He's a plaintiff's lawyers. He is representing the party bringing the complaint. The defense lawyers, presumably from Wilmer Hale, will be representing the NFL.Wait. You're rooting for the mega billionaires, who've demonstrably lied for decades to their employees to keep them ignorant on the effects of playing football, and for their loathsome lackey Roger to "unload" on a scumbag defense lawyer representing a gold digger and a six-year old?
I think your sense of right, wrong, and villainy is busted.
If Jose Baez completes a hail mary and somehow gets a judgement against the NFL (and NCAA?) for endangering player safety by knowingly lying to their employees then shit... I will bow down and literally sing the praises of a scummy defense lawyer. Compared to the people he's suing, Jose Baez is not half bad.
Meanwhile, not enough bad things can happen to "Park Avenue" and the owners who did exactly what this suit alleges. Do you remember Kevin Turner? Before he died, he and his family and lots of ex-players sued the NFL and were strong-armed into a settlement in order to pay their medical bills. Baez is a grandstanding asshole, but that is no reason to be rooting for the much bigger assholes and their precious shield.
Fwiw, he played 52 games in NFL (38 regular season, 8 preseason, 6 postseason) and 40 total games at FloridaWhy not sue the NCAA and Florida since he played more games at Florida than he did in the NFL? I've been telling people for years that it's not the NFL's fault w/r/t CTE. It's playing tackle football in Pop Warner through middle school. Taking that many hits to the head when the brain is still maturing does far worse damage. No kids should play tackle football until 7th or 8th grade at the earliest. I never played tackle until freshmen year.
Yeah, totally, I mean that surgeon's general warning on the back of cigarette packs was good enough to protect the tobacco companies, right?I don't think Hernandez has a case.
He also never played a snap in the NFL until AFTER the NFL (Greg Aiello) acknowledged concussions can cause long term problems, and after the NFL implemented new return to play guidelines. (Dec 2009)
And before he ever took a snap in the league the NFL put posters in every locker room stating that
"Concussions and conditions resulting from repeated brain injury can change your life and your family's life forever"
So I don't see how you can make the argument that he played in a league that said it was safe
That's what I'm thinking, if the NFL cn't get the suit dismissed that they reach a settlement with a "Keep Your Fucking Mouth Shut Upon Pain of Spending Three Weeks Locked in a Room Listening to the Collected Speeches of Roger Goodell" clause to prevent any discovery from happening.Doesn't matter if he has a case I suspect the NFL will settle for something. After all, it's tip money for them and they really don't want this guy running around deposing people etc.
Because this case reads to me more like a shakedown than anything else. There are no people to cheer for in this case IMO.How is rooting for AH's daughter rooting for him? He's dead and has nothing personal to gain from this.
You can't cheer for the daughter? I mean whether or not Hernandez was messed up in the head, the CTE likely exacerbated whatever problems might have been.Because this case reads to me more like a shakedown than anything else. There are no people to cheer for in this case IMO.
If the daughter was the one bringing the case, then sure. Something tells me she isn't. She's a beneficiary. Great. But I don't like the bones of the lawsuit.You can't cheer for the daughter? I mean whether or not Hernandez was messed up in the head, the CTE likely exacerbated whatever problems might have been.
edit: it would have been a fascinating defense trial had they been able to learn of the CTE before he died - not responsible because of CTE. Think of the circus that would have been.
This is a tough one.Wait. You're rooting for the mega billionaires, who've demonstrably lied for decades to their employees to keep them ignorant on the effects of playing football, and for their loathsome lackey Roger to "unload" on a scumbag defense lawyer representing a gold digger and a six-year old?
I think your sense of right, wrong, and villainy is busted.
If Jose Baez completes a hail mary and somehow gets a judgement against the NFL (and NCAA?) for endangering player safety by knowingly lying to their employees then shit... I will bow down and literally sing the praises of a scummy defense lawyer. Compared to the people he's suing, Jose Baez is not half bad.
