• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Son of a Wing

10 former players sue NHL for concussions

Rate this topic

85 posts in this topic

But man - them paper cuts...OUCH!

On a serious note - not really surprised by the lawsuit filed...Not sure where I stand; part of me sorta feels sorry for the guys that had multiple concussions, and may have lingering issues, but on the other hand - it is the NHL, and no matter what the league tries to do to reduce these concussions - players are still lining up to play the game, and have no trouble spending the $$$ they've earned.

EDIT - as some others have already pointed out - the only way I would see a considerable reduction in the number of concussions would be banning both fighting, AND hitting from all levels of the game.

Yeah, or you could just ban fighting (since it's against the rules anyway) and force guys to hit each other in the shoulders and chest like they're supposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, or you could just ban fighting (since it's against the rules anyway) and force guys to hit each other in the shoulders and chest like they're supposed to.

Outta curiosity.....Has there been any studies conducted on the number of concussions that are linked to fights, or hits (be it dirty, or clean)?

I think we all know that even 'clean' hits can result in an injury of some form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on a side note, man Rick Vaive is a name I haven't heard in a long time. Brings back memories of the Leafs Wings rivalry in the 80s.

Him and Leeman both just brought back a ton of memories!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outta curiosity.....Has there been any studies conducted on the number of concussions that are linked to fights, or hits (be it dirty, or clean)?

I think we all know that even 'clean' hits can result in an injury of some form.

Literally NOBODY is saying that ALL concussions can be eliminated. Also, NOBODY is saying that clean hits should be eliminated in an effort to ensure nobody ever gets hurt in a hockey game again.

The only thing being debated, and in this case adjudicated, is whether or not the NHL should (or has) done everything it possibly could to eliminate concussions (or long term brain injuries) which occur as a result of an illegal hit.

Hell, none of the plaintiffs are even calling for fighting to be removed from the game...though IMO they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unless you're a Roman Gladiator it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you're safe at work. That's true of every job in the civilized world, and it's true of hockey. I don't think it's too much for the players to ask that they be able to have a career in hockey without suffering severe brain injuries as a result.

Actually, the business men who owned and operated Gladiator schools took great care of their products. Gladiators were not slaves forced to fight, in the sense that only the best of the best could be in a Gladiator school, if you failed the training, you were sent back to wherever you came from. All kinds of men became gladiators, from everyday thrill seekers, slaves wanting a better life to men coming from the elite looking for glory and fame.

In fact most Gladiator fights never went to the death as you see in Hollywood. The gladiator houses would put on shows with other houses but they never resulted in death or injury. It was against the code so to speak. They would fight in small arenas kind of like a boxing/WWE match but against another 'dojo' if I can use all modern parlance.

If a Gladiator was hurt or died, the business owner would lose money because they spent a lot to train them, feed and house them. The profit return was on continued fights. The better they were the bigger the arena and more fights.

But back to the NHL, I think it's wrong for the players to sue for concussions, they knew the risks, just like the Gladiators. It would be like the gladiators suing the houses that gave them an opportunity that they didn't protect them from the risks. YOU KNOW THE RISKS! Don't want to be violently hit 300 times a year? Don't play a rough contact sport... Seems like everyone is a victim these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the players are arguing that they didn't fully know the risks. Secondly, this "don't take the risk if you're not willing to live with the consequences" argument is friggin' stupid. Just because there's a latent risk inherent in something doesn't mean you shouldn't make it safer. That's like saying, "if you don't want to get smashed by a drunk driver then you shouldn't drive" or "if you don't want to get botulism you should only eat fresh food". You should be able to drive AND avoid drunks, you should be able to eat canned food AND not get poisoned, and you should be able to play hockey AND not have degenerative brain diseases. And here's the kicker...you should be able to do all that without it being a crap shoot.

Jesus, you people act like it's got to be an either/or scanario. Most of us live in a country that can send a probe to Mars, clone a sheep, or harness nature to create energy, yet you act like it's unrealistic (and unreasonable) for hockey players to want to play the game they love AND be safe too.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But back to the NHL, I think it's wrong for the players to sue for concussions, they knew the risks, just like the Gladiators. It would be like the gladiators suing the houses that gave them an opportunity that they didn't protect them from the risks. YOU KNOW THE RISKS! Don't want to be violently hit 300 times a year? Don't play a rough contact sport... Seems like everyone is a victim these days.

