Page 1 of 1

Rypien, group, suing NFL because of concussions

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:20 am
by welch
"Former Washington Redskins quarterback Mark Rypien is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit that seeks compensation and medical care from the NFL for “repeated traumatic injuries to his head” that he incurred during his playing career.

In the suit, which was filed March 23 in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Rypien — along with 126 other former professional football players — allege that the NFL was aware of the dangers and risks of “repetitive traumatic brain injuries and concussions for decades, but deliberately ignored and actively concealed” the information, court documents say."

<snip>

"According to the suit, Rypien, 49, suffered multiple concussions and head injuries during his playing days. He says he suffers from 'various neurological conditions and symptoms related to multiple head traumas.'"

Having seen Rypien stand his ground to complete a long pass to Gary Clark just before being crushed, I can believe it.

One of the players is James Steffen, who might be the Jim Steffen I remember as a Redskin DB around 1960.

Full story at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... story.html

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:55 am
by Deadskins
I'm sure it's true, but this is the exact reason for all of these rule changes; so the league doesn't get sued for this kind of thing.

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:52 am
by FanofallthatisGibbs
Simple solution:

Just like when you go skydiving, skiing or bungee jumping - sign a release. The NFL should have all of its players sign releases as a part of their contracts to protect themselves from the natural elements of the game. Let the players make their choices.

I guess the Players Union would never stand for it, but c'mon man, you're a football player and you know the dangers! You also know the money you'll see that 99% of the population will never see.

I think players are more angry at owners getting rich at the expense of their bodies, and I get that. But really, while I sympathize with the damage done, you also knew the risks going in.

Should military personnel sue the US Government every time they are injured or suffer from psychological trauma?

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:55 am
by 44diesel
FanofallthatisGibbs wrote:Simple solution:

Just like when you go skydiving, skiing or bungee jumping - sign a release. The NFL should have all of its players sign releases as a part of their contracts to protect themselves from the natural elements of the game. Let the players make their choices.

I guess the Players Union would never stand for it, but c'mon man, you're a football player and you know the dangers! You also know the money you'll see that 99% of the population will never see.

I think players are more angry at owners getting rich at the expense of their bodies, and I get that. But really, while I sympathize with the damage done, you also knew the risks going in.

Should military personnel sue the US Government every time they are injured or suffer from psychological trauma?

Skydiving, bungee jumping, or other activities that require signing a waiver are done only on occasion for recreation and therefor your exposure to the dangers, although real, are limited.

Professional football players are subjected to the risk on a regular basis. As for the money players get, I'll give you that many modern players make more than some small countries but that's not the case for most of the older players who have been involved in these claims. With how much money the NFL makes today I think that they should take care of those guys that helped get the league where it is today. The NFL does not have a severance package or retirement plans. Once your contract is up, so's your paycheck.

Sadly, there are even players in the Hall of Fame who never had an endorsement deal, never made a small fortune and are now in need of assisted living, and have numerous medical aliments that can't afford treatment. These guys played for the love of the game. There weren't as many rules in place for players safety nor was the equipment as advanced as it is today.

As for our troops, I think the govt. should do more for the young people who have risked their lives to protect our freedoms. I wouldn't necessarily even begin to compare their extreme sacrifice to an athlete who plays a recreational sport, but I think there is a measure of responsibility that those who put someone in harms way should have a hand in their aftercare. (*edit - Especially if they financially benefit from it.)

Just my two cents. My 2 cents

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:25 am
by Irn-Bru
44diesel wrote:Skydiving, bungee jumping, or other activities that require signing a waiver are done only on occasion for recreation and therefor your exposure to the dangers, although real, are limited.

Professional football players are subjected to the risk on a regular basis.


Not to mention that the players would never sign it . . .

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:26 am
by The Hogster
He didn't get those concussions in the 90-91 season.

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:18 am
by Countertrey
The Hogster wrote:He didn't get those concussions in the 90-91 season.
:up:

That was an awesome O-line performance... awesome.

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:45 pm
by welch
Countertrey wrote:
The Hogster wrote:He didn't get those concussions in the 90-91 season.
:up:

That was an awesome O-line performance... awesome.


Although I do remember two key plays when Ryp got clobbered a millisecond after he threw, both time to Gary Clark. First was int the first Giants game. Second, maybe for a TD, was in the SB.

