Vicki Price wrote:
 
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> I appreciate your comments. However, I don't think you can assess a 20 page
> study without reading it entirely. You've hastily formed an opinion based
> solely on viewing it peicemeal. The list of acknowledgements in the field of
> injury assement research is impressive. With publishers like The American
> Journal of Sports Medicine and the American Orthopaedic Society and
> co-contributors like Mayo Clinic, Stuart Ashare who writes for USA Hockey, La
> Prade, Marcotte, Meeuwisse and the list goes, the study is an important piece
> of injury evalution research.
>
> I detect a vacuum, but it's not coming from the study.
 
Sigh.  Let's try again.  The problem, for me at least, isn't necessarily with the
study.  It's with the way that the study has been presented.  If the question is
still, "Are players safer with full-shields or half-shields," then much of what
you've been saying about these studies is irrelevant.  Lists of how many games
are missed due to injury without any sort of breakdown of what the injuries are,
or how they happened, shed absolutely no light on this particular question.  I'm
not trying to assess the study completely and I'm not saying it's wrong.  All I'm
saying is that you haven't made any sort of case that it actually supports your
position on the issue at hand.  You have stated that the study by the Flames team
doctor supports the idea that the fll-shield is safer, but that study isn't the
one that you keep referring to for support.  What you do cite only backs up the
thesis tht a lot of people get hurt playing hockey, which I don't think is a
controversial position.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.