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

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.