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:32 am
by FanofallthatisGibbs
44diesel wrote:
FanofallthatisGibbs wrote:Simple solution:

Just like when you go skydiving, skiing or bungee jumping - sign a release. The NFL should have all of its players sign releases as a part of their contracts to protect themselves from the natural elements of the game. Let the players make their choices.

I guess the Players Union would never stand for it, but c'mon man, you're a football player and you know the dangers! You also know the money you'll see that 99% of the population will never see.

I think players are more angry at owners getting rich at the expense of their bodies, and I get that. But really, while I sympathize with the damage done, you also knew the risks going in.

Should military personnel sue the US Government every time they are injured or suffer from psychological trauma?

Skydiving, bungee jumping, or other activities that require signing a waiver are done only on occasion for recreation and therefor your exposure to the dangers, although real, are limited.

Professional football players are subjected to the risk on a regular basis. As for the money players get, I'll give you that many modern players make more than some small countries but that's not the case for most of the older players who have been involved in these claims. With how much money the NFL makes today I think that they should take care of those guys that helped get the league where it is today. The NFL does not have a severance package or retirement plans. Once your contract is up, so's your paycheck.

Sadly, there are even players in the Hall of Fame who never had an endorsement deal, never made a small fortune and are now in need of assisted living, and have numerous medical aliments that can't afford treatment. These guys played for the love of the game. There weren't as many rules in place for players safety nor was the equipment as advanced as it is today.

As for our troops, I think the govt. should do more for the young people who have risked their lives to protect our freedoms. I wouldn't necessarily even begin to compare their extreme sacrifice to an athlete who plays a recreational sport, but I think there is a measure of responsibility that those who put someone in harms way should have a hand in their aftercare. (*edit - Especially if they financially benefit from it.)

Just my two cents. My 2 cents


I agree with almost everything you wrote, but my broader point is that playing football is a choice, and with that choice comes the voluntary act of putting yourself in constant threat of bodily harm.

Retroactively suing just stinks of sour grapes that they are not paid like the new kids these days. I feel for them, I just feel like class action lawsuits are a stretch. For me, it's more a complaint about our legal system than it is about how right or wrong the players are in trying to be compensated for their service and bodily sacrifice.

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:17 pm
by welch
I think the game has to change to protect the players better. Rypien, Jim McMahon, and Dave Duerson are all recent players...not vintage leather-helmet guys.

A larger paycheck or pension does not properly compensate for brain-damage.

As for comparing NFL players to Soldiers or Marines, it points up how disconnected people are, usually, from the American military. Maybe we need to bring back the draft so that everyone -- every family -- takes part in the risk.

Right now, our military volunteers and warfare is, or should be, a last resort matter of the life or death of the country.

Football is different. It should be a game, and a profession, but players should not asked to wager their long-term health.

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:55 pm
by Countertrey
How would you change it, John? Penalize contact? Go to flag football rules? Rypen would have played exactly the same way, whether fully aware, or not. He enjoyed being thought of as one tough SOB...

I would suggest that if the NFL adequately cared for it's vets, there would not be a suit.

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:32 am
by Manchester_Redskin
I read somewhere that Chip Lohmiller was also claimimg ... how did he get a concussion? too many taps on the head for kicking PAT's I guess

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:01 pm
by welch
Countertrey wrote:How would you change it, John? Penalize contact? Go to flag football rules? Rypen would have played exactly the same way, whether fully aware, or not. He enjoyed being thought of as one tough SOB...

I would suggest that if the NFL adequately cared for it's vets, there would not be a suit.


I've been thinking about that. Maybe:

- training (don't lead with your helmet)

- penalize head-first tackles or blocks. You remember how Mike Bass nearly broke his neck...although I think Bass was trying to tackle with a shoulder-pad, and not square on his helmet.

- Maybe less padding. Seems wrong at first, but maybe there would be less concussions if the hitting player did not have so much padding underneath "plastic armor".

- On that, it would be interesting to know some statistics on concussions in the leather-helmet days. Maybe some from rugby, where there seems to be no padding at all.

