Aaron Hernandez Found to Have Severe C.T.E.

[AtlantaDan]

May not relate to why he was a murderer but may relate to why he killed himself

Aaron Hernandez, the former New England Patriots tight end who committed suicide in April while serving a life sentence for murder, was found to have a severe form of C.T.E., the degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head trauma that has been found in more than 100 former N.F.L. players.

A lawyer for Hernandez, Jose Baez, in announcing the result at a news conference Thursday, said researchers determined it was “the most severe case they had ever seen in someone of Aaron’s age,” which was 27.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/sports/aaron-hernandez-cte-brain.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

With the increasing information on CTE tough call for any parent with a son who wants to play football

[BlackAndGold]

Just awful. I'm sure more info will come out, but if it is as severe as it seems, he probably dealt with CTE even during the time of the murders.

Imo, no kid should be playing football. The game should be banned until at least High School where the kids are old enough to understand the risk, or know the risk.

This is bad news for the sport.

[Born2Steel]

Just awful. I'm sure more info will come out, but if it is as severe as it seems, he probably dealt with CTE even during the time of the murders.

Imo, no kid should be playing football. The game should be banned until at least High School where the kids are old enough to understand the risk, or know the risk.

This is bad news for the sport.

That's interesting you say that. I have been of the mind that it's safer during the peewee league years (6-12). The kids don't actually hit hard enough to do any permanent damage. There's always the flukey injury like in any sport, but for the most part it's harmless at that age. It's at the highschool level that the boys start to separate into the 'men' group, and the 'still a boy' group. Real damage can happen in a highschool game. True, the kids can make more informed decisions at the older age, but the game itself is at it's most dangerous at 16-18, IMO. Too much difference in the skill levels between players at that age. Just my thought.

[AtlantaDan]

That's interesting you say that. I have been of the mind that it's safer during the peewee league years (6-12). The kids don't actually hit hard enough to do any permanent damage. There's always the flukey injury like in any sport, but for the most part it's harmless at that age. It's at the highschool level that the boys start to separate into the 'men' group, and the 'still a boy' group. Real damage can happen in a highschool game. True, the kids can make more informed decisions at the older age, but the game itself is at it's most dangerous at 16-18, IMO. Too much difference in the skill levels between players at that age. Just my thought.

There is so much that is still unknown as to what the max danger points may be for sustaining brain damage from playing football (of course even the NFL now concedes that football significantly increases the risk of CTE), but a study issued this week said younger players may be particularly at risk - of course the earlier you start playing the more hits you take, so it may just be a matter of those who started playing younger sustained more damaging hits

Athletes who began playing tackle football before the age of 12 had more behavioral and cognitive problems later in life than those who started playing after they turned 12, a new study released on Tuesday showed....

“The brain is going through this incredible time of growth between the years of 10 and 12, and if you subject that developing brain to repetitive head impacts, it may cause problems later in life,” Robert Stern, one of the authors of the study, said of the findings."...

Last year, doctors at Wake Forest School of Medicine used advanced magnetic resonance imaging technology to find that boys between the ages of 8 and 13 who played just one season of tackle football had diminished brain function (https://press.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/14_pr_target.cfm?ID=1905) in parts of their brains.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/sports/football/tackle-football-brain-youth.html?mcubz=0

(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/sports/football/tackle-football-brain-youth.html?mcubz=0)

[BlackAndGold]

That's interesting you say that. I have been of the mind that it's safer during the peewee league years (6-12). The kids don't actually hit hard enough to do any permanent damage. There's always the flukey injury like in any sport, but for the most part it's harmless at that age. It's at the highschool level that the boys start to separate into the 'men' group, and the 'still a boy' group. Real damage can happen in a highschool game. True, the kids can make more informed decisions at the older age, but the game itself is at it's most dangerous at 16-18, IMO. Too much difference in the skill levels between players at that age. Just my thought.

Many people who I've discussed this topic with share your same thought. It's just Imo any sport that involves head contact is no go for me when it comes to kids. Baseball, Soccer, basketball are much safer options that also still brings the fun in team sports. (As you mentioned, fluky injuries can still happen, but not as likely)

I just wonder if the new helmet technology(it has grown in the past 5-6 years) and more focus on proper tackling in today's youth football can lower head injuries for future players. Guess we'll have to wait and see, hopefully it does.

