Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Best suing NFL

Getting hurt on the job is a workman's comp claim. I don't see him winning this either. I trust he had injury insurance and is probably doing O.K. financially.

The lawsuit is pretty stupid and if the NFL was smart, they would fight it until the end if it doesn't get thrown out. This will set a precedence for future litigation.
 
Getting hurt on the job is a workman's comp claim. I don't see him winning this either. I trust he had injury insurance and is probably doing O.K. financially.

The lawsuit is pretty stupid and if the NFL was smart, they would fight it until the end if it doesn't get thrown out. This will set a precedence for future litigation.

I thought the money they set aside was for future claims....so im not sure why there even is a lawsuit if they already settled on an amount. Nfl cant get sued again for the same thing if there's already been a settlement can they?
 
I thought the money they set aside was for future claims....so im not sure why there even is a lawsuit if they already settled on an amount. Nfl cant get sued again for the same thing if there's already been a settlement can they?

The settlement was for a narrow group involved in the class action, I don't think Best falls into that group. The settlement was also recently rejected upon appeal, I think because the appeals court thought it was too low?
 
Getting HIT in a football game is like a car crash?? Reggie Bush is delusional, it's not even close. Wow
 
You choose your helmet, you choose your face mask, you choose the design of your mouthguard etc. Is the NFL responsible if underarmour jocks wick more sweat off your nuts than nike ones and that less nut sweat is proven to prevent dehydration?

Point being the NFL has to prove reasonable precaution has been taken. They are not trotting some guys out in leather helmets while others have Riddell Revolutions.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the point he's trying to make in regard to the helmet is that there are safer designs, but not accessible to the players.
 
I could be mistaken, but I believe the point he's trying to make in regard to the helmet is that there are safer designs, but not accessible to the players.

Why wouldn't they be accessible? I'd be interested to see some proof of this.
 
http://www.sbes.vt.edu/nid.php

Both Riddell's are accessible.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/highschool--there-is-no-safest-football-helmet-223149305.html

Researchers tracked more than 1,300 high school football players throughout the 2012 season and found that all helmets, regardless of brand, model, or whether they were shiny-new or up to 10 years old, offered the same protection from concussions. Which means that when one brand claims its helmets are safer than the competitors' – or that its spendiest model is the best you can get – it's basically an empty ploy for your pocketbook, says lead researcher Timothy McGuine of the University of Wisconsin Health Sports Medicine Center.
 
Last edited:
Getting HIT in a football game is like a car crash?? Reggie Bush is delusional, it's not even close. Wow

Actually this is true. There have been studies on it and an NFL his has been compared to a 25 mph car crash
 
Why wouldn't they be accessible? I'd be interested to see some proof of this.

theres a lot of info in here...anywhere from players not even knowing they have a choice to players chosing a highly tested brand and not being able to get one for weeks. Most importantly the league does not recommend either of the top 3 performing helmets....so players usually just chose the one that looks the best.


Despite Risks, N.F.L. Leaves Helmet Choices in Players’ Hands


In the National Football League, there are rules and restrictions on everything from how much white can show on a player’s socks to what sort of sweatbands can be worn on the wrists. Yet when it comes to the most critical piece of equipment — the helmet — the league provides little guidance and essentially leaves the decision up to each player.

Even as head injuries have become a major concern, the N.F.L. has neither mandated nor officially recommended the helmet models that have tested as the top performers in protecting against collisions believed to be linked to concussions. Some players choose a helmet based on how it looks on television, or they simply wear the brand they have been using their whole career, even if its technology is antiquated. As a consequence, despite lawsuits related to head injuries and the sport’s ever-increasing speed and violence, some players are using helmets that appear to place them at greater risk.

“Frankly, the league has been far more aggressive about thigh and hip pads than they have about ensuring that every player has access and information regarding helmets,” said DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the N.F.L. Players Association.

The rules governing helmets are not complex. The league stipulates only that any helmet certified by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, or Nocsae, may be worn. That broad standard allows players to use models that may be archaic or did not score well on specific impact tests.

