Bulldogs refuse to needle up

[Danny]

There was an interesting article in the round 22 edition of Big League worth a mention.

"We won't needle up", was written by Neil Cadigan and outlined the Bulldogs philosophy of not putting players on the park with pain killing injections.

Dr Hazzard (the bulldogs doctor) has only given one injection this year and that was for an AC joint injury (apparently no further damage could be done)........but other than that he firmly believes 'if you're not fit to play, your not fit to play with a needle'.


Grand Finals are his only other exception.

What do you reckon? They have the lowest injury rate by far this year!

[injuryupdate]

I read this article with great interest, and it is a pity that it wasn't one of the Big League articles put up on the NRL website, otherwise we would definitely link to it, as it is good to have an argument presented against the use of local anaesthetic.

However, I am sceptical of the "Bulldog philosophy" of not using needles for a number of reasons:

(1) Most importantly, it isn't an absolute. A/C joint injuries are quoted as an exception, as are Grand Finals. My view is that every local anaesthetic injection has risks and benefits and it is up to both the doctor and player (and maybe even coach) to weigh up the risks and benefits to decide whether to use them. The Bulldogs philosophy of being dead against the use of local anaesthetic apparently goes to water when it is a Grand Final or if it is the A/C joint (because this is such a common injury and a low risk area). This is a bit like a girl who says "I don't approve of girls sleeping around, and don't do it myself, except when the guy is really good looking or I'm on an overseas trip...." If the Bulldogs NEVER used local anaesthetic, then an attitude that they were somehow superior to other clubs might have a bit more spine to it, rather than an assertion that they use local less than other clubs, when no one knows how much it is getting used at the various 15 clubs.
(2) The use of local anaesthetic has risks and benefits for both the individual and the team. With respect to the team, if it can keep players on the park when the club is going through an injury crisis, and therefore allow the team to remain competitive, it can be unbelievably valuable. I'm not saying that the Bulldogs are the only team in the past or recent present to have rorted the salary cap, but we know for a fact that in recent years they have been proven to have been rorting the salary cap. In doing so they have been able to build up a lot more depth than many other teams in the competition. This depth hasn't really been eroded yet and won't until 2005 when some of the penalties really bite in. Yes, they have had a good run with injuries in 2004 which has helped. Let's wait to see whether the "Bulldog philosophy" holds up in 2005 or 2006 when they eventually go through the bad run of injuries that every club hits from time to time and they don't have stockpiled depth from past salary-cap excesses. Then there may be some greater pressure at the club to start using needles to get players back on the park.
(3) Use of local anaesthetic is often painted as something that is done to help the team at the expense of the individual. For certain injuries this is true if reckless risks are taken. However, individual benefit can be enormous. Michael Voss had a knee joint needled for the entire finals series for the Brisbane Lions last year (who apparently used 17 vials of local in the Grand Final), which is a highly highly risky place to use local anaesthetic, yet he has now become the first AFL three-peat Premiership captain for 50 years. Voss knows how much this was worth it (despite the certainty that he will have arthritis of the knee later in life) and he has led the call for Jana Pittman to get her knee needled up for the Olympics. Although this is a scenario that fits into the Bulldog list of exceptions as a Grand Final, what about the reserve grade player who gets told by his coach that he is 50/50 to be given another contract by his team the following year with one month still to play? Just say this player does a rib cartilage, does the doctor say "bad luck son, we don't use needles at this club in reserve grade, good luck finding another club/career, because you won't be able to play with that rib cartilage injury".
(4) With respect to the Bulldogs having a better record than other teams this year with injuries, yes they have certainly done well. However, they are one of the clubs that is very tight at releasing injuries to the media, so many of their injuries may not appear on websites such as this because they don't get as much publicity as media friendly clubs. Over the last five or ten years, who knows? No official stats are released by the NRL so we don't know if the Bulldogs do better than other clubs in this area (or whether they REALLY use local less than other clubs). In 2003 everything thought that Penrith had discovered the secret to preventing injuries as they had a charmed run, but in 2004, with more Origin commitments amongst other factors, they are now falling apart relative to last year. The Bulldogs have had a good run this year, didn't have too many players picked in rep sides, and perhaps will even win the comp if they make it to Grand Final day with a less injured side than their opponent on the day. When they get a lot more rep selections in 2005, maybe their run with injuries won't be as good.
(5) Despite what I believe is a touch of hypocrisy in the attitude of the Bulldogs (and maybe Neil Cadigan in the way he wrote the article is more responsible than the real attitude of the Bulldogs), they are dwarfed by the attitude of the international rugby union community, where local anaesthetic injections are officially illegal by still used by virtually all elite sides.