Meanwhile, not enough bad things can happen to "Park Avenue" and the owners who did exactly what this suit alleges. Do you remember Kevin Turner? Before he died, he and his family and lots of ex-players sued the NFL and were strong-armed into a settlement in order to pay their medical bills. Baez is a grandstanding asshole, but that is no reason to be rooting for the much bigger assholes and their precious shield.
Any thoughts on whether CTE could have had something to do with this? He must have suffered from concussions before, right?
Apr 19, 2017
What about for the players in the game now? I can only imagine that they're somewhat surprised & alarmed that the doctors' assessment was Hernandez's level was so serious. Isn't this going to have an impact on them and their families, separate from the Hernandez family case? Anyone think we might see some players reconsider their commitment to the game?If they find CTE in the brain of a guy who played in the NFL only 3 years, it could be a game changer.
That said, I think he was just a damaged individual.
Apr 19, 2017
Thank you for the info.Its possible, but most of the evidence points to subconcussive impacts being perfectly capable of causing severe CTE, and it largely being additive.
https://concussionfoundation.org/CTE-resources/subconcussive-impacts
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995699/
etc.
I think it would only have been a media circus. The NG by reason of insanity defense in MA is (I believe) governed by the MPC language: "if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." AH would have failed either prong, due to his actions before and after the shooting (with no intervening change in circumstances like a massive head injury just seconds prior to the shooting.) His PCP use would fall under self-intoxication, which is not a defense and muddies the water further for him. (I.e., if he wasn't constantly high on angel dust, and didn't cause any damage to his brain/moral faculties through self-intoxication, might he not have resisted his wish to kill Lloyd, despite the CTE?)You can't cheer for the daughter? I mean whether or not Hernandez was messed up in the head, the CTE likely exacerbated whatever problems might have been.
edit: it would have been a fascinating defense trial had they been able to learn of the CTE before he died - not responsible because of CTE. Think of the circus that would have been.
I'm with you - the whole thing feels overreaching and messy - the NFL probably just settles if it gets to it, but it feels really light to me on actual evidence.If the plaintiff in this case was anyone other than the fiancé (a/k/a "accessory after the fact") of a psychopathic murderer, I'd be rooting hard for them to take it to the NFL. The fact that Jose Baez - who made his bones by suggesting that Casey Anthony's father was a pedophile/murderer in order to get his client off - is the plaintiff's lawyer is another factor..
The civil case argument with best chance to succeed would be that the CTE caused AH to kill himself (since depression and suicide is linked to some CTE sufferers), and that the NFL knew about the risks and did nothing substantial to prevent the CTE. But it's not a very good argument for a number of reasons, as you noted here. It's much more of an uphill climb to argue that the CTE also caused AH to become violent in the particular way that he did, and that the NFL should be legally liable for AH's conduct in killing others - with the result that the NFL should reimburse Hernandez's daughter. (There are plenty of former NFL players who don't go on killing sprees.)I'm with you - the whole thing feels overreaching and messy - the NFL probably just settles if it gets to it, but it feels really light to me on actual evidence.
It's really hard to make an argument that the NFL caused Aaron Hernandez's CTE, and his violence, when he had a long history of violence pre-NFL, and pretty much every story about him in college is that he was edgy, erratic, mercurial, and prone to violent outbursts. He told Ian Rappaport he'd kill him if he badmouthed him as a rookie. Most of the symptoms listed as common in CTE victims are traits he was displaying in college. I guess the argument could be made that the NFL should have never let him play if he was already damaged goods, but that's a bit of a tougher argument to make, as there aren't any live tests.
