Art Monk vs. NFL

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

Yeah this is the key point for me. The only way the players have a case in my mind is if they can show that the NFL knew concussions were dangerous at the time and didn't do enough to prevent them.

We know more today about them, that doesn't mean the NFL knew about it back then and hid it.

I think the players are just using this as leverage to get the NFL to settle on better benefits for retired players.

[CrustyRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah this is the key point for me. The only way the players have a case in my mind is if they can show that the NFL knew concussions were dangerous at the time and didn't do enough to prevent them.

We know more today about them, that doesn't mean the NFL knew about it back then and hid it.

I think the players are just using this as leverage to get the NFL to settle on better benefits for retired players.

I agree but how in the heck could you prove that, talk about a witch hunt. But im sure Godell could find somebody to finger!!

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah this is the key point for me. The only way the players have a case in my mind is if they can show that the NFL knew concussions were dangerous at the time and didn't do enough to prevent them.

We know more today about them, that doesn't mean the NFL knew about it back then and hid it.

I think the players are just using this as leverage to get the NFL to settle on better benefits for retired players.

short of a smoking gun, they really don't have much of a chance at this... unless they get in front of a jury. I have zero faith in the average citizen to be able to decide a case based on its merits and not emotional attachment.