[Born2Steel]

There is so much that is still unknown as to what the max danger points may be for sustaining brain damage from playing football (of course even the NFL now concedes that football significantly increases the risk of CTE), but a study issued this week said younger players may be particularly at risk - of course the earlier you start playing the more hits you take, so it may just be a matter of those who started playing younger sustained more damaging hits

Athletes who began playing tackle football before the age of 12 had more behavioral and cognitive problems later in life than those who started playing after they turned 12, a new study released on Tuesday showed....

“The brain is going through this incredible time of growth between the years of 10 and 12, and if you subject that developing brain to repetitive head impacts, it may cause problems later in life,” Robert Stern, one of the authors of the study, said of the findings."...

Last year, doctors at Wake Forest School of Medicine used advanced magnetic resonance imaging technology to find that boys between the ages of 8 and 13 who played just one season of tackle football had diminished brain function (https://press.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/14_pr_target.cfm?ID=1905) in parts of their brains.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/sports/football/tackle-football-brain-youth.html?mcubz=0

(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/sports/football/tackle-football-brain-youth.html?mcubz=0)

It's the rare discussions like this that keep me coming back to this forum. Thanks for this article.

- - - Updated - - -


Many people who I've discussed this topic with share your same thought. It's just Imo any sport that involves head contact is no go for me when it comes to kids. Baseball, Soccer, basketball are much safer options that also still brings the fun in team sports. (As you mentioned, fluky injuries can still happen, but not as likely)

I just wonder if the new helmet technology(it has grown in the past 5-6 years) and more focus on proper tackling in today's youth football can lower head injuries for future players. Guess we'll have to wait and see, hopefully it does.

I have to admit I don't know much, to amount to anything really, on the CTE front. The other sports are definitely safer. At work, we see mostly soccer injury, baseball elbows, and fingers from every sport, with our kid athletes. The really major injuries usually come in after Friday night highschool football games. Granted, not as numerous, but more violent injury. I guess that's where I got my thoughts from.

[AtlantaDan]

It's the rare discussions like this that keep me coming back to this forum. Thanks for this article.

:drink:

[BlackAndGold]

910985246702698497

Last played at 23 years old and was dealing with CTE.

Awful, just plain out awful.

[smokin3000gt]

as his lawyer alleges in a new lawsuit against the NFL and the New England Patriots (https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/nwe/)

man... they just don't stop

[BostonBlackie]

That's interesting you say that. I have been of the mind that it's safer during the peewee league years (6-12). The kids don't actually hit hard enough to do any permanent damage. There's always the flukey injury like in any sport, but for the most part it's harmless at that age. It's at the highschool level that the boys start to separate into the 'men' group, and the 'still a boy' group. Real damage can happen in a highschool game. True, the kids can make more informed decisions at the older age, but the game itself is at it's most dangerous at 16-18, IMO. Too much difference in the skill levels between players at that age. Just my thought.

I remember seeing stars when I made a tackle once at about 11, or 12 years old. That can be a sign of a concussion. By the time I was playing in junior high, 14, guys were hitting hard enough to knock the wind out of themselves. And that wasn't a rare occurrence.

[Craic]

I remember seeing stars when I made a tackle once at about 11, or 12 years old. That can be a sign of a concussion. By the time I was playing in junior high, 14, guys were hitting hard enough to knock the wind out of themselves. And that wasn't a rare occurrence.

I wouldn't consider 14 "kids" however. At that age, I was playing Ice Hockey and let me tell you, we were lighting up everyone.

[DesertSteel]

Lots of overreaction in this thread. My son is 12 and is in his 5th year of tackle football. I guess the safe way to parent is to let your kid play video games all day and watch porn on his smart phone.

[BostonBlackie]

......................I guess the safe way to parent is to let your kid play video games all day and watch porn on his smart phone.

I'm not sure that follows.

[43Hitman]

Lots of overreaction in this thread. My son is 12 and is in his 5th year of tackle football. I guess the safe way to parent is to let your kid play video games all day and watch porn on his smart phone.No one has said that. Why the hyperbole? Just because I may not let my son play football doesn't mean that you or I am a bad parent. Just two different ways of raising our kids. I'm not really sure where you're coming from.

[Born2Steel]

Lots of overreaction in this thread. My son is 12 and is in his 5th year of tackle football. I guess the safe way to parent is to let your kid play video games all day and watch porn on his smart phone.

