Reply With Quote
in' Canadians.
Not as bad as Pollocks though.
MMA still has a long way to go, before this crap stops i guess...
My medical brethren north of the border recently conducted a meeting with more than 250 participants, and they voted to solicit a ban on MMA in Canada.
Representatives from the Canadian Medical Association told the Associated Press that MMA puts fighters at risk of "severe head trauma and other injuries that could have lifelong effects." They say "unlike sports such as hockey and skiing, the intent of mixed martial arts is to incapacitate one's opponent."
With the utmost respect, I strongly disagree with the course that my esteemed Canadian colleagues have chosen.
My opposition to their stance is based upon a lack of corroborating medical evidence, inconsistency in assessment and appreciation of sports-related risks, and the inclusion personal preferences and sensibilities in the regulation of sports.
I agree that MMA does put the athletes at risk for serious head/brain trauma. Unfortunately at this time, medical science does not clearly or fully understand the short and/or long-term consequences of these traumatic brain injuries.
However, to date, there is not a single, credible, peer-reviewed medical article, study or trend which concludes or even strongly suggests that MMA is any more dangerous than many other activities currently enjoyed in Canada, including hockey, boxing, cheerleading, baseball, football, soccer, lacrosse and rugby.
In fact, professional bullriding is quite popular in Canada and – along with cheerleading – pose a risk of major injury that far exceeds that of modern MMA.
The medical profession is striving toward what is known as "evidence-based" medicine. We are no longer practicing based on anecdotes, personal experience or sporting preferences. MMA may well offend one's personal sensibilities, but for better or worse, the current medical evidence does not support a ban on MMA based upon an unacceptable incidence of major injury.
As physicians, we bear a tremendous responsibility, but regulating sports with respect to the assumed "intentions" of the participants is not part of the Hippocratic Oath.
Are the intentions of a professional boxer significantly different than those of a mixed martial artist? Therefore, I find it inconsistent that the CMA has chosen not to simultaneously address boxing. (Not that I think they should.)
Because it is the medical opinion of the Canadian Medical Association to solicit a ban of MMA, shouldn't it also seek to ban hockey? The evidence is clear and well do ented with respect to the incidence of hockey-related concussions – regardless of the perceived intentions of the players.
Are the brains and futures of the millions of youngsters playing hockey any less valuable or less worthy of protection than those participating in MMA?
http://mmajunkie.com/news/20421/medi...row-minded.mma
in' Canadians.
Not as bad as Pollocks though.
too much to read but them just based on the thread le
Ya, I know -- they're my least favorite fish. (trout being my favorite, of course)
/cough
George Saint-Pierre must be happy about that.
Bare-knuckle, no rules hockey fights are okay because they're not the intent of the sport, they're just part of the sport's history and culture.
There is definitely some heavy bias at work here.
At least they're semi-consistent - they've been calling for a ban for amateur and professional boxing since 2001.
This actually makes me respect their stance a little bit more. I just wonder if the Canadian Medical Association has taken a similar hardline stance on their country's favorite sport.At least they're semi-consistent - they've been calling for a ban for amateur and professional boxing since 2001
Canadian medias have been against the excessive violence in the NHL for the last few years.
The NHLPA and some coaches are hoping that the NHL will come up with measures that will put an end to this.
The problem is that Gary Bettman, the NHL commish, is trying hard to keep up with NBA, MLB, NFL in the U.S.A, as he knows that American sport fans like violence in sports.
Bettman doesnt give a about NHL player's health
Me too - I've been trying to find information about their stance on hockey. If they have the balls to attack the national pastime as well, then I can respect their position (while disagreeing).
This is true. A lot of old-timers (and current so-called 'tough guys') are agreeing with Bettman, though.
Not all of them though; I believe Chelios and Shanahan, and even McSorley have spoken up against it
And those who retired before the New NHL dont know what they are talking about
With the new rules (faster game) and improved nutrition and supplements (bigger stronger guys), they would have been destroyed today
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
