PDA

View Full Version : Ex-Giant Dave Duerson tragedy big part of Mega lawsuit vs. NFL over brain traum***



GreenZone
06-08-2012, 12:01 PM
First of all, I want to say that this is of huge importance,
particularly going forward towards making the game as safe as possible
for the players, particularly for our Giant players we root for.

Dave Duerson helped immensely in the 1990 season towards the Giant Supebowl victory, so this is a lawsuit bearing greatly on the Giants' players of today's welfare. His case is one of the key ones moving this suit.

Also, it's important for helping fund the past player problems directly resulting from football related serious injuries. There needs to be a more hands on approach to help past Giants.

See story:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/07/mega-lawsuit-says-nfl-hid-brain-injury-links/

On Dave Duerson and the brain trauma from the game found after his suicide, from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/sports/football/03duerson.html


Having
said that, there is an unseemly side to this, that is, no matter what
the arguments may be, there is no way to keep a player entirely safe
from many of these major life threatening problems that result from
playing a violent game.

And while a past player in deep agony may
say he would not play if he had it to do all over again, in most cases,
that same player would have said he didn't care what the risks are when
he was playing! You could ask any player playing today that same
question.

Knowing that when you play any sport, there is an
inherent risk of serious or even life threatening injury is a given is
not something that any league should have to bother to stipulate in
order to avoid courtroom pain.

Maybe in this litigious happy
society, a ruling by a court will end up requiring a warning sign to be
placed on the Met Life stadium jumbotron before each kickoff saying:

"Warning players: This game may be hazardous to your health. Proceed at your own risk or leave the field immediately."

But, if at all possible, we never want to see our Giant players have to suffer again like Dave Duerson did.

P.S. My fault in the original generic post for it not referencing the Giant angle.

Toadofsteel
06-08-2012, 12:04 PM
I thought those kinds of warnings were supposed to be in the contracts the players signed?

MattMeyerBud
06-08-2012, 12:17 PM
i hate that people are making this to be some stunning revelation. It really reminds me of the "outcry" when baseball players started getting busted for roids and HGH. Like really? Somebody is surprised by this?</P>


</P>


I mean one of the oldest sayings in the book that im sure is everybody has heard is "he took too many hits to the head" when referencing somebody acting out of order. We all knew what too many hits to the head did.</P>


</P>


So did the players, we've seen it in boxing for decades.</P>


</P>


I don't care what the NFL was or wasn't hiding, its common sense. </P>

OsiStrahan#1combo
06-08-2012, 12:46 PM
What do you want these players to do?.. stop hitting each other completely? I mean seriously, what did you all expect? Like the one person said just right above. When they signed up for football, nothing has changed, they still need to hit people. Its just the nature of the game.

Dont give me this crap they can start aiming at certain spots (strike zone) as some people put it. Or is that just for the QBs?

Like i said its the nature of the game.

GreenZone
06-08-2012, 12:55 PM
I don't care what the NFL was or wasn't hiding, its common sense. </p>

What's common sense is more than just the implied danger involved in playing a sport.

It is also, IMO:

1) for the player to understand the inherent risk and become more active off the field in helping make it safer for themselves and everyone else;
2) for the league and NFLPA to also do everything in its power to make the game as safe as possible, without ruining the integrity (eliminate cheap shots, better helmet technology, etc.)
3) get the lawyers off the back of the equipment manufacturers so they can develop better technology that could have ended up saving Duerson's health and life (we can help there through the voter process in this country);
4) doing a much better job compensating ex-NFL players who suffer and yet made this game the mega-spectacular that it is today.

miked1958
06-08-2012, 09:49 PM
What do you want these players to do?.. stop hitting each other completely? I mean seriously, what did you all expect? Like the one person said just right above. When they signed up for football, nothing has changed, they still need to hit people. Its just the nature of the game.