I think this is a bit of an overreaction.....

[AtlantaDan]

Lots of overreaction in this thread. My son is 12 and is in his 5th year of tackle football. I guess the safe way to parent is to let your kid play video games all day and watch porn on his smart phone.

I just said it was a tougher call for parents allowing their sons to play football (a sport and not a career path for almost everyone) with increasing information on CTE and linked to a study that indicated there are some significant concerns for pre-adolescents who play.

George Will, no leftist or fan of the nanny state, wrote about where this may be heading several weeks ago

Players love football, and a small minority will have lucrative post-college NFL careers. Many will make increasingly informed choices to accept the risk-reward calculus. But because today’s risk-averse middle-class parents put crash helmets on their tykes riding tricycles , football participation will skew to the uninformed and economically desperate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-waning-romance-with-football/2017/09/01/5e26a344-8e7b-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.d88288bb7451

What are regarded to be appropriate child rearing practices change over time

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/23/d3/c3/23d3c39f1204e291781522b54124bee8--wine-and-liquor-compliments-of.jpg

[DesertSteel]

I think this is a bit of an overreaction.....
Exactly. Why have a balance when there's a ditch on each side of the road to pick from?

The reality is that I likely had 4-6 concussions as a kid and none of them were from football.

- - - Updated - - -


No one has said that. Why the hyperbole? Just because I may not let my son play football doesn't mean that you or I am a bad parent. Just two different ways of raising our kids. I'm not really sure where you're coming from.
Much of the reaction towards CTE is hyperbole. There are literally more than a million things in life that are bad for you. This is just being highlighted at the moment. I'm not saying be stupid and unsafe, but the overreaction to youth football in here is indeed unfounded.

[Born2Steel]

Exactly. Why have a balance when there's a ditch on each side of the road to pick from?

The reality is that I likely had 4-6 concussions as a kid and none of them were from football.

What does that have to do with this conversation? That kids can get hurt doing other things besides football? Thanks for catching us up on that.

My kids all played youth sports. From tackle football, to basketball, to softball, to soccer, to tennis, to roller hockey(southern states don't have ice), even flag football. I played everything growing up. My neighborhood was always groups of us knocking each other around in some way. I'm sure almost every other poster on this forum can tell a similar story. It's never an overreaction to understand how to better protect your kids. CTE is real. We are just now getting the real story and accurate info.

[DesertSteel]

What does that have to do with this conversation? That kids can get hurt doing other things besides football? Thanks for catching us up on that.

My kids all played youth sports. From tackle football, to basketball, to softball, to soccer, to tennis, to roller hockey(southern states don't have ice), even flag football. I played everything growing up. My neighborhood was always groups of us knocking each other around in some way. I'm sure almost every other poster on this forum can tell a similar story. It's never an overreaction to understand how to better protect your kids. CTE is real. We are just now getting the real story and accurate info.
What does it have to do with the conversation?

"Imo, no kid should be playing football."

That is a pretty big overreaction. So, yeah it's very relevant to the discussion that head injuries occur all sorts of ways: soccer, bike riding, wrestling, etc. Should kids have no physical activity at all? Football is way safer today than it was 20 years ago.

[Born2Steel]

What does it have to do with the conversation?

"Imo, no kid should be playing football."

That is a pretty big overreaction. So, yeah it's very relevant to the discussion that head injuries occur all sorts of ways: soccer, bike riding, wrestling, etc. Should kids have no physical activity at all? Football is way safer today than it was 20 years ago.

No. The major point is, we don't know how safe or unsafe football is at any age right now. The decision to let kids play football or not is each parent's own decision, based on whatever reasons they choose. I'm of the opinion that there really is no such thing as over-protecting your kids. Just methods I agree or disagree with, for my kids. To one of us an overreaction may be an under-reaction to another. This is why we need discussions about things like CTE and to understand the truth of it. Yahoo headlines aside, we have only just scratched the surface of this issue.

Advancements in safety equipment have been made. That is the overly used rebuttal to the "unsafe" theorists. But the real answer is we don't know because we don't have enough data. I saw one poster, maybe on here, say take away the facemask. On the surface that sounds silly and sarcastic. BUT...how many players would lead head first into contact without a facemask? That's not really a solution, but it does put things into the correct context.

