Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and the AFL

Turnover

Cancelled
May 30, 2015
3,650
4,658
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
Are the players suing because they got injured or they were mistreated by the doctor?

Surely no-one is going to sue because they got injured. But then again, this world is f’ed these days, always someone else's fault.

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk
Yes and no. People are suffering due to playing an entertaining sport. Denying them help due to wording in law or lack of AFL funding (haha) is immoral.
 
Are the players suing because they got injured or they were mistreated by the doctor?

Surely no-one is going to sue because they got injured. But then again, this world is f’ed these days, always someone else's fault.

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

- AFL as an employer has a duty of care to the employees (the players)
- AFL knew or ought to have known about CTE resulting from repeated head knocks and concussions
- AFL allowed the sport to continue without taking reasonable steps to at least mitigate and preferably eliminate the risk
- AFL gets sued by a player or players that develop CTE as a result of AFL's negligence

That's all you need to know.
 

BronCrow

Club Legend
Sep 20, 2019
2,177
1,502
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
- AFL as an employer has a duty of care to the employees (the players)
- AFL knew or ought to have known about CTE resulting from repeated head knocks and concussions
- AFL allowed the sport to continue without taking reasonable steps to at least mitigate and preferably eliminate the risk
- AFL gets sued by a player or players that develop CTE as a result of AFL's negligence

That's all you need to know.
Was said player forced to play in the AFL against there will?
Did said player know the risks associated with playing in the AFL?
Do the AFL provide as safe a workplace as is practically possible?

All of your points would be rebuked by any decent defence lawyer
 
Was said player forced to play in the AFL against there will?
Did said player know the risks associated with playing in the AFL?
Do the AFL provide as safe a workplace as is practically possible?

All of your points would be rebuked by any decent defence lawyer

- No one is employed against their will in this day and age - does not mean however an employer does not have a duty of care to their employees
- There is an associated inherent risk in contact sport of doing a hammy, getting clocked by a stray elbow (deliberate or otherwise), tackle resulting in an ACL etc - but there is a limit to what is an acceptable inherent risk - that's up to the courts
- Well that's a matter for the courts - if it can be proven that the AFL knew about CTE that could easily result from the sport but did nothing then it's not going to end well for the AFL

I don't know why you're being contrarian on this.
 

Maylandsman

🐯EAT ‘EM ALIVE🐯
Oct 22, 2017
2,547
3,465
By the Seaside
AFL Club
Richmond
The vibe I get from CTE is it is the family who will benefit from any payout.
It cannot be confirmed whilst one is living. There is no way.
Barnes and others are showing signs but these signs could be attributed to a number of factors. Only upon analysis of the brain after death can you say someone had CTE.
These boys should keep battling the establishment though.
 
Aug 18, 2006
38,708
48,563
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
- AFL as an employer has a duty of care to the employees (the players)
- AFL knew or ought to have known about CTE resulting from repeated head knocks and concussions
- AFL allowed the sport to continue without taking reasonable steps to at least mitigate and preferably eliminate the risk
- AFL gets sued by a player or players that develop CTE as a result of AFL's negligence

That's all you need to know.
As I suspected, just bullcrap really. May as well sue them for tearing a hamstring.

Money, money, money, money

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk
 

BronCrow

Club Legend
Sep 20, 2019
2,177
1,502
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
- No one is employed against their will in this day and age - does not mean however an employer does not have a duty of care to their employees
- There is an associated inherent risk in contact sport of doing a hammy, getting clocked by a stray elbow (deliberate or otherwise), tackle resulting in an ACL etc - but there is a limit to what is an acceptable inherent risk - that's up to the courts
- Well that's a matter for the courts - if it can be proven that the AFL knew about CTE that could easily result from the sport but did nothing then it's not going to end well for the AFL

I don't know why you're being contrarian on this.
Disagreeing with, or having a different view point to you is not necessarily being contrary.

Whilst none of what you have said is untrue, it would be up to a plaintiff (player) to prove all that you have said. Any decent defence lawyer, which the AFL would have no problem finding, would be able to counter any of your arguments. Sadly, even if they found in said players favour, the AFL has so many resources that they would continue to appeal the verdict until either their appeal was upheld, or the suit was dropped by the player in question.

