Jamal Lewis article

[Behr]

I'm more worried about folks who think complex issues can be covered adequately with one-sentence responses.

Gotsta be a happy medium.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Gotsta be a happy medium.

Well, you know me. I'm long-winded. I'm not going to the happy medium place except kicking and screaming.

 

[Mccage]

I'm more worried about folks who think complex issues can be covered adequately with one-sentence responses.

Please don’t make me laugh, it hurts when I cough.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Please don’t make me laugh, it hurts when I cough.

Are you an old fireman?

 

[99gator]

It's actually apples and apples in several big ways.

1. Both concern the national debate on race relations.
2. Both involve businesses making decisions concerning their stance in this national debate.
3. Neither business "went looking for this fight"; both had the need to make a decision forced upon them by an employee's actions.
4. Both businesses' decisions are being questioned, because both fall well short of "the wisdom of Solomon" (in fairness, not sure there are any really good options available).

Here, I'll prove the apples and apples nature of these two cases. I'm going to substitute one name for another, using your own words. See if they still sound true:



Sure, that sounds valid.

Now the other:



Yep, that one sounds equally valid switched around.

Sure, the two businesses have taken very different decisions; gone in different directions. Starbucks came down strongly on the side of reform--let's hold training sessions to end unconscious bias and prejudice. Meanwhile, the NFL tried to walk a tightrope between the sides, but leaned in the direction of preserving existing societal norms (respect the flag, follow convention).

So where they're going are apples and oranges. But what they've been facing, and the pressures involved, have absolutely been apples and apples.

I'm sorry, the situations are vastly different.

In the Starbucks case, a non-employee complaint about the actions of an employee at Starbucks that occurred at Starbucks started that whole thing. No political statement was made causing the public relations situation at all.

In the case of the NFL, an employee making a political statement on company time regarding things that had nothing to do with the NFL started that whole thing. It was the political statement by the employee that created their public relations problem. No one that I am aware of was kneeling for the national anthem due to race relations issues within the NFL.

 

[Burger]

You would have to be legitimately dumb if you don't know that taking hits to the head are bad. Players in Lewis's era absolutely knew this. They knew hits to the head result in brain injuries. They just didn't know how severe.

Football players sell their health for millions of dollars nowadays. Same with athletes across many sports. Soccer actually has a worse CTE problem...

 

[99gator]

So, you don't think the NFL can mandate employee policy at the workplace, but Starbucks can?

I am arguing the opposite. The NFL can, Starbucks can, ABC can, etc.

And the other argument is "freedom of speech" is a right given to you to protect you from government. However, you are not protected from your employer

The government is not going to put me in jail for wearing a t-shirt and shorts. My employer would fire me for showing up to work that way. The government is not going to put me in jail for my political views. My employer would fire me for doing that at work. Etc, etc. etc.

There is nothing the NFL is doing that is any different than any other business in the US, but somehow they are being portrayed as the villain.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I'm sorry, the situations are vastly different.

In the Starbucks case, a non-employee complaint about the actions of an employee at Starbucks that occurred at Starbucks started that whole thing. No political statement was made causing the public relations situation at all.

In the case of the NFL, an employee making a political statement on company time regarding things that had nothing to do with the NFL started that whole thing. It was the political statement by the employee that created their public relations problem. No one that I am aware of was kneeling for the national anthem due to race relations issues within the NFL.

You're showing your bias in this response.

The Starbucks employee took an action; as a result of that action, Starbucks has been dragged into the national debate about race relations.

You could replace "Starbucks" in that sentence with "NFL" and it would be just as accurate.

You're blaming Starbucks' woes on a non-employee complaint (about the employee's action), and that shows a willingness to ignore the employee's proximate role. That's bias.

The cases are similar in structure; you're just viewing them from an angle that makes them appear different to you.

 

[Burger]

You're showing your bias in this response.

The Starbucks employee took an action; as a result of that action, Starbucks has been dragged into the national debate about race relations.

You could replace "Starbucks" in that sentence with "NFL" and it would be just as accurate.

You're blaming Starbucks' woes on a non-employee complaint (about the employee's action), and that shows a willingness to ignore the employee's proximate role. That's bias.

The cases are similar in structure; you're just viewing them from an angle that makes them appear different to you.

A debate that is being debated totally wrong.

 

[99gator]

You're showing your bias in this response.

The Starbucks employee took an action; as a result of that action, Starbucks has been dragged into the national debate about race relations.

You could replace "Starbucks" in that sentence with "NFL" and it would be just as accurate.

You're blaming Starbucks' woes on a non-employee complaint (about the employee's action), and that shows a willingness to ignore the employee's proximate role. That's bias.

The cases are similar in structure; you're just viewing them from an angle that makes them appear different to you.

It’s not bias.

The irony here is that Starbucks is one of the most left leaning companies in America.

The bias is that one employee is representative of the entire company.

Additionally, one employee at one business is representative of the entire US.