Perhaps most important, while Nocsae’s standards are based on preventing so-called catastrophic injuries like skull fractures, those standards do not necessarily align with testing designed to simulate the collisions associated with concussions. This discrepancy, some observers say, could be likened to someone judging a modern car’s safety based only on its seat belts, with no extra credit given for models that also have air bags.

Two years ago, as public awareness grew along with the number of concussion-related lawsuits involving former players, the N.F.L. and the players union commissioned an independent study that identified three helmet models — the Revolution and the Revolution Speed, both manufactured by Riddell, and the DNA Pro, made by Schutt — as the top performers in protecting against collisions believed to be linked to concussions. But the league did not require nor officially recommend those helmets, opting only to send a memo to teams explaining the results. The reason, a league spokesman said, was that the study was not definitive with regard to actual on-field performance.

Additionally, while the N.F.L. holds twice-yearly seminars for team equipment managers, there is no formal oversight of team operations with regard to helmets, leaving the process in the hands of each player and his team.

For some players, the choice is easy: the helmet that looks best on TV is the one they want. Giants linebacker Keith Rivers, a five-year professional, said there was no doubt that “a lot of guys go looks first,” preferring more classic models. Modern helmets like the Schutt DNA Pro look “a little Darth Vaderish,” Rivers said, and are turnoffs to some even if they rate higher in safety tests.

Other players, particularly veterans, simply wear the helmet models they have always worn, some of which can be outdated. Tony Boselli, an offensive lineman who played in the N.F.L. from 1995 to 2002, said players “just wore what the teams gave us.”

“I didn’t even think about asking for something else,” he said.

Giants center David Baas, who is in his eighth N.F.L. season, said veterans can be hesitant to change anything related to their equipment. “Some guys don’t want to switch because they’re comfortable in the same one they’ve had since college or whatever,” he said. “I change almost every year to get what’s new, but lots of guys don’t. It’s just not on their radar.”

The Giants’ equipment director, Joe Skiba, fills out a profile sheet for each new player, complete with physical attributes, personality traits and equipment preferences, including what type of helmet the player wore previously. Any player who is interested can follow Skiba down a short hallway from the team’s main equipment workshop into a cinderblock-walled room with fluorescent lighting. Inside is a row of tall gray metal racks that slide open electronically, as if in a warehouse.

All types of gear fill the shelves, and two of the racks are dedicated solely to helmets. Skiba, a member of the league’s subcommittee on safety equipment and playing rules, said he spent so much time around helmets that he could tell a player’s model simply by looking at the marks the pads left on the player’s forehead. He talks passionately about the intricacies of helmet technology.

“If you’re excited about your job and show it, and make it clear that it’s important to you, the players will take that cue,” Skiba said.

With 32 N.F.L. teams, however, each with different budgets and equipment staffs, there appear to be variations in how helmet distributions are handled. While some teams, like the Giants, the Atlanta Falcons and the Miami Dolphins, are known as fastidious and well-stocked, the players union has received complaints in recent seasons, according to an official with knowledge of the criticisms, about teams’ having few models available for players to test. This is an important factor, players say, because they are reluctant to ask for a helmet they have not tried in practice.

There have also been accusations that teams have failed to obtain requested models in a timely manner, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.

The Cincinnati Bengals and the Kansas City Chiefs were two of the teams cited, the official said. Rivers, who spent four seasons with the Bengals before joining the Giants, said that in Cincinnati “our team had used a lot of Riddells, and I wanted a Schutt, so I had to complain for a while.”

“I finally got one like weeks and weeks later,” he said. “Here, you say what you want and you get it.”

The Bengals disputed Rivers’s account and said the team was not aware of any complaints about his helmet procedure. “The Bengals will provide players with any Nocsae-approved helmet they request, and the club handles all expenses,” the team said in a statement. A spokesman for the Chiefs declined to comment.

Smith, the head of the players union, declined to identify or address specific complaints but said: “We are aware of disparities, and we have raised it with the N.F.L., not only this year but for the past several years. The fact that there continues to be disparities is unacceptable.”

