A Quote by Ken Dryden
The most obvious and easiest answer if you've got a head injury is a better helmet. The problem is there's no evidence that it is the answer. I've watched a couple equipment manufacturers make presentations. They're very slick. They're very well done. And they usually start with the same disclaimer: there is no evidence that helmets reduce the frequency of concussions. You come away going "isn't this amazing?" It's so amazing you forget the opening line, that it doesn't do anything. It has no impact on concussions.
Related Quotes
Concussions is one of these pack journalism issues, frankly. There's no increase in concussions. The number is relatively small. The problem is, it is a journalist issue.
The more studies that come out that talk about concussions and so forth, it makes me wonder. I wonder, more importantly than the stroke, the impact that concussions have had on my life, particularly as I get older.
Scarily, football helmets, which do a fine job of protecting against scalp laceration and skull fracture, do little to prevent concussions and may even exacerbate them, since even as the brain is rattling around inside the skull, the head is rattling around inside the helmet.
I had two concussions that were of major concern, what I would term very significant. As far as head injury goes, I would say all of the others were pretty minor and inconsequential.
I'm concerned about the future of football, because we have paid a lot of attention to concussions. We are more aware of concussions. But it's really the repetitive minor injuries, the ones that are asymptomatic that occur on almost every play of the game, the sub-concussive hits: that's the big problem for football.
The most important thing is to get better at your craft, and concussions and head impacts are a setback.
If you set your bar at 'amazing' it's awfully difficult to start. Your first paragraph, sketch, formula, sample or concept isn't going to be amazing. Your tenth one might not be either. Confronted with the gap between your vision of perfect and the reality of what you've created, the easiest path is no path. Shrug. Admit defeat. Hit delete. One more reason to follow someone else and wait for instructions. Of course, the only path to amazing runs directly through not-yet-amazing. But not-yet-amazing is a great place to start, because that's where you are.
You can prove almost anything with the evidence of a small enough segment of time. How often, in any search for truth, the answer of the minute is positive, the answer of the hour qualified, the answers of the year contradictory!
The only way you're gonna eliminate helmet-to-helmet contact is to take the helmets off. Go back to leather helmets. I mean, I think a defensive player would be much less inclined to lead with his head if he had no protection.
I was very struck by the fact that Colin Powell said he would produce evidence and then never produced it. Then Tony Blair produced a document of seventy paragraphs, but only the last nine referred to the World Trade Center, and they were not convincing. So we have a little problem here: If they're guilty, where is the evidence? And if we can't hear the evidence, why are we going to war?
One thing I'm not sure of - and it's a very open question - is whether the type of politics that I represent really has had its day or not. Now I obviously believe passionately it hasn't, that it's still the answer and not the problem, and, you know, the evidence points both ways.
History is obviously dependent on the evidence, and it's always amazing to me how much evidence there is.
I don't think any of us knew the dangers of repeated concussions or the fact that even when you got a concussion, the idea to go get treatment for it never entered our minds. We just didn't have - we weren't educated enough. We were really ignorant to it. I would get concussions in my early 20s racing, and it was a bit of a badge of honor.
I was very struck by the fact that Colin Powell said he would produce evidence of Osama bin Laden fault and then never produced it. Then Tony Blair produced a document of seventy paragraphs, but only the last nine referred to the World Trade Center, and they were not convincing. So we have a little problem here: If they're guilty, where is the evidence? And if we can't hear the evidence, why are we going to war?
There's an internal coherence and logic to what they get from [Rush] Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of these guys. And they sound very convincing, they're very self-confident, and they have an answer to everything - a crazy answer, but it's an answer. And it's our fault if that goes on. So one thing to be done is don't ridicule these people, join them, and talk about their real grievances and give them a sensible answer, like, "Take over your factories."
Yes, I think lots of people are eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But there's no evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction. There's been no evidence of him testing nuclear weapons.
We have people that are in our face with nuclear weapons. We've got Iran and North Korea. We've got a problem with Pakistan. You know, I don't know what to say about that.
There's a whole lot of people that are going nuclear. And I think that Saddam Hussein is actually, with the evidence, the least able to use nuclear weapons and the least obvious offender in that area at this moment.
Related Authors
Alexander Hamilton Quotes
American
Politician
Benjamin Franklin Quotes
American
Politician
Bernie Sanders Quotes
American
Politician
David Brooks Quotes
American
Politician
Hillary Clinton Quotes
American
Politician
Jill Stein Quotes
American
Politician
John F. Kerry Quotes
American
Politician
John McCain Quotes
American
Politician
Marco Rubio Quotes
American
Politician
Mitt Romney Quotes
American
Politician
Narendra Modi Quotes
Indian
Politician
Newt Gingrich Quotes
American
Politician
Paul Ryan Quotes
American
Politician
Rand Paul Quotes
American
Politician
Ron Paul Quotes
American
Politician
Ted Cruz Quotes
American
Politician