FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

I'm with Dr. Drew Pinsky on this. He played hs football, his sons play he football. He readily acknowledges the CTE studies but doesn't think the long term health issues for those that play hs football outweigh the benefits of playing. He claims that young males greatly benefit from the physical and mental training involved in playing football. I can't find anything written by him but I heard him on KGO just recently say this. He also maintained that there was something transformative that he and his sons experienced by participating in a sport that was physically dangerous but that was done for the greater good of a team. I sensed that he was slightly conflicted in holding this opinion because he really does understand the long term health risks. He was clear to say that beyond high school football was probably not worth the risk. I only played one year of high school football but aside from my equally short attempt at boxing I have to say that I never experienced anything in my life like it. I have always regretted not playing all four years in high school.

My two cents

---

That's funny, I played for 10 years, including all four years in high school, and I now regret that. Physical danger is overrated, especially when it leaves you wondering if CTE is in your future.

Dr. Drew's kids are in their mid-20's, and he's now pregnant with his decision to let them play football, a decision he made over a decade ago, before we knew about CTE. It's hard for an expert to admit that it looks like he was wrong.

---

I don't know what 'pregnant with his decision' means. He's glad he played and he's glad he let his kids play. He says he saw a transformation in them similar to the one he felt. He understands the concerns but by no means regrets the decisions.
I respect your feelings. On the flip side of them: no one I know is sad that they played hs football. To be fair, I have never asked them about CTE. I hope you have a healthy future.

---

I wil apologize in advance if you were joking when you wrote that you did not know what i meant by 'he is pregnant with his decision." At the risk of being pedantic, I meant that Dr Drew made his own decision to play fb, and the decision to let his sons play, before the possible dangers of cte were widely known, and so he is more inclined than otherwise to stick with and defend that decision now by emphasizing its merits rather than admit it might have been a really bad decision. The fact that he is an expert in matters of health could be viewed as compounding his embarrassment. There's nothing he can do about his decisions now so may as well stick to his guns to save face. In other words Dr Drew's views on the subject are inherently biased.

The only fathers i know who still let their kids play fb have, like Dr Drew, older kids who started before cte was widely recognized. They too are pregnant. Obviously there are many parents of younger players who allow it, i just don't know any. So i readily concede that my evidence is 100% anecdotal. But the parents who allow it are dwindling and the game is in irreversible decline, in my opinion. The sooner the better, frankly.

---

Brett Farve and a few other ex-NFLers have said they don't want their kids or grandkids playing football. Anyone who has been through FB, to that level, and comes away with that conclusion says a lot. Tom Brady's dad said he'd never let his son play now if he had current info then.

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

I'm with Dr. Drew Pinsky on this. He played hs football, his sons play he football. He readily acknowledges the CTE studies but doesn't think the long term health issues for those that play hs football outweigh the benefits of playing. He claims that young males greatly benefit from the physical and mental training involved in playing football. I can't find anything written by him but I heard him on KGO just recently say this. He also maintained that there was something transformative that he and his sons experienced by participating in a sport that was physically dangerous but that was done for the greater good of a team. I sensed that he was slightly conflicted in holding this opinion because he really does understand the long term health risks. He was clear to say that beyond high school football was probably not worth the risk. I only played one year of high school football but aside from my equally short attempt at boxing I have to say that I never experienced anything in my life like it. I have always regretted not playing all four years in high school.

My two cents

---

That's funny, I played for 10 years, including all four years in high school, and I now regret that. Physical danger is overrated, especially when it leaves you wondering if CTE is in your future.

Dr. Drew's kids are in their mid-20's, and he's now pregnant with his decision to let them play football, a decision he made over a decade ago, before we knew about CTE. It's hard for an expert to admit that it looks like he was wrong.

---

I don't know what 'pregnant with his decision' means. He's glad he played and he's glad he let his kids play. He says he saw a transformation in them similar to the one he felt. He understands the concerns but by no means regrets the decisions.
I respect your feelings. On the flip side of them: no one I know is sad that they played hs football. To be fair, I have never asked them about CTE. I hope you have a healthy future.

---

I wil apologize in advance if you were joking when you wrote that you did not know what i meant by 'he is pregnant with his decision." At the risk of being pedantic, I meant that Dr Drew made his own decision to play fb, and the decision to let his sons play, before the possible dangers of cte were widely known, and so he is more inclined than otherwise to stick with and defend that decision now by emphasizing its merits rather than admit it might have been a really bad decision. The fact that he is an expert in matters of health could be viewed as compounding his embarrassment. There's nothing he can do about his decisions now so may as well stick to his guns to save face. In other words Dr Drew's views on the subject are inherently biased.

The only fathers i know who still let their kids play fb have, like Dr Drew, older kids who started before cte was widely recognized. They too are pregnant. Obviously there are many parents of younger players who allow it, i just don't know any. So i readily concede that my evidence is 100% anecdotal. But the parents who allow it are dwindling and the game is in irreversible decline, in my opinion. The sooner the better, frankly.

---

Brett Farve and a few other ex-NFLers have said they don't want their kids or grandkids playing football. Anyone who has been through FB, to that level, and comes away with that conclusion says a lot. Tom Brady's dad said he'd never let his son play now if he had current info then.

---

I'm curious how many of those ex-nfl players or parents would return all the millions they made for a clean bill of health. If that were to happen then I would respect and believe that they care.

