- 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: Jahvid Best is suing the NFL
Posted on 1/28/14 at 6:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 1/28/14 at 6:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
when i played high school football in the late 90's my teammates and i had no conception of a concussion being as damaging as they are now
yep you're retarded
0
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:20 pm to brgfather129
quote:
but, if he could have found a single doctor to clear him after his final concussion, he would have made the decision to play again. Hard to side with him in this lawsuit given that.
This is how I see it and why I think it's hypocritical for him to sue at this point. He tried repeatably to get approved to play again after his last concussion. I'm assuming the doctors informed him of the risks for him and thats why they didn't approve. Then when he can't play in the NFL (arguably because they are protecting him because of the liability of long term effects) he decides to get money any way he can.
Given the circumstances it isn't hard to conclude that this is just a money grab for him.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:21 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Ok so what i've gathered from today is that td.com both hates unions and when players sue. So basically y'all think players (and workers in general) should STFU and accept substandard conditions? I really don't understand the thought process. it sounds like you want to go back to the early 1900's when there was little to no worker protections at all.
So at what point is the NFL considered to have provided full disclosure? Even with all the information they have now admitted to, any player at any point moving forward can claim that there has not been full disclosure. This is similar to the tobacco companies.
I think one of the determining factors will be: Are the dangers of concussions now so widely known that it is hard to claim lack of information (by whomever)? I don't know if we are there yet, but we are getting close to the point where risk about concussions in football is an axiom.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:33 pm to bwallcubfan
I thought that kid no shite died when he came down. Made me wanna puke
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:36 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
If the conditions were acceptable when Best was playing then why has the NFL modified its rules to afford the players more protection since then? Isn't that acknowledgment that the risks of injury were too high?
Shouldn't any reputable organization always be looking for ways to improve the quality of life for their employees?
This does not mean that working conditions are unacceptable.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:36 pm to PurpleDrank18
That warning may work for Riddell but the NFL allows helmet to helmet hits on runners
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:45 pm to Mr.Perfect
Im just going to park this here, not directed at anyone.
This is football. Everyone who plays/has played knows someone who got hurt. Everyone with an education beyond 6th grade is aware of the risk for permant life-changing injuries that comes with playing the game. How many times do we get to see reports on paralyzed players, or the career ending knee injuries. Players play because they love the game, love the money, but don't give me this crap about them not being aware of the possible risk of permanent injury.
This is football. Everyone who plays/has played knows someone who got hurt. Everyone with an education beyond 6th grade is aware of the risk for permant life-changing injuries that comes with playing the game. How many times do we get to see reports on paralyzed players, or the career ending knee injuries. Players play because they love the game, love the money, but don't give me this crap about them not being aware of the possible risk of permanent injury.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
So you think it's okay for an employer to knowingly suppress information regarding potential heath hazards to it's employees?
you mean suppress publicly available information?
besides, the NFLPA waived these claims in their CBA. his own union, which had his interests at heart, did not only fail to negotiate for this relief, but it failed to even give half a frick about the concussion issue itself (when it easily could have. this wasn't secret sorcery)
the NFL/Lions were very careful with Jahvid, and i believe they bent over backwards so that he could stay on a roster long enough to get a pension this year
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:00 pm to Peazey
quote:
He tried repeatably to get approved to play again after his last concussion. I'm assuming the doctors informed him of the risks for him and thats why they didn't approve. Then when he can't play in the NFL (arguably because they are protecting him because of the liability of long term effects) he decides to get money any way he can.
yeah if there is a very terrible plaintiff for one of these suits, it's best. the NFL/Lions went out of their way not only to protect him, but to help his future out
Obviously a group of frickign assholes
quote:
Best spent last season, his third in the NFL, on the physically unable to perform list. The Michigan-based website Mlive.com reported that the Lions didn't expect Best to be cleared medically but kept him on the roster so he could qualify for the NFL pension. Players are vested after three years of service.
he only played for like 1.5 years...1.5 of his 3 year career was on the IR/PUP due to concussions
how much could the NFL have damaged him?
