Club Doctor Stripped of Licence to Practise

[DraftBalta]

Ahhh but the Doctor has to work through your many and varied incarnations.....

I reckon he's out the back self medicating

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I reckon he's out the back self medicating

Is your avatar from Big Bang theory?

 

[Mukesh]

Is your avatar from Big Bang theory?

Looks a bit like Tina Fey... maybe his missus ?

 

[DraftBalta]

Is your avatar from Big Bang theory?

Oh it does look like the squeaky voiced girl, but no it's a very flattering print of Tina Fey

 

[BigCharlie]

As to due process and an appointment by committee who do you see as being suitable to oversee the appointment of these part time positions. Do you think someone like Bradshaw, who was well thought of at the time and in a position at Geelong, would have been available if you had asked him to go through a selection process.

I'm sure all club Doctors are well thought of, that doesn't mean you fail to have a selection process. If they decided Bacquie wasn't up to the task, then you would surely be needing to hear from at least a small handful of possible replacements what and why they are going to do better.

Who at the the club currently oversees the appointments of medical and allied health staff?

In the same way if we had gone after an established coach like a Clarkson or Roos that would have been done by a direct approach and sounding out the person rather than a formal interview process of various candidates. It's horses for courses.

Which has led exactly to the situation where this club has been over the last fifty years - appointing people on a whim. Even Carlton, for crying out loud, saw the error of their ways and implemented a process.

Re the poor performance of the medical, allied health and conditioning staff I was wondering how you reached the conclusion that was the case. I don't know what their performance has been like as I don't have the information or expertise to assess it. How have you reached your conclusion.

On conditioning, obviously no one has access to the raw data, but this post from Scodog in another thread sums up a lot.

What impresses me most about Richmond's group is how they're younger players are coming through and looking so ready to go fitness wise. Whereas Collingwood has Aish, Broomhead, Shaz, JDG, Brown, Kirby, Daicos, Sier and Crocker who range from nowhere near it to still needing work 4-5 years in. The only guys we've had come in looking ready to go from day dot over the past 4 years (that didn't come from a state league) were Langdon and Phillips who coincidentally were both overage players.

As I mentioned elsewhere, there have been numerous injuries sustained by players in the gym, despite having 5 people listed under the strength and conditioning department. There have been numerous injuries sustained by players in the controlled environment of training.

On injuries, how does a player like Ben Reid injure a calf, then effectively miss two seasons with problems related to other kinetic chain issues? Freeman missed two years with a hamstring injury. Elliott, Sinclair and Langdon recently too had season long injuries. Wells played a handful of games despite only suffering a mild calf strain (according to the club).

Maybe there needs to be further oversight by qualified professionals. Someone does a hamstring. Imaging, if required, along with the prognosis, is relayed to the oversight committee. If the player missed longer than envisioned, or suffers a re-occurrence, or another kinetic chain related injury, they have the information needed to prepare a report and pass judgement.

Maybe, for the past few years, the decisions on whether the medical, allied health and conditioning staff have been getting it right, has been left in the hands of people who aren't really qualified to comment?

 

[76woodenspooners]

...

Maybe there needs to be further oversight by qualified professionals. Someone does a hamstring. Imaging, if required, along with the prognosis, is relayed to the oversight committee. If the player missed longer than envisioned, or suffers a re-occurrence, or another kinetic chain related injury, they have the information needed to prepare a report and pass judgement.

Maybe, for the past few years, the decisions on whether the medical, allied health and conditioning staff have been getting it right, has been left in the hands of people who aren't really qualified to comment?

Many of our injury woes in recent years occurred when we had a highly reputable ENT surgeon as a long standing, passionate member on the board. That's probably as good as any footy club could expect with regards to medical and allied health governance and oversight? Wouldn't have thought things have gotten any worse after Jack Kennedy left?

 

[Seedsfan]

Anyone know why yet

 

[76woodenspooners]

Anyone know why yet

The medical fraternity know a thing or two about confidentiality.

