- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is really, really bad for the NFL
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
and 1983 actions are instances where the government has consented to being sued?
or is that just the actors acting in their official roles and not the government itself?
or is that just the actors acting in their official roles and not the government itself?
1
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:24 am to boosiebadazz
1983 is an exception created under federal law that allows states to be sued for actions acting in their governmental roles
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:25 am to boosiebadazz
My question is, how can they prove that the concussions causing the brain injuries happened while playing in the NFL, and not pee-wee/high school/college football?
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:27 am to Ric Flair
quote:
My question is, how can they prove that the concussions causing the brain injuries happened while playing in the NFL, and not pee-wee/high school/college football?
Good point. Big time college football has plenty of hard hits and concussions.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:27 am to Ric Flair
i'm not going to quote the entire complaint, but it looks like the allegations of fraud are only post-1994
*ETA: the complaint itself notes public studies on this issue are really old
quote:
22. The NFL caused or contributed to the injuries and increased risks to Plaintiffs
through its acts and omissions by, among other things: (a) historically ignoring the true risks of
MTBI in NFL football; (b) failing to disclose the true risks of repetitive MTBI to NFL players; and
(c) since 1994 deliberately creating false scientific studies and spreading misinformation
concerning the cause and effect relation between MTBI in NFL football and latent
neurodegenerative disorders and diseases.
*ETA: the complaint itself notes public studies on this issue are really old
quote:
3. The published medical literature, as detailed later in this Complaint, contains studies of
athletes dating back as far as 1928 demonstrating a scientifically observed link between repetitive
blows to the head and neuro-cognitive problems. The earliest studies focused on boxers, but by the
1950s and 1960s, a substantial body of medical and scientific evidence had been developed specifically
relating to neuro-cognitive injuries in the sport of football.
This post was edited on 1/10/13 at 9:28 am
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
you think this will end up in trial or a massive settlement?
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:29 am to boosiebadazz
the procedural/standing/peremption issues are going to take like 10 years to sort out before we even know what kind of case this is 
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:38 am to SlowFlowPro
and i have no idea how the NFL protects itself from this in the future
absent of just shutting down, do you think they have a way to protect themselves going forward?
im presuming any waiver will not be honored
absent of just shutting down, do you think they have a way to protect themselves going forward?
im presuming any waiver will not be honored
This post was edited on 1/10/13 at 9:44 am
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:42 am to lsutothetop
College >>> NFL
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:43 am to boosiebadazz
the NFL just has to show it is taking steps to try to combat the issue. they can't stop injuries, but they can implement rules to lesson the chance of injury and the long-term impacts of head injuries. the complaint actually contains language stating that the NFL did this, but it's claim is that the NFL used it's investigation to create the fake studies and lie to the players (that's why it's only claimed to be from 1994-2010)
paragraph 92 of the complaint lists a bunch of rules put in place for player safety. the claimants are alleging that the NFL assumed a role/duty as the authority in player safety
paragraph 92 of the complaint lists a bunch of rules put in place for player safety. the claimants are alleging that the NFL assumed a role/duty as the authority in player safety
quote:
90. As a result, the NFL unilaterally assumed a duty to act in the best interests of the
health and safety of NFL players, to provide truthful information to NFL players regarding risks to
their health, and to take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure the safety of players.
quote:
99. Thus, since its inception, and continuing into the present, the NFL has been in a
position that affords it a special relationship to NFL players as the guardian of their health and safety.
For that reason, from its inception and continuing into the present, the NFL owed a duty of reasonable
care to keep NFL players informed of neurological risks, to inform NFL players truthfully, and not to
-24-
mislead NFL players about the risks of permanent neurological damage that can occur from MTBI
incurred while playing football.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:49 am to lsutothetop
quote:
NFL's done, it's over
Sweet! Now our players will stay all 4 years...
This post was edited on 1/10/13 at 9:53 am
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:52 am to SlowFlowPro
so this particular lawsuit is really about the alleged lie and coverup?
that wont be as catastrophic for the NFL.
that wont be as catastrophic for the NFL.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:52 am to boosiebadazz
based on the complaint that's only a small slice, from 1994-onward
Posted on 1/10/13 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
It is what it is
Making shite load of money playing football has risks, they signed up for it.
NFL should make drafted players sign a wavier explaining the risks of playing football
Goodshit, please don't make football a peewee league
Making shite load of money playing football has risks, they signed up for it.
NFL should make drafted players sign a wavier explaining the risks of playing football
Goodshit, please don't make football a peewee league
Posted on 1/10/13 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the procedural/standing/peremption issues are going to take like 10 years to sort out before we even know what kind of case this is
Are the former players bound by the terms of the CBA that they played under? And what about if an individual player played under multiple different CBAs? And what about the Players from different eras who all played under different ones?
NYC defense firms are drooling.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 10:01 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Seau
quote:
This is why Goodell hammered the Saints.
link?
Get the frick out
Posted on 1/10/13 at 10:01 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:the part about the NFL hiding it is part of the claims of the players' lawsuits.
How do we know this?
The part of the NFL denying it existed, pretty sure there are articles with quotes from the NFL denying it.
I'll try to find them, but I'm on my phone at work, so no promises lol.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 10:01 am to jimithing11
keep thinking checkers while the rest of us discuss chess, kid
Posted on 1/10/13 at 10:03 am to Northwestern tiger
well ignoring the possibilities that the NFL lied about its research (that i won't defend the NFL on, on its face, but doesn't appear to be really what this suit is about), that's kind of how i feel
let's say the NFL outlaws any hit above the shoulders
then players will go low and lots of knees will be blown out. then you have a group of plaintiffs down the road suing for not protecting their legs
let's say they outlaw leg hits, and you can only hit between the hips and shoulders. i'm sure repeated blows by 245+ lb freaks isn't good for your internal injuries, so down the road you'll have players suing for internal injuries suffered
it becomes somewhat of an absurd argument when (1) the players themselves admit the research was available from the 20s onward and (2) it's hard to argue that they didn't understand that playing football would lead to injuries
this is like a "soft tissue" matter because the literature on brain injuries is just now developing really well and it's still a "soft" area. i'm not dismissing the real worries that these players have or the injuries they suffer from, but this could be another set of "implant" litigation (aka, turns out to be bogus somewhat)
let's say the NFL outlaws any hit above the shoulders
then players will go low and lots of knees will be blown out. then you have a group of plaintiffs down the road suing for not protecting their legs
let's say they outlaw leg hits, and you can only hit between the hips and shoulders. i'm sure repeated blows by 245+ lb freaks isn't good for your internal injuries, so down the road you'll have players suing for internal injuries suffered
it becomes somewhat of an absurd argument when (1) the players themselves admit the research was available from the 20s onward and (2) it's hard to argue that they didn't understand that playing football would lead to injuries
this is like a "soft tissue" matter because the literature on brain injuries is just now developing really well and it's still a "soft" area. i'm not dismissing the real worries that these players have or the injuries they suffer from, but this could be another set of "implant" litigation (aka, turns out to be bogus somewhat)
Posted on 1/10/13 at 10:04 am to Rickety Cricket
quote:
Are the former players bound by the terms of the CBA that they played under?
that's a major question that may go to the USSC itself
quote:
And what about if an individual player played under multiple different CBAs?
i'm curious about that, too
quote:
And what about the Players from different eras who all played under different ones?
yeah i was making that point earlier. it's a tough issue to sort out
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News