Before I forget...I'd want to prevent these injuries. Yes, the players should be compensated fairly, but money doesn't make up for a player's having dementia at 45 or 50.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:39 pm
by Countertrey
welch wrote:
Countertrey wrote:How would you change it, John? Penalize contact? Go to flag football rules? Rypen would have played exactly the same way, whether fully aware, or not. He enjoyed being thought of as one tough SOB...

I would suggest that if the NFL adequately cared for it's vets, there would not be a suit.


I've been thinking about that. Maybe:

- training (don't lead with your helmet)

- penalize head-first tackles or blocks. You remember how Mike Bass nearly broke his neck...although I think Bass was trying to tackle with a shoulder-pad, and not square on his helmet.

- Maybe less padding. Seems wrong at first, but maybe there would be less concussions if the hitting player did not have so much padding underneath "plastic armor".

- On that, it would be interesting to know some statistics on concussions in the leather-helmet days. Maybe some from rugby, where there seems to be no padding at all.

Before I forget...I'd want to prevent these injuries. Yes, the players should be compensated fairly, but money doesn't make up for a player's having dementia at 45 or 50.


A long term study of Rugby and Aussie rules might be useful... but I doubt that there is any significant informed data from the old days... Despite the claims of the plaintiffs, I don't believe there was even much known in the early 90's about the effects of repetitive concussions over the long term.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:01 pm
by SkinsJock
I played rugby - although the rules have maybe changed, you were not allowed to wear padding or protection unless a Doctor required it - the feeling that we as players had was that the padding and the helmets caused more problems than they helped
You felt that you could hit someone harder because you were protected - this actually caused more injuries

Rugby also does NOT allow any blocking, hitting or tackling a player that does not have the ball


the problem is that the part of the game that is attractive and marketable is the hitting - you can't really take it away or dilute it - the fans will not like it

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:05 pm
by welch
More names we all know in this AP article:

- Alex Karras
- Tony Dorsett
- Jim McMahon
- Lem Barney

My wife spent five or six agonizing years as a social worker at the memory loss study at Columbia Presbyterian's Neurological Institute. Could not take the despair all through the families of dementia patients, although most were older. Alex Karras is only 76, and Tony Dorsett is in his late 50s. This is bad.

Alex Karras puts face on lawsuit over head injuries in the NFL

By Associated Press, Published: April 14

There’s a new face behind the head injury lawsuits against the NFL, a former All-Pro defensive tackle from the Detroit Lions some may recognize better as the lovable lug of a father from the 1980s sitcom “Webster.”

Before that, Alex Karras played the equally lovable Mongo in “Blazing Saddles,” uttering one of the movie’s best lines when he declared: “Mongo only pawn in game of life.”

He’s 76 now, and suffering from dementia. His wife said this week that a man who used to love to drive his cars can no longer get behind the wheel. She said a man who used to be an amazing cook of Italian and Greek food doesn’t cook anymore because he can’t remember what his recipes were.

He’s among 1,200 former players now suing the NFL, claiming the league misled players about the risks of head injuries and was negligent about their treatment. Many of them are suffering from brain damage, and none of them are getting any better.

For the most part, fans seem to have pretty much discarded them as yesterday’s news. They would rather focus on whether the Cleveland Browns should draft an offensive lineman in the fourth round than whether a former journeyman linebacker or backup safety can tie his shoes or remember what house he lives in.

“It’s the same thing as back in the gladiator days when the gladiators fought to death,” said attorney Craig Mitnick, who represents Karras and hundreds of others in the suit. “Fans care about these guys when they’re playing and they are heroes. But as soon as you’re not a hero and not playing the fan doesn’t really care what happens to them.”

Maybe it’s time we started caring. Debate the merits of the suit all you want — and the NFL will certainly do so — there’s no doubt a lot of former players are paying the price for taking hits to the head during a time when the significance of concussions was either minimized or not entirely known.

Some you may not have ever heard of, or have long forgotten about. Others were once your heroes, taking the field every Sunday for a big paycheck and the chance to bring glory to the franchise.

Jim McMahon was one of those guys. The quarterback who helped bring Chicago a Super Bowl championship was a rebel who clashed with the league, and a fan favorite who prided himself on his toughness and ability to take a hit. Now his girlfriend programs the GPS for their house in case he gets lost, and he gets angry and frustrated at all the things he can’t recall.

