Quote:
Originally Posted by kccrow
Two people that don't understand what "football related" actually means. This deformity was not caused by playing football. It has, literally, nothing to do with playing football. The fact that playing football can make it worse has no bearing whatsoever on what the issue actually is. It's the same thing if a player has a heart condition that wasn't found, then is found after he's been playing ball, and can no longer play. The heart condition wasn't caused by football, it was natural. Playing football could make it worse. **** me if I can't pound that through your ****ing skulls.
Either way, it's whatever, the Chiefs are dumb enough they won't cut him anyway. He'll get the surgery and still be an overpaid, average safety that'll likely find yet another way to not be on the field.
|
I ask again - what would you like to bet on this?
You can say it's not football related all you want but it doesn't have to be 100% BECAUSE of football. It is akin to the eggshell plaintiff rules - sure, Berry may have been genetically predisposed to this condition but if he'd have not had this thing surface had he chosen to be a schoolteacher, it's going to be called football related. It just will. You keep saying 'CAUSED' by football and that ain't how it works. Exacerbated or tangentially related to playing football is going to be enough. Your position that making it worse is irrelevant is just laughably ridiculous.
That's why these CTE cases still get such traction despite no true causal link ever being established. Oh sure, there's a ton of circumstantial linkage and we know that some people are simply going to be more predisposed to cognitive damage than others. An entire field of literature has come to the conclusion that there is SOMETHING already present in these severe cases that might not have surfaced but/for football but the bottom line is that the seed was there and all football did was make it debilitating. And in the end, all of these cases are coming down to "is there enough smoke to say that but/for football, this wouldn't have happened this way or at least not been this severe...."?
If you honestly think that you'll be able to convince an arbitrator that "Eric Berry, Schoolteacher" would've had this condition pop up to a degree that required surgical intervention....well you're being unreasonably myopic. Berry and his people will have an army of experts at ANY hearing saying "Yes, of course wearing football cleats and heavily taping ankles while making hard cuts can and will contribute to exacerbating this physical condition to the point that surgery is now necessary...." The Chiefs may or may not bring in experts of their own to argue to the contrary but if I'm a betting man, I'm betting that they just don't bother trying.
Because they will get their asses kicked badly on this one. You are applying a standard to 'football related' that is ENTIRELY too strict and in the process completely wasting your time.
Eric Berry won't be cut and the reason he won't be is that the Chiefs know that they're not going to get any traction at all on the argument that this injury isn't football related. Spend as much time talking yourself into the opposite view as you'd like, but it's not going to happen. Archive to your hearts content and we'll circle back on the 3rd day of the league year...