Some observers question whether the league’s 23-year partnership with Riddell sends the wrong message. Because Riddell is the official helmet manufacturer of the N.F.L., it is the only brand name allowed to appear on helmets in use. For the roughly 30 percent of players who use a different brand, the rubberized plate where the brand name would appear contains a team logo.

The agreement with Riddell does not include specific provisions for preferred pricing or free items for N.F.L. teams, but as a general league policy, all equipment companies are allowed to provide favorable pricing. This can create perception issues: for example, Riddell offers a program in which a team that outfits a high percentage of its players in Riddell helmets — believed to be roughly 90 percent to 95 percent — is eligible to receive free helmets from the company, perhaps an incentive for budget-minded franchises.

Then there is the issue of consistency. When it comes to potentially mandating certain types of helmets beyond the Nocsae standard — based on a yearly study similar to the one the league and the union already commissioned, for example — the league says it believes such a measure would stifle innovation among the manufacturers. Some helmet manufacturers say the opposite would be true.

Kevin Guskiewicz, a professor at the University of North Carolina and a member of the N.F.L.’s head, neck and spine committee, said that permitting Riddell to be the only brand identified on the field could also be misleading to fans or to parents considering buying helmets for their children.

“I think we need to get away from ‘the’ helmet of the N.F.L.,” Guskiewicz said. “The fact that only one helmet can be advertised, the perception is there that they don’t have a choice. I think we need to educate them about that choice.”

A league spokesman said that when the N.F.L.’s agreement with Riddell ends in 2014, the situation will be re-evaluated. Until then, the circumstances surrounding helmet selection seem unlikely to change.

Ultimately, it is up to each player to make what is almost certainly the most important health-related equipment choice of his career — even if there is no guarantee that each player will be presented with similar information or options.

“This is our livelihood,” Giants quarterback Eli Manning said. “It’s one of the biggest decisions we make.”
 
Last edited:
I could be mistaken, but I believe the point he's trying to make in regard to the helmet is that there are safer designs, but not accessible to the players.

From what I have read while Riddell is in contract to be the official helmet of the NFL any player has a choice. Any player can chose any brand or style as long as it has been approved by the National Operating Committee on Standards for athletic equipment.

If a safer helmet is not accessible that would seem odd. Since NOCSAE approves only the best equipment for any sport at any level
 
It is not really about the players knowing the risks. It's about the NFL working to cover up the risks.

Years ago the NFL did a case study on the long term effects of concussions and way to improve safety. The results of that study showed that helmets could be dramatically improved, at a cost, and that concussions were a significant factor in football, which could lead to long term life threatening illnesses.

The NFL, rather than informing players of it's findings and moving to better equipment, told the players union that their studies showed no risk of long term health problems, and stayed with the old helmets.

When an employer, and that is what the NFL is to these guys, intentionally lies about safety risks, there is a lawsuit waiting. Doesn't matter how much these guys should have known, or what they knew, they were told by their bosses that conditions like severe memory loss and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy were not serious risks of playing football... which they clearly are, and the NFL knew it when they said it.

As for the helmets... every employer in the US has the legal responsibility to provide for employee safety, and when something CAN be done to improve safety, they are required within reason to provide that equipment. It's not a choice, it's the law.

Now, if there is no possibility the employer can afford certain equipment, that is beyond reason. But the NFL is a 9 billion dollar a year industry. The cost of the helmets that COULD have been made, which would have improved the safety of players, was not beyond reason. The NFL simply chose not to use them.

Why? Believe it or not... youth football. If the NFL says players have to wear the newer, safer, but more expensive gear, they have to ask youth football leagues they sponsor to protect the kids as well, and many parents can't afford football now. A more expensive helmet would have meant that many more young kids wouldn't play.

Football and baseball are the most popular sports in America because kids grow up with them, it builds a culture of familiarity. Hockey and basketball lag far behind because there isn't as strong a centralized youth organization to teach the sports.

The NFL didn't want to risk the next generation of football fans by weakening it's youth presence, so it made the conscious decision not to mandate safer equipment for players. Equipment that might have actually saved lives.

The players that have sued the NFL, given it's actions, have a legit case. Of course the knew there were risks, but the full extent of those risks were hidden from them, and the equipment that would have lessened those risks never given to them, by their employer.

