Add new comment

 
From Stone:
"The article is from 2004, but I don't think much has changed from a medical standpoint."
If there is a flaw in his piece, it's that. He shouldn't just assume that nothing has changed in five years - even in a blog post. Stone is better than this but he was sloppy on this one.
Using a 2004 article (Slate) to analyze recovery from labrum surgery is akin to using a 2004 article to analyze a mobile phone's ability to stream video. Five years is a loooooooong time in a market that is being changed by innovative technology. I can imagine reading an article written in 2004 about cell phones and their inadequacy to handle streaming video. Doesn't mean that article would have any validity in 2009, other than as a historical place marker.
Just imagine the difference in the diagnostic equipment that was used on Ryan Anderson vs Gil Meche vs Eric Bedard. Tons of technological innovation in that span, 2001-2009. Think about the PC you used in 2001. Or the cell phone. It's pretty safe to say that medical innovation - particularly in medical instrumentation - has been just about as dramatic.
Bias or just bad journalism?