View Single Post
Old 05-17-2012, 10:55 AM   #7
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 58
Posts: 21,701
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeesson View Post
Please listen carefully. Your analogy is a bad one. They are not simply filing suing because there is new knowledge that wasn't available 20 years ago, they are suing because the knowledge that WAS available 20 years ago was intentionally kept from them by the NFL. They denied, right up until 2010, that there was any link at all between concussions suffered from NFL play, and the dementia and other various ailments that past veterans had suffered. They denied it because they didn't want to pay for it. The same greedy ****ers that initiated a lockout because 65 percent of the profits were not enough for them; and then played a public relations game that made that lockout look like a strike. It's people like yourself that fell for this trick, because you... you know what? I'm not going to start throwing personal insults. That isn't the direction I want this post to go. I just get frustrated when misinformation is spread by people who don't have all the facts. Not knowing all the facts is forgivable. Being aware of your lack of knowledge, and not doing anything to correct it is a crime against having a brain.
It's simplistic to lay this only at the feet of the NFL, certainly players colliding at full force would not think there were no lasting effects. Proof of that is that players today are far more aware, and still choose to play the game. We haven't seen a mass exodus of players as medical facts are released to confirm the common sense facts of yesteryear. Stories of the Raiders taking all sorts of grab bag meds to first hyper strengthen and then dull the pain afterwards have existed since the 70's.

I am not relieving the past NFL of burden for any time where they specifically refused to release proven science, but I doubt that is as far reaching as you claim it is.

As for the lockout diatribe, that's ridiculous but you are welcome to relive that debate here.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 0.89897 seconds with 10 queries