Dave,

You need to understand the limits of the ImPACT system. It has no valid use in determining when your brain has recovered. Your experience is a prime example. You did better after a concussion that during your baseline. ImPACT is best used as an aid to convincing athletes, their parents and coaches of the need to be removed from play. It is of little use at determining when the brain is healed and tolerant of another trauma, whether it is physical trauma, emotional trauma, or chemical trauma. The authors of the ImPACT system and research have made that statement emphatically.

She was way off base in even suggesting that you could resume drinking and partying. ImPACT has not the slightest bearing on such activities.

As I said, ImPACT has no bearing on when you are safe to return to play. If you return to play, you are taking a risk. Nobody can say otherwise. If they try to say that, they are speaking out of the wrong orifice.

The ImPACT researchers have a study that shows that there is not a cumulative effect when a second concussion occurs. The problem is like the rest of their research. They limit the depth of the data. At the very end of their report, they state that the ImPACT system may not be sensitive enough to show the differences between a first concussion and a second concussion.

I honestly expect a critical mass of law suits against ImPACT and the other systems like it and the trainers that use it for giving false information about return to play decisions. The athletes and parents sign a waiver when they play and use the ImPACT system at school but this waiver will eventually be beaten in court, IMO.

Just remember how your symptoms have effected your life. Then, consider those risks as you make your decision. I'd never play a defensive position where a ball can hit my face or head like a water polo ball can. The other risks of concussion are enough of a risk.

But then, considering the other risks you take, another concussion is the least of your worries.

My best to you.