- Jan 16, 2016
- 4,276
- 9,098
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- #126
Moving forward I think the AFL is trying but with regard to past years it has less than transparent . They do seem more intent on mitigating responsibility. The OP article touched on this directly.But is it years of 'she'll be right'?
The AFL has been guilty of plenty of shady practices over the journey, but in this space they have appeared to follow the science and protocol as it's arisen.
If this was about strengthening the current protocols or creating a transition period for players from playing career to outside life who have shown any previous symptoms of concussion in their careers then I applaud it.
If it's ex-players looking for a payday, some of which continue to play at a local level where there is less access to decent physios on gameday should a serious injury occur, then I don't know why more people aren't questioning it.
It still may be a fact the game itself is inherently dangerous with regard to concussion which the AFL is still liable for regardless of any efforts made to prevent head knocks.
As for those that continued to play, it will be difficult to show the AFL culpable . I know an defence will claim any other injuries, Head contact, car crashes or other accidents etc as possible causes which would limit their chances of success .
Might be as a class action (one of 60) that a group settlement may be the aim meaning no evidence given in court. It’s day one today and a long way to go.