Art Monk vs. NFL

or i could trust google/wiki and give a simple answer, allowing that the aforementioned sibling may add several substantial inclusions and addendums to the simple one:

But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question

Yeah getting back to the fundamentals of tackling would go a long way, and this mentality of going for the kill shot is what I think Goodell is trying to curb. Either way you'll never completely eliminate concussions, but I do think more can be done to reduce them.

LIke what? They've already moved the kickoffs up and pretty much eliminated one of the most exciting plays in football, they've gone overboard with all the head to head contact and constantly throwing the 15 yarders and fining guys, they put in the defensless wr rule, might as well put flags on the QB's... in general they really can't make it any safer than it already is.

So should you be able to sue a doctor 20 years after an operation because there's more information about the disease and they have better methods? No, it's part of the medical process. When it comes down to it, most of these guys are looking for a payday after mismanaging their money.

Football is a tough sport. It's tough on both body and mind to play -- and that's why I don't complain that they get paid a kings ransom. It is a violent sport that causes long term damage. We've known that for a long time. You can't possibly think that slamming your body into someone else at full speed hundreds or thousands of times a year isn't going to have lasting effects. We don't need modern medicine to reaffirm that.

It's too bad that so many of the old players are having issues. I have a lot more understanding for the guys that had to work another job while playing football. Who made the league on their back before the big contracts. But Art got paid a lot of money to sacrifice his body. Give them the collectively bargained health care and thank them for their service.

Please listen carefully. Your analogy is a bad one. They are not simply filing suing because there is new knowledge that wasn't available 20 years ago, they are suing because the knowledge that WAS available 20 years ago was intentionally kept from them by the NFL. They denied, right up until 2010, that there was any link at all between concussions suffered from NFL play, and the dementia and other various ailments that past veterans had suffered. They denied it because they didn't want to pay for it. The same greedy ****ers that initiated a lockout because 65 percent of the profits were not enough for them; and then played a public relations game that made that lockout look like a strike. It's people like yourself that fell for this trick, because you... you know what? I'm not going to start throwing personal insults. That isn't the direction I want this post to go. I just get frustrated when misinformation is spread by people who don't have all the facts. Not knowing all the facts is forgivable. Being aware of your lack of knowledge, and not doing anything to correct it is a crime against having a brain.

But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question

I don't know - class actions is one of those areas where a lot of special procedural rules apply that don't apply in standard litigation. I did some basic legal research and can't find the answer. I don't know any attorneys who hand class actions to call and check. I'll keep looking and, if I run across the answer, I will let you know.

LIke what? They've already moved the kickoffs up and pretty much eliminated one of the most exciting plays in football, they've gone overboard with all the head to head contact and constantly throwing the 15 yarders and fining guys, they put in the defensless wr rule, might as well put flags on the QB's... in general they really can't make it any safer than it already is.

They could get rid of kickoffs altogether.

Please listen carefully. Your analogy is a bad one. They are not simply filing suing because there is new knowledge that wasn't available 20 years ago, they are suing because the knowledge that WAS available 20 years ago was intentionally kept from them by the NFL. They denied, right up until 2010, that there was any link at all between concussions suffered from NFL play, and the dementia and other various ailments that past veterans had suffered. They denied it because they didn't want to pay for it. The same greedy ****ers that initiated a lockout because 65 percent of the profits were not enough for them; and then played a public relations game that made that lockout look like a strike. It's people like yourself that fell for this trick, because you... you know what? I'm not going to start throwing personal insults. That isn't the direction I want this post to go. I just get frustrated when misinformation is spread by people who don't have all the facts. Not knowing all the facts is forgivable. Being aware of your lack of knowledge, and not doing anything to correct it is a crime against having a brain.

It's simplistic to lay this only at the feet of the NFL, certainly players colliding at full force would not think there were no lasting effects. Proof of that is that players today are far more aware, and still choose to play the game. We haven't seen a mass exodus of players as medical facts are released to confirm the common sense facts of yesteryear. Stories of the Raiders taking all sorts of grab bag meds to first hyper strengthen and then dull the pain afterwards have existed since the 70's.

I am not relieving the past NFL of burden for any time where they specifically refused to release proven science, but I doubt that is as far reaching as you claim it is.

As for the lockout diatribe, that's ridiculous but you are welcome to relive that debate here (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/42371-8th-circuit-court-grants-stay-lockout.html?highlight=lockout).

I wonder if this guy ever had a head injury??

John Riggins, The Next Celebrity Chef | ThePostGame (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/chompions/201205/john-riggins-next-celebrity-chef)

It's simplistic to lay this only at the feet of the NFL, certainly players colliding at full force would not think there were no lasting effects. Proof of that is that players today are far more aware, and still choose to play the game. We haven't seen a mass exodus of players as medical facts are released to confirm the common sense facts of yesteryear. Stories of the Raiders taking all sorts of grab bag meds to first hyper strengthen and then dull the pain afterwards have existed since the 70's.

I am not relieving the past NFL of burden for any time where they specifically refused to release proven science, but I doubt that is as far reaching as you claim it is.

As for the lockout diatribe, that's ridiculous but you are welcome to relive that debate here (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/42371-8th-circuit-court-grants-stay-lockout.html?highlight=lockout).

I don't know how old you are, but you have to remember prior to the 21st century, there was no internet as we know it today. There was know twitter, google, and facebook. There was no 24 hour a day news. Knowledge was not at your fingertips. Players did could not simply reach out to each other and ask "are you losing your mind?". I agree, certainly that they were aware that they were playing a dangerous game, but they certainly couldn't have known the long term effects of head injuries. However, the NFL had medical records, as well as medical claims by former players. They were, at the very least, aware that there was a correlation between the concussions and the dementia. They denied this right up until a few years ago.

I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.

I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.

I wonder the same thing about some of them. I also laugh when I hear people form their generation try to tell me that everything was better back then. Because they played for the "love of the game". Now they want money.