I'm sure the NFL made it worse (as he did have a concussion while playing for the Pats)
Maybe having her father turned into a psychotic mass murderer as a (at least partial) result of the head trauma he received in his chosen profession perhaps wasn't the best break for her either. Something tells me Hernandez probably wasn't aware of (nevermind weighing) the probabilities of such an outcome when he was looking to play in Florida or Foxborough.Maybe the families of all the people he murdered can get together and file a class action suit against the NFL and Florida. Maybe they can blame all the murders on the cte.
I feel sorry for the little girl, but
"Being denied the companionship."
Of her psychotic mass murderer father is probably the biggest break that small child will get
I agree they will likely settle but this is the top of the iceberg for these suits. Colleges and high schools should be worried too.Doesn't matter if he has a case I suspect the NFL will settle for something. After all, it's tip money for them and they really don't want this guy running around deposing people etc.
The problem the NFL has isn't that it's going to be banned, NFL and NCAA football are going to go on. The problem is one of supply that boxing and MMA don't face. Boxing and martial arts are universal phenomenon, so all that the declining rates of participation here has meant is that the names of pro boxers are more difficult for some Americans to pronounce.If MMA and Boxing are allowed, the NFL will still exist as well.
I wonder if the strategy is to get a settlement from the NFL first and then go after the NCAA and FL. Can't sue them both at the same time because they would just point fingers at each other.I agree they will likely settle but this is the top of the iceberg for these suits. Colleges and high schools should be worried too.
Because this isn't true.Why not sue the NCAA and Florida since he played more games at Florida than he did in the NFL?
That's what I read from somebody. Even so, the two numbers are comparable.Because this isn't true.
If MMA and Boxing are allowed, the NFL will still exist as well.
I don't think the difference is any sort of "universality" of a sport, whatever that might mean. The difference is that in order to have a competitive sport of american football, you need 53 rostered players (plus spares / practice squads / street free agents) per team, and entire league's worth of teams.The problem the NFL has isn't that it's going to be banned, NFL and NCAA football are going to go on. The problem is one of supply that boxing and MMA don't face. Boxing and martial arts are universal phenomenon, so all that the declining rates of participation here has meant is that the names of pro boxers are more difficult for some Americans to pronounce.
Didn't know about this, went to Google and...holy SHIT. This guy was batshit crazy.He told Ian Rappaport he'd kill him if he badmouthed him as a rookie.
I think you're saying the same thing:I don't think the difference is any sort of "universality" of a sport, whatever that might mean. The difference is that in order to have a competitive sport of american football, you need 53 rostered players (plus spares / practice squads / street free agents) per team, and entire league's worth of teams.
For boxing, you have 1 participant on each side. 2 make a bout. A dozen make up a plausible pool of contenders. The number of boxing gyms could shrink by 90% and you'd still have a viable sport that you could put on TV. Not so gridiron football, not by a long shot - the product will be dramatically affected if the pyramid of high schools feeding colleges feeding the NFLs narrows more than a bit.
I don't know, man. If (and this is a big if) more than X% of active NCAA players have positive tests, that's a game-changer, regardless of how much people love the game. I'm not saying it'll be overnight, but it'll be damn sight quicker than 30 years, IMO.In New England, sure.
In Texas, where football is central to culture and identity? I'm skeptical it's going to take less than a generation.
We'll have to disagree. It's been what, 50 years since we figured out smoking causes lung cancer? Down here, in Virginia, people LOVE the tobacco companies. People are willing to ignore a whole damn lot for a paycheck, or a way of life.I don't know, man. If (and this is a big if) more than X% of active NCAA players have positive tests, that's a game-changer, regardless of how much people love the game. I'm not saying it'll be overnight, but it'll be damn sight quicker than 30 years, IMO.
We've been focusing on supply (of players), but demand (fanbase) will take a hit as well if the aforementioned scenario came to pass (edit: acf69's post dovetails nicely here).
I would love for you to expand on your thinking.Regardless, I still don't think the suit survives a motion to dismiss.
