A leading researcher into concussion in sport has called on the league to be more transparent over its research into the long-term health impacts on its players and claims the league hindered a two-year study it had funded.
The Associate Prof said he was hired by the AFL to carry out neurological tests on retired players who had suffered concussions.
The two-year study came amid growing concern about chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes playing contact sport. There are links between repeated head traumas including concussion and a condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Symptoms include cognitive impairment, impulsive behavior, depression, suicidal thoughts, short-term memory loss and emotional instability.
The project was funded by the AFL, but it appeared reluctant to cooperate until it was done.
Guardian Australia revealed in March that the results from another major concussion study never saw the light of day.
The league's lead concussion advisor, Dr Paul McCrory, was accused of plagiarizing, and the league is under increasing pressure to clarify the evidence that informs their concussion policies.
The chair of the concussion in sport group resigned after two of his papers were withdrawn for plagiarism. Professional and amateur sports around the world use the CSIG and its consensus statements on concussion to inform their concussion policies. According to Retraction Watch, the errors were not deliberate or intentional, and that McCrory has apologized for some instances.
The questions around the work of McCrory and the studies involving the league have prompted Pearce to call for transparency from the league around its concussion research and policies.
He wants to know why his study into retired athletes and concussion was hampered by the organisation.
After his work on the impact of concussion on the health of athletes started to gain recognition, he was approached by an official from the AFL to conduct a study on retired players who had suffered concussions during their playing careers. The contract was signed in March 2016 to receive funding from the AFL until the work is done.
According to the contract, the players were to be used for a test using a magnetic coil to stimulation the brain. Fine motor skills, memory, attention, visual processing and reaction time would be measured with the help of the contract. The contract states that the main purpose of the study was to determine differences in the brains of retired players who had suffered concussion injuries and compare those results to similar study participants who had never received a concussion.
The senior advisor on concussion and a neurologist with The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health contacted him and asked to meet after he was approached by Clifton to lead the study.
He wanted to talk to me about the funding I received from the league for the study.
We had our first face-to-face meeting at the Baretto coffee shop at the University of Melbourne on July 27, 2015. The methodology of the study was set. He became quite patriarchal and said things like: "Your idea isn't feasible, neurophysiological measures are too difficult." It did get transferred.
After a report about the study aired on the ABC, he was asked to leave the University of Melbourne and find a new laboratory, according to the Guardian. The university and the AFL signed off on promoting the study in the ABC story, but that didn't stop McCrory from asking if he had permission to speak to the media.
The lab was relocated to Swinburne University. He recruited non-AFL participants to take the cognitive tests, which would be compared with the results of former players. The group of people who had never received a concussion underwent the same tests as the former players.
He could not find enough retired players for his study. The AFL refused to give him access to a 600-strong list of former VAFL and AFL players despite initially promising to provide him with participants and their contact details, and to arrange meetings with them.
The AFL refused to recruit the former players because they knew some of them through his research, according toPearce. It was baffling toPearce, who couldn't understand why the AFL would fund a study and then fail to assist him with the resources needed to do it.
When his funding from the league was close to ending, the chief medical officer told him that he would provide him with former players on one condition: he remove all of the tests from his study.
I told them I couldn't do that because it wasn't enough to diagnose. The study would produce meaningless data without those additional tests being included.
The man said that Harcourt did not respond to his concerns.
With just six months to go before the study funding ran out, Pearce said he was finally sent a list of approximately 40 players to contact. He said that many of their email addresses came back. He only had enough money to do tests on one player per week, so he only assessed eight former players. He only took the test for them.
I got an email from Harcourt the week before the funding contract with the AFL was going to end, saying he was really concerned about the lack of data that I had collected from the former players. I told him we needed to perform the full range of tests to get meaningful data. I asked if we could talk about this.
I didn't get a reply from him. The contract came and went. The research never saw the light of day.
The funding for the study expired.
The AFL did not respond to questions from Guardian Australia about why he was asked to change the research methods and whether the league hindered the study.
There are people with head injuries, including ex-players, who have malingering issues impacting their brain and they’re struggling to get help in 2022
A spokesman for the league said that past players were encouraged to participate in the study funded by the league, but they chose not to because they wanted to focus on clinical care.
The funding that had been invested to that time was significant, but the study did not proceed after the two-year contract period.
He was never told that the study would continue beyond the two years. He requested access to player contact information multiple times throughout the study and was not provided with a list until 18 months into the study. He wasn't told of any efforts to encourage players to participate.
He 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266 800-381-0266
There are people with head injuries who are struggling to get help, and we need strong research into that.
The AFL said it is reviewing all of the work done by the author in light of the plagiarism allegations. The allegations of plagiarism, as well as revelations by Guardian Australia that in the year of 2018, McCrory had given a voluntary undertaking to medical regulators not to perform certain procedures until approved by the board, were matters.
The number one priority of our code is to protect the health and wellbeing of all people who participate in our game.
The undertaking is still in force until it is removed from the public register. Privacy provisions in the national law prevent us from commenting on the reasons why the undertaking was given.
On March 29th, a new investigation was launched by the regulators into allegations that he may have violated his undertaking, although it could not provide more details.
Public safety is our number one priority and we take all concerns about practitioners seriously.
We are limited in what we can say publicly, but we are aware of allegations in the media that Dr Paul McCrory has violated an undertaking on his registration.
We will investigate the allegations seriously.
We can't comment further.
The Guardian has been unable to get a response from McCrory.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
