Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Big Lead)   Keith Olbermann goes after Pete Prisco and his idiotic concussion lawsuit settlement column (video)   (thebiglead.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Pete Prisco, Keith Olbermann, leather helmet  
•       •       •

1747 clicks; posted to Sports » on 31 Aug 2013 at 1:15 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-31 12:21:56 PM  
Wow. :-(
 
2013-08-31 12:33:22 PM  
I'm glad KO is back.
 
2013-08-31 12:35:06 PM  
Damn.  Olbermann proves here he belongs in sports media.  That was fantastic, and incredibly sad.
 
2013-08-31 12:36:00 PM  
Prisco has always been a colossal douche, happy to see this.
 
2013-08-31 12:48:44 PM  
If the NFL knew about the risks and was hiding some of them from the players, the settlement seems appropriate, and that seems to be the case of what happened.  The players went in knowing there was a risk of injury, even concussion, just not the possible extent nor the potential damage from repeated smaller impacts.

It was the right move by the NFL to settle, it will keep the league from getting mired in lawsuits, it provides care for those who need it, and it will let this story wrap up on a feel good note and fade into the background once the season really starts picking up.
 
2013-08-31 12:59:39 PM  
Prisco isn't even the best bomb thrower at CBS.  What a hack.
 
2013-08-31 01:02:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I'm glad KO is back.


say what you will about his politics, he is a fantastic sports journalist.
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2013-08-31 01:05:50 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If the NFL knew about the risks and was hiding some of them from the players, the settlement seems appropriate, and that seems to be the case of what happened.  The players went in knowing there was a risk of injury, even concussion, just not the possible extent nor the potential damage from repeated smaller impacts.

It was the right move by the NFL to settle, it will keep the league from getting mired in lawsuits, it provides care for those who need it, and it will let this story wrap up on a feel good note and fade into the background once the season really starts picking up.


That's the problem.  The lawsuit settlement states that the documents the NFL has about concussions won't be made public, so the truth about that will never come out.
 
2013-08-31 01:24:17 PM  

MBK: TuteTibiImperes: If the NFL knew about the risks and was hiding some of them from the players, the settlement seems appropriate, and that seems to be the case of what happened.  The players went in knowing there was a risk of injury, even concussion, just not the possible extent nor the potential damage from repeated smaller impacts.

It was the right move by the NFL to settle, it will keep the league from getting mired in lawsuits, it provides care for those who need it, and it will let this story wrap up on a feel good note and fade into the background once the season really starts picking up.

That's the problem.  The lawsuit settlement states that the documents the NFL has about concussions won't be made public, so the truth about that will never come out.


The problem was the NFL was in a lose/lose situation, with the strike it looked like the players sounded too greedy so they played the PR game and won public support.

This lawsuit spelled loss for them the minute it was announced, even though they probably had other documents showing damage they also had proof they tried with other helmet designs which the players rejected. The NFL was going go look bad fighting it and the NFLPA was going to look bad when it came out they didn't fight for player safety very much. Its not like injuries are a new thing.
 
2013-08-31 01:30:25 PM  

steamingpile: even though they probably had other documents showing damage they also had proof they tried with other helmet designs which the players rejected.


Even though they should've done what the NHL did with helmets, at minimum, and said "well, any new players have to wear these things and we'll grandfather in the old players if they want to, but it's what's best for you even if you're too dumb to realize it."

/now I have the image in my head of some old football player refusing to play with a helmet like a few hockey players did, because it makes his mullet feel so free
 
2013-08-31 01:30:29 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If the NFL knew about the risks and was hiding some of them from the players, the settlement seems appropriate, and that seems to be the case of what happened.   The players went in knowing there was a risk of injury, even concussion, just not the possible extent nor the potential damage from repeated smaller impacts.


I know you're going after the NFL for knowing about concussions, but I have to say this about this argument:  I don't care if the risk of death was better than 50/50, a worker or player knowing the risk of it does not absolve the employer of their responsibility to their workers.  I said this in the other thread that we've gotten away from treating the worker like a person rather than as a part that can be discarded without a second thought, and arguments like this encourage that.  If you make this argument here, you have to be able to make it everywhere; and if you're not willing to make that argument to absolve coal corporations from their responsibility to take care of miners who get black lung, or the government from their responsibility for their soldiers to at least get VA benefits, then you're being hypocritical.  I don't care if NFL players are paid millions to play a game while coal miners are paid a pittance for back-breaking work; a worker is a worker, and if a corporation isn't willing to provide for them for the hazards of their job, that corporation should not be in business. Period.
 
