BBC World Service on Enforcers and Medical Issues

[Doughnut]

Are ice hockey 'enforcers' the toughest guys in sport?

Documentary "The Toughest Guys on Ice" will be on BBC World Service on Thursday 19th Jan at 09:05

I think it'll be available as a podcast too.



The first half of the article basically explains to newbies what enforcers are and why the exist. The second half briefly discusses the long term medical issues they can suffer.

I still don't understand why few people seem to think of or be willing to discuss the possible link between doping in ice hockey and some of the long term medical issues, depressions, suicides etc.

[sambo79]

People will always pay money to watch two people fight each other. Boxing, Cage Fighting etc. No point banning it but if you don't want to be a goon then don't do it. Someone will always be prepared to be paid to fight people. You come from a trailer park and you have the opportunity to set up your life and your children's lives by fighting people each week? Thousands would jump at the chance. There are lots of guys that fight for nothing!

[Doughnut]

Jan 18, 2012 13:50:02 GMT sambo79 said:

People will always pay money to watch two people fight each other. Boxing, Cage Fighting etc. No point banning it but if you don't want to be a goon then don't do it. Someone will always be prepared to be paid to fight people. You come from a trailer park and you have the opportunity to set up your life and your children's lives by fighting people each week? Thousands would jump at the chance. There are lots of guys that fight for nothing!

Is that supposed to be a justification? Have you been paying too much attention to Don Cherry?

People want to watch it and people are prepared to do it so it must be OK whatever the consequences? You'd find people prepared to watch and do all sorts of things, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned.

[sambo79]

Nope. Not a justification as I don't think it needs me to justify it. A large part of the sport so don't like it then watch something else. Next they'll ban boxers from punching each other, or racing drivers from going too fast. In fact, while we're at it let's ban anything that could possibly in any way result in injury.

[Yotes]

Jan 18, 2012 14:04:05 GMT Doughnut said:

People want to watch it and people are prepared to do it so it must be OK whatever the consequences? You'd find people prepared to watch and do all sorts of things, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned.

So should they have banned Formula 1 when it was at its high fatality worst? Save the drivers from themselves?

I agree with Sambo, Thomson got a career out of being a fighter in the NHL, I doubt anyone had a gun to his head, he didn't have to sign a contract, could've got a 9 to 5 like the rest of us and watched it on TV. Also, as you alluded to earlier, he admits being a heavy drinker and drug user, could that not be affecting his current state of health, rather than punches received? Maybe other enforcers can deal with pressure better than he could?

Besides which, the role is being pushed out of the game anyway. How many teams run without one now? I'd also quite like to know how many ex-enforcers are doing just fine post hockey?

[lee]

its just typical of this stupid PC world...its quite alright for nations to go to war over stupid things like religion, putting innocent people in a position where they will be killed but fighting in hockey between two willing combatants is wrong and they should be protected from themsleves.... ridiculous!

if people are willing to do it, then let them get on with it. i for one am willing to watch it.

[Doughnut]

Jan 18, 2012 14:27:54 GMT Yotes said:

So should they have banned Formula 1 when it was at its high fatality worst? Save the drivers from themselves?

Who do you mean by "they"? Since F1 was at its high fatality worst all kinds of things have been banned in F1 in order to make it safer. Who suggested banning hockey? I personally haven't suggested banning anything, let alone hockey in its entirety.

Jan 18, 2012 14:27:54 GMT Yotes said:

I agree with Sambo, Thomson got a career out of being a fighter in the NHL, I doubt anyone had a gun to his head, he didn't have to sign a contract, could've got a 9 to 5 like the rest of us and watched it on TV. Also, as you alluded to earlier, he admits being a heavy drinker and drug user, could that not be affecting his current state of health, rather than punches received? Maybe other enforcers can deal with pressure better than he could?

I wasn't referring to recreational drugs. I was referring to performance enhancing drugs. They are officially banned in most sports, but most sports do little to nothing to enforce this ban and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of hockey players dope because the short term benefits are obvious and there's not much chance of getting caught. This doping point applies to all hockey players not just enforcers.

Jan 18, 2012 14:27:54 GMT Yotes said:

Besides which, the role is being pushed out of the game anyway. How many teams run without one now? I'd also quite like to know how many ex-enforcers are doing just fine post hockey?

I can't answer either of these questions. I'm not suggesting that they should ban fighting in hockey on the evidence that they currently have. I do think it's worth looking at in more depth though. The links to CTE seem very plausible and certainly worth further investigation.

I don't hold a strong view either way on banning fighting in hockey. I just think that the issues deserve more consideration than trotting out the Don Cherry line of: "people like watching it and people want to do it so it's fine".

[Yotes]

Jan 18, 2012 14:56:29 GMT Doughnut said:

Jan 18, 2012 14:27:54 GMT Yotes said:

So should they have banned Formula 1 when it was at its high fatality worst? Save the drivers from themselves?

Who do you mean by "they"? Since F1 was at its high fatality worst all kinds of things have been banned in F1 in order to make it safer. Who suggested banning hockey? I personally haven't suggested banning anything, let alone hockey in its entirety.

