erynthered Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'm tired of all these guys blaming the league, we all played the game and anyone with common sense knows banging your head repeatedly is bad. You play this game you know the risks, players need to take responsibilities for themselves. Besides plenty of people get dementia who never played, who's to say if he wouldn't have gotten it anyway. You're an idiot. /DC Tom/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 1970's: Kid: Dad, I want to play professional football when I grow up. Dad: That's my boy! 2000's: Kid: Dad, I want to learn to program computers when I grow up. Dad: That's my boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 You're an idiot. /DC Tom/ Funny, but that was exactly my thought when I read his post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spun Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I had one concussion while playing football (no helmets) with my friends. We were around 20 y.o. I was playing defense. A friend carried the ball, I went in for a tackle and our heads banged. It was like two rocks hitting. I went to the huddle. The only problem was I went to the wrong huddle. I didn't know, my friends had to tell me. My head was ringing for the rest of the day. All it takes is one shot. Listen to some former boxers try to speak. Tommy Hearns comes to mind. Football, hockey and boxing are very tough sports. Careers are usually short but the injuries linger. There have also been a number of recent suicides by former hockey players. As far as liability, I believe it is a personal call. You don't have to have modern day studies on head trauma to know that many injuries (past and present day) can be detrimental to long term health. Those guys sacrifice a lot to play the game at that level. We don't hear a whole lot about players after they leave the game. We can assume that for many, they carry some of the physical pain with them until death. Even though brain injuries from football are commonly discussed in the media, it doesn't seem to translate into how the game is played. Players leading with their heads and hitting to the head, don't seem to be any less than days past. RIP Ray Easterling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Early-onset dementia (starting in the 30s) is quite rare actually. Judging by this board, I beg to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 1970's: Kid: Dad, I want to play professional football when I grow up. Dad: That's my boy! 2000's: Kid: Dad, I want to learn to program computers when I grow up. Dad: That's my boy! I think that it's probably a good thing for a kid to play football, but just not too be very good at it, and end up playing professionally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 our awareness of concussions and their long-term impact so common in the 70s? Unless the NFL had a time machine then I think they didnt know the long term impacts of concussions either. I don't think they should be held liable for anything the players encounter afterwards, because its not like they covered anything up. They did start the pension/healthcare plan or whatever. Wich for the record is run by the players union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Funny, but that was exactly my thought when I read his post! Me, three, I just settled for digging a nice sar chasm Judging by this board, I beg to differ. A fair hit, sir, well played! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) A lot of you are saying things along the lines of "the players know what they're getting into… they understand the risks." What no one here is mentioning is the position that the NFL held under "Concussion Czar" Elliott Pellman from 1995 until he stepped down (under pressure) in 2007. For 12 years, Pellman was the Chairman of the NFL's MTBI (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury) Committee. During that period the NFL officially downplayed brain injuries and abetted the football culture which encouraged players who "had their bell rung" to return quickly to games. The committee made statements discrediting studies which showed a link between concussions and permanent brain impairment and took a casual position on brain injuries suffered by players. Pellman as Jets Team Doctor encouraged players with concussions (Wayne Chrebet for one) to return to games after suffering concussions. The only question is whether Pellman was doing the NFL's bidding, or if Pellman took it upon himself to suppress the advancement of theories linking head injuries to long term brain function. Pellman was/is a rheumatologist, not a neurologist. Pellman loved Chairing the NFL Committee and he loved being employed by an NFL team, roaming the sidelines freely during games and practices. Pellman was also found to have falsified information on his resume. It's possible that he downplayed the importance of brain injuries under tacit pressure from the league to do so. It's possible that he acted on his own to preserve his access to the sport he loves. Does the fact that for 12 years, the NFL and its foremost "expert" in the area downplayed the effects of head trauma and encouraged the players to return to action quickly change how all of you feel about how much personal responsibility a player has in protecting his own health? Edited April 25, 2012 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 1335112554[/url]' post='2442817']did you miss the part about we all played the game, I've been in there shoes. You played in the billion dollar nfl? I played the game too. I didn't play in the nfl. There's a big difference. Having life altering injuries while doing your "job" is different than getting life altering injuries doing something you enjoy for fun. Yes, injuries are a part of the game, but in MANY other workplaces, the employees are compensated when life altering injuries occur. Sure, football players know they can get hurt, just like a construction worker knows they can get hurt. The construction worker is compensated if they're hurt. The same cant be said