Dont give me this crap they can start aiming at certain spots (strike zone) as some people put it. Or is that just for
Like i said its the nature of the game.it's going to be like flag football before they are through tinkering with the rules.

miked1958
06-08-2012, 09:52 PM
All these players sign contracts knowing full well here dangerous the Game is and how they can have long term effects from all the concussions. Yet they still play due to the money. They take the risk cause they feel it's worth it. Is it fair the. For them to turn around and sue their former employer after the fact? That's not fair IMO

miked1958
06-08-2012, 09:53 PM
Old addage.. Don't play with fire If you don't want to get burned

GreenZone
06-08-2012, 11:16 PM
Old addage.. Don't play with fire If you don't want to get burned

So, let's not consider making the equipment safer. Let's not bother eliminating the cheap shot. It's all the things these guys signed up for, right?

Your callous view about others lives from what amounts to your pristine living room with beer in hand reminds me of people in the city believing eggs come from the store. Or, it's like playing a video game.

The real point should be: if you do play with fire, have some protective equipment to minimize the chance of getting burned. You still might get burned, it is always a risk which you sign up for, but much can be done to minimize that chance of being burned.

That's just another great thing about John Mara, looking into every angle to help protect his and all the players in the league. I don't thing Wellington would have looked at it your way, either.

And now, go tell your anonymous statement to Dave Duerson's family in person.

greenca190
06-08-2012, 11:24 PM
Old addage.. Don't play with fire If you don't want to get burned

So, let's not consider making the equipment safer. Let's not bother eliminating the cheap shot. It's all the things these guys signed up for, right?

Your callous view about others lives from what amounts to your pristine living room with beer in hand reminds me of people in the city believing eggs come from the store.

The real point is, if you do play with fire, have some protective equipment to minimize the chance of getting burned. You still might get burned, it is always a risk which you sign up for, but much can be done to minimize that chance of being burned.

And now go tell your anonymous statement to Dave Duerson's family in person.


Agreed.

A couple years back when the Packers won the super bowl, Aaron Rodgers very well could have suffered his third concussion of the season during the NFC Championship game against the Chicago Bears. Following his second concussion, he started wearing newly remodeled helmets that are made to help limit concussions.

Why isn't it mandated that every helmet worn by every player be of this make and model? Why are owners JUST voting on rules to make players wear knee and thigh pads?

The NFL can come up with as many politically correct statements as possible to say they are trying to increase player safety in the game. All we have seen so far are on-field rules implemented which hinder the actual game play. Low and behold, those hits that in the past that are illegal now are still being flagged and fined. It's obviously not changing the safety, just the on field product. It is wrong and awful on the NFL's behalf that equipment mandates haven't gone into effect yet. It was wrong when the players on this law suit were playing, as well.

Say you're a window washer for a living. Twenty years ago scaffolding equipment was completely different than it is now. But your employer invested in the new, safe technology for the safety of his/her employees. Now, of course, people still fall from large heights on the job and get hurt, or possibly even killed. And players will still get hurt while playing the game no matter what equipment they strap on. However, when it comes down to it, the NFL is not taking care of its employees on the field as well as they could be, while claiming they are.

Players have known since they first played in pee wee football that they can get hurt playing. Don't make them out to be so stupid.

ShakeNBake
06-08-2012, 11:29 PM
i hate that people are making this to be some stunning revelation. It really reminds me of the "outcry" when baseball players started getting busted for roids and HGH. Like really? Somebody is surprised by this?</p>


</p>


I mean one of the oldest sayings in the book that im sure is everybody has heard is "he took too many hits to the head" when referencing somebody acting out of order. We all knew what too many hits to the head did.</p>


</p>


So did the players, we've seen it in boxing for decades.</p>


</p>


I don't care what the NFL was or wasn't hiding, its common sense. </p>

<font color="#FF0000">Who would've thought that all those shots to the head would actually have a prolonged impact</font>

GreenZone
06-09-2012, 11:20 AM
The NFL can come up with as many politically correct statements as possible to say they are trying to increase player safety in the game. ...However, when it comes down to it, the NFL is not taking care of its employees on the field as well as they could be, while claiming they are.

