MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'

http://image.nola.com/home/nola-medi...309-mmmain.jpg

By Amos Morale III amorale@nola.com,
NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

Saints general manager Mickey Loomis said Monday that Nick Fairley's heart condition which spurred to Saints to put him on injured reserve has been a difficult situation for the team.

"Obviously the time of the discovery wasn't great for us, nor for him," Loomis said. "But the most important thing is his health.....when doctor says 'look you shouldn't play' you shouldn't play. That's where we are at right now and that's pretty much all we can say about it."

Loomis joined NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune's columnists Jeff Duncan and Larry Holder's daily radio show Dunc & Holder on 1280 FM Monday morning and discussed the team's reaction to Fairley's condition.

Fairley, who posted 43 tackles, nine for loss, 6.5 sacks and 22 quarterback hits, saw at least three heart specialists after a team doctor noticed an irregularity with his heart at some point after the physical he took to sign his new contract in March.

Loomis said he couldn't go into specifics of Fairley's condition because of "his personal health information" but said that Fairley's absence has been difficult for the team.

"He had really maybe his best season ever last year," Loomis told Duncan and Holder. "We were counting on him and looking forward to having on our team going forward so this has been difficult.

More here ...

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

This article verifies that Fairley's condition was something new after the physical that he passed at the time of his contract signing. It states that a "team doctor noticed an irregularity with his heart at some point after the physical he took to sign his new contract in March."

I know some around here have put the blame on the Saints front office, but they did their due diligence and it was just bad luck that something new was found later.

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

Guido, I respectfully disagree...

This was a known condition of Fairley's that obviously has worsened; irregardless, I'd made sure his pre-contract physical was more in-depth with regards to the cardiology component of the examination; and had language for the preexisting condition or decline in same...

Far too often we've signed guys either knowing there was some injury and disregarded its severity or someone or some group of medical professionals that the Saints continue to use has once again failed to do their due diligence in examining players...

It's not that in one case that a doctor has missed something and Loomis & FO should be hung out to dry, it's that it seems to be happening more often than it should; and that is on Loomis & the FO people for continuing to use an unreliable medical group (OHP)...

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

You are making an assumption there, JP, that it was his existing condition and was worsening. I have read otherwise that it was arrhythmia. That isn't something that is easily missed. It is very apparent when the heart beat is irregular and could not have been missed in the earlier physical. In doing some reading I have found out that arrhythmia can occur in even a healthy heart, although it is most likely more common with some other heart related issue. It could have been brought on by combinations of factors including diet and exercise, two things most likely to have been affected at the beginning of OTA's when the condition was discovered.

Now I don't know how reliable this information is either, but coupled with wording involving a "new" condition being found in early releases it does make sense.

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

It says the team doctor "noticed" the irregularity after the physical, meaning it could have been there all along and the team doctor should have noticed it straight away.

Just seems awful coincidental for a guy with a pretty bad track record when it comes to signing guys to huge contracts.

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

It was said some time back that it was found during the physicals taken at the beginning of OTA's, months AFTER the March physical before his contract signing. Once again, arrhythmia is easy to detect. There is no way it could be missed in March if it was there. Arrhythmia can also occur at any time, even in a perfectly healthy heart.

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

Of course and it is not to say it was a fluke, but I think you have to give it a longer look and really wonder about this front office and their due diligence. I am just not an apologist simply because I am a Saints fan.

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

All very valid points

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

Guido, no offense but this article doesn't verify anything other than the fact that the diagnosis sucks for both sides. No where does it say that there was a "new" condition that recently developed. So, I stick with my original question which is how did we not notice this before the contract.

Re: MIckey Loomis on Nick Fairley's condition: 'The time of the discovery wasn't great for us nor for him'
 

Our team doctors must have gotten their medical degree in Mexico. Ochsner was an account of mine when I sold medical equipment. The place was nasty......... I wouldn't send my dog there.

It's obvious to the uneducated eye that the front office and our medical staff don't evaluate injuries very well. Our track record on injured athletes is abysmal at best.

Like Joe Vitt and company I believe that it's time to move on and get a fresh pertspective.