International differences in sport medicine access and clinical management

I undertook the 2012 ECOSEP travelling fellowship, sponsored by Bauerfeind, between May and August 2012, which involved visiting 5 European sport medicine centres and spending approximately one week in each centre. The 5 centres included: National Track and Field Centre, SEGAS, Thessaloniki, Greece; Professional School in Sport & Exercise Medicine, University of Barcelona, Spain; Sport Medicine Frankfurt Institute, Germany; Isokinetic Medical Group, FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence, Bologna, Italy, and Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End Hospital, England. Throughout the fellowship, the clinical cases which were routinely encountered were documented. The following sections detail my experiences throughout the fellowship, the sports of the athletes and the injuries which were treated at each of the sport medicine centres during the fellowship visit and the different forms of management employed. © 2012, CIC Edizioni Internazionali

Challenging the SD benefits attributed to sport Mega-Events hosting

Sport Mega-event hosting faces opposition that is manifested with different intensity during the different phases of the event, from its inception as an idea to its delivery and legacy. Some Social Movements Organisations (SMOs) have acted as indefatigable monitors of the Sustainable Development (SD) dimension of sporting events in general and, in some of the most recent sport mega-events, in particular the Olympics, they have served as important advisors and facilitators. Nevertheless, in many cases we see enthusiastic supporters turning to vehemently challenging whatever positives have been associated with hosting the event. In addition, there is opposition to sport Mega-events in their entirety. That type of opposition tends to employ a holistic prism that manages to identify multiple interconnected negative aspects of hosting a sport mega-event and incorporate them into an anti-systemic discourse. It is important to bear in mind that irrespective of many proclamations to the opposite as far as megas are concerned (projects and/or events), a number of studies have demonstrated that citizen participation and democratic accountability in decision-making have been notoriously absent. After all, the idea of citizen participation in the planning of sport mega-event is essentially the public response to a plan conceived by others. There were, of course, some notable cases of democratic consultation at the early stages of bidding to host a sport mega-event but these more democratic approaches resulted in the failure of the bid (for e.g. Toronto 1996). The knowledge of this by the groups that initiated the hosting idea and the bidding process has led to discouraging in depth public consultation that may fit perfectly to the democratic process but not to the tight schedules of associated projects completion. That produces ‘autocracy against which opposition may arise’ (Hiller, 2000, p. 198). It is this democratic deficit that has led to important instances of social contestation and protest mobilizations by citizen groups as well as the more regular corps of social activists. From a perspective borrowed from the sociology of protest and social movements, sport mega-events hosting can operate as an issue that stimulates protest activities by an existing protest milieu and new actors as well as an important mobilizing resource. In fact, some scholars have also argued that the Olympic Games were an important frame for the transnational activism that was marked by anti-globalization protest in Seattle in 1999 (Cottrell & Nelson, 201; Lenskyj, 2008). In addition, it’s important not to lose sight of other acts dissent that take place in relatively close proximity, about a year before the event when most infrastructural and societal changes brought by hosting the event and impact start to become apparent by the host communities, like the rioting of August 2011 in the London Olympic Boroughs and the 2012 riots of June 2013 in Sao Paulo and other Brazilian cities. This paper starts by outlining the SD claims made in the bidding to host the summer Olympic Games by five prospective hosts (Sydney; Athens; Beijing; London and Rio) proceeds towards examining the opposition and challenges that was manifested in relation to these claims. In Particular it provides an assessment of protest-events over the aforementioned different phases of sport mega-events hosting. A different picture emerges for each of the host nation that is partly explained by local, national and global configuration of protest politics. Whereas the post-event legacy of the first two hosts of the Games can be assessed and that way see the validity of claims made by challengers in the other phases, in the other three cases, the implementation of Olympic Games Impact (OGI) studies offers the tool for discussing the post-event phase for Beijing and London and engage in a speculative exercise for the case of Rio. Judging by available findings, the paper concludes that the SD aspiration made in the bid documents are unlikely to be met and social contestation based on the same issues is likely to increase due to the current global economic crisis and BRICS, like China and Brazil, having entered the process of becoming global economic hegemons.

Sport Mega-Event Hosting and Environmental Concern: From Sydney to Rio

This paper examines the extent to which the proclamation by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that Olympic Games hosting can improve the environmental capacity of the host nation holds. It singles out the post-event environmental concern exhibited by the population of the host country as the most important indicator and proceeds towards examining how successive host nations have performed in relation to that. The intervening variable of the global environmental crisis is put under the microscope and as a result the general conclusion suggests that environmental concern is much more tied to the general socio-economic predicament that the host country finds itself to be in the post-event phase than the successful hosting of green Games.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) and Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) in General Practice (GP): A Novel GP-based MSK and SEM Clinic for Managing Musculoskeletal symptoms in a GP

Musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints are common within primary care (1) (2) (3) but some General Practitioners (GPs)/family physicians do not feel comfortable managing these symptoms (3), preferring to refer onto hospital specialists or Integrated Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services (ICATs). Long waiting times for hospital outpatient reviews are a major cause of patient inconvenience and complaints (4). We therefore aimed to establish a GP-ran MSK and sport and exercise medicine (SEM) clinic based within a Belfast GP surgery that would contribute to a sustainable improvement in managing these common conditions within primary care as well as reducing waiting times for patients with these conditions to see a specialist. This shift from hospital-based to community-based management is in-keeping with recent policy changes within the UK health-system, including Transforming Your Care within Northern Ireland (NI) (5). The GP-ran MSK and SEM clinic was held monthly within a Belfast GP practice, staffed by one GP with a specialist interest in MSK and SEM conditions and its performance was reviewed over a three month period. Parameters audited included cases seen, orthopaedic and x-ray referral rates and secondary care referrals comparing the GP practice’s performance to the same time period in the previous year as well as patient satisfaction questionnaires.

Why 2014 was the year of the whistle-blower in sport

The FIFA World Cup was one of the sports highlights of 2014. Off the field, however, it has been an annus horribilis for football’s world governing body.1 FIFA has been dogged throughout by controversy relating to the award of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar.

Concussion and Brain Injury in Contact Sport: Legal Implications

A concussed participant leaving the field of play is one of the most worrying sights in sport. It is also one that might have serious legal implications for sports governing bodies. Over the past number of years, a major class action suit has rumbled through the US courts as taken against that country's biggest professional sport, the National Football League. The NFL is at present attempting to settle the lawsuit from more than 4,500 retired players who claim that the NFL knew for decades about the chronic health risks associated with cumulative concussions in American football but failed to warn players or take preventative steps. Testimony from retired NFL players has revealed stories of chronic headaches, Alzheimer-like forgetfulness, altered personalities and sometimes a downward spiral into depression, violence and suicide. Medical research is suggesting that professional American football players are three times more likely to die as a result of certain neurodegenerative diseases than the general population. This paper notes that the concerns about concussion are not confined to the NFL and extend to contact sport more widely and notably rugby union. This paper also assesses the reaction of leading sports governing bodies globally to the recorded medical risks and accompanying legal vulnerabilities.