And so it begins....

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

"Rugby World Cup winner Steve Thompson and seven other former players claim the sport has left them with permanent brain damage - and are in the process of starting a claim against the game's authorities for negligence.It is understood a letter of claim, amounting to millions of pounds in damages, will be sent next week to the governing bodies for English and Welsh rugby and World Rugby - and a group class action could follow." (BBC News 8/12/20)

And Football is already gearing up to follow a similar path. So if any ex player gets dementia ergo it's as a result of sporting activities.

Ok- if heading a ball in football, playing in a scrum in rugby is likely or potentially possible to cause brain damage then- Players in the professional game right NOW must immediately stop playing until all possible long term consequences are removed from the game. Head ball is immediately made a 'handball' offence and the egg chasers must not tackle or scrummage , ruck etc. Amateur/ junior /kids only get involved in safe non contact sport.

Salaries should then be commensurate with the reduced danger and fans charged less to view. Alternatively, players on huge wages and celebrity D list status should perhaps accept the risks associated with a contact sport in the same way NHS staff accept risk of infections or in the same way as 50% of the UK working population who's job may lead them die of boredom or frustration.

End of rant.

 

[Akira]

4 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

"Rugby World Cup winner Steve Thompson and seven other former players claim the sport has left them with permanent brain damage - and are in the process of starting a claim against the game's authorities for negligence.It is understood a letter of claim, amounting to millions of pounds in damages, will be sent next week to the governing bodies for English and Welsh rugby and World Rugby - and a group class action could follow." (BBC News 8/12/20)

And Football is already gearing up to follow a similar path. So if any ex player gets dementia ergo it's as a result of sporting activities.

Ok- if heading a ball in football, playing in a scrum in rugby is likely or potentially possible to cause brain damage then- Players in the professional game right NOW must immediately stop playing until all possible long term consequences are removed from the game. Head ball is immediately made a 'handball' offence and the egg chasers must not tackle or scrummage , ruck etc. Amateur/ junior /kids only get involved in safe non contact sport.

Salaries should then be commensurate with the reduced danger and fans charged less to view. Alternatively, players on huge wages and celebrity D list status should perhaps accept the risks associated with a contact sport in the same way NHS staff accept risk of infections or in the same way as 50% of the UK working population who's job may lead them die of boredom or frustration.

End of rant.

 

Can't help but agree with you. It's the equivalent of a boxer suing the governing body because he's had a brain damage, suffered a stroke or something later on in life, due to excessive beats to the head. Kinda obvious really given the nature of the sport. 

It's part of the risk you take. No one else to blame but yourself. Hard to gather any sympathy because it's a career they've chosen, and were FULLY aware of the risks. 

Any boxer that gets in the ring, knows it could potentially be their last. Rugby not as much, however they must all be aware of the long term damage, you're getting battered every single week. Broken noses, cauliflower ears, knocks to the head, will all have an effect. 

They've enjoyed the riches in which the game has brought them. Even if they were non league players, everyone knows its a contact sport. 

[BCFC Rich]

If its similar to what happened with the NFL then it will based on proving suppression of information - deliberately making sure details were not public knowledge/hiding in house studies that highlighted risks.  If that is the case then there is something in it. You don't need to stop all games but if information comes to light about a risk then it's important that the players know that risk. 

[Tipps69]

That’ll probably be the end of contact sports as we know them (if you can call football a contact sport anymore?)

Authorities & governing bodies won’t be able to afford to deal with this & carry on, no matter how much they make because people will simply jump on the bandwagon if they know there’s money available for them to make.

[Judda]

Or they'll just have to play in helmets like nfl

[robin_unreliant]

I don't know how they can keep a straight face when claiming they didn't know rugby could damage their health. 

I feel the same way about smokers trying to sue tobacco companies. Come on, who could possibly not know it isn't good to abuse your body. 

[windmillhillred]

Some pretty harsh comments here about someone who won the World Cup for his country and now, in his early 40s, is facing dementia. The points Thompson has made in his interviews are that concussions were expected and ignored, and that the highly physical side of training was overdone. That is very different to someone suing after getting a muscle injury or breaking a bone.

 

[Maesknoll Red]

2 minutes ago, windmillhillred said:

Some pretty harsh comments here about someone who won the World Cup for his country and now, in his early 40s, is facing dementia. The points Thompson has made in his interviews are that concussions were expected and ignored, and that the highly physical side of training was overdone. That is very different to someone suing after getting a muscle injury or breaking a bone.

 

Did the governing body set the training regime? 

