OT: Sports legal question

[ksabet]

I know this doesn't fit here but I've had a question for a while and don't know anyone who can answer it from a legal perspective.


I am all for big hits in football, home plate crashes in baseball, fights in hockey and hopefully basketball just dying.

It seems that in most leagues the injury issues and fear of legal responsibility has
caused rules to be put in place that take away from the game and mater them down.

My question is pretty simple. Why can't that individual leagues have players sign waivers saying they will never sue the leagues for long term injuries and in order to have the privilege of playing and making millions you have to sign the waiver?

I am sure there is probably a really simple answer, so I apologize if this is relatively elementary.

[packs]

Honestly I have no idea how anyone who plays contact sports like hockey, football, boxing, etc. can claim they didn't know playing the sport could be dangerous to their health. We all see the constant stream of ex-NFL players looking to sue the league for CTE injuries. But how can you seriously claim that you didn't know playing football or receiving numerous concussions would be bad for your long-term health? Is it really reasonable for a person to claim they didn't know being hit in the head repeatedly would be bad for their brain?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ksabet

I know this doesn't fit here but I've had a question for a while and don't know anyone who can answer it from a legal perspective.


I am all for big hits in football, home plate crashes in baseball, fights in hockey and hopefully basketball just dying.

It seems that in most leagues the injury issues and fear of legal responsibility has
caused rules to be put in place that take away from the game and mater them down.

My question is pretty simple. Why can't that individual leagues have players sign waivers saying they will never sue the leagues for long term injuries and in order to have the privilege of playing and making millions you have to sign the waiver?

I am sure there is probably a really simple answer, so I apologize if this is relatively elementary.

Simple answer, lawyers(some) are greedy and will sue anybody for any reason as long as they think they can get paid. Players know/knew the consequences no matter what anybody says and have the entire time. They get paid insane amounts of $ and most spend it as fast or faster than they get it and are trying anything they can to get some free $. Yes it is 100% the players fault and anybody that says different is either a lawyer or a liar. This has been in the news for 40 years and I get as good laugh how they always make it sound like it is a new problem that they did not know about before.

[ALR-bishop]

Is is fortunate that the greedy character defect is limited to "some" lawyers and does not impact other professions and people

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

Honestly I have no idea how anyone who plays contact sports like hockey, football, boxing, etc. can claim they didn't know playing the sport could be dangerous to their health. We all see the constant stream of ex-NFL players looking to sue the league for CTE injuries. But how can you seriously claim that you didn't know playing football or receiving numerous concussions would be bad for your long-term health? Is it really reasonable for a person to claim they didn't know being hit in the head repeatedly would be bad for their brain?

I've wondered the same thing regarding people who took up smoking after the 1960s. They were referring to cigarettes as coffin nails (and I believe cancer sticks) back into at least the 1930s. I guess it pays to follow the money.

[packs]

The only scenarios I could see people having a legitimate claim (in terms of common sense) is if an injury went misdiagnosed or a trainer lied about the severity of an injury. I think it's a different situation if a player suffered a major head injury but the medical staff didn't notice it or played down the severity than if a player is told you just had a concussion, do you want to continue to play anyway? And that player says yes.

[drcy]

The standard contracts are written by both sides in collective bargaining, lawyers and representatives from the players' and the owners' sides. One side may want such a waiver, but that doesn't mean the other side will agree to it.

I agree that adult players now can no longer claim ignorance about football brain injuries, though I think leading with the head tackling and related should be stopped. That's not traditional, or old schoolers would say proper, tackling technique anyway. Players may be stronger and faster today, but the brain isn't. One big reason why HIG and steroids is a menace.

A pressing problem for the NFL is parents may increasingly prevent their kids playing football and the sport will dry up that way. In the future, high schools and universities may drop their football programs. No one in high school programs makes millions of dollars. Mike Ditka just recently said he wouldn't let his theoretical young kid play football, and when someone of tough talking, tough guy, old school Mike Ditka's stature says that...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

I've wondered the same thing regarding people who took up smoking after the 1960s. They were referring to cigarettes as coffin nails (and I believe cancer sticks) back into at least the 1930s. I guess it pays to follow the money.

It's still remarkable that in Florida, the legislature passed a law saying cigarette companies could not defend on the ground of assumption of risk.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Is is fortunate that the greedy character defect is limited to "some" lawyers and does not impact other professions and people

Seriously Al trolling from you. I never said it did not impact other professions and I did say "some" because there're also some really great ones and average ones just like in any other profession.

I will say that the only bad transaction I had on this board was with a former lawyer. Have had several great transactions with other board members that are lawyers so yes "some" being bad works for me.

[JTysver]

Not sure I understand the premise correctly.
Is the intent to allow unfettered play where guys can get hurt?

I should remind people that the spitball was outlawed not because it was a hard pitch to hit, but because Ray Chapman got killed by a "Shine ball".

The games have always changed for the safety of players.

[Snapolit1]

A waiver of liability is only effective if you identify the specific risks being waived. A good lawyer can always argue that particular risks were not disclosed. Plus the players unions will never agree to letting players sign waivers.

[ALR-bishop]

That's me alright, Ben, thanks

[Jobu]

I have not followed the details too closely, but I think the NFL was/is on the hook for this because they actively told players that head trauma was no problem and lead "research" to back up their claims. I seem to recall that the league even issued a pamphlet to every player at the start of a season telling them not to worry about head injuries or listen to actual research on head trauma.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's still remarkable that in Florida, the legislature passed a law saying cigarette companies could not defend on the ground of assumption of risk.

Completely annoying.

Stupidity is never a solid excuse. I was smoking at 15 and even then I knew 100% that it was logically bad for my health. I made that poor choice on my own.

There's not many geniuses within pro sports per say, but I think my dog could logically conclude that running his head into a wall several hundred times may cause some damage.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by JustinD

There's not many geniuses within pro sports per say, but I think my dog could logically conclude that running his head into a wall several hundred times may cause some damage.

Justin,
Dogs are smarter than that and would probably stop after a few tries. (well, most dogs anyway). People are not that smart, hence laws to protect them from themselves.

[jason.1969]

I am not anxious to see anything that makes football even more dangerous. If somehow the threat of lawsuits helps spur safety-based changes, then I'll consider the system to be working.

I also think this trend of early retirements is a very healthy and welcome one. Players are basically calling BS on the League that's been peddling BS at us and them for years.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[ksabet]

There are thousands of jobs that are dangerous. They've made TV shows about them...Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch, Iceroad Truckers etc.

These guys are paid handsomely for their work.

Athletes make a choice based on the risk/reward. I want to be entertained. So my stance is that if you are willing to pay the price for the reward that should be an individual choice, BUT you loose the ability to deflect the consequences once its said and done. Just entertain me.

If you don't like a movie don't watch it, if you don't like tackle football...

[jason.1969]

Not disagreeing. I think all NFLers would/should have known that there was risk of jacked up knees, broken ribs, and even paralysis.

But I think it's much more recent that players are learning that there is extremely high risk of permanent and significant brain damage. CTE was not a household term 10 years ago.

What we are seeing now is a number of players making smart life choices based on what is largely new information, and notably information that the NFL has tried to filter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk