05-23-2012, 12:48 PM
|
#20
|
Donated Plasma
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 18,556
|
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.
|
Last edited by saintfan; 05-23-2012 at 12:51 PM..
|
|
|