Vote on local anaesthetic in football [Archive]

injuryupdate

30-07-2006, 08:27 PM

Graham Cornes - who son Chad recently suffered a punctured lung after playing a game with a painkilling injection in the rib - has called for local injections to be banned:

Sharp move to ban jabs, says Cornesy
By Graham Cornes

July 28, 2006 11:30pm

WHY is everyone pussy-footing around the issue of painkilling injections? The time has come for the AFL to ban them.

In an era when the employer has to have the best health interests of the employees at heart, it is beyond comprehension that responsible, eminent doctors will mask the pain of a player's injury or condition, to get him onto the ground.

If a player can't work through the pain of an injury or ignore it, he shouldn't be out there.

The AFL has to take this decision out of the clubs' and the players' hands.

Doctors know, deep down inside, that it's not good for the players' long-term health; coaches know, club officials know, but of course none of them will admit publicly that they could be doing long-term damage to a footballer.

The only ones who don't understand are the players, but in matters like this, they are, quite frankly, stupid.

I've watched my son Chad play this season with painkilling injections. He was crunched in round 11 against Hawthorn, and injured a collarbone and a couple of ribs.

He had the ribs jabbed the following week, and was able to play.

In round 13, however, before the match against Melbourne, he was also injected, but as soon as the game started, he knew something wasn't right, and as the quarter progressed he just couldn't breathe or run properly.

He also noticed a funny taste in his mouth. By half-time, he was incapacitated, and when they took him to hospital, they discovered his lung had been punctured.

Port's doctor, Peter Barnes, is a very good, highly experienced doctor, a very good man, and a confidante to these young players

He was extremely concerned with Chad's condition, and it would seem that in some manner, the painkilling injection contributed to the injury.

When I was coaching, I discouraged painkilling injections, but in fact, I just turned a blind eye.

I didn't want to know how many times those Crows players took the ground after being jabbed. If a painkilling injection was the difference between playing in a premiership, or missing out, most players would accept any permanent disability that could arise.

In fact, it would be interesting to survey players as to what sort of permanent disability they would be prepared to suffer if it meant they could play in an AFL premiership. I'm sure some would say they wouldn't care if they couldn't run again; some would sacrifice use of an arm, or a hand. Others would be happy to have hip or knee replacements before they were 40.

In matters like this, they need to be excluded from the debate.

At least it's been a sports medico, Dr John Orchard, who's put this issue on the public agenda.

But he's not calling for a ban on the injections, just a much better system of recording them.

Still, he must be concerned, because why else would you want a register of those injections - certainly not for clerical accuracy.

There are a thousand AFL horror stories about the after-effects of painkilling injections.

Some have been played out in the courts like that of former Carlton player, Adrian Whitehead, who claimed that despite the Carlton doctor assuring him he could play with painkilling injections in a foot, he further damaged it, which ended his career.

Carlton failed Whitehead miserably over this issue and succeeded in having his case thrown out of court on a technicality, then, through its president Ian Collins, complained how much the cost had hurt the club.

It would have been cheaper and more morally responsible to have paid him adequate compensation.

Most injury cases however, have no legal process, and the player suffers forever in silence.

The clubs will claim that the players are counselled on the dangers and the ramifications of the painkilling injections, but young AFL footballers don't want to know about after-effects and legal disclosure.

The one time I did stand firm against a player being injected was before the 1986 grand final when I was coaching Glenelg. But the player and the doctor defied me anyway.

Wayne Stringer had broken two bones in his right hand in the preliminary final.

He kept the injury to himself until Wednesday, but the hand was so swollen and disfigured that he just couldn't hide it.

I told him he could play in the grand final, only if he completed everything we threw at him at training on the Thursday night, and only if he could play without injections. (I had remembered that the worst game I had ever played had been one with a broken hand that had been injected). He agreed, survived training, was selected and played a great game, marking and spoiling strongly. But his hand was a mess, and despite subsequent surgery has never been the same.

He confessed some years later that he and the doctor had conspired. He would do it again tomorrow he says, despite the long-term effects.

An AFL club official told me recently that after one particular game the doctor had told him that "our medical room resembled a shooting gallery".

Surely it's not something clubs can be proud of? The win can't justify any means - or can it? In a world where image has become everything, we can't portray our great game in that manner.

Most importantly, it is just not right, maybe it is not even ethical, that doctors can send young men into such fiercely contested conflicts with the body's natural protective mechanism blocked.

Ban the needles.