Montador's family sues NHL. Claims fighting leads to depression & addiciton

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As already noted, there is a massive difference between eliminating danger, and taken reasonable measures to minimize unnecessary risk.

If the NHL can do something to dramatically curb the onset of CTE with a negligible effect on game itself, should they do it?

If the NHL was in a position to protect Montador from sustaining CTE, should they have done so?

Professional contact sports of any kind by definition are an unnecessary risk.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

But here is the issue. Nobody can tell you legally that concussions/contact/fighting are what causes CTE. It can only be diagnosed after death and all of us attempt to connect the dots, which athletes can do also. Not all people who are concussed get CTE and until there is a firm connection made between the two then it will be impossible to say who knew what at the time.

Much of this is generally true because the science is still in its infancy, but the pattern that is rapidly emerging from the research strongly suggests a direct connection between forms of professional fighting and the onset of advanced CTE. It seems likely that it is only a matter of time before this connection receives emphatic scientific confirmation.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

If the players and/or their families are so concerned after the fact then why aren't they concerned while they are playing?

Who is to say that they are not? If you are wondering aloud why Montador's family is now raising the issue, I would suggest that this has something to do with how little was known about CTE until only very, very recently.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

The majority of the stories that I have read about depression have more to do with the fact that they are unable to transition away from the game, of being told what to do and when to do it (Rhett Warrener's comments on 960 when he called out the NHLPA for lack of help after they retire)...

Depression is not the same thing as CTE. Bob Probert, Rick Martin, Derek Boogaard, and Steve Montador have all been confirmed as having suffered from advanced CTE.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

...Also I believe that the majority of the concussions are from continued hits and not fighting in the NHL (I could be wrong and would actually like some stats/data in regards to this point)

The issue is not just sustaining a concussion, it is sustaining multiple concussions, which is why CTE researchers have specifically identified professional boxers and MMA fighters, football players, and hockey enforcers as at extremely high risk. I don't doubt that one could develop CTE from suffering repeated concussions as a result of numerous bodychecks, but so far this does not appear to pose near the same level of risk as fighting.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by pylon

Professional contact sports of any kind by definition are an unnecessary risk.

Touché.

If the NHL can do something to dramatically curb the onset of CTE with a negligible effect on game itself, should they do it?

If the NHL was in a position to protect Montador from sustaining CTE, should they have done so?

[irrevocable]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Touché.

If the NHL can do something to dramatically curb the onset of CTE with a negligible effect on game itself, should they do it?

If the NHL was in a position to protect Montador from sustaining CTE, should they have done so?

The answer is yes.

[Jason14h]

God I miss the days when people were responsible for their own actions.

How did anyone 'make' him play with a concussion???

Oh right, he wanted to continue to make a portion of his career 10.6 million dollar earnings.

It's terrible that his hockey career 'lifestyle' had an almost unarguable effect on his brain, but at what point are people responsible for their own choices?

[saillias]

Relevant

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha19m19 minutes ago
Boxer gets knocked out, can't get new license to box for at least 90 days. NHL players were knocked out and allowed to return in same game.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by saillias

Relevant

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha19m19 minutes ago
Boxer gets knocked out, can't get new license to box for at least 90 days. NHL players were knocked out and allowed to return in same game.

The 90 day thing is a joke. Who is the last boxer that fought twice in less than a 3 month span? It's irrelevant.

Ever watch a boxing match? There's guys flat out on their back that get up and continue fighting, and almost every match a guy is wobbling around dazed for a round or two. Probably doesn't even know he's in the ring. Suggesting boxing is better than hockey from a concussion standpoint is a joke. For my money, boxing/MMA are the most brutal sports on the planet that are socially acceptable.

[undercoverbrother]

I wonder if people understand that part of this is the NHL's lack of moves to reduce/eliminate fighting from the game.

Yes, brain trauma can occur from "hockey plays", but I would wager that much more trauma occurs when you are repeatedly punched in the face.

I wonder what people think happens to the brain during those "one punch" fights.

[Burninator]

I bet a lot of the same arguments in this thread were made when the NHL made helmets mandatory.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yes, brain trauma can occur from "hockey plays", but I would wager that much more trauma occurs when you are repeatedly punched in the face.

On the other hand let's say you're wrong and more trauma and concussions come from hockey plays. Would that be any reason not to limit the trauma as much as possible? Even if 90% of concussions come from clean checks and 10% from fights (made up numbers obv) who in their right mind would not take out the 10%?

People who think you shouldn't fix part of a problem because you can't fix the whole problem are fools.

Any reduction in concussions, whether it's 10% or 60%, should be strived for.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I wonder if people understand that part of this is the NHL's lack of moves to reduce/eliminate fighting from the game.

Yes, brain trauma can occur from "hockey plays", but I would wager that much more trauma occurs when you are repeatedly punched in the face.

I wonder what people think happens to the brain during those "one punch" fights.

I would wager that more concussions stem from hockey plays. Nothing to support that, just my opinion.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

On the other hand let's say you're wrong and more trauma and concussions come from hockey plays. Would that be any reason not to limit the trauma as much as possible? Even if 90% of concussions come from clean checks and 10% from fights (made up numbers obv) who in their right mind would not take out the 10%?

People who think you shouldn't fix part of a problem because you can't fix the whole problem are fools.

Any reduction in concussions, whether it's 10% or 60%, should be strived for.

psst, we are arguing the same point on the same side.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

psst, we are arguing the same point on the same side.

Sorry! I was agreeing with you just using your post as a point to riff off.

We are definitely in complete agreement.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

It's the game and it is part of it.. Feel bad for guys like this but come on.

See here is the thing. Fighting isn't part of playing hockey.


Fighting does nothing positive in the game.


Fighting is a load of bull####.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

See here is the thing. Fighting isn't part of playing hockey.


Fighting does nothing positive in the game.


Fighting is a load of bull####.

Who is forcing these players to fight? It's their choice.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Who is forcing these players to fight? It's their choice.

I have never been a professional hockey player, but I have a friend that was. You are foolish if you don't think that pressure is applied, either directly or indirectly to players to fight.


Flash posted a good comment. I would add to it. What if the employer knew or ought to have known that handling of the chemical could have detrimental affects to the employee, yet didn't stop or at least take significant steps to reduce exposure. What if the employee believed, as a result of actions/comments (direct or implied) during work reviews by the employer that handling the chemicals was part of their job description, when in fact it wasn't.

The work Flash noted, has a recourse if they are let go from their job and they believe it is incorrect or unjust. A hockey player does not have recourse.

Either directly or indirectly the NHL, their teams and staff are "forcing" some players to fight. If fighting was a requirement of being in the league, and a part of the job description why don't all payers fight?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I have never been a professional hockey player, but I have a friend that was. You are foolish if you don't think that pressure is applied, either directly or indirectly to players to fight.


Flash posted a good comment. I would add to it. What if the employer knew or ought to have known that handling of the chemical could have detrimental affects to the employee, yet didn't stop or at least take significant steps to reduce exposure. What if the employee believed, as a result of actions/comments (direct or implied) during work reviews by the employer that handling the chemicals was part of their job description, when in fact it wasn't.

The work Flash noted, has a recourse if they are let go from their job and they believe it is incorrect or unjust. A hockey player does not have recourse.

Either directly or indirectly the NHL, their teams and staff are "forcing" some players to fight. If fighting was a requirement of being in the league, and a part of the job description why don't all payers fight?

No, they aren't forcing players to fight. Do they imply to them that if they want a spot on this team, that is what is expected from time to time? Absolutely.

The choice to actually drop the gloves though is no one's but the player's. If they didn't want to, there are plenty of other lines of work or other leagues they could participate in. Use our friend Bob Hartley as an example. Scott Parker has accused him in the past of telling him in in certain games that if he didn't want to fight, he could smell the chocolate in Hershey (IE. We need to fight here, if not, enjoy the AHL). Scott Parker enjoys living the high lifr and making 700K a year, so he decided to drop the gloves. No one forced him to do that. He made that choice to continue having a roster spot. He could have just as easily not fought, and accepted a spot in Hershey.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

No, they aren't forcing players to fight. Do they imply to them that if they want a spot on this team, that is what is expected from time to time? Absolutely.

