2,000 former players to sue NFL
Title says it all. 2,000 former NFL players are expected to file a class action lawsuit against the NFL, alleging that the NFL covered up information that their product caused head injuries. This is the biggest class action lawsuit that players have brought against any pro sports league.
Thoughts?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nfl-players-file-lawsuit-league-concussions/story?id=16514359
Isn't there already a class action lawsuit against the NFL brought by former players for this exact same allegation? How is this one different?
Anyone in this post claiming the NFL isn't severely exposed to liability here, without knowing all the facts, is living in the 1960s.
The Ford Pinto, cigarettes, just because you know something is dangerous doesn't mean you had complete information about how dangerous it was.
Focus in on the guy who used to run the NFL's concussion research program. His BS doctoring screwed up Wayne Chrebet and Rick DiPietro, to name but two guys.
There is a roadmap to success for these players. If you don't think there are people that will be in that courtroom able to drive that road you're silly.
Furthermore, all the actions that Roger Goodell has taken to "make the game safer" should indicate to you that they are playing the Tampa 2 defense in order to try and minimize their exposure to liability.
but if what I understand is correct (and it may not be) the players are alleging that the NFL knew things about concussions that they didn't reveal to the players. I just don't think that is true. What you are describing is malpractice and certainly there could have been some of that going on on the part of certain doctors, but this case doesn't seem to be focusing on that.
I have a hard time believing the NFL had more information on head injuries than the medical community did and that is why I don't think they can win.
Would be the establishment of a long term, independant study (including many of the players involved in suit) on top of an increase in health care coverage for retired players. I am not sure they should-- or, rather, will--recieve much money exept in the form of reduced medical costs.
I think those large scale studies are already ongoing (I believe UM is actually involved in the primary one that the NFL has contracted out). It's obviously a very good idea to research this stuff, but it will have no bearing on the allegations in the case. The case hinges on the players' assertion that the NFL already knew about this stuff and didn't tell anyone.
But I was refering to the best possible outcome. I still don't think the players will recieve giant checks in the mail at the end-- it just seems like they are more likely to reicieve insurance cards with a small amount to help cover the cost of already paid-out medical costs-- maybe five ro ten thousand per player, max.
They may have a case, but this strikes me as similar to people suing tobacco companies for getting lung cancer or people suing McDonald's for being fat. Sure, you may have a legal case for it, but did you really think it was good for you when you got concussions / smoked a pack a day / ate 2 big macs?
Buddy.
The tobacco companies were sued. They lost because they hid the facts of smoking from their customers. You haven't heard about the settlement funds set up in the billions of dollars in the late 1990s? Unbelievable.
Terrible, terrible example which proves my point - the NFL is seriously exposed.
The tobacco companies KNEW and were withholding information. In order for the cases to be similar you would have to believe that the NFL know more about head injuries and concussions than the leading researchers in the world. I can't see that being the case.
In the world of misrepresentations, you have two roads you can hoe:
(1) fraudulent misrepresentation: you knew the risk but ignored it for your own gain or someone else's detriment;
OR
(2) negligent misrepresentation: you should have recognized the risk, but you didn't, to someone else's detriment.
Take your pick - both are in play here.
I think you are making fair points and offering an educated opinion so I don't want you to think I am arguing with you to be a dick, I just think I disagree with what is in play.
For the first scenario if I understand correctly (and I may not as I'm not a lawyer) the NFL would have had to know the risk for this to apply. I think it is clear that neither the NFL nor the medical community at large really know the risk or linkage between head injuries and long-term health effects so I don't think that would apply.
In the second scenario you would have to believe that the NFL SHOULD know more than the medical community does if we were to come to the conclusion that they SHOULD have know the health effects of head injuries when the medical community doesn't.
I'm not saying the case is unwinable because I'm not a lawyer. What I am saying is it isn't reasonable to expect the NFL to know more about head injuries than medical researchers...that just doesn't make sense.
I would also say that it isn't like the NFL hasn't been trying (albeit unsucessfully) to curb these injuries in the way of fines, better equipment etc. So I just can't fathom a legal system that would rule in favor of the players in this instance> Not saying it can't happen, just that it shouldn't happen.
Sure, you may have a legal case for it, but did you really think it was good for you when you got concussions / smoked a pack a day / ate 2 big macs?
So despite the fact that the law is on their side, they shouldn't sue (or shouldn't win)? Interesting argument, though I doubt you'll see this one coming from the NFL.
So knowing what they know now, these 2000 players would not have accepted their multi-million dollar or at least 6 figure incomes to play football. They would have said thanks but no thanks, I'll be a teacher instead and make 30k and be safer.