[DesertSteel]

No. The major point is, we don't know how safe or unsafe football is at any age right now. The decision to let kids play football or not is each parent's own decision, based on whatever reasons they choose. I'm of the opinion that there really is no such thing as over-protecting your kids. Just methods I agree or disagree with, for my kids. To one of us an overreaction may be an under-reaction to another. This is why we need discussions about things like CTE and to understand the truth of it. Yahoo headlines aside, we have only just scratched the surface of this issue.

Advancements in safety equipment have been made. That is the overly used rebuttal to the "unsafe" theorists. But the real answer is we don't know because we don't have enough data. I saw one poster, maybe on here, say take away the facemask. On the surface that sounds silly and sarcastic. BUT...how many players would lead head first into contact without a facemask? That's not really a solution, but it does put things into the correct context.
The more info we have the better. Further I'm in favor of all the safety rules that the NFL has instituted - regardless of their motives. Most on this forum whine and complain about how they need to go back to the way it used to be played with more contact and less penalties for illegal hits. I coach youth football and we constantly emphasize safety. My overreaction is a reaction to the overreaction of the don't let your kids play group. And yeah the video games was a valid argument about some parents' alternatives. Ever done research on what that does to the brain?

[Born2Steel]

The more info we have the better. Further I'm in favor of all the safety rules that the NFL has instituted - regardless of their motives. Most on this forum whine and complain about how they need to go back to the way it used to be played with more contact and less penalties for illegal hits. I coach youth football and we constantly emphasize safety. My overreaction is a reaction to the overreaction of the don't let your kids play group. And yeah the video games was a valid argument about some parents' alternatives. Ever done research on what that does to the brain?

I have not.

And I still disagree that not wanting kids to do something a parent thinks is unsafe, is an overreaction. My kids do play, so I disagree with that logic too. What's the line then? I have coached youth sports, football even. Youth football is my personal favorite level of football. In my own opinion, the safest level of football. But as facts about CTE come out, my opinion is less and less logical. So what do I do about that? I make the best informed decision I can for my child's safety. I was at my 14 year old's football game just last night. He plays on the Oline and Dline. At this point, I'm not pushing him to play after this season. If he wants to, I'll let him. But right now, I'd prefer he doesn't. I don't see how not letting him is an overreaction, nor how encouraging him to play is reckless. Just not enough info. Plus, he's my kid, and my responsibility to keep safe. Isn't that my job#1.

[DesertSteel]

The line is when someone says: "No kid should play." A parent can say, "My kid won't play" but going into activism for all kids is crossing the line to me.

[43Hitman]

The more info we have the better. Further I'm in favor of all the safety rules that the NFL has instituted - regardless of their motives. Most on this forum whine and complain about how they need to go back to the way it used to be played with more contact and less penalties for illegal hits. I coach youth football and we constantly emphasize safety. My overreaction is a reaction to the overreaction of the don't let your kids play group. And yeah the video games was a valid argument about some parents' alternatives. Ever done research on what that does to the brain?It's not a valid argument because you make it sound like there is football or video games and nothing in between. And that if I don't let my child play football that somehow that makes you a bad parent. I don't get it. Also if I determine that football is too dangerous for my son to play, why do you care? I don't care if you let your child play, it's your child, you can do whatever you want within the laws.

- - - Updated - - -


The line is when someone says: "No kid should play." A parent can say, "My kid won't play" but going into activism for all kids is crossing the line to me.

Cool, no one in this thread said that to you. Why are you projecting?

[steelreserve]

It's not a valid argument because you make it sound like there is football or video games and nothing in between.

Meanwhile, The International 7 - the annual championship tournament for Valve's multiplayer battle arena game DotA 2 - reached a $25 million prize pool this year and sold out Seattle's Key Arena for a full week at $100-$200 a ticket.

The point being that people will be interested (and pay to see professional competition) in things that they participate in themselves. Same reason why ice hockey is a bigger deal in Canada and Russia and Finland than in Brazil, while their professional soccer players make jack shit.

If the number of people participating in football goes way down over time, then shit, maybe you WILL make a better living as a pro gamer 20 years from now.

Not that I agree with the whole new-wave paranoid parenting craze that's become the norm for some reason. But football is in trouble if interests change, and whether it's video games or soccer or kite surfing that's the winner, something's going to take up the slack.

