text:
World Rankings That Make You Say, "Hmmm…"
Steve Stricker isn't the only PGA Tour player ranked lower by the Official World Golf Rankingsthan he is by the Sagarin rankings. But while Sagarin ranks Stricker as No. 1 in the world and OWGR has him fifth, the disparity is far greater for other well-known players. At first blush, the divide seems to favor international players over Americans, but not always.
Take, for example, Zach Johnson. The 2007 Masters champion and John Deere Classic executive board member is ranked 16th by Sagarin and 45th by OWGR, a huge difference of 29 spots. Charles Howell III is ranked No. 66 by OWGR; Sagarin has him 14th, a 52-spot difference! Both Johnson and Howell are Americans.
The ranking is significant for Howell, because players inside the OWGR top 50 are qualified for some of the game's more lucrative tournaments. And it could be significant for Zach should he fall out of the OWGR top 50.
Meanwhile, Martin Kaymer of Germany is ranked No. 4 by OWGR while Sagarin has him at No. 21. After a big year in 2010, when Kaymer won the PGA Championship and finished top 10 at the U.S. and British opens, he had a so-so year in 2011 playing regularly on the PGA Tour, except for a big win at the season-ending WGC event in China.
South Africa's Charl Swartzel, who's set to defend his Masters title next week, is ranked No. 7 by OWGR; Sagarin has him 11th. England's Justin Rose is No. 8 in the OWGR but No. 35 in Sagarin. Northern Ireland's Graham McDowell - in a slump since his 2010 U.S. Open win until his runner-up finish at Bay Hill last week - is ranked No. 13 by OWGR; Sagarin has him 66th.
Then there's the case of South Korean rookie Sang-Moon Bae, a PGA Tour qualifying school graduate. Bae has played in nine PGA Tour events in his career and never played on the Nationwide Tour; nevertheless Bae is ranked No. 28 in the world by OWGR. That ranking - acquired by virtue of his international playing record - qualified him to play in two World Golf Championship events, which are reserved for the OWGR top 75. Bae's best finish so far this year was a tie for second at Transitions and a tie for fifth at the WGC Match Play. In six of nine events the 25-year-old finished between T-29 and 71st place. Sagarin ranks Bae 95th in the world.
Not all international players are favored by OWGR. Sergio Garcia, for example, is ranked No. 21 by OWGR but No. 7 by Sagarin.
And not all Americans are rated higher by Sagarin, which ranks Dustin Johnson No. 20 while OWGR ranks him 12th.
Click Here for the Official World Golf Rankings
Click Here for the Sagarin Golf Rankings


text:
Disonycha triangularis es una especie de escarabajo del género Disonycha, familia Chrysomelidae. Fue descrita científicamente por Say en 1824.

Habita en Canadá y los Estados Unidos (Columbia Británica, Quebec, Nuevo México, Florida). Mide 6 mm, parte de su dieta se compone de Chenopodioideae y tiene actividad entre abril y septiembre.

Referencias

Bibliografía
 Riley, Edward G., Shawn M. Clark, and Terry N. Seeno. Catalog of the leaf beetles of America north of Mexico (Coleoptera: Megalopodidae, Orsodacnidae and Chrysomelidae, excluding Bruchinae), 2003.

triangularis

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
stories filed under: "kevin cramer"
Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
from the oh-come-on dept
Wed, Jun 10th 2020 9:58am — Mike Masnick
It appears that Senators Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Kelly Loeffler, and Kevin Cramer don't mind looking like total fools who don't understand some fairly basic concepts about the law, so long as they can perform for their ignorant base. The latest is that they have sent a letter to the FCC, picking up on President Trump's silly executive order and asking FCC chair Ajit Pai to reinterpret Section 230 at direct odds with the plain language of the law and the way that every single court to this day has interpreted it.
The thing is, these Senators know what a silly project this is, but because the Emperor demands fealty, and they know that their own base now depends on bowing down to insanity, they're playing it up. Everything about this letter is silly. But because some people might take it seriously, let's go through why it's silly.
Dear Chairman Pai:
We write regarding the role of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in the recently signed Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship. The unequal treatment of different points of view across social media presents a mounting threat to free speech. This Executive Order is an important step in addressing this form of censorship.
Once again, there is literally no evidence that there is any "unequal treatment" of different points of view, but even if there was the 1st Amendment would protect it. There is no law, anywhere, that says that you have to treat all speech equally, and that if you don't it somehow leads to you facing liability. And, honestly, Republicans like these Senators should recognize that if that situation were to change, the first ones in trouble would be partisan organizations like Fox News.
But, thankfully, the 1st Amendment says that sites can moderate how they want.
Furthermore, Section 230 is not a "mounting threat to free speech." Taking it away, however, would very much be a threat to free speech. Again, without Section 230, websites will have strong incentives not to host third party content, because the risks of liability will be huge, meaning that many places that now enable people to speak out will likely scale that back significantly, and in some cases entirely. The threat to free speech is coming from these Senators, not Section 230.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields social media platforms from the liability imposed on publishers when they act in "good faith" to restrict access to or remove certain objectionable materials.
This is a blatant misreading of the law. The "good faith" part of the law covers just one part of 230 (Section (c)(2)(A)) and not to the other parts of the law, including (c)(1), which is the part that almost every court decision has depended on, regarding the rights of websites to moderate their content. (c)(1) is the part that says that no website can be held liable for third party content. And courts have (correctly) read that to mean that this also covers any moderation activity. And there is no "good faith" requirement for that.
Also, there is no "good faith" requirement in (c)(2)(B), which says there is no liability for any website for "any action taken to enable... the technical means to restrict access to material." In other words, the "good faith" requirement does not cover the parts of the law these Senators are pretending it does, and changing the interpretation of "good faith" wouldn't change the rights of any platform to moderate as they see fit.
Even if they were right in harping on the "good faith" requirement, they'd still be wrong, because forcing a court to determine whether or not a website's editorial policies were done in "good faith" would be a direct 1st Amendment violation itself. After all, if you could determine whether or not Twitter's moderation policies are "good faith" or not, you could do the same for the editorial decision making of a news organization like Fox News.
Once again, the only threat to free speech here is coming from Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler, and Cramer.
However, the protections afforded by Section 230 are not absolute or unconditional
It is correct that 230's protections are not absolute. Which is why one of the most annoying things is that these Senators (Hawley in particular) keep pretending that 230 protections are absolute and that's why he wants to change them. I'd be happy that he's finally admitting they're not absolute if he were doing it in an intellectually honest manner, rather than using it here in a bullshit way to suggest this means it's okay to ignore the law and reinterpret it in Hawley's pro-censorship direction.
But the final word of the sentence is incorrect. Section 230 is an immunity that is based on who creates the content. It is not "conditional" like a safe harbor (like the DMCA's 512, which requires you to meet certain rules to qualify). Section 230 has no such conditions included in it and no court has read it to, because they do not exist. What's happening here is, again, the Senators want to shove this "good faith" thing into the conversation where it simply does not belong.
While social media companies enjoy their special status under Section 230, it is questionable that they are living up to their obligations when they blur the lines between distributor and publisher by favoring one political point of view over another.
This part is just utter nonsense. Section 230 does not have any "obligations." And there is no line for them to "blur" between distributor and publisher (and, again, there remains zero evidence of them favoring one political point over another -- that's just a made up concept by Republicans to work the refs and try to get more favorable moderation). Pretending that there are obligations built into Section 230 is dangerous. It's how you actually stifle free speech, by assuming every company needs to step into line to "get" the liability questions answered properly. It's literally the opposite of the "small government" line these four politicians have all spewed in the past. They are hypocrites.
The reinterpretation of the law they are pushing for here is literally about them being the speech police.
While the President has the means to push back on unfair treatment, we worry about everyday Americans who are sidelined, silenced, or otherwise censored by these corporations.
No you don't. This is gaslighting. There are still plenty of platforms out there that will host anyone's content. Indeed, plenty of platforms have sprung up, in part, because they disliked the way these companies have handled their content moderation. And of course, note that these four Senators don't explain just who it is they're talking about. Which "everyday Americans" have been "sidelined, silenced, or otherwise censored" by these platforms? I'd bet good money that there were perfectly normal reasons, not "anti-conservative bias".
Social media companies, whose protections come from their acting as distributors, not publishers, have increasingly engaged in partisan editorializing, censorship of Chinese dissidents, and a host of politically motivated speech policing.
This is simply laughable. If you took away 230 you'd get even less speech and more policing because of the risk of liability. This has been explained to Josh Hawley numerous times, yet he continues to trot out this nonsense.
While these actions speak for themselves, companies continue to enjoy Section 230 protections due to a lack of clear rules and judicial expansion of the statute.
No, the "rules" are quite clear. And all internet websites enjoy that protection because that's what the law says and what was intended by Congress when it passed. And it's simply wrong to say that courts have "expanded" the statute. They read what's in there, and recognized that it's silly to hold platforms responsible for the speech of others. These four Senators just don't like what the law says. And, as such, they have the right to try to pass legislation (including some nonsensical bills that Hawley has proposed). The idea that this is a job for the FCC makes no sense at all. Indeed, in Reno v. ACLU, the case that invalidated the rest of the Communications Decency Act, the Supreme Court made it clear that the FCC has no mandate to regulate speech on websites, because the internet is protected by the 1st Amendment. In that case, in trying to reject the argument that a former case involving the FCC regulating "indecent" speech on radio would make the regulation of such speech on the internet okay, the Supreme Court said "no, the internet is not radio" and thus the FCC has no regulatory power to police speech on it:
Finally, the Commission's order applied to a medium which as a matter of history had "received the most limited First Amendment protection," [i.e., radio] in large part because warnings could not adequately protect the listener from unexpected program content. The Internet, however, has no comparable history.
