Talk:Health issues in American football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American football Portal This article is part of WikiProject American football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Health issues in American football article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Corrections 2 Read before reverting 3 You cannot be serious 4 Controversy 5 Injury and Death rate

[edit] Corrections

Since nutritional standards and weight-training technique were already quite advanced even in the 1960's" This is wrong, beside how would you define "quite advanced". in the 1960's people thought the sun healed diseases, that eating banana's made you strong and that smoking cigarettes helped you relax and sleep better with no negative side effects. in the last 5 years alone nutritional information has grown rapidly and weight-training "technique" however irrelevant to gaining mass in this sense was virtualy the same, weight training routines were not.

perhaps you should reasearch body building and body building nutrition, start with other wiki's then go to forums and websites. It's non factual, thats for sure, you're in disagreement but thats because you've been stubborn ever since i never met you, fix it or i'll delete it.

Also "Contemporary football players are larger than their predecessors of only 30 or 40 years ago. It is quite normal, for instance, for all the members of the offensive line of a major college or professional team to weigh more than 300 pounds (136 kg.), whereas in the 1960s linemen who weighed only 270 pounds were common."

"only" 30 or 40 years ago? firstly which is it, 30 or 40? secondly thats a very long time, do you have any idea what has happened since then? you do also realize that in the early 1990's children began hitting puberty at much younger ages, the suspect being anti-biotics fed to cows and it was not uncommon, for instance, for 9 year old males to masturbate and 11 year old girls to begin menstration and get pregnant, whereas 30 "or" 40 years ago the children would have taken several more years to develop. you emphasize 300+ like its huge, like it HAS to be steroids, like theres no other explanation but then say "only 270 pounds were common".. "only" 270 pounds? A mod needs to put a higher standard message on this page at the very least, I wont stop bitching until this article is written from a neutral point of view, representing only facts and none of your bias.

(sigh) one more go " Such drugs are widely available even to high school players" this has to be the absolute dumbest statement I have ever heard, incase you didn't know body building supplements (glutamine, creatine, amino acids, ect,ect) , pro-hormonces and phytonutrients are NOT steroids, synthetic anabolic steroids are about as easy to get in america as a fully automatic AK-47, possible? yes. widespread? what country, or world for that matter do you live in?

I pray for somebody with sense, logic and knowledge - preferably a mod as well to come and fix this. Mithotyn

I know this isn't directed at me, but Mithotyn, the general policy on wikipedia is that if you have something against a specific person's views on the article, you name that person when you talk about it (instead of that ridiculously vague "you" and "your"). Really, this rant of yours shouldn't be here at all, and should be on the "offending" user's talk page, but whatever. If you think there are still serious problems with the article, try improving it yourself instead of merely demanding that others do it. Please. Matt Yeager 04:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a handicap with scripting articles, a terrible one otherwise I would. I'll leave it alone but somebody needs to put up a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" or the "conform to higher standards" message or something on it (whichever is best) so OTHER people, perhaps more talented writers than me that are interested in the subject can recongize it and do what I cannot and re-write it. Mithotyn

Apparently nobody gives a shit about this article, I know your position on deletions matt but if somebody doesen't re-write this soon I will feel compelled to delete it, its supplying false and biased (mis)information to people that might regard this information as being true when it is only speculation written as if it were to state fact. misinformation is dangerous and doesen't belong on the internet, its nearly everything thats wrong with the internet and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Mithotyn

You edit talk pages just fine. You delete stuff just fine. What's the handicap? Matt Yeager 01:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Read before reverting

Heres afew links that prove nothing of my point but may help bring a better point of view regarding the topic to whoever wishes to re-write it.

My point of course being that this article should not be written from a point of view that beleives a majority of athletes who play American football take or have taken steroids, the percentage of players that do are and have been incredibly low, beleived to be less than 3%. The part of this article I deleted also stated an assumption/theory that players who are 40-50 pounds heavier at the offensive line position are so due to steroids, the article at that point leaving no sources or factual information, written as if the author beleived it and is trying to make others beleive it. This edit should not be reverted without being fixed or without me being proven wrong regarding the "non factual" statements or wrong regarding my beleif that the article does not represent a NPOV. If problems continue long enough, we'll probably have to RFC because it seems as if only two people are reading this discussion page and that includes me.

[[1]], [[2]], [[3]] [[4]]

Also I cant say I agree with the "Problems in football" section of the american football section, but just so we (the we is probably as ridiculous as the "you" but guess what? I don't know who i'm talking to) can try to get on the same page I will give a decent example of a statement I don't like and why. "Fans and critics actively debate the role of steroids in professional and amateur football."

• I have never been in a debate over the role of steroids in professional and/or amateur football nor have I ever known anyone who has, the only debate I've been in regarding steroids and football has been to the theory that some football players may use anabolic steroids. now baseball and body building, thats another story.

