NHL sued by ex-players over concussion issues.

[flyercanuck]

As much as I wouldn't want the Flyers medical staff coming anywhere near me, Lindros did end up getting a 2nd opinion from a doctor of his choice and decided to keep on playing. And I'd bet moost players would make the same decision. They love the game and aren't going to get paid what they do in the real world (speaking only of players over the last few decades.

 

 Oh and Rick Vaive has since asked that his name be taken off this list.

[B21]

<< Well, sharing responsibility doesn't mean the league can't be held accountable for individual cases or collective cases in the past. I mean, we share responsibility with the automaker when driving their vehicles, but they can still be found liable for something in individual cases, just like the driver can be held liable in some cases. >>

 

I get what you are saying but when the players are guilty of contributory negligence, how can they lay the blame solely at the feet of the NHL?  It's like a wayward kid blaming their parents for not being strict enough with them as a child.  I think it's a safe assumption that most of the players in this suit chose to continue playing knowing that their may be some risk (there's the "passing knowledge" again).

 

<< Absolutely. I guess I wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that, yeah, he absolutely should have known better. But he's got the 'warrior' mentality... which is noble if someone's life is in danger. But this is hockey. There's a fine line between being a warrior in hockey and taking stupid risks with your health. >>

 

So doesn't that mean at least part of the responsibility falls to the player?  Take it a step further in this situation - does Lappy have that warrior mentality because he doesn't want to disappoint the NHL? Or is it about not disappointing teammates?  Here, I'm trying the place the blame for that warrior mentality culture with both the players and the league.

<< Let's say Lappy has symptoms for the rest of his life, and sues the league. I think the league would have a strong case in saying that he willingly put himself in harm's way when the dangers were well-documented, and the league had put measures in place, etc. Modern-day cases won't fly as much as those from the previous hockey era. >>

We agree here but that's a two way street. Players and medical staff knew less 15+ years ago.

 

<< Sure. And maybe this is a case where a regulatory body could be held responsible for not protecting consumers enough (CFIA in Canada, not sure what your food inspection agency is in the US).

At the end of the day, yes, the player and the consumer need to accept the majority of the risk. They are the ones making the decisions of their own free will to buy certain foods, engage in certain activities, etc.

But what we're talking about here is a more narrow area where the employer would be aware of certain risk factors and then not act on it (i.e. remove fighting) because financial interests trump player security. >>

 

I look at it this way.  The regulatory body here is the NHL.  To a certain extent, player safety is the NHL's responsibility as far as the present on-ice product.  But the long term effects of concussions? I cannot see that as anything more than a risk the players know they are taking when the lace them up. Maybe it happens to them. Maybe not. But they all know/knew it could happen and all chose to play in the NHL.  I don't fault them for that - I do fault them for thinking the league should have known.

 

Also - why now?  It's not like this issue is relatively new...even in the NHL.  You have to admit the timing (i.e. - shortly after the NFL players reach a settlement) is suspect.
 

[brelic]

I get what you are saying but when the players are guilty of contributory negligence, how can they lay the blame solely at the feet of the NHL? 

 

They're not laying the blame solely at the feet of the NHL. They're saying we assumed some risks, you ruled the league a certain way to remove some risk, but with respect to this particular group of players, they feel that the league didn't do enough in screening and prevention of these injuries.

 

So doesn't that mean at least part of the responsibility falls to the player?  Take it a step further in this situation - does Lappy have that warrior mentality because he doesn't want to disappoint the NHL? Or is it about not disappointing teammates?  Here, I'm trying the place the blame for that warrior mentality culture with both the players and the league.

 

I think the 'warrior' culture precedes the NHL. It's bred into players from a very young age. So in that respect, I think the culture comes from the players and is mirrored by the league. But the league is definitely changing and trying to remove some of it.

 

I don't fault them for that - I do fault them for thinking the league should have known.

 

They're not arguing that the league *should* have known, but that they *did* know (earlier and in more detail than the players did) and did not take proactive measures to protect its players.

 

Also - why now?  It's not like this issue is relatively new...even in the NHL.  You have to admit the timing (i.e. - shortly after the NFL players reach a settlement) is suspect.

 

I figure the timing is precisely because of the NFL suit. That's the way case law works... once a precedent has been set, it's open season. I'm sure former players know that a high profile NFL suit has much more chance at success than an NHL one, and just waited for the right time.

 

I mean, the class action hasn't even been certified yet, and might not be. So it's still very early.

[blocker]

My take on it is to use the lawsuit as a pointer toward positive, doable actions.   Remove stanchions, build flexibility into the boards, weed out  the incompetent medical staffs,  and remove the goddam gates.

 

As we all know, in all sports, there is a lot of anxiety and discussion  about concussions.   This would be a great time for the NHL to finance a study on head trauma.  It should do some good and would produce good publicity for hockey.

[B21]

@brelic
 

<< They're not laying the blame solely at the feet of the NHL. They're saying we assumed some risks, you ruled the league a certain way to remove some risk, but with respect to this particular group of players, they feel that the league didn't do enough in screening and prevention of these injuries. >>

 

I see the point there. The players assumed some risk (i.e. - I know I, as an NHL player, may suffer multiple concussions...) but feel the league fell short (i.e. - you, the NHL, knew the effects of multiple concussions and allowed me to keep playing...).  I just can't help but wonder how much pushback there would have been from players 15+ years ago if the NHL took the same steps then that they are taking (or at least discussing) now.

 

<< They're not arguing that the league *should* have known, but that they *did* know (earlier and in more detail than the players did) and did not take proactive measures to protect its players. >>

 

My bad. I keep using "should" instead of "did". Doesn't really change my stance though.