I brought my 3 year old (at the time) to use the restroom at a business and was refused because I was not a paying customer. So, it happens. Other stuff happens to me too.

The bias is an assumption (which we can’t know) that certain things happen because of race. Obviously, one would assume that is true at least some of the time.

 

[AndyMizunogolfer]

I hate it for Jamal although I think that this has been somewhat overplayed by the media. We were at a football camp last night and it was said that soccer and cheerleading have roughly the same # of concussions yearly as football. Football like many other sports are not safe sports. Injuries are going to happen. I think they are making solid strides in football though teaching better technique. To me currently the worst position for concussions seems to be RB at this point. It has always been a position where you are told to lower your head and be a ram. Well that is going to have to stop. They have rules for everyone else leading with their helmet except RB.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

A debate that is being debated totally wrong.

Agreed. There's a far better way to get at the questions involved than we as a nation are doing.

 

[EZE]

To clarify, I meant that football players have known for years that playing football is bad for your body.

It's not just CTE. Look at Jim Otto. Look at Daryl Stingley and the amount of players who have been paralyzed as a result of playing football. Look at Ryan Shazier.

And with regard to CTE, I will use the comparison to smoking again.

It didn't take a genius to figure out that smoking was bad for your health long before somebody decided to slap a warning label on a pack of cigarettes.

It also didn't take a genius to figure out that two objects with great size colliding at great speed over and over again was going to be a problem for your long term health.

Now, while many of these injuries are not fatal, all you have to do is watch former players walk around (if they can walk) and see what damage they have done to themselves.

When these discussions come up, I always paste this article regarding Jason Taylor.

Dan Le Batard: Jason Taylor’s pain shows NFL’s world of hurt | Miami Herald

Do you think he and others like him didn't know that stuff like this is a really bad idea?

Anyone wonder how close Peyton Manning came from doing tragic permanent damage to himself. And he continued to play. He'd probably play right now if he could.

But when your boss is forcing you back on the field, how much choice do you have if you want to stay employed?

And that is exactly how it worked until a few years ago

 

[99gator]

But when your boss is forcing you back on the field, how much choice do you have if you want to stay employed?

And that is exactly how it worked until a few years ago

That’s not remotely true.

Most pressure comes from teammates and he player himself.

You’ve seen games where they have to hide the player’s helmet to keep him off the field

One of the reasons I posted the Jason Taylor article is he could have been “out” with the injury and gotten paid.

The teams he played on weren’t close to contending for anything.

Yet, he chose to do that. Many others make similar choices

 

[Mccage]

Are you an old fireman?

No,just an old coalminer.

 

[EZE]

That’s not remotely true.

Most pressure comes from teammates and he player himself.

You’ve seen games where they have to hide the player’s helmet to keep him off the field

One of the reasons I posted the Jason Taylor article is he could have been “out” with the injury and gotten paid.

The teams he played on weren’t close to contending for anything.

Yet, he chose to do that. Many others make similar choices

Read the article about his last game with the Browns. If you don’t think coaches were pushing players back into the field, you are naive.

That is why the league now has independent doctors and the protocol...to take it out of the coaches’ hands

 

[99gator]

Read the article about his last game with the Browns. If you don’t think coaches were pushing players back into the field, you are naive.

That is why the league now has independent doctors and the protocol...to take it out of the coaches’ hands

I’m sure there are doctors who lied to players and told them they were ok to go and they weren’t. I’m sure that happened. I’m also sure guys were not examined thoroughly when they should have been. Im sure that’s happened.

I would argue that players try to get back in and play against their doctor’s advice or lie to their doctor about symptoms far more than the doctor doing he wrong thing.

I have no way to know, but most player accounts are that way.

Now, imo, no doctor should ethically be doing what Jason Taylor’s doctor was doing whether Taylor wanted to do it or not.

And that’s another issue.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

No,just an old coalminer.

Ah. Yep, that'll do it.

 

[Evergrenevol]

Crazy how things have changed. Was knocked unconscious playing for the Browns and only sat at 1 play. Sad.

Yep..Jamal also tore his acl in the Auburn game......then went back in....damnedest thing I’ve ever seen..I believe that class was the best that was ever signed by UT. It was the foundation for the ‘98 Championship.

 

[MWAVolfan]

My next door neighbor at my old house was a lineman for the Baltimore Colts in the 1960s. For 20 years he has slept in a recliner on the main level of his home because he can't walk up the stairs to his bedroom. He also can't lift his arm above what it would take to shake a man's hand. All of it he says came from injuries playing football.

Granted he doesn't have CTE, but he's messed up pretty good from playing in an era where safety was never considered and there was no way in hell you were taking someone out of a game not to mention players made a tiny fraction of the income they can make today.

Players know what they are getting into and they do it willingly. Some for the enormous amount of money, some for the glory and fame, some have a need to belong to a brotherhood of players and some just love the game and can't imagine doing anything else.

Coal miners and firefighters know the very real and inherent danger in the work they do and they do it anyway. There are no guns being held to heads.

