NS.. ex-NFL players sue league... It's starting to make sense now (1 Viewer)

[SaintChelle]

I have a huge problem with this. Football is an inherently dangerous sport. Everyone knows this, and these players knew it when they suited up back in high school.

They made a career of it in spite of the risks, and they got paid millions BECAUSE of the risks.

A lot of these former players made bad business decisions with their money in their lives after football. What better way to get a second bite at the million dollar apple than to file suit over the risks of the game they willingly took live a certain lifestyle.

Sorry for the rant, this just chaps me big time. For every NFL player, there are a hundred joe shmo's watching and wishing they could be in that position making that kind of money to play a game. I bet these same guys like to brag to people how much tougher it was back when they were playing given the ticky tack rules and penalties this bs has created.

 

[atceagle]

It's probably pointless to argue at this point, but it's apples and oranges. Yes, Big Ben knows he is putting his foot at risk when he does what he does.

But until recently, the extent of damage done permanently by concussions was poorly understood. The lawsuits don't say that the players didn't know they were hurting themselves; it says that the NFL knew more than they let on about the permanent damage of cumulative concussions. The players didn't know that ALS, etc could be caused by concussions, the belief was that once you recovered from it you were fine -- the allegation is that the NFL did know more, and didn't do enough to educate and protect the players from that cumulative damage.

The "players didn't know they were at risk from playing football" line is purely a strawman, and adds nothing to the discussion. That's not what they are claiming.

How could the NFL know if the medical community itself didn't know?

 

[Sarcastic]

How could the NFL know if the medical community itself didn't know?

That's not what I meant.

The medical community didn't know everything it knows today, but there was some information coming to light.

The players allege that the NFL knew some things and didn't properly act on them. If that's not true...

Also they are saying in part, that although there was certainly a "legal" right in their contracts to get second opinions, sit down because they didn't know which team they were on or what their name was, etc...that they were, nonetheless coerced to play through injuries. (I don't know about THIS suit, but that's a contention in most of them)

Surely everyone here has worked at a job where certain assignments were voluntary, and yet not doing them was considered detrimental to the career? I have, and that's the allegation some players are making.

See Colt McCoy. That guy didn't have a clue what was happening to him. He was staring into space waiting for the huddle. Look at his face during the game, between snaps. He looked more spacey than the most stoned person I've ever seen. He was gone. That player can't be hit with the "personal responsibility" line...the doctors have the responsibility to say "no, sit down" and to tell the coaches the same. And the coaches have a responsibility to listen -- and do what's best for their players in the long term.

At the very least, even if the NFL knew nothing and the players knew what they were getting into, the NFL should be taking better care of its players after they retire. Healthcare coverage should be complete and unlimited. The NFL is without a doubt rich enough to do so, and it wouldn't have been without those players.

 

[FFT22]

How could the NFL know if the medical community itself didn't know?

If what you are saying is accurate, that the medical community was completely in the dark (it wasn't), but even if there was no way to know, then we get to this. So where do you stand on that?

Let's take your hypothesis and discuss.

The medical community did not know about the issues with concussions when these injuries were happening.

Ok, a few questions now:

1. Should they have known? Should the NFL have commissioned studies earlier to protect the players? Does the NFL, as employer, have a duty to protect its workers or a special duty to learn of long term health issues they may face b/c of their employment?

2. Who was in the best position to know? A team with billions of dollars, or a football player who may not have even graduated from college?

3. Even if no duty existed, and the NFL had no reason to perform any proactive investigation, who should pay now? Keep in mind that a player who cannot afford the treatment for his serious injuries is forced to treat at a public hospital, meaning you and I, as taxpayers, pay for his treatment.

So with that in mind, even if the NFL has completely clean hands (it doesn't but just assume for a second), is it better for us to have to take care of him with our tax revenues, or for the league that has made billions on the backs of these players to have to take care of it?

 

[Sarcastic]

Just for clarity, there's a weird glitch in this thread messing with the quotes, I'm not sure how that happened. The above quote wasn't me...I agree with everything in FFT22's post.

