Wash Post: NFLPA grievance: Patriots doctor put team ahead of patient
- Thread starter loshjott
- Start date
So he asked the team doctor to wait a day or two to perform surgery while they could figure out what the player's intention was, because the player made an indication he was considering doing something that would save the team a few hundred thousand dollars?
I mean, I get that on the surface it looks kind of shady, but I don't think the team did anything materially wrong. It's not like they A) refused to perform the surgery; B) put him at any risk of complications (as far as I can tell from the article); or C) threatened him in any way.
What a crock of shit. Both the player and the team, from time to time, have conflicting interests. This is why players have agents.
I mean, the headline should read: "Injured player considers retiring, Patriots wait for decision before using team resources to perform surgery (per standard protocol)"
I mean, I get that on the surface it looks kind of shady, but I don't think the team did anything materially wrong. It's not like they A) refused to perform the surgery; B) put him at any risk of complications (as far as I can tell from the article); or C) threatened him in any way.
What a crock of shit. Both the player and the team, from time to time, have conflicting interests. This is why players have agents.
I mean, the headline should read: "Injured player considers retiring, Patriots wait for decision before using team resources to perform surgery (per standard protocol)"
The defensiveness here is honestly disappointing. The Patriots/BB aren't infallible and it sounds like they may have been at least mildly shitty in this instance. I understand that you guys feel that it's you vs. the world as Pats fans, and I totally get that feeling, but come on. If the guy needed surgery and they chose to lie to him about it, that sucks.
cromulence said:
The dispute seems to center on whether Fanene properly disclosed the knee problem before arriving in training camp. Since Fanene and the team reached a grievance buyout that precludes any type of lawsuit being filed by the player against the team, my best guess is that there was more going on here than is being reported. If the Pats suspected he wouldn't be able to play at all, then yeah they could have acted shittily and tried to delay things and try to convince Fanene to retire. On the other hand if Fanene hadn't been truthful about his physical condition, then his trying to get his signing bonus while not being able to play at all was also shitty.
cromulence said:
That's correct. Because delaying a day or two on an knee surgery could mean life or death for any human being. Damn that Belichick and his evil ways.
SeoulSoxFan said:
From the sound of it, if Belichick hadn't tried to wait to figure out what was going on, he (and the others) could be argued to be violating their duties to the team to, you know, run the business. It's not a fucking charity.
And, honestly, even if the allegations are true, this seems far less insidious than the sham that nearly every team (*cough* Broncos) goes through with the concussion protocol bullshit (for one example). The former is trying to work out various legal issues surrounding who should pay for what. The latter is a borderline-fraudulent process that places hurt guys in situations where they could get even more hurt, possibly for life.
So, what the fuck ever.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
cromulence said:
It's not just being defensive. There is no honesty in the article or the claim. Let's assume it is all true. If the Patriots medical team operates on Fanene aren't they acknowledging that the injury was their responsibility? If so, then the Patriots cannot file a grievance and Fanene gets away with his fraud. There was a dispute about the injury. A grievance was filed. A settlement was reached. This latest NFLPA claim is something they have to do as
MalzoneExpress said:
Key phrase: " in a court document recently filed in an unrelated case". The NFLPA is not pursuing any claim with the Patriots about this, but using their (one-sided) reference to it for something else.
Crom, it wouldn't surprise me if BB or the team treated a player shittily, or if the player felt that way at least. Teams and team docs have long been felt to have interests conflicting with players and their agents. This has been true a long time, and in many sports (the lengthy discussions over the Red Sox handling of injuries is a case in point), although DRS has defended team docs in several cases I remember, and I believe him. However this case seems more complex than you suggest--it's not as if they tried to get him to play with an injury, or refused to allow him treatment. Rather, there was clearly some disagreement as to when the injury occurred, who was responsible for handling it, and what Fanene's intentions were. The team may have been selfish or rather self-interested, but it's not clear it was nefarious.cromulence said:
The first person to reference this event with anything ending in ..."-gate" should lose their membership.
“He was saying let’s slow this process down till we can figure out what’s going on with Jonathan. Coach was talking about a day or two of trying to figure things out.”
To Crom's point: It would have been great if Bill just said/typed (the bolded), as opposed to using terminology commonly known in sports as an intentional pain-in-the-ass delay tactic. It may have been viewed as more "matter of-fact" rather than "strategic" phraseology.
Businesses have the right to encourage legal practices and management techniques that save the organization money. Asking Fanene to retire is good business. Performing due diligence prior to a player going under the knife is good business. Protecting your interests is good business. Intentionally screwing a guy over, or lying to him, is not. I think SJH's post said it best- there is likely more to the story. Hopefully the Pats were using good business practice and Fanene is just throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks.
Friggin email/paper trails + lack of context (or hard truth)= shit show.
To Crom's point: It would have been great if Bill just said/typed (the bolded), as opposed to using terminology commonly known in sports as an intentional pain-in-the-ass delay tactic. It may have been viewed as more "matter of-fact" rather than "strategic" phraseology.
Businesses have the right to encourage legal practices and management techniques that save the organization money. Asking Fanene to retire is good business. Performing due diligence prior to a player going under the knife is good business. Protecting your interests is good business. Intentionally screwing a guy over, or lying to him, is not. I think SJH's post said it best- there is likely more to the story. Hopefully the Pats were using good business practice and Fanene is just throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks.
Friggin email/paper trails + lack of context (or hard truth)= shit show.
Thanks for the link! What a great example of how the print media has become unreadable for sports news or analysis. This article has no point, literally.
Part of me wonders if this is some sort of bizarre attempt at a redirect away from the problems this season faced by the poorly named washington DC squad.
Part of me wonders if this is some sort of bizarre attempt at a redirect away from the problems this season faced by the poorly named washington DC squad.
Or once it became clear to him that there might be a lawsuit or whatever he didn't want to be involved. I don't blame him.Harry Hooper said:
You're probably right that they were at least mildly shitty, but this is old news. The Patriots felt like Fanene didn't disclose his condition; Fanene felt like Gill / Belichick / the Patriots treated him unfairly on their end. The eventual compromise - Fanene got to keep $2.5 MM of his bonus but didn't get a last payment of $1.85 MM, and the grievance was dropped - reflects that both sides were shitty in some proportion. All of this was settled over a year ago. This article is just dredging up old dirt. The grievance letter referenced in the first sentence of the article was from 6/19/2013.cromulence said:
