[browna]

Fairly certain there will be some juicy internal email banter that probably will be personally embarrassing to a number of executives as they discuss in their own internal circle (as would be at any company's internal email strings). Probably on a number of topics, including, but not limited to, concussions.

Sure, concussions were not treated the same, or regarded the same by fans, team doctors, coaches, players or execs (team and league) as they are 10 years ago, let alone 30 years ago. It takes some time for that re-education for occur, especially from an ex-player who played in the 70's and 80's, and execs who are used to pushing players back into the lineup.

But by using some colorful adjectives from a league executive who's talking to a colleague, both who may or not be fully educated on the issue, doesn't really advance the case or act as some smoking gun. It's not as if the league was encouraging headbutting contests. Or, less extreme, discouraging players from wearing helmets and protecting themselves etc.

Banging ones head on the ice, or boards, or whiplash from a legal or illegal hit, is part of the game. So is banging ones knee, ankles, wrists. Players know all those risks of injury the first time they get hurt on the ice at the age of 7 or 8. Claiming ignorance of that years later doesn't fly IMO.

Bottom line, sounds like the press wants this to happen more so they have some documented dirt on various NHL and Team Execs (in the name of "the public wants to know") that make for a salacious story as some sort of potential shaming campaign.

Those as part of the concussion lawsuit are hoping that the embarrassment of league people sounding ignorant (at best) or juvenile/discriminatory (at worst) in internal conversations, is enough for the league to guiltily add a couple "0's" onto the end of the cheque the plaintiffs are expecting.