2013-08-31 01:34:08 PM  
Meanwhile, on the subject of the lawsuit, I thought KO's story on Doug Kotar Thursday was slightly better.
 
2013-08-31 01:44:18 PM  

IlGreven: TuteTibiImperes: If the NFL knew about the risks and was hiding some of them from the players, the settlement seems appropriate, and that seems to be the case of what happened.   The players went in knowing there was a risk of injury, even concussion, just not the possible extent nor the potential damage from repeated smaller impacts.

I know you're going after the NFL for knowing about concussions, but I have to say this about this argument:  I don't care if the risk of death was better than 50/50, a worker or player knowing the risk of it does not absolve the employer of their responsibility to their workers.  I said this in the other thread that we've gotten away from treating the worker like a person rather than as a part that can be discarded without a second thought, and arguments like this encourage that.  If you make this argument here, you have to be able to make it everywhere; and if you're not willing to make that argument to absolve coal corporations from their responsibility to take care of miners who get black lung, or the government from their responsibility for their soldiers to at least get VA benefits, then you're being hypocritical.  I don't care if NFL players are paid millions to play a game while coal miners are paid a pittance for back-breaking work; a worker is a worker, and if a corporation isn't willing to provide for them for the hazards of their job, that corporation should not be in business. Period.


I see where you're coming from with that, and to a point I agree.  I do believe that as long as the risks are made clear when a player or employee signs up, that the employer should be absolved of most of the liability for those risks.  At the same time, if the employer makes a promise to take care of the employee should he be injured, the employer had better stand up to that (as is the case with veterans and the VA - the government makes it clear to soldiers than they'll be cared for if they get injured, but currently isn't doing a very good job of it, that needs to be fixed).

At the same time, if the employer intentionally misrepresents those risks, all bets are off.

There's only so much that can be done to mitigate the risk in football, or other full contact sports.  Risking injury is part of the game.  Players should be made aware of the types of injuries they may face going on, and if they feel the risk is worth it, it's on them at that point.  Holding the league responsible for the long term effects of injuries after the player has retired sets a dangerous precedent that could destroy the league, and if it caught on, could hurt the game at the college and high school level as well.

The settlement did what it needed to do - compensated the players who may not have known what they were in for, and made the problem go away for now  Incoming players will likely have more education on the potential injuries and their effects before joining up, and I'm sure there will be language in the contracts to prevent these kind of suits in the future.

At the same time the NFL has been working to make the game safer as much as they can without changing the basic nature of the sport.
 
2013-08-31 01:48:24 PM  
Never heard of this Prisco asshat.  I hope it's the last time I do.
 
2013-08-31 02:08:08 PM  
Prisco vs Olbermann: A soap opera for the ages
 
2013-08-31 02:09:50 PM  

Klippoklondike: Damn. Olbermann proves here he belongs in sports media. That was fantastic, and incredibly sad.


his piece the day they announced the settlement was awesome, I seriously have never seen him Olbermann so close to crying.

MBK: so the truth about that will never come out.


Oh it will, sooner or later, it'll come out. This settlement is far from the end on this particular issue
 
2013-08-31 02:18:42 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: let this story wrap up on a feel good note


Well, the brain-damaged players may not be feeling so good...
 
2013-08-31 02:29:37 PM  

Klippoklondike: Damn.  Olbermann proves here he belongs in sports media.  That was fantastic, and incredibly sad.


Yes.
 
2013-08-31 02:31:21 PM  
Good. Prisco's column never should have been published.

If you care about football, you have to accept that it cannot survive as a blood sport.
 
2013-08-31 02:42:04 PM  
The Mike Webster piece ESPN did a few years ago was so moving. I hope that they use this money and really do everything they can to limit the damage that is done.
 
2013-08-31 02:43:47 PM  

Piizzadude: The Mike Webster piece ESPN did a few years ago was so moving. I hope that they use this money and really do everything they can to limit the damage that is done.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1972285">http://sports.e spn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1972285

Thats part one, there were 6ish I think so you will have to look them up yourselves if you want to read it. It is a hell of a read.
 
2013-08-31 02:44:44 PM  
It's a shame Olbermann got corrupted by the wacko liberals.
 
