COVERITLIVE.COM

2:31	Malcolm Gladwell - Hello everyone. The chat has begun!

2:32	[Comment From Darshan ] Violence has been a form of entertainment for a long time - going back to the the time of gladiators. Football is just a modified version of the gladiator fights. What do you have to say?

2:33

Malcolm Gladwell -

Well, if that's our standard of comparison, why do we still watch football? few of us would consider it morally acceptable to go to a gladiator fight, or a dog-fight. Many people I know have also turned on boxing. I would like to think our attitudes toward violent sports have evolved since Roman times.

2:33

[Comment From eugene ]
The dogs don't choose to participate in dog fights. Owners prey on the dog's loyalty to stage the fight. Football players choose to play football. Even after their careers end due to injury, whether by brain injury or otherwise, football players say they would do it all over again. Can you comment? Thanks.

2:35

Malcolm Gladwell - This is the most common response I've gotten to the piece. I guess I would say that I think consent is a red herring. First, the players currently playing didn't "consent" to getting dementia. We're just finding out about this problem now. In any case, our social obligation to reduce the risk of any endeavor is independent of the question of consent. When I get into a car, I freely consent to the risks associated with driving. But that doesn't relieve society of the obligation to make the roads as safe as possible.

2:36	[Comment From Scott ] To Darsham's point. The violence draws us in, but societal pressures work to reduce the actual violence, or as you article suggest the appearance of actual violence. What will football look like in 50 years? Lots of pads, less contact, smaller players?

2:38

Malcolm Gladwell - I have no idea. But I can't imagine that it will resemble anything like the football we play today. For one thing, once the players alter the collective bargaining agreement to allow for lawsuits against the league, the owners are going to pay attention to this issue in a hurry. If the game survives at all, I"m guessing radically changed line-play, no-contact practices, and perhaps pre-screening of potential players for genetic suceptibility to dementia.

2:39

[Comment From Dennis Van Staalduinen ]
Fights in Ice Hockey are of course an even more gladitorial (and controversial) example of modern bloodsport masked as normal mainstream athletic entertainment - to say nothing of wrestling, extreme fighting, etc. Isn't football at the tamer end of the spectrum?

2:40

Malcolm Gladwell - Good question. Well, hockey is different. What you have there is (I'm guessing) a higher risk of concussive brain trauma: that is, a greater number of really big hits to the head. But what hockey doesn't have is the incredible number of sub-concussive impacts that football has--and the research seems to suggest that the latter is as dangerous (or more dangerous) than the former. I can also see how the head could be taken out of play in hockey in a way that I can't quite see it taken out of play in football.

2:41	[Comment From Ginger ] Would football be safer if they added a dog to each team on both sides of the ball? Maybe stick a golden retriever in at wide receiver and a pitbull as a line backer in a 3-4 scheme.

Page 1 Next >