“The people making the rules at the NFL are idiots”

[billsfan89]

Then Harrison is free to quit/retire.

 

It took him almost 10 years to develop into a good player, and his trademark is dirty/dangerous hitting. He's just scared that if they take away the one thing he does (cheap-shotting people with his helmet), he'll just be a crappy player like he was when he was bouncing around the Euro League.

 

He is the broad street bullies of the NFL.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I understand the concern for player safety, but I just think the NFL is going the wrong route.

I don't care about players losing paychecks. But personally, I'm sick of watching "illegal hits" lead to game changing drives. Especially when the refs get it wrong half the time.

 

Football is a fast moving contact sport. Defenders are supposed to make hits, tackle and jar the ball loose. These kind of hits are going to happen all the time and it's almost impossible for refs to tell the difference. Most of the time, the refs end up penalizing 15 yards for guys leading with a shoulder pad (not a helmet).

 

Besides, illegal hits are almost impossible for a defender to avoid. I would bet that most of us played football in high school or college. Think about it:

 

- If a defender tries to tackle the ballcarrier in a completely upright position, they will be unable to wrap up, so most of the time they will MISS the tackle. Proper technique teaches you have to go a little bit lower (aim for the midsection) to wrap a ballcarrier up.

- When aiming for the midsection of a ballcarrier, a defender has no choice but to lower his head. This is common sense.

- In most cases, a proper tackle is going to lead to a defender's helmet in the chest of the ballcarrier. But there is almost no room for error. Contact is a little bit high, you get helmet-to-helmet or blow to the head. Bend over too much, you get a leading with the crown of the helmet penalty.

- The defender also only plays a small part in this equation. He has no control on where the ballcarrier will be when contact is made. He could be aiming for the guy's chest. But if the ballcarrier drops at the last second, you've got an illegal hit.

 

It's just crap.

 

They should be spending their time focusing on improving the equipment.

 

Whether you hit with great technique, helmet to helmet collisions are going to happen. It's unavoidable. It's a part of the game, and if they're complaining that defenders are using helmets as a weapon, then take away their helmets.

Both of you are making the argument that helmet to helmet hits are unavoidable.

 

The truth IMO is that sometimes they are unavoidable and MANY times they are not.

 

You are also ignoring the fact that the latest rules proposals are meant to protect "launching oneself into a defenseless player or receiver." In other words initiating the contact or put differently, being proactive or "delivering the blow."

 

Have either of you guys watched old time football?

 

Sometimes tacklers need to just tackle the offensive player and forget about "getting in a shot."

 

The NFL is trying to reprogram players into actions whereby if there is any doubt, the defensive player has to absorb the blow and simply make sure that the offensive player (usually a defenseless receiver) is simply taken to the ground.

 

This means on occasion, that the defensive player, instead of trying to dole out punishment, has to settle for catching the offensive player and just making sure the tackle is made.

 

The beauty of this "reprogramming" is that the rules are the same for all teams. It doesn't hurt any team any more or less than another team. And all players, both offensive and defensive will reap the benefits of compliance with the new rules.

 

Football is a violent sport and always has been. Why do we need gratuitous violence? Why do they call charging in hockey? Because at some point, it crosses the line and becomes unnecessarily violent, that's why. Why are there TKOs in boxing? Because no one should be "out on their feet" and continue to absorb needless punishment.

 

Why should pro football be a sport where a person can be crippled or killed just to satisfy the bloodlust of a few people?

 

On another subject, the "improve the equipment" argument is as ridiculous as the "take away their helmets" argument.

 

It's exactly the improvements in equipment (in football as in hockey as in other sports) which has made players even more reckless and violent. When you improve the equipment you increase the violence of any sport. I can assure you that when they played with leather helmets that players were not using the helmet as a weapon. NHL hockey players say all the time that players had more respect for their opponents in the days when no one wore helmets.

 

And you can't take equipment away Dre. Theoretically the only way to do that would be to start in Pop Warner and condition players to not play with equipment and carry that group of players up to the NFL. They would have a lifetime of not playing with helmets/equipment… just like rugby players.

 

You can't take helmets/equipment away from people who have been playing with it their whole lives. The carnage would be unimaginable.

 

It's just my opinion but you guys, along with the idiot James Harrison, are dead wrong.