In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 557 (1975), we observed that "[e]ach medium of expression ... may present its own problems." Thus, some of our cases have recognized special justifications for regulation of the broadcast media that are not applicable to other speakers, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). In these cases, the Court relied on the history of extensive Government regulation of the broadcast medium, see, e. g., Red Lion, 395 U. S., at 399-400; the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, see, e. g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 637-638 (1994); and its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 128 (1989).
Those factors are not present in cyberspace. Neither before nor after the enactment of the CDA have the vast democratic forums of the Internet been subject to the type of government supervision and regulation that has attended the broadcast industry. Moreover, the Internet is not as "invasive" as radio or television.
Indeed, as the case made clear, the FCC could regulate broadcast airwaves, because it was scarce spectrum that the government was handing out to broadcasters. That is not true of the internet:
Finally, unlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first authorized regulation of the broadcast spectrum, the Internet can hardly be considered a "scarce" expressive commodity. It provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds. The Government estimates that "[a]s many as 40 million people use the Internet today, and that figure is expected to grow to 200 million by 1999." This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication includes not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video, and still images, as well as interactive, real-time dialogue. Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, "the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." 929 F. Supp., at 842 (finding 74). We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.
In other words, the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet at all.
Back to the nonsense letter from the Senators.
Social media companies have become involved in a range of editorial and promotional activity; like publishers, they monetize, edit, and otherwise editorialize user content.
They make it sound like this is a new thing. Instead, this is exactly why Section 230 was written in the first place. A ruling in NY said that because the internet service Prodigy tried to create a "family friendly" service (i.e., it editorialized its forums, and monetized it), it suddenly faced liability for those moderation choices. Congress realized how dangerous that was to free speech online and passed 230. These Senators are simply ignoring the real history and trying to gaslight people into believing an entirely false one.
It is time to take a fresh look at Section 230 and to interpret the vague standard of "good faith" with specific guidelines and direction.
If it is time to take a fresh look at Section 230, then that is Congress' job, and not the FCC's. And, again, the good faith part only applies to a very limited segment of 230 (and one that is almost never used in court).
In addition, it appears that courts have granted companies immunity for editing and altering content even though the text of Section 230 prohibits immunity for any content that the company "in part … develop[s]." These interpretations also deserve a fresh look.
This is also misleading. The part that says "in part... develop[s]" is the definition of an internet content provider. They're trying to misinterpret this section to mislead people into believing that content moderation makes a service a "content provider" rather than an "interactive computer service." In other words, they're leaning very heavily on the "in part... develop[s]" to try to bring about the mythical "publisher" / "platform" split.
But the only way that can happen is if you take this obvious misread of the definitions of 230, and ignore the direct stated intention and words of the rest of the law. That's what these Senators are doing. No court has ever bought into this definition. The authors of 230 have said over and over again that this was never the intent or purpose of 230.
And here's the thing: courts have made it clear that sites that do develop their own content are liable for that content. The Roommates.com case made it clear that sites can be liable for the content they create "in part." But the content they create is different than the content that is moderated. So, for example, the actual text of Twitter's now-infamous "fact check" of President Trump's tweets is not protected by Section 230, because the fact check text itself is content created by Twitter. So it's not like 230 has any bearing there.
But that content is protected by the 1st Amendment. Because there's literally nothing at all illegal about saying "hey, check out more information that suggests the President is lying to you." It's quintessential 1st Amendment protected speech, responding to a public figure who was spewing propaganda.
If anything, taking away 230 would make Twitter potentially liable for whatever awful, defamatory things the President himself tweets.
We therefore request that the FCC clearly define the framework under which technology firms, including social media companies, receive protections under Section 230.
There is no framework. The law requires no framework. The FCC has no authority to interpret the law here, and any interpretation they make is meaningless and would likely be ignored by courts who, at best, would wonder why the FCC is butting in here in the first place.
And here's the little secret Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley and the other Senators don't want you to realize: they know this. They're performing this kind of thing because the President wants this crew of no-spine Senators to back up his nonsense. And now we know which kind of spineless, hypocritical dolts hop to it when the Emperor orders them to make fools of themselves.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, ajit pai, bias, cda 230, fcc, free speech, josh hawley, kelly loeffler, kevin cramer, marco rubio, section 230
Read More | 60 Comments
Congressman And Former Trump Advisor Calls For Hearings On Media Bias, Threatens To Start Pulling FCC Licenses
from the trash-talking dept
Tue, Nov 8th 2016 8:28am — Tim Cushing
It's always the people neck deep in partisanship that make the most noise about unfairness. In a move that bodes well for free speech, Rep. Kevin Cramer is calling for hearings to sort out this "problem" with "biased" media. Cramer also spent some time as Donald Trump's energy advisor, so it's a good guess he feels his candidate hasn't been treated fairly by The Liberal Media™ -- an entity that's always useful for easy scapegoating when things go south for candidates, legislation, etc. on the Republican side. (The liberals/left do the same when stuff goes wrong for them. Everyone does it. The only difference is the scapegoat.)
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) sent a letter to the heads of the four "major" TV networks—CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox—threatening to hold a hearing "to explore network media bias in coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign." To justify this grandstanding and overreaching display of concerned government, Cramer cites a recent Gallup poll which put Americans trust in "media" at around 32 percent and also asserted only 37 percent of Americans think the media's coverage of the 2016 campaign has been "balanced."
Cramer's biases are clear, but he seems blissfully unaware of them. Presumably Fox is being added to this hearing's lineup for the same reason criminal informants get swept up during law enforcement raids -- to prevent any suspicion arising from its exclusion. While Cramer cited the Gallup poll, he also added in more feelings of his own, stating the media (both sides, I guess) is engaged in "surreptitious propaganda" which somehow violates its "moral" duty to inform the public without taking sides.
Rather than allow adults to address the open question of "moral" obligations, Cramer has issued threats with the weight of the federal government behind them. He brought up the Fairness Doctrine, only to drop it moments later, stating that a "free system" is only possible with unbiased media.
Media bias is something universally hated, but it's never not a partisan issue. Everyone agrees bias -- at least too much of it -- is bad. Those wanting to see it gone usually just want the other side to change, not the ones that confirm their world view. Rep. Cramer is no different, and seeing as he has somewhat of a vested interest in Trump's success, his official offendedness is incredibly suspect.
Hearings aren't the only thing Cramer threatened. He also hinted he would start pulling FCC licenses if things didn't change while implying that the First Amendment is mostly for protecting speech he likes.
So instead of wielding the Fairness Doctrine as a means of forcing the networks to rid themselves of all political bias (which would be impossible to quantify, not least because bias is in the eye of the beholder), Cramer threatens their "the use of federally-allocated spectrum" afforded by their FCC licenses, writing "Your FCC license and the liberty that comes with your First Amendment rights are not a license to broadcast anything you want or in any way you choose."
That's an odd interpretation of the First Amendment. There are very few modes of expression that aren't protected by it and "always running down my guy" isn't one of those exceptions. Not that it matters. As Reason's Anthony Fisher points out, Cramer's more angry than informed.
Cramer appears to have not read the FCC's website, which explicitly states (emphasis theirs), "We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations with which stations have relationships (such as PBS or NPR), except to the extent that those entities may also be station licensees."
Though Cramer might want to use the FCC as his own task force, the FCC's website also states the commission "cannot prevent the broadcast of any particular point of view. In this regard, the Commission has observed that 'the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views."
So, the FCC won't be doing any of the things Cramer imagines he can make it do, and any attempt to force the issue would look exactly like what it is: an attack on free speech disguised as a call for "fairness."
Bias will always exist in the media. That's because humans are biased creatures and some of it bleeds over into the profession, no matter how much they might aspire to loftier ideals. And, of course, there are always those who don't even aspire to these ideals and wallow in fully-biased reporting.
But it's not as if dragging down the Big Four to Cramer's level would have much of an impact immediately, much less a lasting one. Only a small minority of Americans get their news exclusively from these outlets. Many more get them from a variety of other sources, all with their own preferences and biases. And humans, being humans, tend to be drawn to viewpoints that agree with their own. Hollering about FCC license and moral obligations won't do anything to make the news more fair -- not when there's a market on both sides of the political aisle hungering for a slant that agrees with their own.
Filed Under: congress, fcc, first amendment, kevin cramer, media bias, news
Companies: abc, cbs, fox, nbc
Read More | 116 Comments

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Call of Duty 4, or Guitar Hero 3 Today?
These are the crucial questions that confront a strategy consultant on the beach. Thank God I'm not a banker; every one of them I know has lost their job, may lose their job, or got their bonuses hacked. All I have to deal with is deciding whether to use the M249 SAW or the R700 sniper rifle on team deathmatch.
I am catching up on all my half finished posts constructed over the past 10 weeks.
Speaking of which, how do you like COD4?
COD4 is the best game I played since Warcraft III back in 2001. Single player is intense, and multiplayer never ends.
COD4 was made by infinity labs, as was the awesome COD2. COD3 was made by treyarch, which is why it sucked.
When I first played the game I ended up going for 7 hours straight. It's brilliant.
COD4, get your M16 out.


text:
Selected Issues in Sport-Related Concussion (SRC | Mild Traumatic Brain Injury) for the Team Physician: A Consensus Statement : Current Sports Medicine Reports
Topical Collections
August 2021 - Volume 20 - Issue 8
Article as EPUB
Export All Images to PowerPoint File
Thought you might appreciate this item(s) I saw in Current Sports Medicine Reports.
