OT: Sports legal question

[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.

[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.