Gary Ablett Senior sues Geelong, Hawks and AFL

[jim boy]

Has commenced proceedings against geelong, hawthorn and the AFL for not doing enough around protecting him from concussion.
Interesting times ahead.

‘Struggles on a daily basis’: AFL legend Gary Ablett senior to sue league, clubs over concussions

‘Struggles on a daily basis’: AFL legend Ablett to sue league, clubs over concussions

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Cue the 'it was the drugs' comments.

 

[Mr Meow]

For God's sake.

 

[The_Todd07]

Cue the 'it was the drugs' comments.

Followed by the idiotic "they knew what they were signing up for" despite the true dangers of concussion being discovered decades later

 

[catsfootyfan89]

Followed by the idiotic "they knew what they were signing up for" despite the true dangers of concussion being discovered decades later

If the true dangers were discovered decades later though, how much responsibility can the AFL take?

 

[Cataholic]

If the true dangers were discovered decades later though, how much responsibility can the AFL take?

This.

Hard to be responsible for something you know virtually nothing about.

 

[PhatBoy]

This.

Hard to be responsible for something you know virtually nothing about.

Agreed though on the flip side - and admittedly for all I know they HAVE done this - once concussion began to have greater awareness around it, all clubs probably should have made a concerted effort to reach out to all past players to find out if there were any issues that they could possibly look at assisting with

 

[goyoucatters]

This.

Hard to be responsible for something you know virtually nothing about.

Not seeking to make a comment on the specifics of this case.

But the world in which we live has become absolutely expert in judging past events by either today's 'standards' or today's 'insights'. And the inability to see how unfair and irrational it is to do so is now almost ubiquitous, it would seem.

It's apparently so much more satisfying to be outraged than to be objective.

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

Not seeking to make a comment on the specifics of this case.

But the world in which we live has become absolutely expert in judging past events by either today's 'standards' or today's 'insights'. And the inability to see how unfair and irrational it is to do so is now almost ubiquitous, it would seem.

It's apparently so much more satisfying to be outraged than to be objective.

Think I'd err on the side of favoring an individual who has suffered in the course of service to a (or several) organization/s that are thriving partly due to said service from that individual.

 

[goyoucatters]

Think I'd err on the side of favoring an individual who has suffered in the course of service to a (or several) organization/s that are thriving partly due to said service from that individual.

As I said, I'm not making any comment on the particulars of this case. Just observing that the standards by which society tends to judge the behaviour of any individual or organisation back in the day tends to overemphasise where we are now rather than where we were then.

Like you, though, I'm very keen for the GFC to show compassion, empathy and tangible evidence of contrition and reparation, where a party has been demonstrably harmed by the action or inaction of parties involved with the club at any point in time.

 

[The_Todd07]

If the true dangers were discovered decades later though, how much responsibility can the AFL take?

Prior to a certain point, I don't think responsibility will be on the AFL but those players will be looked after in a "thank you for your service" kind of way.
After a certain point though it will come down to if the AFL/clubs did enough based on the available information.

The NFLs big concussion lawsuit was settled in 2013, same year AFL introduced the 20 minute test but was another 8 years until mandatory time off.

 

[deanc]

Has commenced proceedings against geelong, hawthorn and the AFL for not doing enough around protecting him from concussion.
Interesting times ahead.

‘Struggles on a daily basis’: AFL legend Gary Ablett senior to sue league, clubs over concussions

‘Struggles on a daily basis’: AFL legend Ablett to sue league, clubs over concussions

www.foxsports.com.au

Forgive the intrusion, but a small but significant clarification required.
'To Sue' is an intention, not/not an action and as with the other related 'pending' legal claims, fact is the AFL (or any club) are yet to receive any formal notification, LOI's etc. from any claiment advising of such action - accordingly thus far there are no 'commenced proceedings' as you suggest...

 

[Slartibartfast]

This.

Hard to be responsible for something you know virtually nothing about.

They never knew the dangers of asbestos , it was even used as fake snow on xmas trees.
This did not stop James hardie being successfully sued decades later for the damage it caused.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What I thought was interesting it is stated that brain scans showed damage to the brain.

So the issue with CCT only being identifiable in a postmortem does not come into play


Lawyers acting for the 61-year-old said he underwent a scan last year which revealed brain damage.

Gary Ablett Snr sues AFL, Hawthorn and Geelong over concussions during career

Lawyers for AFL great Gary Ablett Snr say the league and his formers clubs, Hawthorn and Geelong, failed in their duty of care to the player, who has brain damage.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Partridge]

Not seeking to make a comment on the specifics of this case.

But the world in which we live has become absolutely expert in judging past events by either today's 'standards' or today's 'insights'. And the inability to see how unfair and irrational it is to do so is now almost ubiquitous, it would seem.

It's apparently so much more satisfying to be outraged than to be objective.

Absolutely it is. For one thing you get praised for it - despite making no effort at all to solve whatever issue you're pretending to be outraged about. And you get to act like you are morally superior, despite doing nothing at all to remotely earn or justify it.

 

[goyoucatters]

Absolutely it is. For one thing you get praised for it - despite making no effort at all to solve whatever issue you're pretending to be outraged about.

I think the advocates of this perspective do have a 'solution', though. Condemn and cancel, condemn and cancel.

Repeat this process ad infinitum until we finally reach collective 'agreement', enlightenment and miraculous achievement of the utopian dream.

#youknowitmakessense
#neverhasneverwill

 

[standupand]

They never knew the dangers of asbestos , it was even used as fake snow on xmas trees.
This did not stop James hardie being successfully sued decades later for the damage it caused.

What? Yes they did. James Hardie even admitted it. And it led to special laws relating to dust-related conditions.

I'm not sure how much the AFL knew about concussive injuries in the 80s-90s but I would say Ablett might have difficulty satisfying the limitation period in Victoria, since the acts or omissions that he'd be complaining about would have occurred more than 12 years ago.

 

[calder_daddy]

Cue the 'it was the drugs' comments.

Well he does have a history with heroin, doesn’t make it easy

 

[Jumping Jack]

Like plenty of others, I love Gary and will never forget the joy of watching him over many games.

But these guys are being manipulated by the pariahs in the legal system who smell the opportunity and are looking to get their snouts in the trough. Sometimes you just need to be careful what you wish for when you allow yourself to be used and abused ….. and made an example of.

Recently spoke to a very experienced litigation expert who said this concussion stuff will result in unintended consequences. Already aware of some former players wanting to take legal action over specific incidents by specific players who hit “player x or y” in a game 25 years ago that caused concussion.

Once you open this up there’s no telling where it ends. Players need to foot some of the blame. I know of players faking concussion test results and even pulling a baseline pre season cognitive test that then made it easier to pass a post game or pre game concussion test just so they didn’t miss any footy.

There’s a Geelong player who notoriously had his mate hide him from doctors post game after being knocked out just so he bought 24 hrs before they tracked him down and tested him. In the days before mobile phones.

Players need to also accept some culpability for the way the broader industry approached this for many years. Some of the stuff I’ve seen in local footy over the years and the way concussion was approached was absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Cataholic]

Guess they'll have to fit all players with an accelerometer during every game, and punish any action that impacts a player above a pre-determined impact force, whether accidental or not.

Accidental......a notable fine to deter knees, elbows etc.

Deliberate......4 week minimum

Whilst they're at it, ban any tackle that takes the player to ground, and heighten the changeroom doorways to prevent any chance of a head knock there.

 

[Pollywaffle]

I would have thought Gazza caused more concussion in opponents ( and teammates) than he copped himself

 

[kickazz]

The AFL need to work on some sort of a fund that can be used generally for retrospective cases. These guys earnt a good living out of footy, but only now is the league really raking in the dough. Not sure how claims would work and level of evidence etc, but to have all these players coming up and suing is very inefficient and will just make lawyers rich.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Like plenty of others, I love Gary and will never forget the joy of watching him over many games.

But these guys are being manipulated by the pariahs in the legal system who smell the opportunity and are looking to get their snouts in the trough. Sometimes you just need to be careful what you wish for when you allow yourself to be used and abused ….. and made an example of.

Recently spoke to a very experienced litigation expert who said this concussion stuff will result in unintended consequences. Already aware of some former players wanting to take legal action over specific incidents by specific players who hit “player x or y” in a game 25 years ago that caused concussion.

Once you open this up there’s no telling where it ends. Players need to foot some of the blame. I know of players faking concussion test results and even pulling a baseline pre season cognitive test that then made it easier to pass a post game or pre game concussion test just so they didn’t miss any footy.

There’s a Geelong player who notoriously had his mate hide him from doctors post game after being knocked out just so he bought 24 hrs before they tracked him down and tested him. In the days before mobile phones.

Players need to also accept some culpability for the way the broader industry approached this for many years. Some of the stuff I’ve seen in local footy over the years and the way concussion was approached was absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It's not the "pariahs in the legal system" who are responsible for these issues, it's the piranhas in the clubs, leagues and media who ignored the consequences of brain damage resulting from contact sports, something that's been known about for decades

 

[FredLeDeux]

I would have thought Gazza caused more concussion in opponents ( and teammates) than he copped himself

Yes and no.
Don't forget the number of head knocks he copped when he was playing at FF in the era of the Blind Full Backs, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the head and the ball.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What? Yes they did. James Hardie even admitted it. And it led to special laws relating to dust-related conditions.

I'm not sure how much the AFL knew about concussive injuries in the 80s-90s but I would say Ablett might have difficulty satisfying the limitation period in Victoria, since the acts or omissions that he'd be complaining about would have occurred more than 12 years ago.

The dangers of asbestos were not known when it was initially mined in the 1920s , down the track things became clearer and by the early 60s large groups of people working in the mines were suffering a similar cancer . Yes they used it in the 70s and 80s in all sorts of products , those people are the equivalent of players today getting concussion based injuries where the harm was known. .
Hardies had to pay out for those pre war injuries/clean ups as well , that was what I was referring to.
If a player can show he suffered concussive damage as a cause of footy the AFL/clubs will have to pay out regardless of when it occurred. This is the gist of my comment.