Special Communications
Selected Issues in Sport-Related Concussion (SRC | Mild Traumatic Brain Injury) for the Team Physician: A Consensus Statement
Herring, Stanley MD1; Kibler, W. Ben MD2; Putukian, Margot MD3; S. Solomon, Gary PhD4; Boyajian-O'Neill, Lori DO5; Dec, Katherine L. MD6; Franks, R. Robert DO7; A. Indelicato, Peter MD8; R. LaBella, Cynthia MD9,10; Leddy, John J. MD11; Matuszak, Jason MD12; McDonough, E. Barry MD13; O'Connor, Francis G. MD14; Sutton, Karen Michelle MD15
1Departments of Rehabilitation Medicine, Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine and Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
2Shoulder Center of KY, Lexington Clinic, Lexington, KY
3Athletic Medicine, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
4Colchester, VT
5Overland Park Surgical Specialists and Sports Medicine, Overlook Park, KS
6Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Orthopedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
7Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA
8University of Florida Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Institute, Gainesville, FL
9Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
10Division of Pediatric Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL
11Department of Orthopedics, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
12Excelsior Orthopedics, Buffalo, NY
13West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
14Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD
15Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY
Address for correspondence: Margot Putukian, MD, Athletic Medicine, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540; E-mail: [email protected].
Current Sports Medicine Reports 20(8):p 420-431, August 2021. | DOI: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000871
Selected Issues in Sport-Related Concussion (SRC | Mild Traumatic Brain Injury) for the Team Physician: A Consensus Statement is title 22 in a series of annual consensus articles written for the practicing team physician. This document provides an overview of select medical issues important to team physicians who are responsible for athletes with sports-related concussion (SRC). This statement was developed by the Team Physician Consensus Conference (TPCC), an annual project-based alliance of six major professional associations. The goal of this TPCC statement is to assist the team physician in providing optimal medical care for the athlete with SRC.
Sport-related concussion (SRC) is a common injury managed by team physicians. This statement was developed by the Team Physician Consensus Conference (TPCC) to address selected issues on SRC relevant to the practicing team physician. Key Points from this TPCC are noted below. This document is the latest revision to Team Physician consensus statements on SRC originally published in 2006 (1) and updated in 2011 (2).
The diagnosis of SRC remains a challenge due to nonspecific symptoms and lack of objective biomarkers.
SRC is a treatable condition.
The number and severity of initial symptom burden is the best predictor for the duration of recovery.
Current evidence suggests that strict rest after SRC slows recovery and increases the probability of prolonged symptoms.
The majority of athletes with SRC recover within a typical timeframe (2 wk for adults and up to 4 wk for children).
Persisting symptoms after SRC (PSaSRC) is defined as symptoms that last longer than the typical timeframe. The pathophysiology underlying PSaSRC is not entirely understood. It is thought PSaSRC is not caused by a single pathologic process, but rather an interaction of postinjury symptoms that are complicated by preexisting, coexisting, and/or resulting biopsychosocial factors.
The management of disabling PSaSRC often requires a multidisciplinary approach.
The TPCC has been led by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Clinical Sports Medicine Leadership (CSML) committee for more than two decades. The TPCC was formed to create relevant, timely, and condensed resources specifically for the team physician working with athletes at every level of competition (3). An executive committee of medical and orthopedic team physicians from the CSML selects topics, creates an outline based on their collective experience of the topic, then leads a delegation composed of two representatives from each of six major professional medical organizations including: American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, ACSM, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine, and American Osteopathic Academy of Sports Medicine. Representatives are chosen by their organization based on their experience as team physicians with expertise in the topic area. The executive committee assigns select topics from the outline for the representatives who perform an evidence-based review of the existing literature. The outline is reviewed and modified by the executive committee and expert panel members and they then formulate statements that are supported by the literature and best practices into a format of "essential" and "desirable" information that the team physician is responsible for understanding. "Essential" statements are information that every and any team physician (3) must be responsible for understanding, whereas "desirable" statements are those that are ideal, in the setting where every resource is available. TPCC articles are intended to provide general recommendations but are not meant to be prescriptive. The executive committee along with select expert consultant(s) collate and review the article over the course of 12 to 14 months, culminating in an in-person 2-d meeting of the executive committee and consultant(s) to finish compiling the article into a rough draft. That meeting is followed by a 2-d meeting with all of the representatives during which the final article is completed. This is a facilitated process where all topics of the article are reviewed, and exact wording is determined and agreed on. Consensus in this TPCC was reached by unanimous agreement. The final documents are then reviewed and approved by the board of directors of all six participating organizations.
Outline: Select Topics in SRC
– Definition
– Biomechanics and pathophysiology
– Epidemiology
– Preseason planning and assessment
– Same-day evaluation and treatment
– Post same-day evaluation and treatment or return-to-play
– Diagnostic testing and management
– Neurologic sequelae of brain injury
– PSaSRC
– Prevention
– Retirement/disqualification
– Legislation and governance issues
SRC is a traumatic brain injury, a pathophysiological process affecting the brain, induced by direct or indirect biomechanical forces (e.g., a blow to the head or body) (4).
Common features include the following:
Rapid onset of usually short-lived neurological impairment which typically resolves spontaneously.
Acute signs and symptoms that reflect a functional disturbance rather than structural injury.
A range of clinical symptoms that may or may not involve loss of consciousness (LOC).
Routine neuroimaging studies (e.g., traditional computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), if obtained are typically normal.
Signs or symptoms that are not explained by other medical issues (e.g., alcohol, drugs, medications, cervical spine injury, peripheral vestibular dysfunction, psychological disorder) or other comorbidities.
Biomechanics and Pathophysiology
SRC occurs as a result of linear and/or rotational accelerations to the brain and can occur from either direct impact to the head or from transmitted (indirect) forces from the body to the head.
Delineate the mechanism of injury.
○ Most commonly, these include head-to-head, head-to-body (e.g., elbow, knee, shoulder), head-to-ground, or head-to-object (e.g., post, puck, stick).
○ Less commonly, these injuries involve transmitted or indirect forces (e.g., whiplash).
○ The relationship between mechanism and signs, symptoms and severity is an area of emerging interest.
Measured linear and rotational acceleration data alone do not accurately predict SRC (5,6).
No direct relationship between impact biomechanics and symptoms or cognitive performance change scores has been identified (7).
Metabolic changes demonstrated in the animal model and thought to occur in humans include the following:
Alterations in intracellular/extracellular glutamate, potassium, and calcium.
A relative decrease in cerebral blood flow in the setting of an increased requirement for glucose (i.e., increased glycolysis). This mismatch in the metabolic supply and demand may potentially result in cell dysfunction and increase the vulnerability of the cell to a second insult. Changes in the inflammatory chemokines and mitochondrial function also may occur (8,9).
There is presently insufficient evidence to correlate any single or combination of body fluid or imaging biomarkers as being diagnostic or prognostic for SRC (10,11).
It is essential that the team physician understands:
SRC results from either direct impacts or transmitted forces.
Symptoms of SRC are believed to result from changes in cerebral blood flow and an inability to match metabolic demands.
It is desirable that the team physician:
identify the mechanism of SRC;
understand there is currently no known threshold of linear or rotational acceleration to cause SRC;
understand there is insufficient evidence to correlate any single or combination of biomarkers as diagnostic or prognostic for SRC.
SRC commonly occurs in helmeted and nonhelmeted sports and accounts for a significant number of time-loss injuries. There are limitations in SRC data (e.g., injury definition, selection bias, reporting bias, incomplete surveillance).
Because of nonspecific symptoms and lack of objective biomarkers, the true incidence and prevalence remains unknown. However, heightened awareness of and concern about SRC is associated with increased symptom reporting, which may not represent SRC.
Data from emergency department visits, office visits, and a high school injury surveillance system (RIO) estimate 1 to 1.8 million SRCs per year in the United States in the age range of 0 to 18 years and a subset of about 400,000 SRCs in high school athletes (12).
Published reports indicate the following:
Rugby Union (13), American football, ice hockey, soccer, wrestling (14), and lacrosse tend to have the highest concussion incidence rates when calculated by athlete exposure.
Competition SRC rates are consistently higher than practice rates.
In sports played with the same rules for males and females (e.g., basketball, soccer, rugby), research suggests the reported incidence rate of SRC is higher in female athletes.
Data on age-related epidemiology are varied and conflicting (15).
The reported incidence of SRC is higher in high school and college athletes with a history of prior SRC, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and/or learning disabilities (16–19).
Preseason Planning and Assessment
This is the period of the athletic year prior to any practice or competition. During this period, the emergency action plan (EAP) should be developed or reviewed and preparticipation assessment should be performed. EAP and assessments should include protocols and policies for recognition and acute management of SRC.
Each organization should develop SRC protocols and policy, including:
● Definition of SRC
● Education
○ Recognizing signs and symptoms of SRC
○ Role of equipment
○ Avoiding high-risk play behaviors (e.g., leading with the head)
• Diagnosis
○ Only a licensed health care provider can make a SRC diagnosis.
• Acute sideline and postinjury management
• Return to learn (RTL) (academics) and return to play (RTP) guidelines.
Athletes, coaches, parents, administrators, referees, and health care providers should be educated about SRC. Education should occur in a manner consistent and compliant with state law, governing body, and school district requirements.
Preparticipation assessment, including:
● Personal history
○ Prior SRC or brain injury
○ Prior cervical spine injury
○ History of migraines
○ Seizure disorder and other neurological disease
○ Learning disability and ADHD
○ Depression or other mood disorders
○ Medications, supplements, alcohol, and drug use
• The utility of and necessity for baseline assessments is still being researched.
