Suit basically says NHL should have known about head trauma risks and acted long ago to inform and protect players.
— Nick Cotsonika (@cotsonika) November 25, 2013
NHL superagent Allan Walsh, an attorney in his own right with trial experience, had this to say about the case:
Key questions - 1. Did the NHL (and their doctors) know that repeated blows to the head could result in impaired brain function?
— Allan Walsh (@walsha) November 25, 2013
2. Did the NHL properly inform players of the risks from repeated blows to the head? A player may receive 1000 separate blows per season.
— Allan Walsh (@walsha) November 25, 2013
3. How many former players, apart from than the original 10 will seek to join this class action lawsuit?
— Allan Walsh (@walsha) November 25, 2013
Here's the Puck Daddy article on the suit. Wyshynski links the attorney's media release on the suit, of which I found this passage most provocative:
In 2004 the NHL introduced a series of updates to the rule-set to encourage a faster, more exciting, and ultimately more marketable product. As a result, the number of violent in-game collisions and occurrence of head trauma have increased. When coupled with the NHL’s refusal to protect players by banning full-body checking or penalizing on-ice fist fights, the league has created a dangerous atmosphere for players.Here's the Sports Illustrated article.
Here's NBC's Pro Hockey Talk's post, as well as a follow-up post with the NHL's initial response.
Let's call it for now, for there is plenty to discuss about this in the days ahead.
At this point, I encourage everyone reading this post to study up on both sides of the issues - for, love it or leave it, this suit will be of critical importance to the National Hockey League, its players and its fans over the days ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.