2013-08-31 02:46:11 PM  

ManateeGag: cameroncrazy1984: I'm glad KO is back.

say what you will about his politics, he is a fantastic sports journalist.


His tribute to MLK with the story about his (Olbermann's) dad was awesome.
 
2013-08-31 02:47:44 PM  
s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com
Sign up today.
 
2013-08-31 02:49:42 PM  
Holy shiat I just watched it... "Wait, go back, I forgot... 'scuse me, what was the question?" That's really sad, and he seemed so humble about his inability to remember.
 
2013-08-31 03:15:05 PM  

IAmRight: steamingpile: even though they probably had other documents showing damage they also had proof they tried with other helmet designs which the players rejected.

Even though they should've done what the NHL did with helmets, at minimum, and said "well, any new players have to wear these things and we'll grandfather in the old players if they want to, but it's what's best for you even if you're too dumb to realize it."

/now I have the image in my head of some old football player refusing to play with a helmet like a few hockey players did, because it makes his mullet feel so free


What's dumber is that the players rejected it because 'it didn't look cool', morons.
 
2013-08-31 03:32:49 PM  
Nobody does on-air sanctimony quite like Olbermann.  But when he's right, he's right.
 
2013-08-31 03:42:20 PM  
Damn.

Prisco has one valid point.  We are all hypocrites for watching.
 
2013-08-31 03:48:13 PM  
Pete Prisco seems to be trying to set himself up as the sports world's equivalent of Art Buchwald.

The problem is that Buchwald knew what he was parodying. This dolt doesn't.
 
2013-08-31 03:56:54 PM  

Super Chronic: Nobody does on-air sanctimony quite like Olbermann.  But when he's right, he's right.


Exactly. I didn't realize until I watched the first episode how much I've missed Keith. But goddamn if he doesn't spend every day living up to Ben Affleck's parody.

/HOW DARE YOU
//I'm a big fan of "World's Worst" being back, a big fan of "Oddball" "Time Marches On" being back, and I feel I'm far more likely to get significant highlights from Olbermann than SportsCenter.
 
2013-08-31 03:57:32 PM  
www.sooverthis.com

Well said KO, well said. I'm glad you're back.

THIS JUST IN:  Pete Prisco was sent to the hospital with third-degree burns over 99% of his body.
 
2013-08-31 04:00:39 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Super Chronic: Nobody does on-air sanctimony quite like Olbermann.  But when he's right, he's right.

I wish Howard Cosell was around to report on this issue


Oh Cosell already had an itch for columnists he scratched every time they said something dumb.  Cosell would've been in his element with a turd like this guy.
 
2013-08-31 04:09:50 PM  

Dafatone: Damn.

Prisco has one valid point.  We are all hypocrites for watching.


Are we?  I mean, all things being equal I'd like the players to get out of the game healthy.  At the same time there are plenty of hazardous and dangerous sports and activities, and at the end of the day you just have to accept that such risk comes with the game.  The only ways to completely remove it would change the game so much that it would no longer be the same sport. On that level the survival of the sport and the league can be seen as more important than the health of any individual player.

Even knowing what we know now about the risks, if I had the talent and the skill I'd gladly play on the line of any NFL team even for league minimum salary.
 
2013-08-31 04:38:55 PM  

Waldo Pepper: TuteTibiImperes: Dafatone: Damn.

Prisco has one valid point.  We are all hypocrites for watching.

Are we?  I mean, all things being equal I'd like the players to get out of the game healthy.  At the same time there are plenty of hazardous and dangerous sports and activities, and at the end of the day you just have to accept that such risk comes with the game.  The only ways to completely remove it would change the game so much that it would no longer be the same sport. On that level the survival of the sport and the league can be seen as more important than the health of any individual player.

Even knowing what we know now about the risks, if I had the talent and the skill I'd gladly play on the line of any NFL team even for league minimum salary.

agreed.  I realize a player can get majorly hurt at any point in his/her career but how many would have a much higher quality of life if they get out after 5 years instead of staying in for 10-15 years.


Which is all true, but, there is a point to be made that, just like movie stars, etc, the public attention and adoration on pro sports (especially the NFL, but, even college and High School football in many areas) makes playing the sport attractive to those who have the skillset.  

