HEAD GAMES
Johnny Sexton’s fitness is a matter of national interest
Shane McGrath on Sexton’s woes with concussion
PRIVACY has precisely nothing to do with the discussion of injuries in rugby.
Asking if a player has undergone concussion tests as a result of a head injury is not tabloid intrusion.
There is a difference between prying into the domestic life of an Irish player and posing legitimate questions about an aspect of their health as it relates to how they perform their playing duties.
It seems astonishing to have to make this point, but teams are not playing in a sealed, private world where access is granted only to unquestioning supporters and a supine press.
They are public figures, paid thanks to the attendance of tens of thousands of people at their games, as a consequence of which the best can burnish their wealth through endorsement agreements with sponsors.
Nobody’s privacy is violated when concussion is the subject and professional rugby is the context: not Johnny Sexton’s or anyone else’s.
Sexton was frustrated by the focus on his association with the condition and it led to absurd talk about whether the health of a sportsperson is a private matter, and if their medical information falls under data protection legislation.
That latter point is one an enterprising solicitor might try to test, but this is not a case of slavering busybodies demanding that players’ scans be put on Instagram forthwith.
Sexton is the most important rugby player to represent Ireland
HIS time is now, and Leo Cullen understands that. In picking Jordan Larmour to start today against Glasgow ahead of Rob Kearney, Cullen has taken the sensible decision to pick on form.
Coaches say they always do, but many invariably plump for experience over youth, irrespective of the playing evidence. Cullen has trusted that Larmour can handle the elevation, and there is nothing to make us suppose otherwise.
Should he perform well in Europe over the next six days, Larmour will present Joe Schmidt with a big decision of his own. since Brian O’Driscoll was in his prime.
His fitness — as it relates to rugby — is a matter of national interest, and given the health of his body dictates whether he can do his job and so help Ireland win and keep the fans happy, then questions about it are not only inevitable, they are necessary.
After Leinster beat Exeter Chiefs in Dublin in December, Leo Cullen said Sexton had failed a head injury assessment test. Joe Schmidt told RTÉ mere hours later that he had passed it.
This month two years ago, Leinster were hammered by Wasps. Sexton suffered a head injury in the game and was substituted. Cullen reported he had failed his head injury assessment.
Two days later, the Leinster coach clarified that Sexton had in fact passed it, but he was taken off as a precaution.
‘I know there was a bit of hysteria around this, but he’s being managed as best as possible,’ said Cullen.
Hysteria was a silly word to use, given Leinster stoked the concerns with incorrect information.
Confusion has been one of the distinguishing features of head injuries in rugby in over a decade of covering the sport. On Tuesday, Sexton said he was responsible for the mixup over his head injury last month, having told Schmidt that ‘I passed all my questions (in the assessment), which was true, but we thought it was best not to go back on because of how I felt on the pitch’.
This is an issue too serious to be susceptible to repeated cases of crossed wires and cranky clarifications. But the most important issue with the HIA system, implied by Sexton saying he did not play on despite passing the test, is whether it is effective in assessing injuries.
There are influential voices who say no. Dr Barry O’Driscoll, who left the medical board of World Rugby over unhappiness with its approach to concussion, has dismissed the assessment as ‘totally flawed’.
Dr Willie Stewart, a Scottish neuropathologist, has said that diagnosis of concussion still rests on the subjective assessments of doctors.
Until that changes with the onset of objective testing of the kind that can diagnose heart attacks, for instance, definitive judgements on whether a player has suffered a brain injury are difficult to make.
Arguing over interpretation of these tests is rather less important than asking if the entire process is fit for use in the first place.
That said, rugby is finally accepting the seriousness of this injury and as awareness of the topic has increased so has coverage of it.
There are some who comment on the sport happy to diagnose concussions from the bleachers, but that is not a common issue.
Questions about head injuries after matches now are, though, and they regularly cause coaches and players to bristle. Well, tough.
It is no invasion of privacy to ask about collisions that can lead to catastrophic health conditions.
It is not a matter for the data protection commissioner if a star is injured in a game and has to discuss it afterwards.
Rugby should welcome the chance to give precise information, thus removing any confusion.
The alternative is conjecture or, worse, silence from gormless cheerleaders.