The choice to actually drop the gloves though is no one's but the player's. If they didn't want to, there are plenty of other lines of work or other leagues they could participate in. Use our friend Bob Hartley as an example. Scott Parker has accused him in the past of telling him in in certain games that if he didn't want to fight, he could smell the chocolate in Hershey (IE. We need to fight here, if not, enjoy the AHL). Scott Parker enjoys living the high lifr and making 700K a year, so he decided to drop the gloves. No one forced him to do that. He made that choice to continue having a roster spot. He could have just as easily not fought, and accepted a spot in Hershey.

So to be clear.

It is ok that an employer tell an individual they need to take part in a potentially life threatening activity, which is outside the scope of their job duty, under threat of job loss? While that employer knew or ought to have known the long term affects on this employee's health?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So to be clear.

It is ok that an employer tell an individual they need to take part in a potentially life threatening activity, which is outside the scope of their job duty, under threat of job loss? While that employer knew or ought to have known the long term affects on this employee's health?

How is it outside the scope of his duty? You mean to tell me that Scott Parker isn't aware that if he wants to be in the NHL that he has to be physical?

I personally could careless if they ban fighting or not in the NHL. If they took fighting out it would have zero impact on whether I watch the game or not.

That said, these law suits really bother me. Most of the people involved with these suits sit there and see no problem collecting a pay check for ten years knowing full well what they are doing and the risk they are assuming. Most of the families would have been telling people for years how proud they are that there loved one was in the NHL, and soon as the lifestyle/celebrity gravy train ends, it's "what a monster the NHL is, they are responsible for my issues".

I'm just going to stop posting on the subject because really it's pointless because I don't think there's anything that anyone could say that would convince me that someone who enters a professional contact sports league isn't aware there's a risk associated with playing their sport which could result in long term and debilitating injuries. We aren't talking about situations like Boogard where the NHL appears to have clearly have dropped the ball on their substance abuse program. We are talking about law suits for injuries sustained while playing a physical game, and it was the participants choice to involve themselves in that game.

I don't think there is any debating that physical sports like hockey and football cause serious injuries that may extent long past playing career. I'm debating that in playing these sports, you are accepting that risk and it's hypocritical to turn around and sue the league when you are done when you implied your consent by getting on the playing field in the first place.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

How is it outside the scope of his duty? You mean to tell me that Scott Parker isn't aware that if he wants to be in the NHL that he has to be physical?

I personally could careless if they ban fighting or not in the NHL. If they took fighting out it would have zero impact on whether I watch the game or not.

So how much care do you have left, sorry couldn't resist.

That said, these law suits really bother me. Most of the people involved with these suits sit there and see no problem collecting a pay check for ten years knowing full well what they are doing and the risk they are assuming. Most of the families would have been telling people for years how proud they are that there loved one was in the NHL, and soon as the lifestyle/celebrity gravy train ends, it's "what a monster the NHL is, they are responsible for my issues".

I'm just going to stop posting on the subject because really it's pointless because I don't think there's anything that anyone could say that would convince me that someone who enters a professional contact sports league isn't aware there's a risk associated with playing their sport which could result in long term and debilitating injuries. We aren't talking about situations like Boogard where the NHL appears to have clearly have dropped the ball on their substance abuse program. We are talking about law suits for injuries sustained while playing a physical game, and it was the participants choice to involve themselves in that game.

I don't think there is any debating that physical sports like hockey and football cause serious injuries that may extent long past playing career. I'm debating that in playing these sports, you are accepting that risk and it's hypocritical to turn around and sue the league when you are done when you implied your consent by getting on the playing field in the first place.

To be there is a difference between injuries that occur during the playing of the sport and injuries from fighting. It isn't the National Fighting League.

There are a couple of things at play here:

Brain injuries arising from the playing of hockey (exclusive of fighting). I don't believe that the same care was/is given to these types of injuries as say knees/shoulders. I have spoken to an individual that is at the end of his career with an NHL team as part of hockey operations. To quote this person "concussions, what a load of ####. When we played you fought through it, what is the point of Tylenol if you have to sit out with a headache". This individual is obviously older, but gives a snapshot into how the league/teams/management thought about brain injuries. Injuries happen from playing a psychical sport, the question is are the athlete's best interests being looked after when those injuries, specifically brain injuries happen.

I know that there are chances from physical sport, I have played rugby for nearly 30 years and continue to play.