Daniel J. Flynn |
...
The battle against football is not simply for safety but it mirrors a “wussification” of society as well as reflecting the lessons which we want to teach our children. So instead of giving football a proverbial pat on the back for instilling discipline, teamwork and the virtues of hard work, football is given a kick below the belt by pointing to questionable science to win their game.
There is no doubt that football is a physically demanding sport, which requires conditioning and practice. However, the mainstream media weltanschauung is colored by a perception that football is an American version of a gladiator sport. While there were periods in history, such as 1905 and 1968, where many mortal injuries on the playing field occurred, Flynn contends that rule changes and better equipment mitigate those serious casualties. So today anti-football fanatics concentrate on concussions.
...
Flynn’s "The War on Football" book debunks these simple conclusions as they are not bourne out by the facts. Cheerleaders are more at risk for concussions than football players, but which athlete embodies the fearsome warrior traits so disfavored by Cocktail Party elites?
Scientists can not find a causal effect between football and CTE. However hucksters selling safety are able to profit hawking equipment with dubious extra protection.
...
The pro-football settlement regarding concussions may have a ripple effect which could well diminish the lower levels of the sport. Some anti-football crusaders want to ban the sport to minors. This nanny state protection for the children, which would effectively kill football as the physicality of the sport make football a young person’s sport. In addition, the skills required for teamwork, precision and strategy takes time to develop to attain the athletic achievements that American football fans admire.
...
Flynn’s iconoclastic arguments against the junk science concerning concussions and football were compelling and often ignored by a sensationalist, liberal leaning mainstream media.
The tone of the book was fair but decidedly not objective. I appreciated the cynical asides peppered throughout the book questioning junk science or the tongue in cheek critique on litigators: “They don’t teach physics in law school.” Flynn had so won me over that I was rooting for a blowout at the end instead of the more restrained conclusion that: “Football is good for you. Play. Watch. Cheer.”
SEE MORE at DCBarroco.com
No comments:
Post a Comment