That slightly extreme example, because I know you love F1, was in response to "You'd find people prepared to watch and do all sorts of things, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned". Like driving some fairly ridiculous cars around some fairly ridiculous circuits back in the day. The point I was making was people should be able to balance risk with reward and make their own choices.

I'll admit that I, for whatever reason, love seeing the fights at a hockey game (I'm not a particularly violent chap, honest), so the idea of a ban (as Thomson advocates in the article) doesn't do much for me. Further, it annoys me when people who have made a living based on doing something then cry about it afterwards.

[jerome29]

Don't watch bums on you tune then Doughnut, see two tramps kick the hell out of each other for 10 dollars

[clancomet60]

Jan 18, 2012 12:14:47 GMT Doughnut said:

Are ice hockey 'enforcers' the toughest guys in

In a word no, it must be boxers. As I was famously told: you don't play at boxing. Every fight is one-on-one challenge and the nature of your training means that you become a prisoner of your own mind. But in this respect, I accept there are similarities between boxers and enforcers...

The role of enforcers has always interested me and I can see why they're used for psychological reasons. Not saying I always agree with their approach but sometimes it's what's needed to lift a team that just can't seem to get going. However, I can also see why their role might be stressful and could lead to problems with confidence etc. I mean, if you lose a few fights, fail to make the big hits etc your confidence could take a dive and the black clouds could follow. At whatever level, pro-sport is all about winning and club finances can depend on it.

I look at our own Kyle Bruce (is he an Enforcer - I actually don't think so) who has taken on Colt King in various leagues on various occasions and invariably lost; yet if asked to take him on again he would. Physically and in boxing terms, this fight wouldn't be sanctioned. In fairness to King, last time they fought he took care of business and didn't go for a few cheap shots when he was down. But I still respect Bruce for what he is doing for his team. I guess this is what makes the role of the Enforcer interesting. IMO of course.

Thanks for the link, will definitely listen to this.

[Doughnut]

Jan 18, 2012 15:18:53 GMT Yotes said:

The point I was making was people should be able to balance risk with reward and make their own choices.

If there was a group of people who wanted to watch other people having gun fights and were prepared to offer another group of people enough money to make them want to do it, do you think they should be allowed to balance the risk with reward and make their own choices?

I guess I could come up with more extreme examples. I guess the point is where do you draw the line?

Jan 18, 2012 15:18:53 GMT Yotes said:

I'll admit that I, for whatever reason, love seeing the fights at a hockey game (I'm not a particularly violent chap, honest), so the idea of a ban (as Thomson advocates in the article) doesn't do much for me.

Likewise. Having said that, I think there's enough evidence to justify more research into the long term effects and I'm currently open minded as to what the conclusions of that research should mean.

Jan 18, 2012 15:18:53 GMT Yotes said:

Further, it annoys me when people who have made a living based on doing something then cry about it afterwards.

Can people not change their minds with the benefit of hindsight? Especially if they (like the rest of us) are now more aware of the long term effects of what they chose to do? I'd rather that than people who dogmatically stick to their initial opinion regardless of what new evidence gets put in front of them.

[Yotes]

His heavy drinking and drug use would, you'd hope, have flagged to him that it perhaps wasn't for him. I'd have more time for a change of heart if he gave up the money to make a stand at the time. Maybe that's overly harsh, but I'd bet being an enforcer has given him a pretty decent life.

I can't argue with your new Gunslingers Superleague (although it does sound a bit like the Army), but even with that no one would be forced to participate, you'd still make your choice and take the consequence (and the benefits).

Anyway, I'll download the podcast and have a listen when it's available.

[cooperphil156]

There were two serious injuries lasy year in the NHL. The one quoted below many will have seen before.

"Chara Hit On Pacioretty Raises More Concerns Over Head Injuries -Ice Hockey at Suite 101.


Read more at Suite101: Chara Hit On Pacioretty Raises More Concerns Over Head Injuries | Suite101.com andyreed.suite101.com/chara-hit-on-pacioretty-raises-more-concerns-over-head-injuries-a360667#ixzz1jpN0pJAT
Chara's jarring hit and resultant lack of a serious penalty handed down by the league raises more questions than it does answers The seemingly calculated and punishing hit levied by 6'9" (in bare feet) Zdeno Chara of the Boston Bruins on Montreal Canadien Max Pacioretty went beyond the pale in terms of its necessity and, to an even greater degree, its sheer brutality.

The hit, which occurred on March 8, continues to elicit widespread criticism from fans, other NHL players, and most importantly as far as the league is concerned, its corporate sponsors. Air Canada, for example, issued a threat to pull its sponsorship unless stricter sanctions are implemented.

