Football fans are likely rejoicing as the NFL Lockout slowly moves towards its inevitable end as if it were what the media wanted carmageddon to be. It’s Thursday morning and I don’t know whether the Lockout is officially over, but, according to guys who talk on TV, it’s a done deal. So, owners and league representatives can now breath easy, just in time to turn their attention to getting sued over concussions.
Seventy-five former pro football players claim in a lawsuit that the National Football League covered up information about the harmful effects of concussions. The suit claims the NFL knew of problems since the 1920s, but concealed the facts, TMZ reports.
Anyway, I don’t want to go too in depth on this, but, did just want to get this up as a quick post because the Slate article about the lawsuits is a great read. The article covers a lot of ground on the lawsuits and does so in a fairly compact way that is easy to read.
They start by talking about the claims the NFL could bring with the lawsuit: claiming fraudulent concealment and also negligence. The article lists the fraudulent concealment claim as the more dramatic of the two, one that could bring about more in punitive damages, if held against the NFL. From there, Slate lays out some of the possible defenses that the NFL could bring against the lawsuits.
Concussions are a huge issue in the NFL, right now, because of all the advances in science. Sure, in the 1920s the NFL certainly knew hard tackles might have some negative effects on folks, but, now, science is starting to present what those negative effects are. It hasn’t exactly been pretty. The NFL has seemed, from a distance, to be taking a good approach towards wanting to address the issues, but, for something like this, it’s always a murky area given the inherent dangers of the NFL.
Thoughts on the Slate article, the lawsuits or just the Lockout in general?