DMN: Bob Lilly, Randy White among Cowboys greats listed on concussion lawsuit

[WoodysGirl]

By

SportsDayDFW sports
websports@dallasnews.com (websports@dallasnews.com)| Bio (http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/authors.html#SportsDayDFW sports)
5:03 PM on Tue., Apr. 24, 2012 | Permalink (http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/04/bob-lilly-randy-white-among-co.html)



HOUSTON -- The NFL has been sued by 28 former players in federal court in Houston, accused of covering a known link between concussions and permanent brain injuries.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday on behalf NFL Hall of Famers Randy White, Bob Lilly and Rayfield Wright and other former Cowboys and NFL stars are among the plaintiffs

Read more: http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/04/bob-lilly-randy-white-among-co.html

[muck4doo]

Is this a seperate suit from the one Dorsett is involved with?

[The30YardSlant]

I've long maintained my stance against NFL players who signed contracts to play a contact sport and then sued the league years after the fact, and I feel I would be nothing if not a hypocrite for not sticking to that stance even in light of this:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UC22EO0.htm

A group of former Dallas Cowboys including Hall of Famers Randy White, Bob Lilly and Rayfield Wright joined with other retired NFL players to file the latest concussion-related lawsuit against the NFL.

It is really unfortunate to see, but I do not nor will I ever accept the "the NFL did nothing to protect us and didnt inform us of the risks" argument. You willingly signed contracts to play a dangerous game for a living and the NFL paid you for that willingness. You don't get to come back decades later and cry foul because you suffered long-term physical problems derived from the hazards YOU accepted when you took the job. The NFL divulged as much about concussions as they knew and should not be liable simply because they, nor anyone else mind you, fully understood the long-term risks back then.

[Smashin222]

I've long maintained my stance against NFL players who signed contracts to play a contact sport and then sued the league years after the fact, and I feel I would be nothing if not a hypocrite for not sticking to that stance even in light of this:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UC22EO0.htm



It is really unfortunate to see, but I do not nor will I ever accept the "the NFL did nothing to protect us and didnt inform us of the risks" argument. You willingly signed contracts to play a dangerous game for a living and the NFL paid you for that willingness. You don't get to come back decades later and cry foul because you suffered long-term physical problems derived from the hazards YOU accepted when you took the job. The NFL divulged as much about concussions as they knew and should not be liable simply because they, nor anyone else mind you, fully understood the long-term risks back then.

your argument is conclusory: if they have evidence indicating the NFL knew and withheld that information, then they will win a tort suit. If the NFL was negligent and should have known, then they as an employer are liable.

your logic seems to indicate workers can never sue their employers when they work in jobs that have inherent risks, no matter how negligent their employers were, because those risks existed. That theory is known as contributory negligence and is largely discredited.

Certainly they assumed SOME risk. the lawsuit is to determine if they assumed all of the risks or if they could reasonably rely on the NFL to take sufficient actions to reasonably protect their health.

I don't think that's crazy or dishonorable. Who do you think was in the best position to know the long term health consequences of participating in football? The teams or the players?

Your argument is conclusory because you assume that the players should have known. If that is true, they will lose the lawsuit.......why that means they shouldn't bring it in the first place is beyond me

[The30YardSlant]

your argument is conclusory: if they have evidence indicating the NFL knew and withheld that information, then they will win a tort suit. If the NFL was negligent and should have known, then they as an employer are liable.

My argument in conclusory because it's a fact, valid long-term studies on the lasting effects of multiple concussions werent published until the mid-90s. It's just a medical fact, nobody knew that much about concussions in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Even now the study of concussions is still in it's adolescence. If the best doctors in the world only NOW have a somewhat decent grasp of them, you can't expect me to believe the NFL did 30-40 years ago.

your logic seems to indicate workers can never sue their employers when they work in jobs that have inherent risks, no matter how negligent their employers were, because those risks existed. That theory is known as contributory negligence and is largely discredited.

Not never, only when the inherent risks are independent of company wrong doing. Players will always suffer concussions no matter how ser"safe" the euipment becomes, and because NOBODY knew the extent of the risk multiple concussions posed it isnt acceptable to hold them anymore accountable than the players who chose to continue playing.

Your argument is conclusory because you assume that the players should have known. If that is true, they will lose the lawsuit.......why that means they shouldn't bring it in the first place is beyond me

It isnt that the players should have know, it's that they knew as much as the NFL did...which wasnt much. You can't hold the NFL liable for long-lasting effects that literally not a soul on the planet understood at the time.

[burmafrd]

for a long time it was known that boxers could be rendered what was called punch drunk but meant brain damaged.

BUT it was thought that the helmets used by the football players gave adequate protection.

It is really only in the last 15 years or so that doctors have started questioning that.

So how in the world was the NFL supposed to know better before the doctors?