The following letter to Brooks Broadhurst comes from Mt. Lebanon resident and Lebo Citizens blog commenter, James E. Cannon III.
Mr. Broadhurst,
Thank you for commenting. And to demonstrate the willingness to have an open and honest debate, something happening less frequently lately with our local elected officials, I am signing my name to my comment.
First off, I'm not sure a blanket indictment of anyone critical of the YSA "plan" is the best way to start a conversation. Stating that those opposed to the idea of artificial turf either don't value sports or don't understand them is rather simplistic and somewhat insulting. To the contrary, I submit that those opposed to a somewhat haphazard plan as the one that has been publicly delivered actually do understand organized sports and do, in fact, care about the well-being of the children who participate.
Anyone who lives in Mt. Lebanon has to at least acknowledge the emphasis placed on athletics here. While many of us believe that emphasis is entirely too strong at times, we accept it as part of the larger picture, as do residents in surrounding communities who live much the same way. That larger picture includes another major component--public education. I am a product of our local system and since graduating in 1987, have been thankful for the challenging curriculum I had to endure. While personnel come and go over time, our community's overall commitment to providing a strong academic base for our kids has not. For that continuity, and that alone, the school district should be commended.
There are many other aspects to living here that help create the notion it is an attractive place in which to reside. All that said, you and the handful of pro-turf folks are missing the point entirely. I have not heard one person thus far say they are opposed to organized sports. In fact, many of those involved in the discussion have or had kids involved in those activities. What we (the alleged sports haters) are against is using public money to pay for a pet project. Because in the end, that's really what this is.
The reality is there is no basis in fact that artificial turf is advantageous. I offer a letter with several links* that point to just the opposite conclusion. That, Mr. Broadhurst, is far above and beyond any evidence offered in favor of the fields and the four “youth athletics experts”, whatever that means. For those who live vicariously through their childrens' athletic performances, keep in mind that professional athletes, for the most part, prefer grass as it isn't as hard on their body. And while teens generally think of themselves as invincible and are typically more physically resilient, injuries do occur, so why risk it? After all, aren’t some parents and children really banking on their supposed superior athletic ability to carry them through life? If so, why take a chance on the investment bottoming out due to something as innocuous as the playing surface? One could say those of us opposed to the turf idea actually care more about sports and the kids playing them than those rallying around the idea. We’re simply looking out for their health and well-being. That aside, though, the big hurdle is how to pay for it. We've seen enough reckless spending in our community with little transparency and little actual input from the community And Mr. Broadhurst, I would submit that we all deserve better. All of us.
If the group in favor of turfing the fields delivered a realistic and viable plan outlining how the project would be funded without using tax dollars, and then maintained similarly, I would personally help dig the trenches for the drainage system as an act of pure benevolence. But unless that happens, the idea of spending more of our money on something that isn't necessary, and poses a physical risk to those using it, seems irresponsible, especially given the current economic environment.
I understand and appreciate your enthusiasm for youth sports. Yes, it instills teamwork and camaraderie and, one would hope, a more robust work ethic (as do other things in life like church or the military). But at the end of the day, it’s all still recreation. There truly are more important things in life than throwing a ball or catching one. I would suggest the commissioners take a breather and focus on addressing issues that actually affect the entire community instead of a small interested group.
In the interest of fairness, as I have always offered, I’m open to a personal discussion regarding my views. If anyone would like to sit down and have a conversation regarding this matter, let me know. I prefer breakfast so if you’re an early riser, you go to the front of the line.
Respectfully,
James E. Cannon III
*Story links of interest:
1.
http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/40/5/990.abstract
Study from the American Journal of Sports Medicine. Salient points are:
a. Results: The ACL injury rate during games (8.06 per 10,000 athlete-exposures [AEs] 95% CI, 6.80-9.42) was significantly greater than the rate during practice (0.8 per 10,000 AEs 95% CI, 0.68-0.93). Players were 10.09 (95% CI, 8.08-12.59) times more likely to sustain an ACL injury in competition when compared with practices. When practice exposures were analyzed separately, the injury rate was significantly greater during scrimmages (3.99 per 10,000 AEs 95% CI, 2.29-5.94) compared with regular practices (0.83 per 10,000 AEs 95% CI, 0.69-0.97) and walk-throughs (0 per 10,000 AEs 95% CI, 0-0.14). There was an incidence rate of 1.73 ACL injuries per 10,000 AEs (95% CI, 1.47-2.0) on artificial playing surfaces compared with a rate of 1.24 per 10,000 AEs (95% CI, 1.05-1.45) on natural grass. The rate of ACL injury on artificial surfaces is 1.39 (95% CI, 1.11-1.73) times higher than the injury rate on grass surfaces.