So with that statement, what are you trying to say? (whoever wrote it) it sounds as if you're stating that FANS and CRITICS actively debate the ROLE (circumstances regarding a teams win/loss record? wether a player makes "the cut" or not? what "role"?) of steroids in football. if re-worded it could be right but not with a high enough level of participants to be very relevant unless you are refering to the people, social groups and organazations that debate the topic of steroids and sport, the only relevant sport in this case being American football.

I found a second statement I cant agree with. "Deaths and long-term disability attributed to illegal use of anabolic steroids have become a new factor in this picture, starting in about the 1990s."

• Are there any sources that can verify this? testimonials from steroid injured football players? what deaths and when and how was the investigation conducted to "attribute" the use of steroids to either the deaths or long term injuries? what social faction beleives this, because currently it is not popular opinion and there exists no factual evidence that i have seen to support that statement and should only exist as a opinion or in regards to that ever so elusive social faction that beleives it, or you could prove it - making it more than just a opinion by citing some credibal sources to support that statement. Mithotyn 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You cannot be serious

No. Just... no.

No freaking way.

There's no way to resolve it. Mithotyn wants to remove almost all references to steroids, and our anonymous friend wants to put them back in (with no matching note in the talk page). I'm stuck in the middle (and stuck in the unfortunate position of not caring nearly as much about this as you two do). There's absolutely no way to resolve this.

Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute, here we come. Matt Yeager 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind references to steroids on this page, I fully supported the article you wrote regarding the subject, although not fully complete with all the information it should have, it was a unbiased start. The previous article on the other hand, I shouldn't have to keep repeating this, is biased and not written from a NPOV, suggesting claims with no credibal sources and stating false/unproven information. Don't worry matt, It'll get taken care of. Mithotyn 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: I thought of that template before Matt - as well as afew others - it would do no good if he's not cooperating.

I just thought I should take each peice I don't agree with and state why.

• "Contemporary football players are larger than their predecessors of only 30 or 40 years ago. It is quite normal, for instance, for all the members of the offensive line of a major college or professional team to weigh more than 300 pounds (136 kg.), whereas in the 1960s linemen who weighed only 270 pounds were common."

Irrelevant

• "Since nutritional standards and weight-training technique were already quite advanced even in the 1960's"

False

• "Such drugs are widely available even to high school players"

False, Although Pytonutrients and pro-hormones, which can convert to testosterone in the body are legaly availiable to purchase at any health store, they are not drugs nor categorized as anabolic steroids.

• "However, it has recently emerged that new varieties of steroids are being developed in clandestine laboratories, which elude existing drug tests. Hence there is a kind of "arms race" between the scientists who develop new kinds of illegal steroids and those who develop tests to detect them."

Like the entire bulk of that section this is suggestive and would need to be re-written from a neutral point of view.

It's not the topic that I disagree with, its the (mis)information and suggestive attitude being supplied regarding it. Mithotyn 19:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

So many edits in one day. Anyhow I don't think this has as much to do with the article as it does 86.IP guy's disposition of me, I was arrogant, aggressive and very un-wikipedian like when I first objected to the article, and even later. I'm new here but thats no excuse I should have done my research regarding policy and conduct before-hand and even now I still have quite abit to learn - or get out of the habbit of doing.

Steroids and sport is always a controversial subject because theres too many POV's that have to be considered and too many of them are arguable, therefor that particular section, I beleive should consist of nothing but fact, otherwise there will never be any benefit for somebody who writes a long and well researched article if people keep slamming their opinions or perspectives of the topic in there. I told you I had a handicap scripting articles, what I meant is that i'm not a hypocrite and I truly beleive, because of the controversial nature of the topic that the article must be written from a neutral point of view representing only facts and including sources to verify those facts. I cannot do that, because I am biased on the subject and might inadvertently add some suggestiveness myself. For now as a start your contribution, Matt, to it is great and until somebody can make it even better I will protect it from the 86.IP guy. It seems we also have a NPOV observer considering he doesen't have any contribs to anything sports or steroid related, He reverted the 86.IP guy's last edit. I dunno if he'll ever be back but we can always RfC So don't worry about it Matt and don't get discouraged. Mithotyn 00:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright. After looking this over, I've come to agree with your point. Wholesale deletion is rarely a good idea, but I think I finally agree with what you're saying, or at least am willing to let it go. I think you're right here. If we could get our anonymous friend to drop a line here to try and explain himself... well, that would just be too easy and wonderful, wouldn't it? Matt Yeager 06:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Injury and Death rate

I'm concerned at the contention in the article that American Football has seen a higher injury and death rate than any other major American professional sport.

Since 1931, 1002 people have died directly from the sport^[1]. In addition, the death rate per 100,000 participants is relaively low. I am not sure how this compares to other sports, but at this time the statement is conjecture. Someone has added the citation needed comment - but my feeling is that it should be removed altogether until the statement can be validated. Londonblitz 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)