Vilma lawsuit puts Goodell on the run

05-22-2012, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by TheDeuce

I will say that all of the noise coming out about how the NFL made billions off of players while they were getting brutalized, concussed, etc. is complete bullcrap. These guys willingly strapped the helmets on. They personally made millions of dollars, became famous, and were idolized. A lot of the guys who made millions actually used the game, not the other way around. For many, football offered them a "way out" from lives of crime and struggling.

You mean to tell me that getting hit violently in the head causes brain damage? No s***. These guys knew that the game is a violent one, but they wanted to reap the rewards. It's like smokers... who sued the tobacco companies. Or as Larry the Cable Guy says: "I currently have a lawsuit filed against Hustler because they caused me to get Carpal Tunnel."

No. The league knew concussions were dangerous and not only did nothing about it but continued to send players onto the field when they should not have been allowed onto the field.

This is the smoking gun that Roger cannot avoid no matter how many people he fines and suspends and no number of new 'safety' rules will make this go away. The NFL is up a creek, and Roger knows it. What we are seeing are the acts of a man desperate to influence a jury ahead of it's selection.

Ira Casson - No, No, No - YouTube

lee909 · 05-23-2012, 02:32 AM

I agree with the above post.
If the league had told the players of the health issues it would not be in the position it is now and wouldn't have to be taking the big hits out.
Now players know the dangers that occur with playing and it is there choice wether to take the risk or not,but if players in other era's were lied to it is a different story.

TheOak · 05-23-2012, 08:25 AM

Sorry for the rant but this pisses me off.... I can not agree.

There is a certain amount of assumed personal liability every time a player steps foot on the field.

Roughly 40-50 % of all NFL players hold a college degree, another 20-30 percent went to college, and I would say at least 95% of all NFL players have played football at some level in their life.

They all KNOW the inherent risks associated with the game, and they CHOOSE to play.

This whole ordeal reminds me of people who enlist in the military for college money but when it is time to lace up the boots and go to war...cry like babies that they shouldn't have to.

If I drive my car off of a bridge, and get long term disability because of it, should i be able to sue GM because no one sat me down when I signed the purchasing agreement and said "you should know that if you drive this vehicle off of a bridge you could have long term disability".

This is like playing in the stock market.... When the payoff is huge people celebrate, when they lose money they start blaming everyone and their brother for their piss poor decisions, and "someone" must protect people from themselves. You do not see the same players complaining when they sign that contract, or cash that monthly check that is more than some people make in 10 years.

How in the fk can one person not assume that repeatedly hitting your head for 4 hours on a Sunday will not be a problem later.

This is the start of the stupification of America.

mutineer10 · 05-23-2012, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

the issue with the tobacco industry was that their stance was cigarettes were safe, even proclaiming it was healthy to smoke, and had a myriad of ads everywhere stating "physicians and doctors say... " while they had conducted their own studies and those studies indicated smoking was really not good for one's health. [

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Smoking is NOT safe???

NuNu318 · 05-23-2012, 11:09 AM

NFLPA is coming @ the NFL hard with all the lawsuits....just filed a collusion suit too....

saintfan · 05-23-2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

Sorry for the rant but this pisses me off.... I can not agree.

There is a certain amount of assumed personal liability every time a player steps foot on the field.

Roughly 40-50 % of all NFL players hold a college degree, another 20-30 percent went to college, and I would say at least 95% of all NFL players have played football at some level in their life.

They all KNOW the inherent risks associated with the game, and they CHOOSE to play.

This whole ordeal reminds me of people who enlist in the military for college money but when it is time to lace up the boots and go to war...cry like babies that they shouldn't have to.

If I drive my car off of a bridge, and get long term disability because of it, should i be able to sue GM because no one sat me down when I signed the purchasing agreement and said "you should know that if you drive this vehicle off of a bridge you could have long term disability".

This is like playing in the stock market.... When the payoff is huge people celebrate, when they lose money they start blaming everyone and their brother for their piss poor decisions, and "someone" must protect people from themselves. You do not see the same players complaining when they sign that contract, or cash that monthly check that is more than some people make in 10 years.

How in the fk can one person not assume that repeatedly hitting your head for 4 hours on a Sunday will not be a problem later.

This is the start of the stupification of America.

First things first. Having a college degree doesn't equate to being smart or intelligent. I know FAR MORE stupid people that managed to finish college than people whom college made 'smart'.

As for the GM reference. IF GM told you it was completely safe to drive your car off a bridge, THEN you'd have something - but that's not what GM would tell you, because if they did you've have their ass, legally and rightfully so. The NFL was telling these players, if not directly then through the actions of coaches, physicians paid for by teams and by the league, and its culture, that, you know, it's a concussion. You'll be fine. Now GET BACK OUT THERE AND PLAY! THAT'S a BIG problem.

I ride a motorcycle 102 miles plus, every day, in stop and go traffic and in 90+ MPH traffic. I know it's dangerous. Now, I just put a brand new pair of tires on my bike, for safety's sake. If I wipe out because I do something stupid, I can only blame myself, however, if the tire manufacturer told me the tires were perfectly safe and promised me that I'd NEVER lose traction...I mean I know it's not a one-to-one, but you get what I mean...

The players absolutely have a case, and I think it's short-sighted to assume they're just trying to sue the NFL to get money because they're broke. I'm sure there's some of that going on. I'm sure too that some of those players are fine but pissed at the NFLs blatant disregard for what every doctor in the free world was saying about concussions while the NFL continued to push players onto the field in spite of them. I'd be pissed too.

You can believe Roger knows they have a good case. Again, that's why he's clearly going WAY overboard on all this safety crap. That's why Vilma and Sean and Loomie and Williams got raped. And Roger isn't done. He's just getting started, because he knows full well what the NFL is up against. And he is willing to scapegoat anybody as a means to a financial end.

And that's what hacks me off so much. While he talks about honesty and integrity and that he was (wah wah) lied to and about how people in the game have a responsibility to it, he refuses to just say, hey, you're right. The NFL marketed violence and has made a gazillion dollars and counting on it. Rather than rape people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, man up and settle with the players and with the Union. Take the cash hit for the sake of honesty and integrity - those things he professes to hold in such high regard, because up and until this very minute, the thing Roger and the NFL HASN'T been is honest.

Tobias-Reiper · 05-23-2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

Sorry for the rant but this pisses me off.... I can not agree.

There is a certain amount of assumed personal liability every time a player steps foot on the field.

Roughly 40-50 % of all NFL players hold a college degree, another 20-30 percent went to college, and I would say at least 95% of all NFL players have played football at some level in their life..

... and how many of those have degrees in medicine or health research?

Let me give you an extreme example to get the point across:

As a reasonable person, you know that constant headaches are not normal. So, if you keep experiencing constant headaches, what do you do? A reasonable person goes to see a doctor. Say the doctor takes a scan of your brain and in it, sees a small mass, then he turns around and tells you "it's nothing... just take a couple aspirins".
Then, a year later, another doctor does a second scan after your headaches don't go away and tells you "I am sorry to say, but you are terminal because of this mass in your head. Had it been discovered a year year ago, you'd have a chance, but now..."

In the example above, you have a doctor who had proof that showed there was something really wrong with you, but decided not to tell you. And this is the allegation of the ex-players who are suing the league, that the NFL and its doctors had scientific knowledge of both short term and long term effect of concussions, and not only chose to ignore them, but went as far as deny them/instruct the players otherwise, and on-field medical staff allowed for players with clear signs of concussions back into games.

TheOak · 05-23-2012, 12:27 PM

Can someone please reference the statement where the NFL told players.

" you have no chance of concussions playing in the NFL"

Obviously that would have been followed by "maybe you did in College, High School, Jr. High.... but not here in the NFL... We are concussion free!"

Goodell's posturing is not completely because of liability. An equal % of the reason is NFL football is popularity driven. He does not want to "look like".

And at the end of the day helmet to turff causes nearly as many concussions as helmet to helmet.
Rodgers has concussion, won

If a person does not have enough sense to know that being told " a tire will NEVER lose traction" is absolute bull they do not belong on a bike.

As far as the NFL "KNOWING" of the long term effects of concussions and suppressing that the following is all i can find.

Certain parties have "reason to believe" that the NFL "may" have had information, that linked concussions to "possible" long term effects

Come on! This is about as rock solid as Goodell "may" have supporting evidence that would cause him to "believe" that Vilma "could" have paid to have players injured.

You cant hold the parties to different standards because it suits you. In one hand some people say the NFL is guilty because they "may" have known and "possibly suppressed"... then those same people turn around and say if Goodell doesn't show concrete evidence for pay for injure then he is lying.

saintfan · 05-23-2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

Can someone please reference the statement where the NFL told players.

" you have no chance of concussions playing in the NFL"

Obviously that would have been followed by "maybe you did in College, High School, Jr. High.... but not here in the NFL... We are concussion free!"

Goodell's posturing is not completely because of liability. An equal % of the reason is NFL football is popularity driven. He does not want to "look like".

And at the end of the day helmet to turff causes nearly as many concussions as helmet to helmet.
Rodgers has concussion, won

If a person does not have enough sense to know that being told " a tire will NEVER lose traction" is absolute bull they do not belong on a bike.

As far as the NFL "KNOWING" of the long term effects of concussions and suppressing that the following is all i can find.

Certain parties have "reason to believe" that the NFL "may" have had information, that linked concussions to "possible" long term effects

Come on! This is about as rock solid as Goodell "may" have supporting evidence that would cause him to "believe" that Vilma "could" have paid to have players injured.

You cant hold the parties to different standards because it suits you. In one hand some people say the NFL is guilty because they "may" have known and "possibly suppressed"... then those same people turn around and say if Goodell doesn't show concrete evidence for pay for injure then he is lying.

We can agree to disagree. Time will certainly tell.

TheOak · 05-23-2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

We can agree to disagree. Time will certainly tell.

Yep! Because in the end... facts do not matter. Who has the better lawyer does.

05-23-2012, 08:25 AM	#13
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,061	Sorry for the rant but this pisses me off.... I can not agree. There is a certain amount of assumed personal liability every time a player steps foot on the field. Roughly 40-50 % of all NFL players hold a college degree, another 20-30 percent went to college, and I would say at least 95% of all NFL players have played football at some level in their life. They all KNOW the inherent risks associated with the game, and they CHOOSE to play. This whole ordeal reminds me of people who enlist in the military for college money but when it is time to lace up the boots and go to war...cry like babies that they shouldn't have to. If I drive my car off of a bridge, and get long term disability because of it, should i be able to sue GM because no one sat me down when I signed the purchasing agreement and said "you should know that if you drive this vehicle off of a bridge you could have long term disability". This is like playing in the stock market.... When the payoff is huge people celebrate, when they lose money they start blaming everyone and their brother for their piss poor decisions, and "someone" must protect people from themselves. You do not see the same players complaining when they sign that contract, or cash that monthly check that is more than some people make in 10 years. How in the fk can one person not assume that repeatedly hitting your head for 4 hours on a Sunday will not be a problem later. This is the start of the stupification of America. SaintGup and savoyk like this.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

05-23-2012, 10:47 AM	#14
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper the issue with the tobacco industry was that their stance was cigarettes were safe, even proclaiming it was healthy to smoke, and had a myriad of ads everywhere stating "physicians and doctors say... " while they had conducted their own studies and those studies indicated smoking was really not good for one's health. [ Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Smoking is NOT safe??? saintfan, Tobias-Reiper and sharke like this.

05-23-2012, 11:09 AM	#15
NuNu318 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: VA Posts: 465	NFLPA is coming @ the NFL hard with all the lawsuits....just filed a collusion suit too.... savoyk likes this.

