Rugby Dementia Case Takes A Knock
I don't know if any of you have been following the news about the ongoing court case where ex Rugby players are taking the Rugby Football Union to court. Their claim is they had no idea that playing rugby could lead to brain damage and that the RFU did not do enough to protect them. My personal view is there is no case and many ex players feel exactly the same way.
The latest news was that one of the players was coerced to join the mass action lawsuit claiming he had the onset of early dementia. His story does not hold much weight as he claims he was charged for the scans and tests which the lawyers threatened to bill him if he did not sign up. These tests are free of charge to any ex or current rugby player paid for by the RFU. His tests came back as negative and has now put a question mark over all the others as to who may genuinely have brain damage.
This last weekend this court case topic was raised at a family get together when 3 ex professionals and myself were wondering what grounds the players have for making a claim against the RFU. Most players and ex players will tell you it is common sense that you look out for your well being and ignorance is not an acceptable reason.
One of the guys mentioned that when he was still playing in the 1990's the SA Rugby Board used to send them a form every 90 days that they had to complete. This created a history for each player on the head injuries they sustained over that time period. I was unaware that the Rugby Board was already being so pro active thirty years ago.
The problem with the sport is it is a contact sport and there is nothing that can be done to protect the players. Common sense needs to be used when playing or you will suffer the consequences of being stupid.
The one thing we all agreed upon is the players are very much to blame for the problem we have currently. In the 1990's players used steroids to make themselves bigger and today it is creatine being widely used to bulk up the muscles increasing your overall body size. Professional rugby players never used to be this big and if you consider players jumped from 105 kg's to 120 kg's within two decades. Bigger is not always better and those players who are not prepared to grow like those around them are at risk because they are smaller.
The funny thing is I mentioned having to eat 2 helpings at every meal time to try and stay competitive and one of the guys mentioned he was doing something similar and was having to lie down to eat because it was too uncomfortable after the second plate. Crazy times that this should be even happening yet it did.
All this has done is make the contact collisions much more intense with the end result being brain damage or other side effects for players that have taken too much of a beating over their playing careers. Thankfully I retired from the sport when I was 26 and never continued on like most players do into their early 30's.
This court case is almost as mad as a boxer taking the WBA to court because he has brain damage. The four of us discussing the merits of the case feel exactly the same way and that there is no case. I feel sorry for the players who have brain damage but seeking compensation for playing a contact sport that you were well paid for at the time is the risk you took.
The rules of the game have changed which if you think about it have not made the game safer. When I played there was no picking the ball up in a ruck which they do today placing their heads in the contact zone. When we played we removed the opponents out of the way using our bodies and the ball would be pushed back using our studs. Players bodies would also be raked by the studs leaving bruising, but the head was off limits. I would much rather have bruising and a few cuts on my body than a concussion.
The 3 ex professional players I was chatting with have no side effects today even though one of them mentioned he can recall one major concussion that had him worried. He woke up on the Sunday after a Saturday afternoon match where he was concussed and experienced side effects what he thought you could compare to being fever like with his head heating up for no particular reason. This disappeared after a few hours and he has never forgotten that moment. What he has forgotten is that particular game which he has no memory of and how he was even injured. I think this is not normal because players generally know when and how their injures happen. I say that yet I have no idea how I broke my ribs, but know when I broke my leg. Back in the 1990's and 2000's it was more about broken bones than discussing how many concussions you have had.
Personally I do think the FRU will offer to help the ex players that have any form of brain disease and that the mass action lawsuit will not win like they think they will. How many of these players have taken steroids and creatine when they already knew of the side effects and now they want to claim from the RFU for something that is logical.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
I believe it’s essential to analyze the responsibilities of both sides, the players and the sports organizations. While I agree that players should have been aware of the risks of playing such an intense contact sport like rugby, I think it’s also important to highlight that prevention and protection measures from the sports entities are crucial. As you mentioned, the size and muscle mass of players have increased over time, which has intensified the level of contact. This also raises the question of whether the changes in the rules and the training approach have been adequate to protect the players’ healt.
Do you think that, in the future, we will see even more changes in rugby rules or medical recommendations to mitigate the risk of brain injuries, or do you believe the sport will essentially remain the same?
No the sport cannot remain the same because of the damage it is doing to player health. There is nothing that can be done with the rules to make it safer and it is up to the players to do this. Players in the past had nicknames because of how hard they tackled like the "chiropractor" which is entertaining, but not good for the plyer being tackled. The rules are concentrating on the head and if you tackle someone around the waist hard enough they would possibly suffer whip lash so where and how do you make it safer. Players have to play less games and the squads need to be doubled in size with players having a maximum number of games per season. Forwards should play less than the backs due to the number of contact hits they take every game.
While I do feel bad for people that end up in a bad way because of involvement with professional sports it's kind of implied that you are going to take some knocks, isn't it? While I don't mean to be a dick this kind of stinks of people looking for a payout or if not them, their lawyers.
This is a money grab and yes lawyers will be the ones pushing this and it is not about the players.