Dementia legal case

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Tonka said:

 

You have to remember as well that this will be about the safeguarding in place.  If someone chooses to play contact sport, the organizer has a duty of care, but that can't go as far as to preclude all injury: it's implicit in the nature of the sport that there will be some.

After a game in the early 90s, it was reported that Ellery Hanley might take legal action against Andy Dannatt of Hull F.C. Presumably this would have been a civil case against the individual. Had it been against the RFL on the grounds their disciplinary system had failed to adequately deter foul play, our governing body would have had good cause to feel nervous. Given that within the game such incidents had traditionally been trivialised, even regarded as comical.

[RP London]

15 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I fully understand all that RP and thank you for your response.

I have highlighted just one sentance because I am not sure how in the rigours of an action, collision sport such as RL is (leaving aside other sports for this discussion) how all precautions can be taken, lets just look at one particular instance we have all seen many many times such as when an attacker slips going into contact where a defender has caught the attacker on the head with his arm but in reality the defender had already took aim to hit the defender in the body and it is the attacker who has caused the incident by switching his body position in the process of slipping that his head comes into contact with the arm not the other way around. This is one example out of hundreds that could be highlighted that accurs during the course of a game.

If blame and litigation can be apportioned by accidents such as these later which all add up after a lifetime in the sport then the game needs to alter a good propostion of it's rules so as to avoid such consequences. The sport will in no way resemble anything like what we have today, will it lose it's appeal that is for future generations to decide, but I cannot see any alternative if in this "it's somebody else's fault" society any physical contact sport is going to survive.

 

I am by no means a legal expert so its hard to explain or even work the ramifications out. However, I think the individual mistakes that happen become a distraction from the bigger issue. These mistakes have always happened in every sport and always will and is accepted when you "go passed the white line" in the same way as you hear people talking of "that would be gbh off the pitch". 

In my understanding the issue is around the knowledge and the preventative actions along with after care around the whole game. Contact training as punishment, not being looked after properly with a concussion etc rather than specific incidences of a high tackle. The game/match itself isn't the issue its the 6 days a week of constant collisions, training when you shouldn't have been, being rushed back to play by a coach/physio when you shouldn't have been etc etc. 

I totally understand where your concern is, and I don't belittle it in anyway but that concern has always been there, I think this case is much bigger than that and I don't think it is the start of what you fear. For 2 reasons:

1. the NFL settled their case in 2011 accepting issues. By doing that they are looking after (with a massive sum) those who played pre 2011. But there has been no deluge of other court cases and that is in America who are far more litigious than we are. 

2. While we all get calls from ambulance chasers they don't always take every case form everyone who says yes. If they don't think they can win , or win big enough, they just don't bother (especially the no win no fee ones). Car crashes etc are normally settled because the insurance companies cannot be bothered to fight it and make a decision that its cheaper to pay out a few thousand on a physio bill for whiplash than it is to take the legal costs. The big cases they fight though. It would be the same here, and they could do it now but people don't. I don't see how that changes further down the line.

With your legally binding document we all sign up to register to play. Its the same sort of thing and a good lawyer would argue that. You know the risks that you may have an issue like your example. The ref and other players do all they can to prevent it but these things still happen they are just accidents. 

In a normal work environment accidents happen and hse leave you alone until they become constant or big.. then they check that you are doing all you can to prevent it, if not you are in trouble, but if you are then so be it and you are ok. I believe its the same, are you doing all you can to prevent high tackles? they are banned and when they happen the perpetrator is punished. Are you doing enough to stop dangerous collisions?  we banned the shoulder barge but perhaps they need to look at things, way from the concussion and head they've stopped the cannonball which was dangerous and the chicken wing etc 

As GJ said earlier do they do enough to let players know about long term signs to look for, what to do if they are worried etc. Are they, in training, looking closely enough at the data like they do in the match where they check videos of tackles for issues. Do they do too much contact training etc etc these are all things they need to look at and apply the knowledge of the time to. If they are not they could get into trouble. But I don't think this case heightens the chances of the legal actions you mention. It would be if that all happened, the player was then groggy and the physio  said "man up and play on".. then they're might be a case (and I would hope so too).. 

