How will they be able to pinpoint and lay blame to the NHL when a guy like Montador played five years in the OHL, more than two seasons in the AHL in addition to his NHL career?
Because the NHL has money.
That is pretty much why the group of guys whose careers were almost entirely spent in the minor leagues are suing the NHL instead. It's all about the money.
Lawsuits like this will just result in a no hit league eventually.
Disagree. It's really more "is the NHL doing everything it can to educate players on the dangers and show they're interested in decreasing obvious unnecessary plays"
Even by today's standard, there's little to sue on. Players know risks fully, nhl is trying to reduce head contact where possible. Liability is minimized and it's harder to show the NHL knew but didn't do anything. Montador has more of a case as the NHL want overtly concerned and may have known more. Also, there were lots efforts made to reduce concussions or have a protocol.
Montador's family isn't suing because he got concussions leading to CTE and his mental illness, they're suing because back then, they contend the NHL could've done more, and knew they could have.
Today's game is different. Tomorrow's will also be different, but not because of this.
NHL can try to be as safe as humanly possible with regards to head injuries but they are always going to happen in a league that allows contact. The lawsuits will continue as long as they think they can get money from them.
The NHL is just going to have to accept that lawsuits will be the norm going forward and budget accordingly.
NHL can try to be as safe as humanly possible with regards to head injuries but they are always going to happen in a league that allows contact. The lawsuits will continue as long as they think they can get money from them.
The NHL is just going to have to accept that lawsuits will be the norm going forward and budget accordingly.
Again, these lawsuits aren't because of injury. They're because they feel the NHL didn't act on information it had to try and reduce head trauma
The problem with these types of lawsuits is one day it will be proven with studies and committees that the sport of hockey itself is inherently dangerous to one's health. Even banning head shots 100% and issuing suspensions and fines will not eliminate head injuries. So allowing anyone to play professionally is 'negligent' because you are knowingly allowing someone to risk their health to be an employee of the league.
Why stop at just head injuries though? Broken bones, torn muscles, dislocated joints or other injuries can all have long term effects that can be detrimental to a man's post-hockey life.
I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem, but I don't think there really is one. It's all or nothing is my guess. You either ban professional sports that are deemed inherently dangerous, or you basically live with the consequences.
The problem with these types of lawsuits is one day it will be proven with studies and committees that the sport of hockey itself is inherently dangerous to one's health. Even banning head shots 100% and issuing suspensions and fines will not eliminate head injuries. So allowing anyone to play professionally is 'negligent' because you are knowingly allowing someone to risk their health to be an employee of the league.
Why stop at just head injuries though? Broken bones, torn muscles, dislocated joints or other injuries can all have long term effects that can be detrimental to a man's post-hockey life.
I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem, but I don't think there really is one. It's all or nothing is my guess. You either ban professional sports that are deemed inherently dangerous, or you basically live with the consequences.
I'll repeat this again.
It's not the injury itself they're suing for. They're saying the NHL knew more than it let on and could've done more to protect the player. We don't need studies to prove hockey is dangerous. We all know you can break your bones.
They're contending the NHL knew now about what the concussions can do to players and didn't do more to protect the player.
No one is going to sue over a broken leg because the NHL isn't ignoring data and any reasonable person would know they can break a leg and what the ramifications are. This is not the same as CTE as it's new and little was known during Montador's career.
There's a lot of sky is falling posts, but I don't think people are paying attention to what this is actually about
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
The problem with these types of lawsuits is one day it will be proven with studies and committees that the sport of hockey itself is inherently dangerous to one's health. Even banning head shots 100% and issuing suspensions and fines will not eliminate head injuries. So allowing anyone to play professionally is 'negligent' because you are knowingly allowing someone to risk their health to be an employee of the league.
I know what you are saying, but it is all about risk reduction/mitigation. A check has evolved into one player obliterating another player. It might be that a check doesn't have to be that violent.
Quote:
Why stop at just head injuries though? Broken bones, torn muscles, dislocated joints or other injuries can all have long term effects that can be detrimental to a man's post-hockey life.
Because to my mind, head injuries are different. Blow a knee out you can get it rebuilt, same goes for shoulders. You can still pursue many post hockey careers with a bad knee. You can do anything post hockey with a bad head.
