|
Post by saywho on Jul 31, 2019 13:34:00 GMT -5
Interesting situation all around, though it was one-sided and much was left out. Kind of just reading people's comments without any skin in the game. However, what stands out is this: I thought she put it very well when she said that asking an athlete if they can continue after a concussion is like asking someone who is drunk if they are OK to drive. They are in no state to answer the question and will probably say "yes" when they are clearly impaired. That is why that decision cannot ever be left up to the athlete and should not be up to the coach. Not a great comparison. When that drunk person drives and hurts themselves and somebody else, the drunk person is at fault and usually end up in trouble. In this case, it's like you are saying it should be the reverse. Not trying to comment on what's right or wrong, but that comparison is actually pretty horrible. If it were a good comparison, then she is really saying she should be held accountable for making her own decision, just as a drunk person is (and should be). I mean, she obviously admits she was aware of what was going on. And that is not to say that it's not difficult to stop playing as an athlete. However, there is some accountability that has to happen for an athlete, as they do have to take care of themselves. That goes beyond just concussions. It starts with how much time and energy they put into the sport, what they eat and how well they condition, and how well they take care of themselves. It does not and should not fall solely on the other people around them. They are adults at this point in their lives and need to have some self accountability. ... Money and control are still the biggest factors, but some do legitimately care about athlete's well being. But, this attitude of shake it off, rub some dirt on it, toughen up, etc. has been pervasive and has finally started to get the attention it warrants. Add to that the fact that the understanding of concussions, post concussion, depression, etc. are all still very lightly understood and not always easy to identify. And, the players don't help the staff/trainers as much as they could (and should) due to their own competitiveness. ... I thought she put it very well when she said that asking an athlete if they can continue after a concussion is like asking someone who is drunk if they are OK to drive. They are in no state to answer the question and will probably say "yes" when they are clearly impaired. That is why that decision cannot ever be left up to the athlete and should not be up to the coach. It was also interesting hearing both Hodson and Garrick talk about their experiences playing for top ranked teams with coaches that had so little faith in anyone on their bench that they would rather play a hurt starter than go to the bench. Interesting to hear the impact of that both physically on the injured players as well as psychologically what it does to fracture the team. Coaches are under a lot of pressure to win and it is very hard because there is not an obvious line with most injuries at what point it is OK to push through and at what point you are endangering the athlete by keeping them in the game.
|
|
|
Post by babybokchoy on Jul 31, 2019 13:35:17 GMT -5
Wishing Hayley the best in her bright future ahead. She had a very promising future and I can only imagine all the great things she could've done for the program and the USA NT.
However, let's stick to the title of the thread "FUTURE FOR STANFORD?" I'm sure we will only get her side of the story due to the lawsuit and the inability of the program to speak out and respond.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 31, 2019 13:40:45 GMT -5
I thought she put it very well when she said that asking an athlete if they can continue after a concussion is like asking someone who is drunk if they are OK to drive. They are in no state to answer the question and will probably say "yes" when they are clearly impaired. The analogy is all well and good, but when then question is being asked, nobody knows if the athlete has a concussion or not... I don't have any data, but what percentage of balls to the head result in a concussion? 1% maybe? And then a lot of the current standards to diagnose are self-reported symptoms. Her stories of reporting symptoms to trainers (the following spring) and those being seemingly over-looked were the most troubling part of the interview to me.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jul 31, 2019 13:43:37 GMT -5
I am glad that Hailey seems to be doing well. Good for her and it is great that she has made the transition in her life.
It isn't all together surprising to me that the Stanford coaches and trainers probably didn't have a lot of training in concussions. I have never heard of a concussion in volleyball although they must happen occasionally. I probably got hit in the head/face hundreds of times. No big deal. Probably something that Stanford can and I am sure will improve.
Given that Hailey and a bunch of highly trained doctors had a very hard time diagnosing her issue, I am a bit confused about why she thinks coaches / trainers should have been able to figure it out.
Similarly, I think to position that drill as clearly dangerous is a bit of hindsight. I am sure the staff had used that drill many times and never had an issue. No one ever felt that it wasn't safe or even expressed concerns. Now to position it as the coaches not caring just seems a bit unfair.