Hope that makes a bit of sense, not in a position to argue well as not being a lawyer its too complicated and its just my interpretation of it, you may be right but I just don't see it going to the extremes you mention. 

 

[TBone]

8 hours ago, tag said:

The players will just stand deeper

in which case they risk losing ground. The dummy half/first receiver will be much closer to the defensive line (which will be advancing) and will have to ship the ball fast to find anyone who has space to get up to speed and get near the advantage line before contact.

[TBone]

8 hours ago, Damien said:

Contrary to belief many concussions and head clashes are accidental, often with team mates when attempting tackles. There is little that can be done to prevent that. 

Agreed, but that is, as you say, beyond contro and therefore is a risk that any player has to accept if they wish to play the game. So are you saying that we should give up the game or that we should abandon changes that can possibly reduce risk (and therefore establish some evidence of response to acting on duty of care) - the game engineered the high collision spectacle to please crowds, it was warned about possible consequences of introducing the 10m rule, so it has, to a certain degree, left itself vulnerable to these sort of charges.

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

The whole point of boxing is to hit you in the head.  And that's before we get to kick boxing etc.  Once a boxer say tires then he inevitably opens himself to get a bad 'one off' hit that cripples him.   But it is openly legal.

See many legal unlimited round bare knuckled fights these days?

[giasf]

Any insurance experts on here? Would this case be covered by the insurance policy that the RFL/SL takes out? My guess would be that the RFL would make a payout against its insurance policy (if it lost) but that the insurers would then likely want to see material changes in order to continue to insure the sport - either rule/protocol changes or requiring players to sign waivers.

I think we all frankly acknowledge that those wishing to pursue long careers in the sport at any level will have to accept a lifetime of aches and pains in return, but some of the stories about brain/mental injuries that are coming out are horrible. Let's hope at a minimum we can move the sport forward in terms of protecting players particularly in this respect. We also need to end the culture that lauds carrying on whilst clearly unfit to play - the concussion protocols have been a huge step forward in that respect.

[graveyard johnny]

we are all missing a very important point here - the brain and the body are too very different things , while a persons brain may have a shelf life of say 70years for eg these days with healthy life styles and modern medicines the body could go on till say 90 - the same applies the other way round - a person could be as sharp as a tack but their heart may be on its way out - am not saying blows to the head do you any good  but i know older women with dementia that have never played anything rougher than ludo

[RP London]

49 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

we are all missing a very important point here - the brain and the body are too very different things , while a persons brain may have a shelf life of say 70years for eg these days with healthy life styles and modern medicines the body could go on till say 90 - the same applies the other way round - a person could be as sharp as a tack but their heart may be on its way out - am not saying blows to the head do you any good  but i know older women with dementia that have never played anything rougher than ludo

of course we will see an increase in dementia as people live longer, we are seeing that and have been for years. People are sometimes surprised when they talk about hereditary dementia because "there is no history of dementia in the family" when they have all died of Cancer or Heart Disease before they could have all got that old etc. 

however, we are talking of people that are early 40s with early onset dementia that all have in common the fact they played professional Rugby in the late 90s early 00s... it is becoming a bit more than just a coincidence. 

The players have all undergone tests before they have joined the lawsuit and there are links by medical researches between contact sports and this type of brain damage. This isnt heavily disputed it is going to be a case of "was there negligence on the governing bodies side" rather than "did rugby cause this/speed this development up". 

 

[Levrier]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

See many legal unlimited round bare knuckled fights these days?

The first rule of fight club is that you do not talk about fight club.

[Blind side johnny]

On 22/12/2020 at 07:41, graveyard johnny said:

where will it end? will people be urged to sue former teachers for the "crack round the head" they got at school for been unruly? playing contact sports is a choice and may come with some risk but its always been the same, no one forces people to play contact sport.

Go on, tell us - it never did you any harm, did it?

[Blind side johnny]

21 hours ago, Click said:

Pretty sure the helmets in NFL make their concussions worse rather than better.

You can secure the head as much as you want but the brain is still loose in there.