• Baseline assessments, when performed, include symptom checklist, cognitive function, balance/postural stability, and other components of the neurological examination (e.g., most-recent Sports Concussion Assessment Tool [SCAT] or child SCAT; neurocognitive testing (computerized and/or brief paper-and-pencil)) (20).
It is essential that the team physician understand:
the EAP, including guidelines specific to SRC management;
the role of the preparticipation assessment as it relates to SRC.
practice and review the EAP, including recognition and acute management of SRC, at least on an annual basis;
perform a comprehensive preparticipation assessment, including a personal history of SRC;
coordinate and be involved with baseline SRC assessment;
understand some SRCs may require a multidisciplinary team for care (e.g., physician specialists, clinical psychologists, neuropsychologists, athletic trainers, school nurses, physical/occupational therapists), and these resources should be identified during the preseason.
Same-Day Evaluation and Management
This is the period during or immediately after suspected SRC in practice or competition. Evaluation may occur on the field of play or sideline, off-field (e.g., athletic training rooms), and should continue with serial evaluations.
Immediate observable signs (studied in elite adult male athletes) have been shown to raise the index of suspicion for SRC include the following:
○ lying motionless;
○ motor incoordination (stumbling gait);
○ tonic posturing (brief, nonsustained involuntary movements after trauma in an athlete with LOC; has been referred to as "impact seizure");
○ fall with no protective action (rag doll, floppy);
○ blank/vacant look.
Evaluate the injured athlete on-field in a systematic fashion:
○ assess athlete's level of consciousness (AVPU: alert, verbal, pain, and unresponsiveness);
○ assess airway, breathing, circulation;
○ perform a focused neurological assessment emphasizing mental status, focal neurological deficit, and cervical spine status (e.g., on-field components of the SCAT and child SCAT);
○ determine initial disposition (emergency hospital transport vs sideline evaluation) (20) (Table 1).
Table 1 - Signs and symptoms requiring emergency hospital transport (20).
Signs and symptoms requiring emergency hospital transport including: Immediate seizure (at or minutes after impact) (21)
More than brief LOC
Severe or worsening headache
Persistent or recurring emesis
Deteriorating neurological status (e.g., increasing lethargy, confusion)
Persistent focal neurologic deficit (e.g., tingling or paresthesias in extremities, diplopia)
Cervical spine pain, bony tenderness, limited ROM, and/or deformity
Obtain a more detailed history and perform a more detailed physical examination (22).
○ A distraction-free environment optimizes the evaluation.
○ Assess for cognitive, somatic, and affective signs and symptoms of SRC with particular attention paid to the number and severity of symptoms because of their prognostic significance.
○ Perform and repeat neurological assessments, with particular emphasis on cognitive function, cranial nerve, and balance testing until the athlete is stable (e.g., SCAT).
Athletes with suspected SRC should be immediately removed from practice or competition.
○ If no licensed health care provider is present to evaluate the athlete with suspected SRC, there is no RTP even if symptoms resolve.
○ If SRC is confirmed by a licensed health care provider, there is no same-day RTP.
○ If evaluated by a licensed health care provider who determines a SRC did not occur, same-day RTP is an option.
The athlete should not be left unsupervised until a disposition decision is made.
Determine disposition for symptomatic and asymptomatic athletes, including serial assessments and postinjury follow-up (options include home with observation or transport to hospital) (20).
Provide postevent instructions to the athlete and others (e.g., medications, driving, alcohol, physical and cognitive exertion, and medical follow-up).
Final determination regarding SRC diagnosis and management is a medical decision based on clinical judgment.
It is essential that the team physician:
know the signs and symptoms of suspected SRC;
recognize red flags (signs and symptoms and a protocol for emergency hospital transport);
know how to perform an on-field and sideline assessment, which includes a neurological assessment (e.g., SCAT and child SCAT);
understand athletes with suspected SRC should be immediately removed from practice or competition;
develop an initial disposition plan;
understand the determination of the diagnosis of SRC is a medical decision based on clinical judgment.
perform an on-field and sideline assessment to include neurological assessment (e.g., SCAT and Child SCAT);
participate in the same-day assessment and management plan, including diagnosis, acute treatment, and disposition;
educate the athletic care network (including certified and licensed athletic trainers, consulting physicians, and other health care providers) (22);
prepare medical supplies for on-site rescue, immobilization, and transportation (Table 2).
Table 2 - Selected acute and delayed signs and symptoms suggestive of SRC.
Anterograde amnesia
Retrograde amnesia
Feeling "in a fog," "zoned out"
Vacant stare
Inability to focus
Delayed verbal and motor responses
Slurred/incoherent speech
Excessive drowsiness Headache
Balance disruption
Nausea/vomiting
(photophobia, blurry/double vision)
Phonophobia Emotional lability
Sadness Trouble falling asleep
Sleeping more than usual
Sleeping less than usual
Post Same-Day Evaluation and Treatment
This is the period of time beginning the day after the injury and up to RTP. SRC is a treatable condition. The majority of athletes with SRC recover within a typical timeframe, currently defined as 2 wk for adults and up to 4 wk for children. The number and severity of the initial symptom burden is the best predictor for the duration of recovery after SRC.
During this time, symptom-specific interventions can be implemented while recovery is being monitored. It also is important that preexisting, coexisting, and/or resulting comorbidities are addressed (e.g., headache, anxiety, depression, cervical spine pain).
Current evidence suggests strict rest after SRC slows recovery and increases the probability of prolonged symptoms (23). After a brief period of relative rest (24 to 48 h), athletes may gradually and progressively resume cognitive and physical activity provided it does not produce new symptoms or exacerbate their existing symptoms. Recent studies have shown progressive moderate aerobic exercise within the first week helps safely speed recovery (4). Cognitive work should be modified or limited to that which does not produce or exacerbate symptoms.
Return to Driving
No widely accepted return to driving protocols exist. Driving is a complex process involving coordination of cognitive, visual, and motor skills, as well as concentration, attention, visual perception, insight, and memory, which can all be affected by SRC. A decision on driving status should be part of the monitoring period.
Medications routinely prescribed prior to the SRC should be continued. Evidence of efficacy is limited, and most athletes do not require the use of over-the-counter and/or prescription medications for acute SRC symptoms. In select situations where medication is considered, judicious use at the lowest dose for the shortest period is recommended. There is no current evidence that nutraceuticals are efficacious in the prevention or treatment of SRC.
RTL or return to class is the process of transitioning back to class following SRC. Athletes should have regular medical follow-up after SRC to monitor recovery and help with return to class. Some athletes may require a short-term absence from or adjustment to their academic load after injury and then progressed as tolerated. The vast majority of athletes do not require prolonged absence from school or formal academic accommodations (e.g., 504 Plan or Individualized Education Plan) after SRC. While RTL and RTP may progress simultaneously, successful completion of RTL precedes the final clearance for RTP (4).
RTP is the process of transitioning back to practice and competition after SRC (24). Athletes should have regular medical follow-up after SRC to monitor recovery and help with RTP. RTP begins when athletes have reached their baseline level of symptoms, cognition, and balance/postural stability.
Pharmacological therapy that has been prescribed for management of SRC symptoms must be considered carefully by the team physician. The decision to progress to and through RTP while on newly prescribed medication is made by the team physician. Progression involves a stepwise progression and increase in physical demands and sport-specific activities without return of symptoms before the final introduction of exposure to contact. The athlete also should demonstrate psychological readiness for RTP (25) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Return to learn (20).
Return to play (20).
RTP is decided by the team physician.
RTP follows a stepwise progression after an athlete has reached preinjury level of symptoms and function.
RTL precedes final clearance for RTP.
The majority of SRCs resolve in 2 to 4 wk (varies by age).
provide the ongoing care and monitoring of the athlete with SRC,
participate in the RTL process,
coordinate the RTP process,
recognize that the number and severity of initial symptom burden is the best predictor for the duration of recovery after SRC,
understand that limited cognitive rest and early subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise is recommended for the treatment of SRC.
The diagnosis of SRC is clinical and dependent on history, including mechanism of injury and physical examination. Some tests have been proposed as tools to aid in the clinical diagnosis. Other tests have been used for research purposes related to SRC. For each, more research is needed.
SCAT/Child SCAT
SCAT is a tool used to assist the team physician in evaluating SRC in young athletes 13 years old or older; child SCAT is used to evaluate young athletes 12 years and younger (20,26). It is not a standalone tool for the diagnosis of SRC. SCAT is a multimodal tool, which includes validated components of Glasgow Coma Scale, Graded Symptom Checklist, Maddocks' Questions, Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) and the Modified Balance Error Scoring System. Utility of the SCAT significantly decreases three to 5 d postinjury (20). The tool is more clinically useful in the assessment of acute SRC, but has a limited role in tracking recovery except for the symptom checklist. Ceiling effects (high proportion of athletes' scores at the highest level) were noted for the prior versions of SCAT, specifically the five-word immediate recall component of the SAC (20).
Neurocognitive and Neuropsychological Testing
Formal neurocognitive tests include computerized neurocognitive and/or brief paper-and-pencil tests that assess cerebral functions (e.g., attention/concentration, memory, learning, speed of information processing) affected by SRC. While not required, neurocognitive testing may provide additional useful information during the course of SRC and assist in making RTL and RTP decisions (4). The SAC, which is a brief neurocognitive test, is included in the SCAT.