Edited May 29, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[mjt328]

Both of you are making the argument that helmet to helmet hits are unavoidable.

 

The truth IMO is that sometimes they are unavoidable and MANY times they are not.

 

You are also ignoring the fact that the latest rules proposals are meant to protect "launching oneself into a defenseless player or receiver." In other words initiating the contact or put differently, being proactive or "delivering the blow."

 

Have either of you guys watched old time football?

 

Sometimes tacklers need to just tackle the offensive player and forget about "getting in a shot."

 

The NFL is trying to reprogram players into actions whereby if there is any doubt, the defensive player has to absorb the blow and simply make sure that the offensive player (usually a defenseless receiver) is simply taken to the ground.

 

This means on occasion, that the defensive player, instead of trying to dole out punishment, has to settle for catching the offensive player and just making sure the tackle is made.

 

The beauty of this "reprogramming" is that the rules are the same for all teams. It doesn't hurt any team any more or less than another team. And all players, both offensive and defensive will reap the benefits of compliance with the new rules.

 

Football is a violent sport and always has been. Why do we need gratuitous violence? Why do they call charging in hockey? Because at some point, it crosses the line and becomes unnecessarily violent, that's why. Why are there TKOs in boxing? Because no one should be "out on their feet" and continue to absorb needless punishment.

 

Why should pro football be a sport where a person can be crippled or killed just to satisfy the bloodlust of a few people?

 

On another subject, the "improve the equipment" argument is as ridiculous as the "take away their helmets" argument.

 

It's exactly the improvements in equipment (in football as in hockey as in other sports) which has made players even more reckless and violent. When you improve the equipment you increase the violence of any sport. I can assure you that when they played with leather helmets that players were not using the helmet as a weapon. NHL hockey players say all the time that players had more respect for their opponents in the days when no one wore helmets.

 

And you can't take equipment away Dre. Theoretically the only way to do that would be to start in Pop Warner and condition players to not play with equipment and carry that group of players up to the NFL. They would have a lifetime of not playing with helmets/equipment… just like rugby players.

 

You can't take helmets/equipment away from people who have been playing with it their whole lives. The carnage would be unimaginable.

 

It's just my opinion but you guys, along with the idiot James Harrison, are dead wrong.

 

I'm not completely disagreeing.

Like I said: I don't care if the NFL wants to review film after games and fine players for hits that are deemed bad. That doesn't affect the games. And maybe over time, it would change the way players attack on the field.

 

Where I have a problem is these ridiculous 15 yard penalties, when it's very clear that it's impossible for the refs to determine if it was an illegal hit or not in real time. A 15 yard penalty is a potential game changer. The refs already have too much power to change games one way or another. I've seen way too many times that someone does a shoulder to shoulder hit, but the ref THOUGHT it looked illegal. Boom...there is a 15 yard penalty and automatic first down.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I'm not completely disagreeing.

Like I said: I don't care if the NFL wants to review film after games and fine players for hits that are deemed bad. That doesn't affect the games. And maybe over time, it would change the way players attack on the field.

 

Where I have a problem is these ridiculous 15 yard penalties, when it's very clear that it's impossible for the refs to determine if it was an illegal hit or not in real time. A 15 yard penalty is a potential game changer. The refs already have too much power to change games one way or another. I've seen way too many times that someone does a shoulder to shoulder hit, but the ref THOUGHT it looked illegal. Boom...there is a 15 yard penalty and automatic first down.

I agree with "the speed of the game" argument as it does apply at times. Some plays ARE bang-bang and players hardly have time to react, much less move in a way so as to avoid a penalty.

 

The NFL has made a habit of fining players based on film review. I'm sure that practice will continue as a way of attempting to assure fairness.

 

I think the rules also would be made better if they included a discretionary/judgement aspect where an official could throw a flag in cases where a hit was excessive AND where the official adjudged there to be an "intent to injure." This would hopefully cut down on penalties for inadvertent hits to the helmet/using the helmet.

 

Ultimately what you are trying to get rid of in any sport is an intent to injure.

Edited May 30, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Mr. WEO]

I think the suicide thing, that is, Chronic Traumatic Encelopathy, are part and parcel with the whole head injury and concussion issue. I don't think there's any separating the two.