Well, they don't have to prove that to win the lawsuit so your hypothetical is irrelevant to the case.
which is based on absolutly nothing credible is that cognition and mobitliy is impacted pretty severly while "emotional" or psycological effects are roughly about average when compared to retierees.
"In the biggest sports lawsuit ever, the former players allege that the "NFL exacerbated the health risk by promoting the game's violence" and "deliberately and fraudulently" misled players about the link between concussions and long-term brain injuries."
I'll mention a largely non-football example first - dementia pugilistica, which is a variant of what is now called CTE, has been reasonably well-documented (moreso with the advent of effectvie neuroimaging) since at least the 1950s, I believe, with calls for outright bans of the sport arising even then because of this concern. Still, fights were heavily marketed and I have a suspicion that trainers and managers probably didn't let their clients in on the fact that this could happen, or at least downplayed the risks lest it interfere with their revenue.
As for the NFL, there were some rare cases of second-impact syndrome (I say that because SIS diagnoses, in my understanding, are pretty rare) through the 1980s and early 90s, so despite this being an uncommon problem, you can't say that the league was wholly unaware of what could potentially happen to players even going on 30 years ago.
I would love to find something to confirm this, but I remember hearing that, in the 1960s, ANSI had developed standards which could be applied to helmets to minimize head injuries, but that the NFL did not adopt them into their safety language for over a decade. If I am correct, amateur levels of the game - NCAA included - began to make changes to increase safety in the 1970s as well, so it would be impossible for the NFL to say that it didn't know or didn't recognize trends which would indicate a problem that they should be addressing. I wouldn't buy any argument from ignorance coming from the league. After all, didn't the MLB make helmets mandatory in 1971 to reduce the risk of, well, head injuries?
Even with all that, it will be interesting to see how exactly this case pans out. I have to wonder if they claim they were misled because of the failure of the NFL to make appropriate changes to the rules when there was clear evidence of a problem and other leagues and associations were in fact making those changes. It is not unrealistic to think that financial considerations came before the safety of players in the eyes of management back in the day because there is precedent for this sort of thinking in other sectors and it is sadly a cultural foible that businesses have worked to overcome through the last few decades.
Nowhere does it state that current players are joining in on the lawsuit. The problem with all of this is perception. The NFL does not want to be perceived as a league that doesn't care about the people making them their money. But, currently active players are not storming out of buildings stating that they will never play another down until they are safe, especially in a time where concern is higher than it has been in the history of the sport. The only logical explanations for this type of behavior by current players are 1) current players know that all the changes in the world won't protect them and 2) they love the sport and the money that comes with playing the game.
If zero current players hang up the cleats given the information presented today, is it not reasonable to believe that given the same information 30 years ago the same number of players would walk away from the game?
It is estimated that two football players running full speed at 20 miles per hour can generate 1,800 pounds of force in a head-on collision.A few problems here: 20 mph is the equivalent of running 40 yards in just under 4.1 seconds, faster than almost every player. Also, a player's 40 speed is usually measured in an ideal manner: -Track or gym surface -Indoors or good weather conditions -No pads -Running shoes or sneakers Someone running the 40 is likely to be more well rested than someone in the middle of a football game, and therefore able to run faster. Perhaps I'm being nitpicky, and even if the worst collisions are only 900 lbs of force, that still sounds pretty bad. It seems that the plaintiffs lose a bit of credibility from what seems an exaggeration.
I like this a lot. The NFL can afford to litigate to the point of bringing legal costs too high for ex-players with no money and one or two undamaged brain cells left. With 2,000 players here, they can get great legal representation, and the legal costs won't be prohibitive.
...I have never been a big fan of the NFL; this just makes me hate that league. With incomprehensibly big and fast guys smashing into each other with uheard of force, getting concussed repeatedly in careers that last for years.
And in the process, screwing things up for college football.
The first thing that I'd do in the concussion controversy is ban the NFL. Guys would be done playing football when they complete their college eligibility. After that, they are on their own. Most of them should be strongly advised to get real jobs. For their own health and well-being. Force them to focus on academics; with football just a collegiate extracurricular activity, not a profession.
In collegiate athletics, strict concussion guidelines would be in place. Doctors would have no financial interest in putting unfit players on the field.
Can you explain the rationale that would make a legal ban on professional football something that can actually be executed under the laws of this country? Also, without trying to delve into politics, what kind of society would we live in where a persons livelihood (brought about by consensual activity between adults) could be banned?
Sounds like an absolutely horrible idea to me, on all fronts.