Maybe, but they are in no way comparable to the ones in the Lausanne study McCullough & Polykretis cite.
In what ways are the lists not comparable? For starters we know that both lists were generated by reviewing news reports.
Do you understand that medical journals are different from any random news source scoured off of the internet?
The authors of the Lausanne study state, in their paper, that "most" sudden cardiac deaths of young athletes aren't reported to these journals - which were the only ones the authors considered.
Goodsciencing.com, on the other hand, cast a very wide net.
"This means that provided a person is reasonably fit, healthy and does some athletic activity, rather than an unfit “couch potato,” then they can be included in this list. Needless to say, these are only the persons reported to us by readers or that we discovered during research. Also note that almost all of these have been reported in the media."
You didn't answer my earlier question but do you think it's honest to compare a very select number of cases written up in select medical journals to a random collection of deaths pulled from all over the internet?