First, it's not clear that the players fully knew the risks. The complaint alleges that they did not. Second, there are other issues at play here. Just because someone is aware that concussions happen in hockey, it does not mean that they assume the risk of every potential cause of concussion that could occur in a game. A lot of this is going to come down to the level of care that the NHL owes to the players, and whether the NHL met that level of care.

haroldsnepsts likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the players are arguing that they didn't fully know the risks. Secondly, this "don't take the risk if you're not willing to live with the consequences" argument is friggin' stupid. Just because there's a latent risk inherent in something doesn't mean you shouldn't make it safer. That's like saying, "if you don't want to get smashed by a drunk driver then you shouldn't drive" or "if you don't want to get botulism you should only eat fresh food". You should be able to drive AND avoid drunks, you should be able to eat canned food AND not get poisoned, and you should be able to play hockey AND not have degenerative brain diseases. And here's the kicker...you should be able to do all that without it being a crap shoot.

Jesus, you people act like it's got to be an either/or scanario. Most of us live in a country that can send a probe to Mars, clone a sheep, or harness nature to create energy, yet you act like it's unrealistic (and unreasonable) for hockey players to want to play the game they love AND be safe too.

Someone needs a hug ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a hard time getting my thoughts through my fingertips on this one, so bare with me. I call these "big picture lawsuits." For me, my interest lies less in the outcome for these 10 players, and more in what (if any) policy changes will be generated as a result.

I feel like although the NHL has been the most responsive league in terms of their stance on brain injury, there is still an element of sticking fingers in ears in terms of their acceptance of current research on CTE. I will concede that a causal link has not been scientifically proven according to the rigors of the scientific method and what is generally accepted within the medical community. However, I also think it is folly to ignore the strong case being made for corrolation by the research that is currently being conducted. To ignore the implications for another 10 years until the science is "verified" by a large enough sample size is missing a window of time in which more steps can be taken to protect players.

If the NHL won't make these changes to protect their human assets, maybe changes will be made more proactively to protect their financial assets. That's why these types of lawsuits have merit to me.

Ugh, TL;DR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs a hug ;)

You know, honestly this forum throws a lot of s*** at you most of the time, and most of the time it doesn't really bother me. But for some reason, I'm genuinely dismayed by this one. Irrationally blame Bettman or the refs? I don't care. Claim Howard sucks? Don't care. Argue that Tootoo's name should be in the rafters? Do. Not. Care.

But I can't help but get frustrated by the degree of obtuseness it takes to suggest that a person should not do something rather than expect that they can do it safely.

Hell, I work on the fifth floor of my office building. If I don't want to die in a building collapse is the onus on me to quite my job, or on my employer to build a safe building?

Edited by vladdy16
PLEASE DON'T CIRCUMVENT THE CURSE FILTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kip, sorry if you took my post as trying to pick on your argument. I just like history and had a Cliff moment (ala Cheers). I understand what you're saying, you gave examples but they were all 'shoulds'. I should also be rich and successful, and I also should never have any problems with anything ever in my life...but life is not that perfect. Which is why when you buy a hockey ticket, have you ever read the back of it? When you go to a game, you should not have to be injured in any way shape or form, but you agreed to their terms, that even an act of god will prevent you from suing them.

Should a soldier sue the government for failing to provide a safe environment? Should a boxer sue? How about a firefighter? Hockey players play in a violent contact sport, if you don't know you can have brain injury from it, then you should. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions, always blaming someone else. If you engage in risky lifestyle, expect the chances of something happening to go up. Show me any hockey player who was never injured in their career, and I got a beach to sell you next to that probe on Mars. Maybe all hockey players should sue because they are all injured now, and the NHL should have given them better work environments....

When will the class action lawsut for destroyed knees come? How many players injected themselves and played with pain... like Marchant...when is his lawsuit coming? Or Lidstrom playing with a bad foot? Or Yzerman on his broken knee...or Shanahan when he played with a broken toe... where are their lawsuits and when are they coming? Because the NHL should have protected them too, no one should be injured, ever. (insert heavy sarc)

Look, don't get me wrong, it's terrible these guys are hurt, I my self am on 22 months of Post Concussion Symptoms, and it sucks, it sucks so bad, I would never wish this on anyone, but I think it's wrong that no one takes ownership for their lives and responsibilities, and it's always someone else fault for not protecting them. You're a man, you made the decision, live with it, deal with it, stop blaming others for your decisions. :bye1:

F.Michael likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kip, sorry if you took my post as trying to pick on your argument. I just like history and had a Cliff moment (ala Cheers). I understand what you're saying, you gave examples but they were all 'shoulds'. I should also be rich and successful, and I also should never have any problems with anything ever in my life...but life is not that perfect. Which is why when you buy a hockey ticket, have you ever read the back of it? When you go to a game, you should not have to be injured in any way shape or form, but you agreed to their terms, that even an act of god will prevent you from suing them.

