- Dec 12, 2022
- 471
- 454
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
I agree.
But that's different to a (hypothetical) situation where a lawyer (or whoever) down the track makes a claim that Paddy was incapable of making an informed decision as you originally mentioned.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 9 Winner: philreich
-
Paddy McCartin
- Thread starter Pannalstaroz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I agree.
But that's different to a (hypothetical) situation where a lawyer (or whoever) down the track makes a claim that Paddy was incapable of making an informed decision as you originally mentioned.
The King!
Chosen One
I don't pretend to know the answer
But telling someone they cannot continue their professional career against their will seems a slippery slope to me, and i acknowledge the health issues here
- Dec 12, 2022
- 471
- 454
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
Not yet anyway.
There'll come a time where it's like diagnosing an ACL.
That will be when it gets really interesting in regards to the sporting bodies and their duty towards their athletes.
- Dec 12, 2022
- 471
- 454
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
Not that it should affect Sydney's or the AFL's decision but even if they "retired" him from the AFL he could still go play at a lower level (unless AFL deregistered him ofc) or take up rugby.
This is where I agree with some of the other posters in that their needs to be some onus put back on the individual to make a decision that is in their own best interests (with all the available information on hand obviously) rather than needing someone else to make it for them (particularly when it relates to their own personal health*).
*which is completely different to situations where you endanger other individuals (like having to hand in your drivers licence, wearing a mask etc) before anyone jumps on my back about being a freedumb nutter
- Dec 12, 2022
- 471
- 454
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
It would be hard to prove he was incapable.
Particularly if he's controlling all his money, bills, personal life etc.
An issue (to my knowledge) with the former players seeking compensation is that their claim is they weren't duly informed of the risks and/or not medically managed in the way they should have been (a fair bit easier to prove).
Paddys interview with Garry Lyon last year, he said words to the effect of:
"If i was advised that there was a one percent increase in the risk, i would not be playing"
My feeling is that he will make an announcement that he is retiring from the sport.
"If i was advised that there was a one percent increase in the risk, i would not be playing"
My feeling is that he will make an announcement that he is retiring from the sport.
Paddy did well to resurrect his career and perform decent football for the Swans. If the medical assessment determines that incidental contact will not only render him unable to play out a game but also cause long term damage to his health, then I can't see how he can pass any fitness test.
Sure, any player who runs out onto the ground could suffer a concussion, but if he has a bigger likelihood of sustaining head trauma and adverse side effects from innocuous contact then it’s a liability to the team’s performance (putting aside a liability to his own health) to having a player one bit of contact away from always having to be subbed out.
It’d be incredibly difficult for him to assume the state of his cognitive health when he’s 50 based on the current state of his brain and the state of his brain if he continues playing football. It’d also be difficult putting a line through the one thing to which you’ve devoted your professional life. Sydney can keep advising him that any return will be based on medical opinion and therefore avoid categorically telling him that they’ll not pick him again to play, but eventually even if he’s not forcibly retired it will get to the point where his contract will expire and he’ll still be deemed as unfit to play.
Sure, any player who runs out onto the ground could suffer a concussion, but if he has a bigger likelihood of sustaining head trauma and adverse side effects from innocuous contact then it’s a liability to the team’s performance (putting aside a liability to his own health) to having a player one bit of contact away from always having to be subbed out.
It’d be incredibly difficult for him to assume the state of his cognitive health when he’s 50 based on the current state of his brain and the state of his brain if he continues playing football. It’d also be difficult putting a line through the one thing to which you’ve devoted your professional life. Sydney can keep advising him that any return will be based on medical opinion and therefore avoid categorically telling him that they’ll not pick him again to play, but eventually even if he’s not forcibly retired it will get to the point where his contract will expire and he’ll still be deemed as unfit to play.
The "sit out until return to baseline" periods from Boxing Aust are:
1st KO/TKO - 30 days
2nd KO/TKO in 90 days - 90 days
3rd KO/TKO in 12 months - 360 days
KO (unconscious < 1 min) - 90 days
KO (unconscious > 1 min) - 180 days
2nd KO (unconscious) since return - 12 months
3rd KO (unconscious) since return - 18 months
The athlete may not box competitively or spar at all in the sit-out period.