I have to agree (and I can't exclude myself from being part of the issue) that it is hypocritical to actively be a "fan" of the NFL, and then say that the NFL should dramatically change the game and (to a certain extent) feel "sorry" for the players that this has happened to many of them.   I dofeel bad for the older players, that played before as much was known about these issues, and before their was the level of pay to counter balance that.  I feel bad for the families of the men who end up like a Jim McMahon, or Jr. Seau, etc.   I even do feel bad to the extent that, if a kid is put into pop warner at 8-9 years old, and likes football, and happens to be talented at their position in football, before they even have any realization about the possible effects of consistent play of the game over years and years.... is that much different than getting "addicted" to something else at much too young of an age?   I wouldn't be much against a "ban" on full-on tackle football until 7th-8th grade.  Do 7 and 8 years olds really need to go full speed at each other?

But, did I just finish up a Dyansty fantasy draft? Yes.  Will I watch the Bears on Sunday?  Yes.   I agree with the "They agree to the job" aspect to a large extent, and, I'll say, if this issue shuts down the NFL some day (either from lawuits, or from an attrition of talent actually growing up to play football).... so be it.... we'll all find something else to do.   I am (and was much more) an Arena Football fan, and then the league went defunct after 2008 (before coming back in a lesser form in 2010).  Did I miss it in 2009... yes..... would I have missed it less as time when on if it didn't come back... yes.
 
2013-08-31 04:40:35 PM  
This is called dissecting an argument.

I especially liked the literary repetition of "back to the column."
 
2013-08-31 04:49:12 PM  

dletter: Waldo Pepper: TuteTibiImperes: Dafatone: Damn.

Prisco has one valid point.  We are all hypocrites for watching.

Are we?  I mean, all things being equal I'd like the players to get out of the game healthy.  At the same time there are plenty of hazardous and dangerous sports and activities, and at the end of the day you just have to accept that such risk comes with the game.  The only ways to completely remove it would change the game so much that it would no longer be the same sport. On that level the survival of the sport and the league can be seen as more important than the health of any individual player.

Even knowing what we know now about the risks, if I had the talent and the skill I'd gladly play on the line of any NFL team even for league minimum salary.

agreed.  I realize a player can get majorly hurt at any point in his/her career but how many would have a much higher quality of life if they get out after 5 years instead of staying in for 10-15 years.

Which is all true, but, there is a point to be made that, just like movie stars, etc, the public attention and adoration on pro sports (especially the NFL, but, even college and High School football in many areas) makes playing the sport attractive to those who have the skillset.

I have to agree (and I can't exclude myself from being part of the issue) that it is hypocritical to actively be a "fan" of the NFL, and then say that the NFL should dramatically change the game and (to a certain extent) feel "sorry" for the players that this has happened to many of them.   I dofeel bad for the older players, that played before as much was known about these issues, and before their was the level of pay to counter balance that.  I feel bad for the families of the men who end up like a Jim McMahon, or Jr. Seau, etc.   I even do feel bad to the extent that, if a kid is put into pop warner at 8-9 years old, and likes football, and happens to be talented at their position in football, before they even have any real ...


Exactly.  I'm not saying we all have to give up football.  I'll keep watching it.  But I'm aware that honestly, I probably shouldn't be.
 
2013-08-31 04:57:34 PM  

star_topology: This is called dissecting an argument.

I especially liked the literary repetition of "back to the column."


It was perfect.  Olbermann didn't have to call Prisco names or drag him through the mud.  He just proved, point by point, why Prisco was wrong.  This is what journalism is supposed to be like.
 
2013-08-31 05:01:03 PM  

dletter: I even do feel bad to the extent that, if a kid is put into pop warner at 8-9 years old, and likes football, and happens to be talented at their position in football, before they even have any realization about the possible effects of consistent play of the game over years and years.... is that much different than getting "addicted" to something else at much too young of an age? I wouldn't be much against a "ban" on full-on tackle football until 7th-8th grade. Do 7 and 8 years olds really need to go full speed at each other?


I love football. plain and simple.  I will never allow any son or daughter I may have to play pop warner, or middle school football.  It can be absurdly detrimental to their body's development, and the more we learn about the cumulative effects of CTE the more we should raise awareness of the dangers.
 
2013-08-31 05:03:54 PM  

ManateeGag: cameroncrazy1984: I'm glad KO is back.

say what you will about his politics, he is a fantastic sports journalist.


Completely agreed.
 