 

I agree with Jumbalaya that the league is instituting these rules changes in order to limit future liability as much as possible.

 

On a related point, the fact that the league is moving the safety issue along and the fact that the players union couldn't care less about safety is going to be helpful to the league when the players try filing lawsuits against the league in the years to come. JMO.

There is absolutely no connection between CTE and suicide. Even those docs at Boston U who find CTE in every specimen they are given take pains not to draw this conclusion. In fact, some are saying that the recent media exposure of CTE brain pathology and its unknown clinical significance may be a contributing factor in athletes developing depression. They think they may have CTE and therefore are looking at a life of mental deterioration, leading to depression.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

There is absolutely no connection between CTE and suicide. Even those docs at Boston U who find CTE in every specimen they are given take pains not to draw this conclusion. In fact, some are saying that the recent media exposure of CTE brain pathology and its unknown clinical significance may be a contributing factor in athletes developing depression. They think they may have CTE and therefore are looking at a life of mental deterioration, leading to depression.

Time may tell.

[justnzane]

I agree with "the speed of the game" argument as it does apply at times. Some plays ARE bang-bang and players hardly have time to react, much less move in a way so as to avoid a penalty.

 

The NFL has made a habit of fining players based on film review. I'm sure that practice will continue as a way of attempting to assure fairness.

 

I think the rules also would be made better if they included a discretionary/judgement aspect where an official could throw a flag in cases where a hit was excessive AND where the official adjudged there to be an "intent to injure." This would hopefully cut down on penalties for inadvertent hits to the helmet/using the helmet.

 

Ultimately what you are trying to get rid of in any sport is an intent to injure.

 

first off welcome to the board (one week late), I think along the same lines as you here. One of the hits that got Harrison fined last year wasn't helmet to helmet, he hit an airborne receiver with his hands and laid him out, which I saw no problem with as he had no momentum compared to the receiver. I also agree that you can't take helmet to helmet out of the game as it happens inadvertantly with proper technique. The equipment needs to be improved more than the rules need to be changed. The only time the refs should flag a head to head hit is when is clearly intentional, which amounts to probably about 5% of the actual helmet to helmet collisons.

 

RB's especially put themselves in harms way by lowering the shoulder to run over a defender. This is the most frequent helmet to helmet contact. If you want to revise the rules without putting all of the burden on the defense, this could be a step in that direction.

 

For those who state that the old players didn't lead with their helmets, I call bull as this has been the case since the hard helmets were in place since the late 40's/early 50's (KRC probably could tell us). I do agree that form tackling has taken a back seat to the big hit, which when combined with bigger, faster, stronger players and medical advances has led to more awareness about the problem. This is like people saying that our education system used to be the best back in the day, but sucks now, when every international comparison in the last 70 years has shown the US to be average to slightly above average. Tangent aside, when I interviewed Booker Edgerson last year, he pointed out that the players in his day were much better tacklers and not as violent of hitters. Nonetheless, he did mention that guys would be "woozy" and pulled off the field when need be.

[K Gun Special]

There is absolutely no connection between CTE and suicide. Even those docs at Boston U who find CTE in every specimen they are given take pains not to draw this conclusion. In fact, some are saying that the recent media exposure of CTE brain pathology and its unknown clinical significance may be a contributing factor in athletes developing depression. They think they may have CTE and therefore are looking at a life of mental deterioration, leading to depression.

From NY Times:

Dr. Robert Stern, along with McKee a co-director of the Boston University research group, cautioned that C.T.E. could not explain all of a player’s actions.

 

“When it comes to suicide and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, it is possible that in some individuals the combination of C.T.E.-related symptoms of poor impulse control, depression and cognitive impairment may indeed lead to suicide,” Stern said. “However, we can never clearly point to any cause-and-effect relationship in any one case.”

 

One cannot read that blurb from BU and interpret to mean that CTE absolutely had no role in these suicides. The Docs have said it MAY have had a role but we cannot say one way or the other.

 

Indeed, Dr. Mckee from BU has said "" "The likelihood is that if he hadn't had the CTE, he wouldn't have developed those symptoms that he was experiencing at the end of his life and perhaps he wouldn't have been compelled to end his life."

