now my heart is a chinese box of riddels, no one understands. i blew hot soup for her on foggy nights. she trims the ends of my thinning hair, still she can't forget that day she faced the interrogation officers and said she was my sister. i have not told anyone we move like shadows in a haze of secrets and lies. now stairs fascinate her. she knows the neighbor's house by heart. 21 steps to the door. 9 windows. 1-1/2 bathrooms. she counts every timely visit just to make sure. in case one day she has to know. before i came here, i had a name. >> ships of wind. softly size the swaying trees in the secret place stilled by time. we toil between the deep brown earth crumbs past frommant toant in orderly procession surrounded by crushed new born grass and flattened flowers. many of us have died here. who's secret [inaudible] we do not know. nor the shift of wind the sudden wake that blocked the sun changes the course and brought with it the endless nights. we enl know the passing of formless clouds o pass the porch forced to forge a new since the comi

our own bob riddell has a sneak peek. >> they are have the first ever bay area ex plane events. this was built in the '70s. if you had flown on a commercial aircraft, would you consider this to be pretty spacious. could you scoot over a little bit? just kidding. experimental aircraft, does that mean dangerous? >> absolutely not, not dangerous. >> what does it mean? >> it means people that built their own aircraft and fly them. sometimes it means the first time it has ever been made or created and other times it means it is a home build, built by the person who is going to fly it. >> this particular aircraft was built by a company. this is a one off meaning it was the first one or a prototype. >> the one we are sitting in is a prototype. the building of it, who is out of monterrey. >> very small person? >> actually, as big as us. i know, crazy. >> really? >> he built plans to it and sold plans to people who built this helicopter. >> if i can get out of it, it is almost like a rubik's cube. i need to be a con tore shunist. willie's mom here. you were the first woman to build her o

riddell has for years put a 10-year life on their helmets. they said after ten years of bill warnings apply and they don't allow them to be reconditioned or recertified, and that has been their policy for a long time. one of the other major manufacturers has said as long as it is properly cared for and reconditioned, which means parts replaced, putting replaced, inspected, at the end of ten years the only part of the element that is ten years old will be the shell, and you cannot replace the shell. if it is cracked or damaged the helmet is done. so it depends on the helmet and how long is going to last. >> a fine may ask one more question. you might have covered this earlier. what is the age scale we are looking at for concussions in sports? ..

some have sued helmet maker riddell. the nfl changed some of the rules to protect players and those suing say more should have been done sooner. the league said players should have known the risks. joining us now is douglas eldridge with a sports agency in d.c. thank you for coming in tonight. i will take the other side of the issue, since you're a sports agent and there is a bit of give me a break anti. and this is a violent game, players know the risks. there was a time when they didn't win real helmets. do they i have a chance of winning the lawsuit? >> i think there is a real chance. at the end of the day, it's not about opinion and you can make the statement, it's not about the persuasive court argument but the tamable scientific data coming to the sur-- tangible scientific data coming to the surface. the reality that the evidence is there to support the claim, the question is how long does it take to get it paid out? >> isn't this like a motorcycle rider suing the helmet after getting into the crash? the helmet hel

this is an example taken today from the website of riddell's parent company. do you think this single 2006 study provides a reasonable basis for them to claim that they reduce concussions by 31% compared to traditional helmets? >> no, i do not. i am aware of the study and what i said was that there is no significant data to make the claim in the literature. i know that study is in the literature. there are two main problems with that study. the first is the quality of the study itself, how would was set up in trying to look at two different populations, one wearing a certain kind of helmet and one wearing a different one. you want them to be as equal as possible. that was not well done in that study. to the point where i would not consider the state designed to be acceptable scientific protocol. the second and critique is the 31% figure is relative to the change. the populations that have the old, had a 7.6% concussion rate over the study time frame. -- the populations that have the new helmet have 7.6% conversion rate over the study time frame. when you prese

don riddell joins us live from our london bureau.riving but he was also british and i assume that the mood there is just really -- i mean people must be devastated. >> well, absolutely. it is a curious one though, suzanne. he was british. he grew up in the sport here but of course he moved to the united states in 1999. he achieved great things in indy car. the general public here in great britain doesn't really know who dan wheldon is or was. it is only now tragically today that they are learning about how successful he was, what a great talent he was and how hugely popular he was. but certainly within the motorsport community in britain, the mood is one of absolute devastation and an awful lot of people knew him in britain over the last 20 years and it seems as though he touched the lives of many drivers and inspired a lot of young drivers, too. >> don, you have covered this sport extensively. do you think when you see that video and learn of some of the details that this could have been avoided in any way? >> well, it is interestin

this is an example taken today from the website of riddell's parent company. do you think this single 2006 study provides a reasonable basis for them to claim that they reduce concussions by 31% compared to traditional helmets? >> no, i do not. i am aware of the study and what i said was that there is no significant data to make the claim in the literature. i know that study is in the literature. there are two main problems with that study. the first is the quality of the study itself, how would was set up in trying to look at two different populations, one wearing a certain kind of helmet and one wearing a different one. you want them to be as equal as possible. that was not well done in that study. to the point where i would not consider the state designed to be acceptable scientific protocol. the second and critique is the 31% figure is relative to the change. the populations that have the old, had a 7.6% concussion rate over the study time frame. -- the populations that have the new helmet have 7.6% conversion rate over the study time frame. when you prese