Baseline or preseason neurocognitive testing is not obligatory but may be useful in the interpretation of post-SRC neurocognitive testing (4). With or without baseline neurocognitive testing, there may be a role for postinjury formal neurocognitive testing, particularly in cases of clinical uncertainty. Results of formal neurocognitive tests are best interpreted by a licensed, clinical neuropsychologist (4). These tests should not be the sole basis of SRC diagnosis and/or RTP decisions.
Formal neuropsychological testing is a more comprehensive assessment of cognitive functions, and also includes mood, developmental and personality measures, and formal assessment of effort. This testing is conducted only by a licensed, clinical neuropsychologist and is best used in individuals with PSaSRC or preexisting comorbidities.
Oculomotor
Impairment in oculomotor function may occur in SRC. Several tests have been designed to assess these specialized ocular functions, including saccadic eye movements and smooth pursuits, vestibular ocular reflex and near-point of convergence (NPC). To date, the research suggests that NPC may be the most useful oculomotor test (27).
Spotters/Video Review
Methods have been identified for trained personnel (spotters) using live video with replay and slow-motion capabilities to recognize observable signs of suspected SRC (28). Spotters watch video of events/plays multiple times, at different angles, and communicate with on-field team physicians about potential SRC. The data from the spotter/video review process have been shown to be helpful in SRC assessment of elite adult male athletes (28).
Genetic testing continues to be investigated as a method to identify risks for sustaining or experiencing prolonged recovery from SRC. However, there is no genetic test that is currently clinically useful for either purpose.
Neuroimaging has been shown to have little utility in the diagnosis of acute SRC but should be considered if there is concern for other head or neck injury (red flags).
Standard MRI can be considered in cases with PSaSRC. Advanced neuroimaging techniques (e.g., MRI with diffusion tensor imaging, arterial spin labeling, quantitative susceptibility imaging) remain research tools at this time.
Serum Biomarkers
Several serum biomarkers are being investigated as objective measures of SRC. The most frequently studied include S100 Beta, ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase Isoenzyme L1 (UCHL-1), Neuron Specific Enolase (NSE), and Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP) (29,30). While there is some evidence that GFAP and UCHL-1 are helpful to identify an intracranial bleed, serum biomarkers are not currently indicated for identifying or managing SRC.
Electrophysiological Tests
Electrophysiological tests (EEG, evoked potentials) evaluate electrical activity in the brain. While this an area of active research, there is currently not enough research to recommend utility in the diagnosis and treatment of SRC (31).
The diagnosis of SRC remains a clinical diagnosis. There are tools and tests that may aid in its assessment but are not to be used as standalone measures.
The indications for neuroimaging in athletes.
It is desirable the team physician understand:
formal neurocognitive testing is not required but can provide useful information for baseline and postinjury assessment, and aid in making RTL and RTP decisions;
indications for and limitations of neurocognitive and neuropsychological testing;
the difference between neurocognitive and neuropsychological testing;
impairment in oculomotor function may occur in SRC;
the data from the spotter/video review process have been shown to be helpful in elite adult male athletes;
serum biomarkers, genetic testing, advanced neuroimaging, and electrophysiologic testing are research tools;
the need to educate the athletic care network on the various testing paradigms that exist in the diagnosis of concussion.
Neurological Sequelae of Brain Injury
There are some medical conditions that may be of concern to the team physician and may or may not be related to SRC. These include:
concussive convulsion;
second-impact syndrome/diffuse cerebral edema
recurrent SRC
chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).
Concussive Convulsion
Brief tonic phase followed by myoclonic or clonic jerking of the extremities within 2 s of concussion event and lasting <150 s (32).
Often referred to as "impact seizure," but not epileptiform or true seizure.
Associated with brief LOC.
Reported incidence about 1/70 concussions (33,34).
Requires no specific management beyond on-field/sideline assessment.
No neuroimaging or electroencephalography (EEG) is recommended.
No anticonvulsant therapy is required.
Not a significant risk factor for developing posttraumatic epilepsy (32).
A rare syndrome which appears to be caused when an athlete suffers a second (milder) blow to the head while still symptomatic from a recent head injury, including SRC, which is typically in the same sporting event.
● Nearly all cases have been reported in male athletes aged 13 to 23 years (35).
● More needs to be understood about its pathophysiology.
● Vascular engorgement leads to a massive increase in intracranial pressure and brain herniation resulting in severe brain damage or death.
● Its catastrophic outcome underscores the importance of and can limit the risk of second-impact syndrome (SIS) by:
○ Educating athletes about accurate and immediate symptom reporting.
○ Immediately removing athletes with suspected SRC from practice or competition until evaluated by a licensed health care provider.
○ Complete clinical recovery before RTP
Recurrent Concussion
Sustaining a diagnosed SRC is a risk factor for another diagnosed SRC. However, there is high variability and reasons are multifactorial (36,37).
● Complete clinical recovery from the first SRC diminishes the risk of recurrent SRC.
● Athletes with recurrent SRC may or may not have prolonged recovery with a subsequent SRC.
● A history of SRC should be recognized during the preparticipation evaluation including number, recovery course, and time between injuries.
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
CTE is defined as a delayed onset, distinct, progressive neurodegenerative disease (tauopathy) reported to be caused by repetitive brain trauma (38).
The incidence, prevalence and pathophysiology of CTE are unknown. Although clinical diagnostic criteria have been proposed (38,39), CTE is diagnosed only via autopsy and is based on a preliminary and singular neuropathologic criterion (37). Initial signs and symptoms do not typically manifest until midlife (41) or decades after exposure to trauma (42), and include a significant decline in cognition (recent memory, executive function), mood (depression, anger, irritability), or behavior (impulsivity, aggressiveness, suicidal behavior) with eventual progression to dementia (39,40).
Current evidence does not indicate a higher risk of CTE in youth athletes who sustain multiple SRC (43). "High quality data show no association between repetitive head impact exposure in youth and long-term neurocognitive outcomes." (44)
CTE pathology has been studied primarily in boxers and American football players and has been found in athletes from some other sports as well as in other medical conditions (45).
CTE is an important topic that warrants further study, and prospective longitudinal population-based studies are needed.
● mitigate neurological sequelae of brain injury.
● understand there is not a higher risk of developing CTE in youth athletes who sustain a single or multiple SRC.
● understand SIS is a rare but catastrophic outcome of SRC.
● understand sustaining a diagnosed SRC is a risk factor for diagnosis of another SRC;
● understand concussive convulsions are not a risk factor for developing CTE;
● counsel the athletic care network about conditions that may be related to SRC, and the potential significance of the long-term consequences.
PSaSRC
The majority of athletes with SRC recover within the typical timeframe, currently defined as 2 wk for adults and up to 4 wk for children. PSaSRC is defined as symptoms that last longer than the typical timeframe.
The pathophysiology underlying PSaSRC is not entirely understood. It is thought PSaSRC is not caused by a single pathologic process, but rather an interaction of postinjury symptoms that are complicated by preexisting, coexisting, and/or resulting biopsychosocial factors (4,31,46).
It is important to perform a thorough evaluation for other etiologies of the symptoms, such that these may be identified and treated appropriately.
Factors that may be associated with greater odds of developing PSaSRC include:
● high symptom load immediately after injury;
● prolonged strict cognitive and physical rest (more than a few days) after the concussion;
● unrecognized, untreated, or inadequately treated initial SRC;
● suffering another direct impact to the head or from transmitted (indirect) forces from the body to the head while still symptomatic from a concussion;
● personal or family history of migraine or mood disorder;
● premorbid diagnosis of learning difficulties;
● family and social stressors;
● increased baseline level of SRC symptoms (pre-SRC).
Of all these risk factors, preexisting mood disorder and high symptom load immediately after injury have been shown to be the most consistent predictors of PSaSRC (28,34).
Athletes who are removed from activity immediately after the injury seem to be less likely to develop PSaSRC than those who continue to play immediately after the injury (47,48).
Risk for PSaSRC may be reduced by removing the athlete from play immediately after the injury, instituting relative physical and cognitive rest for the first 24 to 48 h, and then gradually resuming usual activities that do not exacerbate symptoms (48).
Early individualized sub-symptom threshold aerobic exercise training may reduce the risk for developing PSaSRC (49).
Treatment of PSaSRC
With treatment(s), most athletes with PSaSRC will recover without any long-term sequelae. A small percentage may experience long-term symptoms or deficits.
Athletes with PSaSRC require symptom-targeted treatment, which may involve a multidisciplinary team (31,46,50). Treatments that have been shown to be effective in facilitating recovery of specific symptoms for athletes with PSaSRC include cervical spine rehabilitation, subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise training, vestibular and oculomotor therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, academic adjustments, and lifestyle adjustments, involving sleep, nutrition, and hydration (50–58). Pharmacologic treatment is used rarely in SRC and selectively for PSaSRC.
Fatigue is a common PSaSRC. Etiologies can be multifactorial and require a comprehensive evaluation. Treatment should be targeted to the suspected primary cause (e.g., SRC, poor sleep, depression, nutritional deficiency, infection).
Mental Health Issues (Anxiety/Mood)
Mood changes are a common PSaSRC. Etiologies can be multifactorial and require comprehensive evaluation. Evaluation should include validated tests, examples of which include the Beck Depression Inventory II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Patient Health Questionnaire 9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7, and Pediatric Symptom Checklist. A referral to a licensed mental health practitioner may be indicated.
Headache is a common PSaSRC. Persistent headaches occur in 10% to 30% of athletes after a SRC (4,59,60). Athletes with persisting headaches or migraines should be evaluated for preexisting or underlying disorders that may be causing or contributing to headache.
Treatment should be targeted toward the underlying mechanisms (e.g., migraine disorder, unresolved vestibular or visual deficits, dehydration, injury, or dysfunction in the upper cervical spine) and may require multidisciplinary care. Medication-overuse headaches can be caused by long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (61).
Sleep disturbances may preexist, coexist with, and/or result from SRC and may include insomnia, hypersomnolence, or hyposomnia. Disordered sleep may have adverse effects on cognitive function, mood and pain perception, and delayed recovery from SRC. Etiologies are multifactorial and warrant a thorough evaluation. Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment strategies (e.g., medication, sleep hygiene including screen time management) should be considered. A sleep medicine specialist referral may be considered.
Vestibular/Oculomotor
Persisting oculomotor symptoms may occur, and preexist, coexist with, and/or result from SRC. Oculomotor symptoms are detected through history and physical examination, including validated oculomotor tests. Mitigating risk factors include preexisting vestibular dysfunction (e.g., motion sickness). Specialists, including vestibular rehabilitation therapist, otolaryngologist, and audiologist, may be considered.
● most athletes with SRC recover within the typical timeframe;
● PSaSRC is defined as symptoms lasting beyond the typical recovery time;
● immediate removal from play after a concussion may decrease the risk for PSaSRC.
It is desirable that the team physician understand:
● athletes with PSaSRC should have a thorough evaluation for other etiologies of their symptoms;
● prolonged strict physical and cognitive rest are not recommended because it increases the risk for PSaSRC;
● treatment for athletes with PSaSRC is symptom-targeted and may require a multidisciplinary team;
● pharmacologic treatment is used rarely in SRC and selectively for PSaSRC;
● the most common risk factors associated with developing PSaSRC include a preexisting mood disorder and high symptom load immediately after injury;
● the various symptom-targeted treatments shown to be effective for PSaSRC;
● early individualized sub-symptom threshold exercise training may reduce the risk for developing PSaSRC.
Primary prevention of SRC is not completely possible.
● Helmets do not prevent all SRC, although they decrease the incidence of skull fracture and moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries; in professional American football players, it has been reported that certain helmet models are associated with a lower rate of SRC (62).
● There is currently no evidence to support the use of headgear or helmets in sports to prevent all SRC (63–68).
● Headgear in soccer, rugby, wrestling, boxing may decrease the risk of lacerations and soft tissue trauma (63–68).
● Improper use of the head in sport-specific skills, and improper fit of a helmet or required protective equipment may increase the risk of SRC.
● Mouth guards may decrease the risk of dental or oral injury; more research is needed to validate their use in limiting risk of SRC.
There are strategies that may be helpful in primary prevention of SRC, including:
● limiting contact drills in practice;
● teaching sport-specific technique (e.g., blocking, tackling, checking);
● fitting of equipment, with more research needed to validate their role in limiting risk of SRC;
● enforcement of rules that prohibit hits to the head and other potentially unsafe conduct (e.g., spearing, leading with the head);
● rule changes (e.g., checking in youth ice hockey, kickoff return, blindside blocks, targeting, limited pyramid height in cheerleading);
● "Fair Play" (rewarding proper behavior and penalizing improper behavior in ice hockey played in youth) (69);
● more research is needed to recommend cervical spine strengthening and neuromuscular training as primary prevention strategies.
Prevention of disability associated with SRC is an important goal. Strategies include:
● immediate recognition and removal from practice and play;
● avoid prolonged strict cognitive and physical rest;
● complete clinical recovery after SRC before RTP;
● in PSaSRC situations, a multidisciplinary team should be considered for evaluation and management, particularly in athletes who are significantly disabled;
● education for the athlete and other members of the athletic care network about the signs and symptoms of SRC and the importance of immediate recognition and reporting.
It is essential the team physician understand:
● SRCs are not completely preventable.
● In PSaSRC situations, a multidisciplinary team should be considered for evaluation and management, particularly in athletes who are significantly disabled.
It is desirable the team physician:
● understands strategies and interventions that may minimize risk of SRC and PSaSRC.
● educates the athletic care network regarding prevention strategies (Table 3).
Table 3 - Risk factors that may prolong or complicate recovery from SRC.
Concussion History Total number, proximity, severity (duration)
Symptoms Total number, severity (intensity and especially duration)
Signs Prolonged LOC (>1 min)
Susceptibility Concussions occurring with lower impact magnitude and/or requiring longer recovery.
Age Youth and adolescent athletes may recover more slowly.
Preexisting conditions Migraine, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities (LD), depression, anxiety/panic attacks, motion sickness/sensitivity
Legislation and Governance Issues
All 50 states in the United States and the District of Columbia have passed youth SRC laws, and recurrent SRC rates have been declining (70).
These laws have been further modified in many states to include topics, such as RTL, practice modifications, and expansion of coverage, to more groups of health care providers and athletes. Similar legislation has been enacted in Ontario, Canada (71).
In addition to state laws, local, national, and international (72) governing bodies have continued to adopt rule changes and develop guidelines. The team physician is affected by legislation and governance issues both administratively and clinically. As research continues, opportunities exist to further refine these laws and guidelines to optimize efficacy.
● the laws of the country and/or state in which they are practicing regarding SRC;
● rules and regulations from governing bodies regarding SRC.
● participates with state athletic associations in advocacy (e.g., interscholastic associations);
● participates in the education of the athlete, parents/guardians, coaches, caregivers, and others.
Retirement and Disqualification
Retirement decisions from contact or collision sports should typically be a shared decision involving the athlete, parents, guardians, health care providers, and others based on multiple factors, including the risks and benefits of continuing participation in the sport (44).
There is no clear evidence regarding a specific number of SRC in youth sports that mandates retirement/disqualification.
There is limited evidence regarding whether the discontinuation or continuation of participation in a youth sport is associated with long-term brain health and wellbeing. There are relative contraindications to continuing to play a contact or collision sport. These include trauma-related structural brain abnormalities identified on neuroimaging, persistent neurological abnormalities on physical examination, PSaSRC, SRC symptoms occurring with lesser impacts, permanent deficit on neuropsychological testing, psychological readiness to return to play and/or retire, and prior history of intracranial hemorrhage, arachnoid cyst, Chiari malformation.
More research is needed to better determine evidence-based criteria for retirement/disqualification of youth athletes after SRC and/or repeated head trauma.
there is not a specific number of SRC that automatically lead to retirement/disqualification;
retiring from youth sports after SRC is often best addressed via a shared decision-making model.
understand the relative contraindications to continuing participation in contact or collision sports after SRC.
be involved in making retirement/disqualification decisions;
participate in the education of the athlete, parents/guardians, coaches, health care providers, and others.
The Team Physician Consensus Statement published series is not intended as a standard of care, and should not be interpreted as such. This document is only a guide, and as such, is of a general nature, consistent with the reasonable, objective practice of the health care professional. The focus populations for the statement are those individuals that a team physician would care for, typically the child to college or Olympic level aged athlete. Physician representatives from North America comprised the writing group. Given the broad nature of topics, only select topics are included. In addition, formal systematic review of the literature and level of evidence statements or strength of recommendation taxonomy are not included.
The authors would like to thank Jane Senior, Christa Dickey, and Lynette Craft, PhD, for their contributions to this article.
The opinions and assertions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University or the Department of Defense or any of the individual institutions or leagues that authors are affiliated with.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Stanley A. Herring, M.D., Chair, Seattle, Washington; W. Ben Kibler, M.D., Lexington, Kentucky; Margot Putukian, M.D., Princeton, New Jersey.
Consultant: Gary Solomon, Ph.D., Colchester, VT.
EXPERT PANEL: Lori A. Boyajian-O'Neill, D.O. Overland Park, KS; Katherine L. Dec, M.D., Richmond, VA; R. Robert Franks, D.O., Marlton, NJ; Peter A. Indelicato, M.D., Gainesville, FL; Cynthia R. LaBella, M.D., Chicago, IL; John Leddy, M.D., Buffalo, NY; Jason Matuszak, M.D., Buffalo, NY; E. Barry McDonough, M.D., Morgantown, WV; Francis G. O'Connor, M.D., Bethesda, MD; Karen M. Sutton, MD, New York, NY.
S.A.H., M.P., J.L., and G.S. are members of the Concussion in Sport Group Scientific Committee. S.A.H. and M.P. serve on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Board Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Guideline Workgroup. S.A.H. serves on the NCAA Concussion Safety Advisory Group, is Cofounder and Senior Medical Advisor for the Sports Institute at UW Medicine, and owns stock or stock options with Vicis. M.P. is a senior advisor to the National Football League (NFL) Head, Neck & Spine Committee, serves as the Chief Medical Officer for Major League Soccer, has received royalties from Up-To-Date, and serves on the medical advisory board for US Soccer. G.S. is research director for the NFL. K.D. has received grant funding from Children's Hospital Foundation, and royalties from Up-To-Date. C.L. has received grant funding from NOCSAE and received royalties from the AAP, and serves on medical advisory boards for Pop Warner Football, Illinois HS Association and US Soccer. J.L. has received grant funding from the AMSSM, DoD, and NIH, consulting fees from Neurolign and Stage 2 Contracting Engineering, participates on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board (Neuronasal) and has stock or stock options in Highmark Innovations. K.S. is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.
1. Herring S, Bergfeld J, Indelicato P, et al. Concussion (mild traumatic brain injury) and the team physician: a consensus statement. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005; 37:2012–6.
Cited Here |
View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef
2. Herring SA, Cantu RC, Guskiewicz KM, et al; American College of Sports Medicine. Concussion (mild traumatic brain injury) and the team physician: a consensus statement—2011 update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011; 43:2412–22.
3. Herring SA, Kibler WB, Putukian M, et al. Team physician consensus statement: 2013 update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2013; 45:1618–22.
4. McCrory P, Meeuwisse W, Dvořák J, et al. Consensus statement on concussion in sport—the 5th international conference on concussion in sport held in Berlin, October 2016. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017; 51:838–47.
View Full Text | PubMed
5. Rowson S, Duma SM, Beckwith JG, et al. Rotational head kinematics in football impacts: an injury risk function for concussion. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2012; 40:1–13.
PubMed | CrossRef
6. Rowson S, Duma SM. Brain injury prediction: assessing the combined probability of concussion using linear and rotational head acceleration. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2013; 41:873–82.
7. Broglio SP, Eckner JT, Surma T, Kutcher JS. Post-concussion cognitive declines and symptomatology are not related to concussion biomechanics in high school football players. J. Neurotrauma. 2011; 28:2061–8.
8. Di Battista AP, Churchill N, Rhind SG, et al. Evidence of a distinct peripheral inflammatory profile in sport-related concussion. J. Neuroinflammation. 2019; 16:17.
Cited Here
9. Signoretti S, Lazzarino G, Tavazzi B, Vagnozzi R. The pathophysiology of concussion. PM R. 2011; 3(10 Suppl. 2):S359–68.
10. Asken BM, Bauer RM, DeKosky ST, et al. Concussion BASICS II: baseline serum biomarkers, head impact exposure, and clinical measures. Neurology. 2018; 91:e2123–32.
11. Lewis LM, Schloemann DT, Papa L, et al. Utility of serum biomarkers in the diagnosis and stratification of mild traumatic brain injury. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2017; 24:710–20.
12. Bryan MA, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Comstock RD, Rivara F; Seattle Sports Concussion Research Collaborative. Sports- and recreation-related concussions in US youth. Pediatrics. 2016; 138:e20154635.
13. Theadom A, Mahon S, Hume P, et al. Incidence of sports-related traumatic brain injury of all severities: a systematic review. Neuroepidemiology. 2020; 54:192–9.
14. Kerr ZY, Roos KG, Djoko A, et al. Epidemiologic measures for quantifying the incidence of concussion in national collegiate athletic association sports. J. Athl. Train. 2017; 52:167–74.
15. Tsushima WT, Siu AM, Ahn HJ, et al. Incidence and risk of concussions in youth athletes: comparisons of age, sex, concussion history, sport, and football position. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2019; 34:60–9.
16. Brett BL, Kuhn AW, Yengo-Kahn AM, et al. Risk factors associated with sustaining a sport-related concussion: an initial synthesis study of 12,320 student-athletes. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2018; 33:984–92.
17. Iverson GL, Wojtowicz M, Brooks BL, et al. High school athletes with ADHD and learning difficulties have a greater lifetime concussion history. J. Atten. Disord. 2020; 24:1095–101.
18. Iverson GL, Gardner AJ, Terry DP, et al. Predictors of clinical recovery from concussion: a systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017; 51:941–8.
19. Patricios J, Fuller GW, Ellenbogen R, et al. What are the critical elements of sideline screening that can be used to establish the diagnosis of concussion? A systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017; 51:888–95.
20. Echemendia RJ, Meeuwisse W, McCrory P, et al. The Sports Concussion Assessment Tool, 5th edition (SCAT5): background and rationale. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017; 51:851–8.
21. Najafi MR, Tabesh H, Hosseini H, et al. Early and late posttraumatic seizures following traumatic brain injury: a five-year follow-up survival study. Adv. Biomed. Res. 2015; 4:82.
22. Herring SA, Kibler W, Putukian M. Sideline preparedness for the team physician: a consensus statement-2012 update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012; 44:2442–5.
23. Thomas DG, Apps JN, Hoffmann RG, et al. Benefits of strict rest after acute concussion: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015; 135:213–23.
24. Herring SA, Kibler WB, Putukian M. The team physician and the return-to-play decision: a consensus statement-2012 update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012; 44:2446–8.
25. Herring SA, Kibler WB, Putukian M. Psychological issues related to injury and illness in athletes and the team physician: a consensus statement-2016 update. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2017; 16:189–201.
26. Davis GA, Purcell L, Schneider KJ, et al. The Child Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5th Edition (Child SCAT5): Background and rationale. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017;51:859–61.
27. Pearce KL, Sufrinko A, Lau BC, et al. Near point of convergence after a sport-related concussion: measurement reliability and relationship to neurocognitive impairment and symptoms. Am. J. Sports Med. 2015; 43:3055–61.
28. Davis GA, Makdissi M, Bloomfield P, et al. International study of video review of concussion in professional sports. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019; 53:1299–304.
29. McCrea M, Meier T, Huber D, et al. Role of advanced neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers and genetic testing in the assessment of sport-related concussion: a systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017; 51:919–29.
30. O'Connell B, Kelly ÁM, Mockler D, et al. Use of blood biomarkers in the assessment of sports-related concussion—a systematic review in the context of their biological significance. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2018; 28:561–71.
31. Harmon KG, Clugston JR, Dec K, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement on concussion in sport. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019; 53:213–25.
32. Wennberg R, Hiploylee C, Tai P, Tator C. Is concussion a risk factor for epilepsy?Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 2018; 45:275–82.
33. McCrory PR, Bladin PF, Berkovic SF. Retrospective study of concussive convulsions in elite Australian rules and rugby league footballers: phenomenology, aetiology, and outcome. BMJ. 1997; 314:171–4.
34. McCrory PR, Berkovic SF. Concussive convulsions. Incidence in sport and treatment recommendations. Sports Med. 1998; 25:131–6.
35. McLendon LA, Kralik SF, Grayson PA, Golomb MR. The controversial second impact syndrome: a review of the literature. Pediatr. Neurol. 2016; 62:9–17.
36. Guskiewicz KM, McCrea M, Marshall SW, et al. Cumulative effects associated with recurrent concussion in collegiate football players: the NCAA Concussion Study. JAMA. 2003; 290:2549–55.
37. Castile L, Collins CL, McIlvain NM, et al. The epidemiology of new versus recurrent sports concussions among high school athletes, 2005–2010. Br. J. Sports Med. 2012; 46:603–10.
38. McKee AC, Cairns NJ, Dickson DW, et al; TBI/CTE group. The first NINDS/NIBIB consensus meeting to define neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Acta. Neuropathol. 2016; 131:75–86.
39. Stern RA, Daneshvar DH, Baugh CM, et al. Clinical presentation of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Neurology. 2013; 81:1122–9.
40. Reams N, Eckner JT, Almeida AA, et al. A clinical approach to the diagnosis of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome: a review. JAMA Neurol. 2016; 73:743–9.
41. Gavett BE, Stern RA, McKee AC. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy: a potential late effect of sport-related concussive and subconcussive head trauma. Clin. Sports Med. 2011; 30:179–88.
42. McKee AC, Cantu RC, Nowinski CJ, et al. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes: progressive tauopathy after repetitive head injury. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 2009; 68:709–35.
43. McAllister T, McCrea M. Long-term cognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences of repetitive concussion and head-impact exposure. J. Athl. Train. 2017; 52:309–17.
44. Rivara FP, Tennyson R, Mills B, et al. Consensus statement on sports-related concussions in youth sports using a modified Delphi approach. JAMA Pediatr. 2020; 174:79–85.
45. Iverson GL, Gardner AJ, Shultz SR, et al. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathology might not be inexorably progressive or unique to repetitive neurotrauma. Brain. 2019; 142:3672–93.
46. Halstead ME, Walter KD, Moffatt K; Council On Sports Medicine and Fitness. Sport-related concussion in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2018; 142:e20183074.
47. Elbin RJ, Sufrinko A, Schatz P, et al. Removal from play after concussion and recovery time. Pediatrics. 2016; 138:e20160910.
48. Taubman B, Rosen F, McHugh J, et al. The timing of cognitive and physical rest and recovery in concussion. J. Child Neurol. 2016; 31:1555–60.
49. Leddy J, Baker JG, Haider MN, et al. A physiological approach to prolonged recovery from sport-related concussion. J. Athl. Train. 2017; 52:299–308.
50. McCarty CA, Zatzick D, Stein E, et al; Seattle Sports Concussion Research Collaborative. Collaborative care for adolescents with persistent postconcussive symptoms: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2016; 138:e20160459.
51. Schneider KJ, Meeuwisse WH, Nettel-Aguirre A, et al. Cervicovestibular rehabilitation in sport-related concussion: a randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014; 48:1294–8.
52. Kontos AP, Deitrick JM, Collins MW, Mucha A. Review of vestibular and oculomotor screening and concussion rehabilitation. J. Athl. Train. 2017; 52:256–61.
53. Leddy JJ, Baker JG, Kozlowski K, et al. Reliability of a graded exercise test for assessing recovery from concussion. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2011; 21:89–94.
54. Leddy JJ, Kozlowski K, Donnelly JP, et al. A preliminary study of subsymptom threshold exercise training for refractory post-concussion syndrome. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2010; 20:21–7.
55. Ellis MJ, Leddy J, Willer B. Multi-disciplinary management of athletes with post-concussion syndrome: an evolving pathophysiological approach. Front. Neurol. 2016; 7:136.
56. Leddy JJ, Haider MN, Ellis MJ, et al. Early subthreshold aerobic exercise for sport-related concussion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2019; 173:319–25.
57. Hugentobler JA, Vegh M, Janiszewski B, Quatman-Yates C. Physical therapy intervention strategies for patients with prolonged mild traumatic brain injury symptoms: a case series. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2015; 10:676–89.
