CORRECTION:
In my post below, I was wrong when I said the reporter did not talk to the author of the study, and wrong again when I said he did not explain it was a telephone survey. I missed several important grafs.
I continue to think that the Times overplayed the story, but that’s a tough argument to make while acknowledging that I was wrong on some of the facts.
I have corrected the errors below.
My apologies to the Times, to Alan Schwarz, and to readers, all of whom deserved better.
———-
When a front-page story in The New York Times comes under fire from an institution it criticizes, we know what side we’re on: We applaud the Times for drawing blood.
On Wednesday, Alan Schwarz, a Times sportswriter, described a report finding that “Alzheimer’s disease or similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league’s former players vastly more often than in the national population.” In men 30-49, the rate of these disorders was “19 times the normal rate.”
The NFL was predictably dismissive.
An NFL spokesman, Greg Aiello, said the study wasn’t conclusive because the NFL subjects were not evaluated, and he noted that the study was subject to “the shortcomings of telephone surveys.”
Here’s the twist: Aiello is right.
No players were examined. None was given a formal diagnosis. There was no control group.
Schwarz quoted several experts who said the report is important. And he noted that the findings are consistent with previous research done at the University of North Carolina.
He also said that the findings “could ring loud at the youth and college levels.” If that’s true, it will be because the Times put this on the front page, not because the findings are conclusive enough to demand changes in youth football programs.
Malcolm Ritter at the AP took a different approach, writing that retired NFL players “may” have an increased rate of Alzheimer’s disease, according to “a preliminary study.” In the second graf, he reported that “the work was not definitive but that it fit in with other studies suggesting a long-term risk from head injuries in sports.”
The Times story was amplified in a brief pickup by USA Today. ESPN also picked up the Times story.
The Times had a legitimate scoop here. Unfortunately, quality control was lacking. The paper was careless in its description of the findings–especially their limitations.
Update: This morning (Thursday), Schwarz follows up with a reax story on the front of the sports section. He says the study could intensify debate over the health–and medical coverage–of former NFL players. With this story, the Times, in my view, continues to over-state the importance of the findings.
– Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply