[News Roundup] Garbage Bag Day Thread

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

That's certainly a generous take

He was clearly not playing at a level that most fans would consider contributory to team success. And I'd really love to hear a doctor outright, in public, state that playing professional hockey on a broken/fractured fibula of any severity poses little/no risk of making the injury worse, there's hundreds of potential impact events in a game that could make it worse (Blocked shots, Slashes, Hits, the simple act of stopping or sharply changing direction), it's absurd.

Ya, the players always want to play, hockey culture has taught them from a young age that it's manly and heroic to do so, why are teams still allowing them? Imo, we'll be looking back on this kind of crap in 20 years much the way we do now about fighting and CTE

Are you a doctor? I’m not and don’t know anything about a broken fibula, so I’d hesitate to jump to any praise or criticism for how it was handled, outside of trusting that most doctors don’t publicly engage in malpractice and go against safe medical advice.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Groot

We have dozens of stories from players in the 60's, 70's and 80's and the effects of CTE, consistent fights, head hits etc. I would imagine there would be a similar history for players having negative longterm effects on their health as a result of playing through injury. Otherwise I doubt in 20 years we'll all of a sudden see a surge in negative health effects, causing us to look back on this 'crap' like CTE and related.

There's also plenty and more recently emergent stories about players who have chronic pain issues early into retirement and/or issues with opiate abuse/side effects from playing doped up while injured so frequently during their careers. I believe Ian White has been openly struggling with painkiller addiction, Ryan Kesler has spoken out about chronic stomach issues. The propensity for hockey players of all levels and ages for increased risk/severity of knee/hip/back issues later in life is already pretty well accepted I'd *like* to think.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not sure generous is the word.

So you're saying then ...

1) Team officials (medical and management) played him with the potential of it getting worse despite the fact he's a likely trade chip this summer. And ...
2) They are so clued out that they are letting said asset go to the Worlds and further diminish his asset value. And ...
3) Fans have a better handle on whether or not there are better options on an AHL team to play top pairing minutes in the NHL.

Ok ...

1. Yep, as has occurred with hundreds of players over the decades in professional sports
2. Yep, although it's a lot closer to fulfilling/exceeding the presumptive recovery timeline before WC even kicks off
3. I'm Sorry, is your intent to jump to the absolute most ridiculous form of your argument as means of dismissing my point? Why on earth would you take an AHL player and put them immediately on the top pairing? You can move guy up the lineup you realize?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Are you a doctor? I’m not and don’t know anything about a broken fibula, so I’d hesitate to jump to any praise or criticism for how it was handled, outside of trusting that most doctors don’t publicly engage in malpractice and go against safe medical advice.

Apparently fibulas are not weight bearing, so easier to play/work through, depending on the break. In fact, apparently some people don't even know they broke it - just that their leg, while still fully functional, hurts.

[Zevo]

User name definitely checks out...plenty of scorn for the flames.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Apparently fibulas are not weight bearing, so easier to play/work through, depending on the break. In fact, apparently some people don't even know they broke it - just that their leg, while still fully functional, hurts.

While not the *Primary weight bearing bone (That would be the Tibia), to say it doesn't bear any weight is demonstrably false, and the degree to which it does it variably dependent on the rotation of your ankle, to which it gives support

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

While not the *Primary weight bearing bone (That would be the Tibia), to say it doesn't bear any weight is demonstrably false, and the degree to which it does it variably dependent on the rotation of your ankle, to which it gives support

I merely use the phrase that medical sites use.

"The fibula is the third longest bone in your body. It isn’t weight-bearing, but it supports muscles, tendons and ligaments."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...bula-calf-bone

"The fibula is one of the two long bones in the leg, and, in contrast to the tibia, is a non-weight bearing bone in terms of the shaft."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556139/

Your fibula isn't weight-bearing (it doesn't support your body when you stand or move), so some people can walk with a fracture.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...ibula-fracture

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I merely use the phrase that medical sites use.

"The fibula is the third longest bone in your body. It isn’t weight-bearing, but it supports muscles, tendons and ligaments."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...bula-calf-bone

"The fibula is one of the two long bones in the leg, and, in contrast to the tibia, is a non-weight bearing bone in terms of the shaft."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556139/

Your fibula isn't weight-bearing (it doesn't support your body when you stand or move), so some people can walk with a fracture.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...ibula-fracture

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6705357/

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6705357/

OK, OK, it bears 6.4% of the weight.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

OK, OK, it bears 6.4% of the weight.

In "Neutral" position. Hockey is somewhat famous for not being a standing straight up sport

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

In "Neutral" position. Hockey is somewhat famous for not being a standing straight up sport

And less in some positions, more in others. Probably never more than 10% My radius is a weightbearing bone - in some positions.

The point is that it's not what doctors call a weight bearing bone, and for that reason players play on them a fair bit. And it's hardly worth being condescended to when I merely use the phrase physicians use.

[Groot]

What is even being argued about here? Athletes play through injuries. That's it. The athlete and qualified medical staff assess the injury and make a determination. Players miss time for injury all the time so it's not like they are just forcing all injuries out to play. It's almost as if each requires it's own prognosis.

I'll defer to them versus random message board user googling "fractured fibula" to complain about not shutting players down earlier based on whatever biased criteria they've concocted in their own mind.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And less in some positions, more in others. Probably never more than 10% My radius is a weightbearing bone - in some positions.

The point is that it's not what doctors call a weight bearing bone, and for that reason players play on them a fair bit. And it's hardly worth being condescended to when I merely use the phrase physicians use.

The only position it decreases in is Flexion, ie. pointing your toes down.