Participation in boxing has fallen in America over the last two generations, but they box in Cuba, they box in Mexico, they box in Brazil, they box Botswana, they box in the Philippines. They box everywhere. So despite the 17 major belts and the 348 weight classes there are thousands and thousands of boxers around to keep the business running.I don't think the difference is any sort of "universality" of a sport, whatever that might mean. The difference is that in order to have a competitive sport of american football, you need 53 rostered players (plus spares / practice squads / street free agents) per team, and entire league's worth of teams.
For boxing, you have 1 participant on each side. 2 make a bout. A dozen make up a plausible pool of contenders. The number of boxing gyms could shrink by 90% and you'd still have a viable sport that you could put on TV. Not so gridiron football, not by a long shot - the product will be dramatically affected if the pyramid of high schools feeding colleges feeding the NFLs narrows more than a bit.
I played Pop Warner for a few years, and then all through high school. I don't think the quality of play would decrease by kids not playing until high school. Certainly not on the College or Pro levels, and probably not even on the HS level. Most high schools don't coach most positions well. Junior high and pop warner quality coaching is mostly building bad habits and understanding of the game. The best players in HS were the best athletes, not the ones who had the most time playing the game before HS. For some skill stuff (punt, pass, kick) you can get some basic learning done in a flag football environment before HS, but even that is basically going to be re-taught by the HS level coaches. There is no reason to have 12 year olds slam their heads together on a football field.Granted, in places like Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida they're going to have kids playing full contact football until federal safety regulators take the decision out of parents' hands (and make no mistake, that day's a lot closer than people want to admit), but the long term trend is there. Kids are, increasingly, not playing full contact until high school, and that's likely going to be the future compromise on the issue.
Mine is not a terribly informed opinion, as I will admit that I have not read the suit. (And have no plans to, since all things Aaron Hernandez are not matters of pressing importance to me.)I would love for you to expand on your thinking.
Here's my take:
-- I'm not a worker's comp expert, but I know claims by dependents of an injured worker for damages attributable to a workplace injury are typically barred. Massachusetts has an exception for willful misconduct, however, so even if the bar applies here (and I have no idea if it would, especially against the NFL as opposed to the Patriots), Baez can probably survive a motion to dismiss by alleging willful misconduct.
-- I think Baez is likely to stipulate that AH murdered Odin Lloyd, then fight to keep the particulars out of court. (Otherwise, the bulk of the trial will be spent rehashing the details of that case.) AH's child's claim for loss of consortium would therefore only be for the loss of her ability to visit her father in prison and get to know him in that limited way as she grows up. That would limit her recovery if she prevails, but unless there's a specific law that I don't know about that bars such recoveries, I would think it's still a legally cognizable injury.
-- I think a jury would ultimately conclude that AH was a narcissist who killed himself because his courtroom drama had played out (save for a perfunctory appeal that had no chance of success) and was facing life as an anonymous prisoner. And even if they're more sympathetic than that, I think they're likely to conclude that AH wouldn't have done anything differently had he known everything the NFL did about the risks of the sport. But those are things that would be settled at trial. Baez seems to have enough to allege that the NFL and the Patriots willfully withheld information from players about the safety of the game, and that seems like enough to get to discovery, unless there's a statute I don't know about that specifically bars this claim.
Virginia produces less than 50,000 pounds/year of tobacco these days (some sources say less than 25,000), down from a high of almost 250,000 pounds/year. Tobacco was a $300+ million/year industry for Virginia in the 1970s; it's down to about $50 million/year now and crashing quickly.We'll have to disagree. It's been what, 50 years since we figured out smoking causes lung cancer? Down here, in Virginia, people LOVE the tobacco companies. People are willing to ignore a whole damn lot for a paycheck, or a way of life.
Sure, but the argument necessary here is: "Aaron Hernandez didn't get CTE from playing our NFL game, he got it from playing in college, high-school, and grade school."I agree that this case has enormous causation problems that are likely to result in dismissal on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.
