by Declan Jordan
Recently David Butler wrote about the economics of doping and referred to the freedom of choice as one of the arguments for allowing athletes use performance enhancing drugs (while presenting other arguments for and against). This means athletes should be allowed to weigh up the benefits and costs and make an informed decision. This would imply that sports bodies shouldn't regulate for performance enhancing drugs, allowing a 'free market' decide on the optimal level of drug use in sports. There are similar arguments used to oppose regulations in life outside of sport, in arguments on the use of graphic images on cigarette packages and the banning of large sugary drinks in New York.
These arguments for allowing athletes use performance enhancing drugs assume that they possess all of the knowledge to make an informed decision and that they possess sufficient power to resist doping where that is required by, for example a coach or the rest of their team. It is clear that sports bodies accept that regulation is necessary to protect athletes from undue pressure and/or from themselves. And yet in other situations these bodies seem very reluctant to regulate to protect players.
These arguments for allowing athletes use performance enhancing drugs assume that they possess all of the knowledge to make an informed decision and that they possess sufficient power to resist doping where that is required by, for example a coach or the rest of their team. It is clear that sports bodies accept that regulation is necessary to protect athletes from undue pressure and/or from themselves. And yet in other situations these bodies seem very reluctant to regulate to protect players.
Recently we heard about the first case of early onset dementia caused by playing rugby. This coincided with the International Rugby Board's (IRB) decision to continue with its concussion protocol that allows players leave the field for 5 minutes to assess concussion and then to return if they pass by answering certain questions. Rory Lamont, a former Scottish international, has claimed that players can cheat that test and are under pressure to play through concussion injuries. Brian O'Driscoll has been equally praised and criticised for carrying on playing while suspected of concussion, most notably against France last season.One of those who criticised him was his uncle Dr Barry O'Driscoll (also a former Irish international). He has advocated for a stronger regulation of concussion in rugby. He suggests that:
the advice of the World Conference on Concussion in Sport, which has unanimously recommended that there should be no return to play on the same day of a suspected concussion, should be the template on which rugby bases its approach.
The same Conference also recommends that a graded seven-day assessment should be undertaken after a concussion.
There is an inconsistency in the stance of the IRB which implements an anti-doping policy while at the same time refusing to regulate to protect players from coaches that may wish to keep their best players on the pitch (their decision horizon is much more short-term than a player's may be) and also to protect players from themselves.
As the players, the hits and the prizes get bigger in this sport it is likely that a crisis point will come and regulation will be forced on the IRB. Of course this is not just a rugby issue but affects all athletes in contact sports. Davy Fitzgerald, the Clare hurling manager, showed how the pressure on coaches and back room staff can lead to bad and potentially dangerous decisions being made in relation to concussion when he called for an independent doctor to assess suspected concussion. The GAA recently published welcome guidelines on managing concussion. It says that a player with a suspected concussion injury should not return to current game or training. It will be interesting to see whether this will be the case and Davy Fitzgerald seems to indicate that players and managers can't be trusted to call it. This is hardly surprising in light of the recent survey by the Gaelic Players Association (GPA) that revealed that 58% of intercounty players admitted to playing on in a game while concussed.
As the players, the hits and the prizes get bigger in this sport it is likely that a crisis point will come and regulation will be forced on the IRB. Of course this is not just a rugby issue but affects all athletes in contact sports. Davy Fitzgerald, the Clare hurling manager, showed how the pressure on coaches and back room staff can lead to bad and potentially dangerous decisions being made in relation to concussion when he called for an independent doctor to assess suspected concussion. The GAA recently published welcome guidelines on managing concussion. It says that a player with a suspected concussion injury should not return to current game or training. It will be interesting to see whether this will be the case and Davy Fitzgerald seems to indicate that players and managers can't be trusted to call it. This is hardly surprising in light of the recent survey by the Gaelic Players Association (GPA) that revealed that 58% of intercounty players admitted to playing on in a game while concussed.
There is a significant problem in sport where injuries to limbs, muscles and bones are given time to heal while brain injuries are not treated with the same gravity. This may be due to asymmetric information where athletes and coaches aren't aware of the implications and/or by asymmetry in the power structure between players and coaches/managers. Where these arise in an economic relationship there is often a response to regulate to protect the party with less information or less power. It is past time that appropriate regulation was introduced for concussion.
RSS Feed