So you wouldn't consider the examination of both the Cavs doctors and James Andrews followed by a plan and endorsement that led to him playing Sunday as "factual" and "medical"?
No.
That would, by definition, be speculation via inductive reasoning; that isn't observational evidence confirming an opinion.
We don't know what that plan was, why it failed, why he's back out. We don't know these things. We're just speculating.
What we do know is that he has tendinitis, a sprain (AFAIK), and a foot injury. From the information that is readily available the primary treatments for such an injury are:
rest, icing, anti-inflammatories with painkillers, stretching exercises, and cortisone shots.
According to the NHS:
When you first injure your tendon, stop doing the activity that caused the injury and try to avoid any activities that cause your pain to get worse. This can help prevent any further damage and allow the tendon to heal.
Some form of support, such as a bandage, splint or brace, may help prevent the affected body part moving.
How long you need to rest for depends on which tendon is affected and how severely it's damaged. Prolonged rest is generally considered unhelpful as this can lead to long-term stiffness, so you should aim to gradually restart exercise when your pain allows.
So there is a lot of room for debate here, and hence a lot of room for confusion. However, if Kyrie is in severe pain, then the general guidelines seem to indicate that he should not play.
Again, I'm no doctor, but the one physician in this thread did say Kyrie shouldn't play @WeAreAllKyrieWitnesses.
My post is not saying that in "my opinion", Kyrie should play. My post is stating that if in the opinion of the Cavs medical staff and James Andrews, he's good to go, then he's good to go. What do bring to counter argue that?
Nothing. I agree with this. If the Cavs medical staff feels he should be able to play, then that leaves no reason for him not to.
My point is that none of us actually knows what the medical report says, so using it as evidence seems irrational.
Do you need to examine him yourself?
I'm not a doctor. What good would this do?
Look, I know you're being facetious and I realize there's a few people in here trying to piss you off, but I'm not one of them. We both want the same thing here, we just disagree how to get there.
Analyze the tests yourself?
To at least be able to read them would allow us to deduce a conclusion.
In the meantime neither of us have anything from the medical staff to indicate which side of this argument is right, so again the reliance on evidence that cannot be observed is a bit... odd.
What would suit your need for factual and medical information to the point that it swayed your personal opinion that he shouldn't play?
If someone could answer my original question, that'd be great for starters.
That was, if Kyrie is in severe pain, why on Earth would we want him to play? He does NOT help us on the floor.. Period.
@priceFTW went out of his way to demonstrate this.
He can get treatment while not playing, he can have light practice, exercise, etc, while not playing. What is the reason for putting him back in the lineup?
Also, how can playing in the NBA not risk further injury to a player playing through tremendous pain. Haven't we already seen numerous reports that Kyrie is injuring himself due to overcompensating due to pain?
Again, this argument seems odd.
Why
would you put Kyrie back in? What
benefit is there to doing so? The benefits of not doing so are apparent, but the reverse isn't true.
