It would be a good idea for everybody to donate their brains to science. Not like you’ll need it where you’re going.
It’s not an issue about whether a football player should’ve known he was at risk of getting concussions. It’s the degree to which the risk was downplayed by medical staff, particularly at the time of the concussion. If you have a team doctor clearing you to play later in the same game, a player would reasonably trust that he hadn’t done any permanent damage. So, it comes down to what the medical personnel knew and when.
I played in high school and college and used to think along the same lines as those who say “it’s a rough game and anybody who plays knows what he’s getting into.” But, my feelings changed pretty dramatically when I sufferered a massive seizure as a result of a single concussion I got twenty years prior while I was in high school. If I had a son I’d hope he didn’t want to play football, and I never would’ve thought that even five years ago.
That being said, I think the risk of lawsuits should actually go down in short order because, at this point, nobody can reasonably say they didn’t understand the risks involved. If you sign a waiver now it would be hard to argue there’s any gray area. (Or gray matter if you play too long.) Given the litigious nature of this country, though, that probably won’t happen.
A sobering example of this is Dave Duerson, ex-Chicago Bear who comitted suicide but did it by shooting himself in the chest specifically so his brain could be analyzed.
Schools should be nuts about concussions. It’s not “a craze”; it is instead crazy to ignore the dangers and pretend that they do not exist.
The younger a child is the more likely it is that head trauma will cause not only a concussion but the more likely it is for a concussion to have longer and more severe adverse effects. It is a simple matter of the biomechanics: the skull is not as thick and the brain has more room to slosh around on impact causing all kinds of shear stress.
The major issue is giving the brain an adequate chance to heal including but not limited to preventing premature return to play. A second injury on top of even one that the child seems to have recovered from very quickly (a few seconds of confusion and seeing stars, no loss of consciousness or even prolonged confusion required) can cause much more damage with much less force.
It’s not that simple at all because it’s not just the medical staffs. The biggest single issue for the NFL is whether they paid enough attention to the risks and responded appropriately, or if they let it go because they didn’t want it to hurt their revenue.
Fair enough, but I wasn’t limiting culpability to just the doctors on the field or in the training room, even if my post made it seem so. By medical staff I mean the entire system by which player risk is evaluated. To whatever degree teams or league officials withheld information, you can bet they did it behind the veil of medical professionalism. “Hey, it’s not our fault. The experts told us it was a manageable risk.” Team doctors have always, in theory, made decisions on the player’s behalf independent of team needs. But, there’s usually an implied understanding that a player needs to get back on the field as soon as possible because obstructionist doctors don’t remain in the employ of a team for long.
From a player’s point-of-view, the team doctor was, in most cases, the first and last word on his risk of staying on the field.
I see football/concussive injuries as where sexual abuse of children was in the 1980’s-people are only now aware of it. My question: did the players waive their rights to sue? The NFL is an immensely rich organization-and team owners are usually billionaires. If one lawsuits succeeds, there will be a landslide of them.
i think the nfl is very right to be worried about this issue, and the class action lawsuit in particular. the question isn’t whether players understood the risks—they didn’t. the issue is whether the nfl acted in a way that made it more difficult for players to understand the risks, whether they, at an institutional level, fostered an environment that caused players to ignore the risks involved, and whether they themselves ignored the risks in rushing players back from injury.
there is a fairly large preponderance of at least anecdotal evidence that all these things happened for a rather long time, well after it was clear how bad things were. tony dorsett, for example, tells a story of how he was knocked out cold, and pushed back into the game. joe harris tells another story where opposing players were yelling at his coaches because it was obvious to them that he was seriously injured, yet he was told to “get back out there.”
yes, players know that you can get hurt playing football. it is only just now becoming clear how bad the consequences of traumatic brain injury or repeated head trauma can be. they might have guessed their bones would ache forever, or that they might get headaches from time to time, though i rather doubt it occurred to most of them to even wonder at the possibility (i played through college—i am still regularly amazed at the damage football did to my body). but the idea that they would be turned into the kind of people who, as in the case of justin strzelczyk, die at age 36 while driving 90 mph the wrong way trying to escape the police (this is the same man who, a few years earlier, invited a friend of mine over to his house to teach him how to play banjo, despite having just met him), was definitely not part of the picture painted for them.
traumatic brain injury and repeated brain trauma have consequences far beyond what the players might have imagined, and probably do imagine even today. if the nfl did anything to cover this up in the name of keeping their workers on the job, they will pay very dearly. and my suspicion is that, given the number of former players who have similar stories about their employers pushing them back to work before they thought they were ready (to say nothing of the culture of the nfl, for which the league is at least partly responsible—by all accounts a pretty swell guy), this is going to be a very big deal indeed.
okay, so we all know that football is a dangerous sport.