[43Hitman]

Meanwhile, The International 7 - the annual championship tournament for Valve's multiplayer battle arena game DotA 2 - reached a $25 million prize pool this year and sold out Seattle's Key Arena for a full week at $100-$200 a ticket.

The point being that people will be interested (and pay to see professional competition) in things that they participate in themselves. Same reason why ice hockey is a bigger deal in Canada and Russia and Finland than in Brazil, while their professional soccer players make jack shit.

If the number of people participating in football goes way down over time, then shit, maybe you WILL make a better living as a pro gamer 20 years from now.

Not that I agree with the whole new-wave paranoid parenting craze that's become the norm for some reason. But football is in trouble if interests change, and whether it's video games or soccer or kite surfing that's the winner, something's going to take up the slack.Ahh, I see what y'all are saying now. I do think football and especially youth football is in trouble. These reports whether people agree with them or not are hitting home with parents.

[DesertSteel]

Cool, no one in this thread said that to you. Why are you projecting?
It wasn't addressed specifically to me, but I'm responding to it.



Imo, no kid should be playing football.

[43Hitman]

It wasn't addressed specifically to me, but I'm responding to it.
I didn't see that post, my apologies. :thumbsup:

[BostonBlackie]

I have not.

And I still disagree that not wanting kids to do something a parent thinks is unsafe, is an overreaction. My kids do play, so I disagree with that logic too. What's the line then? I have coached youth sports, football even. Youth football is my personal favorite level of football. In my own opinion, the safest level of football. But as facts about CTE come out, my opinion is less and less logical. So what do I do about that? I make the best informed decision I can for my child's safety. I was at my 14 year old's football game just last night. He plays on the Oline and Dline. At this point, I'm not pushing him to play after this season. If he wants to, I'll let him. But right now, I'd prefer he doesn't. I don't see how not letting him is an overreaction, nor how encouraging him to play is reckless. Just not enough info. Plus, he's my kid, and my responsibility to keep safe. Isn't that my job#1.

Yes it is.

It's so difficult because as many of us in here know, it's a great game. I trained and went into combat with an infantry company. I was with those guys day and night, between training and Vietnam, for 18-20 months. We faced death together, lost friends together, etc. You know who I would rather see today? The guys I played football with. Life is long, and hard. The good times are rare in my experience. Football was a good time.

[AtlantaDan]

Further I'm in favor of all the safety rules that the NFL has instituted - regardless of their motives. Most on this forum whine and complain about how they need to go back to the way it used to be played with more contact and less penalties for illegal hits.

Not just on this forum :coffee:

"When the NFL ratings are down massively, massively," the president said. "The NFL ratings are down massively. Now the number one reason happens to be they like watching what's happening...with yours truly. They like what's happening. Because you know today if you hit too hard—15 yards! Throw him out of the game! They had that last week. I watched for a couple of minutes. Two guys, just really beautiful tackle. Boom, 15 yards! The referee gets on television, his wife is sitting at home, she's so proud of him. They're ruining the game...They want to hit! It's ruining the game."

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/22/donald-trump-fire-national-anthem-protestors

[stillers4me]

There is one statistic I never see. The ratio of dementia/Alzheimer's in NFL players vs the general population.

I work in a medical office and deal with patients who suffer dementia and Alzheimers every day and I'm pretty sure most of them never played professional football or sports of any kind. Especially that sweet, vacant eyed little lady I worked with yesterday.

[fansince'76]

Most on this forum whine and complain about how they need to go back to the way it used to be played with more contact and less penalties for illegal hits.

No, fewer penalties (and fines) for HARD hits. There's a big difference. Of course, the line between the two has become increasingly blurred by the league over time, which is a problem in itself, IMO.

The super-late calls like the one on William Gay in the Browns game (which also converted what would have been a 4th down into a 1st down and 15 yards' worth of better field position for the Browns) have become really tiresome, in my view.

[AtlantaDan]

There is one statistic I never see. The ratio of dementia/Alzheimer's in NFL players vs the general population.