Should a soldier sue the government for failing to provide a safe environment? Should a boxer sue? How about a firefighter? Hockey players play in a violent contact sport, if you don't know you can have brain injury from it, then you should. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions, always blaming someone else. If you engage in risky lifestyle, expect the chances of something happening to go up. Show me any hockey player who was never injured in their career, and I got a beach to sell you next to that probe on Mars. Maybe all hockey players should sue because they are all injured now, and the NHL should have given them better work environments....

When will the class action lawsut for destroyed knees come? How many players injected themselves and played with pain... like Marchant...when is his lawsuit coming? Or Lidstrom playing with a bad foot? Or Yzerman on his broken knee...or Shanahan when he played with a broken toe... where are their lawsuits and when are they coming? Because the NHL should have protected them too, no one should be injured, ever. (insert heavy sarc)

Look, don't get me wrong, it's terrible these guys are hurt, I my self am on 22 months of Post Concussion Symptoms, and it sucks, it sucks so bad, I would never wish this on anyone, but I think it's wrong that no one takes ownership for their lives and responsibilities, and it's always someone else fault for not protecting them. You're a man, you made the decision, live with it, deal with it, stop blaming others for your decisions. :bye1:

Agreed.

Yes - I feel the NHL owners/GMs should do everything to protect their interests - the players...That said the game hockey is a violent one indeed, and only so much can be done to reduce injuries.

Again - the only way IMO to do this is to remove fighting from the game at the pro levels (including the AHL/ECHL), and seriously consider doing away with the checking aspect of the game (again - even 'clean' hits like we've seen from Kronwall have resulted in injuries).

There's only 1 issue concerning the above.....Will the fans want to shell out $50 plus per ticket to watch this new, and safer form of pro ice hockey?

Me thinks not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if people will watch a slow, boring game like soccer, then they would surely watch some sort of safer hockey.

But that's an entirely different thread altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but it's not like I'm talking about something fantastic or utopian. I'll tell you how to reduce concussions to an occasional level so that hockey is as safe as it can be without destroying the game. Make fighting a game misconduct, and give VERY severe suspensions for anyone who hits illegally, graduating upward to a lifetime ban for guys like Raffi Torres and the like. There are literally hundreds of really hard hits every year that are perfectly clean, do not cause concussions, and don't require supplemental discipline. Here's one from last season as an example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is like saying if you don't want to get in a bad car accident don't drive in nascar, or formula 1. It is a risk you take for a sport you love to make millions of dollars. Measures should be taken at every possible turn to avoid such accidents, but to say people don't know the risks involved is asinine. Can we agree the players should know the risks, and the owners should have been doing more to prevent the risks. It's a high speed physical game, and people are bound to get injured, but the real question is did the owners do everything in their respective powers to prevent these injuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But one major problem that I see for the future of the game is that the latest testing shows people are getting concussed at a low level, low enough so they don't necessarily know they're concussed. Two of these low level concussions is enough to cause damage including CTE.

Former Pittsburgh Steeler Ctr., Mike Webster had such severe brain damage that he was homeless after retiring from football. After his death his brain showed major CTE. At the time it was a bit of a surprise because it was thought that only speed positions like RB, WR, KR, and DB would have this issue, not linemen that took lots of lower impact hits, but on a very repetitive basis.

Even soccer players are getting it from headers

If the game is to survive, there has to be major technique changes in hitting, and major equipment changes.

As for thoughts that players knew what they were getting into because hockey is a violent game, nobody imagined they'd be mentally ill or in wheelchairs unable to feed themselves or speak.

What they are finding out now is just the tip of the iceberg.

Dabura likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But one major problem that I see for the future of the game is that the latest testing shows people are getting concussed at a low level, low enough so they don't necessarily know they're concussed. Two of these low level concussions is enough to cause damage including CTE.