Pacioretty, who as a consequence of the hit suffered a severe concussion and a fractured vertebrae in his neck, will miss the rest of this season

Read more at Suite101: Chara Hit On Pacioretty Raises More Concerns Over Head Injuries | Suite101.com andyreed.suite101.com/chara-hit-on-pacioretty-raises-more-concerns-over-head-injuries-a360667#ixzz1jpMs3pgz"

This also followed another serious injury I think to the head as a result of fighting, which brought about an adverse reaction. (Unfortunately I did not keep the copy).
The sport treads a tightrope if incidents are either allowed to happen, or are almost actively encouraged.
Many do like to see fighting. I talked to someone the other day who would like to go to ice hockey, but was put off by the violence. We live in a litigious society and people need to tread warily.
Of course there were also the deaths of 3 former players including Belak where there no mysterious circumstances. I dont think that those are violence related. Sportsmen do seem to be vulnerable to these sort of deaths and it is not brought on solely as a result of playing ice hockey and has happened partiularly in cricket as in the case of David Bairstow.

[dp]

I just can't believe for a second that enforcers get hit more than, or are under as much psychological pressure as, a boxer.

An amateur rugby player playing at the weekend probably gets more knocks to the head.

[samjohnson345]

Hi guys, just wondered what channel is BBC World Service on sky? Is it on sky? Can anyone help?

[Doughnut]

Jan 18, 2012 19:27:48 GMT dp said:

I just can't believe for a second that enforcers get hit more than, or are under as much psychological pressure as, a boxer.

Firstly boxers wear gloves. Secondly the long term brain damage caused by boxing is fairly well accepted. Also I guess it would be impractical to ban punching to the head from boxing. The best the boxing authorities could realistically do is to make them all wear helmets. Which come to think of it could be a reasonable compromise for hockey fights (just a thought, I know it wouldn't be without its problems). Hockey would be a bit different without fighting, but it would still be hockey.

Jan 18, 2012 19:27:48 GMT dp said:

An amateur rugby player playing at the weekend probably gets more knocks to the head.

I wouldn't know. I'd guess they don't get as many powerful punches to the head, but then again I know rugby players are fond of the odd punch here and there when the ref is looking the other way.

In any case, I don't give much weight to the "that sport's worse so we don't need to worry about it" argument.

[ripleypanthergirl]

An interesting read if you have a few minutes:
sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=nc-3periods-crosby-concussions-power-rankings-010512

....especially about shoulder pads in the third section.

[fyfe]

This is on iplayer is anyone wants a watch

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00mwbks/Assignment_The_Toughest_Guys_On_Ice/

[oneillthegiant]

Firstly boxers wear gloves. Secondly the long term brain damage caused by boxing is fairly well accepted. Also I guess it would be impractical to ban punching to the head from boxing. The best the boxing authorities could realistically do is to make them all wear helmets. Which come to think of it could be a reasonable compromise for hockey fights (just a thought, I know it wouldn't be without its problems). Hockey would be a bit different without fighting, but it would still be hockey.

Wearing head guard in boxing would allow a guy to take far more blows to the head. Amateur boxing after the Olympics is scrapping the head guards from A.Boxing.

[cooperphil156]

The recording is very interesting. Barenuckle fighting is not even allowed in boxing, on safety grounds. Many medical specialists think that the impacts at ice hockey, mainly to the enforcers cause the CTE degenerative brain damage. Pro fighting experts suggest that until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it should remain. Surely it should be the other way round, particularly as the reported 1 on 4 or 5 causes concussion?
Another pro fighting experts suggests that a deliberate collision with the net minder ( I think Buffalos) would not have happened if an enforcer had been on the ice. Surely if the penalty for this is severe enough this would have happened anyway.
Lastly it was also denied that fighting was allowed. If there is no attempt to separate fighters and they have thrown their gloves off to provide an advanced warning, surely this is not correct.
As I said in a previous post the suicide argument could be harder to prove, but Thompson certainly indicates that at least he was under severe stress and this pushed him into drugs.
To ignore this type of warning would be foolhardy in the extreme.

[cooperphil156]

"Wearing head guard in boxing would allow a guy to take far more blows to the head. Amateur boxing after the Olympics is scrapping the head guards from A.Boxing".

Are we going to have time outs for people to don headgear or are they going to have them on all the time?

[Doughnut]

Jan 19, 2012 18:07:48 GMT cooperphil156 said:

"Wearing head guard in boxing would allow a guy to take far more blows to the head. Amateur boxing after the Olympics is scrapping the head guards from A.Boxing".

Are we going to have time outs for people to don headgear or are they going to have them on all the time?

They already wear headgear.

[cooperphil156]

The headgear is often jetissoned along with the gloves.

[ashtait14]

Jan 20, 2012 9:58:27 GMT cooperphil156 said:

The headgear is often jetissoned along with the gloves.

I think it is suggesting they don't 'jettison' them. That fights are conducted using the helmets for protection. Fight stops if they are removed etc.

[Zukiwskyfan]

Jan 20, 2012 10:19:37 GMT ashtait14 said:

Jan 20, 2012 9:58:27 GMT cooperphil156 said:

The headgear is often jetissoned along with the gloves.

I think it is suggesting they don't 'jettison' them. That fights are conducted using the helmets for protection. Fight stops if they are removed etc.

It doesn't work. Tried it in the OHL a couple of years back. It just makes hand injurys and the risk to linesman getting hurt alot higher.