Quote:
I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem, but I don't think there really is one. It's all or nothing is my guess. You either ban professional sports that are deemed inherently dangerous, or you basically live with the consequences.
I don't think we need to ban contact sports. I think that many pro contact sports have become more about the contact than the sport. As I said you can check a player and take him off the puck without destroying him.
At the end of the day we are talking about a league that does nothing to remove fighting, something that has nothing to do with the sport.
It's not the injury itself they're suing for. They're saying the NHL knew more than it let on and could've done more to protect the player. We don't need studies to prove hockey is dangerous. We all know you can break your bones.
They're contending the NHL knew now about what the concussions can do to players and didn't do more to protect the player.
No one is going to sue over a broken leg because the NHL isn't ignoring data and any reasonable person would know they can break a leg and what the ramifications are. This is not the same as CTE as it's new and little was known during Montador's career.
There's a lot of sky is falling posts, but I don't think people are paying attention to what this is actually about
I do see what you are saying, and I agree.
But what I am doing is taking it a step further. Yes, the NHL knew about the issues surrounding head injuries, yet they still allowed the players to continue fighting, hitting, and playing rough, without informing them of the full effects of their findings.
What I am saying is that what is stopping a group of ex-players who suffered any number of injuries from suing the NHL later on for allowing them to play a dangerous sport at all? They could argue that the NHL knowingly allowed technology into the game (one-peice sticks) that increased the velocity of shots, therefor caused eye, head, other injuries.
I know this is splitting hairs somewhat, and I certainly agree that CTE and other brain injuries are very serious. But there is nothing from stopping a group of players to sue for other injuries as well, and they could argue the NHL knew full well the consequences of simply playing hockey.
What I am saying is that what is stopping a group of ex-players who suffered any number of injuries from suing the NHL later on for allowing them to play a dangerous sport at all? They could argue that the NHL knowingly allowed technology into the game (one-peice sticks) that increased the velocity of shots, therefor caused eye, head, other injuries.
I know this is splitting hairs somewhat, and I certainly agree that CTE and other brain injuries are very serious. But there is nothing from stopping a group of players to sue for other injuries as well, and they could argue the NHL knew full well the consequences of simply playing hockey.
But so did the players when you talk about those injuries. No one is going to argue that they were surprised to find out that stopping a puck with his leg was unpleasant.
The difference is that a player could reasonably argue that they were unaware and misinformed about the potential damage caused by repeated brain trauma that lead to CTE. Players like Montador weren't aware about CTE because really the medical world wasn't when he started in the NHL. When more information was discovered, and when the NHL became aware of it, the question becomes did they do enough to stop it and other concussion issues? Did they inform the players about the potential long-term effects of these degenerative conditions in a timely and efficient manner? These potential conditions, depression, addiction, memory loss, emotional issues, are not as obvious that taking the puck to the leg is going to hurt.
Integrity probably stops most if not all such cases, Montador died from brain injuries. This isn't a small trifle over money, somebody is dead that should still be alive.
The Following User Says Thank You to AcGold For This Useful Post:
Integrity probably stops most if not all such cases, Montador died from brain injuries. This isn't a small trifle over money, somebody is dead that should still be alive.
Understood, but did Montador not think for himself after his first concussion that this damage was self inflicted by his own actions (87 fights in his NHL career plus how many more in the minors). Players of his generation and the next age group know full well going into the league that guys like Brett Lindros, Lafontaine and Beukeboom retired because of head injuries, but they willingly took the risk to play.
No player should die from playing a game, but no player or his family can honestly say they didn't know the risks.
And for other people comparing the NFL to NHL, they are not even the same. The NHL has spent no time trying to disparage their own doctors in court or making statements that head injuries had nothing to do with their sport. The NFL got caught because their own doctor put it in writing in a letter to Mike Websters family that his dementia was caused by repeated blows to his head and the NFL then went on the offensive to discredit the doctor. The NHL has done no such thing.
Understood, but did Montador not think for himself after his first concussion that this damage was self inflicted by his own actions (87 fights in his NHL career plus how many more in the minors). Players of his generation and the next age group know full well going into the league that guys like Brett Lindros, Lafontaine and Beukeboom retired because of head injuries, but they willingly took the risk to play.
