Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy - An Immediate Retirement

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the actual 'contact' sports covered in the study.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

absolutely that would be a risk, for the 1 day or 2 days a year that you play them.. sure. But in the amateur game you arent training full contact all the time, you have maybe one session a week tops where there is full contact. Most of the time you are doing other drills. As Alex Popham said when this all started its the drip drip of training that he felt was the biggest issue, not the fundamental rules of the actual game, but the constant contact in training (and in union that includes ruck, maul and scrum training).

From my experience there is far more contact in Union training than League and that has been the case for a long time. As you say drills around the ruck, breakdown, mauls and scrums are really contact heavy and dangerous.

Even before concussion was really on the agenda my experience was that in Rugby League contact has always been quite limited because of the nature of the game. Too much was detrimental to gameday (as well as it taking a few days to really recover from games). I always found contact to be quite light and more about technique, especially as you get older.

[Tubby]

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

From my experience there is far more contact in Union training than League and that has been the case for a long time. As you say drills around the ruck, breakdown, mauls and scrums are really contact heavy and dangerous.

Even before concussion was really on the agenda my experience was that in Rugby League contact has always been quite limited because of the nature of the game. Too much was detrimental to gameday (as well as it taking a few days to really recover from games). I always found contact to be quite light and more about technique, especially as you get older.

Having played both in the 80's and 90's (then RU into the 2010's), I took far more head contact in league than union.  At amateur level, so many tackles were high in RL it was incredible.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Tubby said:

Having played both in the 80's and 90's (then RU into the 2010's), I took far more head contact in league than union.  At amateur level, so many tackles were high in RL it was incredible.

Its clear I was talking about training and training methods. 

[Tubby]

Just now, Damien said:

Its clear I was talking about training and training methods. 

Apologies, I missed the work 'training'!  However, overall, I'd still say there was more head contact across all aspects of RL than RU back then; which is when many of the people currently suffering from the effects were playing & training.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Tubby said:

Having played both in the 80's and 90's (then RU into the 2010's), I took far more head contact in league than union.  At amateur level, so many tackles were high in RL it was incredible.

this was the point that was being made by Alex Popham and has been made by many doctors when reading articles. The head knock part of it is a small part (something that can, and should be outlawed as much as possible but still a small part) as the subconcussive issues around whiplash and the intense but legal contact in union at mauls, rucks and scrums cause this brain in skill (sponge in bucket) scenario which is the issue around the drip drip that Popham talked about in the first interview on bbc when this all came up. As he described it if you leave a tap on outside for a few days it will just leave a wet floor, but if you leave it on for a few years you will probably have a small hole in the floor.. 

Those head high tackles are minimal in reality, 4-5 a game would be a high average number per game.. think of all the big contacts through training sessions, continuous tackle sessions causing minor whiplash and brain rattle where you could be in 20-30 tackles in a small period of contact training. 

[Tubby]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

this was the point that was being made by Alex Popham and has been made by many doctors when reading articles. The head knock part of it is a small part (something that can, and should be outlawed as much as possible but still a small part) as the subconcussive issues around whiplash and the intense but legal contact in union at mauls, rucks and scrums cause this brain in skill (sponge in bucket) scenario which is the issue around the drip drip that Popham talked about in the first interview on bbc when this all came up. As he described it if you leave a tap on outside for a few days it will just leave a wet floor, but if you leave it on for a few years you will probably have a small hole in the floor.. 

Those head high tackles are minimal in reality, 4-5 a game would be a high average number per game.. think of all the big contacts through training sessions, continuous tackle sessions causing minor whiplash and brain rattle where you could be in 20-30 tackles in a small period of contact training. 

There is a great deal of sense in that, the majority of damage is when the brain hits the inside of the skull, which is why headguards really aren't a solution.  In my opinion though, there is no solution.  Both forms of rugby are impact sports and if that impact is removed, there is no rugby left.  The only way to completely mitigate the risk of brain injury is to not play rugby.

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Tubby said:

There is a great deal of sense in that, the majority of damage is when the brain hits the inside of the skull, which is why headguards really aren't a solution.  In my opinion though, there is no solution.  Both forms of rugby are impact sports and if that impact is removed, there is no rugby left.  The only way to completely mitigate the risk of brain injury is to not play rugby.

which is not what they are asking for, or what the issue is with the legal cases. 

The issue is all around, were you doing enough with the information that we had at the time to protect the players as much as you can. 

Everyone accepts there is a risk to playing rugby, as everyone should accept there is a risk to going to any job. What people expect is that, as much as possible, that risk is mitigated with the knowledge that you have. Its why risk assessments should be done on a yearly basis, its why HSE come around. 1 is to make sure you are still compliant as things change in the business and people get lax but 2 is to make sure new legislation or new ideas of how to solve risks is known, best practice for a different site can be shared etc etc. 