 

[atceagle]

Should they have known? I think they went by what research was saying at the time and that research didn't always agree but is continuing to evolve as technology and science becomes better. Like I said, when I started my career 15 years ago if a kid didn't lose consciousness and they told me they didn't have any symptoms 15 minutes after the hit, then they were allowed to return to the game. That sounds crazy today but that's what the literature told us was ok to do.

Who was in the best position to know? I'd say the researchers that put out the guidelines to follow. Problem was that in the 90's, there were over a dozen guidelines to follow. Now should the NFL have chosen one guideline and force all the teams to follow the same guidelines? Sure and they may have, I don't know if they did or not. And which guidelines of the dozens out there were they to follow?

Should they pay now? I think the NFL and NFLPA came to an agreement with the Legacy Fund to help pay for retired players pre-1993. Over $600 million will go into this fund and over $1 billion for retired players as a whole. As far as if we should have to foot the bill as taxpayers, we already do this in society for those that can not afford care. It shouldn't matter what profession you once had, if you are destitute, you should receive care.

Also, it's not that the medical community didn't know, it's that not everyone agreed. That's how research works.

 

[vizcaya]

PBS Did a good documentary on this subject.

Link:

Football High - Video | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[FFT22]

Just for clarity, there's a weird glitch in this thread messing with the quotes, I'm not sure how that happened. The above quote wasn't me...I agree with everything in FFT22's post.

Sorry about that

 

[FFT22]

Should they have known? I think they went by what research was saying at the time and that research didn't always agree but is continuing to evolve as technology and science becomes better. Like I said, when I started my career 15 years ago if a kid didn't lose consciousness and they told me they didn't have any symptoms 15 minutes after the hit, then they were allowed to return to the game. That sounds crazy today but that's what the literature told us was ok to do.

I think they cherry picked research that supported policies and procedures in place at the time. This is what they did up until the bitter end.

Who was in the best position to know? I'd say the researchers that put out the guidelines to follow. Problem was that in the 90's, there were over a dozen guidelines to follow. Now should the NFL have chosen one guideline and force all the teams to follow the same guidelines? Sure and they may have, I don't know if they did or not. And which guidelines of the dozens out there were they to follow?

The ones produced by independent organizations, not interest groups.

Should they pay now? I think the NFL and NFLPA came to an agreement with the Legacy Fund to help pay for retired players pre-1993. Over $600 million will go into this fund and over $1 billion for retired players as a whole. As far as if we should have to foot the bill as taxpayers, we already do this in society for those that can not afford care. It shouldn't matter what profession you once had, if you are destitute, you should receive care.

It provided little assistance to many players with long term health concerns until the most recent cba this year.

Also, it's not that the medical community didn't know, it's that not everyone agreed. That's how research works.

That's how research works when an interested party, i.e., the NFL, sponsors it. They come up with conflicting results that call into question the valid results reached by independent medical researchers or they simply ignore the research their own

For example:

Head Injuries News - The New York Times

A 2000 study surveyed 1,090 former N.F.L. players and found more than 60 percent had suffered at least one concussion in their careers and 26 percent had had three or more. Those who had had concussions reported more problems with memory, concentration, speech impediments, headaches and other neurological problems than those who had not, the survey found.

A 2007 study conducted by the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of Retired Athletes found that of the 595 retired N.F.L. players who recalled sustaining three or more concussions on the football field, 20.2 percent said they had been found to have depression. That is three times the rate of players who have not sustained concussions.

As scrutiny of brain injuries in football players has escalated in the past few years, with prominent professionals reporting cognitive problems and academic studies supporting a link more generally, the N.F.L. and its medical committee on concussions have steadfastly denied the existence of reliable data on the issue.

But in September 2009, a study commissioned by the N.F.L. reported that Alzheimer's disease or similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league's former players vastly more often than in the national population — including a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49.

The study, which was conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, has not been peer-reviewed, but the findings fall into step with several recent independent studies regarding N.F.L. players and the effects of their occupational head injuries.

 

[atceagle]

I think they cherry picked research that supported policies and procedures in place at the time. This is what they did up until the bitter end.



The ones produced by independent organizations, not interest groups.