b. Conclusion: Between 2004 and 2009, NCAA football players experienced a greater number of ACL injuries in games compared with practices, in scrimmages compared with regular practices, and when playing on artificial turf surfaces. This latter finding will need to be confirmed by additional studies.
2. According to Reuter’s Health, April 30 2012:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_124675.html
Story includes a quote from Dr. James Bradley, chief orthopedic surgeon for the Steelers.
3.
http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Surface%20Survey%202010.pdf
Every two years the NFL Players Association surveys its members about playing surfaces. (You can see the entire survey
here.) Not surprisingly, more than half (69.4%) prefer to play on a grass field as opposed to artificial turf. Only 14% preferred the artificial turf, while 16% indicated they had no preference or the question was Not Applicable.
For the first ten years of the survey the fields were ranked regardless of playing surface. The top three spots were always held by grass fields. In 2006 the survey began dividing the favorites into Best/Worst Grass Fields and Best/Worst Artificial Fields.
Recurring comments noted at the end of the survey include this one: “Artificial turf is much harder on the body with joint soreness and makes for tougher work. Southern grass fields are the best.” More than 89% of the players agreed, believing artificial turf to be the cause of more soreness and fatigue that playing on grass. The majority (82.6%) also believe that artificial turf is more likely to contribute to injury and almost 90% believe that playing on artificial turf is more likely to shorten their career.
But the NFL is obviously not taking the players’ concerns seriously, as almost 42% of the NFL stadiums have installed artificial turf. Who’s not listening?
New Meadowlands, home of the New York Giants and New York Jets
Cowboys Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys
Louisiana Superdome, home of the New Orleans Saints
Ralph Wilson Stadium, home of the Buffalo Bills
Georgia Dome, home of the Atlanta Falcons
M&T Bank Stadium, home of the Baltimore Ravens
Gillette Stadium, home of the New England Patriots
CenturyLink Field, home of the Seattle Seahawks
Edward Jones Dome, home of the St. Louis Rams
Paul Brown Stadium, home of the Cincinnati Bengals
Ford Field, home of the Detroit Lions
Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, home of the Minnesota Vikings
Lucas Oil Stadium, home of the Indianapolis Colts
4.
http://www.bethelfarms.com/blog/tag/artificial-turf-vs-grass/
Artificial vs. Natural Turf – The Hard Facts
Thursday, October 6th, 2011
There is a risk of injury with every sport, on every surface. But the fact is that risk increases when the playing field is artificial turf. Studies have found a higher incidence of surface to skin injuries and muscle strains and spasms on artificial turf. We looked at the dangers of surface to skin injuries in the last two posts, with both sanitary and heat-related injuries.
In the 2010 NFL Players Association Playing Surfaces survey, over 82% of players indicated they agree that there is a higher incidence of injury on artificial turf surfaces compared to natural turf. When asked which surfaces contributed to muscle soreness and fatigue, 89% responded “artificial turf.”
It’s not just opinion however. A five year study of eight high schools reported that athletes incurred more injuries on artificial turf surfaces. Of every ten games played, athletes incurred injuries 15.2 percent of the time when playing on artificial turf versus 13.9 percent of the time when playing on natural turf.
As Anaheim Angels’ Troy Glaus said after sustaining an injury on artificial turf in 2004, “You can’t simulate grass. No matter what you do, you can’t fake it…”
5.
http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html
This page has 44 different blurbs from news stories regarding artificial turf and involves both football and soccer, domestically and internationally.
6.
http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/2010/01000/Incidence_of_Injury_Among_Adolescent_Soccer.1.aspx
Conclusion: Adolescent players routinely training on AT for prolonged periods should be carefully monitored, even on AT conforming to new standards.
