. U-S-A! U-S-A!

  19. No Different than other studies by Gith · · Score: 0

    What we need to remember here is as the brains studied were from samples taken posthumously. Chances are they played 20-30 years ago, back when they'd take each other's heads off without so much as a flag being thrown. What I'd like to know is the incidence in brain disease with the newer, kinder, gentler NFL we see today, with the next generation collision helmets, brain injury prevention rules, etc.

  20. Re:Jealous much? by jamesh · · Score: 1

    Sorry to say this, but, it's actually a whole lot easier than you think...

    Not when you look like me. It was my life goal for decades until I finally gave up. It was just too difficult. I had to go back to electrical engineering and plasma physics. Much easier. If you're a pretty boy it's easy. If you're not it actually is a major achievement.

    Have a look around at all the unattractive guys, and then take a look at their wives. Some of them do okay, so don't write yourself off so fast. If you're a pretty boy then getting laid is (probably) easier but statistically speaking finding a life partner when you aren't the prettiest guy on the block isn't impossible or even that difficult. What makes it hard is having the low self-esteem of feeling like you are too ugly to exist - that does make you unattractive (but so does the opposite situation). Thick skin helps too (metaphorically - actually having a disease causing a thickening of the skin probably just makes the situation worse).

  21. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Three types of people commit suicide. The confused, the desperate, and the cowardly. None of the situations that lead to suicide were healthy to begin with.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  22. Belcher's not really the same by Keith+Mickunas · · Score: 1

    Belcher killed his girlfriend, that was the motivation for his suicide, either from the grief over what he'd done or the realization he'd be going to prison for a long, long time. Also, he'd been in the league a much shorter time than many of the other notable suicides, who often killed themselves after retirement. Belcher was just in his third season.

    If he was suffering from a brain disorder from too many hits, it had clearly affected him in a much different manner than any of the others. Has there ever been another murder/suicide or some other violent act attributed to a football player suffering from this disorder?

    1. Re:Belcher's not really the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is the Chris Benoit situation from a few years ago. He killed his wife and their son, with his brain showing significant damage. Professional wrestlers sustain similar head injuries to football players (one of the people behind this organization is a former Harvard football player/WWE professional wrestler).

    2. Re:Belcher's not really the same by Keith+Mickunas · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Benoit had a 22 year career as a wrestler, Belcher was only 25 years old. And so far I've heard nothing about steroid use in the Belcher case.

      Long and the short of it is I think it's presumptuous at this point to say that the Belcher case is relevant in this discussion. Now perhaps there's a larger issue about the lifestyles of pro athletes as well as college athletes, and how they are treated by coaches and a society as a whole. But that a whole other mess.

      Of course maybe this guy took way too many hard knocks and continued playing in the game. Hopefully they can still test his remains.

    3. Re:Belcher's not really the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't believe steroids are the issue, in either case. I think that's just scapegoating by the media. Steroids do mess you up hormonally, but they don't do the severe brain damage that head injuries do. I think like many things this will affect people differently. Some people can probably survive taking head injuries more often or over a longer period of time than others, and in some people this will cause memory loss, or loss of cognitive function, or even loss of self control.

      I had a roommate in college who played rugby and received several concussions. After they started affecting his memory and decision making, he stopped. If he was getting paid though, I'm not sure he would've been able to though. I consider myself fortunate that I've never had any head injuries, but that's the benefit of being an indoor kid.

    4. Re:Belcher's not really the same by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      If he was suffering from a brain disorder from too many hits, it had clearly affected him in a much different manner than any of the others. Has there ever been another murder/suicide or some other violent act attributed to a football player suffering from this disorder?

      I was thinking the same thing, but the summary mentions significant findings in people who only played at the high school level. Maybe Belcher was one of these 'lucky' ones?

      Similarly, while I cannot speak to murder, it looks like Junior Seau was suffering from this when he committed suicide.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:Belcher's not really the same by sjames · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been another murder/suicide or some other violent act attributed to a football player suffering from this disorder?

      There have been MANY 'inexplicable'; incidents over the years and a growing consensus that brain injury might be the explanation.