It is clear from the interview that Hailey didn't know what was going on with herself. Given that, I am sure her communication was uneven and confusing to coaches & teammates. That obviously isn't her fault, but at the same time she seems not to have a lot of sympathy for those around her. I have a lot of sympathy for Hailey but I think she needs to have some sympathy for others who were as confused about her situation as she was.
My bottom line is that I am not sure this ends any differently no matter who does what. Hailey's volleyball career was likely doomed from the start if she had this high a propensity to get concussions. Not matter what happened, the transition was going to be a painful process. I am glad that she has gotten the help she needs. I don't think every story needs a villain. My guess is over time she will come to the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Jul 31, 2019 15:19:06 GMT -5
Interesting situation all around, though it was one-sided and much was left out. Kind of just reading people's comments without any skin in the game. However, what stands out is this: I thought she put it very well when she said that asking an athlete if they can continue after a concussion is like asking someone who is drunk if they are OK to drive. They are in no state to answer the question and will probably say "yes" when they are clearly impaired. That is why that decision cannot ever be left up to the athlete and should not be up to the coach. Not a great comparison. When that drunk person drives and hurts themselves and somebody else, the drunk person is at fault and usually end up in trouble. In this case, it's like you are saying it should be the reverse. Not trying to comment on what's right or wrong, but that comparison is actually pretty horrible. If it were a good comparison, then she is really saying she should be held accountable for making her own decision, just as a drunk person is (and should be). I mean, she obviously admits she was aware of what was going on. And that is not to say that it's not difficult to stop playing as an athlete. However, there is some accountability that has to happen for an athlete, as they do have to take care of themselves. That goes beyond just concussions. It starts with how much time and energy they put into the sport, what they eat and how well they condition, and how well they take care of themselves. It does not and should not fall solely on the other people around them. They are adults at this point in their lives and need to have some self accountability. I thought she put it very well when she said that asking an athlete if they can continue after a concussion is like asking someone who is drunk if they are OK to drive. They are in no state to answer the question and will probably say "yes" when they are clearly impaired. That is why that decision cannot ever be left up to the athlete and should not be up to the coach. It was also interesting hearing both Hodson and Garrick talk about their experiences playing for top ranked teams with coaches that had so little faith in anyone on their bench that they would rather play a hurt starter than go to the bench. Interesting to hear the impact of that both physically on the injured players as well as psychologically what it does to fracture the team. Coaches are under a lot of pressure to win and it is very hard because there is not an obvious line with most injuries at what point it is OK to push through and at what point you are endangering the athlete by keeping them in the game. I think you're clouding the comparison by extrapolating a little too much. The point of the comparison is simply that neither person is capable of making the decision themselves. If you extend the area of responsibility, then you have to consider the whole activity. One is something you do on your own. The other is a supervised activity with trainers and coaches involved. I don't think Hodson is saying that "the reverse" is what should occur.
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Jul 31, 2019 15:29:27 GMT -5
The analogy is all well and good, but when then question is being asked, nobody knows if the athlete has a concussion or not... I don't have any data, but what percentage of balls to the head result in a concussion? 1% maybe? And then a lot of the current standards to diagnose are self-reported symptoms. Her stories of reporting symptoms to trainers (the following spring) and those being seemingly over-looked were the most troubling part of the interview to me. Correct that you presumably don't know if the athlete has a concussion, which is why it's important to do baseline tests beforehand and to have a third party (maybe trainer?) evaluate the athlete, not the coach asking the athlete. I'm not blaming Stanford for not having baselines and not handling it correctly, because I think that most programs were not handling it correctly back then and have the benefit of the this experience to learn from. My hope is that all programs can implement proper controls and protocols to hopefully prevent something like this from happening again in the future. I do wonder if there were meaningful discussions with USA/Stanford staff, prior to her concussions at Stanford, about her 2 concussions with USA and any implications of that.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 31, 2019 15:35:12 GMT -5
If Hodson's situation encourages the NCAA and the member schools to reevaluate how they deal with concussion protocols and the subsequent well being of the student athletes following such incidents, great, I'm sure that is only beneficial to everyone involved.
But wanting to see that outcome is completely different than Stanford (or the NCAA) being negligent and on the hook for damages based on the facts of what happened in this particular case (which we don't know).
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Jul 31, 2019 15:52:48 GMT -5
While I do think there’s a lot to be learned from this mishap for the future, I do agree with the poster who said maybe this is not the most appropriate thread and perhaps a new one should’ve been started once debate/argument started to happen or an existing one about the situation should’ve been used.... I guess we are accustomed to This thread containing all things Stanford lol
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Jul 31, 2019 15:58:53 GMT -5
Interesting situation all around, though it was one-sided and much was left out. Kind of just reading people's comments without any skin in the game. However, what stands out is this: I thought she put it very well when she said that asking an athlete if they can continue after a concussion is like asking someone who is drunk if they are OK to drive. They are in no state to answer the question and will probably say "yes" when they are clearly impaired. That is why that decision cannot ever be left up to the athlete and should not be up to the coach. Not a great comparison. When that drunk person drives and hurts themselves and somebody else, the drunk person is at fault and usually end up in trouble. In this case, it's like you are saying it should be the reverse. Not trying to comment on what's right or wrong, but that comparison is actually pretty horrible. If it were a good comparison, then she is really saying she should be held accountable for making her own decision, just as a drunk person is (and should be). I mean, she obviously admits she was aware of what was going on. And that is not to say that it's not difficult to stop playing as an athlete. However, there is some accountability that has to happen for an athlete, as they do have to take care of themselves. That goes beyond just concussions. It starts with how much time and energy they put into the sport, what they eat and how well they condition, and how well they take care of themselves. It does not and should not fall solely on the other people around them. They are adults at this point in their lives and need to have some self accountability. I think you're clouding the comparison by extrapolating a little too much. The point of the comparison is simply that neither person is capable of making the decision themselves. If you extend the area of responsibility, then you have to consider the whole activity. One is something you do on your own. The other is a supervised activity with trainers and coaches involved. I don't think Hodson is saying that "the reverse" is what should occur. I get what you are saying, I guess I just don't agree. There are many, many people who get drunk and don't drive. They've instilled it into their brain that this is unacceptable. There are also people who do drive, and there are potential consequences to that. I think that there are athletes that do the same (in both ways). So, ultimately, I guess I just don't like the comparison because it's like it's saying it's ok to make a bad choice bc my judgment is impaired. I just don't agree with that assertion. There are likely things that could have done differently by Stanford along the way. There are also likely things she could have put a stop to, and I am not really convinced that she realizes that yet. Perhaps she will later in life, and hopefully, it is a learning lesson for everybody that was involved. I think Hodson is an incredible person, and as evident in the podcast, she is extremely thoughtful and well spoken. That being said, I probably view this from a standpoint different from most. As somebody that was also at Stanford, was placed in a situation out of my control which resulted in depression, I now look back and realize that it was the first time in my life that I really, really struggled with things not being relatively easy (not meaning easy as in not working for it, but meaning things were easy if I put forth effort). And it left me with a lot of questions at the time, just as she expressed. It is now 20 years later (life is good now), and I look back and realize that it was very easy to put most the blame on other people because I didn't understand it at the time while in reality there are some things I could have done differently that would have also made for a better situation. Even listening to her podcast, there are a handful of things that I don't think she has fully taken the time to really step outside the situation and examine.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Jul 31, 2019 16:16:04 GMT -5
Should the title of this thread be changed to "Past for Stanford?"
|
|
|
Post by volleylbc on Jul 31, 2019 16:47:59 GMT -5
While I do think there’s a lot to be learned from this mishap for the future, I do agree with the poster who said maybe this is not the most appropriate thread and perhaps a new one should’ve been started once debate/argument started to happen or an existing one about the situation should’ve been used.... I guess we are accustomed to This thread containing all things Stanford lol PREACH! Please move all that to another thread. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Jul 31, 2019 17:14:34 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe that anyone who really knew Dunning would vilify him the way @sbvb is doing.
Some of his coaching decisions frustrated me; but one reason I always really liked him, as well as the Stanford program, is because of how much Dunning cares about his players. It always seemed to me that he prioritized the welfare of his players above winning. Compared to most other top programs, the focus on player welfare above winning was notable. Yes, players still played hurt. But they weren't out on the court in full leg braces, as happens at too many other schools. Why aren't former players speaking out against him, especially those who might be disgruntled due to lack of playing time? Because it was so clear to all his players how much he cared about them.
Why did he retire...suddenly? He was 66 years old, for crying out loud. It is so difficult to take him at his word, that he wanted to spend more time with his family, to be a bigger part of his grandchildren's lives? Going out on top is a great way to retire. National Coach of the year, and National Championship. Can't think of a better way to go out. Do you think Dunning should have told people all year that this might be his last year? Do you think he wanted the focus on him? If so, then you definitely don't know him.
