Congressional investigators have concluded in a new report that at least a half-dozen top NFL health officials "waged an improper, behind-the-scenes campaign last year to influence a major U.S. government research study on football and brain disease," according to Fainaru & Fainaru-Wada of ESPN.com. The report describes how the NFL pressured the National Institutes of Health to strip the $16M project from a prominent Boston Univ. researcher and "tried to redirect the money to members of the league's committee on brain injuries." The study was to have been funded out of a $30M "'unrestricted gift' the NFL gave the NIH" in '12. The report shows that after the NIH "rebuffed the NFL's campaign to remove Robert Stern, an expert in neurodegenerative disease who has criticized the league, the NFL backed out of a signed agreement to pay for the study." Democratic members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce launched the investigation in December after a report the NFL "backed out of the seven-year study." The report states that NFL Committee on Brain Injuries Chair Dr. Richard Ellenbogen "was one of the league's 'primary advocates' opposing Stern, even though Ellenbogen had applied for the same grant and stood to benefit personally." After an NIH review panel upheld the award to Stern, the NFL sought to funnel the $16M "to another project that would involve members of the league's brain injury committee." The plan would have "allowed the NFL researchers to avoid the NIH's rigorous peer-review process." League officials in emails and phone calls said that they "believed Stern was biased and his selection marred by a conflict of interest because a grant reviewer had previously appeared on a scientific paper with one of Stern's colleagues." The NIH ruled that the allegations "were unfounded." NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders & Stroke Dir Walter Koroshetz "described the NFL's campaign as unprecedented, telling investigators he 'was aware of no other instance' in which a private donor attempted to intervene in the NIH grant selection process" (ESPN.com, 5/23).
WHAT'S UP, DOC? Ellenbogen said that he had two conversations with Koroshetz, which were "about Ellenbogen’s belief in the need for a longitudinal study on the effects of concussion and he never told Koroshetz" not to give a $16M grant to researchers at BU instead. Ellenbogen: "I never talked to Congress. No one ever asked me my opinion. I had two private conversations with Walter, and this is a lesson I guess: Big Government can crush you if you disagree with them. I’m trying to protect the kids" (USA TODAY, 5/24). Ellenbogen yesterday repeatedly said that he "has no qualms with the Boston University group and simply argued for a different type of study that tracks the impact concussions have over many years." He said, "I expressed my opinion as an American, not anything to do with the NFL. I told him that I talk to parents every day and I need to be able to answer their questions. We need a longitudinal study" (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 5/23).
MATTER OF TRUST: In N.Y., John Branch writes the report marks the "latest in a long history of instances in which the NFL has been found to mismanage concussion research, dating to the league’s first exploration of the crisis when it used deeply flawed data to produce a series of studies" (N.Y. TIMES, 5/24). In L.A., Michael Hiltzik writes the NIH "seems to have discovered what communities across the land already know: The National Football League is an untrustworthy partner." This episode "underscores the perils that arise when government agencies solicit and accept private donations for projects that should be publicly funded" (L.A. TIMES, 5/24). Viceland's Selema Masekela said, “I can’t trust anything the NFL has to say. The mere fact that they used the term ‘influence,’ I mean this is shameful. We’re talking about people’s lives.” ESPN’s Marcellus Wiley: “Expected behavior from the NFL bullies. It’s unfortunate, too, because I’ve seen this process as a player and as a retiree. The NFL disputes every single claim, every single injury” ("SportsNation," ESPN, 5/23). ESPN's Herm Edwards: "The perception has been for a long time that the league doesn't have the intentions of the players in mind, or best intentions. When something like this happens, guess what? The perception becomes a reality, and that’s never good” ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 5/23).
NOT A GOOD LOOK: USA TODAY's Nancy Armour writes the NFL "cannot be trusted" on matters of health and safety, "particularly when it comes to the head trauma that has marginalized the lives of so many already." Armour: "Not to tell the truth and certainly not to do the right thing." The league "dodges and denies while hundreds of its former players deteriorate and current ones fear what their future holds." It "continues to pay lip service to the idea it cares about its players, past and present, and is committed to finding answers that will help limit the damage football causes." But what yesterday's report shows is that "protecting its image and interests trumps the NFL’s concern and commitment to the truth" (USA TODAY, 5/24). YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel wrote yesterday's report is a "massive embarrassment" to the NFL and a "blow to whatever credibility it still has" on the topic of head injuries. It also brings "another round of headlines that make everyone suspicious about football and brain injuries." If there is "a War on Football," Roger Goodell's NFL "keeps supplying it the ammo by acting in ways that prove the other side's worst fears, willingly playing the movie villain." Wetzel: "This is a disastrous leadership." The NFL's arrogance "made it believe it could gin up a study and get people to believe that repeatedly slamming your head against something isn't bad for you -- and assumed no other scientists would cry foul when it tried it." The tobacco industry "tried this too" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 5/23).
MOST FANS AREN'T CONCERNED: ESPN's Mike Greenberg said the "good news" for the NFL is that most fans do not care about the concussion situation. Greenberg: "Fans out there, I think, are a whole lot more concerned about whether Tom Brady is going to get to play the first four games of the season or not" ("Mike & Mike," ESPN Radio, 5/24). ESPN's Bomani Jones: "People aren’t going to stop watching football. They don't have to be so sociopathic about this because people have demonstrated over and over again, if you throw a football out there, it doesn't matter what level the football is, people will watch it" ("Highly Questionable," ESPN, 5/23).
OTHER BALLS IN THE AIR: In N.Y., Gary Myers writes Goodell should "call it even" with Patriots QB Tom Brady and "put an end to Deflategate and focus all his attention and the NFL's endless resources to find solutions to the concussion crisis." He should "save money on his lawyers’ immense hourly billing in the Brady fight and concentrate even more of his billionaire owners’ dollars on the best medical minds in the country to come up with ways to make the game safer." Myers: "One day head injuries will threaten the NFL’s existence" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 5/24). ESPN's Dan Le Batard said the concussion story "deserves more attention than that Deflategate story we keep giving attention" ("Highly Questionable," ESPN, 5/23). In Boston, Steve Buckley writes Deflategate "has nothing to do with integrity." Buckley: "If you want to talk about integrity ... then let's talk about the NFL and concussions." What the congressional investigation is suggesting is the NFL "wants to pick the people who get to choose the facts," and that is "scary" (BOSTON HERALD, 5/24).
ROGER'S PHILOSOPHY: SI.com's Doug Farrar wrote there is "no question that in a decade under Goodell’s stewardship, the NFL has raked in revenue from television, sponsorships and every other direction." But when it comes to "what he’s done for the advancement of the game as a thought leader, Goodell’s legacy is far cloudier." Goodell "desperately wants to uphold his self-styled reputation as the league’s ultimate authority." That is "an alarmingly short-sighted way to go about things, but that has been Goodell’s modus operandi throughout his decade as the sport’s commissioner, and in the end, that will be a large part of his legacy." Farrar: "We are left with an NFL in his image that with one hand spends outsized resources on ridiculous disciplinary exercises and with the other downplays the most fundamental quality of life issues the game presents to its players." Goodell's priorities are "at times violently out of whack" (SI.com, 5/23).
