Club doctors out, league doctors in

Rogue club doctors, medics, and self-proclaimed sports scientists have done the reputation of our favourite sports and their medical programs irreparable damage.

Player health is being toyed with, not just in regards to drugs and strange fluids being injected but also the lack of responsibility in managing concussion and other injuries.

Even before the completion of the ASADA investigation, Essendon and Cronulla look to have undertaken some medical practices that can at best be described as suspicious.

Roar Guru Kurt Sorensen pointed to the example of South Sydney’s Dave Tyrell, who continued playing while obviously suffering after a head-on collision, in his article about attitudes towards concussion.

In the Carlton versus Collingwood blockbuster on the weekend, ruckmen Daren Jolly was allowed to go back on the ground despite already suffering an injury to the rib cage area and looking whiter than all the stripes on his jumper.

The only solution is that the respective leagues must take over the employment of club medical staff and make them league staff.

The clubs have been irresponsible, be it through bad intentions or pure naivety, for too long.

The league will be responsible for providing the clubs medical needs, with the aims of ensuring the health of players.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the league is now employing club doctors.

Doing this will have numerous benefits, including:

– Taking club bias or pressure from club staff out of the decision making process when doctors have to make decisions in regards to injury. The focus will be on player welfare.

– Possibility to rotate doctors through clubs so they do not have time to assimilate and conform to club wishes.

– Possibility to train doctors in drug testing

– Centralised education of doctors, so ignorance will no longer be an excuse.

– Allows more scrutiny from leagues in regard to club medical practices.

– Alleviates employment of suspect characters by clubs.

– If it’s one doctor per team on match day, two doctors can confer to make a decision on player health.

There could, of course be drawbacks, including

– The reduction of doctor’s knowledge of individual players and their personal situation.

– Players could be less willing to come forth with injury problems.

– Doctors will have a far greater influence on decisions, and, in turn, be greater targets for pressure or corruption.

– Influence of doctors bias towards clubs.

– Patient confidence will be a breaking point. For example, if a club suddenly knows what shape an opposition player is in, and use that information, doctors will be under scrutiny.

There have already been some examples that this is the way forward.

The NRL doctors united and had a huge influence in ridding rugby league of the shoulder charge. The AFL is offering a fellowship to train club doctors, and rugby union has an independent doctor at every game who makes the final ruling on players.

Having doctors employed by leagues may not be the most popular move, and can perhaps be seen to take away club autonomy. However, it is also one less employee a club has to pay.

If done properly, and in the right spirit, moving towards a league-run medical program could be relatively pain-free.

With ASADA investigations and associated revelations now part of the sporting landscape, a bit of pain-free change may just be what the doctor ordered.