Mike Machnik wrote:
>Again, I think that a discussion on equipment has not taken place
>because there is no piece of equipment (that I can think of) that
>would have helped here.  A flex collar would not have helped Travis at
>all.  The way I understand it, his injury occurred because he hit the
 
I don't know the name of the program, but Channel 2 (PBS) in Boston has a
late-night news show hosted by Margie Reedy, and I caught a few minutes
of the broadcast the other night.  They were discussing spinal-cord
injuries, hockey, and equipment.  They made reference to some study (or
studies) in Canada that concluded that these types of injuries were
extremely rare in the old days, when helmets were not worn, but have
become more frequent since helmets and other protection has been worn.
The speculation was that the equipment either gave players a sense of
invulnerability, so that they took less precautions, or that the helmets
themselves were involved in the injuries (possibly via faulty design or
construction.)  They mentioned several law suits that have been filed
against equipment manufacturers, a common occurence for all athletic
equipment companies these days.
 
I'm not sure I agree with any of that, but it provided some food for
thought.  It seems similar to the argument that the use of face-shields
and other gear has led to higher stick play and more cuts, etc.  I'm
not convinced.  In any case, I don't think this speculation would apply
to Travis Roy's injury, which seemed to be more compression than a
lateral blow.
 
I join all the other HOCKEY-L'ers in their words of sympathy for Travis
and his family, and hope for the best.
---------------                    ----------------------
Rick McAdoo                        [log in to unmask]
Read the FAQ!!!                    A patient BC fan.  GO EAGLES!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.