The NFL cannot be on the hook for any CTE damage sustained before AH donned a uniform for the NEP. It will be practically impossible to parse pre-NFL from NFL damage. Plaintiff will carry the burden of doing that and, further, getting an expert prepared to raise his or her right hand, under oath, and testify that the NFL damage led to the suicide.
I don't see that happening. Additionally, federal courts by and large are not whorehouses. They are manned and womaned by serious judges who take precedent seriously and refuse to let cases get to the jury just because it feels good or is the "right" thing to do.
And there is NFW the NFL or the NEP settle this. The chances of that are as close to zero as you can get. I'm talking from experience.
The argument is, "you can't parse it out, and that's your obligation as plaintiff so you lose."Sure, but the argument necessary here is: "Aaron Hernandez didn't get CTE from playing our NFL game, he got it from playing in college, high-school, and grade school."
And no matter what the actual damages in this suit are, that argument is way more damaging.
The second one sure, but I don't think the NFL ever wants to get anywhere close to the first argument.The argument is, "you can't parse it out, and that's your obligation as plaintiff so you lose."
Then there is another obstacle in proving that the suicide more likely than not was caused by the CTE, which you must demonstrate is more likely than not.
The NFL doesn't have a choice in the matter, because the case has already been filed. And the argument could be easily managed to avoid the kind of PR debacle you are suggesting.The second one sure, but I don't think the NFL ever wants to get anywhere close to the first argument.
Of course smoking rates have fallen significantly - nobody denies that. But it has been 50 years, and 20ish percent of americans still smoke despite knowing it will probably kill you. The idea that football is going to disappear in 10 years because of head injuries is laughably naive. Its a huge part of life in the south and midwest. They'll cling to it as long as they can, even if its killing their kids.Virginia produces less than 50,000 pounds/year of tobacco these days (some sources say less than 25,000), down from a high of almost 250,000 pounds/year. Tobacco was a $300+ million/year industry for Virginia in the 1970s; it's down to about $50 million/year now and crashing quickly.
In 1999 people here were laughing at California barring smoking in bars, saying it would never happen in VA. They passed a similar ban in 2009.
In the US, 1/3 as many people smoke today as in 1955. And since about a decade ago, high school students are smoking at an even lower rate than adults (which generally presages significant future declines).
View attachment 17509
The class action is an issue. Hernandez was part of the class action that settled. He didn't opt out. His claims are barred. If so, case over.The biggest problem the NFL and NEP have is bringing this to a conclusion before plaintiff has a chance to discover what defs knew and when they knew it.
So look for a motion to dismiss, which may be difficult.
That benefit, though, is available only to players who had retired and died before the settlement was approved in federal court in 2015. So in effect, the settlement would be a Trojan horse. If the Hernandez family joins the settlement, arguing that he was no longer playing as of 2013 when he was imprisoned, they give up their right to sue the league, Sohn said, without any guarantee of getting money from the settlement.
Balsam, the former N.F.L. lawyer, suggested that Baez, through the suit, is hoping for the remainder of Hernandez’s $40 million contract extension he signed in 2012. After Hernandez was arrested and charged with murder in June 2013, the Patriots released him and refused to pay him a $3 million bonus he was owed.
It's not a workers' compensation case.I would love for you to expand on your thinking.
Here's my take:
-- I'm not a worker's comp expert, but I know claims by dependents of an injured worker for damages attributable to a workplace injury are typically barred. Massachusetts has an exception for willful misconduct, however, so even if the bar applies here (and I have no idea if it would, especially against the NFL as opposed to the Patriots), Baez can probably survive a motion to dismiss by alleging willful misconduct.
Of course not. Did you read what I wrote?It's not a workers' compensation case.
This. If you can show people brain damage development from game to game, which parents would allow that for their kids? What rich player is not going to think twice about their future?When (not if) in vivo detection is readily available, it's my guess that NCAA and NFL football will be dead, and dead with a quickness.