Fair points about Dr. Drew. His opinions seem genuine as does his grappling with the issue but he is a public personality and I don't know what he's really like. I really didn't know what 'pregnant with the idea' meant. Thanks for the clear explanation.

ayetee11 said:

---

I'm curious how many of those ex-nfl players or parents would return all the millions they made for a clean bill of health. If that were to happen then I would respect and believe that they care.

---

Since you've asked a hypothetical question that can never be answered because it centers on past choices and events that can't be changed, then yes, I think many of the players who lost their football money, committed suicide, suffered debilitating severe depression & anxiety, neuromuscular degenerative conditions, etc. all due to tau protein neuron cascading damage, progressing to full CTE, would indeed return their money for a clean bill of health.

As with all hypothetical questions, we're left to speculate.

Bear19 said:

---

ayetee11 said:

---

I'm curious how many of those ex-nfl players or parents would return all the millions they made for a clean bill of health. If that were to happen then I would respect and believe that they care.

---

Since you've asked a hypothetical question that can never be answered because it centers on past choices and events that can't be changed, then yes, I'm certain all of the players who committed suicide, suffered debilitating severe depression & anxiety, neuromuscular degenerative conditions, etc. all due to tau protein neuron cascading damage, progressing to full CTE, would indeed return their money for a clean bill of health.

Silly question, really.

---

Honestly you don't know the answer to that. Some have set their families up for generations. Some coming from poverty before their playing days. It seems as though complaints from former players only come after the millions or free education. Players have a choice to play or not. I'm pretty sure there aren't many 5 star athletes turning down scholarships due to the risks involved with football. Also, when that happens I'll believe that health is more important than the money. A few years back the former 49er rookie LB retired after getting his education paid for and after getting paid by the 49ers. Find me one parent that said no to the scholarship for health risks. Make sure it's a 4 or 5 star athlete, not borderline player.

It's okay to think outside the box.

ayetee11 said:

---

Honestly you don't know the answer to that. Some have set their families up for generations. Some coming from poverty before their playing days. It seems as though complaints from former players only come after the millions or free education. Players have a choice to play or not. I'm pretty sure there aren't many 5 star athletes turning down scholarships due to the risks involved with football. Also, when that happens I'll believe that health is more important than the money. A few years back the former 49er rookie LB retired after getting his education paid for and after getting paid by the 49ers. Find me one parent that said no to the scholarship for health risks. Make sure it's a 4 or 5 star athlete, not borderline player.

It's okay to think outside the box.

---

. We do know that participation in Youth Tackle football nationally is dropping, as is participation in HS football.

The parents who are steering their kids away from football are indeed saying "no thanks" to at least potential football scholarships. While we obviously don't know how many of these kids would become 4-5 star football players, surely at least some of them would be at that level if they played.

Bear19 said:

---

ayetee11 said:

---

Honestly you don't know the answer to that. Some have set their families up for generations. Some coming from poverty before their playing days. It seems as though complaints from former players only come after the millions or free education. Players have a choice to play or not. I'm pretty sure there aren't many 5 star athletes turning down scholarships due to the risks involved with football. Also, when that happens I'll believe that health is more important than the money. A few years back the former 49er rookie LB retired after getting his education paid for and after getting paid by the 49ers. Find me one parent that said no to the scholarship for health risks. Make sure it's a 4 or 5 star athlete, not borderline player.

It's okay to think outside the box.

---

. We do know that participation in Youth Tackle football nationally is dropping, as is participation in HS football.

The parents who are steering their kids away from football are indeed saying "no thanks" to at least potential football scholarships. While we obviously don't know how many of these kids would become 4-5 star football players, surely at least some of them would be at that level if they played.

---

It's not only a new phenomenon either. Rickey Henderson was an awesome football player. He had some adults steer him to baseball in high school and when the A's came calling, story is Mom insisted on baseball over the football schollie to play running back at USC.

oski003 said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

I'm with Dr. Drew Pinsky on this. He played hs football, his sons play he football. He readily acknowledges the CTE studies but doesn't think the long term health issues for those that play hs football outweigh the benefits of playing. He claims that young males greatly benefit from the physical and mental training involved in playing football. I can't find anything written by him but I heard him on KGO just recently say this. He also maintained that there was something transformative that he and his sons experienced by participating in a sport that was physically dangerous but that was done for the greater good of a team. I sensed that he was slightly conflicted in holding this opinion because he really does understand the long term health risks. He was clear to say that beyond high school football was probably not worth the risk. I only played one year of high school football but aside from my equally short attempt at boxing I have to say that I never experienced anything in my life like it. I have always regretted not playing all four years in high school.

My two cents

---

That's funny, I played for 10 years, including all four years in high school, and I now regret that. Physical danger is overrated, especially when it leaves you wondering if CTE is in your future.

Dr. Drew's kids are in their mid-20's, and he's now pregnant with his decision to let them play football, a decision he made over a decade ago, before we knew about CTE. It's hard for an expert to admit that it looks like he was wrong.

---

I don't know what 'pregnant with his decision' means. He's glad he played and he's glad he let his kids play. He says he saw a transformation in them similar to the one he felt. He understands the concerns but by no means regrets the decisions.
I respect your feelings. On the flip side of them: no one I know is sad that they played hs football. To be fair, I have never asked them about CTE. I hope you have a healthy future.