 

Read more: http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/article/Study-Duerson-had-brain-damage-at-time-of-suicide-1361689.php#ixzz1NvybJjd6

Edited May 31, 2011 by K Gun Special

[Mr. WEO]

From NY Times:

Dr. Robert Stern, along with McKee a co-director of the Boston University research group, cautioned that C.T.E. could not explain all of a player’s actions.

 

“When it comes to suicide and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, it is possible that in some individuals the combination of C.T.E.-related symptoms of poor impulse control, depression and cognitive impairment may indeed lead to suicide,” Stern said. “However, we can never clearly point to any cause-and-effect relationship in any one case.”

 

One cannot read that blurb from BU and interpret to mean that CTE absolutely had no role in these suicides. The Docs have said it MAY have had a role but we cannot say one way or the other.

 

Indeed, Dr. Mckee from BU has said "" "The likelihood is that if he hadn't had the CTE, he wouldn't have developed those symptoms that he was experiencing at the end of his life and perhaps he wouldn't have been compelled to end his life."

 

Read more: http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/article/Study-Duerson-had-brain-damage-at-time-of-suicide-1361689.php#ixzz1NvybJjd6

Isuggest you read this next. It gives you an idea of what the neurological community outside of BU are thinking about this topic.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1185392/index.htm

 

Is research into the neurological effects of contact sports messing with the minds of living, breathing athletes?

 

 

 

"I would not be surprised if we eventually learn that this type of pathology is present in the vast majority of participants in contact sports," says Jonathan Katz, a San Francisco neurologist. What concerns Katz and many of his colleagues is the prevailing perception that CTE, and therefore participation in sports that might produce it, is a cause of a range of neurological conditions, including depression, dementia and a disease that mimics ALS. The public's belief in this link has been shaped by the BU researchers and disseminated by, among others, The New York Times, ......Yet, says Katz, "Sadly, there is absolutely no proof that CTE plays a role in causing any of the myriad clinical conditions from which these athletes have suffered."

 

So, while many things are "possible", it is certain, at this point that there exist no causal connection between sucicide and CTE. There just isn't.

[Jauronimo]

Whether you hit with great technique, helmet to helmet collisions are going to happen. It's unavoidable. It's a part of the game, and if they're complaining that defenders are using helmets as a weapon, then take away their helmets.

 

 

Both of you are making the argument that helmet to helmet hits are unavoidable.

 

The truth IMO is that sometimes they are unavoidable and MANY times they are not.

 

...

 

The NFL is trying to reprogram players into actions whereby if there is any doubt, the defensive player has to absorb the blow and simply make sure that the offensive player (usually a defenseless receiver) is simply taken to the ground.

 

This means on occasion, that the defensive player, instead of trying to dole out punishment, has to settle for catching the offensive player and just making sure the tackle is made.

 

...

 

It's exactly the improvements in equipment (in football as in hockey as in other sports) which has made players even more reckless and violent. When you improve the equipment you increase the violence of any sport. I can assure you that when they played with leather helmets that players were not using the helmet as a weapon. NHL hockey players say all the time that players had more respect for their opponents in the days when no one wore helmets.

 

Very interesting points. Helmet to helmet hits are inevitable to some extent, but not all helmet to helmet hits are equal. Some are glancing incidental contact, as the helmet is close to the shoulder, and some hits are initiated with helmet contact. What we do know is that those types of hits are absolutely inevitable with players lowering their heads, taking their eyes off the target and delivering the blow with the crown of the helmet. Since tacklers aren't looking at the target they are bound to make illegal hits whether intentional or not. I think leading to the gut or chest with the crown of the helmet is also unacceptable. By distinguishing between helmet-to-helmet or helmet-to-(insert body part hear...maybe testicles?) the NFL does a great disservice to their cause.

 

Hockey has some fine examples of changing the game to remove dangerous hits. The hit from behind used to be a great check. After a kid from Boston University became paralyzed from the neck down, the check from behind was removed from all levels of hockey. The responsibility shifted to the hitter to pull up when a player is in a vulnerable position rather than laying the big hit. Hockey is the fastest contact sport, and the rule change worked pretty effectively there, so the speed of the game argument loses some credibility with me.

