The recent meeting for MSAD 51’s proposed $3 million artificial turf field misled the public.
One of the doctors tasked with discussing the safety of turf fields stated that there really is no difference between injury rates on turf fields versus natural grass. The first sentence of the conclusion in the article he referenced is, “The available body of literature suggests a higher rate of foot and ankle injuries on artificial turf, both old-generation and new-generation turf, compared with natural grass. Another article specifically studying high school athletes showed a 58% increase in injuries on turf fields. Many professional athletic organizations, including the FIFA, the professional world soccer association, and the National Football League Players Association, now call for a return to natural grass to avoid catastrophic injury.
MSAD 51 voters should ask: Does the convenience of a turf field outweigh the cost of a season (or career)-ending ACL tear or other catastrophic injury? It is a nuanced subject. I urge the district to separate the new school project from the turf field project and let the voters decide.
Sean McCloy
Cumberland Foreside
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.