Scal plays while KG sits. Who risks more by playing?

[jackson_34]

Scal should really be wearing rugby headgear. Petr Čech the Chelsea FC wears this full time for to protect his head injury, the gear (from personal experience) definently reduces your chances of becoming concussed.

[stillaceltsfan]

I think we need to be on the safe side.  Scal should definitely not play.  I repeat:  SCAL SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT PLAY!  I saw a tall guy working at Stop & Shop.  They should get him instead. 

[cordobes]

Scal should really be wearing rugby headgear. Petr Čech the Chelsea FC wears this full time for to protect his head injury, the gear (from personal experience) definently reduces your chances of becoming concussed.

Cech had a skull facture that requested neuro-surgery;  Scal had a couple of small concussions. It's simply not comparable. I mean, if I twist my ankle I don't need to do the same stuff some guy who ruptured his Achilles tendon does. Even the headband is more a psychological feature...

[EJPLAYA]

You have no proof of "grave consequences" surrounding an additional concussion, especially with a grade 1 concussion. The only consensus amongst medical professionals of what long term affects could be is that there is no way to come to a consensus.

Football players like my man Zach Thomas have had numerous higher grade concussions, yet gone out and hit guys the rest of the year leading with their heads and not had any affects from it. Although I wouldn't risk things with the contact football players deal with unless I was way past any symptoms, basketball isn't the same thing. Throwing out scare words like "grave consequences" with no backup or facts is just nonsense. If there really were the dr's wouldn't let him play.

I never stated that any consequences were a guarantee.  I stated that it COULD happen (yes, anything could happen, but this is clearly a situation where the chances are raised).

Yes, football players continue to play after numerous concussions.  and the emerging research (which has never been done before) is showing the grave consequences of this.  dead 40+ year old football players with brains that resemble 80+ year old alzheimer patients, etc...

I also never stated that the player is going to be hit and turn to mush on the spot.  Zach Thomas will likely have long term effects from his numerous concussions, although they may not present themselves for some years.

Again, I never stated that anything was fact, or a guarantee to happen, but that getting further concussions COULD lead to those consequences.

Feel free to read the articles on the recent studies which discuss the alarming facts...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012703116.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/06/0406concussion.html
http://wbztv.com/sports/patriots/ted.johnson.brain.2.824157.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/sports/football/24concussions.html?hp


Maybe Scal fit's into these categories...maybe not.  I dont think any of us can state definitively since we dont have his med records and no studies have proved conclusively the results...but my stating that it is possible is no different then your stating it isnt.

Which is exactly why I said that if I was a football player I wouldn't risk it. I think Aikman and Steve Young both did the smart thing and retired. If Scal was playing football I'd say the same. He is NOT however, and a fully healed grade 1 concussion in the sport of basketball is not open to the same types of risks and consequences that a football player has. You already know the Dr's held him out longer than he wanted to be held out to make sure that it fully healed. If it is fully healed he can take the "chance" of getting another grade 1 concussion with very small negative effects if any.

Don't make it sound like there are these "grave consequences" that are going to happen and that he needs to retire, and then follow it up with backpedaling. If you believe it then stick to it. If not, then don't exxagerate.

I dont believe I have backpeddled.  I maintain that grave consequences are possible.

my question for you - why is a concussion for a football player different then a concussion for a basketball player?  it isnt.  so who cares if we are talking about football or basketball...multiple concussions have grave consequences for athletes.  are you finding the distinction in the fact that there is a greater chance of a football player having a concussion?  because if thats the case, it is irrelevant.  what is relevant is whether another concussion happens.

Are you seriously trying to make me believe that you think it is as likely to have a repeat concussion out on the basketball court as it is out playing football? Once again I ask you. How many concussions have you heard about in the last 10 years on the basketball court. I would bet that there are that many in 3-4 games on the football field. Maybe even less games. He is almost as likely to get a concussion driving to the stadium percentage wise as he is out on the court.

[yall hate]

my question for you - why is a concussion for a football player different then a concussion for a basketball player?  it isnt.  so who cares if we are talking about football or basketball...multiple concussions have grave consequences for athletes.  are you finding the distinction in the fact that there is a greater chance of a football player having a concussion?  because if thats the case, it is irrelevant.  what is relevant is whether another concussion happens.

Are you seriously trying to make me believe that you think it is as likely to have a repeat concussion out on the basketball court as it is out playing football? Once again I ask you. How many concussions have you heard about in the last 10 years on the basketball court. I would bet that there are that many in 3-4 games on the football field. Maybe even less games. He is almost as likely to get a concussion driving to the stadium percentage wise as he is out on the court.

nope.  Which is why I didnt say that the chances of a concussion are equal.  I thought I made my statement pretty clear, but I guess not. 