The key to the case will be around law adaptation and the medical knowledge and advice freely available at the time and any specific advice given and if it was ignored or implemented. It wont be about taking all risk away its about mitigating the major risks with the knowledge you have.

Edited September 5, 2024 by RP London

[Sports Prophet]

On 31/07/2024 at 21:40, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Former St Helens forward Josh Jones has said he is suffering from a serious brain condition.

The 31-year old former Great Britain second rower retired in 2023 due to concussion-related issues following his release by Huddersfield Giants.

Jones posted on X that he has been diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/articles/cz7e4p3wddeo

That’s interesting, because to the best of my knowledge, CTE can only be diagnosed via an autopsy.

Just one quote I have found on the matter.

"At this time, CTE can only be diagnosed after death by postmortem neuropathological analysis. Right now there is no known way to use MRI, CT, PET, SPECT, or other brain imaging methods to definitively diagnose CTE. In addition, there are no known blood or spinal fluid tests for CTE. The CTE Center is actively conducting research aimed at learning how to diagnose CTE during life."

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, RP London said:

which is not what they are asking for, or what the issue is with the legal cases. 

The issue is all around, were you doing enough with the information that we had at the time to protect the players as much as you can. 

Everyone accepts there is a risk to playing rugby, as everyone should accept there is a risk to going to any job. What people expect is that, as much as possible, that risk is mitigated with the knowledge that you have. Its why risk assessments should be done on a yearly basis, its why HSE come around. 1 is to make sure you are still compliant as things change in the business and people get lax but 2 is to make sure new legislation or new ideas of how to solve risks is known, best practice for a different site can be shared etc etc. 

The key to the case will be around law adaptation and the medical knowledge and advice freely available at the time and any specific advice given and if it was ignored or implemented. It wont be about taking all risk away its about mitigating the major risks with the knowledge you have.

Sorry got distracted by pesky work and someone walking into my office to ask me to do something... how very dare they!

One example is the NFL limiting contact training.. well we know that is something that can be done to mitigate the risk, we will probably, at some point, need to justify why that is a move we dont think necessary..

[Tubby]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

which is not what they are asking for, or what the issue is with the legal cases. 

The issue is all around, were you doing enough with the information that we had at the time to protect the players as much as you can. 

Everyone accepts there is a risk to playing rugby, as everyone should accept there is a risk to going to any job. What people expect is that, as much as possible, that risk is mitigated with the knowledge that you have. Its why risk assessments should be done on a yearly basis, its why HSE come around. 1 is to make sure you are still compliant as things change in the business and people get lax but 2 is to make sure new legislation or new ideas of how to solve risks is known, best practice for a different site can be shared etc etc. 

The key to the case will be around law adaptation and the medical knowledge and advice freely available at the time and any specific advice given and if it was ignored or implemented. It wont be about taking all risk away its about mitigating the major risks with the knowledge you have.

Sorry, I was unclear, I'm not necessarily referring to the legal cases, merely pointing out that to entirely mitigate the chance of ending up with early onset dementia, or MND or any one of a number of other brain-injury related ilnesses, not playing an impact sport is your only option.

As a fan and former player (and junior coach) of both forms of rugby, there is a small part of me that wonders whether it's worth the risk.  But for me at least, for what rugby has given me for over 50 years, I think it probably is.

[RP London]

Just now, Tubby said:

Sorry, I was unclear, I'm not necessarily referring to the legal cases, merely pointing out that to entirely mitigate the chance of ending up with early onset dementia, or MND or any one of a number of other brain-injury related ilnesses, not playing an impact sport is your only option.

As a fan and former player (and junior coach) of both forms of rugby, there is a small part of me that wonders whether it's worth the risk.  But for me at least, for what rugby has given me for over 50 years, I think it probably is.

Yes and no. I see what you mean but the key is going to be about how much is ok and how much is not etc.. people get MND and Dementia who have never stepped foot on a sports pitch let alone a Rugby pitch.. so its not necessarily all about what you do so there will need to be a balance. 

There will no doubt be research being done that will help alleviate this worries but as with anything on this it will take time. Like with the NFL example, training is going to be the key adaptation. Coaching Junior RU at the moment I try and make the sessions more about technique and using pads rather than hitting each other. Its unavoidable at times and helps build confidence but its better than some of the sadistic stuff we used to do that didnt actually improve us as players, just got us bashed up. 

[Wakefield Ram]

6 hours ago, Tubby said:

There is a great deal of sense in that, the majority of damage is when the brain hits the inside of the skull, which is why headguards really aren't a solution.  In my opinion though, there is no solution.  Both forms of rugby are impact sports and if that impact is removed, there is no rugby left.  The only way to completely mitigate the risk of brain injury is to not play rugby.

You can reduce the amount of contact training and therefore reduce the numbers of times you have your brain rattled around. 

[JohnM]

From2017: schools rugby union, I know, but the official RFU line was "more and better training"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41398969

 

[Sports Prophet]

Worth bringing this thread back to the front page as the subject seems to be taking another thread off topic.

[The Blues Ox]

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/rugby-league-lawsuit-update-concerning-brain-disease-data-revealed-102857/

 

Interesting that they are now starting to give clues about some of the people who are involved in the claim. I wonder if it could potentially change what at the moment seems to be a really negative view on this subject.

[The Blues Ox]

https://news.sky.com/story/football-bodies-could-be-forced-to-pay-towards-brain-injury-care-costs-of-ex-players-13362050

A few well known players getting behind this in football while for us the players that are involved are treat like the sports dirty little secret. Those players were somehow blamed over the sin binning in the Saints game when a player kneed someone in the head. Also noted that Neil Ruddock saying about not knowing the dangers when he got involved in the sport where as a few players who have ten men syndrome seem to believe that when they started playing the game at 6 year old they were well aware of the risks to their health from long term shots to the head.

[graveyard johnny]

playing our game you can get paralysed - lose a nut - and have any part of the body rearranged at any minute - just like working in construction or joining the army - if u wanna do it and risk it then its your own personal choice- no one makes you take part in anything - people climb mountains knowing they may fall off or die half way up - it life - its choices - deal with it

[LeytherRob]

19 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

playing our game you can get paralysed - lose a nut - and have any part of the body rearranged at any minute - just like working in construction or joining the army - if u wanna do it and risk it then its your own personal choice- no one makes you take part in anything - people climb mountains knowing they may fall off or die half way up - it life - its choices - deal with it

That’s a terrible analogy since both those industries come with massive pay offs and/or pensions if and when you get injured in the act of doing those jobs.

[graveyard johnny]

19 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

That’s a terrible analogy since both those industries come with massive pay offs and/or pensions if and when you get injured in the act of doing those jobs.

cos we all know very rich ex soldiers and builders with lung conditions dont we? - everything comes with a risk - just crossing the road may be your last act - its life 

[EggFace]

5 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

https://news.sky.com/story/football-bodies-could-be-forced-to-pay-towards-brain-injury-care-costs-of-ex-players-13362050

A few well known players getting behind this in football while for us the players that are involved are treat like the sports dirty little secret. Those players were somehow blamed over the sin binning in the Saints game when a player kneed someone in the head. Also noted that Neil Ruddock saying about not knowing the dangers when he got involved in the sport where as a few players who have ten men syndrome seem to believe that when they started playing the game at 6 year old they were well aware of the risks to their health from long term shots to the head.

Just ban bloody sport then It's getting stupid FFS.

Edited May 5 by EggFace

[LeytherRob]

19 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

cos we all know very rich ex soldiers and builders with lung conditions dont we? - everything comes with a risk - just crossing the road may be your last act - its life 

UK armed forces can get anywhere up to £650,000 paid out for injuries whilst serving - https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-injury-received-while-serving/what-youll-get

There is also the War Pension scheme with specific provisions to compensate for injury or illness - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/war-pension-scheme-wps

builders with lung conditions are eligible for compensation through the workers compensation act of 1979 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/41/contents

Everything does come with risk. Being exposed to unnecessary risk by your employer gives you legal mechanisms for recompense and has done long before ‘the nanny state’ or ‘wokeness’ or ‘health and safety gone mad’ or whatever you want to label it. 

 

 

[graveyard johnny]

14 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

UK armed forces can get anywhere up to £650,000 paid out for injuries whilst serving - https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-injury-received-while-serving/what-youll-get

There is also the War Pension scheme with specific provisions to compensate for injury or illness - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/war-pension-scheme-wps

builders with lung conditions are eligible for compensation through the workers compensation act of 1979 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/41/contents

Everything does come with risk. Being exposed to unnecessary risk by your employer gives you legal mechanisms for recompense and has done long before ‘the nanny state’ or ‘wokeness’ or ‘health and safety gone mad’ or whatever you want to label it. 

 

 

you must be living in a different world to me mate 

[LeytherRob]

7 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

you must be living in a different world to me mate 

To borrow a phrase from your side of the political isle, facts don’t care about your feelings

[JohnM]

51 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

you must be living in a different world to me mate 

I really hope we all are.