12-25-2015, 06:32 PM
(12-25-2015, 12:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Tyler Eifert isn't a neurologist and decisions he makes now that impact his future may have as much logic behind them as a 19 year old deciding a daily dose of heroin is something he can "totally handle." I'm all for people making their own decisions, but I can understand why there may be some people trying to make playing in the NFL less of a high risk occupation by minimizing the amount of hits a man takes when he's recovering from a concussion.
Missing 2 games now could potentially save years of his career in the long run, so even if you don't give a toss about the guy wandering the streets like a mindless vagrant after he retires there are Bengals-related reasons to stop a guy in his 20's from running back out on the field post-concussion. Your argument just seems like a non-argument and cop out even if we agree on the basis of "people can make their own decisions."
Where do we stop making decisions for people that we think is in their best interests?
Maybe anyone with a history of heart problems shouldn't be allowed to play sports or any physical jobs. What about the guys who work on oil rigs? They work there for the high pay and accept the high risk. No different than any football player. Where is the policy to stop those people from working the job they chose? There isn't because people know the risks and make the decision.
None of this has anything to do with my fandom. I just see the league overreaching because they got an unfavorable ruling in a lawsuit. A lawsuit launched by retired players who mishandled their money or were jealous at how salaries have gone up since they retired.
This policy would be valid if players still worked an offseason job like they used to back in the day. But they don't and are compensated for their risk .