58. Hoffman NL, Weber ML, Broglio SP, et al. Influence of postconcussion sleep duration on concussion recovery in collegiate athletes. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2020; 30(Suppl. 1):S29–35.
59. Kamins J, Bigler E, Covassin T, et al. What is the physiological time to recovery after concussion? A systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017; 51:935–40.
60. Makdissi M, Schneider KJ, Feddermann-Demont N, et al. Approach to investigation and treatment of persistent symptoms following sport-related concussion: a systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017; 51:958–68.
61. Vandenbussche N, Laterza D, Lisicki M, et al. Medication-overuse headache: a widely recognized entity amidst ongoing debate. J. Headache Pain. 2018; 19:50.
62. Battista J. NFL, Players Union Release Helmet Testing Study Results. NFL.com—Official Site of the National Football League [Internet]. 2019; [cited 2021 May 5]. Available from: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001026206/article/nfl-players-union-release-helmet-testing-study-results.
63. McIntosh AS, Patton DA. Boxing headguard performance in punch machine tests. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015; 49:1108–12.
64. Elbin RJ, Beatty A, Covassin T, et al. A preliminary examination of neurocognitive performance and symptoms following a bout of soccer heading in athletes wearing protective soccer headbands. Res. Sports Med. 2015; 23:203–14.
65. Stemper BD, Shah AS, Harezlak J, et al; CARE Consortium Investigators. Comparison of head impact exposure between concussed football athletes and matched controls: evidence for a possible second mechanism of sport-related concussion. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2019; 47:2057–72.
66. Campolettano ET, Gellner RA, Smith EP, et al. Development of a concussion risk function for a youth population using head linear and rotational acceleration. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2020; 48:92–103.
67. Rowson S, Campolettano ET, Duma SM, et al. Accounting for variance in concussion tolerance between individuals: comparing head accelerations between concussed and physically matched control subjects. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2019; 47:2048–56.
68. Rowson S, Duma SM, Greenwald RM, et al. Can helmet design reduce the risk of concussion in football?J. Neurosurg. 2014; 120:919–22.
69. Smith AM, Gaz DV, Larson D, et al. Does fair play reduce concussions? A prospective, comparative analysis of competitive youth hockey tournaments. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2016; 2:e000074.
70. Yang J, Comstock RD, Yi H, et al. New and recurrent concussions in high-school athletes before and after traumatic brain injury laws, 2005-2016. Am. J. Public Health. 2017; 107:1916–22.
71. Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Bill 193. An act to enact Rowan's Law (concussion safety), 2017 and to amend the education act. [cited 2021 April 14]. Available from: https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2017/2017-12/bill---text-41-2-en-b193_e.pdf.
72. Maddocks DL, Perry RW. Commentary: Concussion Guidelines in National and International Professional and Elite Sports. Neurosurgery. 2020; 87:E123–5.
Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Sports Medicine
View full article text
Current Sports Medicine Reports20(8):420-431, August 2021.
Articles in PubMed by Stanley Herring, MD
Articles in Google Scholar by Stanley Herring, MD
Other articles in this journal by Stanley Herring, MD
Data is temporarily unavailable. Please try again soon.
Team Physician Consensus Statements
twitter.com/CSMRonline
Readers Of this Article Also Read
The Role of Exercise in Preventing and Treating Depression
American College of Sports Medicine Expert Consensus Statement to Update Recommendations for Screening, Staffing, and Emergency Policies to Prevent Cardiovascular Events at Health Fitness Facilities
ACSM Expert Consensus Statement on Weight Loss in Weight-Category Sports
Increasing the Availability of Automated External Defibrillators at Sporting Events: A Call to Action from the American College of Sports Medicine
Energy Drinks: A Contemporary Issues Paper
by the American College of Sports Medicine


When Raphael and Katie Couri Rodolfi purchased the F. Meyer Block Building on Adams Street in 2017, they acquired a little slice of Peoria history. Built in 1885 as Meyer Hardware, the structure has seen its share of tenants over nearly 135 years, weathering economies good and bad. Having set up their own ventures in the building—alongside a pair of other businesses—the Rodolfis are in it for the long haul.
The entrepreneurial couple has longed to open shop in Peoria, initially setting their sights on finding a location along West Main Street near their home. When they couldn't find the right space for their needs, they expanded their search to the Warehouse District.
In January 2018, WAXology in the wHAIRhouse relocated to the storefront facing Adams Street, and in June, Hannah Ramlo opened Soulside Healing Arts in the rear of the building, offering yoga and holistic wellness classes.
"Visitors often express surprise at the beauty and warmth of the space," Ramlo notes. "They comment on the original architectural materials, like the exposed brick and tin tile ceilings." The space also includes a loft, where she often works on her laptop when she isn't teaching, as well as the original walk-in safe used to store materials.
The only space left to fill was in the building's front corner. That's where Katie Couri Rodolfi opened her specialty grocery store, Sous Chef, last October—filling a critical need in the downtown food desert. Not only does the shop offer locally-sourced produce and meat, it features homemade takeout items like fresh salads, hummus snack-packs, baked bread and tarts, as well as entrees like chicken pot pie and meatballs with mozzarella. "We are a small operation," she explains, "so we can keep a tight handle on inventory and stock only what we know we can sell to cut down on waste." In addition to maintaining low prices, Sous Chef has set itself apart by accommodating its customers' special dietary needs and requests.
Sous Chef is a specialty grocery store featuring local farmers and vendors; fresh, seasonal vegetables, meats and baked goods; and prepared meals.
Collaborating with nearby businesses has also been fruitful in attracting customers. For instance, Sous Chef hosts "Quiche & Coffee" every Sunday, pairing coffee from nearby Zion with Katie's homemade quiche and muffins—or whatever she happens to be making that morning.
Sous Chef owner Katie Couri Rodolfi, middle, flanked by brother Patrick Couri and sister Sarah Couri.


Warham Greens - *** MEGA NEWS *** - RUFOUS TAILED ROBIN along western most track late afternoon & Barred Warbler. Waxham - RADDE'S WARBLER, GG Shrike, Lap Bunt, Siberian Chiffchaff & 38 Common Cranes. West Runton/Sheringham - Great Grey Shrike. Cley - Osprey, 2 Lap Bunts & 3 Mealy Redpolls over & 2 Short-eared Owls. Horsey - 3 SEO's. Welney - Crane, 2 Rouzels & Curlew Sand. Salthouse - Richard's Pipit. East Hills - Richard's Pipit, 2 Lap bunts, Rouzel & SEO. Burnham overy - Richard's Pipit over. Blakeney point - Richard's Pipit & Purple Sand. Bacton - Rough-legged Buzzard in off sea. Titchwell - 2 Lap Bunts over, Purple Sand & Whinchat. Cromer - Lap Bunt, 3 SEO's, Hen Harrier & 12 Crossbills. Winterton - GG Shrike & SEO. Mundesley - SEO. Burnham Norton - GG Shrike. YELLOW-BROWED WARBLERS at Walsey Hills, Ravenstone, Holkham (2), Titchwell, Wells woods (3), Stiffkey (2), East Hills, Gt. Yarmouth, Warham Greens, Burnham Overy dunes, Waxham, Winterton (2), Holme & Cromer.


6 YRS Guangzhou Mengya Trade Co., Ltd.
12 YRS Shenzhen Hansfi Hotel Products Co., Ltd.
How can I get some samples9 1) We are honored to offer you samples. Then you can pay the freight direct to your local carrier 5 . You can purchase our hotel amenities in kits (for example, dental kits, shaving kits,etc).
Can I choose the paste color or flavor based on my needs 9 A. Where is your factory located9 How can I visit there9 A. Guangzhou is the centre of toothpaste manufacture in china 9. Q.
Yes,Free Samples will be sent for your testing. 2. Q. Can I print my logo on the tube, box or carton 9 A. Can I choose the paste color or flavor based on my needs 9 A.
Can I print my logo on the tube, box or carton 9 A. Can I choose the paste color or flavor based on my needs 9 A. What price terms do you accept 9 A.
This Toothpaste refreshes the mouth with powerful mineral clay, sea salt, and pure plant essences. Herb is a rare, potent, priceless, wonder herb that delivers incredible Oral Care benefits. This toothpaste brings this wonder herb in the form of Incredible herbal toothpaste. Function.
Fluoride toothpaste is an effective method of reducing dental caries. * Brushing twice daily with fluoride toothpaste is an effective method of reducing dental caries. * In areas where the water supply is fluoridated it gives extra protection to teeth.
Alibaba.com offers 19 dabur toothpaste products. About 84% of these are toothpaste, 10% are hotel amenities, and 5% are teeth whitening.
A wide variety of dabur toothpaste options are available to you, such as oral refreshing, whitening, and anti-bacterial. You can also choose from herbal, chemical. As well as from hotel, home.
There are 19 dabur toothpaste suppliers, mainly located in Asia. The top supplying country is China (Mainland), which supply 100% of dabur toothpaste respectively.
Dabur toothpaste products are most popular in Africa, Central America, and South America.
You can ensure product safety by selecting from certified suppliers, including 19 with GMP, 1 with Other certification.


Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Evenly distribute sliced red peppers into a 9 x 13-inch baking dish. Drizzle with olive oil, and sprinkle with garlic powder, basil, and salt. Bake for 60 minutes, stirring once halfway through.
Add a half-cup of these to any hummus recipe, tower them on top of whole wheat pasta, or down 'em as a simple side dish.
Looks like these heart-healthy red peppers are a perfect way to show your body some love this Valentine's day. What red creations do you and your cupid adore?