This post was edited on 1/28/14 at 8:04 pm
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
BOOM
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:10 pm to wildtigercat93
i originally posted from my phone and had to come back once i got to my laptop
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
Those facts aren't current enough though because DA didn't know the concussion risks during pee wee football in the 90s
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:26 pm to TigerBait1127
I've got to agree with the points made by Draconian. We don't know all the facts of Best's case. Just because he knows of the dangers of playing, doesn't absolve the NFL of any wrong doing. Let the courts decide if his case has merits.
It's interesting that a judgement was reached against the NFL to the tune of $765 million, so the NFL obviously did something wrong. Most people thought the league got off easy. A judge agreed in rejecting the settlement as it was inadequate.
It's interesting that a judgement was reached against the NFL to the tune of $765 million, so the NFL obviously did something wrong. Most people thought the league got off easy. A judge agreed in rejecting the settlement as it was inadequate.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:39 pm to Nonetheless
I wonder how much more he would be suing for if the NFL cleared him to play again after his last concussion?
He tried for a full year and a half to get back in the league and they wouldn't let him back in.
He tried for a full year and a half to get back in the league and they wouldn't let him back in.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Best's concussion problems began during his junior season at Cal, but not on the play everyone remembers. His first concussion, deemed mild, came during a late October game at Arizona State and forced Best to miss several practices.
He was back in the lineup the following Saturday against Oregon State. Midway through the second quarter, Best hurdled a defender at the goal line, was hit in midair and plunged approximately seven feet to the ground. He landed on the back of his head.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:45 pm to RedMustang
quote:
Just because he knows of the dangers of playing, doesn't absolve the NFL of any wrong doing.
What am I missing here? If Best was fully aware of the dangers of playing, how is the NFL liable?
quote:
It's interesting that a judgement was reached against the NFL to the tune of $765 million, so the NFL obviously did something wrong. Most people thought the league got off easy. A judge agreed in rejecting the settlement as it was inadequate.
I thought this was for players so played more than a decade ago? Wasn't Best a rookie in 2012?
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:57 pm to Sevendust912
quote:
What am I missing here? If Best was fully aware of the dangers of playing, how is the NFL liable?
Let's say you go on a plane flight. You know that a crash is possible. The plane wasn't inspected properly and the plane crashes. The airline is not at fault?
You know working as a coal miner is dangerous work. Safety protocols aren't followed and a mine collapses. Mining company is not at fault because the workers knew mining is dangerous work?
There are a lot of accidents while riding motorcycles. You buy one and are paralyzed because the brakes didn't work. You are out of luck because you knew riding motorcycles is dangerous?
I could go on, but the league has a responsibility to protect it's players even though player's know it's a dangerous sport. I'm not saying that Best will win his case. I am saying that we don't know the details of the lawsuit and the courts will decide the outcome.
Quote: I thought this was for players who played more than a decade ago? Wasn't Best a rookie in 2012?
Didn't players a decade ago know that football is dangerous? If so, why was a judgement reached against the NFL? I'm using this as an example that the NFL has been successfully sued for not adequately protecting it's employees.
This post was edited on 1/28/14 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 1/28/14 at 10:09 pm to RedMustang
frick this dude. If a doctor would clear him to play, he'd be right back in the nfl. Reminds me of Pat White dropping his concussion lawsuit after the Redskins signed him.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 10:13 pm to RedMustang
quote:
It's interesting that a judgement was reached against the NFL to the tune of $765 millio
no judgment was reached
quote:
so the NFL obviously did something wrong.
a settlement doesn't mean the NFL did anything wrong. coming to an agreement was worth the PR hit + legal fees
quote:
Most people thought the league got off easy. A judge agreed in rejecting the settlement as it was inadequate.
he wanted more information. i don't think he said it was inadequate
Posted on 1/28/14 at 10:16 pm to RedMustang
quote:
I could go on, but the league has a responsibility to protect it's players even though player's know it's a dangerous sport.
the player's union has a duty to negotiate these protections in the league's CBA. the NFLPA failed to do so
this was never an important enough factor for the PLAYERS to negotiate in the CBA, but now it's all on the NFL's shoulders?
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News