Players have known since they first played in pee wee football that they can get hurt playing. Don't make them out to be so stupid

I don't necessarily agree that the NFL isn't doing everything they can. The helmet innovation that might prevent a Dave Duerson situation in the future, is front and center. The problems include that the manufacturers of helmets tend to get sued out of business when a helmet they produce is on a player that receives a head injury. That limits innovation and the number of participants in providing safer equipment.

Second, the data to show that a new design actually does the job that it is supposed to takes time to accumulate and it's not like there are instant improvements that can simply be applied.

My belief is that John Mara would pull all the stops to prevent more injuries where ever he can. Owners with a conscience are never pleased with players getting injured, particularly seriously, while playing for them. Even if only from a selfish point of view, these horror stories of former players is not the kind of publicity any league would ever want to see.

Die-Hard
06-09-2012, 01:11 PM
Breaking News!!

Smoking causes lung cancer!!! Details to follow!!

MMB hit it right on the head. They knew the dangers going in. Any one of them who claims otherwise is full of ****

slipknottin
06-09-2012, 02:16 PM
They didnt know the dangers.

How many of you even had a clue what CTE was 5 years ago?

Concussions were treated as nothing more than a bruise, hurts for awhile, goes away, no harm done.

Turns out its absolutely nothing like that.


And originally, nobody knew that smoking caused lung cancer, the cigarette companies knew, and hid that information from the public, hence the massive lawsuits that they lost. So that was probably a horrible example.

greenca190
06-09-2012, 02:39 PM
*

The NFL can come up with as many politically correct statements as possible to say they are trying to increase player safety in the game. ...However, when it comes down to it, the NFL is not taking care of its employees on the field as well as they could be, while claiming they are.

Players have known since they first played in pee wee football that they can get hurt playing. Don't make them out to be so stupid

I don't necessarily agree that the NFL isn't doing everything they can. The helmet innovation that might prevent a Dave Duerson situation in the future, is front and center. The problems include that the manufacturers of helmets tend to get sued out of business when a helmet they produce is on a player that receives a head injury. That limits innovation and the number of participants in providing safer equipment.

Second, the data to show that a new design actually does the job that it is supposed to takes time to accumulate and it's not like there are instant improvements that can simply be applied.

My belief is that John Mara would pull all the stops to prevent more injuries where ever he can. Owners with a conscience are never pleased with players getting injured, particularly seriously, while playing for them. Even if only from a selfish point of view, these horror stories of former players is not the kind of publicity any league would ever want to see.


Good points.

I see the majority of owners looking at the majority of their players as replaceable. Now of course, the Packers aren't going to say Aaron Rodgers is easily replaceable. But there was a thread on here a couple days ago with the 20/70/10 strategy, where 20 percent of your players are mainstay, 70 percent are role players that can be replaced, and 10 percent are continuously cycling through teams. Obviously you want as much continuity in your organization as possible, but sometimes that is just not possible.

Think about it as an assembly line. That 20 percent will be the higher end managers in charge of the 70 percent below them. Sure, they might love them as workers, and continuity is always good in the work place. But if they come in one day and say they need a raise that is too much that the company can give, they're not going to, because that worker is a number in the grand scheme of things. If the guy quits, they bring in the next guy. "Next guy up", right? We have been saying it countless times on this message board through our IR depleted super bowl runs.

Now, the obvious difference here is that the 70 percent in the NFL are making .5 - 1 million dollars a year, while the assembly line worker asking for a raise is trying to get ten dollars an hour opposed to 8.50. However, that's average salary for an NFL player, and there are plenty of ways for an NFL owner to get a lot of their investment back from an employee through contractual clauses. One of which, is through injury. If you don't play, you don't pay, and we go on to the next guy available who just needs to be plugged into the system.

Now I'd hope Mara wouldn't have this mentality as far as his employees go. But I wouldn't be surprised.

