So Clinton Portis and Dante Culpepper are suing the NFL over concussions

[Carlos Huerta]

i agree 100% BUT somewhere down the line common sense has to step in,my daughter 13 yr old and knows football is a high speed contact sport, long term damage is gonna be expected...that's like being a firefighter and not expected to get burnt or feel heat, you think you was just gonna chill in the firehouse and eat steak and collect checks...i also want to add that, these nikkas are getting paid a GOOD amount of money to put the RISK of there body on the line...not like these nikkas making 10.50 a hr...i stay in chicago and dodge bullets every other ,they can save this joe budden sob story for somebody else....nikkas talking to there attorney about a law suit with my house on they wrist

unfortunately "common sense" doesn't play into the argument when litigation arises In this country, people try to sue restaurants for serving unhealthy food and the tobacco companies for giving them lung cancer like a few commercials or billboards would have stopped them from smoking

 

[duckbutta]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...per-fort-lauderdale-home-foreclosure/2525287/

 

[DrX]

CP retired young...he took a beating, even more so than AP

 

[eastside313]

This is true but its like people in the black and white days thinking that smoking cigarettes did absolutely nothing harmful to their bodies. At some point basic common sense should be part of the argument. Barry Sanders retired early for a reason.

Bruh you don't even know why Barry retired

 

[tru_m.a.c]

CP retired young...he took a beating, even more so than AP

so? blame joe gibss dumb ass "I want him to gain 10 pounds so we can bring back that 90s style of offense back" philosophy

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Before we start shytting on ex-players, it's been well documented that the NFL didn't fully inform players of the long term effects of concussions and head injuries. And if a player did know about the effects, it came from non-NFL medical staff or after they were already suffering from other problems or death (See Chris Henry).

That's really what this case is about. NFL and their medial staffs didn't inform players, especially players from the 60s thru early 90s (maybe early 2000s), about the long term effects of head injuries. They used to let them go back in games even when they clearly shouldn't have been allowed to. As an employer, if you expose your employees to that risk without giving them the proper info then you open yourself up for lawsuits which is exactly what's happening. The players do have a legit beef.

Also the older generation players didn't make as much so they can't even cover their medical bills related to football injuries. And if the NFL knew about the long term effects then they should have every right to sue.

Do some of y'all not care about these dudes?

Again, is the NFL the only football body open to litigation because it "employs" NFL players?

If not, when can I expect to see pee wee football leagues sued and each individual college along with the NCAA?

 

[LeflaurLeflahEshkoshka]

Again, is the NFL the only football body open to litigation because it "employs" NFL players?

If not, when can I expect to see pee wee football leagues sued and each individual college along with the NCAA?

NFL is not the only league facing litigation. Any of those leagues or institutions you mentioned are open to litigation and anybody can bring a case against them. There already was a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA for negligence and lack of enforcement of safety rules in college football. Don't know if they settled or if it's still going on. But this isn't new, you just may have not heard of it.

If your child suffered head injuries playing Pee Wee football, and there was no medical waiver signed, and the Pee Wee coach allowed the player to play even if a doctor hasn't cleared them, then you have a case against the coach and the league (as an employer of the coach). You have to back it up with medical history. This is unlikely because those leagues are not as physical, plus there is the issue proving long-term effects in a sport where contact is already limited due to age. Let's be honest, those kids, for the most, part are not top-class athletes trying to physically dominate each other.

In the case of the NFL players, a lot of them can specifically trace their symptoms and injuries to their playing days in the NFL, not the NCAA or junior leagues. And this is backed up by the medical documents which teams kept on players which show exactly when they sustained injuries and the treatment they received. That's why they are suing the NFL, and not the NCAA or their high school. One of their main arguments is that NFL , their employer (not the NCAA or college), did not inform them of the long term risks of their injuries and in some cases even allowed them to continue playing. Hence negligence. It's hard to prove tho which is why the case has been going on for so long, plus NFl has crazy money and can drag it out.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

NFL is not the only league facing litigation. Any of those leagues or institutions you mentioned are open to litigation and anybody can bring a case against them. There already was a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA for negligence and lack of enforcement of safety rules in college football. Don't know if they settled or if it's still going on. But this isn't new, you just may have not heard of it.