---

I wil apologize in advance if you were joking when you wrote that you did not know what i meant by 'he is pregnant with his decision." At the risk of being pedantic, I meant that Dr Drew made his own decision to play fb, and the decision to let his sons play, before the possible dangers of cte were widely known, and so he is more inclined than otherwise to stick with and defend that decision now by emphasizing its merits rather than admit it might have been a really bad decision. The fact that he is an expert in matters of health could be viewed as compounding his embarrassment. There's nothing he can do about his decisions now so may as well stick to his guns to save face. In other words Dr Drew's views on the subject are inherently biased.

The only fathers i know who still let their kids play fb have, like Dr Drew, older kids who started before cte was widely recognized. They too are pregnant. Obviously there are many parents of younger players who allow it, i just don't know any. So i readily concede that my evidence is 100% anecdotal. But the parents who allow it are dwindling and the game is in irreversible decline, in my opinion. The sooner the better, frankly.

---

You don't know a single parent who lets their kid play tackle football?

---

My statement was that I don't know any parents of younger fb players. Not a one. I have two former HS teammates whose sons play small-school college football, but those kids are older, and probably started playing 5-10 years ago, before the suspicions about CTE were quite so widespread. I try to ask everyone I meet who played fb through at least HS if their kids play or played, too. It's a topic of personal interest for me.

ayetee11 said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

I'm with Dr. Drew Pinsky on this. He played hs football, his sons play he football. He readily acknowledges the CTE studies but doesn't think the long term health issues for those that play hs football outweigh the benefits of playing. He claims that young males greatly benefit from the physical and mental training involved in playing football. I can't find anything written by him but I heard him on KGO just recently say this. He also maintained that there was something transformative that he and his sons experienced by participating in a sport that was physically dangerous but that was done for the greater good of a team. I sensed that he was slightly conflicted in holding this opinion because he really does understand the long term health risks. He was clear to say that beyond high school football was probably not worth the risk. I only played one year of high school football but aside from my equally short attempt at boxing I have to say that I never experienced anything in my life like it. I have always regretted not playing all four years in high school.

My two cents

---

That's funny, I played for 10 years, including all four years in high school, and I now regret that. Physical danger is overrated, especially when it leaves you wondering if CTE is in your future.

Dr. Drew's kids are in their mid-20's, and he's now pregnant with his decision to let them play football, a decision he made over a decade ago, before we knew about CTE. It's hard for an expert to admit that it looks like he was wrong.

---

I don't know what 'pregnant with his decision' means. He's glad he played and he's glad he let his kids play. He says he saw a transformation in them similar to the one he felt. He understands the concerns but by no means regrets the decisions.
I respect your feelings. On the flip side of them: no one I know is sad that they played hs football. To be fair, I have never asked them about CTE. I hope you have a healthy future.

---

I wil apologize in advance if you were joking when you wrote that you did not know what i meant by 'he is pregnant with his decision." At the risk of being pedantic, I meant that Dr Drew made his own decision to play fb, and the decision to let his sons play, before the possible dangers of cte were widely known, and so he is more inclined than otherwise to stick with and defend that decision now by emphasizing its merits rather than admit it might have been a really bad decision. The fact that he is an expert in matters of health could be viewed as compounding his embarrassment. There's nothing he can do about his decisions now so may as well stick to his guns to save face. In other words Dr Drew's views on the subject are inherently biased.

The only fathers i know who still let their kids play fb have, like Dr Drew, older kids who started before cte was widely recognized. They too are pregnant. Obviously there are many parents of younger players who allow it, i just don't know any. So i readily concede that my evidence is 100% anecdotal. But the parents who allow it are dwindling and the game is in irreversible decline, in my opinion. The sooner the better, frankly.

---

The sooner the better? You do realize you're posting on a football message board?

---

Yep. I love the game like no other but in my opinion the suspected risks are too high a price for my entertainment. Now if it turns out the game is safe after all, have at it, but that seems highly unlikely given what we now know.

There are many activities that are potentially harmful to children. Why is football being singled out? Even if this law is passed, kids will be allowed to ski, box, wrestle, play rugby, participate in martial arts, and ride their bicycles. They are also allowed to climb mountains, fish from a boat, and hunt with a firearm. All these activities have some risk.

So why is football being singled out? I have to think that this is an attack on our culture. We all know football haters. Sometimes they come right out and say they hate football. Often they do not. There is no reason to believe that football haters are unrepresented in the legislature. They can't come right out and say they hate football while promoting a law like this. But the fact that football is being singled out attaches a high degree of suspicion to this law.

MugsVanSant said:

---

There are many activities that are potentially harmful to children. Why is football being singled out? I have to think that this is an attack on our culture. We all know football haters.

---

This is not a "cultural" attack by "football haters." I love football, manage video for a HS football team where my son coaches (he played HS & college football).

Actually read the information I've posted in this thread to understand what the concerns are.

I dont know, on a legislative level, where probably a lot of these lawmakers don't really have a clue about CTE? I sort of think that they are more or less catering to their mostly liberal voters who probably dont have an interest in football other than that they want to see it gone.

That said, I wouldnt be opposed to a law that does away with youth tackle football. I'm probably on the fence about it. I do see this as government overreach but also think that kids pre-puberty should not be playing tackle football. I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

gobears725 said:

---

I dont know, on a legislative level, where probably a lot of these lawmakers don't really have a clue about CTE? I sort of think that they are more or less catering to their mostly liberal voters who probably dont have an interest in football other than that they want to see it gone.