PIERCEnumber58rules
06-09-2012, 03:03 PM
If player safety is the most important thing, why not implement a 1-and-done concussion rule? One concussion and you're out of the league. Or how about a 4-year max rule, where you get four years in the league, and then you're forced into retirement? Just throwing out ideas here... The fewer the years these guys play, the less likely they are to suffer long term effects.

ShakeNBake
06-09-2012, 03:18 PM
I feel sorry for these guys who have died from degenerative brain injuries but player safety and football are like oil and water. There is only so much you can do to prevent injury from grown men knocking the snot out of each other for hours on end, outside of that injuries are inevitable. My point is, in order to make football "safe" you have to completely change the rules and aspects of the game to do so, and at that point you are no longer playing football. The best the league can do is make the players aware of these risks, and allow them to make an informed decision based on this information.

slipknottin
06-09-2012, 03:35 PM
you do realize that this lawsuit is not about player safety, right?

Every job has risks, that isnt what this is about.

Its about the NFL knowing how severe the risks were but failing to inform the players of them.

slipknottin
06-09-2012, 03:37 PM
If player safety is the most important thing, why not implement a 1-and-done concussion rule? One concussion and you're out of the league. Or how about a 4-year max rule, where you get four years in the league, and then you're forced into retirement? Just throwing out ideas here... The fewer the years these guys play, the less likely they are to suffer long term effects.

in the scheme of things the NFL is almost insigificant. But the decisions the nfl makes and the issues the nfl finds changes football for all ages. Thats the big issue.

If you offer players millions of dollars and say they can only protect them so much, then the players can evaluate that themselves, can decide how long they will play and how much risk they can take.

But they need to figure out what those risks are, the probabilities, how to minimize them.

ShakeNBake
06-09-2012, 04:28 PM
you do realize that this lawsuit is not about player safety, right?

Every job has risks, that isnt what this is about.

Its about the NFL knowing how severe the risks were but failing to inform the players of them.

No ****, but it will lead to changes in rules and player safety which was my whole point.

NYG 5
06-09-2012, 04:59 PM
no helmets. or wear light, baseball or hockey styled helmets.

enough to protect against less impactful blows like glancing hits, but not enough to be used as a weapon or warrant reckless hitting.

GreenZone
06-09-2012, 10:02 PM
no helmets. or wear light, baseball or hockey styled helmets.

enough to protect against less impactful blows like glancing hits, but not enough to be used as a weapon or warrant reckless hitting.

Sounds like "Grapes" in arguing in hockey how the massive equpment has led to using it as weaponry and helped foster a lack of respect for their fellow player that didn't exist when everyone played with no helmets. There's some merit to both arguments.

I'd say all the owners have a selfish interest in players staying healthy. The chance to sell more tickets, more merchandise, etc. hinges on the team having a good season and that almost always requires having healthy players.

Imagine if Eli didn't survive the beating in San Francisco. If the game had been played on some of the artificial surfaces that have been corrected from years gone by, Eli doesn't survive the season that day. That's one example of a long term safety measure being put in place.

The league has self interest, as well as best interest in the health of its players. But it's also time to do right by players of the past. That is neglect that has been reprehensible.

BeatYale
06-09-2012, 11:29 PM
Similar to hockey, these modern hard plastic helmets actually make the sport more dangerous to some extent. When helmets were less protective, it was common sense to avoid colliding into another player with your head. When helmets became more protective, players became more willing to make helmet-to-helmet or helmet-to-body hits.

Drez
06-10-2012, 12:45 AM
i hate that people are making this to be some stunning revelation. It really reminds me of the "outcry" when baseball players started getting busted for roids and HGH. Like really? Somebody is surprised by this?</p>


</p>


I mean one of the oldest sayings in the book that im sure is everybody has heard is "he took too many hits to the head" when referencing somebody acting out of order. We all knew what too many hits to the head did.</p>


</p>


So did the players, we've seen it in boxing for decades.</p>


</p>


I don't care what the NFL was or wasn't hiding, its common sense. </p>
This.