    6. Re:Belcher's not really the same by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      My guess Steroids. He could have been on them since high school.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    7. Re:Belcher's not really the same by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      So all the information that Steroids cause bad tempers is not true? [ Apart from physical side effects, steroids can also cause devastating psychological side effects which can affect any individual’s social life as well. These psychological side effects can be extremely frightening at times too. Use of steroids can lead to people having difficulty in controlling their emotions, so they are most likely to be crabby and easy irritated at all times. They would also have bad temper. And if they do not stop using steroids then they can even develop symptoms of various mental diseases. They can become extremely paranoid and have hallucinations (i.e. see things which do not exist in reality) and even hear voices!} I found that with little trouble searching http://xsteroids.co.za/steroideffects.html

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  23. Re:Football = a game for idiots, played by idiots. by jamesh · · Score: 1

    I do not know a single intelligent person who likes watching football.

    I know plenty, but I believe that our "Aussie Rules" football is a little more elegant than the version played in the states. Even so I don't have any real interest in it, apart from winning the footing tipping competition but that's more about the money than the game.

  24. Re:Jealous much? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Troll

    It is if you're an AC hanging out in his parents' basement writing flamebait posts about /.ers jacking off with Cheetoh-encrusted fingers. I mean, is there anything more pathetic than the grandparent poster, a complete fucking worthless loser whose life is filled with trolling Internet web sites.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  25. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suicide is not evidence that someone has brain damage or is insane or anything like that. It is often a brave and highly rational act. When I hear of a suicide I look for what it was in their environment that caused it. Not for what was wrong in their head. It is blaming the victim that is the real problem. Japanese society has a healthy view of suicide.

    Nonsense murder suicide is never a rational decision, it always has some sort of cause. When Joseph Goebbles and his wife killed off their children and then killed themselves it was selfish psychotic behavior. When Jim Jones either ordered the execution or convinced so called sane humans to accept death it was psychotic behavior modification and a manifestation of the said same group psychosis that led many Germans and Japanese to turn to suicide at the end of the second world war.

    Suicide has many reasons but by and large is completely either pathological or psychotic or a combination of both in nature. We are the only beings with higher intelligence that undertake in suicide, except perhaps some cases of whales and dolphins beaching themselves.

    The only rational suicide would be for those who are suffering terminal illness and are in extreme pain or those who know that the only alternative to a slow death in bed with no chance of any reasonable quality of life chose to take there own life. Then it is a rational decision. Whenever suicide involves more than one life it is not rational.

    And those who would counsel or aid others that do have hope of a reasonable quality of life are a serious danger to society themselves! Hitler, and his sociopath doctors and henchmen were evil and nothing else as they tried to engineer a super race.

    We are not far from this if we socially condone suicide for those who only need time and social support! We here in Canada have had the right wing idiots advocating eugenics as has the United States, some are still vocal and need to be chastised and exposed for what they really are, sociopaths!

    The more we learn about brain injury that causes sociopathic behavior and how to prevent it and mitigate the consequences with proven treatments the more of these unfortunate murder and suicides will be prevented.
       

  26. Well, it's over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Handegg" (I refuse to call anything but Association Football "football") needs to be banned and removed from play at school level. Anything less is irresponsible.

    Only idiot fans of that violent, harmful sports would dare say anything else.

    1. Re:Well, it's over. by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      "Handegg" (I refuse to call anything but Association Football "football") needs to be banned and removed from play at school level. Anything less is irresponsible.

      Only idiot fans of that violent, harmful sports would dare say anything else.

      "Its funny when people get hurt." -Homer Simpson

      I don't want to make it look like I'm only bashing American football because this could easily apply to the NASCAR fans that only watch it for the crashes.. and hockey for the fans that only watch it for the fights... or boxing for people who only watch it for the KOs.. or MMA for the totallyfuckingawesome KOs. OK, I'm just making this worse.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
  27. re: youth by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing we protect our youth from conditions like this.

    I see your sarcasm and raise you an unfortunate reality. I grew up on the NFL, like many kids did in the 70s and 80s, as our parents and their friends gathered, drank and were merry. I never made a mental connection to football like I did with, say, Star Trek. I didn't ever seek it out, but rather it became background noise and part-reason to gather with friends... and drink. Perhaps a fortunate side-effect of the USA becoming more aware of brain injury could be the replacement of humans with robotic players. Yeah, I know we're nowhere close to stuff like Real Steel, but wouldn't it be kind of cool to see bots being beat to crap and the pieces swept off after? By little robots, nonetheless.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  28. Couldn't stop myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a no-brainer?