That said, I wouldnt be opposed to a law that does away with youth tackle football. I'm probably on the fence about it. I do see this as government overreach but also think that kids pre-puberty should not be playing tackle football. I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

I really don't get where the idea that there is a liberal conspiracy against football comes from. There are professors, liberal and conservative who don't like COLLEGE football, because they don't like the money spent or the academic concessions. I know a lot of liberals, many love football, many don't care, but I don't know any that are politically against it.

Frankly I think this is basically an ad hominem attack by those that don't want to contemplate that there might be a serious health risk that needs to be looked at.

I enjoy watching Friday Night Tykes, but I was shocked to hear a coach offer $50 to players on her team to knock a player out of the game.

OaktownBear said:

---

gobears725 said:

---

I dont know, on a legislative level, where probably a lot of these lawmakers don't really have a clue about CTE? I sort of think that they are more or less catering to their mostly liberal voters who probably dont have an interest in football other than that they want to see it gone.

That said, I wouldnt be opposed to a law that does away with youth tackle football. I'm probably on the fence about it. I do see this as government overreach but also think that kids pre-puberty should not be playing tackle football. I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

I really don't get where the idea that there is a liberal conspiracy against football comes from. There are professors, liberal and conservative who don't like COLLEGE football, because they don't like the money spent or the academic concessions. I know a lot of liberals, many love football, many don't care, but I don't know any that are politically against it.

Frankly I think this is basically an ad hominem attack by those that don't want to contemplate that there might be a serious health risk that needs to be looked at.

---

I think you are right. This is not a political attack unless you want to take the issue for your own purposes and suppose which party would react which way. This is a health issue. And to couple it with regulation, you better have solid science, which means some youth may be injured in the interim which is not good. But then banning something without confirmed basis is not good either. Too many scientific issues have swayed back and forth over time, and many still remain unresolved. It's a toughy.

So with all that is known right now, were I to have a 6th though 8th grader, I would not allow him to play tackle FB. Learn the fundamentals in flag and be a bit behind as a freshman in HS. Informed parents make informed choices.

gobears725 said:

---

I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

Don't forget that the alarm isn't being sounded about knees, ankles, shoulders, legs, arms, ribs.

This is about cascading tau protein damage of brain neurons caused by sub concussive impacts, which is permanent. The brain is the only organ in the body that does not heal itself. In kids before HS age, it is just not acceptable.

Bear19 said:

---

gobears725 said:

---

I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

Don't forget that the alarm isn't being sounded about knees, ankles, shoulders, legs, arms, ribs.

This is about cascading tau protein damage of brain neurons caused by sub concussive impacts, which is permanent. The brain is the only organ in the body that does not heal itself. In kids before HS age, it is just not acceptable.

---

And yet in study after study the evidence suggests that playing football through high school has very little impact on any one except a very small percentage - about the same percentage of those who have traumatic injury from other sports, like sudden cardiac death from playing basketball (we should ban all kids over 6'4" from playing basketball?), or girls heading a soccer ball. Of those who had their brains disected after they had what was considered certain CTE symptoms and committed suicide, or otherwise died, the kids who everyone knew had CTE after playing high school football did NOT in fact have CTE symptoms, except for one in 10. That is not one in 10 of kids who played football. That is one in 10 of those who medical doctors and families were certain their kids has CTE.

It is true that it accumulates and accelerates over time. But running into another player at 7 MPH with a helmet on at 8 years old is not going to create CTE. At least, not more so than running into a soccer ball or knocking your head on the cement while learning how to skateboard.

I have a friend who had a significant concussion riding a bike in high school. He is a bit loopy still from that. But none of my friends who played high school football have currently exhibited any sort of CTE symptoms. Over a million kids per year play high school football. The rate of CTE is less than negligible for those kids. There are so many people who have played high school football for over 100 years that to say all of a sudden we have this epidemic is silly.

If the state wants to avoid brain injury, ban the NFL and College sports. This is the wrong way to go about it.

Oski87 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

gobears725 said:

---

I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

Don't forget that the alarm isn't being sounded about knees, ankles, shoulders, legs, arms, ribs.

This is about cascading tau protein damage of brain neurons caused by sub concussive impacts, which is permanent. The brain is the only organ in the body that does not heal itself. In kids before HS age, it is just not acceptable.

---

And yet in study after study the evidence suggests that playing football through high school has very little impact on any one except a very small percentage - about the same percentage of those who have traumatic injury from other sports, like sudden cardiac death from playing basketball (we should ban all kids over 6'4" from playing basketball?), or girls heading a soccer ball. Of those who had their brains disected after they had what was considered certain CTE symptoms and committed suicide, or otherwise died, the kids who everyone knew had CTE after playing high school football did NOT in fact have CTE symptoms, except for one in 10. That is not one in 10 of kids who played football. That is one in 10 of those who medical doctors and families were certain their kids has CTE.

It is true that it accumulates and accelerates over time. But running into another player at 7 MPH with a helmet on at 8 years old is not going to create CTE. At least, not more so than running into a soccer ball or knocking your head on the cement while learning how to skateboard.

I have a friend who had a significant concussion riding a bike in high school. He is a bit loopy still from that. But none of my friends who played high school football have currently exhibited any sort of CTE symptoms. Over a million kids per year play high school football. The rate of CTE is less than negligible for those kids. There are so many people who have played high school football for over 100 years that to say all of a sudden we have this epidemic is silly.

If the state wants to avoid brain injury, ban the NFL and College sports. This is the wrong way to go about it.