For more information on these injections, visit:
http://www.injuryupdate.com.au/issues/local_injections.php?menu=issues

and read the following review:
http://www.injuryupdate.com.au/images/research/SMlocalsafety.pdf

[injuryupdate]

Injuryupdate.com.au Forum users may be interested to read the comments of Roosters and Bulldogs supporters on this issue at the Roosters' Wall:

http://www.sydneyroosters.com.au/fans/thewall/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10655

[injuryupdate]

The commentators made an issue of the Bulldogs' needle policy in the Cowboys match on the weekend.

Braith Anasta sat on the sideline when he has a sternum injury and couldn't come back on. Although no comments were made by the Bulldogs during the game, the inference from the commentary team was that the Bulldogs wouldn't needle Anasta up for his return.

Even though this may have been the case, if he has a sternum injury they are very difficult to needle anyway.

[jess]

The Neil Cadigan article, which discusses the Bulldogs' policy of 'never' (actually revealed to be 'sometimes') needling players, strongly suggests this policy is the cause of the teams' low rate of injury.

In short, the article suggests the following syllogism:

1) Teams that do not use needles have low injury rates

2) The Bulldogs have a policy of never/very rarely using needles

3) Therefore, the Bulldogs have a low injury rate.


In my view, there are a number of issues/criticisms of this reasoning:

a) A number of other teams in the NRL have 'low' injury rates, yet use needles more often than 'just for grand finals'. Further, the definition of what consitutes a 'low' injury rate is not clear in the article - surely there would be examples from throughout the 2004 season where the Bulldogs had some injuries, even a small number, yet other teams using needles, had less or zero. Surely if these examples exist, then it cannot be stated unequivocally that the Bulldogs' policy on needles equates, and is causative of, a low injury rate.

b) There must clearly be a number of other very important factors present in determining a team's injury rates. Examples include weather, the condition of the ground, past injuries and their treatment, the 'difficulty' of the game, etc.

c) If needling is considered ok in important games such as the grand final, how is the line between an important and a non-important game to be drawn? If the grand final is important, then surely the qualifying final is also crucial. Restricting needles to the grand final only could potentially create a scenario whereby, in deciding not to needle a key player for the qualifying final, the team does not qualify for the grand final. Thus, applying such a policy would seem ridiculously circuitous.

d) If needling really is such a 'bad' practice for NRL teams, the NRL should produce a set of uniform policy guidelines on the issue. In the absence of this, unbalanced articles such as that by Cadigan stand to do more harm than good.


Thus, while it is certainly an issue worth considering, more evidence and counter-argument is needed in response to Cadigan's article.

[injuryupdate]

From our Front page:

Should the Bulldogs needle up Braith Anasta?

The Canterbury Bulldogs football club opened up debate on this question (for themselves) in advance about a month before the finals, when several of the Bulldogs' staff answered questions in an interview in Big League magazine. Some of the quotes from the article included, from Dr Hugh Hazard of the Bulldogs: "It is very very rare that I would consider giving needles, the only time I would consider it is for a Grand Final where the player has a long recovery coming up after the event". When the Channel Nine commentary team focussed on shots of Braith Anasta in the change rooms with an injured sternum, in the match against the Cowboys that the Bulldogs were losing, the discussion turned to the club's "no-needles" policy. It must have been tempting to try anything possible to get Anasta, who was iced up, back on to the field with the team in dire straights. However, despite the controversy, Andrew Johns who was one of the commentators made the very accurate observation that it was almost impossible to fully block the pain of a sternum injury even with an injection, from other players he had observed. Bulldogs coach Steve Folkes has ruled out injecting Anasta with pain-killers to get him on the paddock: "I think there's been two or three cases recently where guys have got punctured lungs through having pain killers in that area." he told AAP. Interestingly, one of those cases was Andrew Johns himself, who suffered a punctured lung on top of three broken ribs in the 1997 Preliminary Final, but came back to play a staring role in Newcastle's Grand Final win a week later. Almost all AFL teams admit to using local anaesthetics occasionally, and the Bulldogs are the only NRL team to say that they do not use them in most circumstances. Officially they are banned in rugby union, but indirect evidence suggests that teams almost certainly use 'needles' on the quiet in union and don't talk about it. Drugs testing for local anaesthetics is not done in rugby union in Australia so rugby union players are unlikely to ever be exposed in this fashion, and the practice will continue underground.

[Russo]

I think you guys are missing the point that Dr Hazard made in the article. He will only needle in GF's due to the long recovery time they have afterwards. Obviously if he needles in the prelim final are they going to be right for the GF??????

Also another point they made that has not been mentioned is the player gets slack during their rehab period knowing "i am going to get needled, no need to bother doing my exercises".

I have some intimate knowledge of the Bulldogs setup and it is a decision that Steve Folkes is behind, Albert Alonso the physio is behind it so there are no questions asked from them.