Cruncher wrote:I mostly agree with this. I'd argue that player welfare is important, but it's also plain that the best and surest way to protect players is for them not to participate at all.
It's their choice. As it always has been.
No one is forced to play rugby league. And anyone who says they didn't know how dangerous it was is simply lying. They shouldn't even be given the time of day, never mind be allowed to put a court case together.
In all honesty, I don't know what rankles with me more: the fact this is happening just when we were entering a new age of mass publicity, or the names of some of the players who are causing it.
You talk about two-bit troublemakers. That doesn't even come close to describing them.
Sadly, like so much usualy does, it comes down to money. Some ex-players and grubby lawyers have a sniff of getting a big payout and hang the consequences - if it destroys the game which gave them a living originally then that doesn't bother their conscience one iota (assuming they have one).
Both codes of rugby are going the the same way (with RU a bit further along) - as a consequence of the blame someone else culture and the contant using of the latest information and current hand-wringing thiking to apply to the past (happening in so many areas not just sport). Sadly RL is too small in this country - if the ex-players win big then it could be disastorous.
Sport is about entertainment - that is something that a lot of sports are loosing sight of.