Nobody is perfect. But John Dunning is one of the nicest, most caring people I have ever known. However, I shouldn't be surprised that there are people who want to throw him under the bus on this forum; because that is simply what some people like to do here.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jul 31, 2019 20:21:10 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe that anyone who really knew Dunning would vilify him the way @sbvb is doing. Some of his coaching decisions frustrated me; but one reason I always really liked him, as well as the Stanford program, is because of how much Dunning cares about his players. It always seemed to me that he prioritized the welfare of his players above winning. Compared to most other top programs, the focus on player welfare above winning was notable. Yes, players still played hurt. But they weren't out on the court in full leg braces, as happens at too many other schools. Why aren't former players speaking out against him, especially those who might be disgruntled due to lack of playing time? Because it was so clear to all his players how much he cared about them. Why did he retire...suddenly? He was 66 years old, for crying out loud. It is so difficult to take him at his word, that he wanted to spend more time with his family, to be a bigger part of his grandchildren's lives? Going out on top is a great way to retire. National Coach of the year, and National Championship. Can't think of a better way to go out. Do you think Dunning should have told people all year that this might be his last year? Do you think he wanted the focus on him? If so, then you definitely don't know him. Nobody is perfect. But John Dunning is one of the nicest, most caring people I have ever known. However, I shouldn't be surprised that there are people who want to throw him under the bus on this forum; because that is simply what some people like to do here. Where and how did I vilify Dunning? I very specifically said I didn't question his motives or intentions. I never said he wasn't nice or wasn't a caring person. That doesn't change what happened. The fact is you have no real idea why he retired when he did, so why are you so adamant? The reasons he gave sound good and could be legit, which is why they are the same reasons given by countless coaches, executives, politicians, actors, etc who are forced to resign. Pardon me for not taking your word for it. But you are choosing to take Hayley's word as fact. She is vilifying Dunning and Stanford. Just because Dunning and company haven't explained their position doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean Hayley's is correct either. We are hearing a side of the story from someone who was having memory problems and constantly fatigued. I'm sure some of the details can't be remembered correctly. Yes, Stanford, Dunning and even Hayley and her parents might of made some incorrect decisions. But we will never know it all.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Aug 1, 2019 0:41:05 GMT -5
"There is a stark difference between a program that ostracizes an injured player from the team under the guise of putting the team first, versus a program that embraces a teammate in need, supports her to get the medical help she needs, and still includes her. Not to be too Disney-esque, but you don't leave a teammate behind. You don't kick them to the curb when it suits you. That is complete BS. There are a lot of ways they could have handled it, and it sounds like they did it wrong just about every step of the way."
Is this not an accusation based on Hayley's account? Are you not directing this to Dunning's supposed decision to "kick her to the curb"?
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Aug 1, 2019 1:52:55 GMT -5
"There is a stark difference between a program that ostracizes an injured player from the team under the guise of putting the team first, versus a program that embraces a teammate in need, supports her to get the medical help she needs, and still includes her. Not to be too Disney-esque, but you don't leave a teammate behind. You don't kick them to the curb when it suits you. That is complete BS. There are a lot of ways they could have handled it, and it sounds like they did it wrong just about every step of the way." Is this not an accusation based on Hayley's account? Are you not directing this to Dunning's supposed decision to "kick her to the curb"? An accusation of what, that they made mistakes and could have handled some things better? Is that really a newsflash to you? Yes, I completely stand by that. She said she felt completely ostracized from the team by the coaches and staff. Do you deny that is how she said she felt? Are you asserting that there is nothing the coaches did to make her feel that way and nothing they could have done to include her? You are looking for something that just isn't there. The quote above was in response to someone who thought that the coaches were justified in isolating her from the team since she would be a distraction. I disagreed, but I understood the point the poster was trying to make. I'm not denying her feelings but doesn't make it a fact. We don't know what they did or didn't do. All we know is tha Hayley was depressed, and we know how depression can affect your thinking. But I'm not about to crucify a coach who has many, many years of players who gush over him because he put theirs needs first. We have all learned from the situation. So we either choose to move on and bring awareness, which was her goal, or still harbor ill will and continue to add to the situation. Either way we will never know the exact facts.
|
|