 

Equipment has changed both hockey and football tremendously. I'm far from a football historian, but certainly hockey is played with much less respect for the opponent (which my dad always attributed to playing with facemasks). When equipment was more like a thick sweater than full body armor you really thought twice about launching yourself into an opponent, as you stood just as great a chance of injuring yourself. Because equipment improvements have changed the way players deliver hits, its more important than ever that these athletes try to deliver clean fundamental hits.

[K Gun Special]

Isuggest you read this next. It gives you an idea of what the neurological community outside of BU are thinking about this topic.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1185392/index.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, while many things are "possible", it is certain, at this point that there exist no causal connection between sucicide and CTE. There just isn't.

 

You said there was no connection whatsoever. I showed you where people who specialize in this field say there might be. So you move the goalposts and now say no causal connection bc neurologists disagree on the issue.

 

The Center at BU is pretty certain there is some connection between CTE and athletes having problems. They have founded a center dedicated to researching the issue. Yet you say anything is "possible" and are sure to use quotes as to infer that its ridiculous to think so. Millions of dollars are being used to research an idea you treat as silly.

 

Sure, there is no direct causal link as of now. What is certain is that CTE changes the physiology of the human brain. the issue is whether that change causes suicide or merely enhances the possibility.

[Mr. WEO]

You said there was no connection whatsoever. I showed you where people who specialize in this field say there might be. So you move the goalposts and now say no causal connection bc neurologists disagree on the issue.

 

The Center at BU is pretty certain there is some connection between CTE and athletes having problems. They have founded a center dedicated to researching the issue. Yet you say anything is "possible" and are sure to use quotes as to infer that its ridiculous to think so. Millions of dollars are being used to research an idea you treat as silly.

 

Sure, there is no direct causal link as of now. What is certain is that CTE changes the physiology of the human brain. the issue is whether that change causes suicide or merely enhances the possibility.

 

Silly? Not so. It's not ridiculous to believe there is a connection, but it is to assume a connection when none has been proven--especially when your professional reputation colors your opinion.

 

I haven't moved the goalposts. I have said that there is no link, no connection. Someday there may be, but there is none. Not sure why you are disagreeing with that. Cardiologists were sure that raising the "good cholesterol" in patients at risk for heart attack and stroke with niacin would would lead to a rduction in heart attacks and strokes. One pharmaceutical company made nearly a billion selling a niacin prescription drug. This weekend, we learned that a study examining whether niacin actually helps was halted because the results showed that it doesn't alter risk.

 

The Center at BU has looked at exactly 15 brains out of all the humans who have played contact sports. It is "possible", as the neurologist Katz says, that ALL such humans will show such changes in the brain on autospy, but that the suicde rate is no different than the general public.

 

Duerson had a lot of bad breaks before he killed himself. There is little reason that CTE led to his decision. You are free to believe otherwise, but beliefs are not convincing.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[San Jose Bills Fan]

So, while many things are "possible", it is certain, at this point that there exist no causal connection between sucicide and CTE. There just isn't.

You can't draw that conclusion, WEO.

 

You could say, "at this point there is no established causal relationship…"

 

Some scientists hypothesize that a causal relationship exists… other scientists deny that link or are judicious enough to not encourage belief in that link so as not to affect the mindset and mental well-being of the sample group (those people who are aware that they have had multiple concussions).

 

Have you read all the stories on the competition for these brains? The competition between West Virginia University and Boston University? It happens on a backdrop of grieving family members as the two sides attempt to outmaneuver the other for a brain. Here's just one of those articles.

 

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5970086

 

Why is it some scientists believe that global warning exists and others don't?

 

Why do some researchers believe that a paleo diet is superior while others promote veganism as the ideal human diet?

 

What are the chances that BU and WVU will finally come up with the same conclusions/findings?

 

Whatever a person's beliefs, that person will always be able to find scientists who will agree with his beliefs just as he will be able to find scientific opinions which refute his beliefs.

 

I would agree if you said no causal relationship has been established.

 

But a causal relationship has been suggested and I don't think you can say it doesn't exist… just like you can't say it does exist. More study is needed and research in this area has only really begun.

Edited May 31, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Mr. WEO]

You can't draw that conclusion, WEO.

