PDA

View Full Version : NFL Playing Shell Game with Recent Health Studies (by LLT - May 9, 2012)



fansince'76
05-09-2012, 09:34 PM
The growing controversy over NFL concussions and their subsequent lifelong effects has split the NFL fanbase into two camps. While some seem to feel that the attention to these injuries is long overdue, others see it as just another means for overpaid athletes to cash in after their retirement with lawsuits against the league.

Granted, it isn't easy for the average fan to sit by quietly and watch men, who received millions of dollars throughout their career, sue for even more money. The general mindset is that they entered into an agreement to play a violent game in return for high dividends. I mean, no one held a gun to their head, right?

The other camp seems more pragmatic in their assessment. They believe that, regardless of any foreknowledge as to the violence and possible injury that may occur, the NFL has an obligation to provide a post-career healthcare platform for any player that was forced into retirement because of injury, or to any player who suffers after retirement due to injuries obtained while playing.

Without going into the ethics and responsibilities of the parties involved, there is one thing that we should all be aware of.

There is a concentrated misinformation campaign being generated by the NFL machine to put themselves in the best possible light within the court of public opinion. They maintain a caring, hanky wringing, tearful concern over "hard hits" and the concussions that might result from those collisions, but their actions outside of carefully worded speeches and rehearsed press conferences reveal the hypocrisy of the Goodell regime.

The same league that has fined players exorbitant amounts of money for playing the game the way that it's been played for over 80 years still refuses to mandate the safer helmets that are readily available on the market. The same league that is changing the game into a powder-puff version of its former self to eliminate concussions is still denying health benefits to players forced out of the game due to, that's right, concussions.

The latest attempt to steer public opinion is a study, released by the NFL after the suicide death of Junior Seau, which shows that NFL players tend to live longer than men in the general population. Really? Men who have team-assigned dieticians and weight trainers, men who don't deal with the daily strife and stress of struggling to pay bills and meet a mortgage, men who are able to get away on relaxing exotic vacations, tend to live longer than the rest of us? Color me surprised.

The study has less to do with whether these men actually suffered debilitating injuries that haunt them into old age and/or send them into depression than it has to do with the mandated healthy lifestyle of the professional athlete. This is little more than a preemptive strike by the NFL to minimize any findings in the Junior Seau suicide. Think about that; regardless of the findings, before the body is even cold, the NFL is already setting the stage to show that they are in no way responsible. Damn the facts, this is about public perception, right?

Goodell is once again showing a propensity to put on his media face and attempt to convince the masses that he is taking the NFL into a brave new world, while actually playing the puppet for those owners who don't want to fairly discuss who is responsible for concussion-related prevention and post-playing career healthcare.

Regardless of what side we take regarding who is responsible for post-NFL injuries, we should all be able to agree that Goodell's shell games need to stop so that the real issues can be addressed.


2012 Steelers Universe

Count Steeler
05-09-2012, 09:45 PM
Great article LLT.

From Ben's recent interview with Dan Patrick:

Dan asked Roethlisberger if he worries because of his style of play. ”When I’m out playing,” Roethlisberger said. “I don’t think about it. I only know one way of playing, and that’s all out.” Roethlisberger said that he’s suffered less head injuries since he switched to a new helmet.

I for one don't understand why the NFL hasn't "encouraged" players to go to a safer helmet. I also don't understand the protection of only certain position players. The Lineman, the RBs and the LBs don't rate protection, I guess. Can't understand the logic.

LLT
05-10-2012, 10:44 AM
Great article LLT.

From Ben's recent interview with Dan Patrick:

Dan asked Roethlisberger if he worries because of his style of play. When Im out playing, Roethlisberger said. I dont think about it. I only know one way of playing, and thats all out. Roethlisberger said that hes suffered less head injuries since he switched to a new helmet.

I for one don't understand why the NFL hasn't "encouraged" players to go to a safer helmet. I also don't understand the protection of only certain position players. The Lineman, the RBs and the LBs don't rate protection, I guess. Can't understand the logic.


Here is a portion of an article in which Aaron Rogers pretty much said the same thing....very interesting as to the NFL's response when they were asked to identify the safer helmets make and model.


During the regular season, Rodgers suffered two concussions. When he returned to the field late in the year, Rodgers said he had switched to a helmet that reduces concussion risk. But he wouldn't be specific, leaving college and high school coaches and players in the dark. A month ago, Tuesday Morning Quarterback asked the Packers to reveal the type of helmet on Rodgers' head, and a Packers spokesman said the team would not.



