If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   83 NFL players, including Clinton Portis, Daunte Culpepper, and Carnell "Cadillac" Williams, filed a lawsuit yesterday in a Florida federal court, alleging the NFL did nothing to protect players from concussion   (deadspin.com) divider line 64
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

780 clicks; posted to Sports » on 14 Aug 2013 at 6:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-14 06:17:18 PM
Well, good-bye NFL. It's been nice to know you. Well, in a over-commercialized, boring-as-hell, over-hyped, under-talented, over-priced way.
 
2013-08-14 06:18:17 PM
If they want to sue for more medical benefits to fight off CTE, I don't have a problem with that. But what did Pete Roselle, Paul Tagliabue, Roger Goodell, John Zeigler, Gil Stein, Gary Bettman and Vince McMahon all know many years before anyone else did?
 
2013-08-14 06:40:46 PM
What? Football is a contact sport? That's unpossible!
 
2013-08-14 06:40:51 PM
Better call Saul
i71.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-14 06:52:19 PM
i273.photobucket.com

I say let em' concuss.
 
2013-08-14 06:57:16 PM
Next, soccer players will sue for fake knee and ankle injuries.
 
2013-08-14 06:58:43 PM
Yeah---I equate this with people suing the tobacco companies because they had no idea inhaling smoke into their lungs every day could be bad for them.
 
2013-08-14 07:04:27 PM
Wait they didn't give them helmets?
 
2013-08-14 07:06:29 PM

jj325: Yeah---I equate this with people suing the tobacco companies because they had no idea inhaling smoke into their lungs every day could be bad for them.


In fairness, for the longest time, smoking was promoted as being healthful.

www.crestock.com
 
2013-08-14 07:09:29 PM
That's it, I'm going to start following rugby instead of football. It's becoming too pussified by half.
 
2013-08-14 07:11:55 PM
Because you knew the job was dangerous when you took it - ba-caw
 
2013-08-14 07:14:02 PM

digitalrain: That's it, I'm going to start following rugby instead of football. It's becoming too pussified by half.


How often do rugby players get concussions?
 
2013-08-14 07:14:18 PM
#americansportproblems
 
2013-08-14 07:24:54 PM
Ah, Portis, the greatest trade in Broncos history this side of Elway.
 
2013-08-14 07:38:57 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, Portis, the greatest trade in Broncos history this side of Elway.


One Of The Few Trades Under Snyder That Worked Out Okay For The Skins.
 
2013-08-14 07:40:30 PM

foo monkey: digitalrain: That's it, I'm going to start following rugby instead of football. It's becoming too pussified by half.

How often do rugby players get concussions.
 Not nearly as much, they don't hit with their heads

 
2013-08-14 07:41:31 PM
Farking money grab from ex jags. Steve Young retired because of concussions and he seems fine. Fark them.
 
2013-08-14 07:51:09 PM

ununcle: Farking money grab from ex jags. Steve Young retired because of concussions and he seems fine. Fark them.


Have you ever seen any recent interviews with Jim McMahon lately? The guy is having trouble counting to potato.
 
2013-08-14 07:52:54 PM
Brain hurts!  Sue!
 
2013-08-14 07:54:21 PM

ongbok: ununcle: Farking money grab from ex jags. Steve Young retired because of concussions and he seems fine. Fark them.

Have you ever seen any recent interviews with Jim McMahon lately? The guy is having trouble counting to potato.


To be completely fair, he had issues finding the lockerroom on the road when he was active. Boy was not the hottest match in the box.
 
2013-08-14 08:10:09 PM

jj325: Yeah---I equate this with people suing the tobacco companies because they had no idea inhaling smoke into their lungs every day could be bad for them.


The cigarette companies knew for decades that their products caused cancer, and they cynically covered up those findings.  That decision to cover up the truth rightfully cost them billions of dollars in court.

How long has the NFL known about CTE and football players?  Did they cover up this knowledge?  If they knew back in the 1990s how much damage playing football caused to players' brains, and covered up this knowledge, they are going to rightfully get taken to the cleaners in court.
 
2013-08-14 08:14:03 PM
Holy fark.  You played a game where you collide head first with people running straight at you with the intention of running you over.  WTF did you think was going to happen?
 
2013-08-14 08:29:20 PM

uncleacid: Next, soccer players will sue for fake knee and ankle injuries.


"In a study of elite soccer players at the 1993 Olympic Festival (14), 89% (64) of the men 
were found to have some history of head injury, and 54% (39) had had concussions. The 
authors estimated that in a 10-year period, the likelihood of sustaining a concussion in 
soccer is 50% for men and 22% for women. While properly executed heading was not 
found to result in any concussive episodes, 18% (18 of 102) of the concussions were a 
result of heading. "

http://www.oysan.org/assets/oysa_assets/doc/coachingarticles/concuss io nfindings.pdf
 
2013-08-14 08:37:32 PM
For the sake of the NFL and its future, I pray the players hired this guy.....

thelithiumrobot.com
 
2013-08-14 08:45:09 PM
Can the NFL include something to the effect of, by playing in this league you understand there is as risk of short and long term injury and permanent disability and you waive your right to sue?
 
2013-08-14 08:45:56 PM

justneal: foo monkey: digitalrain: That's it, I'm going to start following rugby instead of football. It's becoming too pussified by half.

How often do rugby players get concussions.
 Not nearly as much, they don't hit with their heads


Plus the goal is to turn the ball over, not end someone's life. It's much more interesting when the play doesn't stop as soon as the ball carrier goes to ground.

/Played both sports
 
2013-08-14 09:01:44 PM
I hate them all. Me, a loser on the Internet who makes money by giving people the privilege to get a DWI, knows exactly what causes PCS and CTE in football... And the problem is 67 percent solved already.

Not trolling.
 
2013-08-14 09:17:39 PM
1. Culpepper: wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when he was at UCF, so him proving anything is doubtful
2.Cadiilac Williams: did he even play enough NFL to get a concussion? I mean he blew his knees out 2 yrs in a row.
3 Portis... no info on him since I didn't / don't follow the Bronco's

I think if Manning / Brady / Brees make a stink about being paid to paly a kids game the NFL may have a problem, but who can say if the brain injury happen at the pro level ? With the bad coaching kids get the problem could start as early as pee-wee football.
 
2013-08-14 10:35:08 PM

Brokenseas: jj325: Yeah---I equate this with people suing the tobacco companies because they had no idea inhaling smoke into their lungs every day could be bad for them.

The cigarette companies knew for decades that their products caused cancer, and they cynically covered up those findings.  That decision to cover up the truth rightfully cost them billions of dollars in court.

How long has the NFL known about CTE and football players?  Did they cover up this knowledge?  If they knew back in the 1990s how much damage playing football caused to players' brains, and covered up this knowledge, they are going to rightfully get taken to the cleaners in court.


It'll be interesting to see if the NFL allows this lawsuit to get far enough to some sort sort of discovery phase where they're legally obligated to given up all sorts of internal memos and studies, or if they'll just quietly give these guys their hush money and keep the gravy train rolling.
 
2013-08-14 11:57:33 PM

WillofJ2: Can the NFL include something to the effect of, by playing in this league you understand there is as risk of short and long term injury and permanent disability and you waive your right to sue?


Sure they could. The lawsuit alleges that they knew there was a danger that the players weren't aware of and actively conspired to keep them from knowing. Such a waiver would be the exact opposite of what the NFL is alleged to have done. The problem with the waiver isn't that players wouldn't sign it... they almost certainly would. It's that 1) it would scare the hell out of moms and dads whose children the NFL needs to seed their farm system that starts with Pop Warner and goes through middle school, high school and the NCAA/NAIA and 2) Would be used by the players' union as a reason to demand long term health benefits to those who are permanently disabled due to a concussion. The NFL doesn't want either of these things to happen so they really don't want such a waiver to become a necessity.
 
2013-08-15 12:35:05 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Well, good-bye NFL. It's been nice to know you. Well, in a over-commercialized, boring-as-hell, over-hyped, under-talented, over-priced way.


Problem is even the NFLPA even fought changes so they are just as much to blame.
 
2013-08-15 01:15:10 AM
I watch a lot of NRL and AFL (Aussie games) and they don't wear any pads and I think I've seen one head/neck injury in the past 6 games (guy got tackled and he fell over on his head) the huge difference is the people with the ball don't duck their heads down, no one tackles head first, and no tackling is allowed above the neck. I much rather the players lose all the pads or at least the helmets then they won't be prone to ducking their heads thinking it'll magically protect them from inertia.
 
2013-08-15 01:15:14 AM
And so it begins.
 
2013-08-15 01:31:29 AM

Reverend J: . I much rather the players lose all the pads or at least the helmets then they won't be prone to ducking their heads thinking it'll magically protect them from inertia.


I've only watched a few AFL games late at night on ESPN so I'm only vaguely familiar with the game but my impression was that it's much more of an endurance game than a smash 'em up game. I didn't see any 350lbs players like in the NFL. Losing the pads and helmets would certainly change the game but I'm wondering if without other rule changes if it'd just result in a slightly different smash 'em up on the line with more injuries. Getting hit by a 350lbs player running at you regardless of how they tackle you is going to hurt and have a high potential for injury.
 
2013-08-15 01:34:25 AM
Speaking of the AFL and concussions... http://deadspin.com/halftime-interview-with-just-concussed-athlete-do e snt-886835198?autoplay=1

Obviously doesn't happen as much but still a factor.
 
2013-08-15 02:12:01 AM

Reverend J: I watch a lot of NRL and AFL (Aussie games) and they don't wear any pads and I think I've seen one head/neck injury in the past 6 games (guy got tackled and he fell over on his head) the huge difference is the people with the ball don't duck their heads down, no one tackles head first, and no tackling is allowed above the neck. I much rather the players lose all the pads or at least the helmets then they won't be prone to ducking their heads thinking it'll magically protect them from inertia.


That's like saying nobody breaks their neck playing soccer while you watch it, so we should all switch to soccer.
 
2013-08-15 02:20:42 AM

EngineerAU: WillofJ2: Can the NFL include something to the effect of, by playing in this league you understand there is as risk of short and long term injury and permanent disability and you waive your right to sue?

Sure they could. The lawsuit alleges that they knew there was a danger that the players weren't aware of and actively conspired to keep them from knowing. Such a waiver would be the exact opposite of what the NFL is alleged to have done. The problem with the waiver isn't that players wouldn't sign it... they almost certainly would. It's that 1) it would scare the hell out of moms and dads whose children the NFL needs to seed their farm system that starts with Pop Warner and goes through middle school, high school and the NCAA/NAIA and 2) Would be used by the players' union as a reason to demand long term health benefits to those who are permanently disabled due to a concussion. The NFL doesn't want either of these things to happen so they really don't want such a waiver to become a necessity.


They do not get some sort of long term health insurance or benefits?
 
2013-08-15 02:24:12 AM
They knew the risks, everyone knows you can get a concussion that way.  they took the paychecks.

Its going to be hard for them to win a case.

They haven't thought this through.  Its almost like they've had repetitive brain injuries or something.

/ Now that said, the fact that the NFL is *NOW* bending over backwards to to keep this from happening is probably going to show that they COULD have done more.  if they didnt try to appease with BS rules, the "you knew the risks" argument would be very solid.  They have chinked their own armor.
 
2013-08-15 05:18:11 AM

ArdRi6: What? Football is a contact sport? That's unpossible!


Yeah, I know.  It's not like we should hold a league accountable for the health of their players or anything like that. They chose the job, therefore it's their fault if they can't remember their own names afterwards.

/It's sad that there are a lot of people that would miss the sarcasm in this post.
 
2013-08-15 05:25:19 AM

EngineerAU: WillofJ2: Can the NFL include something to the effect of, by playing in this league you understand there is as risk of short and long term injury and permanent disability and you waive your right to sue?

Sure they could. The lawsuit alleges that they knew there was a danger that the players weren't aware of and actively conspired to keep them from knowing. Such a waiver would be the exact opposite of what the NFL is alleged to have done. The problem with the waiver isn't that players wouldn't sign it... they almost certainly would. It's that 1) it would scare the hell out of moms and dads whose children the NFL needs to seed their farm system that starts with Pop Warner and goes through middle school, high school and the NCAA/NAIA and 2) Would be used by the players' union as a reason to demand long term health benefits to those who are permanently disabled due to a concussion. The NFL doesn't want either of these things to happen so they really don't want such a waiver to become a necessity.


...which is a big reason why "they knew what they were signing up for" does not absolve the NFL of responsibility, and thus fails as an argument.  If anything, knowing that football has a high risk for injury should increase the responsibility of the NFL to make sure its players are functioning human beings after they retire, or at the very least, can be taken care of if they cannot be functioning human beings after they retire.
 
2013-08-15 06:35:52 AM

snake_beater: And so it begins.


It's been "beginning" for what, 3-4 years now? Either shiat or get off the money-grab pot.
 
2013-08-15 06:40:20 AM
"Lawyers convince wealthy American clients they can probably pry some cash away from a multi-billion dollar cash cow corporation"

Shirley these lawyers will be doing this work pro bono right?  They're only doing this in the spirit of justice.  Cuz we all know how generous they are when it comes to class action suits.
 
2013-08-15 07:05:33 AM

InfrasonicTom: "Lawyers convince wealthy American clients they can probably pry some cash away from a multi-billion dollar cash cow corporation"

Shirley these lawyers will be doing this work pro bono right?  They're only doing this in the spirit of justice.  Cuz we all know how generous they are when it comes to class action suits.


Who is this Shirley woman and what's she got to do with this?
 
2013-08-15 07:30:59 AM

I sound fat: They knew the risks, everyone knows you can get a concussion that way.  they took the paychecks.

Its going to be hard for them to win a case.

They haven't thought this through.  Its almost like they've had repetitive brain injuries or something.

/ Now that said, the fact that the NFL is *NOW* bending over backwards to to keep this from happening is probably going to show that they COULD have done more.  if they didnt try to appease with BS rules, the "you knew the risks" argument would be very solid.  They have chinked their own armor.


Except actions taken after an incident (like the release of the big study two years ago) to remedy a situation is inadmissible in court against the defendant.

So they didn't. The law specifically exempts attempts to fix things from being used against the defendant, so as not to provide a legal need to NOT fix a newly discovered issue.
 
2013-08-15 07:39:54 AM

InfrasonicTom: "Lawyers convince wealthy American clients they can probably pry some cash away from a multi-billion dollar cash cow corporation"

Shirley these lawyers will be doing this work pro bono right?  They're only doing this in the spirit of justice.  Cuz we all know how generous they are when it comes to class action suits.


So your saying you think a lawyer should donate his time to famous multimillionaires?

Of course it's not pro-bono. Do you give charity to the wealthy? Pro-bono is essentially charity that is supposed to be for people who can't afford an attorney.
 
2013-08-15 07:47:43 AM

lecavalier: knows exactly what causes PCS and CTE in football...


I'm going to go with "blows to the head".

lecavalier: And the problem is 67 percent solved already.


It's 100% solved: don't get hit in the head.
 
2013-08-15 08:15:18 AM

Deneb81: InfrasonicTom: "Lawyers convince wealthy American clients they can probably pry some cash away from a multi-billion dollar cash cow corporation"

Shirley these lawyers will be doing this work pro bono right?  They're only doing this in the spirit of justice.  Cuz we all know how generous they are when it comes to class action suits.

So your saying you think a lawyer should donate his time to famous multimillionaires?

Of course it's not pro-bono. Do you give charity to the wealthy? Pro-bono is essentially charity that is supposed to be for people who can't afford an attorney.


Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

Now can you explain to everyone how many lawyers are greedy little shiats who would need to change their underwear every 26 minutes at the thought of leading a class action suit where the clients are millionaires and defendants are billionaires?
 
2013-08-15 08:39:14 AM

InfrasonicTom: Deneb81: InfrasonicTom: "Lawyers convince wealthy American clients they can probably pry some cash away from a multi-billion dollar cash cow corporation"

Shirley these lawyers will be doing this work pro bono right?  They're only doing this in the spirit of justice.  Cuz we all know how generous they are when it comes to class action suits.

So your saying you think a lawyer should donate his time to famous multimillionaires?

Of course it's not pro-bono. Do you give charity to the wealthy? Pro-bono is essentially charity that is supposed to be for people who can't afford an attorney.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

Now can you explain to everyone how many lawyers are greedy little shiats who would need to change their underwear every 26 minutes at the thought of leading a class action suit where the clients are millionaires and defendants are billionaires?


About the same as the percentage of the non-legal population that would love to work with famous athletes get paid a decent amount for a lot of work, with a chance to make lots of money if you're successful.
 
2013-08-15 08:41:35 AM
I wonder how much of the damage is due to concussions and how much is concussions + steroids.
 
2013-08-15 09:33:00 AM
I'm betting there will be some quite interesting, though not entirely shocking, revelations to come from this.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report