for a football player. I understand your side of the argument, but I also understand the other side. Both sides have valid arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durham_Bills_Fan Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The idea that the NFL hid something from players and is liable for their medical conditions is absurd. Below is an excerpt from a paper from the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons from 2002 stating that the research they have done is the FIRST to suggest severe or repeated concussions in high school atheletes can predict long term effects. The point of course being that research in the area is ongoing, and 10 years later it is no better understood why some people suffer repeated trauma without effects and others fall from standing and are impaired for the rest of their lives. There are many things in medicine that are poorly understood, and the pathophysiology of concussion is certainly one. I am sympathetic to anyone who suffers from a long term illness, but it is difficult to fathom a player from the early 90's (which many are) joining the lawsut. To debunk the argument that "players in the past didn't make much money", in 1991, the poverty line in America was $6,620/year (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/figures-fed-reg.shtml) and the average NFL salary was $422,149/year (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-12-27/sports/1991361086_1_dan-marino-nfl-players-quarterbacks), that is 6377% more. The average NFL career is short, only 3.5 years, but that means a person at the poverty line (of which about 35% of our citizens live at or below) would still need to work for 223 years to equal the average NFL payout. I concede there are taxes, agents, and numerous other variables that make the estimate very rough, but the point is simple, the Detroit Lions player Dominic Raiola was very apt to say "I think when you sign up for this job, you know what you're getting into. I don't know if I could justify suing the league when I am done. I have so much fun playing the game, I really don't worry about it. It's common knowledge that people are going to suffer. Memory loss is going to come. You're hitting every time you step on the field. I am ready for it. It's worth it -- totally worth it. This is the best job in the world. I would never trade it for anything." "Cumulative Effects of Concussion in High School Athletes Collins, Michael W. Ph.D.; Lovell, Mark R. Ph.D.; Iverson, Grant L. Ph.D.; Cantu, Robert C. M.D.; Maroon, Joseph C. M.D.; Field, Melvin M.D. CONCLUSION : This study is the first to suggest a cumulative effect of concussion in high school athletes. A more severe on-field presentation of concussion markers is evidenced in high school athletes with a pronounced history of concussion. This study's findings highlight the need for more long-term outcome studies in high school athletes who sustain sports-related concussions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDD Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'm tired of all these guys blaming the league, we all played the game and anyone with common sense knows banging your head repeatedly is bad. You play this game you know the risks, players need to take responsibilities for themselves. Besides plenty of people get dementia who never played, who's to say if he wouldn't have gotten it anyway. Makes perfect sense to you and me. Unfortunately, there are attorneys who will convince a jury otherwise solely for the almighty dollar. Suing someone has become very lucrative in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Except for kicking and punting, you couldn't pay me enough to play football for a living. How about $20,000,000 a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 You played in the billion dollar nfl? I played the game too. I didn't play in the nfl. There's a big difference. Having life altering injuries while doing your "job" is different than getting life altering injuries doing something you enjoy for fun. Yes, injuries are a part of the game, but in MANY other workplaces, the employees are compensated when life altering injuries occur. Sure, football players know they can get hurt, just like a construction worker knows they can get hurt. The construction worker is compensated if they're hurt. The same cant be said for a football player. I understand your side of the argument, but I also understand the other side. Both sides have valid arguments. One could argue they are pre compensated for injury since the probability of injury in the NFL is at least 90% or higher. A construction worker can reasonably expect not to get hurt while performing his/her job. In fact companies and the gov. take many steps to prevent injury while working. NFL players can definately expect to be injured while working. So I dont see them suing as if it's a surprise they got hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The players have a role here as well. The history of players is that they choose more money over safety or long term care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The idea that the NFL hid something from players and is liable for their medical conditions is absurd. Below is an excerpt from a paper from the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons from 2002 stating that the research they have done is the FIRST to suggest severe or repeated concussions in high school atheletes can predict long term effects. The point of course being that research in the area is ongoing, and 10 years later it is no better understood why some people suffer repeated trauma without effects and others fall from standing and are impaired for the rest of their lives. There are many things in medicine that are poorly understood, and the pathophysiology of concussion is certainly one. "Cumulative Effects of Concussion in High School Athletes Collins, Michael W. Ph.D.; Lovell, Mark R. Ph.D.; Iverson, Grant L. Ph.D.; Cantu, Robert C. M.D.; Maroon, Joseph C. M.D.; Field, Melvin M.D. CONCLUSION : This study is the first to suggest a cumulative effect of concussion in high school athletes. A more severe on-field presentation of concussion markers is evidenced in high school athletes with a pronounced history of concussion. This study's findings highlight the need for more long-term outcome studies in high school athletes who sustain sports-related concussions." I concede there are taxes, agents, and numerous other variables that make the estimate very rough, but the point is simple, the Detroit Lions player Dominic Raiola was very apt to say "I think when you sign up for this job, you know what you're getting into. I don't know if I could justify suing the league when I am done. I have so much fun playing the game, I really don't worry about it. It's common knowledge that people are going to suffer. Memory loss is going to come. You're hitting every time you step on the field. I am ready for it. It's worth it -- totally worth it. This is the best job in the world. I would never trade it for anything." I've been reading about Elliott Pellman and the NFL's avoidance/suppression of the concussion issues for quite a long time now. The study you cite regards high school athletes and thus proves nothing. We're talking about NFL football players here, not high school football players. You are confused on the issue. As for Raiola: 1) Do you think he speaks for the thousands of former NFL players who have filed suit against the league? 2) You use 1991 data to support your notion that NFL players are somehow undeserving of financial compensation by the league. I've stated numerous times in this ongoing debate that there are many classes involved in this issue, and some extraordinary cases across the classes. Anyone who thinks that this debate can be characterized with all the players being equivalent is oversimplifying. What would you say to a plaintiff like Hall of Famer Bob Lilly who played from 1961-1974 and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1980? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The study you cite regards high school athletes and thus proves nothing. We're talking about NFL football players here, not high school football players. You are confused on the issue. That is a ridiculous notion that is means nothing. It goes to show that there was little understanding of the long term impact by the people directly researching the issue at the time. No offense, but you seem to have come across one piece of information and latched onto it. What would you say to a plaintiff like Hall of Famer Bob Lilly who played from 1961-1974 and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1980? If the NFL was hiding all this in depth information on long term effects of concussions from the 60s then we as a culture have much greater questions to ask why they were hiding information that was 30-40 years ahead of its time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 That is a ridiculous notion that is means nothing. It goes to show that there was little understanding of the long term impact by the people directly researching the issue at the time. No offense, but you seem to have come across one piece of information and latched onto it. If the NFL was hiding all this in depth information on long term effects of concussions from the 60s then we as a culture have much greater questions to ask why they were hiding information that was 30-40 years ahead of its time. No Jeremy. I could cite numerous studies that predate the 2002 high school study which Durham referenced. I've just worked my 11th day in a row working 12-hour shifts and I'm not gonna go digging to prove a point. If you want to buy that one high school study is the seminal work on football-related head injuries and their long term effects, go right ahead. I'm not "latching onto one piece of information" but you seem to be. As for your second paragraph, you didn't read my post carefully. I said that there are many classes of players in this issue. Some of these player pre-date concussion studies. Some don't. Some are in a grey area… these are the group of players who may or may not have fully understood the perils of playing with concussion symptoms. These are the ones who may have been misled by team doctors and concussion czars, like Wayne Chrebet for instance. But again, if you want to lump all the players together so that it's more understandable, go right ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 But again, if you want to lump all the players together so that it's more understandable, go right ahead. What would you say to a plaintiff like Hall of Famer Bob Lilly who played from 1961-1974 and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1980? You mentioned this. This is what you said. If you want to play with straw men of 'I worked a lot and didn't include information' and 'I meant more than I said', that is your business. I will deal with the actual word in type. You have specific mention of the 90s and 60-70s. I'm not sure why you have such angst that I then refer a time period you mentioned. You specifically referenced a player from a time period that concussion information was poor at best. I responded to that. Let's focus on this one player and era since that was the one mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 You mentioned this. This is what you said. If you want to play with straw men of 'I worked a lot and didn't include information' and 'I meant more than I said', that is your business. I will deal with the actual word in type. You have specific mention of the 90s and 60-70s. I'm not sure why you have such angst that I then refer a time period you mentioned. You specifically referenced a player from a time period that concussion information was poor at best. I responded to that. Let's focus on this one player and era since that was the one mentioned. I didn't say "I didn't include information and I meant more than I said". I said "I'm not gonna go digging to prove a point." I'm not gonna debate with you. There's no evidence of good faith on your part. It's a waste of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts