Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle
What people are saying is that those who willingly sign up to play a sport such as hockey know goddamn well that it could be detrimental to their health, and in lacing the skates up are directly implying their consent to that risk. No one forced these guys to play in the NHL. No one seemed to have a problem with it while they were still in the league. I have a lot of respect for people like Chris Boland of the 49ers who walked away from their sport because they felt it could be detrimental to their health long-term and to the health of others.
|
It's not that your point is hard to understand. It's that your point is bad.
The issue (and the reason the NHL is being sued) is because they were misled as to what that risk WAS. The lawsuits allege that the NHL purposely claimed there was no link between brain trauma and long-term health effects. The NHL has repeatedly said that in the past, and said as much in their disregard of these lawsuits. If you think Textcritic is spot on about CTE and its link to brain trauma, why are you defending the NHL which is being sued specifically because it denies that link?
Players know the job is risky but how many are supposed to know a specific risk is real when league physicians tell them that risk doesn't exist? Should they just know "goddamn well"? I trust my doctor(s). Do you? If my employer says "yeah the chemical you're working with is dangerous but it doesn't cause cancer and here's the doctor we're supplying you that agrees!" and it gives me cancer a year later, I guess I was just supposed to know?
Funny you shrug it off because nobody had a problem while they were playing, I'm sure Rypien, Belak, Boogaard, and Montador are all chillin' in their graves like "I knew this was coming and it was SO worth it!"