• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

General Concussion thread

I wouldn't be surprised if the revelation of widespread brain deterioration in pro rugby players makes George North retire on the spot. He is surely compounding his issues with every single game he plays?
He's been advised to on several occasions
 
I was seeing the same specialist that he was. He was in the same clinic at a time when I didn't think he had suffered a knock recently. It made me think that head knocks happen in training as well as games so there may be even more. Then again, could easily be a standard check up.
 
He's been advised to on several occasions
Who's responsible for ensuring that he follows medical advice? If this is public knowledge, surely his employers know that he's playing against medical advice and should be taking the decision out of his hands.
 
He's been advised to on several occasions
The rugby authorities should take this out of a player's hands. If they meet X criteria then they are retired by World Rugby / local union. End of.

All kinds of other professions have fit and proper requirements to be able to practice. In rugby the fit would be literal.

Possibly a legal minefield at first, but no-one could argue with the principle.

Reading that each legal claim could be in excess of £1m.

And while this is all about the pro game let's not forget the amateurs.
 
Precedent in other sports suggests settlement too, right?

Seems like by far the most likely outcome.
 
Woman who believes her son was killed by rugby


Interview with Dan Vickerman's mum in the Times today stating her belief he committed suicide due suffering from CTE.

44C54F27-2948-4CB3-AF8F-2B699C74159C.jpeg
 
First mentioned 4 years ago: https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/george-norths-concussion.38580/#post-870862
Brilliant that it's such a high specificity; if it's equally sensitive; then that'll be a real game-changer for management; though DNA testing (and time to create the biomarkers) is unlikely to ever reach pitch-side.

I'll be very interested to see the actual research (As far as I can tell, it's not been published yet)

ETA: Found it; just not listed on Pubmed yet: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/09/bjsports-2020-103274

ETA: It's RNA testing, not DNA; which I think makes things comparatively easier / cheaper.
Gives good results in the post-game (undefined time post-injury event) and 36-48 hours post-game; so potentially (very) useful at the amateur level for collecting saliva before leaving the club.
Short-term (after more research and validation), I don't see this replacing current pitchside HIAs; or being particularly useful for elite sport. However, if this can be made validated with larger trial size, and get the costs down; then this will make a HUGE difference at amateur level.
Longer-term: It would be great if we can get some more accurate time-frames on sample collection, and even a pre-match base-line for each individual; combine that with much quicker sample testing, and it MIGHT get down to being useable pitch-side; as another part of the HIA
 
Last edited:
The other thing we really need from this is information on the biomarkers returning to normal.
Clinically speaking, the really tough bit, and the bit that REALLY needs improving, is the return to play protocols.
We're using the best we've got; but it basically amounts to "try doing stuff, and if you shouldn't have, then we'll find out afterwards".
If these biomarkers returning to normal can be used to judge improvement instead; then that'd be brilliant.
 
F1.large.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top