Former Pittsburgh Steeler Ctr., Mike Webster had such severe brain damage that he was homeless after retiring from football. After his death his brain showed major CTE. At the time it was a bit of a surprise because it was thought that only speed positions like RB, WR, KR, and DB would have this issue, not linemen that took lots of lower impact hits, but on a very repetitive basis.

Even soccer players are getting it from headers

If the game is to survive, there has to be major technique changes in hitting, and major equipment changes.

As for thoughts that players knew what they were getting into because hockey is a violent game, nobody imagined they'd be mentally ill or in wheelchairs unable to feed themselves or speak.

What they are finding out now is just the tip of the iceberg.

That's a good post. I didn't know that about Webster. The league needs to get VERY serious about enforcing proper hitting techniques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kip, sorry if you took my post as trying to pick on your argument. I just like history and had a Cliff moment (ala Cheers). I understand what you're saying, you gave examples but they were all 'shoulds'. I should also be rich and successful, and I also should never have any problems with anything ever in my life...but life is not that perfect. Which is why when you buy a hockey ticket, have you ever read the back of it? When you go to a game, you should not have to be injured in any way shape or form, but you agreed to their terms, that even an act of god will prevent you from suing them.

Should a soldier sue the government for failing to provide a safe environment? Should a boxer sue? How about a firefighter? Hockey players play in a violent contact sport, if you don't know you can have brain injury from it, then you should. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions, always blaming someone else. If you engage in risky lifestyle, expect the chances of something happening to go up. Show me any hockey player who was never injured in their career, and I got a beach to sell you next to that probe on Mars. Maybe all hockey players should sue because they are all injured now, and the NHL should have given them better work environments....

When will the class action lawsut for destroyed knees come? How many players injected themselves and played with pain... like Marchant...when is his lawsuit coming? Or Lidstrom playing with a bad foot? Or Yzerman on his broken knee...or Shanahan when he played with a broken toe... where are their lawsuits and when are they coming? Because the NHL should have protected them too, no one should be injured, ever. (insert heavy sarc)

Look, don't get me wrong, it's terrible these guys are hurt, I my self am on 22 months of Post Concussion Symptoms, and it sucks, it sucks so bad, I would never wish this on anyone, but I think it's wrong that no one takes ownership for their lives and responsibilities, and it's always someone else fault for not protecting them. You're a man, you made the decision, live with it, deal with it, stop blaming others for your decisions. :bye1:

The difference in your examples is that there was a much better understanding of the risks of playing with a bad knee or foot. Players could make a more well informed decision in accepting those risks.

Also, the last sentence ignores the core issues to the lawsuits. Did the players have enough information to make that decision? Did the league actively hide any information? Did the league do enough to learn that information? Did the league do enough to act on the information they had? So the chest thumping "be a man" stuff is off the mark.

To use an extreme example to illustrate the point, say they found out skating hard in 45 second shifts and then immediately sitting down greatly increases risk of heart disease. That would put NHL players at great risk for heart disease by nature of their job. They've accepted the risks of playing a dangerous game, but the new found risk of heart disease falls outside the generally known risks involved with the job.

Obviously for years everyone knew getting hit in the head wasn't great, but what we know about concussions has changed greatly. There's a large gap between "getting your bell rung" where you maybe have a headache for a day, and having CTE with lifelong sensitivity to light, chronic headaches, memory loss, depression, mood swings, and suicidal thoughts.

So it gets back to what the league knew, when, and what it did with that information. I don't pretend to know the answers to any of those questions. But I think they're ones worth raising.

That's a good post. I didn't know that about Webster. The league needs to get VERY serious about enforcing proper hitting techniques.

The Frontline special "League of Denial" covers Webster. He's sort of the case that kicked it all off. It's an interesting story, and also makes me fear for the future of the NFL especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This if anything will probably be the death blow to fighting!

You can't file a suit against the league for this and still say you know best when it comes to fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unless you're a Roman Gladiator it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you're safe at work. That's true of every job in the civilized world, and it's true of hockey.

I am corporate counsel for a large heavy construction company and you are incorrect that "it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you are safe at work." While the employer's responsibility for employee safety is very fact fact, industry and situation specific the most general standard is from the US Department of Labor OSHA and states that an employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." U.S.C. 654(a)(1). The problem is that it is very fact and occupation specific, for example what is considered a recognized hazard in highway construction is very different from what is a recognized hazard for for a secretarial firm. Hockey as a specialty occupation which is inherently dangerous will have a drastic impact on what is considered a hazard in general and when such hazard became a "recognized" hazard in the industry.

