Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
The NHL trying to pin it on the players due to the fact that information was available is ridiculous no matter what type of language is used to describe the position. If the information was available, it was also available to the teams who employ people who are there specifically to monitor player health (doctors).
If it was all as available as they say, the NHL is either: at least as liable to not only know the information, but act accordingly. Or guilty of purposely withholding information regarding the potential longterm effects of players participating in that state. Either way, it's bad.
|
There's an argument to be made that the guy with subjective knowledge of his concussion symptoms is better positioned to determine that he shouldn't be playing a contact sport.
In any case, my point was that people strongly overreact to, say, statements of defence, because they categorically deny everything and state the strongest possible position for the litigant. Which exactly what they're supposed to do. They're not an attempt at conciliatory "well maybe we played a part, I don't know, why aren't we getting along?" People assume that a statement of defence makes a person (or a league, or a business) a bunch of insensitive jerks, and so are their lawyers, but that stems from a lack of understanding of their role in the litigation process. (And I think you know this, I'm stating it for the purpose of the general discussion.)