Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
For me this cases hinges entirely on what did the NHL know about concussions, when did they know it and what did they do and not do with that knowledge in place.
It has little to do with the role these guys served, how dirty they were, or anything like that.
It is all about if the NHL acted in a responsible manner when they had relevant information.
I'm no fan of goons, but I have empathy for anyone that is suffering long-term consequences as a result of concussions. That is an awful fate that wealth doesn't really erase.
|
Absolutely. It's easy to become emotionally invested in this argument as it touches on several hot-button issues for people like mental illness and suicide. At the end of the day – as mentioned above – it'll be a matter of what they knew. What works in the NHLs favour here is that concussion research is still working towards a lot of answers. We still have a ways to go in understanding why some people are crippled while others remain quite stable. That's an annoying nit-picky detail to people like us, but in a court defence that could be very important.