That's gay. No wonder you're a lib.
Shakespeare is for fags...just ask your boyfriend.
toldailytopic: Are pro sports organizations liable for the longterm injuries that the
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
That's gay. No wonder you're a lib.
Shakespeare is for fags...just ask your boyfriend.
wholearmor
Member
I liken this subject to NHRA Top Fuel and Funny Car racing. In the NFL, very athletic, large men collide at a high rate of human speed. People are obviously going to be severely injured. In the NHRA, 8,000 horsepower vehicles burning nitro methane fuel travel the 1/4 mile in 4.5 seconds at 330 MPH. People are obviously going to die. I don't agree with the NFL having to compensate injured players and I don't agree with the NHRA shortening the race from 1320 feet to 1000 feet for the fuelers.
And I also don't believe the NHRA should compensate anyone who is injured or killed while racing.
And I also don't believe the NHRA should compensate anyone who is injured or killed while racing.
Last edited:
That's amazing!
They all know the risks.
Former NFL players often have no other source of income so they are milking the system as per coaching from the Player's Union and money-grubbing liberal lawyers.
Plus, Roger Goodell is a fag.
So, here's how this works. The player signs a contract with the team, which includes a liability waiver, in which they acknowledge that football is a contact sport, and that they are participating of their own choice, and that they are responsible for injuries that they incur in the process of playing that game. In exchange, the team pays them salaries ranging from comfortable to obscene. The player plays, and the team pays, and by contract that's fair and square, up to and including injuries caused in playing the game.
The waiver doesn't cover misconduct and liabilities beyond playing the game. If the team fails to prudently honor medical advice, for instance, there is a possible liability, not because of the injury itself, but because of what happens after. Or, perhaps the team, which has responsibilities toward their players to protect their safety, fails to take reasonable measures. They could be liable for malfeasance. Or, suppose a team decides that instead of playing their game, they will simply attempt to injure as many opponents as possible in exchange for bounties. They might be liable to both lawsuits and criminal assault charges.
No one should sign, and few courts would endorse, a contract that allows an employer carte blanche, especially when it comes to negligence, malfeasance, and criminal acts. The players may be less sympathetic because many of them are very wealthy, but then so are the teams. And shouldn't conservatives all agree that the wealthy are as entitled to justice as anyone else?
None of which is at all relevant to liability. And if the courts do not enforce reasonable standards of conduct, it will encourage a race to the bottom of conduct that will ultimately harm all sports.
If all that the players sue for is getting injured playing sports for pay covered by a waiver, I suspect the suits will not get far. As it should be.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
I think you are fairly out of touch with what conservatives love.
They probably will be held responsible for the same reason many workers collect for asbestos related injuries.
Barbarian laughs:
You'd wet your pants if you face to face with what it's really like.
Billie's out of the closet. Why is no one surprised?
I replaced the part you deleted.
Barbarian chuckles:
And then he'd be smarter than you. Probably already is.
Which is why you're teaching it to your dog, um?
You'd wet your pants if you face to face with what it's really like.
Billie's out of the closet. Why is no one surprised?
I replaced the part you deleted.
Barbarian chuckles:
And then he'd be smarter than you. Probably already is.
Which is why you're teaching it to your dog, um?
I did love some things he did. I detested others. In fact, I can say they exact same thing about the current president, though I can think of far fewer things on the plus side.
As well they should. I love football but the fact that some people are more concerned about losing their sport as opposed to alleviating suffering is...well, it's pretty jaw-dropping.
Says TOL's very own race-baiting hick.:loser:
Why don't you get back to threatening to shoot people, like in the old days? That's what you were really good at. Being a big old Internet tough guy.:yawn:
I think to be held liable the players would have to show that the NFL knowingly didn't take extra precautions. During the time when some of these players were in the game, we didn't realize the effects that constant blows to the head can cause. So it seems unfair to put this on the league now. However, going forward, with more and more knowledge, the league will need to take more responsibility and I can see more reasonable lawsuits.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned so I apologize if I'm repeating....Kurt Warner has been getting some blowback for his comments about his kids playing football but I agree with him. I don't think I'd want my children playing in the NFL with the potential longterm mental harm.
does this mean the price of beer will go up?
I'm not shocked at all. I think it's just a parent being concerned about his children playing a game that could cause brain damage.
:up:
The NFL (and the NHL) are in a tough spot. Can they get to the spot where they are preventing these types of injuries without changing the game so much that it ceases to be football and hockey? Not an easy problem.
I'm sure he already knows.
Topic:
The other problem is that players often don't report concussions because they don't wanna get pulled from the game. Hines Ward had a concussion last season but pretended it was his ankle that got hurt, for example.
Does anyone think that networks like ESPN should stop glamorizing big hits?
I'm not sure if ESPN still has it but they used to have a segment called "Jacked Up" where they would show that week's hardest hits. I'm sure defensive players loved to get a highlight in it. Should networks start emphasizing those types of things less?
I'm not sure if ESPN still has it but they used to have a segment called "Jacked Up" where they would show that week's hardest hits. I'm sure defensive players loved to get a highlight in it. Should networks start emphasizing those types of things less?
I hope not. It's already 7 bucks a beer at the Titan's LP Field.
Nooooo! :shocked:
What? And ruin all the fun?
Seriously??
Players like to make big hits and fans like to see it.
My guess is that you didn't play contact sports, am I right? That;s the only reason I can imagine that you would make such a statement. It wouldn't matter if you were on camera or not players are still going to try to make the "big hit". Why? Because it's fun and that's part of the game.
Oh, I can think of another reason... [K-mo recently came out of the closet].