Sad story about Tony Doresett, bitter old players

**wxwax** · 02-02-2012, 12:17 PM

This is a long story from the AP about the retired players' lawsuit against the NFL and helmet-maker Riddell.

They wrote it because Tony Dorsett spoke to them about his medical issues, which include loss of blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Sadly, he seems certain to lose cognitive function as he ages.

But the larger theme of the story is the anger former players feel about the NFL using them up and spitting them out.

I feel guilty about enjoying the NFL because I know these guys are destroying their bodies. This AP story lays it out there.

At a minimum I do think a league as rich as the NFL ought to find a way to ensure that these guys have medical insurance to help them deal with their painfully deteriorating bodies.

**vancemeek** · 02-02-2012, 09:48 PM

But then we all complain when the NFL tries to put rules into place to help with the problem. I recall the words pansification and flag football thrown around.

**SpartaChris** · 02-02-2012, 09:58 PM

One of the proposals in the CBA that the players walked away from was lifetime health insurance coverage.

As for feeling guilty, I don't. As Mike Florio likes to point out, if you ask any one of these players if they would choose to play or sit out knowing they had a concussion, they would choose to play. Many of them know full well the risks they're taking and they choose to play anyway.

**packa7x** · 02-02-2012, 10:16 PM

The last thing I'd feel is guilt over this. I feel tons of sympathy for these guys. I don't wish cognitive problems on anyone. At the same time, these are grown men making decisions about their lives. There's an inherent risk involved in football. Nobody walks away unharmed if you play for anything longer than a couple years. It may be something minor like some joint pain. It may be serious like Dorsett where he lost blood flow to parts of his brain. These guys are compensated for the risk and accepted this outcome as a possibility when they suited up.

**vancemeek** · 02-02-2012, 10:28 PM

I get that, but these guys are turning around and suing the league, therefore the league has to react by trying to prevent these injuries. You can say, they know what they're signing up for, and they do, but it's not that simple, because they're taking legal action because of it.

**mikesteelnation1** · 02-03-2012, 12:40 AM

I feel for the older guys. They were in the dark about the big picture. However the current guys, make me cringe. So many still insist on the old school helmet. Even when it doesn't offer the most protection, many don't switch until after they have had multiple issues, Ben didn't until he did. All for vanity and comfort. The current guys choose vanity and comfort in a helmet and most would still return to the game knowing they have a concussion. If they don't care, why the hell should i?

**GoBigOrGoHome** · 02-03-2012, 12:56 AM

Would really like to hear some open discourse from our Pros on the subject of concussion information availability when they played ball. I imagine it was non-existent at best and misleading at worst.

I have zero issues with guys who played prior to say, 2000 or so, pursuing legal action against the league if they truly believe they were mislead by team doctors, teams and the league as to the seriousness of head trauma in football.

**packa7x** · 02-03-2012, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by vancemeek

I get that, but these guys are turning around and suing the league, therefore the league has to react by trying to prevent these injuries. You can say, they know what they're signing up for, and they do, but it's not that simple, because they're taking legal action because of it.

It is that simple though. The league is not obligated to change its rules because of the lawsuit. That's more PR than anything. They may be covering their tracks for a safe work environment lawsuit, but I think the NFL would win that lawsuit. The inherent violence of the game prohibits complete eradication of helmet to helmet hits. Intentional helmet to helmet shots have been illegal for ages. Independent neurologists are to prevent team bias when examining players as well as preventing the player from returning before he's ready. What these guys would be suing under is that they weren't informed of the risks of concussions and thus could not make an educated decision as to whether or not to play football. The issue is, "did they really know what they're signing up for?" It's a case that has merit provided they can prove that the NFL withheld info from them. This case is about assumption of risk which is essentially knowing what you're signing up for in legal terms. They'll likely win in civil court and Id agree with that ruling. I just don't feel guilty for a grown man making a ton of money to play ball and winding up with brain damage because I'm a consumer so I indirectly contributed to it. It's an important distinction. I'm not completely heartless

**packa7x** · 02-03-2012, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by GoBigOrGoHome

Would really like to hear some open discourse from our Pros on the subject of concussion information availability when they played ball. I imagine it was non-existent at best and misleading at worst.

I have zero issues with guys who played prior to say, 2000 or so, pursuing legal action against the league if they truly believe they were mislead by team doctors, teams and the league as to the seriousness of head trauma in football.

Under Tagliabue it was obvious that they were actively hiding concussions. But yes, I second hearing from the pros on pre-tagliabue concussion policy.

**mikesteelnation1** · 02-03-2012, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by packa7x

Under Tagliabue it was obvious that they were actively hiding concussions. But yes, I second hearing from the pros on pre-tagliabue concussion policy.

Even that is kind of muddy to me. The current guys mostly favor the least protective helmet, and mostly say they would return after knowing they had a concussion. Todays guys know the risks and still don't seem to care....