  29. But ... but ... but ... by hduff · · Score: 1

    Sports builds character. How could it be so bad? These brain damaged players are just slackers. Next your gonna say that vaccinations don't cause autism and Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs.

    Please respond using a car analogy so I can understand WTF you are saying.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:But ... but ... but ... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Sports builds character. How could it be so bad?

      It's especially edifying when both sides pray to the same God for victory.

      (Though perhaps less so than when armies do it.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:But ... but ... but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns cause murder-suicides, just like cars do.

  30. Asshole football players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No surprise.

    If you've ever had the displeasure of meeting a football player, "brain damage" would be least of your worries.

    1. Re:Asshole football players by Revotron · · Score: 1

      Troll.

      The assholes you meet are not assholes because they're football players. They're assholes because they're assholes. Perhaps you, sir, are actually the asshole, and they just respond in kind.

      There are plenty of very kind and caring people out there who also happen to play football. Come to terms with this and overcome your irrational (but understandable) hate of people who are more talented than you.

    2. Re:Asshole football players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally know 3 former pro football players (2 NFL, one USFL). The nicest guys you ever want to meet. The oldest of the NFL players has a 60 point IQ advantage over you. The other NFL player a 40 point advantage.

  31. simple, just make brain damage illegal by kawabago · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then no one will be able to get it.

    1. Re:simple, just make brain damage illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure some undocumented brain damage will sneak over the boarder somehow... and take our jeubz!

    2. Re:simple, just make brain damage illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you outlaw brain damage, only outlaws will have brain damage.

    3. Re:simple, just make brain damage illegal by dintech · · Score: 1

      I think it's more important to take down the sites that link to brain damage that are profiting off people's hard work. It's stealing!!!

  32. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by tftp · · Score: 2

    Three types of people commit suicide. The confused, the desperate, and the cowardly.

    Imagine that you are 80 years old and have $1 million in the bank. One day your doctor tells you that you are incurably ill and will start suffering unbearable pain tomorrow. The doctors can give you additional 100 days of life for the low cost of $10K per day. Then you will die anyway, and your family - or needy charities - will have nothing. You decide to commit suicide instead. Will you be confused, desperate or cowardly as you jump from the roof?

    If you don't like my example then feel free to imagine a war hero who accepts a mission that will save thousands of men but will have him killed. Who will be that hero, using the short list of options that you provided?

    My point here is simple. Suicide can be also a rational choice.

  33. Play the hand you're dealt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all pay a price for monetizing our natural talents and abilities. The NFL guys suffer from head bashing. The brilliant programmers often suffer burn-out from death marches. I've seen both types in their old age and they are both badly damaged.

    While some of us are not so big, quick and athletic as to get sucked into the Big Sportz Machine (TM), it is simplistic to presume such a career is less healthy than another.

    1. Re:Play the hand you're dealt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer to avoid death marches and head bashing...

  34. iStupidicus.giganticus by CHRONOSS2008 · · Score: 0

    yes folks it was discovered while a giant sized NFL guy was trying to text his mom....shame really...we discover that head banging for real just isnt what its CRACKED up to be....

    So what is the cure you all say....why ILessStupidicus.runticus gene....These small weak eyed humans needing glasses are the key to salvation of said big people ....

  35. we should test it on politicians by CHRONOSS2008 · · Score: 0

    Just to make sure that you cant get more stupid then you already are.

  36. Re:Football = a game for idiots, played by idiots. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    I do not know a single intelligent person who likes
    watching football.

    It is idiotic barbaric violent crap.

    And you have to be a sick fuck to even think it is cool
    to watch people beat the hell out of each other during the game.

    Of course it fits right in with the old Roman scheme of "bread and circuses"
    which was meant to keep the populace in a satisfied and compliant state.
    Of course if you are not an idiot that alone will offend you.

    I wonder whether nerds' general disinterest in sports is a function of their general ASD nature.

    ISTM that sports fandom is primarily a social phenomenon.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  37. im left handed by CHRONOSS2008 · · Score: 0

    LOL

  38. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Suicide is not evidence that someone has brain damage or is insane or anything like that. It is often a brave and highly rational act. When I hear of a suicide I look for what it was in their environment that caused it. Not for what was wrong in their head. It is blaming the victim that is the real problem. Japanese society has a healthy view of suicide.

    Unfortunately sometimes something "wrong in their head" *does* cause suicide, and a lot of other behavior that society doesn't approve of.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  39. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Desperation, both cases.

    The sick man can't live without bankrupting himself, and will still die once the money runs out. In death, perhaps, his will might benefit others.

    The soldier must undertake a suicidal mission because there is no other possible means for the mission to succeed, and failure or refusal would mean the deaths of thousands.

    You're assuming that 'cowardly' or 'desperate' people can't make rational choices, or that confused people can't make decisions that are rational to them.

  40. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by pclminion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Belcher was no victim. He murdered his girlfriend in cold blood and then took the easy way out by killing himself before he could be brought to justice. I suppose his act could be described as rational (having just destroyed his entire life, what reason was there to go on?) But it wasn't brave, or honorable.

    It's possible that repeated hits to the head fucked him up, but we don't allow "I was fucked up your honor" as an excuse for other people, such as drunk drivers.

  41. What's crazy by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    What's crazy is that women still chase after alpha male guys - and in fact - guys exactly like these - instead of intelligent geeks...

    Go figure?

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:What's crazy by Adolf+Hipster · · Score: 0

      I like the fact that this "JockTroll" account wasn't created specifically to respond to this article.

  42. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by gmhowell · · Score: 2

    It's possible that repeated hits to the head fucked him up, but we don't allow "I was fucked up your honor" as an excuse for other people, such as drunk drivers.

    Are you an idiot by genetics, or did you play too much football? Never heard of: "Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect"?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  43. Re:Football = a game for idiots, played by idiots. by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

    Well, by most generally accepted criteria I am an intelligent person, and I enjoy watching football. Of course, you don't know me so your statement may still be correct (though I doubt it). At a visceral level, there is a significant level of tension release watching people "beat the hell out of each other". (Actually, most of the guys on the field are pretty friendly to each other - guys on different teams talking and laughing between plays. Just don't go up for a reception over the middle on third and 5).

    I don't particularly enjoy the fandom of football, and couldn't tell you what place in the standings my hometown team is (actually, for my hometown, that's pretty easy; even I know it). I can sit and enjoy a game, and walk away afterwards and not be able to tell you the score. I just don't care who wins or loses, but I do enjoy watching the strategy, the speed, the mistakes, and the raw athleticism on display. /frank

    --
    And the worms ate into his brain.
  44. Disease? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what is the pathogen?

  45. Re:Football = a game for idiots, played by idiots. by smellotron · · Score: 1

    ...winning the footing tipping competition...

    Is that like cow tipping but with linebackers?

  46. I have the alternative by maweki · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should all just start playing sarcastaball. That will be much safer.

  47. Re:Jealous much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't comfortable use a telephone until my 18th Birthday, shortly after I got on my first SSRI medication. Within that first year I lost it to a stripper who paid for my drinks! Fast forward a few more years and I picked up 'The Game', yes the book on pickup artists, and that was another life changer. It gave me the confidence to just be myself, at first I replicated what was in the book and over time gained the confidence to just be me rather than the author.

    I've never had a real long term relationship but I have had 3 strippers buy me drinks and drugs in the past decade as well as a few threesomes with girls and at one stage I was sleeping with 5 women who all knew it wasn't exclusive (only 1 knew how many, the rest never asked). Seriously it just takes a little science and effort to turn you around, I was a genuine social loser because of my generalized social anxiety disorder and bipolar! I'm still struggling in areas today, I've yet to master a long term / serious relationship for instance. I've got some pretty major trust issues as all the girls I've tried have cheated on me and to be honest after awhile sleeping with girls you don't particularly have strong feelings for gets less exciting/pleasurable...

  48. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever. Nothing wrong with suicide. You are free to commit it as long as you have taken care of your obligations (children, debts).

