The article is oddly devoid of specifics. It just calls it bad, without quoting any of the article. The "key takeaway" is not from the article. It's the post's

The article is oddly devoid of specifics. It just calls it bad, without quoting any of the article. The "key takeaway" is not from the article. It's the post's author imputing correlation, into an article that resolutely uses the word "association" over and over. It says explicitly "However, the cause of this association remains unclear." The discussion section speculates on possible causal links. That's what discussion sections do: take the new data and formulate hypotheses. Those hypotheses become the basis of future work. If you just want to know the data, skip the discussion. The data is in the "Results" section. The post's sarcastic summary appears to completely miss the point of the article: something is different about volleyball compared to other sports. That fact is interesting, and merits future investigation. So I think I'm missing what this post is about. The blog is titled "Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science". This paper strikes me as a bog-standard bit of social science. If it's not in keeping with other papers, the article is going to need to expand on that for me.