BUT, at some point we as a society have to decide "no, you can't do that anymore". We have to take the decision out of their hands and not make it an issue of freedoms anymore. Literally every law on the books is designed to take some freedom away from you to protect society writ large. Do I have any hope that this will happen? Well it still blows my mind people are allowed to buy cigs and when I saw a guy at the Vol walk who had his small child up on his shoulders while he puffed away, I wanted to stick that cigarette in his eye, I know this kind of thing is a long long process that probably won't be solved in the next two decades. But I do know that if you leave these dangerous activities in the hands of the people who do them, things aren't going to change much because "freedom" and its doubly bad when you have a willfully ignorant mass of people who want only to be entertained and have no stake in it.

 

[TN_Transplant]

That’s not remotely true.

Most pressure comes from teammates and he player himself.

You’ve seen games where they have to hide the player’s helmet to keep him off the field

One of the reasons I posted the Jason Taylor article is he could have been “out” with the injury and gotten paid.

The teams he played on weren’t close to contending for anything.

Yet, he chose to do that. Many others make similar choices

I remember a Tennessee game where the coaches on the sideline hid Carl Pickens helmet and he stole another players and went in a caught a long pass. It was the year he was playing both ways.

 

[VolBraniac]

Football players sell their health for millions of dollars nowadays. Same with athletes across many sports. Soccer actually has a worse CTE problem...

It is worse for two predominant reasons. Heading (inside the box on a cross e.g.) is simpler (and more flamboyant) than striking for a score and 2) few headers result in concussions.

 

[EZE]

I’m sure there are doctors who lied to players and told them they were ok to go and they weren’t. I’m sure that happened. I’m also sure guys were not examined thoroughly when they should have been. Im sure that’s happened.

I would argue that players try to get back in and play against their doctor’s advice or lie to their doctor about symptoms far more than the doctor doing he wrong thing.

I have no way to know, but most player accounts are that way.

Now, imo, no doctor should ethically be doing what Jason Taylor’s doctor was doing whether Taylor wanted to do it or not.

And that’s another issue.

It is called “conflict of interest.”

 

[VolBraniac]

I’m sure there are doctors who lied to players and told them they were ok to go and they weren’t. I’m sure that happened. I’m also sure guys were not examined thoroughly when they should have been. Im sure that’s happened.

I would argue that players try to get back in and play against their doctor’s advice or lie to their doctor about symptoms far more than the doctor doing he wrong thing.

Quick story to your point.

I was training athletes, getting a lot of referrals from orthopods especially the Braves team doctors. Head Doc cut his hand, lost his insurance and surgery privileges. He called for lunch and announced that the new Head Doc wasn't a big fan of mine. Or his.

Since I was paid by the athlete, I told them the truth. So did Joe. He, personally, saved the career of John Smoltz by refusing to put him into PT before he was ready.

New Head Doc had "different" medical philosophies, you might say. The Braves were going from last-to-first and all hands on deck.

Never trained another Brave again.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Players know what they are getting into and they do it willingly....

Coal miners and firefighters know the very real and inherent danger in the work they do and they do it anyway. There are no guns being held to heads.

BUT, at some point we as a society have to decide "no, you can't do that anymore". We have to take the decision out of their hands and not make it an issue of freedoms anymore. Literally every law on the books is designed to take some freedom away from you to protect society writ large....

There is a really big difference between restricting a person's activities for the well-being of society (example: you aren't allowed to build a nuclear weapon and set it off in your neighborhood), and denying freedoms to protect a person from himself.

...

Cigarettes are dangerous. Sports parachuting is dangerous. Working in a mine is dangerous. So is being a fireman or policeman. Or deep sea fisherman. Or lumberjack. Or roughneck. Or a soldier.

Football is dangerous. Soccer is, too (that sport has its own share of concussions and CTE). And boxing. diving with sharks. High-tension lineman is a dangerous profession.

It's dangerous to climb a ladder if you're over 60 years of age, because of decreased sense of balance. Dangerous to leave a pot simmering on a gas stove while you go to the restroom or catch the rest of a TV show in the living room.

Skiing and snowmobiling in avalanche risk areas are dangerous. Mountain climbing is, too. Free soloing (ever see Alex Honnold climb?) is hugely risky.

...

So what's the difference between all those activities and building a nuke in your garage? Answer: everyone involved in all those other activities are knowingly sharing in the risks. There are no innocent, unknowing or unwilling participants.

Are you going to take away all those freedoms, to protect people from themselves? Really?

And if not all, who gets to decide which? You? Me?

Life is wonderful. It is awesome. But it is not sacrosanct. You can't wrap everyone around you in bubble wrap and tell them to sit in a bomb shelter for the rest of their lives. That is life without freedom for the sake of safety. It is the extreme example that proves that freedom is actually more valuable than simply staying alive.

People have the freedom to take risks.

That's true in their professions, and it's true in their pastimes.

When you say, "we as a society have to decide, 'no, you can't do that anymore,'" you're describing the Nanny State.

No thanks.