Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

And it Begins: Latest NFL concussion suit cites Saints' bounties

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper The way I read that statement, is that the ex-players are trying to minimize and/or discredit the NFL's show of force against the Saints, since the NFL has taken the "I am SHOCKED!" stance on the ...

Like Tree14Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-18-2012, 11:48 AM   #41
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Grand Haven, Michigan by way of a little Mississippi River town in Louisiana
Posts: 2,579
Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
The way I read that statement, is that the ex-players are trying to minimize and/or discredit the NFL's show of force against the Saints, since the NFL has taken the "I am SHOCKED!" stance on the entire Saints situation, trying to portray the Saints as rogues in the league, rather than standard fare since the beginning of football.
I like that statement!!
halloween 65 is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 12:21 PM   #42
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,308
Edit to make it a single post rather than a reply.

If you really think about it, there may be some meat to the ex-players arguments. I will explain why, using concussions as example, which seems to be the hot button issue in these lawsuits:

There is no doubt that football is a violent sport. If you look at the warning sticker on the helmets the players wear, it says:

WARNING: NO HELMET CAN PREVENT SERIOUS HEAD OR NECK INJURIES A PLAYER MAY RECEIVE WHILE PARTICIPATING IN FOOTBALL. Do not use this helmet to butt, ram or spear an opposing player. This is in violation of the football rules and such use can result in severe head or neck injuries, paralysis or death to you and possible injury to your opponent. Contact in football may result in CONCUSSION-BRAIN INJURY which no helmet can prevent. Symptoms include: loss of consciousness or memory, dizziness, headache, nausea or confusion. If you have symptoms, immediately stop playing and report them to your coach, trainer and parents. Do not return to a game or practice until all symptoms are gone and you have received medical clearance. Ignoring this warning may lead to another and more serious or fatal brain injury.

This label tells you what could happen to your brain and neck while playing the game. However, it tells you nothing of the effects that concussions can have on a player many years after they stopped playing the game.

Now, as a reasonable person, I'd think that playing such a violent sport for a long period of time is going to have an effect on my body later on in life. HOWEVER, I am not a doctor.

If I want to know what effects concussions could have later in life and the dangers of cumulative concussions, or at least be better educated on the subject, I'd go to the doctor and ask him/her.

If I go to the doctor and ask him/her specifically about concussions and effects later on in life well after my football playing days are over, and the doctor specifically tells me "no known issues later on in life, no known issues on incurring cumulative concussions later on in life" when the doctor knows based on scientific research there is indeed a possibility of severe or even mild issues later on in life, then any reasonable person will agree that doctor was negligent, and therefore, liable.

I don't have all the facts in front of me, obviously, but for what I gather, that is what the ex-players are arguing in regards to concussions they were told by NFL doctors regarding concussions.

You can draw a parallel with the tobacco industry. It wasn't that the product was harmful and no one knew about it, it was that the tobacco industry knew their product was harmful but told no one.

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:34 PM   #43
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,989
Blog Entries: 1
Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
If you really think about it, there may be some meat to the ex-players arguments. I will explain why, using concussions as example, which seems to be the hot button issue in these lawsuits:

There is no doubt that football is a violent sport. If you look at the warning sticker on the helmets the players wear, it says:

WARNING: NO HELMET CAN PREVENT SERIOUS HEAD OR NECK INJURIES A PLAYER MAY RECEIVE WHILE PARTICIPATING IN FOOTBALL. Do not use this helmet to butt, ram or spear an opposing player. This is in violation of the football rules and such use can result in severe head or neck injuries, paralysis or death to you and possible injury to your opponent. Contact in football may result in CONCUSSION-BRAIN INJURY which no helmet can prevent. Symptoms include: loss of consciousness or memory, dizziness, headache, nausea or confusion. If you have symptoms, immediately stop playing and report them to your coach, trainer and parents. Do not return to a game or practice until all symptoms are gone and you have received medical clearance. Ignoring this warning may lead to another and more serious or fatal brain injury.

This label tells you what could happen to your brain and neck while playing the game. However, it tells you nothing of the effects that concussions can have on a player many years after they stopped playing the game.

Now, as a reasonable person, I'd think that playing such a violent sport for a long period of time is going to have an effect on my body later on in life. HOWEVER, I am not a doctor.

If I want to know what effects concussions could have later in life and the dangers of cumulative concussions, or at least be better educated on the subject, I'd go to the doctor and ask him/her.

If I go to the doctor and ask him/her specifically about concussions and effects later on in life well after my football playing days are over, and the doctor specifically tells me "no known issues later on in life, no known issues on incurring cumulative concussions later on in life" when the doctor knows based on scientific research there is indeed a possibility of severe or even mild issues later on in life, then any reasonable person will agree that doctor was negligent, and therefore, liable.

I don't have all the facts in front of me, obviously, but for what I gather, that is what the ex-players are arguing in regards to concussions they were told by NFL doctors regarding concussions.

You can draw a parallel with the tobacco industry. It wasn't that the product was harmful and no one knew about it, it was that the tobacco industry knew their product was harmful but told no one.
Slippery slope. How do you know, or even prove that the doctors employed by the NFL had known of the lasting effects of head injuries and withheld that information from the coaches and players?

It seems like some media members are catching on to the real reason behind the NFL's ridiculous sanctions on the Saints. On the Van Pelt radio show this morning, Scott Van Pelt and Ryan Russilo did a good job discussing the past players and what seems to be the real reason behind them suing the NFL...
$$$$$$$
And as you said, we certainly don't have all the facts so I can't prove that the ex-players are only in it for the money. I do think that it's apparent.