2013-08-31 05:12:25 PM  

Super Chronic: Nobody does on-air sanctimony quite like Olbermann.  But when he's right, he's right.


Yeah but when it comes to politics he's just a douche and was usually wrong.
 
2013-08-31 05:17:49 PM  

Klippoklondike: It was perfect. Olbermann didn't have to call Prisco names or drag him through the mud. He just proved, point by point, why Prisco was wrong. This is what journalism is supposed to be like.


The killing blow was the end part, where he essentially said "It would be easy to make fun of the columnist and insult him, but seriously, maybe he should go have himself checked out as well."
 
2013-08-31 05:25:47 PM  

ManateeGag: cameroncrazy1984: I'm glad KO is back.

say what you will about his politics, he is a fantastic sports journalist.


Indeed.
 
2013-08-31 05:26:22 PM  

Joe_diGriz: Klippoklondike: It was perfect. Olbermann didn't have to call Prisco names or drag him through the mud. He just proved, point by point, why Prisco was wrong. This is what journalism is supposed to be like.

The killing blow was the end part, where he essentially said "It would be easy to make fun of the columnist and insult him, but seriously, maybe he should go have himself checked out as well."


I do think the whole "Prisco said he's angry.  Anger is a symptom..." part of it seemed like a stretch.  Olbermann might've been better off pitching that ending because really, anyone who played should get looked at.

Either way, though, this was pretty great.
 
2013-08-31 05:38:30 PM  
I don't know much about KO other than the hate he gets on here from fark, but that was poignant and impressive. Absolutely shredded him. Im kinda in shock at how good a piece that was.
 
2013-08-31 05:39:55 PM  

Trollin4Colon: I don't know much about KO other than the hate he gets on here from fark, but that was poignant and impressive. Absolutely shredded him. Im kinda in shock at how good a piece that was.


Well, that's politics, either you agree with him or you don't.
 
2013-08-31 05:41:09 PM  
I see KO is back on his meds. I hope he sticks with sports and stays away from politics, but he won't.
 
2013-08-31 05:51:58 PM  
kwout.com

For some reason that made me laugh my ass off.
 
2013-08-31 06:01:35 PM  

Trollin4Colon: I don't know much about KO other than the hate he gets on here from fark, but that was poignant and impressive. Absolutely shredded him. Im kinda in shock at how good a piece that was.


Here is a short summation:

He had FoxNews so angry at him when he was on MSNBC, that during a Republican debate they were chanting GE's name as an enemy of the state because they owned MSNBC. The man has a superpower to piss people off.

I have been watching his new ESPN show and it is very very good, but so was his MSNBC show at the beginning. At the end the MSNBC show was a show of no-name sycophants and spin like what his show used to fight against. He also said on the air once that he was "The (sixth?) most powerful news-person in the US", which I found disgusting.  Like many clever men his own ego is his worst enemy. I hope this new show does not crash and burn like the other one.
 
2013-08-31 06:15:39 PM  

i1089.photobucket.com
Pace

 
2013-08-31 06:20:15 PM  
Anyone who thinks that concussions are no big deal or are overblown should read Chris Benoit's autopsy report
 
2013-08-31 06:53:08 PM  
I just showed this video to my 7th grade football-playing nephew and his buddy. Mood got a bit sombre here in the FINGER household. I told him "Keep your helmet out of your opponent's numbers", and my nephew replied, "But that's how our coach teaches us to tackle". How do you argue with that? It's the same thing my coaches taught me in high school.
 
2013-08-31 07:11:56 PM  

robsul82: [kwout.com image 399x245]

For some reason that made me laugh my ass off.


That's some funny right there.
 
2013-08-31 07:20:03 PM  

TheManofPA: robsul82: [kwout.com image 399x245]

For some reason that made me laugh my ass off.

That's some funny right there.


Actually, potential twitter meltdown with Kincade going on now.
 
2013-08-31 07:20:42 PM  
Different sport, but the NYTimes ran a series in 2011 on the death of a Hockey Enforcer and the brain damage he suffered.
 
2013-08-31 07:27:47 PM  
Considering the first accepted diagnosis of CTE with a former NFL player wasn't until 2002, let's stop pretending for the entire 20th century every swinging dick was an expert in neuroscience and that  "everyone knew the risks".

Today's players probably do. Not ones who stopped playing decades ago. And neither did you, the fan.
 