Most of us live in a country that can send a probe to Mars, clone a sheep, or harness nature to create energy, yet you act like it's unrealistic (and unreasonable) for hockey players to want to play the game they love AND be safe too.

It is unrealistic for professional hockey players to to want to play the game that they love AND be safe too, they can play a version of hockey but it will be a drastically different game if they are going to play hockey and be safe, there are too many injuries that occur daily from normal legal hockey plays (think about Dekeyser's separated shoulder, Eaves' concussion from a puck, or even Yzerman's eye injury). The vast majority of injuries in the NHL occur from normal legal plays, unless you are talking not about "being safe" and just about concussions from fights illegal hits. The problem is and it will be a detriment to the plaintiff's in this case is assumption of the risk, boxers are aware that injuries occur from boxing matches but the industry still continues even though their employees (i.e. the boxers) are not safe from the moment they step into the ring (and in fact not really safe even during practices). The court will have to decide if they were aware of the inherent risks of playing in the NHL and the dangers associated therewith, this is a hard line to determine and made even more so by the fact that the vast majority of NHL players in every poll taken want to keep fighting in the game. The reality in almost all cases like this is that even if legally they business is likely to prevail it is not worth the PR capital that is spent to fight it and usually they will just settle.

*None of this should be taken to mean that I do not think that ALL employers should take reasonable precautions to protect their employees from unreasonable dangers of their professions. I am merely stating my take from a legal prospective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This afternoon on TSN's OTR, Steven Silverman, legal counsel of the players in this case was interviewed by Michael Landsberg. Landsberg also interviewed world renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Robert Cantu.

The NHLPA has nothing to do with the lawsuit? Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am corporate counsel for a large heavy construction company and you are incorrect that "it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you are safe at work." While the employer's responsibility for employee safety is very fact fact, industry and situation specific the most general standard is from the US Department of Labor OSHA and states that an employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." U.S.C. 654(a)(1). The problem is that it is very fact and occupation specific, for example what is considered a recognized hazard in highway construction is very different from what is a recognized hazard for for a secretarial firm. Hockey as a specialty occupation which is inherently dangerous will have a drastic impact on what is considered a hazard in general and when such hazard became a "recognized" hazard in the industry.

It is unrealistic for professional hockey players to to want to play the game that they love AND be safe too, they can play a version of hockey but it will be a drastically different game if they are going to play hockey and be safe, there are too many injuries that occur daily from normal legal hockey plays (think about Dekeyser's separated shoulder, Eaves' concussion from a puck, or even Yzerman's eye injury). The vast majority of injuries in the NHL occur from normal legal plays, unless you are talking not about "being safe" and just about concussions from fights illegal hits. The problem is and it will be a detriment to the plaintiff's in this case is assumption of the risk, boxers are aware that injuries occur from boxing matches but the industry still continues even though their employees (i.e. the boxers) are not safe from the moment they step into the ring (and in fact not really safe even during practices). The court will have to decide if they were aware of the inherent risks of playing in the NHL and the dangers associated therewith, this is a hard line to determine and made even more so by the fact that the vast majority of NHL players in every poll taken want to keep fighting in the game. The reality in almost all cases like this is that even if legally they business is likely to prevail it is not worth the PR capital that is spent to fight it and usually they will just settle.

*None of this should be taken to mean that I do not think that ALL employers should take reasonable precautions to protect their employees from unreasonable dangers of their professions. I am merely stating my take from a legal prospective.

To respond to the first part of your argument, I agree. It is fact and situation specific. And the outcome of this lawsuit will determine where we draw the line concerning employer vs. employee responsibility.

To respond to the second part. Nobody is talking about separated shoulders, or eye injuries. I agree, those are inherent risks which come with the game. I don't think you can get those out of the game without fundamentally changing the way it's played. But you absolutely can get rid of MOST head trauma without changing the game. Why? Because fighting and hitting the head are already against the rules. Individuals ignore the rules when doing those things. Make the penalties so stiff that players no longer ignore the penalty, and the behavior will stop. Sure, accidental hits to the head and/or concussions resulting from the head hitting the boards or the head hitting the ice will still happen. Nobody is talking in absolutes here. But if those are the only means of getting head trauma, and they're accidental, then it's reasonable to say that they're accepted risks because accidents can't be avoided Fights and head hits are not accidental, they're intentional, and they're a violation of the rules. It's not unrealistic for players to think that they can play hockey without being punched in the face or hit in the head. Just like they can (and should) expect to play hockey without being slew footed, or given a B.C. two-hander.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look guys, a lot of you keep bringing up clean hits, no hits to the head, and no fighting as the cure to end concussions. But getting a concussion is from your brain hitting the insided of your skull and can happen from CLEAN hits, and does not mean you need to have your head hit in any way. Those repeated, 10 times a game clean shoulder to shoulder hits. I mentioned earlier I'm 22 months Post Concussion, the first 6 months of last year were terrible, I never hit my head. I fell, and the impact was so intense, creating whiplash resulting in a concussion.

That video on page 2 of the wing getting checked 'clean', that guys brain got scrambled in his head. Continued 'clean' hits like that DO scramble your brain. Every time these players get hit hard and they fall backwards on the ice and their head whips back, their brain just got a little mushier.

So the ONLY way to appease those that want to make this the Nanny Hockey League, is ban ALL contact. No checking, no hitting, no pushing, no shoving. But what if someone slips and falls? Ah crap, they can get a concussion from that too, perhaps we should but foam padding around all the boards, so to make sure. :nhl_crach:

I mean seriously, I've known my whole life that getting repeadetly hit in my body in any way is not a good idea for my physical well being. I didn't need an expert or anyone to tell me this. Is it really that difficult to understand these things for oneself? You mean to tell me that someone has to tell you some real common sense BS and you can't figure this out on your own? We're being retarded as a society, always blaming someone else, always being the victim, it's always someone elses fault for not telling us. It's always someone elses responsibility to make our lives better, to look out for us, to make sure we're safe. NO, it is YOUR job to do those things. This is 'Murica! Why is personal responsibility for ones actions and decisions becoming someone elses problem? :1eye:

Reminds me of that lady who sued McDonalds because they didn't tell her that the coffee she just bought was hot, she put it between her legs and scalded herself. Now labels have a caution hot on them because someone got a $10 million payday for being an idiot.

Argh....I'm amped...let's play some hockey! lol :nhl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look guys, a lot of you keep bringing up clean hits, no hits to the head, and no fighting as the cure to end concussions. But getting a concussion is from your brain hitting the insided of your skull and can happen from CLEAN hits, and does not mean you need to have your head hit in any way. Those repeated, 10 times a game clean shoulder to shoulder hits. I mentioned earlier I'm 22 months Post Concussion, the first 6 months of last year were terrible, I never hit my head. I fell, and the impact was so intense, creating whiplash resulting in a concussion.

That video on page 2 of the wing getting checked 'clean', that guys brain got scrambled in his head. Continued 'clean' hits like that DO scramble your brain. Every time these players get hit hard and they fall backwards on the ice and their head whips back, their brain just got a little mushier.

So the ONLY way to appease those that want to make this the Nanny Hockey League, is ban ALL contact. No checking, no hitting, no pushing, no shoving. But what if someone slips and falls? Ah crap, they can get a concussion from that too, perhaps we should but foam padding around all the boards, so to make sure. :nhl_crach:

I mean seriously, I've known my whole life that getting repeadetly hit in my body in any way is not a good idea for my physical well being. I didn't need an expert or anyone to tell me this. Is it really that difficult to understand these things for oneself? You mean to tell me that someone has to tell you some real common sense BS and you can't figure this out on your own? We're being retarded as a society, always blaming someone else, always being the victim, it's always someone elses fault for not telling us. It's always someone elses responsibility to make our lives better, to look out for us, to make sure we're safe. NO, it is YOUR job to do those things. This is 'Murica! Why is personal responsibility for ones actions and decisions becoming someone elses problem? :1eye:

Reminds me of that lady who sued McDonalds because they didn't tell her that the coffee she just bought was hot, she put it between her legs and scalded herself. Now labels have a caution hot on them because someone got a $10 million payday for being an idiot.

Argh....I'm amped...let's play some hockey! lol :nhl:

Well clearly you've chosen to ignore the part where I said that it's not realistic to think you can get rid off ALL injuries, but it is reasonable to think you can get rid of those injuries caused by things that are already against the rules of the game.

Edited by haroldsnepsts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0