"...it's good to have friends, no matter where they are."--JOESAM2002
iceshack149 is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:49 PM   #44
xan
Professor Crab and
Site Donor 2014
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Princeton
Posts: 2,958
Blog Entries: 26
If you repeatedly twist your ankle, it will have increasingly less functionality, eventually becoming a functional liability.

Any body part will have the same problem.

How stupid do you have to be to believe that the brain is exempt from the laws of biology?

Willfully stupid.

BTW, if one gets a concussion from a hit to the head, is the NFL responsible (and therefore liable) for telling the players they can get a concussion from a hit to the head? Is the helmet a clue?

I wish the judges would throw this out.
xan is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:58 PM   #45
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by iceshack149 View Post
How do you know, or even prove that the doctors employed by the NFL had known of the lasting effects of head injuries and withheld that information to the coaches and players?
That's why I mentioned the tobacco industry as an example. They didn't get nailed (and still are getting nailed in some instances) for selling an unhealthy product and not knowing it, they got nailed because they were selling an unhealthy product which they knew was unhealthy and was proven they knew. They actually advertised some brand(s) as being good for your health, even when they had data that said the opposite.

Whether it is true the NFL had information about concussions and either deliberately withheld it from players or even went as far as misguide them, that will be a court's task to decide. But if indeed medical professionals employed by the NFL did this, then the NFL is liable.

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 03:04 PM   #46
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by xan View Post
If you repeatedly twist your ankle, it will have increasingly less functionality, eventually becoming a functional liability.

Any body part will have the same problem.

How stupid do you have to be to believe that the brain is exempt from the laws of biology?

Willfully stupid.

BTW, if one gets a concussion from a hit to the head, is the NFL responsible (and therefore liable) for telling the players they can get a concussion from a hit to the head? Is the helmet a clue?

I wish the judges would throw this out.
Obviously you still don't even remotely try to comprehend what's written, and just curl up on your carapace like an armadillo.
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 05:01 PM   #47
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG
Posts: 2,623
Blog Entries: 3
Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post

Whether it is true the NFL had information about concussions and either deliberately withheld it from players or even went as far as misguide them, that will be a court's task to decide. But if indeed medical professionals employed by the NFL did this, then the NFL is liable.
Oh man, Tobias, if you haven't already, you should read up about Elliot Pellman, the quack doctor who worked for the NFL for YEARS, and actually said that players with concussions should get right back in the game (which you may remember, was a rule that has only been changed recently, SINCE THE LAWSUITS CAME UP). It is all very similar to big tobacco in a lot of ways.

But this guy Pellman was like something out of Hunter S. Thompson or a John Candy movie. He went to medical school at the Universidad de Guadalajara in Mejico. (Not exactly an ivory tower of modern medicine.) He did the minimum amount of the easiest residency that was required to become a US doctor, and he was hired by the Jets in 1988, was medical director of the Islanders and some arena football teams. The NFL named him medical liaison to the commissioner in 2001. He did this study full of COOKED UP, BOGUS DATA that showed that concussions weren't a problem. This was the league's official stance for most of the 2000's

If anyone wants to learn a little more about the past history of the NFL and concussions, the background of the suit, here's a quick start:

NFL Gets Brained By Its Own Study

"Doctor Yes"
Elliot Pellman says it's okay to play in the NFL after suffering a concussion - ESPN The Magazine

NFL Concussion Committee Breaks With Its Predecessor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/sp...oncussion.html
SaintsBro is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 05:19 PM   #48
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by xan View Post
BTW, if one gets a concussion from a hit to the head, is the NFL responsible (and therefore liable) for telling the players they can get a concussion from a hit to the head? Is the helmet a clue?

I always thought it was a fashion statement.
FinSaint is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 11:03 PM   #49
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by SaintsBro View Post
Oh man, Tobias, if you haven't already, you should read up about Elliot Pellman, the quack doctor who worked for the NFL for YEARS, and actually said that players with concussions should get right back in the game (which you may remember, was a rule that has only been changed recently, SINCE THE LAWSUITS CAME UP). It is all very similar to big tobacco in a lot of ways.

But this guy Pellman was like something out of Hunter S. Thompson or a John Candy movie. He went to medical school at the Universidad de Guadalajara in Mejico. (Not exactly an ivory tower of modern medicine.) He did the minimum amount of the easiest residency that was required to become a US doctor, and he was hired by the Jets in 1988, was medical director of the Islanders and some arena football teams. The NFL named him medical liaison to the commissioner in 2001. He did this study full of COOKED UP, BOGUS DATA that showed that concussions weren't a problem. This was the league's official stance for most of the 2000's

If anyone wants to learn a little more about the past history of the NFL and concussions, the background of the suit, here's a quick start:

NFL Gets Brained By Its Own Study

"Doctor Yes"
Elliot Pellman says it's okay to play in the NFL after suffering a concussion - ESPN The Magazine

NFL Concussion Committee Breaks With Its Predecessor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/sp...oncussion.html
I've heard the name mentioned in the same sentence with "NFL" and "quack", but really never read much about him. Thanks for the links.

I tell you, that bit about Wayne Chrebet as reported on the ESPN rag, and what happened last year with Colt McCoy, that is going to do much more damage to the NFL as far as lawsuits go, than anything the Saints - or any other team for that matter - have done on the field, or said they were going to do in the locker room.

And don't knock the Guadalajara U. The best meth cooks and tequila distillers come from there

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/saints/43238-begins-latest-nfl-concussion-suit-cites-saints-bounties.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
And it Begins: Latest NFL concussion suit cites Saints' bounties This thread Refback 04-16-2012 04:58 PM 2


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts