Why F1 takes concussion so seriously

Amid the conspiracy theories surrounding Fernando Alonso's absence from the Australian Grand Prix, one thing is abundantly clear: too many people still take concussion very lightly.

Numerous times since Alonso's accident, there have been references to 'only' a concussion, as if it were a light tap to the head that should just be shrugged off.

The medical community knows its stuff and so takes concussion seriously, hence Alonso not going to Australia. But outside of that specialised group, there seems to be a significant section of the population that considers 'bumps to the head' as inconsequential.

I'm not medically qualified, so it would be pointless to try to explain concussion in any detail, beyond assuring you that even a 'mild' case is not something to be laughed off. For far more informed insight, take a look at ex-F1 medical delegate Dr Gary Hartstein's blog.

But what is easier for the lay person to talk about is attitudes. Fortunately, most sports in which there's a risk of impacts to the head have been taking this issue more seriously in recent years.

Alonso's car is recovered after the Barcelona testing crash © XPB

Motorsport has been a big part of this, as countless medical specialists have invested vast amounts of time - in many cases unpaid - to reduce the risks of injury to those who race for our entertainment.

And there are plenty of cases where drivers have had to take extreme action to avoid the risk of potentially life-changing effects, such as Dario Franchitti who retired from racing on medical advice after one hit too many.

America's NFL exemplifies the reasons why any kind of head injury, no matter how ostensibly mild, must be taken seriously.

Last year, the NFL made the astonishing admission that one in three ex-players will suffer from problems related to damage to the brain.

This illustrates that the problem is twofold. First and foremost, the welfare of the participants in sport must be protected.

There are some who dispute this, who throw around the kind of language that should have been left behind in the 20th century about 'manning up and dealing with it'.

This is nonsense, usually offered up by those who make little or no attempt to understand the medical conditions being talked about (here's a suggestion: Google it) and would probably be happy to watch gladiators slaying each other for their amusement.

There is a second factor, which the NFL has learned about the hard way, which is duty of care. Failure to take that seriously can have serious legal ramifications.

Alonso showed no outward signs of injury after the crash

What I choose to call 'real' football (sorry, gridiron fans!) has also taken action. In England's Premier League, regulations were introduced at the start of this season insisting that players that suffer a blow to the head must be assessed before being allowed to return to the field.

This is on top of the rule that any player who loses consciousness should not be allowed to play on - another regulation that has caused some controversy, with cases of players continuing after apparently doing so, such as Tottenham Hotspur goalkeeper Hugo Lloris during the 2013/14 season.

Motorsport has taken this very seriously in the past four or so decades, certainly since Professor Sid Watkins became involved full-time and transformed grand prix racing into something where the kind of horrific injuries that befell Jules Bianchi at Suzuka last year are now an extremely rare, rather than regular, occurrence.

Returning to Alonso, some of the confusion has arisen from the lengths the McLaren statement went to underline that he was "asymptomatic of any medical issue" and "entirely healthy from a neurological and cardiac perspectives alike".

Many didn't read past the first paragraph, after which followed the explanation of the risks of sustaining another concussion.

This is the heart of the matter. Too often, any kind of ailment is regarded as something to be treated. Something has gone wrong, take this drug, rest up and you'll recover.

The idea of taking preventative action because of the heightened risk of something going wrong is automatically regarded as some as hiding some other story.

Alonso suffered a heavy crash in 2003, and a cumulative effect is always a possibility © XPB

I know little of Alonso's medical history - it's confidential, so that's only right and proper! But he's had some big impacts before (the 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix, when he collected wreckage from Mark Webber's Jaguar, stands out).

Doubtless there will have been other incidents. As the Franchitti example shows, there's a cumulative effect of suffering multiple concussions or minor head traumas that must be taken seriously.

From the perspective of Alonso and McLaren, what is there to gain from him racing in Australia?

The fastest lap we saw from McLaren during eight days of testing at Barcelona was 2.5 seconds off the pace, and reliability has hardly been impressive. So the likelihood is that the car will qualify poorly and not finish.

Not that I'm suggesting this decision would have been different were the McLaren the fastest show in town, as medical professionals generally don't base their advice on sporting matters. But it serves to underline that this is a win/win situation for both team and driver.

What is most distasteful about this whole situation is that at the root of many of the conspiracies is a fundamental inability - perhaps a refusal - to attempt to understand the situation Alonso is in.

Professor Sid Watkins worked tirelessly to improve safety standards in F1 © LAT

Put yourself in his position. Were you told that another impact so soon after a concussion could have life-changing effects, what would you do?

Would you just plough on, assuming that all would be OK and happily chuck a racing car between concrete walls at 180mph? Or might you give the next race a miss?

As the terrible case of Michael Schumacher's skiing accident underlines, even relatively innocuous incidents can have horrible consequences.

What's more, from personal experience I can confirm that hitting concrete walls even at what seem to be, for F1 cars, relatively modest speeds produces a very substantial hit, having suffered a big impact at Silverstone nine years ago.

It may be that there is something more to the Alonso crash than has so far been revealed. The interest shown by the FIA suggests there's something that has raised red flags, but the most likely case is that the nature of the impact - the exact angle, the nature of the hit(s), some dynamic aspect of the accident - exposed a chink in the safety amour of an F1 car that needs to be addressed.

After all, it's through thorough analysis of accidents that lessons have been learned that have led directly to there being a number of drivers walking around today who wouldn't still be doing so without the work put in by the safety and medical specialists.

So let's show some respect for that amazing work rather than being armchair experts and questioning their motives.