“I won’t remember a hell of a lot about this interview in about 10 minutes,” he said in a recent interview on ESPN’s “Outside The Lines.”

Tony Dorsett is a Hall of Famer and one of the greatest running backs in the history of the league. At 57 he’s still relatively young, but the former Dallas Cowboy already forgets people’s names or where he’s heading while driving on the highway. Doctors have told him he’s not getting enough oxygen in the left lobe of his brain, and he fears his memory issues are getting worse.


Yet he and other retirees have no medical insurance from the league, no compensation for their deteriorating health other than the money they earned while they were in the field.


“Yeah, I understand you paid me to do this, but still yet, I put my life on the line for you, I put my health on the line,” Dorsett told The Associated Press just before the Super Bowl. “And yet when the time comes, you turn your back on me? That’s not right. That’s not the American way.”


Full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... story.html

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:24 am
by FanofallthatisGibbs
Still not a fan of them suing, although I completely understand why they are doing it.

What does not sit well with me is that they do not have health insurance coverage from the league. That is one area that the NFL should have conceded a long time ago to minimize bad PR now and in the future. All business aside, it's the right thing to do.

The Players Union should, and perhaps already have renegotiated such a thing, where all players are guaranteed health insurance coverage for themselves and their families as a part of a retirement package upon a minimum level of years played (say, 3-5 minimum).

It might cost the NFL a lot, but it would cost them a lot less than lawsuits, lawyers, etc. It would also benefit the people who served the NFL, not hot shot lawyers looking to make a name for themselves.

I feel for the families. I have known family members to have demensia, and it set in around 60 for my grandmother who lived to the age of 92. That was a long time to go with some serious mental challenges that got progressively worse. I am just not sure how much the NFL is at fault here or liable for the damage done to the players.

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:45 am
by emoses14
FanofallthatisGibbs wrote:Still not a fan of them suing, although I completely understand why they are doing it.

What does not sit well with me is that they do not have health insurance coverage from the league. That is one area that the NFL should have conceded a long time ago to minimize bad PR now and in the future. All business aside, it's the right thing to do.

The Players Union should, and perhaps already have renegotiated such a thing, where all players are guaranteed health insurance coverage for themselves and their families as a part of a retirement package upon a minimum level of years played (say, 3-5 minimum).

It might cost the NFL a lot, but it would cost them a lot less than lawsuits, lawyers, etc. It would also benefit the people who served the NFL, not hot shot lawyers looking to make a name for themselves.

I feel for the families. I have known family members to have demensia, and it set in around 60 for my grandmother who lived to the age of 92. That was a long time to go with some serious mental challenges that got progressively worse. I am just not sure how much the NFL is at fault here or liable for the damage done to the players.


It seems to me that their suing, in light of the lack of health coverage for their on the job injuries is their only way of getting access to at least some of the health coverage they can not afford for whatever multitude of reasons. Also, the determination of how much the nfl is at fault is something that can only be answered in one of two ways. A trial where the degree of fault/liability is assessed or through the provision of health care where the same is quantified by agreement. That's it. Since the NFL ain't forkin' over the money to cover, obviously, then suit is the only avenue to recompense.

(I'm positive you know this, but) The fact that a lawyer gets paid for providing their services, regardless of motivation for doing so, does not preclude the complainant, if successful, from recovery. Not sure why an individual performing his job satisfactorily to exceptionally is somehow a negative.

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:17 am
by FanofallthatisGibbs
What you point out is all true.

Re: lawyers - It's mostly a case of one or two bad apples spoiling the bunch. And those are usually found most often in high profile cases, which I would include this class action lawsuit. They leverage publicity, human emotion, and whatever else they can muster to jack up the award, and in doing so pick up an even bigger paycheck. It's their job. I don't always find it ethical.

I am all for justice. Just remember who is paying all the bills at the end of the day - the ticket holders. Personally, I miss the days of affordable professional sports. For that I now have to have a house party, which while fun is just not the same.

EDIT: And congrats on the new addition last July! I have a 1.5 year old daughter myself. Kids are a blessing!

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:45 pm
by emoses14
FanofallthatisGibbs wrote:What you point out is all true.

Re: lawyers - It's mostly a case of one or two bad apples spoiling the bunch. And those are usually found most often in high profile cases, which I would include this class action lawsuit. They leverage publicity, human emotion, and whatever else they can muster to jack up the award, and in doing so pick up an even bigger paycheck. It's their job. I don't always find it ethical.