It's claimed that the matter is unrelated to his time at Collingwood, so the club themselves probably don't even know - all they need to know is that his license to practice has been suspended.

 

[Gone Critical]

I'm sure all club Doctors are well thought of, that doesn't mean you fail to have a selection process. If they decided Bacquie wasn't up to the task, then you would surely be needing to hear from at least a small handful of possible replacements what and why they are going to do better.

Who at the the club currently oversees the appointments of medical and allied health staff?

BigCharlie thanks for your reply, I think it raised some really interesting points and about areas I have a real interest in.

I don't want to be smart with these replies but the 1st thing I would say is if all club doctors are well thought of then it's the first group of doctors I know that are viewed that way. Like any job there are those that seem good at what they do , those that are average and those you would recommend to Carlton supporters. Bradshaw, at the time of his appointment I assume was well thought of based on his sport history , his time at Geelong etc but these are only assumptions. Truth is in a lot of professional situations if you want to shoehorn someone who is well thought of out of their current well settled position you are going to have to make them an offer not ask them to present at a selection committee. Not all settings but sometimes you have to "headhunt" who you want rather than appoint by committee. I think Bradshaw probably came under that type of appointment.

As to who oversees these appointments I am not sure but part of my point in the last post is that in this field it's probably difficult to final a person or group who are really well qualified to judge this with great precision.

 

[Gone Critical]

Which has led exactly to the situation where this club has been over the last fifty years - appointing people on a whim. Even Carlton, for crying out loud, saw the error of their ways and implemented a process.

That too broad a brush for mine. If we had appointed a Roos or Clarkson it wouldn't have been on a whim. It could have been discussed by the board, Roos or Clarkson could have met with the board or a group representing the board and discussed their approach etc. What would not have happened in that case is the appointment would not have been thrown open to other applicants and for someone of Roos or Clarkson standing that would have been appropriate if the board decided to go that way.

The "process" won't fit all appointments for mine.

 

[Gone Critical]

On conditioning, obviously no one has access to the raw data, but this post from Scodog in another thread sums up a lot.

Interesting that you quote Sco because he and I have discussed these type of issues on many occasions and really generally come from polar opposite viewpoints. I generally want much better quality evidence to support claims made. Even in the quote you supply I don't think the evidence, even if it's quality can be questioned anyway, supports what Sco is saying. JDG played round 1 of his 1sr season and played 16 games in total. Was senior ready immediately. Crocker , pick 65 and 10 1st season games, Daicos pick 57 and Brown pick 35 (glandular fever preseason) all stood out in their 1st season as late draft picks who adapted to the rigours of AFL very quickly. Sier wasn't expected to be AFL ready when picked nor Kirby. Shaz was picked with known feet issue then had 2 ACLs, Broomhead terrible glandular fever in 1st season and multiple injuries since. Aish played plenty of AFL early on. I would say these examples don't support Sco's claims but really the evidence doesn't allow any conclusion is the real point.

 

[Gone Critical]

As I mentioned elsewhere, there have been numerous injuries sustained by players in the gym, despite having 5 people listed under the strength and conditioning department. There have been numerous injuries sustained by players in the controlled environment of training.

On injuries, how does a player like Ben Reid injure a calf, then effectively miss two seasons with problems related to other kinetic chain issues? Freeman missed two years with a hamstring injury. Elliott, Sinclair and Langdon recently too had season long injuries. Wells played a handful of games despite only suffering a mild calf strain (according to the club).

Again these sort of claims are a bit of a bugbear of mine. None of us on this board have anywhere near sufficient evidence to judge these issues and it's probably true that not even Collingwood have solid evidence to really judge these things accurately. To few cases with too many variables for a start. I am not saying we know the medical/conditioning staff have done a good job or not it's just realising that objective good quality evidence is almost imposssible to come by even for the club so these judgements need to be made in the absence of such information.

