Bo Jackson injury....

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Bo Jackson injury....

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    I remember being in the stands at Sullivan Stadium in 1987 and watching Bo in Raiders uniform in pre-game warm-ups effortlessly gliding through the air catching passes. I never saw anyone so smooth in movement as Bo.

    The injury was a tragedy....

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I remember being in the stands at Sullivan Stadium in 1987 and watching Bo in Raiders uniform in pre-game warm-ups effortlessly gliding through the air catching passes. I never saw anyone so smooth in movement as Bo.

    The injury was a tragedy....

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Agree. Seemed like a really good guy too. He deserved better, which still begs the question: WHY?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    http://regressing.deadspin.com/could-modern-medicine-have-saved-bo-jacksons-career-1443105382" rel="nofollow">http://regressing.deadspin.com/could-modern-medicine-have-saved-bo-jacksons-career-1443105382

    Interesting read about this whole topic.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeddyBruski54. Show TeddyBruski54's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    Bo Jackson was the best part-time running back I've ever seen. He just didn't play that long or that much. Over 4 seasons he only played in 38 NFL games(515 carries for 2,782 yards rushing) splitting time with Marcus Allen but he averaged 5.4 yards a carry which is pretty solid. The thing I loved about him was a unique running style of power and speed, he had that ability to hit the big 90 yard play at any time or run you over for a TD. I wish he just played football because I loved watching him run and I think it could have prolonged his career.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    Freak injury that ended the career of one enormously talented athlete - damn shame.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    Bo Jackson and Earl Campbell were 2 freaks that combined speed with tremendous power. Both careers were way to short.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    Earl, as much as any running back ever did, shortened his own career with his running style.  The guy was a beast in his day but his body paid an horrendous price.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    Football and most professional sports are nasty games. It is all a game of "play now and pay later".

    The cost to ones joints alone is enormous even if there are no hits.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to freediro's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://regressing.deadspin.com/could-modern-medicine-have-saved-bo-jacksons-career-1443105382" rel="nofollow">http://regressing.deadspin.com/could-modern-medicine-have-saved-bo-jacksons-career-1443105382" rel="nofollow">http://regressing.deadspin.com/could-modern-medicine-have-saved-bo-jacksons-career-1443105382

    Interesting read about this whole topic.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Im sure it could have, but my question is, why didn't they do a stupid x-Ray on him that evening? That's the part I don't get.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from poopsteo. Show poopsteo's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

    [/QUOTE]

    Had a hip replacement at 28, used Bo as an example about my limitations. my doc from BIDMC gave me the real story,  the famous Dr. Andrews performed the initial Total hip replacement. Bo returned after months  of rehabilitation to play again for the royals. He ran on his toes for better speed but destroyed his hip within a year. To this date Bo has had 5 corrective surgeries on his hip. He's pretty much unable to walk due to his femur not able to carry any weight. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to poopsteo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

    [/QUOTE]

    Had a hip replacement at 28, used Bo as an example about my limitations. my doc from BIDMC gave me the real story,  the famous Dr. Andrews performed the initial Total hip replacement. Bo returned after months  of rehabilitation to play again for the royals. He ran on his toes for better speed but destroyed his hip within a year. To this date Bo has had 5 corrective surgeries on his hip. He's pretty much unable to walk due to his femur not able to carry any weight. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Almost everyone who comments on this seems to be missing my real point. The point isn't what happened after hip replacement became his only option, but why the severed artery issue was not looked into the very night he had the injury?! An x-Ray would have revealed it, it could have been repaired, and replacement might not have been necessary.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from poopsteo. Show poopsteo's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to poopsteo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

    [/QUOTE]

    Had a hip replacement at 28, used Bo as an example about my limitations. my doc from BIDMC gave me the real story,  the famous Dr. Andrews performed the initial Total hip replacement. Bo returned after months  of rehabilitation to play again for the royals. He ran on his toes for better speed but destroyed his hip within a year. To this date Bo has had 5 corrective surgeries on his hip. He's pretty much unable to walk due to his femur not able to carry any weight. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Almost everyone who comments on this seems to be missing my real point. The point isn't what happened after hip replacement became his only option, but why the severed artery issue was not looked into the very night he had the injury?! An x-Ray would have revealed it, it could have been repaired, and replacement might not have been necessary.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's called necrosis, don't think they can do much even with todays tech.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to poopsteo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to poopsteo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

    [/QUOTE]

    Had a hip replacement at 28, used Bo as an example about my limitations. my doc from BIDMC gave me the real story,  the famous Dr. Andrews performed the initial Total hip replacement. Bo returned after months  of rehabilitation to play again for the royals. He ran on his toes for better speed but destroyed his hip within a year. To this date Bo has had 5 corrective surgeries on his hip. He's pretty much unable to walk due to his femur not able to carry any weight. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Almost everyone who comments on this seems to be missing my real point. The point isn't what happened after hip replacement became his only option, but why the severed artery issue was not looked into the very night he had the injury?! An x-Ray would have revealed it, it could have been repaired, and replacement might not have been necessary.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's called necrosis, don't think they can do much even with todays tech.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Yes. Pumpsie-green from the Sox forum explained it as being similar to Mike Napoli's situation. He said the necrosis sets in with lack of blood flow, and that repairing the artery is difficult to impossible because it is small and, unlike other organs, it is not redundant--there is only one. In other words, once you get that kind of injury youre pretty much screwed. Although, with all the micro surgery nowadays, seems like repairing a small artery would be within reach. Maybe it wasn't in Bo's day.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    The ultimate Roid machine.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brady2Moss07. Show Brady2Moss07's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    It was a freak injury not something you typically don't look for. Yes, they had the technology to find it, likely a arterial study of sorts, but as I remember Bo's pain tolerance lead doctors to believe it was not serious