---

You need to carefully read the other posts: This is not about concussions, but rather sub concussive impacts; The "Study after study" you reference did not consider cascading tau protein damage being the cause of behavioral & emotional issues as this is a recently discovered phenomenon; The damage isn't like a broken bone ("is it fractured or not") but rather happens gradually, with each impact adding to the neuron damage; The BU study is definitive with respect to this phenomenon & younger kids.

Your argument is like smokers saying "Only X number of kids caught cancer from second had smoke, therefore the rest are not being impacted. And my friends who smokes is just fine."

Bear19 said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

gobears725 said:

---

I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

Don't forget that the alarm isn't being sounded about knees, ankles, shoulders, legs, arms, ribs.

This is about cascading tau protein damage of brain neurons caused by sub concussive impacts, which is permanent. The brain is the only organ in the body that does not heal itself. In kids before HS age, it is just not acceptable.

---

And yet in study after study the evidence suggests that playing football through high school has very little impact on any one except a very small percentage - about the same percentage of those who have traumatic injury from other sports, like sudden cardiac death from playing basketball (we should ban all kids over 6'4" from playing basketball?), or girls heading a soccer ball. Of those who had their brains disected after they had what was considered certain CTE symptoms and committed suicide, or otherwise died, the kids who everyone knew had CTE after playing high school football did NOT in fact have CTE symptoms, except for one in 10. That is not one in 10 of kids who played football. That is one in 10 of those who medical doctors and families were certain their kids has CTE.

It is true that it accumulates and accelerates over time. But running into another player at 7 MPH with a helmet on at 8 years old is not going to create CTE. At least, not more so than running into a soccer ball or knocking your head on the cement while learning how to skateboard.

I have a friend who had a significant concussion riding a bike in high school. He is a bit loopy still from that. But none of my friends who played high school football have currently exhibited any sort of CTE symptoms. Over a million kids per year play high school football. The rate of CTE is less than negligible for those kids. There are so many people who have played high school football for over 100 years that to say all of a sudden we have this epidemic is silly.

If the state wants to avoid brain injury, ban the NFL and College sports. This is the wrong way to go about it.

---

You need to carefully read the other posts: This is not about concussions, but rather sub concussive impacts; The "Study after study" you reference did not consider cascading tau protein damage being the cause of behavioral & emotional issues as this is a recently discovered phenomenon; The damage isn't like a broken bone ("is it fractured or not") but rather happens gradually, with each impact adding to the neuron damage; The BU study is definitive with respect to this phenomenon & younger kids.

Your argument is like smokers saying "Only X number of kids caught cancer from second had smoke, therefore the rest are not being impacted. And my friends who smokes is just fine."

---

Saw an ad yesterday showing vaping is bad. Why is that not outlawed or smoking or pot....I guess the state makes money on it.... football not so much. I think it should be the parent to decide. The market forces already show reduction in Football enrollment in high schools.

Goobear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

gobears725 said:

---

I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

Don't forget that the alarm isn't being sounded about knees, ankles, shoulders, legs, arms, ribs.

This is about cascading tau protein damage of brain neurons caused by sub concussive impacts, which is permanent. The brain is the only organ in the body that does not heal itself. In kids before HS age, it is just not acceptable.

---

And yet in study after study the evidence suggests that playing football through high school has very little impact on any one except a very small percentage - about the same percentage of those who have traumatic injury from other sports, like sudden cardiac death from playing basketball (we should ban all kids over 6'4" from playing basketball?), or girls heading a soccer ball. Of those who had their brains disected after they had what was considered certain CTE symptoms and committed suicide, or otherwise died, the kids who everyone knew had CTE after playing high school football did NOT in fact have CTE symptoms, except for one in 10. That is not one in 10 of kids who played football. That is one in 10 of those who medical doctors and families were certain their kids has CTE.

It is true that it accumulates and accelerates over time. But running into another player at 7 MPH with a helmet on at 8 years old is not going to create CTE. At least, not more so than running into a soccer ball or knocking your head on the cement while learning how to skateboard.

I have a friend who had a significant concussion riding a bike in high school. He is a bit loopy still from that. But none of my friends who played high school football have currently exhibited any sort of CTE symptoms. Over a million kids per year play high school football. The rate of CTE is less than negligible for those kids. There are so many people who have played high school football for over 100 years that to say all of a sudden we have this epidemic is silly.

If the state wants to avoid brain injury, ban the NFL and College sports. This is the wrong way to go about it.

---

You need to carefully read the other posts: This is not about concussions, but rather sub concussive impacts; The "Study after study" you reference did not consider cascading tau protein damage being the cause of behavioral & emotional issues as this is a recently discovered phenomenon; The damage isn't like a broken bone ("is it fractured or not") but rather happens gradually, with each impact adding to the neuron damage; The BU study is definitive with respect to this phenomenon & younger kids.

Your argument is like smokers saying "Only X number of kids caught cancer from second had smoke, therefore the rest are not being impacted. And my friends who smokes is just fine."

---

Saw an ad yesterday showing vaping is bad. Why is that not outlawed or smoking or pot....I guess the state makes money on it.... football not so much. I think it should be the parent to decide. The market forces already show reduction in Football enrollment in high schools.

---

I don't know why it keeps coming back to this. Tobacco and Marijuana are illegal for minors. California has been as hostile to tobacco as just about any government in the world. To imply California is sympathetic to tobacco is ridiculous.