 

You could say, "at this point there is no established causal relationship…"

 

Some scientists hypothesize that a causal relationship exists… other scientists deny that link or are judicious enough to not encourage belief in that link so as not to affect the mindset and mental well-being of the sample group (those people who are aware that they have had multiple concussions).

 

Have you read all the stories on the competition for these brains? The competition between West Virginia University and Boston University? It happens on a backdrop of grieving family members as the two sides attempt to outmaneuver the other for a brain. Here's just one of those articles.

 

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5970086

 

Why is it some scientists believe that global warning exists and others don't?

 

Why do some researchers believe that a paleo diet is superior while others promote veganism as the ideal human diet?

 

What are the chances that BU and WVU will finally come up with the same conclusions/findings?

Whatever a person's beliefs, that person will always be able to find scientists who will agree with his beliefs just as he will be able to find scientific opinions which refute his beliefs.

 

I would agree if you said no causal relationship has been established.

 

But a causal relationship has been suggested and I don't think you can say it doesn't exist… just like you can't say it does exist. More study is needed and research in this area has only really begun.

 

It doens't exist if it has not been established. That's how it works. Everything else is taken on faith, belief, intuition--whatever you want to call it. You can always hypothesize about the existence of anything. This does not bring about it's actual existence.

 

Your BU/WVU reference is a perfect example of the problems with the science of CTE/suicide. Both of these groups are fighting over dead athletes' brains in order to enhance their status and to promote their view that there is a causal link. Of course both groups will come to the same conclusion! They have reached that conclusion before they have met the diseased brain.

 

As for a causal realtionship--these guys at BU are simply saying the pathological findings are causing all of these behavior and diseased states. They don't tell us how it would affect only a tiny fraction of athletes in contact sports. What they have done so far isn't really research.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[Spiderweb]

The real issue is that with the brain injury studies being done the NFL is legally on notice that it must do all that it can to protect the players. The lawsuits that will spring up once the studies are fully validated will put the NFL at risk. Kind of like the Catholic Church and the kiddie abuse, once the problem was known they must do all that they can to prevent it because the resulting lawsuits. The lawsuits could put a serious crimp in the NFL's future earnings. It is bad enough that there are serious spinal injuries but someone will be killed on the field if this goes unchecked and when that happens watch how fast the lawsuit is filed. That people are committing suicide later in life is tragic and I am sure some smart lawyer will put together a pretty strong case and slam it to the owners.

 

 

There is no connection.

 

To say there is no connection, is utterly ridiculous. The NFL (owners) clearly see the possible huge liability issues and while we may moan about attempts to protect players from serious injury, they are doing the right thing. Put'em back in the old leatherhead days and you'll see players making hits and tackling without the head/helmet being a weapon. Modern helmets and facemasks did more to increase the severity of injuries than prevent them in many ways.

[K Gun Special]

Silly? Not so. It's not ridiculous to believe there is a connection, but it is to assume a connection when none has been proven--especially when your professional reputation colors your opinion.

 

I haven't moved the goalposts. I have said that there is no link, no connection. Someday there may be, but there is none. Not sure why you are disagreeing with that. Cardiologists were sure that raising the "good cholesterol" in patients at risk for heart attack and stroke with niacin would would lead to a rduction in heart attacks and strokes. One pharmaceutical company made nearly a billion selling a niacin prescription drug. This weekend, we learned that a study examining whether niacin actually helps was halted because the results showed that it doesn't alter risk.

 

The Center at BU has looked at exactly 15 brains out of all the humans who have played contact sports. It is "possible", as the neurologist Katz says, that ALL such humans will show such changes in the brain on autospy, but that the suicde rate is no different than the general public.

 

Duerson had a lot of bad breaks before he killed himself. There is little reason that CTE led to his decision. You are free to believe otherwise, but beliefs are not convincing.

 

my goodness. Little reason to think that? Yes he did have personal troubles, who doesnt? You dont think its odd that theres a link between athletes and suicide ? Or that when they look at these brains they find they have been physically altered?

 

Are you on of those who think the theory of relativity is bs because it hasnt been proven. Perhaps gravity doesnt exist because we cant really show it exists. I wont even suggest evolution.

 

just as SJ said, they are working on this topic to determine what causal relationship if any, is there.

 

Dismissing it out of hand and saying there is little reason to think so is selling yourself short.