As a medico myself I deal with these sort of judgements everyday. The first thing anyone wanting to make a judgement in these areas needs to know is what you don't know. So it's easy in cases like this. The 1st thing that informs any assessment of the Collingwood medical/conditioning staffs performance is there is no good quality objective evidence to judge by. So any assessment should understand this and be qualified by it. Sweeping definitive statements should be avoided. By all means have concerns and make judgements but understand that all those judgements are compromised by the lack of good data to support them.

 

[Gone Critical]

Maybe there needs to be further oversight by qualified professionals. Someone does a hamstring. Imaging, if required, along with the prognosis, is relayed to the oversight committee. If the player missed longer than envisioned, or suffers a re-occurrence, or another kinetic chain related injury, they have the information needed to prepare a report and pass judgement.

Maybe, for the past few years, the decisions on whether the medical, allied health and conditioning staff have been getting it right, has been left in the hands of people who aren't really qualified to comment?

This would be a disaster in my opinion. Even so it's would be easy for the oversight professionals to report on. Unless there is something glaring wrong done or not done the report would be as follows on each occasion. "Conclusion- Insufficient evidence to make any judgement or comment in this case." Any committee that properly understood what they were assessing would reach that conclusion in almost every individual case because they would understand the evidence doesn't allow any accurate conclusion to be reached.

Where you would find such oversight professionals is any interesting question. What that would ensure is a degree of paralysis and mistrust within the group of professionals you have appointed to run the medical/fitness areas of the club. It's too small a group to warrant such review because it couldn't accurately be done. In this setting I think we need to accept you make your appointments with best intentions and then trust the judgements of the people you appoint while they are in their position. It will really help if the committe overseeing assessment of performance really understands how lacking any good quality evidence will be in making such assessments going forward

It's just the nature of the beast. Sorry for the rant.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Like any job there are those that seem good at what they do , those that are average and those you would recommend to Carlton supporters.

LOL!

Truth is in a lot of professional situations if you want to shoehorn someone who is well thought of out of their current well settled position ...

Often (not always) people who are top of their profession get there by not getting settled into a comfort zone.

...you are going to have to make them an offer not ask them to present at a selection committee.

I think that's a really good point.

Sometimes people who present well in a formal recruitment process turn out to be eminently qualified at presenting themselves well in formal recruitment processes and not much else. Setting up a recruitment process that sees past that stuff can be very difficult.

 

[jmac70]

LOL!



Often (not always) people who are top of their profession get there by not getting settled into a comfort zone.



I think that's a really good point.

Sometimes people who present well in a formal recruitment process turn out to be eminently qualified at presenting themselves well in formal recruitment processes and not much else. Setting up a recruitment process that sees past that stuff can be very difficult.

Speaking from personal experience, I have missed out on many positions because I totally suck in interview situations.

 

[TKiL]

Speaking from personal experience, I have missed out on many positions because I totally suck in interview situations.

https://www.kellyservices.com.au/au...e/job-interview-questions-and-interview-tips/

 

[jathanas]

By the time it's got to the doctors it's too late.

This is a programming issue. Adaptations to athletes occur when the prescribed exercise program causes stress and their bodies supercompensate, but the minimum effective dose principle must be respected.

Layman's terms: our sports department seems to work out athletes to breaking point, and then we can't fix them.

I'm sure all club Doctors are well thought of, that doesn't mean you fail to have a selection process. If they decided Bacquie wasn't up to the task, then you would surely be needing to hear from at least a small handful of possible replacements what and why they are going to do better.

Who at the the club currently oversees the appointments of medical and allied health staff?



Which has led exactly to the situation where this club has been over the last fifty years - appointing people on a whim. Even Carlton, for crying out loud, saw the error of their ways and implemented a process.



On conditioning, obviously no one has access to the raw data, but this post from Scodog in another thread sums up a lot.


As I mentioned elsewhere, there have been numerous injuries sustained by players in the gym, despite having 5 people listed under the strength and conditioning department. There have been numerous injuries sustained by players in the controlled environment of training.

On injuries, how does a player like Ben Reid injure a calf, then effectively miss two seasons with problems related to other kinetic chain issues? Freeman missed two years with a hamstring injury. Elliott, Sinclair and Langdon recently too had season long injuries. Wells played a handful of games despite only suffering a mild calf strain (according to the club).

Maybe there needs to be further oversight by qualified professionals. Someone does a hamstring. Imaging, if required, along with the prognosis, is relayed to the oversight committee. If the player missed longer than envisioned, or suffers a re-occurrence, or another kinetic chain related injury, they have the information needed to prepare a report and pass judgement.

Maybe, for the past few years, the decisions on whether the medical, allied health and conditioning staff have been getting it right, has been left in the hands of people who aren't really qualified to comment?

 

[BigCharlie]

BigCharlie Truth is in a lot of professional situations if you want to shoehorn someone who is well thought of out of their current well settled position you are going to have to make them an offer not ask them to present at a selection committee.

Which again comes back to who decides that Bradshaw - or anyone else - is the best person for the job. You appear to think that reputation should count for all, which, frankly, I find astonishing. (Although not surprising from a surgeon).

The Head Physician, in AFL clubs, is the most important medical appointment. The holder of such a position needs to be put under some kind of scrutiny before they are employed.

What would not have happened in that case is the appointment would not have been thrown open to other applicants and for someone of Roos or Clarkson standing that would have been appropriate if the board decided to go that way.

Roos and Clarkson have the runs on the board to be deserving of such a situation. A club Physician does not, since the reason a club has particular success in one area or another of sports medicine may have very little, or anything, to do with them.

I generally want much better quality evidence to support claims made.

No one is going to be able to have the kind of evidence you seek. You could throw all the stats in the world about how the players have improved their 2k time trial times by 25% the last three seasons, and it would mean nothing except that they can run in a straight line faster.

Despite all of the advances in sports science, a lot of the evidence is going to be empirical, since there are too many factors that can affect performance from week to week, and there is no way to measure that output. It is going to have to be a feel/observational kind of thing.

None of us on this board have anywhere near sufficient evidence to judge these issues and it's probably true that not even Collingwood have solid evidence to really judge these things accurately.

You look for patterns, and you compare to the opposition. Of course, both methods are going to be subject to their own biases, but in the end, the CFC club competes against other teams, who all suffer - or not - the same injuries they do. All things should be equal in the end, but if the consistent pattern over 3 seasons is that of long-term absence for simple injuries, then something is amiss.

As a medico myself I deal with these sort of judgements everyday. The first thing anyone wanting to make a judgement in these areas needs to know is what you don't know.

Err, no. If a 23 year old suburban footballer suffers from Hamstring origin tendinopathy, he doesn't need to know what you do, he just needs to know it isn't getting better, and it's time to see another therapist.

Professional sports organisations in the USA fire the Head Athletic trainer all the time over perceptions of misdiagnosis and rates of injury. Here's a few links for you, one or two which appear to have been written by you.

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington...-head-athletic-trainer-after-difficult-season
http://www.portlandmercury.com/blog...part-ways-with-head-athletic-trainer-nik-wald
https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/10/03/ray-ramirez-fired-new-york-mets

In regards to Jamie Elliott, I fail to see how anyone couldn't think there is something amiss. If the club medical opinion was that rest would be enough to fix the condition, and he then undergoes surgery after less than a handful of training sessions after having ten weeks off, it's fair to say someone was wrong.

 

[frizzle]

Which again comes back to who decides that Bradshaw - or anyone else - is the best person for the job. You appear to think that reputation should count for all, which, frankly, I find astonishing. (Although not surprising from a surgeon).

The Head Physician, in AFL clubs, is the most important medical appointment. The holder of such a position needs to be put under some kind of scrutiny before they are employed.