A TKO is not even a KO - it's when the ref stops a fight because a fighter is receiving excess punishment and is unable to defend himself.
It's aimed at reducing the impact of repeated head knocks.
Following the sitout period there needs to be medical clearance from a GP and BA before the athlete is deemed fit to box.
Having said that, brain research is always evolving and we don't know it all yet.
If he does retire I don't think anyone will have to be forced. Think it will be a conversation between Paddy, the AFL and the Swans. Paddy will make the call himself if he can see the writing on the wall rather then forcing the afls hand in deregistering him. Will get paid out his contract that ends in 2024 in full as part of the arrangement.
- Sep 26, 2017
- 27,103
- 44,691
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Paddy is determined to return to the footy field
- He is still feeling effects of Saturday's concussion with lingering headaches
- Rather than working with external experts, he wants to focus on working with those who cleared him to return; these are the experts who reportedly told him that each concussion was an individual event & that none of his 8 concussions at St Kilda arer linked to the others or made him more susceptible to future concussions
- The decision to return may be taken out of his hands
The bolded is the concerning issue for me as it appears that he is doctor shopping to get the results he wants , it absolutely needs to be taken out of his hands. Thanks cats_09 for the information
- May 8, 2006
- 5,038
- 4,559
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I dont usually watch Footy analysis but did catch some of One The Couch last night with Lyon, Brown and Buckley.
Brown seemed to argue that the AFL should not interfere with McCartin's decision if he chooses to continue playing (given his relatively young age)
But I don't think that's right - the recent lawsuits and class actions only demonstrate that in terms in terms of civil liability, the AFL will be required to show they've taken reasonable steps to prevent a very clear and foreseeable harm to McCartin.
McCartin is at a much greater risk to incur a sustained brain injury than other players because of his dozen or so concussions. And that risk will only continue to increase the more he plays. I see that the AFL are now proposing that McCartin sign some sort of legal waiver absolving them of future responsibility, but that seems pretty callous and lazy on the AFL's behalf as well.
There needs to a proactive discussion between the AFL and its players about their legal exposure down the line if they allow player to play that are increasingly predisposed to serious injury. As athletes, AFL players have a very strong incentive to maximise their playing careers for their income (of course they obviously (mostly) love playing the game as well.) But the AFL perhaps should start thinking about early financial settlements for high-risk players so they don't feel financially compelled to continue playing. Of course, this would open up a lot of complexities but at least it would look to resolve the issue early on and give them some financial recourse for lost earnings, rather than players having to go through the courts 10 years later once their health already is ruined.
Watching McCartin struggle to walk on the weekend after such an innocuous incident was very disturbing. I guess not too dissimilar from players who have had recurring physical injuries such as multiple knee reconstructions. But head injuries are even worse for obvious reasons - people cannot function at all if their cognition becomes irreparably impaired. I worry about the damage has already done, but also his increasing exposed risk if he continues to play.
Brown seemed to argue that the AFL should not interfere with McCartin's decision if he chooses to continue playing (given his relatively young age)
But I don't think that's right - the recent lawsuits and class actions only demonstrate that in terms in terms of civil liability, the AFL will be required to show they've taken reasonable steps to prevent a very clear and foreseeable harm to McCartin.
McCartin is at a much greater risk to incur a sustained brain injury than other players because of his dozen or so concussions. And that risk will only continue to increase the more he plays. I see that the AFL are now proposing that McCartin sign some sort of legal waiver absolving them of future responsibility, but that seems pretty callous and lazy on the AFL's behalf as well.
There needs to a proactive discussion between the AFL and its players about their legal exposure down the line if they allow player to play that are increasingly predisposed to serious injury. As athletes, AFL players have a very strong incentive to maximise their playing careers for their income (of course they obviously (mostly) love playing the game as well.) But the AFL perhaps should start thinking about early financial settlements for high-risk players so they don't feel financially compelled to continue playing. Of course, this would open up a lot of complexities but at least it would look to resolve the issue early on and give them some financial recourse for lost earnings, rather than players having to go through the courts 10 years later once their health already is ruined.