After the NFC title game, Rodgers told Peter King of NBC he thought his new helmet prevented the vicious hit by Peppers -- whom the league fined $10,000 for unnecessary roughness -- from causing another concussion. "As much as the new helmet feels uncomfortable and I'm still getting used to it, I'm really happy I was wearing it on that hit,'' Rodgers said to King. But King's report did not include the critical item of information that all other football players, and the parents of young players, need -- namely, what kind of helmet.

So I asked the Packers again. Jeff Blumb, the team's director of public relations, told me, "I did check again on your behalf, and that's still not information we're comfortable sharing outside of our building.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/110201_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
"

Count Steeler
05-10-2012, 11:04 AM
Perhaps not on the acceptable (read sponsors) list of NFL mandated suppliers. I guess a select few are allowed to wear them but they can't speak about them.

Wouldn't that be something. That in the interest of protecting their sponsors, they put their players at risk. Yeah, sounds about right for Goodell. "Good of the game". Yeah right.

Hindes204
05-10-2012, 11:32 AM
Perhaps not on the acceptable (read sponsors) list of NFL mandated suppliers. I guess a select few are allowed to wear them but they can't speak about them.

Wouldn't that be something. That in the interest of protecting their sponsors, they put their players at risk. Yeah, sounds about right for Goodell. "Good of the game". Yeah right.

Helmets are different though, players are free to wear any helmet they want so long as the brand is not visible on the field. Its pretty irresponsible for the Packers not to release this information. Safety issues should not be allowed to be hidden.

Godfather
05-10-2012, 11:34 AM
Perhaps not on the acceptable (read sponsors) list of NFL mandated suppliers. I guess a select few are allowed to wear them but they can't speak about them.

Wouldn't that be something. That in the interest of protecting their sponsors, they put their players at risk. Yeah, sounds about right for Goodell. "Good of the game". Yeah right.

What's the fee to become an NFL-approved equipment vendor? It can't be that high, so maybe some of the players who like that helmet can pay the fee. Kind of like how MLB players who prefer Marucci bats paid the fee to make them an approved vendor.

LLT
05-10-2012, 11:43 AM
Perhaps not on the acceptable (read sponsors) list of NFL mandated suppliers. I guess a select few are allowed to wear them but they can't speak about them.

Wouldn't that be something. That in the interest of protecting their sponsors, they put their players at risk. Yeah, sounds about right for Goodell. "Good of the game". Yeah right.

The league refuses to mandate the safer helmets...citing a belief (In Roger Goodell's own words) that ..."several players who have been playing with a specific helmet since college years or even high school years and have not had any issues may feel very comfortable in their helmet, and if we tell them they have to wear a different helmet, that creates liability and other issues."

Im not an attorney but I do know that is not how most Tort Laws are written. Most liability is based on the belief that if you act in an informed and responsible manner, in which you believe that the least amount of harm can be done, while still advising that harm is always a possibility...then you are pretty safe from being sued.

Goodell's unwillingness to mandate the helmets shows that the league is more concerened with self preservation and public image than they are about player safety.

LLT
05-10-2012, 12:02 PM
Helmets are different though, players are free to wear any helmet they want so long as the brand is not visible on the field. Its pretty irresponsible for the Packers not to release this information. Safety issues should not be allowed to be hidden.

And I would add that they can wear any helmet they want at the expense of the team...not out of their own pocket. A mandate of the more expensive and safer helmets Would involve upwards of a 100-150% increase in cost to the team owners.

Hmmmmmmmmm?

Count Steeler
05-10-2012, 12:55 PM
Surely, LLT, you can not be suggesting that profits come before the safety of the players? :sarcasm:

(Sorry for calling you surely.)

Devilsdancefloor
05-10-2012, 05:06 PM
double sided mouth piece would help a lot as well. Kommish isnt going to do anything and the sad thing is id lay money on that most of the players know as well.

LLT
05-11-2012, 12:01 PM
Surely, LLT, you can not be suggesting that profits come before the safety of the players? :sarcasm:

(Sorry for calling you surely.)


LOL!

The mere fact that the leagues safety policies are being regulated through the media and not through a true program that would educate the players as to the alternatives and possibilities....says a great deal about where the leagues heart is at with this subject.