Rugby Brain Damage High Court Case
You can be the biggest, meanest and toughest player on the playing field, but when it comes to a brain injury every player is as fragile as the next.
For those of you who have been following the court case with interest will know that not much has moved forward with the latest hearing that took place on the 1st December. Over 300 ex players are involved with many more now coming forward to join and this looks like it will sadly be involving far more players than expected. I see this 300 number doubling if not tripling over the next 6 months as ex players realise what they have is not just a simple loss of memory due to old age when you are in your 30's,40's or 50's.
Everyone's symptoms will be different from mild to extreme and will only show themselves later in life many years after you stopped playing. That is the norm with a few exceptions who stopped playing due to early dementia when they were in their early 30"s. Those are the ones this case should be about as the extreme cases are the most worrying.
The idea of this hearing was to bundle the case as one group litigation and not on an individual basis. For that to happen the court has asked for medical records of those affected to be gathered for their next hearing in April/May next year.
The problem with this now is many players may not have a detailed history of this hidden injury and most likely has slowly crept into their lives. When you play rugby you knew that you were risking broken bones and a bruised body, but there was no talk of permanent brain damage.
As an ex player having a brain injury was never mentioned with the top injury one was trying to avoid being a broken neck. The obvious risks were known by every player and personally I knew through common sense bashing your head frequently cannot be good for you over a lengthy career.
Mr Pure - "We can't apply what we know now, to what we didn't know then."
This is also very true, but considering former ex NFL players settled a case for $1 billion you would have to be a complete idiot to think your sport was immune from brain damage. Rugby is far more physical than the NFL and ask any rugby player what they think of the pussy outfits. If you are wearing a helmet and still suffering from brain damage it is not the hit, but the whipping action of your skull moving the brain around inside bringing it into contact with your skull. There is not much you can protect from that aspect of play and no protective clothing will do you any good.
Obviously the Rugby governing body is going to fight this and I do not see a positive outcome for the players here. I am not alone with this thought and do not see how they can win this case successfully. You cannot plead ignorance and possibly the only angle you could fight this case is by highlighting the players were not fully informed of the risks. Maybe bashing your head over 14 or 15 years is not that obvious for some people and they needed to be told.
Back in 2005 the onset of early dementia and CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) were highlighted by a certain Dr. Bennet Omalu. Rugby's Governing body only introduced head injury assessments during matches in 2015. they were aware along with the players and nothing was done for 10 years.
During the 1990's when I played semi professional rugby before it became professional if you were concussed severely you sat out for 7 days. Most players played on unless they couldn't see straight or walk properly or in some cases started vomiting. The idea that this is all new is a joke and has been going on for decades.
In this case I think both parties are too blame for the predicament they find themselves in and they need to find a way forward. Neither side can blame each other as ignorance and stupidity is not an excuse.
Imagine boxers. When they knock you off your feet and you have no idea where you are, or who you are, the injury must be taken seriously.
I guess some sports are more dangerous than others and injuries are not always obvious.
This is very true.
Boxing is obvious with perfect examples like Muhammed Ali and other punch drunk ex fighters and I suppose rugby is similar over a long period of time not noticing all the knocks and bumps.
Are you taking a case yourself??
I cannot remember lol. Fortunately I don't think I have any side affects and if I have I have learned to live with them. I think this is what the majority would do normally unless it was a very severe case. I retired early which is now a blessing in disguise and have no regrets even though I could have done well. The refereeing pissed me off with my back injury as I would have loved to have done that full time.
I wonder if they would consider this to be an occupational hazard and there are now forms that players have to sign that states they cannot sue the league or whoever if damage like this happens in the future?
This is something I hear every time I talk to rugby fans, which isn't often because as you are likely aware, rugby is about as popular here as American football is in your country. I think that without the "pussy outfits" we would see multiple deaths per game :)
I think removing some of the padding and helmets etc because it is proven they do not prevent the hidden brain injuries I think the players would play differently and be fully aware of what they are doing. I hated when the chest padding was introduced in rugby because it gives players a false sense of security. There must be some kind of disclaimer players sign now.
That's exactly the way we see each other taking a lot of damage in a fight, but all these things have to go on like this, otherwise the sport of boxing, which is boxing, will be completely gone.