NY Times Calls BS on NFL Concussion Research

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/s...contentCollection=Pro Football&pgtype=article

Apparently, the NFL has been using research that supposedly included all concussions diagnosed by team doctors from 1996 through 2001, but the New York Times story claims that more than 100 concussions were left out of the data.

The league's response? Basically, that the teams weren't required to release their information and some chose not to and that should have been made clearer. But hey, they insist it wasn't done to "alter or suppress the rate of concussions."

I know this isn't a surprise, but it is just one more load of bullshit shoveled out by the NFL regarding player safety.

 

The NFL fudged the data? Only god can fudge the data. <sorta crossthread>

 

Another well-reported story from Alan Schwarz, who should have won a Pulitzer for his work on concussions by now.

 

The idiots have come out swinging.

Bruce Arians: "People that say 'I won't let my son play football' are fools."

Jerry Jones: "No, that's absurd. There's no data that in any way creates a knowledge. There's no way that you could have made a comment that there is an association and some type of assertion. In most things, you have to back it up by studies. And in this particular case, we all know how medicine is. Medicine is evolving. I grew up being told that aspirin was not good. I'm told that one a day is good for you ... I'm saying that changed over the years as we've had more research and knowledge."

 

I actually think the Times has a good scoop here that they tried to make better with all kinds of allusions to tobacco they can't prove. The Times tweet storm defense "our article didn't say that" is a bit misleading. Yeah, but you sure as heck implied stuff you didn't prove.

I love the Times. I really do. It's doing important work. I also think they have a clear agenda on concussion reporting. The NFL is horrible enough without being like "It's the new big tobacco! (Wait we didn't say that!)"

 

Agreed. The story loses some of its focus and credibility. They would have been better off keeping the focus on concussions.

The reaction by Jerry Jones is priceless. Nearly incomprehensible bullshit, but priceless.

 

Who.

 

A few tweets sponsored by the NFL saying they wanted to tell their side of the story were in my feed earlier today, and I imagine they'll be there for a while. Didn't take the clickbait, though.

 

The NFL's side is basically to say it should have been clearer about the data. No shit, assholes.

 

If only they would have hired Ted Wells to oversee this study, we could have a fully independent study with ironclad science and research.

 

Nah. He had enough trouble getting the truth out of just one NFL player.

 

All the Times did was compare the NFL's effort to suppress information and present misleading data to similar efforts by the tobacco industry. I don't know that I'f have taken the story in that direction but it seems fair to me.

I'm sure the league will have its attack force, including many writers, out in force.