It provided little assistance to many players with long term health concerns until the most recent cba this year.



That's how research works when an interested party, i.e., the NFL, sponsors it. They come up with conflicting results that call into question the valid results reached by independent medical researchers or they simply ignore the research their own

For example:

Head Injuries News - The New York Times

So what's the answer? Should the NFL go and pay for every player that stepped foot on an NFL practice field whether they played for 1 day or 10 yrs? Keep in mind, research is showing that sub-concussive blows to the head are causing CTE in college athletes that have never had a diagnosed concussion.

The research is changing so much in such short time that Cantu stated up to the early 2000's that it was ok to allow a kid to return to play on the same day he/she suffers a concussion to what he says today that collision sports shouldn't be allowed until a kid reaches 14yrs old. Will we look back 20yrs from now and laugh at ourselves for letting 10yr olds play tackle football? Will pee-wee football and hockey leagues become extinct? It could happen.

 

[Saints Frenzy]

There was sports related brain damage information available many years ago, though more specific studies have been done and much more is known now. In the early eighties, I recall extensive media discussion about the combination punch causing brain damage in boxing. The explanation at the time was that the brain is not secured to the skull. When the head is rapidly turning in one direction and gets popped back in the opposite rotation, the brain twists within the skull causing lesions and tears in the soft connective tissues between them. These wounds leave scar tissue that diminishes the brain's capabilities (cause brain damage). Look at Mohamed Ali. Playing in the NFL is analogous to boxing in many respects. The big "jacked up" hits we love to see cause similar damage. Everybody has known it but they were in denial to keep the status quo going until it became impossible to ignore any longer.

 

[Muncie]

I think they cherry picked research that supported policies and procedures in place at the time. This is what they did up until the bitter end.



The ones produced by independent organizations, not interest groups.



It provided little assistance to many players with long term health concerns until the most recent cba this year.



That's how research works when an interested party, i.e., the NFL, sponsors it. They come up with conflicting results that call into question the valid results reached by independent medical researchers or they simply ignore the research their own

For example:

Head Injuries News - The New York Times

 

[State Of Affairs]

That's not what I meant.

The medical community didn't know everything it knows today, but there was some information coming to light.

The players allege that the NFL knew some things and didn't properly act on them. If that's not true...

Also they are saying in part, that although there was certainly a "legal" right in their contracts to get second opinions, sit down because they didn't know which team they were on or what their name was, etc...that they were, nonetheless coerced to play through injuries. (I don't know about THIS suit, but that's a contention in most of them)

At the very least, even if the NFL knew nothing and the players knew what they were getting into, the NFL should be taking better care of its players after they retire. Healthcare coverage should be complete and unlimited. The NFL is without a doubt rich enough to do so, and it wouldn't have been without those players.

Man... Guys in jail were "coerced" into doing crimes by their friends, gangs and other associates... That didn't make it right... These players made decisions to play in fear of losing there multi million dollar job.. If they were actually coerced, it's still a matter of them taking responsibility for themselves and go get a regular job...

The most important point that many people on this board lose sight of is THESE GUYS DON'T HAVE TO PLAY FOOTBALL... It's not there god given right!!! They can go get another job if they fealt the job was too dangerous...

They chose to play and put themselves at risk...

I understand the culture of pro football.. The pressure to play is huge but it's still your individual responsibility not to jump off the bridge just because your friends do (like my mom use to say)

I do agree that the health care should be MUCH better...

People in normal businesses are coerced into doing illegal things all the time because of huge pressure from others in the business to cover stuff up, turn a blind eye or ignore things but they still go to jail... Peer pressure is not an excuse for making bad decisions.. (not trying to imply playing football is like crime, just making a point.)

This debat is silly... You knowingly put yourself in harms way... PERIOD!!! Now you're trying to grab some more cash... Just because more info is coming out that it's more dangerous then you realize doesn't make it someone else's fault..

 

[chank]

I've eaten so much hot sauce over the years that I cannot even feel the burn from pepper on my tongue any longer. I'm going to have to sue the makers of Tabasco and Louisiana Hot Sauce.