Bumped into him in Bali.
Seemed pretty sombre/mellow.
Follows Dogs,doesnt like footy much now.
Reading the news article posted a couple of posts above yours, it seems McRory is on his own in his beliefs on concussion.
100s or neuroscientific experts and the AFL funds the single guy whose position on the topic helps them the most.
3 Likes
Exactly. And if the ■■■■ hits the fan and ex-players, without the assistance of the AFLPA, launch a joint action against the AFL for their lack of duty of care, then McCrory becomes the fall guy.
Wendy Carlisle cannot gain access to any ex-AFL players who have complained of post career mental health issues; many of them work either directly for the AFL or their affiliates or indirectly, e.g. in the media.
I would urge Blitzers who know an ex-player who is “suffering in silence” from a post concussion condition to contact Wendy. The AFL will sit on this and deflect any criticism like they always do.
I feel for Barnes who seems to be fighting this on his own. If another 5 - 10 players stepped forward and told their story then it will become a real hearts and minds issue for fans and the parents of young footballers.
The medical science academics can continue to argue the merits of their research but, in my opinion, the evidence is compelling. The problem is that while the “experts” debate the science, the administrators sit on their hands, the collateral damage increases, and again the athletes get shafted.
The AFL cannot prevent players from being concussed. However, as the so-called “custodians of the game” they must step up and take charge of this situation and not devolve responsibility to club doctors. Where is Dr Peter Harcourt, the AFL’s CMO, on this. He leads the Concussion Expert Group of which McCrory is a member. Harcourt was very quick to dump on the Essendon players for the use of “exotic drugs” at a Conference in December 2013 before the investigation was complete (and his claims have since been found to be inaccurate).
Their apathy disgusts me.
6 Likes
Players in terms of concussion are like cattle to the slaughter yard. One goes another steps up to take his/her place. The AFL do only what they have to do and then not always that much.
Good luck to you Barnzy.
1 Like
I dont think it is as simple as that. The AFL, as custodians of the game have an obligation to protect the players from serious injuries. In recognition of this they have changed the rules in an attempt to protect the players from concussion. The question is have they gone far enough and are the rules enough to protect them?
Should they for instance, have made it obligatory for the players to wear helmets? There is much evidence over many years from the U.S that their football has caused serious brain damage through multiple concussions.
I think our courts will look at whether the AFL is doing enough to provide a safe working environment.
1 Like
There is also a lot of evidence helmets make things worse.
4 Likes
And of course the AFL will have to consider if they want this case to go to court. An adverse finding would have serious repercussions for them and indeed the game.
To be fair, they are used more as a weapon in the NFL than protection.
Now THIS is a helmet…
About 10 seconds in.
2 Likes
“we’ve had six kicks and five fights”
1 Like
I presume that’s Ant’s point. The helmets have changed the way they play as they feel it will protect them and makes them “indestructible” so the lead/attack with their head. It’s the force of the blow to the head that causes the brain to move around in the skull and for the tissue to tear.
The AFL making the head protected caused some players to lead with their head to get the free. The danger is the damage they sustain to achieve the frees. Seeing players running around with a bandaged head is nothing to be applauding or calling out as brave.
2 Likes
And the fwit umps paying the frees, instead of ignoring or paying against
IMO it’s more about how they manage players who have been concussed than what they’re doing to the rules to prevent them.
Unless they go to extreme lengths to completely overhaul the sport there will always be contact to the head in some manner.
It’s what happens after that needs to be looked at.
3 Likes
Yup
I know the NHL has mandatory enforced layoffs for concussions
Possibly what we’ll end up with
1 Like
Combat sports have a crazy long time off post-concussion.
Remember Shane Tuck being suspended by his boxing org for not reporting one he got in training or some such thing.
I completely concur.
What concerns me with the AFL is everything seems to be driven by the bottom line. They should be very pragmatic about concussion, and for example, have independent medical specialists to assess injury severity rather than club doctors. I know they try to be impartial, and objectify diagnostic tests, but I refuse to believe that there is no bias.
But would implementation and maintaining a system like that be more expensive than the occasional court case, probably settled externally? If it is, they’ll just take the bad press and keep their money I fear.
Also, this:
1 Like
That’s an accusation that I doubt the club doctors would take too kindly
1 Like
(no link behind a paywall)
Former Richmond hardman Ty Zantuck seeking damages for debilitating back injury
A damages claim launched by former Richmond hardman Ty Zantuck over a spree of painkilling jabs has been hampered by the absence of medical records.
The Tigers have told Zantuck’s legal team they are not in possession of any records relating to treatments on players prior to the 2004 season.
Zantuck, 36, alleges he was injected with painkillers and epidurals up to 50 times over three seasons under the care of ex-Richmond doctor Chris Bradshaw in a bid to overcome a debilitating back injury between 2001-03.
He has endured 17 operations on his spine since retiring from the AFL 12 years ago, can no longer work and is battling permanent pain and depression.
The Olympic Park Sports Medicine Centre, where Zantuck was sometimes treated, has told lawyers its records for the 77-game defender were lawfully disposed after seven years.
The AFL Players’ Association said clubs were only obligated to keep records for seven years, in line with legislation.
Zantuck’s lawyer, Greg Griffin, said the seven-year rule was “extraordinary”.
“Everyone in international sport knows that long-term injuries are most likely to appear between 10 and 20 years after retirement,” Griffin said.
“It’s laughable and an indictment on the AFL that they have allowed clubs to have virtually no medical records and histories of players.
“It sits there and says it is the beacon of governance and the beacon of how to run a sport, but they’ve sold the players down the river.
“Ty Zantuck has been sold down the river. No ifs, no buts.
“There really should be a government inquiry into the medical treatment that was dished out by these clubs in the ’80s, ’90s and 2000s.”
Griffin is also leading a looming Federal Court concussion case involving up to 70 ex-players against the AFL and clubs where club medical records will be sought.
Bradshaw, who has since worked at Geelong and Collingwood, had his medical licence suspended over an unrelated matter in October 2017 while employed at the Magpies.
Zantuck, who played 68 games for Richmond and another nine at Essendon in 2005, has warned the AFL’s next generation of players to steer clear of painkilling injections at all costs.
“I’ve laid in hospital for weeks at a time on ketamine and morphine drips and that can just drain the life out of you,” the father of two told the Herald Sun in March.
An AFLPA spokesman said: “We are not involved with Ty’s claim but continue to offer him support available to all past players through our alumni program.”
Bad governance?
2 Likes