I found this when I Googled "dementia in NFL players compared to general population"

A study commissioned by the National Football League (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_football_league/index.html?inline=nyt-org) reports that Alzheimer’s disease or similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league’s former players vastly more often than in the national population — including a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sports/football/30dementia.html?mcubz=0

Eye-catching NFL player data released for the first time on Friday suggests that nearly 30% of former NFL players will end up developing Alzheimer's disease or dementia across their lifetime, placing them at a significantly higher risk than the general population.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/09/12/nfl-players-have-30-chance-of-alzheimers-or-dementia-new-nfl-concussion-data-suggests/#75bdfc464581

Just hours before the 2012 NFL season kicks off, a new study suggests that professional football players are three times more likely to have neurodegenerative diseases than the general population.
When researchers specifically looked at Alzheimer's disease and ALS -- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease -- that risk increased to four times greater than the rest of us.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/health/nfl-neurodegenerative-disease/index.html


A new study of NFL players adds to the evidence that repeated head blows absorbed during a football career could lead to changes in the brain that affect the athletes' behavior.
The study, published Jan. 7 in JAMA Neurology (http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555584) (formerly known as the Archives of Neurology), found retired NFL players were more likely to report cognitive impairment and depression and show physical brain changes on an MRI scan compared to healthy individuals.
"NFL players may be more likely to develop cognitive impairments (problems with memory, naming and word finding) or depression as they age compared with the general population," wrote the authors, led by Dr. John Hart Jr., medical science director at the Center for BrainHealth at The University of Texas at Dallas.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-retirees-more-likely-to-have-depression-and-cognitive-problems-brain-study-shows/

[stillers4me]

I found this when I Googled "dementia in NFL players compared to general population"

A study commissioned by the National Football League (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_football_league/index.html?inline=nyt-org) reports that Alzheimer’s disease or similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league’s former players vastly more often than in the national population — including a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sports/football/30dementia.html?mcubz=0

Eye-catching NFL player data released for the first time on Friday suggests that nearly 30% of former NFL players will end up developing Alzheimer's disease or dementia across their lifetime, placing them at a significantly higher risk than the general population.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/09/12/nfl-players-have-30-chance-of-alzheimers-or-dementia-new-nfl-concussion-data-suggests/#75bdfc464581

Just hours before the 2012 NFL season kicks off, a new study suggests that professional football players are three times more likely to have neurodegenerative diseases than the general population.
When researchers specifically looked at Alzheimer's disease and ALS -- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease -- that risk increased to four times greater than the rest of us.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/health/nfl-neurodegenerative-disease/index.html


A new study of NFL players adds to the evidence that repeated head blows absorbed during a football career could lead to changes in the brain that affect the athletes' behavior.
The study, published Jan. 7 in JAMA Neurology (http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555584) (formerly known as the Archives of Neurology), found retired NFL players were more likely to report cognitive impairment and depression and show physical brain changes on an MRI scan compared to healthy individuals.
"NFL players may be more likely to develop cognitive impairments (problems with memory, naming and word finding) or depression as they age compared with the general population," wrote the authors, led by Dr. John Hart Jr., medical science director at the Center for BrainHealth at The University of Texas at Dallas.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-retirees-more-likely-to-have-depression-and-cognitive-problems-brain-study-shows/


Good info.

[BostonBlackie]

Bull Riding Struggles to Combat Concussions

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSMAY 23, 2015
Continue reading the main story (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/sports/bull-riding-struggles-to-combat-concussions.html?mcubz=0&_r=0#story-continues-1)

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Kasey Hayes hopped on the bovine beast trapped in the narrow holding pen, as he had done hundreds of times. He signaled he was ready to dominate the bull for the next eight seconds — or, at least, hoped to.
After 3.72 seconds on this March evening, Hayes lost control, hit the ground and got his head stomped on by the 1,600-pounder named Shaft. His hockey-like helmet split in two. The arena fell silent.
It took about a minute or so before Hayes could be helped to his feet. He had a concussion — his third in 12 months.
Doctors, riders and researchers say the most pervasive injuries for bull riders are concussions. The Professional Bull Riders’ circuit provides a stable of doctors, requires helmets for anyone born after 1994 and insists that concussed riders pass a test before competing again.
Amid concern about head injuries in the N.F.L. and N.H.L., the circuit’s lead medical staff member said he had not seen a drop in the number of concussions despite the widespread use of helmets. There are no multimillion-dollar contracts or unions in professional bull riding; if you do not ride, you do not make money, which causes athletes to push themselves back into action.
Continue reading the main story (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/sports/bull-riding-struggles-to-combat-concussions.html?mcubz=0&_r=0#story-continues-2)