Column: NFL medical testing essential

By John Hunt

Published Jan. 28, 2010

Last week, Chicago Bears defensive end Gaines Adams died from cardiac arrest due to what was determined to be an enlarged heart, a pre-existing medical condition.

Adams' stats were not as gaudy as many would have expected from a top-five draft pick by today's NFL standards, but looking back now, he seemed to me the personification of the blue-collar football majority, the largely unknown pillars who make the NFL what it is today.

The NFL needs its superstars, yes, the models and inspiration for the less-experienced to work toward, but the NFL also needs its relentless, not-as-well-known everyday stalwarts. It needs those who clock in and out everyday simply trying to make a name for themselves doing what they love, one of the many reasons why this loss is so unbelievable.

In the wake of this, the NFL has considered enacting certain mandatory heart scans (echocardiograms that are able to detect irregularities similar to Adams') for all its players.

After a tragedy like this, it's easy to urge them to give the green light with these tests, but an enlarged heart doesn't happen to everyone. There are countless life-threatening conditions, many exceedingly rare. Should all athletes be subjected to these, too? It would be a significant burden indeed, but how many blows are NFL administrators expecting to dodge by not undergoing these measures?

In summer 2005, MU had its own taste of tragedy when football player Aaron O'Neal died due to a believed viral lymphocytic meningitis, something completely different than an enlarged heart but deadly nevertheless.

Missouri has approximately 502 student-athletes, myself included. Subjecting each and every one to numerous tests would be costly, difficult and time consuming, but possible. And still, a whole other question arises regarding how responsible the university or professional team is for the health and well-being of coaches? They are part of the team just as the players are, and I would imagine they are just as likely to have an unknown medical disorder.

Now, all this being said, the "higher ups" in any program aren't stupid. They wouldn't put their team in a dangerous position under any circumstance. Safety first, as the old axiom goes, but if any test could potentially shed a light on something life-threatening, the tests for even the most rare of potential conditions should be undergone.

If money grew on trees, we'd all be set. Although Missouri's outdoors are largely unpredictable, judging from the information given to me, the university is experiencing luck similar to mine in regard to finding these trees. The staggering costs of all these tests for every athlete would add up quickly, but I would think they would be worth every penny if the results helped save someone's life, or even led to a potential release of athletic discomfort.

It's definitely a tough call to be made by the NFL. Many of these life-threatening conditions are exceptionally rare, but they are also just that: life-threatening.

Ultimately, the more I think about it, the more obvious the answer seems to be. I'm not the one at the helm of hardly any expendable finances, so it might be easy for me to make this decision in complete blissful ignorance as to how much the NFL can afford to spend, but when it comes down to the possibility of saving someone's life, it should be a no-brainer.

The NFL should go for it. From what I understand, Gaines Adams always did.