re: Jahvid Best is suing the NFL

quote:

---

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?

---

Worker safety has to be negotiated or the company isn't found liable? That's definitely not the case. Even if specifics were laid out in a contract, what if they weren't followed?
If a manufacturing plant employees negotiated that machines had to be inspected monthly, but the company didn't do that, they'd be held liable should an injury occur.

quote:

---

Worker safety has to be negotiated or the company isn't found liable?

---

yes

LINK

quote:

---

Beyond the threat of dismissal, going to trial may have proven unsuccessful. The league was prepared to argue that the players' claims are barred by the fact that players, through their union, agreed to health protocols and waivers of legal rights as part of the collective bargaining agreement.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Second, the Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs’ dispute falls under the existing CBA, and therefore, the clauses within the CBA should control. The bulk of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint states that the NFL failed to fulfill its duty of providing players with information and rules that would protect them from the risks of concussions sustained while playing football. The Defendants argue that, “The CBA’s expressly delineate the obligations of the NFL with respect to the promulgation and enforcement of health and safety-related rules for NFL players and any such obligations therefore arise under the CBA.

---

quote:

---

If a manufacturing plant employees negotiated that machines had to be inspected monthly, but the company didn't do that, they'd be held liable should an injury occur.

---

sure, but the NFLPA did not bargain for any concussion-related protocols, so there were no protocols to violate

these studies were not secret things that only the NFL knew about. they were public, and the NFLPA gave 0 fricks when negotiating even the latest CBA. if the players want to place blame, it goes on the players for missing this angle

quote:

---

sure, but the NFLPA did not bargain for any concussion-related protocols, so there were no protocols to violate

these studies were not secret things that only the NFL knew about. they were public, and the NFLPA gave 0 fricks when negotiating even the latest CBA. if the players want to place blame, it goes on the players for missing this angle

---

Sounds like Best should pull an Alex Rodriguez. Would be much more justified (assuming this is all true)

quote:

---

Beyond the threat of dismissal, going to trial may have proven unsuccessful. The league was prepared to argue that the players' claims are barred by the fact that players, through their union, agreed to health protocols and waivers of legal rights as part of the collective bargaining agreement.

---

Key words: "may have" and "league was prepared to argue." I'm sure the players were prepared to argue conversely.

quote:

---

sure, but the NFLPA did not bargain for any concussion-related protocols, so there were no protocols to violate

---

Workers don't have to negotiate for every specific health related protocol. They would have a million page contact covering every body part, illness, and injury possible.

As an example, there was nothing in the CBA regarding protecting players from heat. Korey Stringer of the Vikings had a heat stroke in 2001 and died. His widow sued Riddell and the NFL. Settlements were reached with both entities, but there was a very good chance that she would have won her case against the NFL.

quote:

---

sure, but only with bullshite concepts like unconscionably or adhesion

---

if the league had withheld knowledge of just how damaging concussions are, i'm confident that kind of bad faith would have rendered any such clause null for the purposes of that lawsuit.

quote:

---

if the league had withheld knowledge of just how damaging concussions are, i'm confident that kind of bad faith would have rendered any such clause null for the purposes of that lawsuit.

---

how can the NFL hide public studies? there have been studies linking head injuries and CTE since the fricking 60s

the last CBA was fricking negotiated AFTER players committed suicide, some doing it in ways specifically to preserve their heads to be studied. did the NFLPA negotiate for concussion-related protocols? no

quote:

---

and I think, had they met their standard of proof, such a finding would supersede any clause you're referencing. Do you disagree?

---

sure, and if the NFL proved unicorns existed, we could come up with all sorts of other amazing results in our heads

this is reality: the studies were in the public domain wherein the NFL or NFLPA could access them

the NFL could not, therefore, "hide" the mounting "common sense" evidence linking CTE and head trauma

if we ignore reality, we can come up with all sorts of creative future hypotheticals

the suicides were public and a media narrative AT THE TIME OF THE LAST CBA NEGOTIATIONS

quote:

---

sure, and if the NFL proved unicorns existed, we could come up with all sorts of other amazing results in our heads

this is reality: the studies were in the public domain wherein the NFL or NFLPA could access them

the NFL could not, therefore, "hide" the mounting "common sense" evidence linking CTE and head trauma

if we ignore reality, we can come up with all sorts of creative future hypotheticals

the suicides were public and a media narrative AT THE TIME OF THE LAST CBA NEGOTIATIONS

---

You're getting awfully emotional over this. I have no idea if these studies you're talking about are legitimate or not or any of that. All I'm saying is that if the players can prove what they say they can prove then that would very likely supersede any CBA clause banning legal action against the league. It's really not that hard.

I know you're SFP and you know everything about every situation but maybe, just maybe, there is some information out there that hasn't been made public that might make a difference in the outcome of any potential litigation. I expect the average td.com user to think they have it all figured out when it comes to this kind of thing but I expect you of all people to understand that these situations are not as simple as you;re making them out to be.

You have an agenda to protect big business and that's fine I guess but take a few deep breaths and stop acting like you have all the answers.

quote:

---

You're getting awfully emotional over this.

---

i'm not emotional at all. those who are ignoring the true villain will not listen to the facts

you all want to invent your own reality

for example:

quote:

---

I have no idea if these studies you're talking about are legitimate or not or any of that.

---

the studies the players themselves rely upon are public, and have been for a long time. unless you want to argue that the NFL owns all the scientific research (both domestic and international) about concussions and CTE, then this argument has no merit

quote:

---

but maybe, just maybe, there is some information out there that hasn't been made public that might make a difference in the outcome of any potential litigation. I

---

how? that is basically not possible

quote:

---

but I expect you of all people to understand that these situations are not as simple as you;re making them out to be.

---

i've been part of hundreds of lawsuits (on the plaintiff side), and i have no problems pointing out bullshite lawsuits

bullshite lawsuits give legitimate lawsuits a bad name

you know the saying, "when you have the law, pound the law. when you have the facts, pound the facts. when you have neither, pound the desk"? this is a "pound the desk" scenario and the only ways these wins is if they tug at heart strings and emotionally-thinking judges create bad law (like the aforementioned adhesion). i abhor bad law

quote:

---

You have an agenda to protect big business

---

wut? link?

quote:

---

he left in a non-labor claim that was mainly focused on Ridell...then there was a settlement b/c there was a very good chance the NFL would suffer bad PR and it was cheaper to just settle than pay lawyers + take the PR hit

---

So the NFL also agreed to pay $765 million because it was cheaper than "bad PR"? It's always about money. The NFL agreed to pay because there was a chance they would lose even more in a lawsuit. It's all about playing the odds. The NFL agreed to that after calculating the odds they would lose a lawsuit and have to pay even more money.
Like DS stated, you do not have intricate knowledge of Best's lawsuit so let the courts decide if he has a case.
There are many people a helluva lot smarter and more knowledgeable about the case than you who thinks he can win a verdict against the NFL. A judge and jury will decide who's right.