I am all for justice. Just remember who is paying all the bills at the end of the day - the ticket holders. Personally, I miss the days of affordable professional sports. For that I now have to have a house party, which while fun is just not the same.

EDIT: And congrats on the new addition last July! I have a 1.5 year old daughter myself. Kids are a blessing!


Thank you, and congratulations on your baby girl. They most definitely are a blessing.

And I here you on the "not always finding totally ethical" the different "strategies" that lawyers will employ in their advocacy for their client.

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:49 pm
by Deadskins
Alex Karras puts face on lawsuit over head injuries in the NFL

By Associated Press, Published: April 14

There’s a new face behind the head injury lawsuits against the NFL, a former All-Pro defensive tackle from the Detroit Lions some may recognize better as the lovable lug of a father from the 1980s sitcom “Webster.”

Before that, Alex Karras played the equally lovable Mongo in “Blazing Saddles,” uttering one of the movie’s best lines when he declared: “Mongo only pawn in game of life.”

He’s 76 now, and suffering from dementia. His wife said this week that a man who used to love to drive his cars can no longer get behind the wheel. She said a man who used to be an amazing cook of Italian and Greek food doesn’t cook anymore because he can’t remember what his recipes were.

He’s among 1,200 former players now suing the NFL, claiming the league misled players about the risks of head injuries and was negligent about their treatment. Many of them are suffering from brain damage, and none of them are getting any better.

Doesn't sound like Karras really even knows he's suing the NFL. They should definitely have some kind of fund to help out retired veterans. The NFL doesn't need to have stories about veterans falling on hard times, or suffering physically from their playing days. It's disgraceful that they make so much money and won't shell out a little to help the guys who made it all possible.

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:23 pm
by welch
What hits me hard is that the NFL makes a staggering amount of money, limited by nothing. The owners control the salary cap, so they control the vital cost of doing business. Their business rests on the way guys like Karras and Dorsett and Lem Barney and Rypien play.

At the minimum, the players ought to have health insurance.

Oh, and I blame the owners for ticket prices, and the price of beer and food at the stadium.

An old story about old-time football. George Preston Marshall, "the founder", owned about 70 or 80% of the Redskins. A broadcaster named Harry Wismer owned about 20%. Wismer never got a dividend, because Marshall claimed that the Redskins never made any money. When Marshall had a stroke (more or less), it was discovered that the Redskins made a nice profit every season, which Marshall simply marked as his salary as president of the club, or used to buy a townhouse in each NFL city so Marshall had a place to put his girlfriends.

The guy with power-of-attorney had sold Wismer's 20% to a Canadian department store mogul. The Redskins began to use the profits to buy down Marshall's share of the team. The Canadian guy, who was running a basketball team in LA, owned more of the Redskins each year. That's how Jack Kent Cooke came to be majority owner as Edward Bennett Williams directed the Redskins in the '60s and '70s.

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:36 am
by emoses14
welch wrote:What hits me hard is that the NFL makes a staggering amount of money, limited by nothing. The owners control the salary cap, so they control the vital cost of doing business. Their business rests on the way guys like Karras and Dorsett and Lem Barney and Rypien play.

At the minimum, the players ought to have health insurance.

Oh, and I blame the owners for ticket prices, and the price of beer and food at the stadium.

An old story about old-time football. George Preston Marshall, "the founder", owned about 70 or 80% of the Redskins. A broadcaster named Harry Wismer owned about 20%. Wismer never got a dividend, because Marshall claimed that the Redskins never made any money. When Marshall had a stroke (more or less), it was discovered that the Redskins made a nice profit every season, which Marshall simply marked as his salary as president of the club, or used to buy a townhouse in each NFL city so Marshall had a place to put his girlfriends.

The guy with power-of-attorney had sold Wismer's 20% to a Canadian department store mogul. The Redskins began to use the profits to buy down Marshall's share of the team. The Canadian guy, who was running a basketball team in LA, owned more of the Redskins each year. That's how Jack Kent Cooke came to be majority owner as Edward Bennett Williams directed the Redskins in the '60s and '70s.


Wow, thanks for that. Marshall really was piece of . . .