2013-08-31 07:29:07 PM  
I love the fact that someone was too cowardly to post about my comments in this thread, but I got a wonderful spittle-flecked email from some guy that thought a smart argument used a gay slur at least 4 times and included the random epithet "white trash liberal," which was different.
 
2013-08-31 07:33:01 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I just showed this video to my 7th grade football-playing nephew and his buddy. Mood got a bit sombre here in the FINGER household. I told him "Keep your helmet out of your opponent's numbers", and my nephew replied, "But that's how our coach teaches us to tackle". How do you argue with that? It's the same thing my coaches taught me in high school.


Honestly the only thing that can be done is to petition the school board or athletic commission to enact rule changes. Unless different rules are in place, no coach is going to willingly teach "less effective" tackling methods.
 
2013-08-31 07:55:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I love the fact that someone was too cowardly to post about my comments in this thread, but I got a wonderful spittle-flecked email from some guy that thought a smart argument used a gay slur at least 4 times and included the random epithet "white trash liberal," which was different.


What a coward! However, you can't post that and then not post the email, just clean it up! :)

/I am telling you, KO has a superpower to piss people off.
 
2013-08-31 08:31:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I love the fact that someone was too cowardly to post about my comments in this thread, but I got a wonderful spittle-flecked email from some guy that thought a smart argument used a gay slur at least 4 times and included the random epithet "white trash liberal," which was different.


Really? Hell, I'm kinda lonely and it seems like I never get any e-mail. So let me go on record as a HUGE Keith Olbermann fan.
 
2013-08-31 08:44:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I love the fact that someone was too cowardly to post about my comments in this thread, but I got a wonderful spittle-flecked email from some guy that thought a smart argument used a gay slur at least 4 times and included the random epithet "white trash liberal," which was different.


I've been signed up for the Boston Red Sox fan E-Mail notifications for years now, lol.
 
2013-08-31 09:05:27 PM  

Killer Cars: Considering the first accepted diagnosis of CTE with a former NFL player wasn't until 2002, let's stop pretending for the entire 20th century every swinging dick was an expert in neuroscience and that  "everyone knew the risks".

Today's players probably do. Not ones who stopped playing decades ago. And neither did you, the fan.


Are you familiar with the phrase "punch drunk"?  It predates MRI's.
 
2013-08-31 09:10:42 PM  

Yakk: cameroncrazy1984: I love the fact that someone was too cowardly to post about my comments in this thread, but I got a wonderful spittle-flecked email from some guy that thought a smart argument used a gay slur at least 4 times and included the random epithet "white trash liberal," which was different.

What a coward! However, you can't post that and then not post the email, just clean it up! :)

/I am telling you, KO has a superpower to piss people off.


UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Really? Hell, I'm kinda lonely and it seems like I never get any e-mail. So let me go on record as a HUGE Keith Olbermann fan


I've just got that special ability to push the buttons of mouthbreathers. It's a gift.

robsul82: I've been signed up for the Boston Red Sox fan E-Mail notifications for years now, lol.


Aaand, I laughed.
 
2013-08-31 09:18:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: robsul82: I've been signed up for the Boston Red Sox fan E-Mail notifications for years now, lol.

Aaand, I laughed.


Yeah, makes me laugh too, so I've never deactivated it, heh.
 
2013-08-31 09:26:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I've just got that special ability to push the buttons of mouthbreathers. It's a gift.


Geez, I guess. You wrote what, five words? I bow to the master.
 
2013-08-31 09:36:08 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Killer Cars: Considering the first accepted diagnosis of CTE with a former NFL player wasn't until 2002, let's stop pretending for the entire 20th century every swinging dick was an expert in neuroscience and that  "everyone knew the risks".

Today's players probably do. Not ones who stopped playing decades ago. And neither did you, the fan.

Also a difference in the money.  The players of the 50's-80's weren't making bank like the players of the 90's up.  It is once thing to say "i know the risk and I am willing to take that risk for the millions of dollars I might make" as opposed to the early players who had to take off season jobs to play their income after football.


Add that to the fact that you don't need concussions or huge hits to develop issues such at CTE, but only repeated low level bumps, and yeah, the players have a legit complaint.
 
2013-08-31 10:02:49 PM  
In all fairness...picking apart a Pete Prisco article is like serving an ace against Stevie Wonder.
 
2013-08-31 10:28:23 PM  

Coach_J: In all fairness...picking apart a Pete Prisco article is like serving an ace against Stevie Wonder.