  49. Why is this modded funny? by rundgong · · Score: 1

    This guy was the definition of team player.

    This is insightful. And a very sad insight as well.
    He intentionally sacrificed his life so maybe other current and future players would not have to suffer from the same things he has suffered from.

  50. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think it's easy to kill yourself go try it. Conceptually it's simple, but the actual act of doing it is very difficult. There's always some primal survival instinct that tries to keep you alive, even more so if you choose a method which produces excess CO2.

    Maybe he killed himself out of grief and sorrow for what he did. Maybe he killed himself to not jam up the courts with another case. Unless you're in the mind of someone killing themself, you don't know why or what it was or wasn't to that person.

    Killing yourself is brave. There's always a chance you'll fail and end up completely crippled.

  51. Cause and Effect by MLBs · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the reverse is true.
    First they get brain damage, and then they start playing football.

  52. First reaction by tao · · Score: 1

    My first reaction: "Yeah, that makes sense. Gotta take some kind of brain disease to make you wanna play American Football".

  53. flowers for algernon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a good thing they were Jocks then. Nothing of value was lost as they didn't exactly fall from a higher level

  54. Agressive games cause murder! by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Also, brain disease.

  55. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    That's not exactly an easy verdict to get.

    I work part-time at a state mental hospital, and through that job have met two people who actually qualified for the label and yet are normally well-behaved enough that they can be allowed out of the criminally-insane building. One killed his parents and a sibling while home on a break from college. If you don't treat his psychosis, he becomes withdrawn and violent. If you treat it too well, though, he comes out of the fog, remembers what he did, and goes into severe depression over it. Tough balancing act. The other is an ex cop who came home one day and tried a murder-suicide. The murder worked. The suicide didn't. Messy.

  56. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by turp182 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually we do allow "I was fucked up your honor" for drunk drivers, especially football players.

    Back in 1998, Leonard Little of the St. Louis Rams killed a mother of two who was crossing a street in downtown St. Louis late at night (on her way to work). It was his birthday, and he was quite drunk (.19 BAC).

    He got a 90 day sentence with work release so he could practice with the team. He also had some probation and public service time (which I bet was served through football sponsored stuff).

    He didn't miss a game and, unfortunately, he continued to play for the Rams for several years. I hate to say it, but I wish mental problems upon him as that would represent some justice in a situation where there was none.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Little

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  57. Another win for headbricking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2778

  58. Obvious solutions by vlm · · Score: 1

    Some obvious solutions that won't be discussed to the "big guys hitting each others heads too hard"
    1) Technology. Now only played above 5000 meters. No idea what Florida is going to do here. Too little O2 to smash each others heads.
    2) Weight limits. 400 pounds to the head is probably worse than 175. Fine get all bulked up but no one plays over 175 pounds.
    3) Socially inappropriate. The cheerleaders play too. In the 75 IQ backwoods "hittin a hot girl on the head" is even less cool than it is in the city. I suppose this is going to give a whole new meaning to "touch football". You could probably doctor the rules a bit such that all male and all female teams would be competitive.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Obvious solutions by tibit · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious :) vlm, you've made my day. Thanks!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  59. Re:Jealous much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usual bigotry against lefties.

  60. What about NFL fans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the study explaining what sort of brain disease they have that leads them to watching NFL games?

  61. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would put both those examples in the desperate category. The sick man has no hope of recovery, it is a desperate situation and he's making the best of it. The war hero also, in a situation with no other way to save those thousands of people I would call desperate. Not to derail your point that the decision can be made rationally, but I'm only hoping to add that a desperate decision can be made rationally.

  62. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definition of DESPERATE
    1
    a : having lost hope
    b : giving no ground for hope
    2
    a : moved by despair
    b : involving or employing extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat or frustration
    3
    : suffering extreme need or anxiety
    4
    : involving extreme danger or possible disaster
    5
    : of extreme intensity
    6
    : shocking, outrageous
    â" desÂperÂateÂness noun

    None of that suggests a rational person can be "desperate". That 80 year old man would be deciding for the betterment of society or his children that he needs to step out before he costs them any more. This is a coolly logical choice that flies in the face of the survival instinct, which is an emotional response.

    About the only feeling I'd expect someone to feel in such a situation, if anything, would be calm determination, knowing that they are making absolutely the right choice.

  63. Brain Injury causes Football by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Any geek in high school could tell you this.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  64. More Data and More Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Throw a few accelerometers into the player's helmets/equipment and start getting some real-time information on these guys. Considering how much of an investment these players may represent you would think that all interested parties would want to know more about this issue.

    Or maybe it opens doors to the truth that may threaten the financial viability of this sport.

  65. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by tibit · · Score: 1

    The major problem I have with your view is that you, supposedly, "know better". This attitude is what I detest. The know-it-better's essentially tell other people how to lead their lives, what to do with their bodies, etc. You basically presuppose that it's almost never rational to end a life. I'd like to have whatever you're having, since you're, apparently, delusional. The concept of free will includes and ends at the choice to end one's life. Who the fuck are you to tell anyone that they should be stripped of that freedom? In my personal opinion, suicide watches/prevention in jails are barbaric.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  66. Someone tell Bob... by Gaerek · · Score: 1

    ...Costas that the gun, in fact, wasn't the murderer. And that it was actually football that lead to these two deaths. The gun was just the instrument.

  67. context for assertion? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure I agree that polygyny is rare.

    http://www.polygamystop.org/history.html
    "An estimated over three billion people around the world today still believe in polygamy."

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:context for assertion? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Polygyny != Polygamy

  68. define/quantify quality of life by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    "with no chance of any reasonable quality of life "

    absolutes are easy.
    what if there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of a cure for a debilitating disease to be found in the individuals lifetime.

    who decides what is/counts as a reasonable quality?
    my personal? the ability or inability wipe your own ass.....

    trust me, if I get to where I can't wipe my butt, and it's highly unlikely that that'll change back anytime soon?
    please go ahead and push me off the roof....

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  69. Aaaaaadriiiaaaaaaaaaannnnng! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    I don't despise football or other sports which rely heavily on the physics of (human) bodies colliding, but I do think that we should have teams of robots out there instead. The real competition would then be in advancing technology instead of retarding bigger meat-sacks faster. Such competition sort of parallels the way in which car racing improves the science of automobiles, and leads to innovations like better fuel efficiency or more powerful engines, or low profile tires; Some of which wind up in common folks' vehicles... Though, it's moronic to use the low-profile tires on street cars: They're designed to be used on very smooth roads and make room for huge brake pads. Thus, street cars with tiny little brakes in their low profile wheels look ridiculous to me, esp. when your wheel (not just tire) is destroyed by a golf ball sized rock -- which those cheap wheels with more tire sidewall cope with just fine.

    Where was I? Oh yes, you see, it's far too expensive to support our fragile bodies in long term space journeys. The answer is to create robotic bodies and climb another rung on the evolutionary ladder. Oh stop it, of course there'd still be romance, the bodies can look "sexy" if you like, and electronic orgasms on demand are already possible for humans. Stem cell research means we could produce egg and sperm from parent's tissue samples, then make embryos, and hook them into their robot bodies as they grow allowing not just more easy transition to sturdier bodies, but also new senses to be connected -- Thermal & x-ray vision for example, or telepathy (WIFI).

    I'd much rather my city spend hundreds of millions of dollars to improve robotics, and eventually allow our minds to escape these vestigial bodies and colonize the stars (thus, ensuring some of our eggs are off planet when the next Asteroid strikes this basket) than to incentivize young people to destroy their brains with false hopes of becoming a brain-damaged millionaire sports star. I mean, screw their bodies, but we can't replace the brains.... yet.

  70. Medically significant by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

    In the U.S. having a medical condition presented in a mere 3% of a population is considered medically significant and mitigation factors are set in place if the condition exceeds 3%. We just read a study where 50% had a condition. That is an order of magnitude above what should be tolerated medically speaking. That's more than the number of health defects caused by smoking cigarettes! I hope a wider study lowers the number, but if it doesn't... if we don't put up with cigarettes being bad for health, how can we justify allowing for a game that is bad for our health?

  71. So basically by Adolf+Hipster · · Score: 0

    Now we have scientific proof, of something we've known forever. Footballer players are retarded.