In any other job, the lawsuit would be cut and dried. We assume in football men who make their livings with their bodies should suddenly not be concerned about their bodies? Kind of an odd assumption to make.
 
It is not really about the players knowing the risks. It's about the NFL working to cover up the risks.

Years ago the NFL did a case study on the long term effects of concussions and way to improve safety. The results of that study showed that helmets could be dramatically improved, at a cost, and that concussions were a significant factor in football, which could lead to long term life threatening illnesses.

The NFL, rather than informing players of it's findings and moving to better equipment, told the players union that their studies showed no risk of long term health problems, and stayed with the old helmets.

When an employer, and that is what the NFL is to these guys, intentionally lies about safety risks, there is a lawsuit waiting. Doesn't matter how much these guys should have known, or what they knew, they were told by their bosses that conditions like severe memory loss and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy were not serious risks of playing football... which they clearly are, and the NFL knew it when they said it.

As for the helmets... every employer in the US has the legal responsibility to provide for employee safety, and when something CAN be done to improve safety, they are required within reason to provide that equipment. It's not a choice, it's the law.

Now, if there is no possibility the employer can afford certain equipment, that is beyond reason. But the NFL is a 9 billion dollar a year industry. The cost of the helmets that COULD have been made, which would have improved the safety of players, was not beyond reason. The NFL simply chose not to use them.

Why? Believe it or not... youth football. If the NFL says players have to wear the newer, safer, but more expensive gear, they have to ask youth football leagues they sponsor to protect the kids as well, and many parents can't afford football now. A more expensive helmet would have meant that many more young kids wouldn't play.

Football and baseball are the most popular sports in America because kids grow up with them, it builds a culture of familiarity. Hockey and basketball lag far behind because there isn't as strong a centralized youth organization to teach the sports.

The NFL didn't want to risk the next generation of football fans by weakening it's youth presence, so it made the conscious decision not to mandate safer equipment for players. Equipment that might have actually saved lives.

The players that have sued the NFL, given it's actions, have a legit case. Of course the knew there were risks, but the full extent of those risks were hidden from them, and the equipment that would have lessened those risks never given to them, by their employer.

In any other job, the lawsuit would be cut and dried. We assume in football men who make their livings with their bodies should suddenly not be concerned about their bodies? Kind of an odd assumption to make.

this is why they lost the law suit. When Best was drafted all of this was out in the open. He and any player drafted after him has no case. EVERYONE knows the risks now!
 
this is why they lost the law suit. When Best was drafted all of this was out in the open. He and any player drafted after him has no case. EVERYONE knows the risks now!

Incorrect statements Tom, sorry.

First, the NFL did not admit to their studies until after Bets was drafted. But secondly, and more importantly, they are still not using the re-engineered helmets that Riddel has proposed.

That is why Riddel is named as a co-defendant in this lawsuit, they continue to manufacture and sell an inferior product they know for fact does not offer the protection it is designed to offer to cater to the NFL.

Best absolutely has a clear case here.

Do I agree with our lawsuit happy culture? Not in the least. But the law is on his side in this one.
 
Incorrect statements Tom, sorry.

First, the NFL did not admit to their studies until after Bets was drafted. But secondly, and more importantly, they are still not using the re-engineered helmets that Riddel has proposed.

That is why Riddel is named as a co-defendant in this lawsuit, they continue to manufacture and sell an inferior product they know for fact does not offer the protection it is designed to offer to cater to the NFL.

Best absolutely has a clear case here.

Do I agree with our lawsuit happy culture? Not in the least. But the law is on his side in this one.

I think it does help the NFL in this case that Best's most severe concussion happened while he was in college. Therefor, he came into the league with the "condition" already. Now I knock the lions all the frikken time but I cant think they are THAT dumb to draft a concussed 160 lb player in the first round and not give him any info on concussions. Im sure they would have tested him, guided him on helmets to chose, etc.....right?! Or maybe its just the lions and they didn't do any of it and are going to get the NFL sued lol. IMO its on the lions that they should have been doing their due diligence. If they did....then they should have enough ammo to defend the case.
 
Back
Top