Uh, uh. Stevie's got a <i>killer</> backhand lob.
 
2013-08-31 10:42:28 PM  

Snapper Carr: Anyone who thinks that concussions are no big deal or are overblown should read Chris Benoit's autopsy report


That really was one of the major turning points in our understanding of concussions and inspired the former WWE star who went to Harvard for neurology (whose name I forget) to dig deeper into concussions and what they do to the brain. He, along with Dr. Bennet Omalu have been at the forefront of concussion research.

/usually don't mind Prisco's columns, but I missed that one
//on a late vay-cay so I'm in a news black hole
 
2013-08-31 11:11:54 PM  

germ78: WWE star who went to Harvard for neurology


Chris Nowinski
 
2013-08-31 11:39:54 PM  
The final part, where Olbermann reads Prisco's stupid line "How do you think I got so nasty?", flippantly referring to a concussion he says he had, and then he shows a clip of Dave Duerson's son talking about how his father's CTE made him irrationally violent, "and he'd take it out on me", was just devastating.

If I were Prisco, my next column for cbssports.com would simply say "I'm sorry" and there would be no further columns.
 
2013-08-31 11:54:10 PM  
Who would have thought that playing a violent sport could cause future head problems?
 
2013-09-01 12:57:39 AM  

RockChalkH1N1: Who would have thought that playing a violent sport could cause future head problems?


i'm sure the players knew they might have joint pain in their retirement or other physical issues like that.  but i don't think any of them realized the brain damage they might suffer after years of hits.  they knew they would get concussions, but they thought that it would be a temporary thing, and they could heal from a concussion and go on to enjoy their retirement.  they probably knew retired players who didn't seem to have any lasting affects, but those retired players might have been hiding the damage because they maybe felt ashamed about it?  everyone thinks they are immortal, and no football player would want to think they'll wind up with dementia or memory loss at age 40.  the nfl did not inform players of the long-term affects of repeated concussions, that's what the lawsuit was about.
 
2013-09-01 01:16:25 AM  

enderthexenocide: RockChalkH1N1: Who would have thought that playing a violent sport could cause future head problems?

i'm sure the players knew they might have joint pain in their retirement or other physical issues like that.  but i don't think any of them realized the brain damage they might suffer after years of hits.  they knew they would get concussions, but they thought that it would be a temporary thing, and they could heal from a concussion and go on to enjoy their retirement.  they probably knew retired players who didn't seem to have any lasting affects, but those retired players might have been hiding the damage because they maybe felt ashamed about it?  everyone thinks they are immortal, and no football player would want to think they'll wind up with dementia or memory loss at age 40.  the nfl did not inform players of the long-term affects of repeated concussions, that's what the lawsuit was about.


I remember when Steve Young was about to retire how many jokes were made about him being a vegetable from all of the concussions.  And then there was the minor point that football was almost banned in the early 20th century because so many people were dying of head injuries.  We may not have known all of the biochemical and physiological associated with concussions, and were certainly didn't know about the effects of multiple sub-concussive events over the course of a lifetime.  But as I said earlier, we've certainly known for decades about the concept of being punch-drunk.
 
2013-09-01 02:13:51 AM  

steamingpile: MBK: TuteTibiImperes: If the NFL knew about the risks and was hiding some of them from the players, the settlement seems appropriate, and that seems to be the case of what happened.  The players went in knowing there was a risk of injury, even concussion, just not the possible extent nor the potential damage from repeated smaller impacts.

It was the right move by the NFL to settle, it will keep the league from getting mired in lawsuits, it provides care for those who need it, and it will let this story wrap up on a feel good note and fade into the background once the season really starts picking up.

That's the problem.  The lawsuit settlement states that the documents the NFL has about concussions won't be made public, so the truth about that will never come out.

The problem was the NFL was in a lose/lose situation, with the strike it looked like the players sounded too greedy so they played the PR game and won public support.

This lawsuit spelled loss for them the minute it was announced, even though they probably had other documents showing damage they also had proof they tried with other helmet designs which the players rejected. The NFL was going go look bad fighting it and the NFLPA was going to look bad when it came out they didn't fight for player safety very much. Its not like injuries are a new thing.


The equipment that is used on the field has to be licensed by the NFL. Which means that the companies have to pay the NFL to allow players to wear it.
 