  72. Seriously by Adolf+Hipster · · Score: 0

    These crybabies just need to follow the advice of all coaches since the beginning of time. Just walk it off, you sissies!

  73. In the long term, football as we know it is doomed by JDG1980 · · Score: 0

    Sure, given football's current popularity, no one is going to be writing its epitaph any time soon. But in the long run, I think that the conclusive proof that modern tackle football causes brain damage is going to be a decisive factor and will either cause the game to change beyond recognition or be ejected from the pantheon of American sports.

    There is precedent for this. Professional boxing used to be an extremely popular sport. Today it is little more than a tawdry sideshow, and one of the reasons for its decline in popularity is that everyone knows how terrible a toll it takes on the participants. Few children want to be professional boxers when they grow up, because even kids know that boxers get serious brain damage and/or die young.

    The new knowledge of football's dangers will not affect current NFL players, who are invested in their careers, nor will it affect most current players in high school or college, who have already placed a great deal of time, effort, and self-image into the sport. But football is going to have a pipeline problem in the next generation. Middle-class parents will increasingly ban their sons from playing tackle football in high school. Indeed, many high schools may shut down their football programs entirely due to lawsuits or the fear thereof. It's going to be difficult to justify exposing underage kids to activity that is known to cause brain injury even if all the rules are followed. Where is the next generation of NFL players going to come from? Sure, they might be able to get enough people from poorer communities (or those with really diehard fans) to keep the game going, but the inevitable result is that football will move from the core of American life to the margins unless the game is substantially altered.

  74. Self Evident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Football is in itself a brain disease. If you can get a person so confused that they think that playing football is fun that is proof of a pre-existing insanity. Then you have to admire the marketing teams that can get the public so mind scrambled that they are willing to pay big money to sit in crowded, uncomfortable, stadiums and fork over large sums of money to watch the apes bash each other on the field. For those that pay big bucks to watch football in their own home large amounts of anesthesia in a tribal mixture called beer are required so that one can be enough of a dullard to enjoy the entire game. It being somewhat obvious that the viewers must not have working brain cells or they would never watch such a dumb sport.

  75. BAN all tax payer funding for competitive sports by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Many problems solved.

  76. Re: youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps a fortunate side-effect of the USA becoming more aware of brain injury could be the replacement of humans with robotic players. Yeah, I know we're nowhere close to stuff like Real Steel, but wouldn't it be kind of cool to see bots being beat to crap and the pieces swept off after? By little robots, nonetheless.

    Came here for this--Slashdot should be rejoicing, this can only hasten the day that many of us have high-paying jobs designing, building, and programming football-playing robots!

  77. Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The study was released just days after the murder-suicide of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher."

    You stupid fucks don't think it's necessary to mention the name of the poor girl he killed? Fuck you, slashdot.

  78. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People like you are always so very quick to protect these poor, poor murderers. Until it happens to someone that YOU care about. Pray that you get the luxury of remaining ignorant.

  79. Bill Simmons by tbid18 · · Score: 1

    Here's a good article on violence in the NFL by Bill Simmons.

  80. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by sjames · · Score: 1

    It's possible that repeated hits to the head fucked him up, but we don't allow "I was fucked up your honor" as an excuse for other people, such as drunk drivers.

    That's because the drunk driver should have known that he was in a self-induced condition where he was likely to injure or kill someone if he drove, but did it anyway.

    Why don't you believe it was honorable for him to recognize that he had committed an unforgivable crime and to give himself the death penalty?

  81. Re:nothing wrong with suicide by dwye · · Score: 1

    This was suicide after the player shot and killed his (current) girlfriend and mother of his child. In this case, suicide was just "doing the right thing" except that he chose to do it in a public place, rather than in his home. He also waited until the cops were approaching, presumably not wanting them to interfere.

    *Killing the girlfriend* is the evidence of brain damage, as it implies rather a problem handling his temper.

  82. Re:In the long term, football as we know it is doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Football will change to adapt, given this century alone football has changed dramatically, someone from 1920 wouldn't recognize the modern sport at all.

    The sport of boxing is hitting people until they fall down. There isn't much that can be changed in that sport.