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The ultimate Roid machine.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    BS

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to Brady2Moss07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It was a freak injury not something you typically don't look for. Yes, they had the technology to find it, likely a arterial study of sorts, but as I remember Bo's pain tolerance lead doctors to believe it was not serious

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Yeah, that makes sense too. It took several factors all working together to make that happen.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The ultimate Roid machine.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    BS

    [/QUOTE]

    Come on Examiner, it was the 80's the height of the Roid era and this freaking guy had muscles where humans don't grow muscles.  Also explains the freakish body breakdown.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're underestimating just how far medical technology has progressed in 25 years.

    To offer a comparison...

    my daughter was born with Tetrology of Fallot (basically, 3+ heart defects). Had she been born in 1990, it's very likely she would not be here today. 1990 was around the time they were able to start trying to repair these tiny little broken hearts. (turns 5 in August, absolutely thriving and no future surgeries expected, but you just never know)

    The imaging, the knowledge and experience of what to look for simply weren't there. Even today, for all our advances...it's scary to think how limited we are with medical technology. Our recommended course of action with cancer is to flood the entire body with poison and radiation in the hopes that the cancer dies before everything else, and that's before simply hacking off the the diseased portion and hoping they got it all.

    It is a shame, from a sports fan perspective. Luckily for Bo, he was a pro athlete, and not some poor blue-collar worker who is now bed-ridden with healthcare that pays for the minimum.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're underestimating just how far medical technology has progressed in 25 years.

    To offer a comparison...

    my daughter was born with Tetrology of Fallot (basically, 3+ heart defects). Had she been born in 1990, it's very likely she would not be here today. 1990 was around the time they were able to start trying to repair these tiny little broken hearts. (turns 5 in August, absolutely thriving and no future surgeries expected, but you just never know)

    The imaging, the knowledge and experience of what to look for simply weren't there. Even today, for all our advances...it's scary to think how limited we are with medical technology. Our recommended course of action with cancer is to flood the entire body with poison and radiation in the hopes that the cancer dies before everything else, and that's before simply hacking off the the diseased portion and hoping they got it all.

    It is a shame, from a sports fan perspective. Luckily for Bo, he was a pro athlete, and not some poor blue-collar worker who is now bed-ridden with healthcare that pays for the minimum.

    [/QUOTE]

    Great post Dragon and so true about medical advances in the past couple decades. More to come in that field going forward and hopefully a cure or better ways to fight cancers.

    Heart warming story about your daughter and God bless her and your family.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone else seen the 30 For 30 special on Bo? I watched it today for the first time and had some questions. Supposedly the injury was that he dislocated his hip in such a way that it severed an artery, which led to cartilage death and deterioration in the joint because of loss of blood flow. My problem is, this issue wasn't exposed until spring training in 1991--three months after the injury! They said he tried to gut it out for a while, and went on with his normal routine, or at least tried to. But then in ST that March complained of hip pain, which led to an x-Ray and the subsequent discovery of the serious nature of his injury. My question is, why was an x-Ray not done immediately after the injury? Was that not done in 1991 or what? He actually severed an artery, and was bleeding internally and this was not looked into? I don't get it. His career might have been saved, and we might have gotten to see what Bo could have done. I think that's a real shame, but I'd like to know why he was just let go to his own devices so to speak, and not given immediate medical treatment? I don't get it, and it does make you scratch your head and wonder about some of the lawsuits ex-NFL players are bringing lately involving poor medical treatment, or bad medical advice from team doctors.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're underestimating just how far medical technology has progressed in 25 years.

    To offer a comparison...

    my daughter was born with Tetrology of Fallot (basically, 3+ heart defects). Had she been born in 1990, it's very likely she would not be here today. 1990 was around the time they were able to start trying to repair these tiny little broken hearts. (turns 5 in August, absolutely thriving and no future surgeries expected, but you just never know)

    The imaging, the knowledge and experience of what to look for simply weren't there. Even today, for all our advances...it's scary to think how limited we are with medical technology. Our recommended course of action with cancer is to flood the entire body with poison and radiation in the hopes that the cancer dies before everything else, and that's before simply hacking off the the diseased portion and hoping they got it all.

    It is a shame, from a sports fan perspective. Luckily for Bo, he was a pro athlete, and not some poor blue-collar worker who is now bed-ridden with healthcare that pays for the minimum.

    [/QUOTE]

    I've read - and I believe - they treat cancer like that because they really don't want a cure for it. The Cancer Society has been around since the 70's, it's a multi billion dollar research institution...it's big business. In all those years they have found no cure, but billions are paid into that industry, if they find a cure?? There goes their billion dollar machine. That's healthcare in a nutshell....treat the symptoms...not the disease. There's too much money being made to "cure" anything, and it's sad. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Bo Jackson injury....

    Great post mthurl. Like most charity's the National Cancer Society is 50% fluff and 50% scam.  I have never heard of any Lab funded by them that has provided anything in the way of treatment or advancement in the fight against cancer.  

    All the advancements are coming from big Pharma (Merck, Roche, BM-S) who get zero from the ACS.  The latest being Immunotherapy Drugs that aide our immune systems in attacking specific cancer cells.  Early results have been very promising.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share