Bflojohn Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I'm wondering, in a legal sense, who bears the brunt of the guilt here? The bygone owners were quick to cut a player if his mental functions, amongst others aspects,were impeded, so do the courts sue a broad range of former owners, G.M.'s, coaches and Doctors/Athletic trainers for their involvement? Why does the NFL have sole responsibility here? I am curious, as this continues (lawsuits) how the NFL and former employees/employers will sheild themselves from the onslaught of acqusations. It becomes an interesting "game" within the fabric of the game. Count me as fascinated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 IMO, suing the NFL for suffering concussions you know are bound to happen is like suing the gov't because your loved one was killed while fighting in a war. These players know the risks. I agree there needs to be a better "exit strategy", but there are thousands of players who go on to live productive lives. The rookie symposium shows them how to manage themselves during their career...maybe they need a retirement symposium as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 There's also the issue of striking a ball with your head, particularly in amateur's and particularly in deteriorating pitch conditions. Weigh the ball before a game, dry and then at the end of the game on a sodden pitch... Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toshiero Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 IMO, suing the NFL for suffering concussions you know are bound to happen is like suing the gov't because your loved one was killed while fighting in a war. These players know the risks. I agree there needs to be a better "exit strategy", but there are thousands of players who go on to live productive lives. The rookie symposium shows them how to manage themselves during their career...maybe they need a retirement symposium as well. Assumption of Risk only works if they were truly told the complete truth of the risk they were getting into. They are proving the NFL withheld a ton therefore the NFL is liable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I stopped reading when I read Zachary Thomas. Next! Squish the fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Assumption of Risk only works if they were truly told the complete truth of the risk they were getting into. They are proving the NFL withheld a ton therefore the NFL is liable The NFL had the monopoly on the idea football causes concussions? By that logic, I'm suing Budweiser for my breaking my arm when drunk. Bud withheld information that drinking 18 beer would leave me sh1tfaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 One of the most jarring statistics anywhere in sports is this one: Sports Illustrated reports that 78 percent of football players are either broke or divorced within two years of retiring. Really? I would sure like to see some support for that allegation. Some doctoral student somewhere has got to be working on the parallels between PTSD and the situation of retired football players. Why is it broke or divorced? I'd like to know the percentage of just plain broke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts