Will a shake-up in sports science change SA rugby after fresh doubts over head injuries?

Five counts of plagiarism, 10 retracted scientific papers and red flags about 74 more articles because of publication misconduct. 

Those were the ingredients of a huge shake-up in sports science that led to allegations about scientists downplaying how dangerous head injuries are for professional athletes over time.

The man at the centre of it all is Paul McCrory. He served as the editor of the British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM) between 2001 and 2008, a period during which he published many opinion pieces, commentaries and editorials - including views on whether a blow to the head should mean keeping an athlete off the field. 

In one of the retracted pieces, from 2001, McCrory misquoted an extract from a 1952 article on concussion in sport, which he then used to argue that recommendations for when a player can return to sport are based on “an arbitrary exclusion period”.

The controversy dealt a blow to the reputation of the Concussion In Sports Group (CISG), which compiles best practice rules for dealing with head injuries in sport.

McCrory is a founding member of this body and was lead author on their 2017 consensus statement (although the investigation into McCrory’s publication misconduct does not directly link to the group’s recommendations).

The CISG’s official views guide rules on how to spot and deal with concussions set by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and World Rugby.

McCrory resigned from the CISG in March 2022. He did not respond to Bhekisisa’s requests for comment.

Controversy, criticism and chronic brain injury 

Jon Patricios, a South African sports medicine physician who co-leads the CISG’s scientific team, and who is the main author on the group’s newest consensus statement (to be