I completely agree that the doctors that fixed the arm should be the judge of its integrity. If it isn't already like that then something needs to change. I'm sure the track doctors as you said do have specific parameters part of the argument I am making is that it needs an overhaul.
The governing body could help here. What the riders and teams want is a level playing field to ensure fairness. Currently, if a rider is injured, it's really up to the team and rider to ensure that they are back and fighting for points as soon as possible. There's no mandatory layover period once a major long-bone or clavicular fracture is diagnosed. There's no mandatory layover period once a bone has been operatively fixed. A layover that's in the rule-book, the rule-book of-course, being revised as needed. If safety regulations are the same for everyone and clearly written, then it's not a problem.
In Formula 1, the introduction of the Hans and Halo devices came with a lot of opposition from drivers and teams. They were uncomfortable, obstructed the view for drivers and fans, looked ugly, hampered with getting out of the car, went against driver bravery etc. etc. The governing body went ahead and introduced it anyway and drivers have since benefitted from it.
Unlike F1, the riders in MotoGP are far more prone to injuries and there has not been much regulating of return times etc. The governing body is assuming that the doctors and rider will get it right. I never thought this to be the case since neither doctor nor rider are infallible. Unfortunately, it usually takes a major incident, as with MM, to make change as it did with Senna.
While that is certainly a fact it doesn't absolve those doctors responsibility and/or duty of care. At the time I didn't think MM made the right decision but I also knew if I was in his position I would have done the same thing. IIRC Puig did say that if they knew this was a possibility they wouldn't have let him on the bike. Somewhere there has been a huge breakdown of communication. This is a multi-million dollar sport with athletes who can afford the best, there must be protocols to stop riders hiding information from their teams, doctors etc as they will if they think they can get away with it. The teams and the track doctors must have all the information before they can OK someone to ride a bike on track and from the information that we have this doesn't seem to have been the case.
I don't think Puig or MM are genuinely being honest with themselves in thinking that an early return could not have led to trouble. There is always trouble lurking. It's just that they felt they could have gotten away with it. The question is how much warning do they need to WAKE UP to the possibility of things not going well?
I think part of the problem is people expect athletes to be rational when there is generally nothing rational about the way they've decided to live their lives. Fans see the games but very little else. Great athletes take that irrationality to another level. What most people will never see or understand is the hours spent in an obsession from childhood, the sacrifices made to social lives, to normal childhood enjoyment, for many athletes social ramifications stemming from being a weird obsessed kid who only wants to 'ride his bike' as Stoner put it, not eating at your friends birthday party because the food is unhealthy etc. Of course the sacrifices sometimes end up being worth it, they go onto fame and fortune only few will ever experience. After retirement most athletes have no idea what to do with themselves (something I think is part of Rossi's problem at the moment) because everything up to that point has been about a singular goal and many don't know how to find any sort of joy outside of it. These guys aren't rational and as such can't be trusted to make rational decisions. After Rossi's most recent leg break he came back before it was fully healed, the risks were never unreasonable for him despite the fact they would be for most normal people.
My point is that we all take risks in this life and if we choose to turn a blind eye to those risks, for whatever reason, then that's a choice we each make. I don't know how you would feel if you were to have that choice taken away from you, especially if it's one that doesn't endanger others. Many wouldn't take kindly to this.
There is the obvious risk of crashing and sustaining serious injury. However, there's the other layer or returning early after injury. Again, a risky business and if one chooses to engage in it, well, there is the possibility of coming out in the red. These are men and not kids.
Interesting, I understand there is a lot of variables, I just thought that from my admittedly limited physics and engineering experience that it would be possible to calculate these things with some degree of accuracy. Maybe I am overestimating the role engineering plays in orthopaedic surgery? I don't say that to belittle anything in anyway, rather me just overthinking a scenario that basically never happens. Most people that have broken bones fixed wont be trying to compete in sport within a few days, so there really is no requirement for the kind of knowledge I am proposing. I am studying construction and we can make very accurate calculations of loads etc. Perhaps too involved but I thought that by using calculations for bone density, strength along with the engineering specs of the stuff used but as I stated above probably overthinking for a requirement that occurs once in a few million surgeries.
It's really not much different from the engineers at the factory produces what they consider to be a great bike or car. It looks great on paper, the windtunnel tests are great. Yet, on the track, the riders struggle and the bike is just not as predicted. The manufacturers can exert forces in a test and provide specifications to plate and screw strength. However, there are no specifications for MM's humerus and how it affects the strength of fixation. Not to mention the types of forces on the fixation when riding as opposed to the plate and screws being tested in a lab. I would also be alarmed if these constructs were tested for in the intention of being the sole support in competitive sport!!!
Of course if he decides to race and crashes the responsibility is solely on MM. I would question the recklessness of allowing him to take the risks but I don't think it is something that can or even should be removed from the sport. Crashing and the consequences that come with it are part of the sport. What I object to are foreseeable, preventable consequences that occurred without crashing and realistically occurred without MM pushing the bike to the limit.
A contentious issue indeed that only the governing body can do something about with clear rules on return times after specific injury types. The riders and teams will, of course, protest that it's their choice, and this is my point. When you make it your choice, then take responsibility. Don't be in denial and helplessly claim that you can't do anything about that attitude. It's an understandable one and everyone looking on sees the reason for it. It's just another layer of risk.
Off-topic and I have no idea if you would even have any knowledge but is stem cell research the way of the future? I was reading a few years that a Brazilian soccer player had his ACL done with stem cells and was back playing again after 6 weeks. Are stem cells going to be the answer for quicker healing to ligaments and bones in the future? Or is the medical industry opposed to stem cells because the quicker healing time etc means less jobs/money?
:blind: I am not familiar enough with the technology to comment on it with even a modicum of authority. Sorry.