Levens part of concussion suit?

[drayge]

I did not see anyone comment on it - was surprised Levens is suffering headaches. Did he take any hits beyond the NFL norm?

[Tony Oday]

Really concussions are bad for you? You play a contact sport for millions or did play...go f*ck yourselves explayers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Employers are responsible for health & safety of employees, within reason. If NFL knew effects of concussions, and knew procedures for prevention/recovery that they withheld for selfish reasons, then they deserve to pay. My guess is that NFL did not act irresponsibly, but just dismissing the suit with "you take the job, you take your chances" is backward thinking.

[mraynrand]

Employers are responsible for health & safety of employees, within reason. If NFL knew effects of concussions, and knew procedures for prevention/recovery that they withheld for selfish reasons, then they deserve to pay. My guess is that NFL did not act irresponsibly, but just dismissing the suit with "you take the job, you take your chances" is backward thinking.

not backward, but narrow. There is risk and you do take your chances. That's always going to be a significant part of the football experience. But that doesn't mean there isn't culpability. Probably more of it more recently and less as you go back in history.

[Harlan Huckleby]

not backward, but narrow. There is risk and you do take your chances.

Backward because its how people thought in 19th century.

Sure there is risk, but that is not the issue, that's a red herring. The issue is whether there is unnecessary risk because of employer negligence.

Honestly, if people think a little more about the issues, there will be little disagreement over what is fair. Probably the players don't have a good case.

[mraynrand]

Backward because its how people thought in 19th century.

Sure there is risk, but that is not the issue, that's a red herring. The issue is whether there is unnecessary risk because of employer negligence.

Honestly, if people think a little more about the issues, there will be little disagreement over what is fair. Probably the players don't have a good case.


There are two issues, and you selectively picked one. We are on different wavelengths again. Sometimes I don't know why I even discuss things with you.

Did they even wear helmets in the 19th century? Awareness and protection has progressively increased. That much should be obvious.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Don't know why you jump so quickly to hostility. Lame.

Yes, more awareness of safety since 19th century. But relevant change is attitudes toward employer-worker relationship. Before rise of labor movement in 20th century, workers were vulnerable, "if you don't like it, quit" attitude was prevalent. We see from some responses to this incident, that backward thinking still around.

[Kiwon]

These days the favorite sport is to go after those with the big bucks. The NFL doesn't exist without players and it's not in its interest to see players hurt and lost. Likewise, players must assume the risks of being a professional football player.

Of course, there are some players whose conditions were mismanaged by team doctors. No doubt, as well, there are players who also mismanaged their own personal finances and are looking for more financial and medical benefits. The difficulty will being differentiating between the two groups.

My hope is that these cases will be handled on an individual level, case by case, rather than through a class action suit with former players coming out of the woodworks all looking for financial gain. You can bet that there is an army of personal injury lawyers who would love to bring a case against the NFL and make a fortune for themselves in the process.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The NFL doesn't exist without players and it's not in its interest to see players hurt and lost.

Market forces alone are insufficient. The NFL is not particicularly harmed by long-term effects of injuries. And history has shown that employers will not adequately protect health & safety of workers in absence of legal protections.



Likewise, players must assume the risks of being a professional football player.

Yes, this is half of the story. The other half is that it is the obligation of the league ownership to minimize risks where reasonable to do so. I'm not arguing that the NFL hasn't done so.

Coal miners have to accept that they do unavoidably dangerous work. But since we are now more civilized people than we were 100 years ago, the mining companies are required to take steps to protect health & safety of workers.

[pbmax]

Really concussions are bad for you? You play a contact sport for millions or did play...go f*ck yourselves explayers.

I don't understand this. According to the trainers and doctors on the Browns staff, concussions do not occur on the field of play unless the player reports it when they are face down in the mud.

So I am unsure what the concern is.

[Patler]

Yes, this is half of the story. The other half is that it is the obligation of the league ownership to minimize risks where reasonable to do so. I'm not arguing that the NFL hasn't done so.

Coal miners have to accept that they do unavoidably dangerous work. But since we are now more civilized people than we were 100 years ago, the mining companies are required to take steps to protect health & safety of workers.

I believe that is the key in the suit Levens is in. I believe the allegation is that the NFL knew long ago that players with head injuries should be withheld, yet it wasn't that long ago that "getting your bell" was a temporary issue, and players often returned to play in the same game. If the league knew that wasn't a good idea for the long range health of the player and yet allowed it to happen anyway, they could have liability.

The second area of potential liability might be in just not adequately informing the players about all they knew concerning long range effects of concussions. Sure, players knew concussions were not good things, but did they know how devastating they can be in later years? Did they know the likelihood of it happening? Did they know the changing long term prognosis after three or four concussions? I doubt it. If they league did have this knowledge and didn't relay it to the players, they could have liability for not informing the players about the real risks involved.

I heard last night that another suit has been filed in Miami by 22 players, mostly former Dolphins.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, I think it is hard to predict the outcome of the lawsuit. Devil in details. My uneducated speculation is NFL will win suit, I don't guess there was such conclusive research back in 90's. But we'll see.

I was thinking of the issue of whether market forces alone can protect players. Increasingly, that may be true, especially with the expensive players. But the other side is, the NFL popularity feeds off violence. So the market forces are mixed.

[Pugger]

Ooops! Wrong thread. :oops:

[mraynrand]

Don't know why you jump so quickly to hostility. Lame.

So now it's hostile to say we're on different wavelengths? I think you've gone soft.

[mraynrand]

"if you don't like it, quit" attitude was prevalent.

A certain amount of that is healthy, but not when it concerns core safety. Owners, GMs, and Coaches mess with their player's safety at their own risk too. Think Bob Sanders and Troy Polamalu. Sending those guys out their concussed risks their long-term playing ability, not just short term wins. Being cautious with players and concussions is mostly a win-win going forward. Going backward, I don't see much value in the litigation. For the most part, people didn't know as much about long-term effects.

[Tarlam!]

Coal miners have to accept that they do unavoidably dangerous work. But since we are now more civilized people than we were 100 years ago, the mining companies are required to take steps to protect health & safety of workers.

Are you suggesting, HH, that the canaries died in vain? Sorry, poor attempt at humour.

But your arguments in this sound like you're going after a tobacco company-type law suit. The NFL has a dangerous product, but, unlike Phillip Morris, they didn't set out to make it more addictive, ergo dangerous to sell more of said product.

It will come to who knew what and when and what can be proven to that effect. Just my opinion formed by watching far too many episodes of US law series!