New Twist to Seau Suicide?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from palookaski. Show palookaski's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    Interesting Post! Solutions is what is needed.

    If this litigation does go to Court, it is my belief that the NFL would be guilty on some lesser charges. There is much more to this. The NFLPA should be co-defendents. All litigants know the risks of injury, Players, Owners, NFLPA, colleges, on down.

    1) Retired players only? How many current Players in the suit?

    2) All the Collegiate Football Programs would also be found culpable if the curtain falls on the NFL alone. Who are they rooting for?

    3) THe NFLPA is as much culpable as the NFL Owners. The NFLPA did address safety in contract talks and The NFL owners complied. Many changes. This lawsuit is only a paint a picture by the numbers by the NFLPA hiding behind former players.

    4) The Players ARE the NFLPA. The former players are also.

    5) Class action? Strength in numbers,the phonies will also join up.

    6) How about former owners? Are they culpable also? Wonder what the public owners of the Packers feel about it as a jury in waiting?

    7) Is this lawsuit all about Brains? Or are feet and legs included?

    8) 17% of HS and Collegiate players already have symptoms of Brain Damage. Look it up! The players know about the risk just like pre-NFL days.

    9) NFL owners & NFLPA are guilty of not implementing an Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS) test to confirm no brain damage before the combine. Expensive but worth it. The NFLPA is guilty as well by not insisting.
     

    10) Submit to testing and live with it, only then we know the time frame -accurate - and where and when of injuries. The NFLPA should take an equal position of responsibility and culpability.

    11) Not sure what injury clauses are in place now but apparently they are currently agreeable to all sides. That to me as a juror would sway me to The

    Owners position. They were all aware!


    12) There needs to be an improved health system set in place. Solutions are what is needed. Enter/during season/exit criteria for all players. What presently constitutes 'passing the physical'?

    13) Yep, all the deep pockets (Liddell) will be called into Court to demonstrate their crash tests.......

    When a concussion occurs the brain releases an increased amount of two chemicals, glutamate and choline. Increased choline is a marker for damaged tissue and glutamate is toxic at high levels, which when allowed to remain by multiple concussion injuries to the brain and not given time to dissolve. That time limit is a variable with each injury. Glutamate will dissolve over time but choline is a permanent scar on the brain.

    Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS) which will be able to determine how severe of a concussion the person suffered from and how it has effected the brain. This test is similar to an MRI but also measures chemicals in the brain. These two chemicals do cause emotional problems. Pee in a cup, test blood and do an MSG scan before the combine/draft. I do'nt see any Two certified Neurologists disagreeing over the scan...too obvious.

    How else would the Owners & NFLPA KNOW that the draft picks do'nt already have indications of 'toxic levels of glutamate on the brain'- caused by concussions - resulting from 3-4 years of Collegiate football? If a player refuses then he is not draftable, All UDFA would also be tested.

    No!! this is not the same Glutamate like we eat from certain foods.....

    Good wishes to all and Thanks for comments and interesting reading.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? :      Since ol' Prolate has been reluctant to answer the simple questions that I put to him, I feel that it's incumbent upon myself to help him out. Here are the questions, with assumed answers from Prolate, in bold black:      1.) If the trial lawyers win, why would colleges continue a football program, and expose themselves to being sued?  RESPONSE: No. Rich universities likely won't want to risk being targeted next by the trial lawyers. Besides, if the NFL is destroyed by these lawsuits, what's the purpose for the best athletes to continue to play football? Look for them to gravitate towards basketball or baseball.        2.) Why would NFL owners continue to invest in a franchise and a league, where their profits could be ripped away by lawsuits, such as these? RESPONSE: They wouldn't. Initially, they'll likely try to pass on the costs of defending and paying off the judgments by substantially raising ticket prices, to cover the new cost of doing business. But, eventually, they'll place their money in more profitable ventures;           3.) Would you agree with me that medical knowledge about head injuries is far advanced now, from what it was 20 years ago? RESPONSE: No doubt. This makes one wonder how guys who played football in the 70s and 80s can claim that the NFL knew the dangers of concussions, yet withheld the information from players? The predominant amount of studies on the subject weren't conducted until the 90s.     4.) What is the purpose of players wearing helmets? Hasn't the league moved forward in getting better head gear? RESPONSE: The purpose of course is to protect against head injuries. The players wear helmets, knowing that the purpose of wearing them is to prevent and/or mitigate head injuries. Armed with that knowledge, obviously the players had some knowledge of the dangers and risks of head injuries.      5.) Do you believe that the retired players were completely ignorant of the risks involved in playing football? RESPONSE: No. Prolate has admitted to this in previous posts.        6.) Can you think of anything that the league should be doing now, to make the game safer? RESPONSE: No...other than providing a better pension and health care plan for the retired players, or ending the sport.             There you go, Prolate. Now, was that so hard?
    Posted by TexasPat[/QUOTE]