I agree to let parents decide until there is more evidence of the impacts. However, all the things that are terrible for us that are legal for adults and illegal for kids are irrelevant to this question. Adults get to decide for themselves generally because the impact of their decision only effects them. Kids don't get to decide because we don't think they are able to make those decisions yet. That leaves parents to decide for them in almost all cases. But not all cases. Parents can't decide to beat their children. Parents who genuinely don't believe in medical treatment can have their decision overturned in life threatening situations. Parents are required to put kids in safety seats and booster seats in cars up to a certain size/age. Banning tackle football if severe health risk was actually proven is akin to the last one. Do I think we are there yet? No. But it merits study and depending on the results could be warranted. I tend to be dubious that middle schoolers are hitting each other hard enough, but it's not an area that I know well. But just because the health impacts are not immediately obvious does not mean they aren't there.

Harry Carson (Retired Hall of Fame player with the Vikings) has forbidden his grandson to play tackle football. Here is a link to the storey:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.myajc.com/sports/nfl-harry-carson-grandson-wants-play-football-carson-won-let-him/iNhGROxmlX81IoUolBweUI/amp.html

OaktownBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

gobears725 said:

---

I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

Don't forget that the alarm isn't being sounded about knees, ankles, shoulders, legs, arms, ribs.

This is about cascading tau protein damage of brain neurons caused by sub concussive impacts, which is permanent. The brain is the only organ in the body that does not heal itself. In kids before HS age, it is just not acceptable.

---

And yet in study after study the evidence suggests that playing football through high school has very little impact on any one except a very small percentage - about the same percentage of those who have traumatic injury from other sports, like sudden cardiac death from playing basketball (we should ban all kids over 6'4" from playing basketball?), or girls heading a soccer ball. Of those who had their brains disected after they had what was considered certain CTE symptoms and committed suicide, or otherwise died, the kids who everyone knew had CTE after playing high school football did NOT in fact have CTE symptoms, except for one in 10. That is not one in 10 of kids who played football. That is one in 10 of those who medical doctors and families were certain their kids has CTE.

It is true that it accumulates and accelerates over time. But running into another player at 7 MPH with a helmet on at 8 years old is not going to create CTE. At least, not more so than running into a soccer ball or knocking your head on the cement while learning how to skateboard.

I have a friend who had a significant concussion riding a bike in high school. He is a bit loopy still from that. But none of my friends who played high school football have currently exhibited any sort of CTE symptoms. Over a million kids per year play high school football. The rate of CTE is less than negligible for those kids. There are so many people who have played high school football for over 100 years that to say all of a sudden we have this epidemic is silly.

If the state wants to avoid brain injury, ban the NFL and College sports. This is the wrong way to go about it.

---

You need to carefully read the other posts: This is not about concussions, but rather sub concussive impacts; The "Study after study" you reference did not consider cascading tau protein damage being the cause of behavioral & emotional issues as this is a recently discovered phenomenon; The damage isn't like a broken bone ("is it fractured or not") but rather happens gradually, with each impact adding to the neuron damage; The BU study is definitive with respect to this phenomenon & younger kids.

Your argument is like smokers saying "Only X number of kids caught cancer from second had smoke, therefore the rest are not being impacted. And my friends who smokes is just fine."

---

Saw an ad yesterday showing vaping is bad. Why is that not outlawed or smoking or pot....I guess the state makes money on it.... football not so much. I think it should be the parent to decide. The market forces already show reduction in Football enrollment in high schools.

---

I don't know why it keeps coming back to this. Tobacco and Marijuana are illegal for minors. California has been as hostile to tobacco as just about any government in the world. To imply California is sympathetic to tobacco is ridiculous.

I agree to let parents decide until there is more evidence of the impacts. However, all the things that are terrible for us that are legal for adults and illegal for kids are irrelevant to this question. Adults get to decide for themselves generally because the impact of their decision only effects them. Kids don't get to decide because we don't think they are able to make those decisions yet. That leaves parents to decide for them in almost all cases. But not all cases. Parents can't decide to beat their children. Parents who genuinely don't believe in medical treatment can have their decision overturned in life threatening situations. Parents are required to put kids in safety seats and booster seats in cars up to a certain size/age. Banning tackle football if severe health risk was actually proven is akin to the last one. Do I think we are there yet? No. But it merits study and depending on the results could be warranted. I tend to be dubious that middle schoolers are hitting each other hard enough, but it's not an area that I know well. But just because the health impacts are not immediately obvious does not mean they aren't there.

---

My point is the state could outlaw smoking for adults but doesn't. The state could outlaw soda that makes a lot of kids obese but does not. The societal effect of tackle football is too small to legislate but easier to legislate as there are no tax receipts nor lobbying involved. I have a problem with the picking and choosing of legislating what one can or cannot do especially when it has minimal societal effects relative to other issues. In the end some case will go to the courts as a result of financial damages and result in jurisprudence related to this issue.

The state has outlawed smoking indoors and the smoking cessation PR program started in the 60s has probably been the most successful healthcare campaign ever. The smoking population in 1960 was about 40% of the population. Today it's around 15%. Billions in healthcare costs have been saved, and many, many lives. So in fact the "state" did something, BIG and very successful in this case.

Soda...it's next and it will get the attention it deserves just like tobacco. But the process will go from the very local (Oakland, Berkeley, SF) and spread that way. Slowly local governments will tax it and slowly the sales will go down. Like tobacco, it will take time. I'd guess 20-30 years.

Tackle football might have gone the same way (slow and local) but the difference is the state of California got involved because it has the authority to legislate child protection and safety laws.

You might not like child protection legislation because it conflicts with traditional conservative values THAT THE STATE CAN NOT TELL YOU WANT TO DO. Well in fact it can...and if child safety is the issue, IT WILL.

Goobear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

gobears725 said:

---

I just personally don't believe that the body is developed enough to withstand the hits.

---

Don't forget that the alarm isn't being sounded about knees, ankles, shoulders, legs, arms, ribs.

This is about cascading tau protein damage of brain neurons caused by sub concussive impacts, which is permanent. The brain is the only organ in the body that does not heal itself. In kids before HS age, it is just not acceptable.

---

And yet in study after study the evidence suggests that playing football through high school has very little impact on any one except a very small percentage - about the same percentage of those who have traumatic injury from other sports, like sudden cardiac death from playing basketball (we should ban all kids over 6'4" from playing basketball?), or girls heading a soccer ball. Of those who had their brains disected after they had what was considered certain CTE symptoms and committed suicide, or otherwise died, the kids who everyone knew had CTE after playing high school football did NOT in fact have CTE symptoms, except for one in 10. That is not one in 10 of kids who played football. That is one in 10 of those who medical doctors and families were certain their kids has CTE.

It is true that it accumulates and accelerates over time. But running into another player at 7 MPH with a helmet on at 8 years old is not going to create CTE. At least, not more so than running into a soccer ball or knocking your head on the cement while learning how to skateboard.

I have a friend who had a significant concussion riding a bike in high school. He is a bit loopy still from that. But none of my friends who played high school football have currently exhibited any sort of CTE symptoms. Over a million kids per year play high school football. The rate of CTE is less than negligible for those kids. There are so many people who have played high school football for over 100 years that to say all of a sudden we have this epidemic is silly.

If the state wants to avoid brain injury, ban the NFL and College sports. This is the wrong way to go about it.

---

You need to carefully read the other posts: This is not about concussions, but rather sub concussive impacts; The "Study after study" you reference did not consider cascading tau protein damage being the cause of behavioral & emotional issues as this is a recently discovered phenomenon; The damage isn't like a broken bone ("is it fractured or not") but rather happens gradually, with each impact adding to the neuron damage; The BU study is definitive with respect to this phenomenon & younger kids.

Your argument is like smokers saying "Only X number of kids caught cancer from second had smoke, therefore the rest are not being impacted. And my friends who smokes is just fine."

---

Saw an ad yesterday showing vaping is bad. Why is that not outlawed or smoking or pot....I guess the state makes money on it.... football not so much. I think it should be the parent to decide. The market forces already show reduction in Football enrollment in high schools.

---

I don't know why it keeps coming back to this. Tobacco and Marijuana are illegal for minors. California has been as hostile to tobacco as just about any government in the world. To imply California is sympathetic to tobacco is ridiculous.

I agree to let parents decide until there is more evidence of the impacts. However, all the things that are terrible for us that are legal for adults and illegal for kids are irrelevant to this question. Adults get to decide for themselves generally because the impact of their decision only effects them. Kids don't get to decide because we don't think they are able to make those decisions yet. That leaves parents to decide for them in almost all cases. But not all cases. Parents can't decide to beat their children. Parents who genuinely don't believe in medical treatment can have their decision overturned in life threatening situations. Parents are required to put kids in safety seats and booster seats in cars up to a certain size/age. Banning tackle football if severe health risk was actually proven is akin to the last one. Do I think we are there yet? No. But it merits study and depending on the results could be warranted. I tend to be dubious that middle schoolers are hitting each other hard enough, but it's not an area that I know well. But just because the health impacts are not immediately obvious does not mean they aren't there.

---

My point is the state could outlaw smoking for adults but doesn't. The state could outlaw soda that makes a lot of kids obese but does not. The societal effect of tackle football is too small to legislate but easier to legislate as there are no tax receipts nor lobbying involved. I have a problem with the picking and choosing of legislating what one can or cannot do especially when it has minimal societal effects relative to other issues. In the end some case will go to the courts as a result of financial damages and result in jurisprudence related to this issue.

---

I'm sorry if I'm being too much of a lawyer, but regulating the health and safety of minors is a totally different question than regulating the health and safety of adults. As your example of smoking makes clear since adult behavior is not regulated but behavior of minors is. It is simply not a logical argument and would get crushed in any legal setting. It does not show that they pick and choose because in your example, they chose to outlaw the behavior for minors.

But of course they pick and choose. Every government picks and chooses as it is simply not possible to deal with every possible situation. As for minimal societal effects - well that is the question. I agree if it has minimal societal effects, it should not be regulated. If it is proven otherwise, though, it is well within the society's right to regulate.

And in the case of tobacco it is simply laughable given the cost to the state of the health impacts of smoking, given the hardcore education campaigns that the state has run paid for by tobacco taxes, given the ever increasing regulation of tobacco in a state that has some of the strictest tobacco laws in the world, given the goal of those programs to reduce smoking and the dramatic success of those programs, to claim that the state doesn't ban smoking TO ADULTS because of tax money and lobbying vs. a recognition that taxing and education is much more effective way to reduce usage rates. You may be right about other behaviors the state chooses to ignore, but the argument with respect to California and tobacco is terrible.

OaktownBear said:

---

the argument with respect to California and tobacco is terrible.