Sorry for being condescending, I assumed the blink emoji was a sarcastic inclusion

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Groot

What is even being argued about here? Athletes play through injuries. That's it. The athlete and qualified medical staff assess the injury and make a determination. Players miss time for injury all the time so it's not like they are just forcing all injuries out to play. It's almost as if each requires it's own prognosis.

I'll defer to them versus random message board user googling "fractured fibula" to complain about not shutting players down earlier based on whatever biased criteria they've concocted in their own mind.

"Athlete's play through injuries. that's it" - Kind of my entire grievance

You're more than welcome to defer to whomever you want, but you shouldn't be shocked to hear that some of us don't give unfettered deference to a Billon dollar industry with a storied history of putting the health of it's employees at risk for the sake of it's bottom line, and this most recent incident doesn't reflect any more favorably (for me at least) on the particular team that Monahan so expertly "hid" his incredibly obvious injuries from.

Edit: pretty sure this same board has almost unanimous support for the "Conspiracy" that teams have/continue to abuse LTIR to keep players out longer than they actually need to be to game the Salary Cap for the playoffs. So they're willing to lie to keep them out of the lineup but they'd never clear a player who shouldn't play because the player/team want them in the lineup?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And less in some positions, more in others. Probably never more than 10% My radius is a weightbearing bone - in some positions.

The point is that it's not what doctors call a weight bearing bone, and for that reason players play on them a fair bit. And it's hardly worth being condescended to when I merely use the phrase physicians use.

We need RFK, Jr. to chime in to put this debate to bed.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

"Athlete's play through injuries. that's it" - Kind of my entire grievance

You're more than welcome to defer to whomever you want, but you shouldn't be shocked to hear that some of us don't give unfettered deference to a Billon dollar industry with a storied history of putting the health of it's employees at risk for the sake of it's bottom line, and this most recent incident doesn't reflect any more favorably (for me at least) on the particular team that Monahan so expertly "hid" his incredibly obvious injuries from.

Edit: pretty sure this same board has almost unanimous support for the "Conspiracy" that teams have/continue to abuse LTIR to keep players out longer than they actually need to be to game the Salary Cap for the playoffs. So they're willing to lie to keep them out of the lineup but they'd never clear a player who shouldn't play because the player/team want them in the lineup?

So if Andersson wants to play and is fine with the risk to play then the team should override his wishes and force him to sit? Players play through injuries because they only have a limited window to make money. Like it or not but a player will get paid less if they are seen as injury prone.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Bonded

So if Andersson wants to play and is fine with the risk to play then the team should override his wishes and force him to sit? Players play through injuries because they only have a limited window to make money. Like it or not but a player will get paid less if they are seen as injury prone.

Yes, rather emphatically, I think we should all take our and our employee's health a lot more seriously, and that extends to everyday jobs. The culture of "working/playing" through serious injuries/pain (often with aid of opiates) will always be a toxic construct to me. As much as he's an adult, these guys are imprinted upon from an early age that they should grin and bear it and are often expected to do so by those around them, as most young men are. It's bull####

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

"Athlete's play through injuries. that's it" - Kind of my entire grievance

So what's the line to cross from a player being able to play versus being sidelined? Players get injured and miss time every year, so the notion that teams are forcing injured players to play against their wishes is patently false.

Why do you get to make the 'sit them for injury' criteria verus paid professionals?

It honestly seems like an aimless attempt to "white knight" player safety and show how more thoughtful you are, being concerned about player safety more than the heartless billion dollar organizations that constantly force their players to play injured, which again is not the case. The player has a lot of weight in that decision.

Keeping players out of the lineup with LTIR can help the team come playoffs. Forcing an injured player to play against their wishes is the exact opposite so that's a moot point.

Fans shouldn't decide when players are shelved for injuries, and their isn't some malicious corporation forcing players to play to the detriment of their longterm health, especially not even close to same manner as CTE and related needed to be addressed.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Groot

So what's the line to cross from a player being able to play versus being sidelined? Players get injured and miss time every year, so the notion that teams are forcing injured players to play against their wishes is patently false.

Why do you get to make the 'sit them for injury' criteria verus paid professionals?

It honestly seems like an aimless attempt to "white knight" player safety and show how more thoughtful you are, being concerned about player safety more than the heartless billion dollar organizations that constantly force their players to play injured, which again is not the case. The player has a lot of weight in that decision.

Keeping players out of the lineup with LTIR can help the team come playoffs. Forcing an injured player to play against their wishes is the exact opposite so that's a moot point.

Fans shouldn't decide when players are shelved for injuries, and their isn't some malicious corporation forcing players to play to the detriment of their longterm health, especially not even close to same manner as CTE and related needed to be addressed.

It's nebulous, but probably a lot further past the bar of "this guy can barely skate or shoot". Players do at times sit out for injury so therefore players never play injured at risk of further harm? Also, there was no claim anywhere that it was against the player's wishes, just against their long term interest.

I don't (if that weren't obvious), neither do you, but the people who *are* in charge aren't magically absolved of past and future failings by virtue of being professionally employed.

It's a message board, I have an opinion in contravention to your views. You're more than welcome to put me on ignore, nobody is white knighting for anything on an anonymous forum.

Again, most of these players want to play injured, they're not being forced to, they're being allowed to.

We don't, but there absolutely has been negligent, perhaps bordering on "malicious" treatment of players in Hockey and every other major sport. Doctors were more than well aware of the harms of Concussions in 2003 when Paul Kariya was cleared to go back on the ice after getting obliterated by Stevens, a team decision that continues to be romanticized to this day simply because he scored.

[Sylvanfan]

I think the Flames should use WebMD combined with Grok to decide if players can play or not.

[Ba'alzamon]

seems to me that if a player isn't well enough to participate in practices and morning skates, he probably shouldn't be playing games.