No player should die from playing a game, but no player or his family can honestly say they didn't know the risks.
And for other people comparing the NFL to NHL, they are not even the same. The NHL has spent no time trying to disparage their own doctors in court or making statements that head injuries had nothing to do with their sport. The NFL got caught because their own doctor put it in writing in a letter to Mike Websters family that his dementia was caused by repeated blows to his head and the NFL then went on the offensive to discredit the doctor. The NHL has done no such thing.
I think it's pretty easy for them to say they didn't know the extent of the risk. And who knows what the NHl knew or didn't know - that's what pre-trial discoveries will find out.
If Montador was partly to blame, the court will reduce the award for contributory negligence. It isn't all or nothing.
But what I am doing is taking it a step further. Yes, the NHL knew about the issues surrounding head injuries, yet they still allowed the players to continue fighting, hitting, and playing rough, without informing them of the full effects of their findings.
What I am saying is that what is stopping a group of ex-players who suffered any number of injuries from suing the NHL later on for allowing them to play a dangerous sport at all? They could argue that the NHL knowingly allowed technology into the game (one-peice sticks) that increased the velocity of shots, therefor caused eye, head, other injuries.
I know this is splitting hairs somewhat, and I certainly agree that CTE and other brain injuries are very serious. But there is nothing from stopping a group of players to sue for other injuries as well, and they could argue the NHL knew full well the consequences of simply playing hockey.
It's not just whether or not the NHL knew, it's about not acting on that information in the next interest of the player on an issue a reasonable person may not have known
For example, a company that removes asbestos from a home takes all reasonable precautions to prevent asbestosis in their employees (masks, limit exposure time, etc). The employee cannot sue the company if it did it's due diligence. If the company did not enforce a mask policy, then you have grounds.
You cannot successfully sue someone for injury if they took what reasonable precautions are necessary and you knew the risks beforehand. What they will determine in this case, is did the NHL act on knowledge it had that Montador didn't?
Understood, but did Montador not think for himself after his first concussion that this damage was self inflicted by his own actions (87 fights in his NHL career plus how many more in the minors). Players of his generation and the next age group know full well going into the league that guys like Brett Lindros, Lafontaine and Beukeboom retired because of head injuries, but they willingly took the risk to play.
No player should die from playing a game, but no player or his family can honestly say they didn't know the risks.
I wouldn't say it's unfair to consider players of Montador's generation as a bit of a bridge generation. Prior to the maybe the mid 90's concussions weren't really a hot button topic. In late 90's there were certainly high profile cases like Kariya in 1998, Lafontaine and Lindros forced retirements, etc. but it wasn't really until after 2000, or maybe even 2010, that the league took a serious approach to them (some could argue that they still haven't). They changed how they handled head injuries and changed what constituted a legal hit with a focus on no headshots, but these occurred at the tail end of Montador's NHL career.
The medical research itself has had some drastic breakthroughs since Montador entered the league. Mike Websters, as you mentioned, was the first confirmed case of CTE being found in an NFL player, and he died after Montador was already in the NHL. CTE itself is still being studied, links between it and addiction, depression, impulse control, aggression and suicide are only beginning to be discovered. I think most players understood and accepted the risk of pain and even immediate death from taking a hit. I don't know if it's fair to say that they understood that these hits could, for lack of better wording, change who they are.
And then you can look at a loosely-comparable sport like boxing. Obviously it has had a much longer history with brain trauma but boxers believed to receive a concussion were forced out of the ring for months until they could prove they weren't suffering symptoms in the 90's. In 2003, it wasn't unusual for players to be suffering what very well could have been concussion causing hits and playing their next shift. Like Kariya here:
Today Kariya would need to undergo quiet-room testing before being allowed back on the ice after that hit. So, there's a question why the NHL lagged behind boxing in that regard.
I wonder how many pro-hockey players haven't had at least one concussion before. I think the league, players and union have all had a part in turning a blind eye when convenient.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Integrity probably stops most if not all such cases, Montador died from brain injuries. This isn't a small trifle over money, somebody is dead that should still be alive.