Roos and Clarkson have the runs on the board to be deserving of such a situation. A club Physician does not, since the reason a club has particular success in one area or another of sports medicine may have very little, or anything, to do with them.


No one is going to be able to have the kind of evidence you seek. You could throw all the stats in the world about how the players have improved their 2k time trial times by 25% the last three seasons, and it would mean nothing except that they can run in a straight line faster.

Despite all of the advances in sports science, a lot of the evidence is going to be empirical, since there are too many factors that can affect performance from week to week, and there is no way to measure that output. It is going to have to be a feel/observational kind of thing.


You look for patterns, and you compare to the opposition. Of course, both methods are going to be subject to their own biases, but in the end, the CFC club competes against other teams, who all suffer - or not - the same injuries they do. All things should be equal in the end, but if the consistent pattern over 3 seasons is that of long-term absence for simple injuries, then something is amiss.



Err, no. If a 23 year old suburban footballer suffers from Hamstring origin tendinopathy, he doesn't need to know what you do, he just needs to know it isn't getting better, and it's time to see another therapist.

Professional sports organisations in the USA fire the Head Athletic trainer all the time over perceptions of misdiagnosis and rates of injury. Here's a few links for you, one or two which appear to have been written by you.

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington...-head-athletic-trainer-after-difficult-season
http://www.portlandmercury.com/blog...part-ways-with-head-athletic-trainer-nik-wald
https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/10/03/ray-ramirez-fired-new-york-mets

In regards to Jamie Elliott, I fail to see how anyone couldn't think there is something amiss. If the club medical opinion was that rest would be enough to fix the condition, and he then undergoes surgery after less than a handful of training sessions after having ten weeks off, it's fair to say someone was wrong.

Absolutely. I have no medical training & to be honest I don't need any to come to this conclusion. They recommended rest & it failed immediately it was tested. Operate in September & he would be near ready to resume by now. It's a fail any way you look at it.

 

[jmac70]

Absolutely. I have no medical training & to be honest I don't need any to come to this conclusion. They recommended rest & it failed immediately it was tested. Operate in September & he would be near ready to resume by now. It's a fail any way you look at it.

Surgery guarantees full recovery now?

 

[CFC2010]

Surgery guarantees full recovery now?

Rest = Fail

Surgery = Success or Fail

I know which path I would have went with but what would I know with my Google Degree.

Two in a row now for Elliott in which the rest diagnosis has failed.

 

[jmac70]

Rest = Fail

Surgery = Success or Fail

I know which path I would have went with but what would I know with my Google Degree.

Two in a row now for Elliott in which the rest diagnosis has failed.

You can see the future now? The decision to rest was made on the basis it was the best chance for recovery at the time.

 

[CFC2010]

You can see the future now? The decision to rest was made on the basis it was the best chance for recovery at the time.

But it failed AGAIN just like his back.

The more I think about this Elliott thing the more I get angry. Along with Swan he is reason I joined Bigfooty.

This whole thing has a stench about it including our Doctors mysterious suspension.

 

[jmac70]

But it failed AGAIN just like his back.

The more I think about this Elliott thing the more I get angry. Along with Swan he is reason I joined Bigfooty.

This whole thing has a stench about it including our Doctors mysterious suspension.

Sorry to disappoint you mate but it’s just BigFooty experts using hindsight to judge very complicated situations. Keep your tin hat locked away in the cupboard.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I have family that work in GP clinics. The delays are usually caused by patients:

- Booking in for a standard appointment, when they need a longer consult.
- Emergencies, when a patient is very ill.
- Other patients running late, messing up the schedule.

No delays in Cuba
As they put people first and don't let people exploit essential positions
Turning health care into a user pays proposition
In fact gps sometimes have to get second jobs
That's how they can send 30000 doctors offshore and still have the best medical system in the world
It's called a hypocratic oath