As for your final point, what could the AFL do to stop it from happening that they are not already doing. As far as the rules are concerned, contact to the head is a free kick. Concussions can occur without a player being bumped, tackled or even coming into physical contact with another human being (player or official).
 
Disagreeing with, or having a different view point to you is not necessarily being contrary.

Whilst none of what you have said is untrue, it would be up to a plaintiff (player) to prove all that you have said. Any decent defence lawyer, which the AFL would have no problem finding, would be able to counter any of your arguments. Sadly, even if they found in said players favour, the AFL has so many resources that they would continue to appeal the verdict until either their appeal was upheld, or the suit was dropped by the player in question.

As for your final point, what could the AFL do to stop it from happening that they are not already doing. As far as the rules are concerned, contact to the head is a free kick. Concussions can occur without a player being bumped, tackled or even coming into physical contact with another human being (player or official).

The AFL is well aware of the possibility of lawsuits - the concussion protocol is evidence of that, amongst other things. I wasn't saying that the AFL isn't doing anything, just positing a scenario where a court may find the AFL wasn't taking enough reasonable steps to mitigate or eliminate the risk.

Of course a defence lawyer could argue and stall but my initial contention is that it's not an unlikely scenario that the AFL could get sued considering what's happening in the NRL in the US at the moment.
 
As I suspected, just bullcrap really. May as well sue them for tearing a hamstring.

Money, money, money, money

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

- There is an associated inherent risk in contact sport of doing a hammy, getting clocked by a stray elbow (deliberate or otherwise), tackle resulting in an ACL etc - but there is a limit to what is an acceptable inherent risk - that's up to the courts
 

BIRDBRAIN

Premiership Player
Aug 12, 2013
3,080
4,609
AFL Club
West Coast
As for your final point, what could the AFL do to stop it from happening that they are not already doing. As far as the rules are concerned, contact to the head is a free kick. Concussions can occur without a player being bumped, tackled or even coming into physical contact with another human being (player or official).

The 'head is sacrosanct' rule is what encouraged players to start leading with the head in order to get cheap frees. It probably causes more brain injuries than it prevents. Thanks AFL.
 
Oct 8, 2009
29,705
27,614
AFL Club
Carlton
Was said player forced to play in the AFL against there will?
Did said player know the risks associated with playing in the AFL?
Do the AFL provide as safe a workplace as is practically possible?

All of your points would be rebuked by any decent defence lawyer
Up until recently concussions were viewed with almost complete disregard. Someone gets knocked out, they checked on them, got them back up and plenty of times they were back on the field. The players did this and played not knowing the how bad that is for the health of their brain. It’s pretty simple to see why some players want to fight the AFL. They put their trust in doctors who we’re doing the complete wrong thing it turns out.
 

Total_Juddshanks

Premiership Player
Aug 4, 2005
4,630
5,701
Fee
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
The good ones
This is not an easy issue.

I get people will say players know the risks when they play, but really, do they?

If someone had sat a 25 year old Farmer down and said, "here's the deal Polly. You are a really successful WAFL player, you've had a good career and you can hang up the boots now and live a long and healthy life- or you can go play for Geelong for another decade, and you'll become a national icon, you'll win a brownlow, you'll be in the team of the century, you'll have a freeway named after you and a state funeral..oh and by the way all the knocks on your head you'll get between now and the end of your career mean you'll get alzheimers in your late 60s. You'll struggle to recognise your grandchildren, the last 15 years of your life will be humiliating and dreadful, and you'll die in a nursing home with a feeding tube, unable to speak, eat or wipe your own ass- or you can quit footy now with your brain intact, fade into obscurity, live the rest of your life as, say, a real estate agent and die aged 90 of a heart attack in your own home."- what do you reckon he would have chosen? What would you choose?

I hate rule changes and I hate anything which softens our game, but if the risks of serious neurological decline are major, and there are simple common sense things we can do to reduce the risks, I can't possibly say my desire to see a hip and shoulder is worthwhile if it means a certain percentage of AFL players ending up as little more than vegetables in their old age.

It becomes even more troubling when you realise the problem is not just limited to guys who are big time players who enjoy the trappings of success. There are plenty of state league players who will end up with brain damage without ever having hit the big time.
 
Last edited:

Ishmael_

Premiership Player
Apr 30, 2013
4,017
11,326
Six Thousand
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
South Fremantle
Concussions aren't really the problem. We could make strict rules about returning to play after concussions and end up retiring players after multiple concussions. Players are already being more cautious and are starting to filter themselves out by listening to symptoms rather than covering them up in machismo and beer.

It's the sub concussive head knocks that may or may not play a role that are the real danger to AFL.

Guys are getting decent hits to the head in marking contests, tackles and collisions all the time. Almost anything major that a player doesn't jump up right away from now gets a concussion test to check for what we think are the immediate problems but there's no way to measure the cumulative impact.

I think the AFL should provide health care and a limited disability fund to provide for all former players, but shouldn't be held fully responsible unless they knew more than they let on and covered it up.

Indeed, that repetition is largely responsible for the high prevalence of CTE in gridiron and there is a growing body of research that indicates soccer players are at risk from repeatedly heading the ball, especially in developmental stages.

But I disagree that puts the AFL in particular peril. If anything it will help shield them as our understanding shifts from blaming major concussive incidents which are easily legislated against to more frequent largely unavoidable brain acceleration events that are part and parcel of any sport played at pace.

Regardless, I could see the bump being eradicated completely. The whiplash effect, the chance of even mild head contact is not worth it to the AFL. And, dangerous tackles will be absolutely stamped out - ground contact has to be a serious worry for the AFL.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,294
40,453
AFL Club
Hawthorn
- AFL as an employer has a duty of care to the employees (the players)
- AFL knew or ought to have known about CTE resulting from repeated head knocks and concussions
- AFL allowed the sport to continue without taking reasonable steps to at least mitigate and preferably eliminate the risk
- AFL gets sued by a player or players that develop CTE as a result of AFL's negligence

That's all you need to know.

Did they know or should they have known in the 1960s?

Inthe last 10 or 15 years when they have known have they done much to protect players?

Do you think accidental clashes are the fault of someone?

To get money the players would need tonprove the AFL knew and prove they did nothing about it.
 

ghostdog

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 18, 2008
16,012
11,855
gondawanaland
AFL Club
Essendon
Love of the game may be the issue.
If the audience demand for the game as it is there, perhaps player contracts change to protect the AFL from future litigation. The players love the game too. How many of them would rather see it changed to the point where it's unrecognisable? They'll still sign contracts to play. It could even make the game's advertising value worth more.
 

roz1812

Debutant
Mar 14, 2019
125
192
Perth
AFL Club
Geelong
I heard that Polly used to throwup after matches due to all the head knocks. I wasn’t around in the old days but I’m sure most of the time they kept playing with concussion. I think you’ll see that most players pre 2000 will have it. Even after then their will be a lot I think. I don’t know if there is a heap you can do about it. I think you can minimise concussion/ knocks to the head with higher penalties for intentional or careless hits to the heads and try and negate trauma by having a mandatory week off after a concussion. If you’ve ever had one you’d know it doesn’t go away after a week most of the time. I also think there needs to be a nationwide response for Aussie Rules, . That includes juniors, amateurs, state leagues etc because I know for a fact that in amateur footy that there is no mandatory concussion testing and the tribunal system is just awful and doesn’t deter anyone. Don’t know how it is for others but that’s been my experience. Their needs to be better protection for the head whether that be by paying more free kicks or giving out longer suspensions. Whether that makes a difference I don’t know but you might as well try.
 

Andyy

Club Legend
Oct 17, 2015
1,019
2,060
AFL Club
Richmond
None of you have any clue what you are talking about. As an employer, the AFL has a duty of care towards its employees (players) which involve taking reasonable steps to prevent harm. The AFL can not get around its obligations through waivers in employment contracts.

What are reasonable steps to prevent harm? Compulsory helmets?

At what point are those steps unreasonable? Compulsory retirement after 1 concussion?

And where do you draw the line at acceptable risk???
 

Smithy7

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Mar 1, 2014
13,603
20,109
South of Scotland
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
1582841959179.png
 
Back