---

My main point regarding smoking & youth tackle football is that the tobacco interests made the exact same arguments that youth tackle football proponents are making now: Not enough studies, no "proof," Govt. is overstepping, yada yada yada. May not be a "perfect" analogy, but imo, it is close enough.

Bear19 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

the argument with respect to California and tobacco is terrible.

---

My main point regarding smoking & youth tackle football is that the tobacco interests made the exact same arguments that youth tackle football proponents are making now: Not enough studies, no "proof," Govt. is overstepping, yada yada yada. May not be a "perfect" analogy, but imo, it is close enough.

---

I wasn't talking about your argument. I was talking about Goo's. I don't think your argument is terrible, but I also don't think it is the same. The tobacco companies bought off scientists to put total bullshyte arguments out there so they could claim the mountains of evidence were in dispute. There absolutely was proof. I don't think you have that here yet. I do think you have a similarity in that some of the consumer base will refuse to believe any level of evidence because they don't want to change their behavior, but you still need to prove it to those who take a reasonable approach

OaktownBear said:

---

I wasn't talking about your argument. I was talking about Goo's. I don't think your argument is terrible, but I also don't think it is the same. The tobacco companies bought off scientists to put total bullshyte arguments out there so they could claim the mountains of evidence were in dispute. There absolutely was proof. I don't think you have that here yet. but you still need to prove it to those who take a reasonable approach

---

You're right he about the tobacco companies. Clearly sub-concussive impacts causing tau protein neuron damage is in the "early days" of evidence regarding kids playing tackle football. As time goes on, more & more researchers will continue to do research like the BU study. The BU study was definitive though that kids who played youth tackle football & HS football had more behavioral & emotional issues that kids who played just HS football. In my view, this is the beginning of the tipping point on youth tackle football.

Not scientific in any sense, my seeing youth football games, and how these kids are coached, really alarmed me to the core. Helmet to helmet collisions are just too common to ignore for this age group. All the reading I've done is compelling regarding how cascading tau protein neuron damage is initiated. We all have approx 2 billion neurons, with a trillion "connections" in our brains, so "some" damage can be tolerated. But since each impact causes more & more damage, by the time an eight year old kid graduates from HS, if he's played tackle throughout, he's suffered an awful lot of collisions, and there is no doubt that some quantity of neurons have been destroyed. Dr. Omalu & others have proven that this damage cascades, even with no further impacts.

Obviously I think there is enough evidence now to warrant not allowing youth tackle football.

My son, who played center in HS, and then offensive guard in college, stopped playing after his redshirt senior year. (He did not play youth tackle football). At the time I wanted him to play that last year, but now am thankful that he stopped when he did.

I think we need longitudinal studies tracking kids from age 8-10 through adulthood & old age, with brain autopsies. Eventually that will happen.

VICIS is developing a "greatly reduced impact" football helmet that looks promising - there's always a chance that technology will mitigate the issue along with age limits until HS, and better practice and tackling techniques.

Bear19 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I wasn't talking about your argument. I was talking about Goo's. I don't think your argument is terrible, but I also don't think it is the same. The tobacco companies bought off scientists to put total bullshyte arguments out there so they could claim the mountains of evidence were in dispute. There absolutely was proof. I don't think you have that here yet. but you still need to prove it to those who take a reasonable approach

---

You're right he about the tobacco companies. Clearly sub-concussive impacts causing tau protein neuron damage is in the "early days" of evidence regarding kids playing tackle football. As time goes on, more & more researchers will continue to do research like the BU study. The BU study was definitive though that kids who played youth tackle football & HS football had more behavioral & emotional issues that kids who played just HS football. In my view, this is the beginning of the tipping point on youth tackle football.

Not scientific in any sense, my seeing youth football games, and how these kids are coached, really alarmed me to the core. Helmet to helmet collisions are just too common to ignore for this age group. All the reading I've done is compelling regarding how cascading tau protein neuron damage is initiated. We all have approx 2 billion neurons, with a trillion "connections" in our brains, so "some" damage can be tolerated. But since each impact causes more & more damage, by the time an eight year old kid graduates from HS, if he's played tackle throughout, he's suffered an awful lot of collisions, and there is no doubt that some quantity of neurons have been destroyed. Dr. Omalu & others have proven that this damage cascades, even with no further impacts.

Obviously I think there is enough evidence now to warrant not allowing youth tackle football.

My son, who played center in HS, and then offensive guard in college, stopped playing after his redshirt senior year. (He did not play youth tackle football). At the time I wanted him to play that last year, but now am thankful that he stopped when he did.

I think we need longitudinal studies tracking kids from age 8-10 through adulthood & old age, with brain autopsies. Eventually that will happen.

VICIS is developing a "greatly reduced impact" football helmet that looks promising - there's always a chance that technology will mitigate the issue along with age limits until HS, and better practice and tackling techniques.

---

This is interesting. I can just imagine the following conversation:
University Researcher: Hi Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we are doing.a study on the possible effects of tackle football on brain damage. We'd like to give your kid cognitive tests this year and every year to see if he's getting brain damage from football.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith: Ummmmm..... we gotta go. Johnny, get in the car.

On another subject, can anyone comment on whether lawsuits by players or their families are happening? Are lawsuits having a chilling effect on the game, or are we too early in the arc of this public health issue? I can envision high schools and colleges shutting their programs down if they might be held liable in lawsuits. I could see equipment manufacturers refusing to sell helmets.