How's this: 
Player x gets a concussion playing sport W. 
Player y gets a concussion playing sport Y.

Is the concussion any different for either athlete (if W is football and Y is basketball, or vice versa)?  no.  I am not and did not say that a basketball player has the same chance of getting a concussion as a football player (obviously football players hit and get hit in the head more often).  but what I am saying is that it shouldnt matter what sport it is, because a concussion for someone with that history COULD be very dangerous (It would only take one hit for Scal to get another concussion...or 100 more hits.  clearly people feel that is a chance worth taking.  I do not.).  likely more dangerous than for someone with no history.

I dont think I can make myself more clear that this isnt an argument about number of concussions basketball players have...it is that another concussion for Scal would be a problem. 

This is a pretty silly discussion to have though....as the thread asked people's opinion about who risked more.  My opinion on ahtletes and concussions clearly differs from yours.  The fact that Scal has been cleared medical doesnt change my opinion that he still risks more and is taking a big chance by playing...Ted Johnson was medically cleared to play, and despite his thoughts that he shouldnt play he did.  he regrets that now.  I hope that is not the case with Scal.

[EJPLAYA]

my question for you - why is a concussion for a football player different then a concussion for a basketball player?  it isnt.  so who cares if we are talking about football or basketball...multiple concussions have grave consequences for athletes.  are you finding the distinction in the fact that there is a greater chance of a football player having a concussion?  because if thats the case, it is irrelevant.  what is relevant is whether another concussion happens.

Are you seriously trying to make me believe that you think it is as likely to have a repeat concussion out on the basketball court as it is out playing football? Once again I ask you. How many concussions have you heard about in the last 10 years on the basketball court. I would bet that there are that many in 3-4 games on the football field. Maybe even less games. He is almost as likely to get a concussion driving to the stadium percentage wise as he is out on the court.

nope.  Which is why I didnt say that the chances of a concussion are equal.  I thought I made my statement pretty clear, but I guess not. 

How's this: 
Player x gets a concussion playing sport W. 
Player y gets a concussion playing sport Y.

Is the concussion any different for either athlete (if W is football and Y is basketball, or vice versa)?  no.  I am not and did not say that a basketball player has the same chance of getting a concussion as a football player (obviously football players hit and get hit in the head more often).  but what I am saying is that it shouldnt matter what sport it is, because a concussion for someone with that history COULD be very dangerous (It would only take one hit for Scal to get another concussion...or 100 more hits.  clearly people feel that is a chance worth taking.  I do not.).  likely more dangerous than for someone with no history.

I dont think I can make myself more clear that this isnt an argument about number of concussions basketball players have...it is that another concussion for Scal would be a problem. 

This is a pretty silly discussion to have though....as the thread asked people's opinion about who risked more.  My opinion on ahtletes and concussions clearly differs from yours.  The fact that Scal has been cleared medical doesnt change my opinion that he still risks more and is taking a big chance by playing...Ted Johnson was medically cleared to play, and despite his thoughts that he shouldnt play he did.  he regrets that now.  I hope that is not the case with Scal.

Nothing in that to disagree with. The reason that I questioned your logic though was because you stated the guy should retire. That is where we disagree, due to the chances of having a reocurring incident being small. He could trip on his stairs and hit his head as well. That doesn't mean he should retire from doing that. Of course an additional concussion isn't a good thing, but these were level 1 concussions. It isn't like it was multiple level 3's where he lost consciousness for extended lengths of time. That would be an example where stating "grave consequences" could result would be appropriate. TP to you though for the discussion and clarification!

[Chris]

I never stated that any consequences were a guarantee.  I stated that it COULD happen (yes, anything could happen, but this is clearly a situation where the chances are raised).

This is the problem.  We don't even know if the chances are raised.  All we really know with any kind of certainty is that the chances are raised of further (and worse) concussions if they occur before the previous trauma has fully healed.  There is very little data so far dealing with traumas after the initial trauma has healed.

from what I have read, I havent seen the distinction between whether the concussions occur before or after an injury has healed.  the studies (to my knowledge, I could be wrong) deal simply with the cumulative effects of multiple concussions... (http://www.neuroskills.com/pr-athletes.shtml)  I easily could be wrong, but I havent seen that distinction made...

And again, that is exactly the point.  Because most of these studies are dealing with PAST concussions, they cannot differentiate between cumulative affects of concussions, and cumulative affects of concussions, BEFORE the original trauma has healed.  So it is completely inaccurate to say there is any real evidence on cumulative effects on concussions that have happened after the original concussion has healed.

By the way, I really recommend that you read the original, peer reviewed articles, as articles like the ones you linked to are terrible sources for information on research, because they are generally written by laymen who do not understand the research, and they almost always fail to put the research in proper context, often adding their own conclusions which are often WAY off from the original purpose of the research.