boyst Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 They'll settle out of court, the NFL will not want to be put on the stand or be on trial. It's a shame, a !@#$ing shame, just a money scheme by the family. Yes, it is tragic the guy had brain damage, but the NFL didn't force him on that field, and even a caveman knows that getting gonked on the head ain't good.
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 They'll settle out of court, the NFL will not want to be put on the stand or be on trial. It's a shame, a !@#$ing shame, just a money scheme by the family. Yes, it is tragic the guy had brain damage, but the NFL didn't force him on that field, and even a caveman knows that getting gonked on the head ain't good. Problem is the nfl has been less than honest with its players on medical advice.
Best Player Available Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 2 hand touch by 2020. It's in the cards. I wonder if Ali should have sued Ridell for their gloves. It's hard to defend the NFL at times, but this is crazy to say the least. Nothing more than a money grab. Like others, I had family die because they where employed by Bethlehem Steel. Payout? LOL
boyst Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Problem is the nfl has been less than honest with its players on medical advice. and the players have been less then honest on their "medical usage." Tell me, 100%, that Seau did not use steroids. No one can. The guy was the epitome of steroids. He cared so little about his body, his health, his life that he chose to do steroids.
NoSaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 and the players have been less then honest on their "medical usage." Tell me, 100%, that Seau did not use steroids. No one can. The guy was the epitome of steroids. He cared so little about his body, his health, his life that he chose to do steroids. It definitely cuts both ways. No one comes out looking good when you dive into it.
boyst Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It definitely cuts both ways. No one comes out looking good when you dive into it. Which means there is only one direction to go, the dirty and bad direction. Seau is gone. The NFL is still here. Seau has nothing to lose and his family nothing to gain. The NFL the only one who can lose here, and that is the Seau family's fortune.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 The NFL denied any link between brain injury and football for many years. There has to be some liability on the part of the NFL given the lack of candor on the issue. Correct. For many players over a certain time period (Dr. Elliott Pellman) the NFL told them that there was no risk and that they had nothing to worry about. Had the NFL not taken this position, the NFL would be completely free of responsibility. The fact that the NFL intentionally misled the players means that the NFL has SOME responsibility.
Tcali Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 The NFL denied any link between brain injury and football for many years. There has to be some liability on the part of the NFL given the lack of candor on the issue. This kinda reminds me of the smoking lawsuits. people sucked tons of hot smoke into their lungs for decades and they didnt think...common sense didnt tell them that they were likely heading for an early death??--they see generations of people dying and weezing a coughing up a lung every morning--and they then whine and sue because the tobacco companies didnt let them know it was bad for them?/ One spends years and years(esp at a position like LB--even more than at lineman IMO) with their heads colliding/being pounded w rapid speed and force.--Common sense doesnt tell that person that they will pay the price for that in later life? -"Ohhh they didnt tell me!!" Should NFL players get medical care for these conditions?? of course. Should they be able to sue for millions?? no.
benderbender Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Correct. For many players over a certain time period (Dr. Elliott Pellman) the NFL told them that there was no risk and that they had nothing to worry about. Had the NFL not taken this position, the NFL would be completely free of responsibility. The fact that the NFL intentionally misled the players means that the NFL has SOME responsibility. You mean to tell me that these football players--that strap on a helmet before going on the practice field much less the game day field on Sunday--to protect their head, had no idea that they could possibly be hurt playing the game? Or are you saying they knew they'd get broken arms, legs or paralyzed but getting hit in the head was unfathomable?
26CornerBlitz Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 This kinda reminds me of the smoking lawsuits. people sucked tons of hot smoke into their lungs for decades and they didnt think...common sense didnt tell them that they were likely heading for an early death??--they see generations of people dying and weezing a coughing up a lung every morning--and they then whine and sue because the tobacco companies didnt let them know it was bad for them?/ One spends years and years(esp at a position like LB--even more than at lineman IMO) with their heads colliding/being pounded w rapid speed and force.--Common sense doesnt tell that person that they will pay the price for that in later life? -"Ohhh they didnt tell me!!" Should NFL players get medical care for these conditions?? of course. Should they be able to sue for millions?? no. To me it's similar to workers being in an asbestos filled environment and an employer telling the the rank and file that there's no threat to their health. Year after year, the employer knows better while continually denying any relationship between a pattern of health issues and the working environment. Then it's subsequently revealed that the company had actual medical evidence to the contrary. This scenario has been repeated often in various industries and is the reason OSHA exists today. In the case of the tobacco industry, they lied about the medical evidence that clearly showed there were major health risks associated with using their products. Couple with the fact that the industry created and included additives in their products that made them even more addictive. In many cases, people couldn't quit smoking because of their powerful addictions. The industry lost billions of dollars in lawsuits because of their lies and greed at the risk of people's health. Correct. For many players over a certain time period (Dr. Elliott Pellman) the NFL told them that there was no risk and that they had nothing to worry about. Had the NFL not taken this position, the NFL would be completely free of responsibility. The fact that the NFL intentionally misled the players means that the NFL has SOME responsibility. Agreed. The recently discovered link between head trauma and ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) makes this even worse.
CodeMonkey Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) and the players have been less then honest on their "medical usage." Tell me, 100%, that Seau did not use steroids. No one can. The guy was the epitome of steroids. He cared so little about his body, his health, his life that he chose to do steroids. Or, he cared so much about wanting to play football at the highest possible level that he chose to do steroids (assuming he did). Even if what you say is true. The does not excuse the NFL. They'll settle out of court, the NFL will not want to be put on the stand or be on trial. It's a shame, a !@#$ing shame, just a money scheme by the family. Problem with that is now the flood gates open for the family of every ex football player with a lawyer looking to get paid. Edited January 24, 2013 by CodeMonkey
shrader Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Correct. For many players over a certain time period (Dr. Elliott Pellman) the NFL told them that there was no risk and that they had nothing to worry about. Had the NFL not taken this position, the NFL would be completely free of responsibility. The fact that the NFL intentionally misled the players means that the NFL has SOME responsibility. What about the NCAA? He played there too. I would think that someone could make a reasonable argument that he may have had the condition before he even set foot on an NFL field. Without the the thought that it definitely came from the NFL, this suit should have no leg to stand on.
NoSaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 What about the NCAA? He played there too. I would think that someone could make a reasonable argument that he may have had the condition before he even set foot on an NFL field. Without the the thought that it definitely came from the NFL, this suit should have no leg to stand on. without seeing the details of his lawsuit its near impossible to say the family doesnt have grounds to atleast have a case be heard. if your workplace lied to you about the safety of your job, you would deserve the same even if you knew there had to be some risk, or may have had pre existing damages...
Rob's House Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 without seeing the details of his lawsuit its near impossible to say the family doesnt have grounds to atleast have a case be heard. if your workplace lied to you about the safety of your job, you would deserve the same even if you knew there had to be some risk, or may have had pre existing damages... Can we cut through the mamby pamby theoretical bull **** and look at this for what it is. This wasn't a 19 year old kid out there, the guy played into his late 30s. And spare me the crap about how the NFL knew but these guys were clueless to the dangers. If you're a multi-millionaire playing football who doesn't assess the risk & have a pretty good idea what you're getting into, you probably don't have a brain worth preserving in the first place.
dave mcbride Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Biggest NFL-related news in the past week: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/the-impending-death-of-pro-football/267412/ I'm suprised it's not being discussed here.
CodeMonkey Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Can we cut through the mamby pamby theoretical bull **** and look at this for what it is. This wasn't a 19 year old kid out there, the guy played into his late 30s. And spare me the crap about how the NFL knew but these guys were clueless to the dangers. If you're a multi-millionaire playing football who doesn't assess the risk & have a pretty good idea what you're getting into, you probably don't have a brain worth preserving in the first place. From damage sustained as a kid playing football perhaps? I'm not saying the players are blameless mind you. But if the NFL withheld information from players about the dangers then they are culpable as well in my opinion.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Biggest NFL-related news in the past week: http://www.theatlant...ootball/267412/I'm suprised it's not being discussed here. It would not signal the death knell of Pro Football IMO. They'd have standard player contracts with the player assuming the known risks in a waiver and guys would still line up for the chance at the money and the glory associated with playing the game at the NFL level. Edited January 24, 2013 by 26CornerBlitz
K-9 Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It would not signal the death knell of Pro Football IMO. They'd have standard player contracts with the player assuming the known risks in a waiver and guys would still line up for the chance at the money and the glory associated with playing the game at the NFL level. How about 20, 30 years from now? After a generation of new research and information regarding the impact of multiple concussions on young, developing brains? I know parents, myself included, who won't let their kids play Pop Warner anymore and that's based on information that's come forth in just the last five years. There is a very real potential for huge swaths of talent pools to go dry moving forward. At the very least, the potential for he game itself to evolve to a less violent version is a distinct possibility. GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Can we cut through the mamby pamby theoretical bull **** and look at this for what it is. This wasn't a 19 year old kid out there, the guy played into his late 30s. And spare me the crap about how the NFL knew but these guys were clueless to the dangers. If you're a multi-millionaire playing football who doesn't assess the risk & have a pretty good idea what you're getting into, you probably don't have a brain worth preserving in the first place. its pretty standard issue that employers cannot misrepresent the risks of a job intentionally. thats wrong, and will receive punishment, rightfully so. how that gets doled out might be debatable but i dont see how anyone can argue "who cares if nfl doctors have been lying to players about health issues" sure, its not a black and white issue where one side is totally at fault. the nfl is going to lose money on this and seau lost some of his brain function. he assumed a certain amount of risk, just like the nfl did when they made statements as to the safety of the profession to their employees. everyone is a loser here. i dont think splitting the blame is "mamby pamby" on this one. Edited January 24, 2013 by NoSaint
Recommended Posts