Steve Thompson 42 - early onset Dementia
- Thread starter 1finny
- Start date
Malaguena
Well-known member
I sympathise with his diagnosis, agree it's a horrendous disease, but bringing a legal case, not a chance
Having played the game myself (not to his standards obviously) it's always attracted a large percentage of "hard men" - I may even have fancied myself in that bracket at one point - and the game itself has always been about the physical side, - not backing down, showing no weakness, and being as hard as you coud be, and Thompson was one of the ones who really reveled in that, and got him to the standard he reached.
To then take the RFU to court claiming they knew this could potentially cause long term damage, that the players didn't know that, and that they should have been warned and/or legislated against it, is frankly ridiculous .... and I can tell you, a warning would have been laughed off and completely ignored
Boro_Boro_Boro
Active member
I really feel for him in that it is a horrific condition and basically sucks the life out of you.
we are only just starting to realise how precious and delicate the head and the brain really are.
we are only just starting to realise how precious and delicate the head and the brain really are.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
We are talking about the law, not emotion . If they prove that the scum is dangerous, not that difficult with 16 X 20 stone fit sportsmen head to head, I think it's a guilty verdict.
SilentProf
Well-known member
Brain injuries are far more likely in the tackle than in a scrum. It’s neck or spinal damage you need to worry about in that situation. You might take the odd sly punch but that’s against the rules and hardly the fault of the RFU.
Malaguena
Well-known member
No, we're talking about the players claiming that at the time they didn't know that the physical nature of the game could potentially cause issues in the long term, but that the RFU did but didn't notify them, which is frankly a ridiculous position to take
newusername
Well-known member
No, he's claiming that the team of fitness and medical experts around the England team & the professional clubs knew of the risks and didn't take steps to mitigate the risks for the players.
Malaguena
Well-known member
Which is the same as I posted, other than swapping "fitness and medical experts" for "RFU" .... and is still a frankly ridiculous position to take. Are you trying to tell me that the players didn't know of those risks ? .... of course they did, even at the level I played at
As others have said, it's based on a duty of care argument. It's similar to and prompted by the recent successful NFL class action. It wouldn't have got this far without a reasonable chance of success. The courts will decide on the merits of the case but I very much doubt they will dismiss it as 'ridiculous'.
1finny
Well-known member
Whatever the merits of the case it is worth A challenge/
People take up sports at young ages when they are invincible then, for the select few, it becomes a way of life and brings financial security.
At that stage both players and the medics are conflicted.
Fine to say players and medics understand the risks but, if a number of players have suffered so much that it has caused this disease then that is worth knowing.
Then, steps can be put in place to prevent further people having to suffer.
Will this lead to people who play sport having to sign disclaimers or take our insurance to mitigate the risks involved.
Its well established that injury can often lead to early onset arthritis. Head injuries are likely to impact the brain. Both of which are common place in a lot of sports.
How much of a sport do you lose by modifying to mitigate the risks? Take out tackles/ take out the scrum? Reduce impact? Stop heading in football?
Its well established that injury can often lead to early onset arthritis. Head injuries are likely to impact the brain. Both of which are common place in a lot of sports.
How much of a sport do you lose by modifying to mitigate the risks? Take out tackles/ take out the scrum? Reduce impact? Stop heading in football?
1finny
Well-known member
That ought to be the point really.
What risks should we knowingly put people through?
The key is to be transparent about the potential lions term impact then decide what changes, if any, need to happen.
There will always be an acceptance of risk (serious leg break in footy) but, when it comes to potential vegetative state by the time you are 50 that is worth understanding more.
Boxing seems relatively happy with their protocols whilst some thing it is barbaric and dangerous. Always a need for balance, never universal agreement.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
It's not just the elite that become the victims of the sport. There's fellas out there doing this without medical supervision. Can you imagine the total number that will be going through this.
The boxing fraternity will be the same.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
I’m sorry but I think this misses the mark quite considerably. The governing body is there to protect the players and create rules that protect them
Same with heading in football.
1finny
Well-known member
The one I always think is strange is boxing. As an amateur you wear your headguard then you fight the better guys and take it off. - that logic doesn't work for me
FatFrank
Well-known member
I can't see how any court will favour the claimants side in this scenario, to be honest. We're talking about almost 20 years ago and the simple fact that awareness and relationship of prolonged head impact and dementia/Alzheimer's was almost non-existent.
RFU will say that at the time of playing, they implemented reasonable measures. I barely saw Thompson play, but as Hooker I bet he's thrown a few fists as well as taken them.
RFU will say that at the time of playing, they implemented reasonable measures. I barely saw Thompson play, but as Hooker I bet he's thrown a few fists as well as taken them.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Employers have a duty to mitigate risk, do you think a scrum of 16 enormous bloke pushing against each other without any protection is satisfactory?
bear66
Well-known member
I've played every position at some time or other except prop, second row and No 8. Fly half was where I got my most injuries! Mainly tackling rather than being tackled.
I worry about some players that seem to be regularly concussed. Fly halves and full backs seem to be the hardest hit.
I worry about some players that seem to be regularly concussed. Fly halves and full backs seem to be the hardest hit.
Jostler
Well-known member
I love rugby, but it's quite a recent love in the past decade or so. Pre uni I was all about Football & Cricket. Do you think the game as it is now, offers more protection to the players than back then?
A read a thread on reddit about this situation yesterday, and few people said they were now going to stop watching it because of these cases and others have said they are pulling their kids out of the junior game.
It's funny it was only at the weekend I was checking at what age I could put my little one into Rugby Tots, which both me and the mrs have been keen to do, but now we're not so sure.
Are the governing bodies responsible for social as well as professional participants in their game? Is it the RFU who has a duty of care or the persons employer?
From an employment perspective are the employers responsible for historical injuries incurred or the overseeing governing body e.g asbestos harm.
From an employment perspective are the employers responsible for historical injuries incurred or the overseeing governing body e.g asbestos harm.