I enjoy listening to WHYY's Terri Gross 'cause she devotes long blocks of time to her interviews. My ears perked up last night, though, when they ran the promo for her interview with Michael Sokolove.

You'll recall there was a bit of a to do when he published an excerpt of his new book, Warrior Girls, as the NYTimes Magazine cover article. (Go here and here and here and here from more).

People questioned his lack of hard statistical evidence, his use of anecdotal information, a somewhat condescending, paternalistic tone towards female athletes, not to mention his use of occasionally hysterical language (and I use the word hysterical with full knowledge of its history).

So, I went to the Fresh Air page and here's the "preview" information under the title Female Athletes Suffer Pain For Glory:

Female athletes suffer a higher rate of injuries than males, particularly to their knees. But some people are reluctant to talk about this "injury epidemic" out of fear of jeopardizing Title IX. Warrior Girls author Michael Sokolove discusses injury risk and prevention. (yes, that would be my bold.)

Click on the link, and you'll read this:

According to Michael Sokolove's book Warrior Girls, female athletes are more vulnerable to injury than their male counterparts. The statistics are alarming: women are eight times more likely to damage their ACLs than men. But with proper attention and training, women can reduce their risk, says the sports writer.

Ummm... without going too much in to it 'cause I'm supposed to be working and I have a train to catch:

1) "vulnerable" - Interesting word choice. ain't it?
2) Speaking of "more" - Has anyone hear that before? Is there actual documentation?
3) "statistics are alarming" - when they actually exist. There is a DEARTH of factual, for sure numbers related to male/female ACL injuries.
4) EIGHT TIMES MORE!!!! -- Goodness, I'm scared, aren't you? Though, of course, the phrase I usually see is a little more vague....like "According the NCAA [not a scientific body] female basketball players are four times more likely to suffer an ACL tear."

Depending on the article you'll get 5-8 times more, or 2-8.... you get the drift. Why? 'Cause there's no in-depth, long term, control group balanced scientific research available. So, again, I point to an interesting choice of number and statistical security.

Finally - I have no "fear for Title IX" when I'm discussing athletes and injury rates. In fact, this would be a perfect opportunity to discuss the continued inequities in sports funding (remembering, of course, that Title IX is about funding in education.)

For instance -- If I were Terri, I'd probably ask, "If this "epidemic" were happening on the men's side, Michael, what might the reaction be? A) To moan and groan and wring your hands about the risks these warrior boys are putting their bodies through or B) throw a ton of money into research, prevention, recovery and education?"

Maybe someone who catches the program can send along a synopsis?