If your child suffered head injuries playing Pee Wee football, and there was no medical waiver signed, and the Pee Wee coach allowed the player to play even if a doctor hasn't cleared them, then you have a case against the coach and the league (as an employer of the coach). You have to back it up with medical history. This is unlikely because those leagues are not as physical, plus there is the issue proving long-term effects in a sport where contact is already limited due to age. Let's be honest, those kids, for the most, part are not top-class athletes trying to physically dominate each other.

In the case of the NFL players, a lot of them can specifically trace their symptoms and injuries to their playing days in the NFL, not the NCAA or junior leagues. And this is backed up by the medical documents which teams kept on players which show exactly when they sustained injuries and the treatment they received. That's why they are suing the NFL, and not the NCAA or their high school. One of their main arguments is that NFL , their employer (not the NCAA or college), did not inform them of the long term risks of their injuries and in some cases even allowed them to continue playing. Hence negligence. It's hard to prove tho which is why the case has been going on for so long, plus NFl has crazy money and can drag it out.

So your belief, and the assumption of the court, is that 100% of the players suing the NFL received their first concussion in the NFL?

 

[LeflaurLeflahEshkoshka]

So your belief, and the assumption of the court, is that 100% of the players suing the NFL received their first concussion in the NFL?

No, i Never said first concussion in the NFL and i didnt say 100%. what u just wrote is for their lawyers to argue and prove. I'm not in a position to do that. Also court cases are built on evidence and facts, not assumptions.

IMO, first concussion doesn't mean as much because there is still the issue that the NFL failed to inform players of the long-term risks, and even allowed them to play knowing those long term risks could result in future injuries.

So it's not really about if they had their first concussion in the league, but rather, the nfl player sustained a head injury while playing in the league and the league continued to let them play while possibly knowing the risks. The medical history is not really to show if you had your first concussion in the NFL, it is more to show a repeated history of head injuries that were not properly handled by the NFL

 

[tru_m.a.c]

No, i Never said first concussion in the NFL and i didnt say 100%. what u just wrote is for their lawyers to argue and prove. I'm not in a position to do that. Also court cases are built on evidence and facts, not assumptions.

IMO, first concussion doesn't mean as much because there is still the issue that the NFL failed to-

Which goes make to original question. Is the only reason the NFL is being sued, because they "employed" the players. If not, show the proof of pee wee football leagues NOT failing to inform them of the dangers of concussions. Show me the proof of their individual colleges NOT informing them of the dangers of concussions.

I find it disingenuous for players like Portis and Culpepper, to ONLY sue the NFL over failure to inform players of the dangers of concussion in football, when NO football entity EVER informed them.

 

[Amare's Right Hook]

So, in other words, too many fat white girls to support.

 

[NelsonSwagdela]

At people saying which players should and shouldn't sue. Who the fukk knows what went on behind the scenes. You guys are so delusional you think cause you had ESPN ticker you know exactly what injuries they experienced and how the situation went down? Who are we to say that a certain player shouldn't sue? We know how Grimy coaches and owners can be. I have seen high school coaches threaten people, who had concussions, to get back in the game. What makes you think these pro coaches aren't doing the same? Yes they are grown men who are athletes, doesn't mean people can't take advantage of their situation, especially with all of the non guaranteed money.

 

[LeflaurLeflahEshkoshka]

Which goes make to original question. Is the only reason the NFL is being sued, because they "employed" the players. If not, show the proof of pee wee football leagues NOT failing to inform them of the dangers of concussions. Show me the proof of their individual colleges NOT informing them of the dangers of concussions.

I find it disingenuous for players like Portis and Culpepper, to ONLY sue the NFL over failure to inform players of the dangers of concussion in football, when NO football entity EVER informed them.

No it's because they can sue whoever they want. "Employed" doesn't matter. They could sue all of them if they wish to. Portis and Culpepper could also be part of the NCCA lawsuit for all we know. It's not disingenuous - It comes down to proving their case, and the ex players feel that they have the best shot against the NFL. NFL is a billion dollar industry so if your are a former NFL player of course you are going to sue them rather than NCAA shyt they could go ahead and sue both.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

No it's because they can sue whoever they want. "Employed" doesn't matter. They could sue all of them if they wish to....

I think you've proved my point

Portis and Culpepper could also be part of the NCCA lawsuit for all we know..

I think we both know the answer to this

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

CP still got his money. Jim McMahon made a rack of money after football and he joined the lawsuit too.

Yeah but McMahon is like half-retarded now...I'd be suing too.