[76lsjumb]

A D-1 athlete -- particularly a D-1 athlete at an elite program -- sacrifices a certain zone of privacy. For instance, your coaches discuss your work openly with reporters in a way the professors never would. That includes harsh criticism -- "he's got to be to catch balls like that one to keep his starting job" that you'd never hear aloud from a history professor discussing one of his students.

The same goes for health issues, especially health issues that keep a player off the field and especially health issues that cause a prolonged absence. To pretend fans won't notice a player's absence or dimished performance, and then speculate on the causes, is absurd. And speculation will inevitably be much worse that reality, as it was in the Owens case.

The AD press releases on the hospitalization and, eventually, the death of the vollyball player -- said that there had been a "medical emergency" her residence hall. I'm sure I'm not the only one who took that to mean something endemic to the residence: faulty wiring? Sinkhole? Chemical spill? If I were a parent with a kid living there, I would have been frantic. Beyond that, there is the possibility that suppression of the facts may well cover up a broader campus public-health issue, and the certainty that Stanford's attitude bolstered beliefs that suicide is a disreputable act which shouldn't be spoken of. That's not only wrong but futile, since death certificates are public documents and the truth was bound to emerge -- and bound to be treated more luridly as a result of Stanford's coverup.

In the words of the immortal [  ??? ] Lee Corso:  "Not so fast, my friend!"

I'm not aware of any federal laws regulating disclosure of one's ability to catch a ball [or even, for that matter, one's ability to accurately recount the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire in history class], but you have most likely heard of HIPAA, which definitely regulates dislcosure relating to health issues, including those that affect a student's ability to play.

In this regard, the following is instructive:

http://ortho.stanford.edu/lacob/PDFs/HIP...zation.pdf

It seems to me that, unless we know for a fact that a particular athlete has signed the requisite consents to allow dissemination of his/her health information to the media, we might reasonably assume, in those instances where such information is not disclosed, that the reason for the non-disclosure is that such consents have NOT, in fact, been provided by the athlete in question.  Of course, if disclosure is made in the absence of such consent, there are some rather severe penalties that can/will be imposed.

Moreover, even if the requisite legal consent has been provided, there may be any number of other legitimate reasons why a coach or AD may choose not to reveal the information.  You are certainly right that many fans may imagine things that are far worse than the actual condition, but that's their problem, not the coach's. 

[76lsjumb]

A D-1 athlete -- particularly a D-1 athlete at an elite program -- sacrifices a certain zone of privacy. For instance, your coaches discuss your work openly with reporters in a way the professors never would. That includes harsh criticism -- "he's got to be to catch balls like that one to keep his starting job" that you'd never hear aloud from a history professor discussing one of his students.

The same goes for health issues, especially health issues that keep a player off the field and especially health issues that cause a prolonged absence. To pretend fans won't notice a player's absence or dimished performance, and then speculate on the causes, is absurd. And speculation will inevitably be much worse that reality, as it was in the Owens case.

The AD press releases on the hospitalization and, eventually, the death of the vollyball player -- said that there had been a "medical emergency" her residence hall. I'm sure I'm not the only one who took that to mean something endemic to the residence: faulty wiring? Sinkhole? Chemical spill? If I were a parent with a kid living there, I would have been frantic. Beyond that, there is the possibility that suppression of the facts may well cover up a broader campus public-health issue, and the certainty that Stanford's attitude bolstered beliefs that suicide is a disreputable act which shouldn't be spoken of. That's not only wrong but futile, since death certificates are public documents and the truth was bound to emerge -- and bound to be treated more luridly as a result of Stanford's coverup.

In the words of the immortal [  ??? ] Lee Corso:  "Not so fast, my friend!"

I'm not aware of any federal laws regulating disclosure of one's ability to catch a ball [or even, for that matter, one's ability to accurately recount the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire in history class], but you have most likely heard of HIPAA, which definitely regulates dislcosure relating to health issues, including those that affect a student's ability to play.

In this regard, the following is instructive:

http://ortho.stanford.edu/lacob/PDFs/HIP...zation.pdf

It seems to me that, unless we know for a fact that a particular athlete has signed the requisite consents to allow dissemination of his/her health information to the media, we might reasonably assume, in those instances where such information is not disclosed, that the reason for the non-disclosure is that such consents have NOT, in fact, been provided by the athlete in question.  Of course, if disclosure is made in the absence of such consent, there are some rather severe penalties that can/will be imposed.

Moreover, even if the requisite legal consent has been provided, there may be any number of other legitimate reasons why a coach or AD may choose not to reveal the information.  You are certainly right that many fans may imagine things that are far worse than the actual condition, but that's their problem, not the coach's.