2016 NFL and CFB Season Discussion - Page 11

The National Football League was on the clock.

With several of its marquee players retiring early after a cascade of frightening concussions, the league formed a committee in 1994 that would ultimately issue a succession of research papers playing down the danger of head injuries. Amid criticism of the committee’s work, physicians brought in later to continue the research said the papers had relied on faulty analysis.

Now, an investigation by The New York Times has found that the N.F.L.’s concussion research was far more flawed than previously known.

For the last 13 years, the N.F.L. has stood by the research, which, the papers stated, was based on a full accounting of all concussions diagnosed by team physicians from 1996 through 2001. But confidential data obtained by The Times shows that more than 100 diagnosed concussions were omitted from the studies — including some severe injuries to stars like quarterbacks Steve Young and Troy Aikman. The committee then calculated the rates of concussions using the incomplete data, making them appear less frequent than they actually were.

After The Times asked the league about the missing diagnosed cases — more than 10 percent of the total — officials acknowledged that “the clubs were not required to submit their data and not every club did.” That should have been made clearer, the league said in a statement, adding that the missing cases were not part of an attempt “to alter or suppress the rate of concussions.”

One member of the concussion committee, Dr. Joseph Waeckerle, said he was unaware of the omissions. But he added: “If somebody made a human error or somebody assumed the data was absolutely correct and didn’t question it, well, we screwed up. If we found it wasn’t accurate and still used it, that’s not a screw-up; that’s a lie.”

These discoveries raise new questions about the validity of the committee’s findings, published in 13 peer-reviewed articles and held up by the league as scientific evidence that brain injuries did not cause long-term harm to its players. It is also unclear why the omissions went unchallenged by league officials, by the epidemiologist whose job it was to ensure accurate data collection and by the editor of the medical journal that published the studies.

In 2013, the N.F.L. agreed to a $765 million settlement of a lawsuit in which retired players accused league officials of covering up the risks of concussions. Some players have appealed the settlement, asking for an examination of the committee’s concussion research...

Today's New York Times story on the National Football League is contradicted by clear facts that refute both the thesis of the story and each of its allegations. As the Times itself states: "The Times has found no direct evidence that the league took its strategy from Big Tobacco." Despite that concession, the Times published pages of innuendo and speculation for a headline with no basis in fact.

The studies that are the focus of the Times' story used data collected between 1996-2001. They were necessarily preliminary and acknowledged that much more research was needed. Since that time, the NFL has been on the forefront of promoting and funding independent research on these complex issues. Further, the data from the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) Committee studies have not been used in any way by the current Head, Neck and Spine Committee in its research on player health and safety. All of the current policies relating to player medical care and the treatment of concussions have been carefully developed in conjunction with independent experts on our medical committees, the NFLPA, and leading bodies such as the CDC...

Hours after The New York Times published an article on Thursday that examined deep flaws in the N.F.L.’s early concussion research and the league’s ties to the tobacco industry, the league responded with a statement disputing various aspects of the article.

The statement said the article was “contradicted by clear facts” and that The Times “published pages of innuendo and speculation.”

Data obtained by The Times revealed that more than 100 diagnosed concussions were not included in the studies that formed the backbone of the league’s early stance on the issue. The research was held up by the league as evidence that brain injuries did not cause long-term problems for players.

■ The N.F.L. statement said, “The Times claims that the concussion studies funded in part by N.F.L. Charities purposely relied on faulty and incomplete concussion data.” Our article did not claim that.

■ The N.F.L. statement said, “The studies never claimed to be based on every concussion that was reported or that occurred.” The studies and peer-review statements did, in fact, claim that.

■ The N.F.L. statement said, “The story claims that the League relied on legal advice from Lorillard and the Tobacco Institute.” Our article did not claim that.

■ The N.F.L. statement said, “In fact, the league has never participated – either through its counsel of over 50 years, Covington & Burling, or otherwise – in any joint lobbying efforts with the Tobacco Institute.” Our article did not claim that.

■ The N.F.L. statement said, “Moreover, the fact that not all concussions were reported is consistent with the fact that reporting was strongly encouraged by the league but not mandated, as documents provided to The Times showed.” At least one of the papers said it was, in fact, mandated.

■ The N.F.L. statement said, “The Times insinuates that the N.F.L. hired Dorothy Mitchell, an associate at the law firm Covington & Burling, because of her experience in tobacco litigation.” Our article did not say how or why she was hired.

The National Football League is demanding The New York Times retract an article published last week about the league's research into concussions among pro football players.

In a letter that was sent to the Times' legal counsel Monday and obtained by POLITICO, an attorney for the NFL, Brad S. Karp, called the story "false and defamatory" and issued a "demand that the story immediately be retracted."

In a line that seemed to threaten the possibility of further legal action, he wrote: "We also request that the Times's reporters and editors who worked on this story preserve their notes, correspondence, emails, recordings and work papers and all other electronic and hard copy documents generated or received in connection with their work."

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay spoke for about 20 minutes to SportsBusiness Journal at the NFL owners’ annual meeting about player health and safety issues, and his remarks were strong. His bottom line: Players know there is risk in playing the game, not enough research exists to attack the NFL over brain injuries, and the league is doing everything it can to make the game safer.

Irsay mentioned bobsledding on several occasions as an example of another sport, like football, that involves a degree of danger.

Here are excerpts from the conversation.

■ “Look at it: When you get into Olympic bobsledding — I could sit down and name a dozen different sports — it has always been a known factor that you know you are going in there and you are taking a risk.”

■ “Obviously we are not going to go to a situation where we put players in almost balloon-like equipment, where it becomes a pillow fight, so to speak. We are trying to look at everything about the safety of the game without changing the game.”

■ “I believe this: that the game has always been a risk, you know, and the way certain people are. Look at it. You take an aspirin, I take an aspirin, it might give you extreme side effects of illness and your body … may reject it, where I would be fine. So there is so much we don’t know.”

■ “It is a tough sport. It is a contact sport. Again, whether it is bobsledding, rugby, what have you now: Any of those sports it takes a commitment [that] ‘I am all in here.’”

■ “One thing I have always felt strongly about, that [is] to say, ‘Oh, someone knew something and they didn’t tell way back in the ’60s or ’70s,’ that’s just not true. I was there. I know that’s a lie. You know no one knew anything. The only thing we know and always knew is when you strap on that helmet and go out on the field, boy you know you are taking a risk, but the reward is something. It’s worth it.”

■ “To try to tie football, like I said, to suicides or murders or what have you, I believe that is just so absurd as well and it is harmful to other diseases, harmful to things like … when you get into the use of steroids, when you get into substance abuse, you get into the illness of alcohol and addiction. It’s a shame that gets missed, because there [are] very deadly diseases there, for instance, like alcoholism and addiction. That gets pushed to the side and [a person] says, ‘Oh, no. Football.’ To me, that’s really absurd.”(Note: Irsay has publicly battled painkiller addiction.)

■ “Football is so popular, people know they can sell their story in a newspaper form or a rating on TV, so they use football because what they are more about is the business of, you know, selling newspapers or seeing commercial time on TV. I see it for what it is, man. I stand there and look at it as a grandfather and someone who has been around for 50 years and sure, part of it is frustrating, but everyone has their own self-motivating motive, and that just happens.”