What about rugby, or Australian football?
The players wear no protection whatsoever–how common are injuries?
Or what about boxing, where the whole point of the sport is to injure someone?
Could the NFL argue in court that American football is safer than rugby or boxing? Could they claim that the NFL is acting properly, as measured by “industry standards” --i.e injury rates in the sports industry?
(I’m referring to the famous case where a lady sued McDonald’s for scalding-hot coffee. As I recall, the main issue there was “industry standards” --i.e. comparing McD’s injury rate (and coffee temperature) to the same statistics among competitors in the same industry.)
The term “punch drunk” comes from boxing, so it’s well known that being a boxer has serious ramifications.
I don’t know what the rate of head injury is in other forms of contact-football.
I don’t think that was the only issue in the case. At least part of it was that McDonald’s knew the coffee was dangerously hot, because other people had complained about it, but they chose not to change the temperature, so the initial size of the punitive damages were based on willfullness.
The difference between American football and rugby/aussie rules is that in the latter they tackle, but in the former they collide. That difference is profound. The protection American players wear actually increases the danger. It may keep low speed tackles from injuring you, but it’s the high-speed ones where players launch at each other (plays not attempted by players without pads) that can be catastrophic. Even the regular low speed pounding interior linemen take on every play can have a disastrous cumulative effect because players don’t protect their heads because they’re wearing helmets.
Plus, in rugby and aussie the players are of more or less equal size. You don’t have 180 pound receivers getting obliterated by 280 pound linebackers who can run 40 yards in under 4.5 seconds from a dead stop.
As for the McD’s coffee suit, if the people who scoff at it ever read the actual details of the suit they’d be singing a different tune. That lawsuit was legit.
I don’t think that making the players aware of the risks of CTE and getting signed waivers is ultimately going to make any difference. And I don’t think CTE is getting more common, it’s just getting diagnosed more often now in a way that associates it with sports. What this will eventually lead to, I believe, is an end to violent contact sports at all levels. At the lower end, there will be enough parental awareness that there won’t be enough kids to field teams. At the upper end, enough non-fans and casual fans will grow completely disgusted with the idea that our entertainment is resulting in CTE that protests and laws will enter the picture. There will either be rule changes that render the pro football unrecognizable, or it will go away altogether.
Also, in rugby league, there’s no reason to put your head in danger. Concussions usually come from illegalities or accidents.
Boxing is very heavily regulated more or less for this reason. Its hard to get sued if your following guidelines set by the gov’t.
does anyone actually have any data? How about the number of days lost to concussions in NHL before and after mandates for helmets, then, later, rules heavily enforced on elbows to the head.???
I mean, I was told this was a discussion board where people didn’t just talk smack but backed it with numbers…
Any adult choosing to play the game comes in knowing the risks (as long as the risks are reasonably set forth) and are paid a ton to do so (at the top level).
But as others have said above, it may only be a matter of time before pewee, high school and maybe even college football will become a marginal sport or possibly a historical footnote. Lawyers and courts will eventually take it to that point.
I love football, played it as a child through adulthood, and watch it every weekend in the fall/winter the last 30+ years. It can be a brutal sport, but that is part of its draw. I do agree every precaution needs to be taken to protect the players, but with any risky profession, the participants need to be told the risks up front and willingly accept the risks to continue participation.
It would not be surprising if eventually we’ll be watching the N(F)FL (National (Flag) Football League) on TV where contact is not allowed.
Well, that is because they eat their injured and dead …
[based on a long standing joke bumper sticker player stating that “Rugby Players Eat their Dead”]
That is correct. In addition, football, at least professional football, should be regulated by state athletic commissions as well. However, considering the way torts are handled in this country I doubt it’s going to stop massive payouts.
You could make the same argument for not having any regulations to prevent coal mining disasters.