2013-09-01 02:17:32 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I just showed this video to my 7th grade football-playing nephew and his buddy. Mood got a bit sombre here in the FINGER household. I told him "Keep your helmet out of your opponent's numbers", and my nephew replied, "But that's how our coach teaches us to tackle". How do you argue with that? It's the same thing my coaches taught me in high school.


Ok... then how are you supposed to tackle?
 
2013-09-01 03:20:28 AM  

Mentat: enderthexenocide: RockChalkH1N1: Who would have thought that playing a violent sport could cause future head problems?

i'm sure the players knew they might have joint pain in their retirement or other physical issues like that.  but i don't think any of them realized the brain damage they might suffer after years of hits.  they knew they would get concussions, but they thought that it would be a temporary thing, and they could heal from a concussion and go on to enjoy their retirement.  they probably knew retired players who didn't seem to have any lasting affects, but those retired players might have been hiding the damage because they maybe felt ashamed about it?  everyone thinks they are immortal, and no football player would want to think they'll wind up with dementia or memory loss at age 40.  the nfl did not inform players of the long-term affects of repeated concussions, that's what the lawsuit was about.

I remember when Steve Young was about to retire how many jokes were made about him being a vegetable from all of the concussions.  And then there was the minor point that football was almost banned in the early 20th century because so many people were dying of head injuries.  We may not have known all of the biochemical and physiological associated with concussions, and were certainly didn't know about the effects of multiple sub-concussive events over the course of a lifetime.  But as I said earlier, we've certainly known for decades about the concept of being punch-drunk.


For the 94th time, the problem that no one knew about wasn't the damage caused by concussions or huge hits.  It's the damage caused by repeated low-level impacts such as bumping heads at the line.
 
2013-09-01 04:42:14 AM  
bottom line is that they DID know the risks.

no one forced them to play.

If you asked the current players to sign a contract saying they understand the risks, and cannot sue if they step on the field if they get concussed, every single one of them would sign it.

Prisco is right, this is a money grab.  I could argue that its warranted or not warranted, but they knew the risks.
 
2013-09-01 05:48:05 AM  

I sound fat: Prisco is right, this is a money grab. I could argue that its warranted or not warranted, but they knew the risks.


No they didn't know the risks. The NFL has known for quite some time, but they wouldn't tell anyone. And given the NFL has refused to take care of retired players in need, even though it knows exactly what they're in need, it's the farthest thing from a money grab.
 
2013-09-01 10:32:35 AM  

Waldo Pepper: I sound fat: bottom line is that they DID know the risks.

no one forced them to play.

If you asked the current players to sign a contract saying they understand the risks, and cannot sue if they step on the field if they get concussed, every single one of them would sign it.

Prisco is right, this is a money grab.  I could argue that its warranted or not warranted, but they knew the risks.

I don't recall hearing about any of these issues in the 70's or 80's, back then all that was talked about was issues with the knees after a player was done playing. There was also the issues with spine injuries but those seemed limited to wide receivers and were few and far between so were so forgotten. 

As I stated earlier before the money became insane there is a chance that a lot of the players might have thought twice about having an NFL career or a prolong NFL career had they had this information.

If you found out there was something in the job you do that would have the same affect on your life would you being that job at the pay you are currently receiving, I wouldn't but if you paid me a million a year I would gladly sign up for a few years. 

1970 the minimum salary for rookies was $9,000 a year and for veterans it was $10,000 a year. Great money for the time but hardly worth risking one's health.  The average salary in 1970 was around $6,500 a year.


I think what happened is this: football players kept playing the game exactly the way they always had.  That way of playing football was formed when players were much smaller and slower than they are now, when a 300 lb guy was a rarity.  I mean, shiat, Dick Butkus would be tiny in today's NFL: he was 6'3" and weighed around 245 in his playing days.  The rules and the equipment did not take this into account, and players took a lot of extra damage they didn't need to.

And like it's been said above, I think the players knew they were risking things like having shot knees or even getting your neck broken out there.  But this seems to be something that happened to them and shouldn't have.  The NFL should have required better helmets and gotten much tougher on cheap shot shiat like helmet-to-helmet hits or launching yourself like a missile, head-first, into someone else long ago.  They didn't, because that might detract from the "rock 'em sock 'em" thing they were trying to sell.  And there are players now dying or slipping into dementia because of it.
 
Displayed 79 of 79 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report