05-23-2012, 11:31 AM	#16
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by x626xBlack Sorry for the rant but this pisses me off.... I can not agree. There is a certain amount of assumed personal liability every time a player steps foot on the field. Roughly 40-50 % of all NFL players hold a college degree, another 20-30 percent went to college, and I would say at least 95% of all NFL players have played football at some level in their life. They all KNOW the inherent risks associated with the game, and they CHOOSE to play. This whole ordeal reminds me of people who enlist in the military for college money but when it is time to lace up the boots and go to war...cry like babies that they shouldn't have to. If I drive my car off of a bridge, and get long term disability because of it, should i be able to sue GM because no one sat me down when I signed the purchasing agreement and said "you should know that if you drive this vehicle off of a bridge you could have long term disability". This is like playing in the stock market.... When the payoff is huge people celebrate, when they lose money they start blaming everyone and their brother for their piss poor decisions, and "someone" must protect people from themselves. You do not see the same players complaining when they sign that contract, or cash that monthly check that is more than some people make in 10 years. How in the fk can one person not assume that repeatedly hitting your head for 4 hours on a Sunday will not be a problem later. This is the start of the stupification of America. First things first. Having a college degree doesn't equate to being smart or intelligent. I know FAR MORE stupid people that managed to finish college than people whom college made 'smart'. As for the GM reference. IF GM told you it was completely safe to drive your car off a bridge, THEN you'd have something - but that's not what GM would tell you, because if they did you've have their ass, legally and rightfully so. The NFL was telling these players, if not directly then through the actions of coaches, physicians paid for by teams and by the league, and its culture, that, you know, it's a concussion. You'll be fine. Now GET BACK OUT THERE AND PLAY! THAT'S a BIG problem. I ride a motorcycle 102 miles plus, every day, in stop and go traffic and in 90+ MPH traffic. I know it's dangerous. Now, I just put a brand new pair of tires on my bike, for safety's sake. If I wipe out because I do something stupid, I can only blame myself, however, if the tire manufacturer told me the tires were perfectly safe and promised me that I'd NEVER lose traction...I mean I know it's not a one-to-one, but you get what I mean... The players absolutely have a case, and I think it's short-sighted to assume they're just trying to sue the NFL to get money because they're broke. I'm sure there's some of that going on. I'm sure too that some of those players are fine but pissed at the NFLs blatant disregard for what every doctor in the free world was saying about concussions while the NFL continued to push players onto the field in spite of them. I'd be pissed too. You can believe Roger knows they have a good case. Again, that's why he's clearly going WAY overboard on all this safety crap. That's why Vilma and Sean and Loomie and Williams got raped. And Roger isn't done. He's just getting started, because he knows full well what the NFL is up against. And he is willing to scapegoat anybody as a means to a financial end. And that's what hacks me off so much. While he talks about honesty and integrity and that he was (wah wah) lied to and about how people in the game have a responsibility to it, he refuses to just say, hey, you're right. The NFL marketed violence and has made a gazillion dollars and counting on it. Rather than rape people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, man up and settle with the players and with the Union. Take the cash hit for the sake of honesty and integrity - those things he professes to hold in such high regard, because up and until this very minute, the thing Roger and the NFL HASN'T been is honest.
	C'mon Man... Last edited by saintfan; 05-23-2012 at 11:39 AM..

05-23-2012, 11:41 AM	#17
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by x626xBlack Sorry for the rant but this pisses me off.... I can not agree. There is a certain amount of assumed personal liability every time a player steps foot on the field. Roughly 40-50 % of all NFL players hold a college degree, another 20-30 percent went to college, and I would say at least 95% of all NFL players have played football at some level in their life.. ... and how many of those have degrees in medicine or health research? Let me give you an extreme example to get the point across: As a reasonable person, you know that constant headaches are not normal. So, if you keep experiencing constant headaches, what do you do? A reasonable person goes to see a doctor. Say the doctor takes a scan of your brain and in it, sees a small mass, then he turns around and tells you "it's nothing... just take a couple aspirins". Then, a year later, another doctor does a second scan after your headaches don't go away and tells you "I am sorry to say, but you are terminal because of this mass in your head. Had it been discovered a year year ago, you'd have a chance, but now..." In the example above, you have a doctor who had proof that showed there was something really wrong with you, but decided not to tell you. And this is the allegation of the ex-players who are suing the league, that the NFL and its doctors had scientific knowledge of both short term and long term effect of concussions, and not only chose to ignore them, but went as far as deny them/instruct the players otherwise, and on-field medical staff allowed for players with clear signs of concussions back into games. saintfan likes this.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

05-23-2012, 02:32 AM	#12
lee909 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Watford England Posts: 8,877 Blog Entries: 1	I agree with the above post. If the league had told the players of the health issues it would not be in the position it is now and wouldn't have to be taking the big hits out. Now players know the dangers that occur with playing and it is there choice wether to take the risk or not,but if players in other era's were lied to it is a different story.

05-23-2012, 12:27 PM	#18
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,061	Can someone please reference the statement where the NFL told players. " you have no chance of concussions playing in the NFL" Obviously that would have been followed by "maybe you did in College, High School, Jr. High.... but not here in the NFL... We are concussion free!" Goodell's posturing is not completely because of liability. An equal % of the reason is NFL football is popularity driven. He does not want to "look like". And at the end of the day helmet to turff causes nearly as many concussions as helmet to helmet. Rodgers has concussion, won If a person does not have enough sense to know that being told " a tire will NEVER lose traction" is absolute bull they do not belong on a bike. As far as the NFL "KNOWING" of the long term effects of concussions and suppressing that the following is all i can find. Certain parties have "reason to believe" that the NFL "may" have had information, that linked concussions to "possible" long term effects Come on! This is about as rock solid as Goodell "may" have supporting evidence that would cause him to "believe" that Vilma "could" have paid to have players injured. You cant hold the parties to different standards because it suits you. In one hand some people say the NFL is guilty because they "may" have known and "possibly suppressed"... then those same people turn around and say if Goodell doesn't show concrete evidence for pay for injure then he is lying.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

05-23-2012, 12:48 PM	#19
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by x626xBlack Can someone please reference the statement where the NFL told players. " you have no chance of concussions playing in the NFL" Obviously that would have been followed by "maybe you did in College, High School, Jr. High.... but not here in the NFL... We are concussion free!" Goodell's posturing is not completely because of liability. An equal % of the reason is NFL football is popularity driven. He does not want to "look like". And at the end of the day helmet to turff causes nearly as many concussions as helmet to helmet. Rodgers has concussion, won If a person does not have enough sense to know that being told " a tire will NEVER lose traction" is absolute bull they do not belong on a bike. As far as the NFL "KNOWING" of the long term effects of concussions and suppressing that the following is all i can find. Certain parties have "reason to believe" that the NFL "may" have had information, that linked concussions to "possible" long term effects Come on! This is about as rock solid as Goodell "may" have supporting evidence that would cause him to "believe" that Vilma "could" have paid to have players injured. You cant hold the parties to different standards because it suits you. In one hand some people say the NFL is guilty because they "may" have known and "possibly suppressed"... then those same people turn around and say if Goodell doesn't show concrete evidence for pay for injure then he is lying. We can agree to disagree. Time will certainly tell. TheOak likes this.
	Last edited by saintfan; 05-23-2012 at 12:51 PM..

05-23-2012, 01:17 PM	#20
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,061	Originally Posted by saintfan We can agree to disagree. Time will certainly tell. Yep! Because in the end... facts do not matter. Who has the better lawyer does. saintfan likes this.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/44042-vilma-lawsuit-puts-goodell-run.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
New Orleans Saints 8x8 Die	This thread	Refback	05-23-2012 10:56 PM	1
Vilma lawsuit puts Goodell on the run	This thread	Refback	05-22-2012 06:03 PM	6