Marlado Faulkando

Established Members
  • Content Count

    3,157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Marlado Faulkando last won the day on January 18 2016

Marlado Faulkando had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,154 Excellent

About Marlado Faulkando

  • Rank
    On the Ballot

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

903 profile views
  1. Yes, it is. What the NFL feared was that CTE would be taken seriously, because they KNEW how that would eventually affect public perception of professional football. There was nothing inflammatory about Omalu's work (think about it, if there was, the NFL would have sued the pants off of him). ??? I do not see this being a case study that should've raised anything more than a "no-sh*t" response out of the NFL, its players & fans alike. Still waiting for a safe number of concussions a NFL player can have under his belt, yet still continue playing, then still have hopes of a good head on their shoulders as they get older...in your opinion. Then why did they seek to discredit the report? If the league's response was, "no sh*t" why ask for a retraction? Idk...Lawyers need to lawyer. Omalu did not claim the NFL was not doing all in its power to make the game as safe as possible. It would've been easy to say "we have a dangerous sport which we are continually trying to make safer, for the long-term benefit of all who play football, at any level...we appreciate all research on these matters." It would be also be easy to see why the NFL would want to halt a potential "red-scare" because of a published 2 person case-study. As is always the case, the coverup is worse than the crime. Maybe they learned something from this.
  2. Yes, it is. What the NFL feared was that CTE would be taken seriously, because they KNEW how that would eventually affect public perception of professional football. There was nothing inflammatory about Omalu's work (think about it, if there was, the NFL would have sued the pants off of him). ??? I do not see this being a case study that should've raised anything more than a "no-sh*t" response out of the NFL, its players & fans alike. Still waiting for a safe number of concussions a NFL player can have under his belt, yet still continue playing, then still have hopes of a good head on their shoulders as they get older...in your opinion. Then why did they seek to discredit the report? If the league's response was, "no sh*t" why ask for a retraction?
  3. How many cigarettes can you smoke before you're locked out of smoking tobacco? How many times can you tear your knee before you're locked out of skiing? How many bipasses can you have before you're locked out of ordering Big Macs? What's important is not that you're "locked out" IMO. What's important is that you are allowed access to unfettered information about the specific consequences to your health. What you do from there is your choice. But if you're not allowing the sum total of the information to be released to the end user, you're not really giving them the choice.
  4. Yes, I am. Yes, I have. I am very familiar with that journal and what it takes to go through the peer-review process. The problem was never with Omalu's paper -- the only problem is that his findings weren't what the NFL (or you, apparently) wanted to hear. So the paper expressed a specific threshold of brain trauma that a player must endure in order to bring about CTE - can you share this with us? How is that relevant to what the NFL did with the findings once they had them? Again, the content isn't the issue here. The issue is what the NFL did with it when they had it. Josh can, since he is familiar with medical journals, he can explain how often/frequently a paper will be discredited/refuted by another study if a doctor, school or organization does not agree with its methods or conclusions. It is std. modus operandi. Read and understand. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-doctor-the-nfl-tried-to-silence-1448399061
  5. Yes, I am. Yes, I have. I am very familiar with that journal and what it takes to go through the peer-review process. The problem was never with Omalu's paper -- the only problem is that his findings weren't what the NFL (or you, apparently) wanted to hear. So the paper expressed a specific threshold of brain trauma that a player must endure in order to bring about CTE - can you share this with us? How is that relevant to what the NFL did with the findings once they had them? Again, the content isn't the issue here. The issue is what the NFL did with it when they had it.
  6. I think any institution, when faced with medical evidence that has been verified, that working conditions contribute to a health detriment have an obligation to report that finding to their employees.Wouldn't you agree? I do not remember the NFL ever tellling its players it was safe to take the field. So employers are only obligated to report potential health concerns if they were otherwise considered safe? They are obligated to provide an environment that is as safe as possible, which in my opinion the NFL does. Well, I think it's fairly obvious to most everybody that in this instance, they didn't. They had an obligation to report Dr. Omalu's findings instead of trying to discredit them.
  7. I think any institution, when faced with medical evidence that has been verified, that working conditions contribute to a health detriment have an obligation to report that finding to their employees.Wouldn't you agree? I do not remember the NFL ever tellling its players it was safe to take the field. So employers are only obligated to report potential health concerns if they were otherwise considered safe?
  8. I think any institution, when faced with medical evidence that has been verified, that working conditions contribute to a health detriment have an obligation to report that finding to their employees. Wouldn't you agree?
  9. I wouldn't disagree with that. But this is an instance where the institution failed.
  10. @Clown...My end goal/dream?? To be able to enjoy watching a physical sport without anyone complaining in the background that it is now too dangerous. I think it's fairly obvious you understand that it was always a dangerous game. This is just a new potential danger that people may have had a vague understanding of that now has some more specificity. I think virtually anyone you find here on the Rotoworld Fantasy Football forum likes football, and has no interest in seeing football cease to be played or fundamentally altered. But I do think there are some people who still love football but don't condone the NFL trying to cover up facts about potential dangers to athletes. What the NFL does matters, to the NCAA, to high schools, to Pop Warner. And though I still love football, I think it's fairly obvious, they stepped in it here. I'd like to see them do better on these types of issues. Namely, just be honest, and address issues of player safety honestly. That's all.
  11. ...and to discover the rate of incidence, and to determine specifically what part of the brain are effected, and to analyze case studies to demonstrate what the specific results would be. These things are all important if you might potentially have it, and aren't just soapboxing.
  12. As far as I know, there weren't any high schools or parents who worked to discredit corroborated medical research which demonstrated a health risk to football players, nor the NCAA. If that happened, shame on them as well. Can't change the past, what is the NCAA doing for the health of its athletes going forward?...hoping they make it to the pros so they can escape mutual-culpability? You're right, you can't change the past. But what I would hope, moving forward, is that neither the NCAA nor the NFL, upon receiving verified medical evidence that their athletes are succeptible to actionable health risks, choose to try and sweep this information under the rug. You keep making this about pay outs. Frankly, I'm not a lawyer and I don't care about that. If a doctor found out tomorrow I had CTE I wouldn't be looking for a pay out. What I'm talking about is just acknowledging there is a problem.
  13. As far as I know, there weren't any high schools or parents who worked to discredit corroborated medical research which demonstrated a health risk to football players, nor the NCAA. If that happened, shame on them as well.
  14. From the NFL's point of view, going back to when Tags was commissioner:Assuming they have some nerds locked in a room crunching numbers regarding how many billions this will cost them... 1. What if we give the players healthcare for life, but the average lifespan increases to 120? 2. What if we delay the findings for 20 years and universal healthcare is enacted? Are we still on the hook for the same amount of damages? Healthcare for life? 3. What if we delay the findings for 30 years and a genetic component is revealed, then we can come out and say "The technology wasn't there before for us to understand this". 4. What if the full risk really isn't known? etc,etc. I'm not saying it's right, ideally a government would step in and bitchslap entities that try this sort of thing...but I can understand why they're not coming out and admitting to football being as bad as boxing for long term health. Right...I think this is a teachable moment for the league though. They should know, going forward, that if some serious doctors are coming to them with a general consensus that there's a health risk, and they should look to actionable methods for prevention, if their first instinct is, "less bury this sucker!" Not only is that morally reprehensible, but also in this age of social media, etc. SOMEONE is gonna find out about it, and then everyone will know.
  15. Wow! Talk about a red herring. Is it really that hard to say, "yeah the NFL messed up here?"