Yes, much less of a protection than many believe.

Not quite the same at all but bare-knuckle fighting is actually much safer than when gloves are used.

[Levrier]

We are just scratching the surface of this issue. Imagine looking at badminton where a player might practice lunging returns over and over where each on will see a sudden deceleration where the brain contacts against the inside of the skull causing micro concussions. We might have to decide what levels of risk are acceptable or simply give up playing a vast number of sports. The proviso is that acceptability of risk changes with changing knowledge.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Yes, much less of a protection than many believe.

Not quite the same at all but bare-knuckle fighting is actually much safer than when gloves are used.

Not for the hands and knuckles it ain't. Just saying.

[Blind side johnny]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not for the hands and knuckles it ain't. Just saying.

Exactly, that is why it is safer in terms of head injuries. Gloves protect the hands, not the head.

[Levrier]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not for the hands and knuckles it ain't. Just saying.

I remember some "expert" on The BBC explaining that in bare knuckle boxing body shots are more common than head shots because of the lower likelihood of damaging the hands and therefor fewer people had died in professional bareknuckle bouts (in a given period) than in modern boxing over a similar period. Even as I write this the methodology seems dodgy though.

[Damien]

46 minutes ago, RP London said:

of course we will see an increase in dementia as people live longer, we are seeing that and have been for years. People are sometimes surprised when they talk about hereditary dementia because "there is no history of dementia in the family" when they have all died of Cancer or Heart Disease before they could have all got that old etc. 

however, we are talking of people that are early 40s with early onset dementia that all have in common the fact they played professional Rugby in the late 90s early 00s... it is becoming a bit more than just a coincidence. 

The players have all undergone tests before they have joined the lawsuit and there are links by medical researches between contact sports and this type of brain damage. This isnt heavily disputed it is going to be a case of "was there negligence on the governing bodies side" rather than "did rugby cause this/speed this development up". 

 

I'm not questioning what you say but how much of this is also down to better medical care and diagnosis? What was previously put down to someone getting older or maybe a bit forgetful and confused is now being recognised as more than that much sooner. Previously people were not tested for these things in their 40's. I'm not even sure if the general populous are even being tested widely now at this age and there is certainly a disproportionate focus on sportsmen for obvious reasons. Again I do not doubt what you say but think there are many, many variables at play.

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Levrier said:

We are just scratching the surface of this issue. Imagine looking at badminton where a player might practice lunging returns over and over where each on will see a sudden deceleration where the brain contacts against the inside of the skull causing micro concussions. We might have to decide what levels of risk are acceptable or simply give up playing a vast number of sports. The proviso is that acceptability of risk changes with changing knowledge.

Yep, I can see in a hundred years or so all our top class contact sports will be played out on computor screens in virtual reality tournaments.

Now that the legals have found something else that could be profitable if these cases that are going to heard and adjudged are successful in the player's favour (and for the record, I will state that I don't begrudge them whatever they get) then this will only grow in popularity by the legal profession and they will exploit it till there is nothing less to squeeze out.

There will be no alternative for governing bodies but to eradicate area's of the game by rule changes of any blame that can be apportioned to them, as Damien pointed out in an earlier post lots of head injuries are by friendly fire of teammates clashing in the act of making a tackle how can that be eliminated, actions such as this that are completely accidental will not be highlighted in court cases it will be the rigours of years of playing the game that has resulted in people being unfortunate enough to develop complications later in life.

Tag or Touch Rugby League as a spectator sport anyone?

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not questioning what you say but how much of this is also down to better medical care and diagnosis? What was previously put down to someone getting older or maybe a bit forgetful and confused is now being recognised as more than that much sooner. Previously people were not tested for these things in their 40's. I'm not even sure if the general populous are even being tested widely now at this age and there is certainly a disproportionate focus on sportsmen for obvious reasons. Again I do not doubt what you say but think there are many, many variables at play.

Well we have found some common ground Damien that we agree on.

[RP London]

53 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not questioning what you say but how much of this is also down to better medical care and diagnosis? What was previously put down to someone getting older or maybe a bit forgetful and confused is now being recognised as more than that much sooner. Previously people were not tested for these things in their 40's. I'm not even sure if the general populous are even being tested widely now at this age and there is certainly a disproportionate focus on sportsmen for obvious reasons. Again I do not doubt what you say but think there are many, many variables at play.

Of course that is all right.. people are more worried about it, they are more alert to it. If you are starting to get worried about forgetting things you go to the doctor and get yourself checked out. The more understanding of it we have the more we will sport it.. totally agree.

However, is Rugby the cause of it and how much have Rugby been doing with the knowledge available at the time to stop it. While you say all that, which is true, the converse is true too because if Rugby (of either code) knew this and could have been better at detecting and better at the medical care (because it was there) then it could be in a very tricky spot. 

I remember fighting a trademark case where one of our competitors tried to trademark a product we had both been making for over 100 years where the story around the product creation of the other company was rubbish, we knew the real story which was more general (and historical) but they kept trying to use their "provenance". our lawyer had to keep calming us down and pulling us back because that was no argument it was a distraction. All we had to prove was that it went back a "long time" and we were known for it etc.. in the end it was an "easy win" (bloody expensive though) but what i remember is fight the correct fight. 

All of what you say is true but it doesnt matter. If these players were let down because the knowledge was there to stop it then they will win and it will hurt both codes. Its like Tobacco and lung cancer, just because we detect it better (which leads to more people being diagnosed) does not mean that they arent causing some of it, and if they are, and know they are and dont do anything about it, they are going to be paying out.

 

[RP London]

58 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yep, I can see in a hundred years or so all our top class contact sports will be played out on computor screens in virtual reality tournaments.

Now that the legals have found something else that could be profitable if these cases that are going to heard and adjudged are successful in the player's favour (and for the record, I will state that I don't begrudge them whatever they get) then this will only grow in popularity by the legal profession and they will exploit it till there is nothing less to squeeze out.

There will be no alternative for governing bodies but to eradicate area's of the game by rule changes of any blame that can be apportioned to them, as Damien pointed out in an earlier post lots of head injuries are by friendly fire of teammates clashing in the act of making a tackle how can that be eliminated, actions such as this that are completely accidental will not be highlighted in court cases it will be the rigours of years of playing the game that has resulted in people being unfortunate enough to develop complications later in life.

Tag or Touch Rugby League as a spectator sport anyone?

There is a major knee jerk panic being made here by people (just using your post Harry not saying you are doing the full panic mode) that the game is going to have to lose all contact. As i asked on the other thread, have people seen any of the documentaries and interviews that are out there at the moment?

Many of the players talk of different things to solve this and very few are to minimise the contact in the game, the reason being the game is 1 small part of the week.. 80 minutes compared to hours upon hours of training. 

2 suggestions were:

reducing the amount of contact training sessions allowed in a season (this happens in the NFL since their case)

brain scans at set intervals to show any deterioration  and telling players to retire if there is a certain amount, a bit like the heart monitoring that is going on

its not about stopping the contact, its a risky game and people know it, its about reducing the risk to the player and keeping them as safe as possible and monitoring is one of those. 

Everyone sees concussion and thinks "head knock" its not its all sorts. In the same way as the solution isnt to "stop high tackles" its more complicated. 

1 hour ago, Levrier said:

We are just scratching the surface of this issue. Imagine looking at badminton where a player might practice lunging returns over and over where each on will see a sudden deceleration where the brain contacts against the inside of the skull causing micro concussions. We might have to decide what levels of risk are acceptable or simply give up playing a vast number of sports. The proviso is that acceptability of risk changes with changing knowledge.

Whilst i acknowledge you mean that as a bit of an extreme example its important to realise that the body is designed to move, to run and to stop. The brain has quite a bit of give in it and does not always bang around the skull when you stop, there is a liquid to cushion this for a start (we are designed to protect the brain) but also your body prepares itself, your neck absorbs movement etc etc.. when you put it into the position where it is constantly stopping at large g forces thats where you have the problem. 

[Rupert Prince]

4 hours ago, RP London said:

of course we will see an increase in dementia as people live longer, we are seeing that and have been for years. People are sometimes surprised when they talk about hereditary dementia because "there is no history of dementia in the family" when they have all died of Cancer or Heart Disease before they could have all got that old etc. 

however, we are talking of people that are early 40s with early onset dementia that all have in common the fact they played professional Rugby in the late 90s early 00s... it is becoming a bit more than just a coincidence. 

The players have all undergone tests before they have joined the lawsuit and there are links by medical researches between contact sports and this type of brain damage. This isnt heavily disputed it is going to be a case of "was there negligence on the governing bodies side" rather than "did rugby cause this/speed this development up". 

 

Early onset is a different type of dementia isn't it?  Unfortunately we don't properly know what it was that got you untill your dead and they cut you up.

The suggestion is that older footballers with dementia got it heading the ball and not coincidentally.

To add, on legal issues.  If things are agreed out of court ... with insurance companies being more sanguine about it ... then in my (amateurish) understanding, then there is no liability and thus the game, any game, can continue albeit under a new 'accepted' regime and anyone subject to that would not receive any pay out.  If a court case results in the ruling body losing ... would this not be more draconian? I mean, organisers would be under a more heavily legally restricted regime. (?)

[Blind side johnny]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yep, I can see in a hundred years or so all our top class contact sports will be played out on computor screens in virtual reality tournaments.

Now that the legals have found something else that could be profitable if these cases that are going to heard and adjudged are successful in the player's favour (and for the record, I will state that I don't begrudge them whatever they get) then this will only grow in popularity by the legal profession and they will exploit it till there is nothing less to squeeze out.

There will be no alternative for governing bodies but to eradicate area's of the game by rule changes of any blame that can be apportioned to them, as Damien pointed out in an earlier post lots of head injuries are by friendly fire of teammates clashing in the act of making a tackle how can that be eliminated, actions such as this that are completely accidental will not be highlighted in court cases it will be the rigours of years of playing the game that has resulted in people being unfortunate enough to develop complications later in life.

Tag or Touch Rugby League as a spectator sport anyone?

It is easy to fail to recognise that professional sports are simply another form of employment. The employer has a duty of care towards the employee and, no matter what the prejudice of the customer, that must remain the case.

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Early onset is a different type of dementia isn't it?  Unfortunately we don't properly know what it was that got you untill your dead and they cut you up.

The suggestion is that older footballers with dementia got it heading the ball and not coincidentally.

To add, on legal issues.  If things are agreed out of court ... with insurance companies being more sanguine about it ... then in my (amateurish) understanding, then there is no liability and thus the game, any game, can continue albeit under a new 'accepted' regime and anyone subject to that would not receive any pay out.  If a court case results in the ruling body losing ... would this not be more draconian? I mean, organisers would be under a more heavily legally restricted regime. (?)

I have the same understanding as your last paragraph i think, which is why they will likely settle and set up a fund if it looks like it is going that way, again like the NFL did. 

My understanding is that early onset is just the early stages of what will become dementia, that could take 50 years but it could be 5 too.. they just dont know and each person is different. Alix Popham, for instance, in the interview was saying they expect him to be in a home within 10 years.. which at 42 and a brand new baby is a bit scary.. 

[Blind side johnny]

Just now, RP London said:

I have the same understanding as your last paragraph i think, which is why they will likely settle and set up a fund if it looks like it is going that way, again like the NFL did. 

My understanding is that early onset is just the early stages of what will become dementia, that could take 50 years but it could be 5 too.. they just dont know and each person is different. Alix Popham, for instance, in the interview was saying they expect him to be in a home within 10 years.. which at 42 and a brand new baby is a bit scary.. 

Drawing a parallel with US sports is dangerous, however. For whatever peculiar reason the status of sportspeople in the USA is different from that of a regular employee.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Blind side johnny said:

Drawing a parallel with US sports is dangerous, however. For whatever peculiar reason the status of sportspeople in the USA is different from that of a regular employee.

yes but the science that is being used is what was used there so there is a parallel to be drawn. It is also just an example of how they came up with a solution, something which could be done here.