 

<< I think the 'warrior' culture precedes the NHL. It's bred into players from a very young age. So in that respect, I think the culture comes from the players and is mirrored by the league. But the league is definitely changing and trying to remove some of it. >>

 

True but in this suit the players are also arguing that the league created a "culture of violence" through its refusal to ban fighting and body-checking and by employing “enforcers” whose main job it is to fight.  That says a lot about the thought process of those involved in this suit.  You said yourself - it's the players who created that culture.

 

http://nhl.si.com/2013/11/25/nhl-concussion-lawsuit-gary-leeman-head-injuries/

 

It's a good read.

 

It doesn’t take an advanced medical degree to understand that a shot to the head is bad for you and repeated blows are probably worse. But the hard science that would support the players’ grievance is still emerging, and any conclusions that draw a direct line from an incident of head trauma to long-term, debilitating repercussions are still up for debate. This much, though, is clear: in the years since that science began to build its case, the league has been at the forefront of efforts to understand it and protect its players.

 

In 1997, the NHL was the first league to create a concussion working group in conjunction with the NHLPA, team trainers and doctors focused on addressing the issue.

 

It was the first to create baseline testing to quickly diagnose incidents of concussion.

 

It was the first to create a “quiet room” to properly assess a player’s condition with the “Modified SCAT 2″ test after an incident of violent head contact.

 

It was the first to assess suspensions for hits where the primary point of contact is the head.

 

On top of these efforts, the league has an even more intriguing card to play. It has established itself, time and again, as the entity most interested in safety, often battling the objections of the very players it’s trying to protect from harm.

 

The players routinely stand for comfort and tradition over safety. They fought the league on the introduction of mandatory helmet usage back in 1979. They obstructed efforts to make the use of visors mandatory before finally agreeing to grandfather them in earlier this year.

 

And it is the players who have repeatedly stated their support of fighting as an integral element of the game. Not that the NHL has moved directly to address it, but if there is a “culture of violence” in hockey, the players have been, and continue to be, complicit in its maintenance.

 

I'm sure the players involved in the suit are aware of at least some of the above steps as well their own efforts to prevent those from being implemented. That seems very hypocritical to me then to now sue the same NHL for "knowing and not doing enough".

 

Just my $.02.

[yave1964]

Kind of under the radar but the NHL had a lawsuit filed by former players, similar to the NFL players lawsuit against the league.

The NFL is working out the details of a lawsuit where the league will provide just under one billion dollars to 5,000 players named in the suit. 934 million bucks to be exact. Now the NHL players are joining in the act.

The lawsuit, titled Lacouture VS the NHL after former NHLer Dan Lacouture who is one of nine players named in the suit. The players are hoping oe and more former players will join in the suit.

“We are completely satisfied with our record on player safety, including as it relates to head injuries and brain trauma,” NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said today in a statement. “We do not believe the new complaint provides any valid basis for liability or damages as against the National Hockey League and we intend to defend the case and others that may follow it vigorously.”

The NHL has failed to warn players against the risks of head trauma and hid or ignored scientific evidence dating back to the 1920s about repeated head blows in sports, according to a complaint filed yesterday in Manhattan federal court.

IMHO I think this is a bunch of BS, if you play hockey and do not know that it is a violent sport than you must be a European winger going up and down the ice not getting touched (channeling my inner Don Cherry, lol) or a complete idiot. It is a violent fast sport and the hitting is a large part of it and injuries are a part of the game. They are well compensated for the risk and this feels like a bunch of BS.

[Samifan]

think the Lindros boys will end up involved in this?

Edited May 10, 2014 by Samifan

[Polaris922]

And this is the difference between the McSorley / Bertuzzi type incidents and playing the game. Played within the rules a player knows the risk, and would have to be a moron not to. Fast, violent, and things happen. This lawsuit is frivolous in my eyes, where lawsuits against individuals stepping over the lines of acceptable conduct are a valuable tool in preventing it.

[peter puck]

Will this open the way for lower level teams,schools being sued? After all little Joey very well could have gotten his first concussion when he was 12.

Could anyone with children in youth hockey lend some insight on concussion protocol ?

[J0e Th0rnton]

Oh good grief.

[Polaris922]

Will this open the way for lower level teams,schools being sued? After all little Joey very well could have gotten his first concussion when he was 12.

Could anyone with children in youth hockey lend some insight on concussion protocol ?

 

 

There is only one rule...  any symptom or sign of a head injury and the player sits for two weeks AND clearance by a medical professional to play.  A doctor clears you the day after the hit, you still wait two weeks.  Two weeks go by and doctor doesn't sign a release?  NO play for you.  That's how USA Hockey wants it anyway... so that's what we do where I coach in Pittsburgh.  

[hf101]

On 5/11/2014 at 2:29 PM, Polaris922 said:

 

 

There is only one rule...  any symptom or sign of a head injury and the player sits for two weeks AND clearance by a medical professional to play.  A doctor clears you the day after the hit, you still wait two weeks.  Two weeks go by and doctor doesn't sign a release?  NO play for you.  That's how USA Hockey wants it anyway... so that's what we do where I coach in Pittsburgh.  

 

 

 

How about this one the team doctors telling a different story to Mike Peluso to get back out there to play a  day after he was hospitalized with a concussion.  http://kstp.com/news/fighting-back-former-nhl-player-mike-peluso-minnesota-iron-range-medical-records-reportedly-concealed/4471447/

 

Mike Peluso, a longtime NHL enforcer and Stanley Cup champion, accuses the New Jersey Devils and the St. Louis Blues of hiding a neurology report for decades.

"I shouldn't have ever touched the ice again after that medical report,” Peluso said in a recent interview with 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS. “I just can't believe they wouldn't share that document with me. ... It could have saved me a lifetime of grand mal seizures."

 

Brutal.