    It justs proves the questions were meaningless exercises. 

    Your first two about the potential end of football in college and pros--yes, possible, but the much more likely outcome is simply that measures will be taken to make the sport safer.  Businesses are sued all the time for safety violations and what happens most of the time is not that they fold, but they become safer.  Your answers are just your opinion.  They prove nothing.

    Question 3.  Advance in medical knowledge--yeah, of course.  But what the suit claims is that the NFL did too little to prevent injury given the extent of its knowledge of the dangers of concussion.  The NFL (and the players) were certainly aware there was at least some danger, no?  The suit is about whether the NFL did enough given how much it knew.   A big part of at least one of the suits also focuses on what the NFL did to alert players of the dangers after 2009 when it studied concussions and (according to the suit) tried to suppress the findings. This claim may or may not be valid--but neither you or I know--and the only way we'll know is if the suit goes forward and both parties get a chance to state their cases. 

    4.  Yeah, players wear helmets.  Part of the suit is that the league didn't enact stricter helmet requirements and stricter rules to stop hits to the head or with the head, despite the NCAA and other leagues doing so.  Again, let's see the arguments play out.

    5. No . . . and even the players aren't claiming that.  Again, just a trivial question.

    6. Sure.  It could make it against the rules for any player to return to the game after any sign of head injury at all--and it could enforce large fines for any team or player who violated the rule.  It could require that any player also sit out at least two weeks after a head injury. If necessary it could increase the size of game day rosters to ensure there are enough players to replace injured ones. That's just one idea . . . there are many others I'm sure, but really this is a matter for experts.

    You've proved absolutely nothing with your silly questions.  






     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? :      But...the players know that they are risking their health in playing pro football. They take their chances for in exchange for a shot at fame, and big money.      What's the difference between the football players and the crab fisherman shown on "The Deadliest Catch"? Both know the score going in. Those crabbers risk their lives for about 6 weeks on the treacherous Berring Sea, in order to earn big money.       Yet, is there an outcry to put an end to crab fishing? Prostate, or whatever he calls himself, and you, NYC, both claim that football fans should feel guilty, and are selfish for supporting the game. So...I guess that those of us who enjoy eating Alaskan king crab should also feel guilty and selfish for eating crab...thereby supporting the dangerous industry of crabbing in the Berring Sea...LOL!!!      Glochester fisherman surely can appreciate this, as well.        
    Posted by TexasPat[/QUOTE]

    Tex

    We all agree that risk is inherant in many jobs. 

    The issue is did owners hide information from players and did they not do what they could to mitigate risks? Did they deceive players into believing their was little risk when there was really large risk? That's really what it comes down to: Deception vs. Honesty, Self Serving Greed vs. Concern for the welfare of All. 

    The issue for many of us is that we have encountered great risks but have not gotten the huge rewards that players can potentially get. We dream of getting the rewards they get. So, knowing someone who lost a son in the military in Afganistan earning a pittance compared to what players get arouses anger. People feel like they are forced to take sh*t while others have it easy. All I can say is there is great unfairness in life and I admire those who are willing to work to make it a fair place for all.

    Peace-Out!

     

Share