    The sport of football is getting a ball onto a certain part of a field, there is a lot that can be changed in that sport and still resemble the current sport enough to retain fan interest.

  83. People like it = bad for health. News at 11. by GeddyT · · Score: 1

    CONSTANT lurker, but rarely post. I guess I rarely feel like I can offer something that hasn't already been well articulated. But this is one of those discussions where two of my passions collide (nerdery and football), so I'll give it a stab...

    As a new parent, football has been on my mind quite a bit lately thanks to news such as this study. I grew up in a household where football was pretty much the religion. It was a large bond between my dad and I from when I very young, so it's probably not surprising that at the age of ten I jumped at the first opportunity to put on the pads and see what I could do.

    It was a pretty big shock! Even at ten years old, the violence of the game caught me off guard, and my schoolyard prowess just didn't translate well. I pretty much got the crap beaten out of me. My second year playing, though, something clicked in me. I finally got it. In order to enjoy playing football, you have to embrace the violence. And embrace it I did. As the smallest kid on just about every team I played on, I enjoyed nothing more than knocking down somebody twice my size.

    I've never been into my skull with a microscope, but there's no outward evidence that any of this early playing took a physical toll on me. I started high school ball with body in perfect working order and grades at the top of my class. And off the football field I was still not only a total nerd, but a pretty nice guy!... Once up to high school, though, the physics of things change. I was still small, but now the bigger kids were starting to catch up in speed. It's at this age that REAL collisions start to occur. (It always confuses me when parents tell me that they're not going to let their kids play football until high school because it's too dangerous. I always respond with, "Are you kidding!? It doesn't get dangerous until high school!") I was still the smallest guy on the team, but loved nothing more than sticking my nose in it, so I ended up playing positions that nobody my size had any business playing. And my body suffered horribly.

    I graduated from high school having torn or pulled pretty much every muscle in my body, with two badly dislocated shoulders, a hip pointer, torn wrist tendons (bother me to this day), and having suffered through four knee surgeries (three on one knee and one on the other). I took one hit to the head that left me seeing stars, several other hits where the split second between impact with the opponent and impact with the ground completely disappeared, and one hit that was so bad it demolished my helmet (facemask torn from the shell and cheek pads scattered on the ground). After all of those hits, while playing 90% of positions on the field over the course of eight seasons of play--linebacker and fullback my senior year in high school, no less--I cannot see ANY signs of mental deficiencies as a result. I tutored fellow students in calculus and physics while still in high school, graduated with a nearly perfect academic record, went off to college, am upbeat and happy (as far as having two babies in the house allows...), and have always been extremely non-violent outside of a football field (the picture of me abusing my wife would be laughable if you knew me).

    Which brings me to my son. As a rational human being, how do I reconcile the situation described above with all of the recent reports by scientists studying the long term impacts of playing football? How do I tell my son he can't play football when I still regard it as the most rewarding hobby I've ever had? And so he can, what, sit on his ass all day playing video games instead? Take up an individual sport that lacks any aspect of teamwork, camaraderie, or strategy? (Because the same damage is being found in hockey players, soccer players, etc. Few team sports are in the clear.)

    It's also hard for me to justify keeping my son out of football when I still don't regret my own time playing the game. Football gets a bad rap as a game for morons, but I haven't played

  84. Re:In the long term, football as we know it is doo by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Unless it turns into touch football, or they discover a way to cure concussions, I can't see how it survives. If you have the head of professional athlete repeatedly coming to a sudden stop you're going to have concussions, you can't make a helmet that prevents that. Plus I think football has a serious risk of a sudden collapse, boxing only needs a couple boxers and a ref, a football game needs two full teams, once the idea of head injuries starts pervading the public high school teams could collapse in a handful of years, possibly faster than the sport can adapt. It will be a very tricky transition when people start playing touch people but still want to watch tackle, if the big leagues don't transition properly the whole system might collapse and some other sport like soccer might take up the slack.

    Then again, if you could somehow buy stocks in touch football it might be a hell of an investment.

    Hockey has a similar (though less severe problem), but I think the difference is that hitting is a lot less integral to hockey than football and a smooth transition from full contact to none is possible.

    --
    I stole this Sig