All very valid points

Name that long list of free agents sign by the Saints with a history of injuries that was overlooked.

And also name the list of free agent or returning player signings that turned out bad.

I'll start them out.

Injury
Jarius Byrd
Nick Fairley

Contracts gone bad (non-injury history)
Junior Galette
Brandon Browner

Perhaps Keenen Lewis, but I am not sure which category he would fall into. His injury problems began after his big contract, yet he was let go early resulting in the same cap hit.

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.

Jimmy Graham.

Edit: And CJ Spiller, his contract was exactly the same as Ingrams.

How was Jimmy Graham a bad contract by the front office? It did result in a cap hit of sorts, but that was because Seattle demanded Graham instead of Stills as Payton had originally offered in trade.

But, for arguments sake, include those. That brings us up to what, seven, although only one dealt with players with injury histories of which we were originally comparing Fairley's situation. But, let's see. Seven contracts out of how many in twelve years of Loomis/Payton? How many contracts were negotiated over that period? Perhaps twenty per year in one form or another? That would be roughly 250 contracts. Seven gone bad out of that number isn't what I would call an epidemic.

You've just answered your own question.

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.

Can't we just blame this on Obamacare already?

... it just seems it would be even more prudent to have a full cardiac workup, of the type that you literally have millions of dollars invested, with several cardiologist involved, would have caught something that only reared just a few weeks later?!?