Watching McCartin struggle to walk on the weekend after such an innocuous incident was very disturbing. I guess not too dissimilar from players who have had recurring physical injuries such as multiple knee reconstructions. But head injuries are even worse for obvious reasons - people cannot function at all if their cognition becomes irreparably impaired. I worry about the damage has already done, but also his increasing exposed risk if he continues to play.
Without trying to be flippant about this, it almost feels like McCartin did the old Google trick, and landed on medical advice that suited him.
To be told and accept that he is at no more risk than anyone else of getting concussed again and even if he did, he's not at risk of further damage (I'm paraphrasing) is weird. If you literally ask a different expert you'll get a very different answer.
It just seems weird to choose one opinion over another, given what's at stake.
I'm by no means an expert on the matter but I thought it was well established that the effects of concussion are cumulative, particularly with regards to risk of CTE and severity/recovery of symptoms?
- Mar 19, 2020
- 12,822
- 39,552
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Varies from individual to individual in reality. Its a massive massive part of the issue. Concussions do not have a direct treatment or impact pattern so no one can agree on standards
Its important to understand also that AFLS 12 day concussion protocol is 100% the same as Paddy McCartins approach in seeking the answer you want as opposed to seeking the most prevalent thoughts on the topic or I guess taking 10 opinions and even averaging it out
Very basic and most common suggestion is 6 weeks with a standard minimum being 4 weeks. 12 days is 100% the bottom end of the opinions in wait times post concussion to play impact sport again
- Mar 19, 2020
- 12,822
- 39,552
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The civil liability boat sailed a decade ago, even for Paddy McCartin. AFL is guilty regardless of what they do from here
- Mar 19, 2020
- 12,822
- 39,552
- AFL Club
- West Coast
This is literally what the AFL did themselves though in applying their concussion protocol and they still do it to this day. It formed a key part of Daniel Venables lawsuit actually in that he proved they seeked one persons opinion who wasnt qualified to give said opinion
The way that case got swept under the rug is weird to me. Almost feels like some weird media bias association and the fact Venables was a lower ranked player then say Paddy is
12 days seems to be the standard which has also been adopted by rugby, both league and union. Football Australia (soccer) requires 5 days and other sports such as basketball, cricket and the NFL seem to be case by case with no set minimum timeframe.
It appears almost certain that the AFL's current 12 day period is only going to be extended eventually though, which if true begs the question why it hasn't already been done.
Personal risk is a UN human right.
You cannot stop someone from doing something risky, only encourage them not to
- Mar 19, 2020
- 12,822
- 39,552
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Its just a financial decision really.
Australia Rugby's is actually 7 days and hasnt been reviewed again since 2021 when they said it would be a year by year review (consensus is they got a answer they didnt like so ignored it)
Infact Australia Rugbys guidelines differ from the Worlds I see. How dumb is that
Not sure how many concussions Brown had but listening to him speak, you'd guess it was quite a few.
Muddiemoose
Moderator
- Aug 24, 2017
- 26,663
- 96,559
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,572
Not an expert at all but without even looking it up I would assume that it would depend on the risk, if the risk of death or permanent injury reaches a threshold an organisations duty of care would supersede one’s right to expose themselves to risk when employed by them
If they were concerned about the legal repercussions of having him delisted the swans match committee could just never select him for another game with whatever justification they like
Interdimensional Bigfoot
Team Captain
- Oct 20, 2022
- 388
- 547
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I'd be seriously worried, didn't look like there was much force but he was in really bad shape. Surely Sydney don't play him again, imagine a seagull flew into his head. At the end of the day it's a game and you move on sucks for him but I bet it sucks more for his family to see him like that.
But I don't think the AFL would be making the call because of the personal risk to McCartin - they'd be making the call because of the financial risk to themselves.
It's done quite a bit in boxing - although the fighter might go find a corrupt governing body in another state who will give them a clean bill of health. Much earier in AFL where there is only one choice..
