|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 11/25/2013 : 16:24:07
I had actually expected it sooner.
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?"
|8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 11/28/2013 : 10:31:14
I get the last examples of a "team" or medical personnel being culpable in a player playing at less than 100% health wise, but the issue at the core of this suit is not Lindros or Souray being force to play injured, but the head injuries sustained as a result of playing the sport. While I am on the side of the players who were forced or coerced into playing while recovering, tons of players everyday play injured or less than 100% at there own choice. These are different players than the players filing the suit.
||Posted - 11/28/2013 : 08:53:48
lol @ "IMO, these players know the risks and ought to be owed NOTHING!"
player do understand there is risks to getting cconcussed.. the problem is teams pushing players back into action, with little to no regard to the players health (ie: they dont care they may be concussed and continue to play them). This was a major reason for Lindros' early retirement from the game.. the team mismanaged his health.
imagine getting injured, and being forced to continue playing and damaging yourself even more.. the concussed player is in no shape to evalutate themselves, nor is it their call to take themselves out of the game.. its up to the team to ensure theyre ok.
||Posted - 11/28/2013 : 05:43:41
I feel sad that a lot of fans, when it comes to health and safety and information sharing and employing proper medical analysis . . . you swing wildly in favour for what amounts to negligent management practices.
I am sure some of the ex-players involved are in it for the money, sure . . . it's bound to happen. But that doesn't make the argument and points less weak.
When the league, management and coach put pressure on the player to go back out on the ice when they clearly know you've had a serious head injury; and when the doctor is pressured by the management to almost never err on the side of safety in terms of concussions . . . thereby foregoing his primary goal of preventing further much more serious injury (and obliterating his Hippocratic oath as a doctor!) . . . then yes, the league IS culpable!! Absolutely! And we know this has happened, know it with certainty.
What I WOULD have loved to have seen, is a guy like Eric Lindros sue Bobby Clarke, Philly management, and ultimately the league, for medical negligence. In recent Leaf history alone, the team I see the most . . . I can recall at least half a dozen memorable instances where a player has clearly received a concussion, and they were checked out by a doctor (in some cases not even sent back for that) and put right back out there. Grabovski's game against Boston 3 years ago was the most glaring and obvious example I could think of . . . but I remember one with Kulemin, Lupul a year ago I think . . . and there are others.
Good for them - paying out money always makes one have to be a little more accountable.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
||Posted - 11/26/2013 : 21:27:41
Personally, I don't think they'll (the players) "win", but likely reach some sort of settlement. Apparently some of the players (in the group of 10 which will prob rise in numbers as this goes along) didn't even have much in the way of careers, though they're prob claiming concussions were a part of the reason for this?
||Posted - 11/26/2013 : 17:31:15
the players need to be responsible for their own behavior! I agree with ripley about softer gear. In the old days a guy didnt run over another guy because he knew it would hurt him too. So they simple tried to hit hard enough to separate the puck from the man, not the head from the man. There is a reason they get paid millions of dollars (or hundreds of thousands back in the 70's) it is because this extra money is for danger pay. This lawsuit is a stretch, but sadly they will win because it is politically correct to award them the victory
||Posted - 11/26/2013 : 09:44:53
They either legislate mandatory equipment to reduce injuries and a style of play which would reduce injuries or they don't and live with the consequences. The NHL, NHLPA and board of governers have tried many times to bring about rule changes with which the players union have fought against, which would have caused the lessoning of injuries. A good portion of the players have been the ones fighting against equipment changes and are the ones playing reckless. A coach GM and owner can only do so much, when the responsibility is on the players to wear the protective equipment and to play in a safe fashion.
I mean with all the evidence for the safety of it, why hasn't every player wear for years now being playing with a visor, Kevlar socks and other safety equipment proven to lesson injuries. It boggles my mind that a motorcross racer wears more protective gear than an NHL player does. I heard a few years back that there is a more protective helmets available, which if worn would reduce collision related head injuries substantially. Players comments were strongly against the helmets due to what the design looked like. Well if safety is not the top priority then I don't think they can sue when the optional equipment has been available for years.
Sue for malicious injuries, but not because a player chooses to play a dangerous sport without wearing the maximum protective equipment.
||Posted - 11/25/2013 : 17:03:55
I don't buy this at all (from the article)...
"In 2004 the NHL introduced a series of updates to the rule-set to encourage a faster, more exciting, and ultimately more marketable product. As a result, the number of violent in-game collisions and occurrence of head trauma have increased." I don't think there was actually an increase in cases of head trauma. I think it was a greater awareness and acceptance from players, the league, and the NHLPA to acknowlege the injury as opposed to just talking about how "he got his bell rung". So this artificially inflates the numbers.
As for the case in general, I think players need to accept responsibilty for their actions. They choose to play and they are the givers and the receivers of the hits. The NHLPA has been in place for many generations and there have been 3 lockouts and several other CBA's in the last 25 years, why have the players not pushed harder for their own safety? Why have they not pushed for soft shelled hockey gear and other equipment and rule changes to make it safer? The truth is that even as mature adults they are dismissing their future for the all mightly dollar. If they truly wanted to protect themselves they could. They chose money over their own safety and now they are coming back to eat their cake. Litigation over legislation, it's the North American way.
I'm not saying the NHL is innocent in this, not doubt they have 50% of the blame...but the other 50% goes to the players.
One last point, the players who on this list that played while Alan Eagleson was the Executive Director of the NHLPA, get a pass. Safety was not a major factor in the late 60's, through the 70's and even late 80's. I'm sure that concerns raised during that time would have fallen on fairly deaf ears in the NHLPA.
If any lawsuit should be filed it should be the players against the NHLPA, the very entity that was supposed to protect them.
||Posted - 11/25/2013 : 16:52:53
Heard this this afternoon on the radio. Not surprised at all. What i am surprised at is that in the similar case vs the NFL, the players were actually awarded 800M or so in a deal that is not officially closed (amount could yet go up).
IMO, these players know the risks and ought to be owed NOTHING!
eta - Not to mention the fact that team and/or personal doctors are the one's clearing them to play, not the NHL. Now that the NHL has the "quiet room", it could work against them (the league) as lawyers will argue they should have implemented this sort of thing years ago. AND we haven't even started to talk about fighting.....