If the governing bodies do have conclusive evidence that playing could cause dementia and haven’t made those available, then they should be held to account, if this is a new revelation and there are no studies that hold water, then I’m not sure the governing body is accountable, it does seem that everything that happens now has to be someone’s fault and that then brings about the inevitable lawsuits.

[windmillhillred]

Just now, Maesknoll Red said:

Did the governing body set the training regime? 

If the governing bodies do have conclusive evidence that playing could cause dementia and haven’t made those available, then they should be held to account, if this is a new revelation and there are no studies that hold water, then I’m not sure the governing body is accountable, it does seem that everything that happens now has to be someone’s fault and that then brings about the inevitable lawsuits.

Yes, fair point. Whether there is a case to answer for the RFU or not, I think Thompson should be treated with empathy and respect. Nobody should expect that playing a contact sport professionally should lead to dementia, particularly at such a young age. It might well be that his dementia has nothing to do with rugby, but I don’t blame him for wanting to explore whether or not it may have played a role.

 

[A Horse With No Name]

I am currently reading Stanley Matthews autobiography, published 20 years ago,  and this is his description of a football in the 1950s.

The ball was an old leather caseball,  with shine and sheen long since gone. The leather was so lacerated that every time you headed it you were in danger of receiving 20 lashes. On wet days the ball was so sodden with rain it must have tripled in weight. You dont have to know much about physics to realise that when such a ball comes down from a height, and makes contact with your head, there's going to be one hell of an impact. It nigh on ripped the hair from your forehead. To this day, when I see a bald headed man, I think to myself, "theres a bloke who was never afraid to get up and head a ball".

[big dosser]

where there's blame there's a claim,get ready for the adverts by claims companys  on tv

[And Its Smith]

1 hour ago, robin_unreliant said:

I don't know how they can keep a straight face when claiming they didn't know rugby could damage their health. 

I feel the same way about smokers trying to sue tobacco companies. Come on, who could possibly not know it isn't good to abuse your body. 

If you play sport and get a concussion but you get told to carry on, that is negligent.

Good episode of the Tifo podcast gives a lot of information and might change your mind

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/tifo-football-podcast/id1227699368?i=1000501690576

[And Its Smith]

1 hour ago, windmillhillred said:

Some pretty harsh comments here about someone who won the World Cup for his country and now, in his early 40s, is facing dementia. The points Thompson has made in his interviews are that concussions were expected and ignored, and that the highly physical side of training was overdone. That is very different to someone suing after getting a muscle injury or breaking a bone.

 

I think its a case of harsh comment based on ignorance really.  Everyone is learning about dementia all of the time and lots of people need to catch up

Plenty of resources now for anyone who wants to educate themselves on it. 

[miketh2nd]

2 hours ago, Judda said:

Or they'll just have to play in helmets like nfl

I thought this before but I remember hearing a while ago that in boxing  it's worse to wear a helmet(padding) ( like in the Olympics) as you think your invisible and put your body further then you would with a helmet and do not stop concussions. They actually outlawed Helmets for the 2016 Olympics I believe or said you didn't have to wear them.

 Here is a article written by the guardian in 2019 that explains  the same in the NFL ;

The biggest misconception about football helmets is that they prevent concussions. They don’t. Helmets protect the skull from fractures. Concussions are caused when the brain moves inside the skull; helmets do little if anything to prevent the brain from rattling inside the skull. Helmets are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/helmets-dont-eliminate-concussions-its-time-for-the-nfl-to-ditch-them#:~:text=They don't.,from rattling inside the skull.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

9 hours ago, Akira said:

Can't help but agree with you. It's the equivalent of a boxer suing the governing body because he's had a brain damage, suffered a stroke or something later on in life, due to excessive beats to the head. Kinda obvious really given the nature of the sport. 

It's part of the risk you take. No one else to blame but yourself. Hard to gather any sympathy because it's a career they've chosen, and were FULLY aware of the risks. 

Any boxer that gets in the ring, knows it could potentially be their last. Rugby not as much, however they must all be aware of the long term damage, you're getting battered every single week. Broken noses, cauliflower ears, knocks to the head, will all have an effect. 

They've enjoyed the riches in which the game has brought them. Even if they were non league players, everyone knows its a contact sport. 

this is the point- at the top end of the game where the money is then surely these professionals must know they take a risk. The more fearless you are- the greater your chance of success and the money that follows.

I'm not talking about kids or those who just play for a bit of fun.

If boxing was made into some form of contact sport where a knock out/ knockdown was an impossibility then I don't it would attract the crowds.

Of course, when fencing became a sport where you didn't actually run someone through- it became a lot less popular as a spectator sport but has saved a number of lives.

[windmillhillred]

5 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

this is the point- at the top end of the game where the money is then surely these professionals must know they take a risk. The more fearless you are- the greater your chance of success and the money that follows.

I'm not talking about kids or those who just play for a bit of fun.

If boxing was made into some form of contact sport where a knock out/ knockdown was an impossibility then I don't it would attract the crowds.

Of course, when fencing became a sport where you didn't actually run someone through- it became a lot less popular as a spectator sport but has saved a number of lives.

We’re not talking about multi millionaires here (at least not then). Thompson was in the first set of players when the game turned professional. I doubt he made enough money to retire, despite winning the World Cup. That said, surely it is important that the governing bodies of all sports make players aware of the possible risks (and the RFU may well have done) and changed things as the evidence changed - eg look at cricket where helmets were redesigned following Phil Hughes’ death.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

I think the point people are missing is how much Rugby Union has changed in the last few decades.  There are some startling stats in this morning’s Guardian.  In the 1970s there were, on average, 104 tackles in a match, with 38 rucks/mauls; that has grown (in the 2019 six nations) to an average 322 tackles and 213 rucks/mauls.  In the meantime schools have continued to promote rugby with very little thought for the consequences of how the game has changed, and the RFU has been negligent in protecting players. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players who were playing at the turn of the millennium not to realise the possible effects on their health of playing rugby, particularly given the way the game was changing, but the RFU should have been alert to the risks and should have been sponsoring relevant research.

if you compare the legendary ‘Pontypool front row’ of the 1970s with today’s prop forwards, they’re almost a different species.  Stack Stevens who played prop for England in the 1960s was a fisherman from Penzance & Newlyn, for heaven’s sake.   Today’s forwards are 20 stone of solid muscle, almost the equivalent of a brick wall when it comes to tackling.  But rugby is still promoted in schools as manly and rugged, rather than potentially suicidal.  I’ve loved rugby all my life (my father was a proud Welshman) but enough’s enough; it simply cannot continue as it is, or it will become like Rollerball and people will be killed,

[windmillhillred]

9 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I think the point people are missing is how much Rugby Union has changed in the last few decades.  There are some startling stats in this morning’s Guardian.  In the 1970s there were, on average, 104 tackles in a match, with 38 rucks/mauls; that has grown (in the 2019 six nations) to an average 322 tackles and 213 rucks/mauls.  In the meantime schools have continued to promote rugby with very little thought for the consequences of how the game has changed, and the RFU has been negligent in protecting players. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players who were playing at the turn of the millennium not to realise the possible effects on their health of playing rugby, particularly given the way the game was changing, but the RFU should have been alert to the risks and should have been sponsoring relevant research.

if you compare the legendary ‘Pontypool front row’ of the 1970s with today’s prop forwards, they’re almost a different species.  Stack Stevens who played prop for England in the 1960s was a fisherman from Penzance & Newlyn, for heaven’s sake.   Today’s forwards are 20 stone of solid muscle, almost the equivalent of a brick wall when it comes to tackling.  But rugby is still promoted in schools as manly and rugged, rather than potentially suicidal.  I’ve loved rugby all my life (my father was a proud Welshman) but enough’s enough; it simply cannot continue as it is, or it will become like Rollerball and people will be killed,

This is such a good point. Rugby from the 1970s looks fairly ridiculous now - the sport has changed beyond all recognition.

[Midred]

2 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I think the point people are missing is how much Rugby Union has changed in the last few decades.  There are some startling stats in this morning’s Guardian.  In the 1970s there were, on average, 104 tackles in a match, with 38 rucks/mauls; that has grown (in the 2019 six nations) to an average 322 tackles and 213 rucks/mauls.  In the meantime schools have continued to promote rugby with very little thought for the consequences of how the game has changed, and the RFU has been negligent in protecting players. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players who were playing at the turn of the millennium not to realise the possible effects on their health of playing rugby, particularly given the way the game was changing, but the RFU should have been alert to the risks and should have been sponsoring relevant research.

if you compare the legendary ‘Pontypool front row’ of the 1970s with today’s prop forwards, they’re almost a different species.  Stack Stevens who played prop for England in the 1960s was a fisherman from Penzance & Newlyn, for heaven’s sake.   Today’s forwards are 20 stone of solid muscle, almost the equivalent of a brick wall when it comes to tackling.  But rugby is still promoted in schools as manly and rugged, rather than potentially suicidal.  I’ve loved rugby all my life (my father was a proud Welshman) but enough’s enough; it simply cannot continue as it is, or it will become like Rollerball and people will be killed,

Dusty Hare was farming near Newark and Brian Moore, a solicitor in Nottingham - ironic as he knows more about the laws of rugby union now than he did as a player!