Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini
I think it does but my friend who's in the medical science field has brought up some damn good points. How do we know this is all from concussions and not something like steroids or the lifestyles in some of these guys live? He said a basic fact of science: You cannot prove causality by linking two variables together.
|
And that would be the best argument to make.
The 'assumption of risk' argument will be bunk, IMO. A jury just isn't going to care. If you are able to prove that playing NFL football was the primary cause for increased mental illness, suicide rates, etc...; you're going to get a verdict.
But the toughest part will absolutely be showing that the NFL is the cause of it. I'm inclined to agree with you that there are some chemical connections to some of these issues (que reerunian to come in here spouting about how much smarter steroids make you) and that's going to be a clear point of contention.
There's your line in the sand, IMO. But the cigarette companies tried a similar approach when they argued that all links between thinks like emphysema and lung cancer were circumstantial (i.e. lots of people with lung cancer smoke but there's no scientific proof that the smoking
caused the lung cancer) - and they pretty much got hammered on it. From what I've seen, they are technically accurate, but the circumstantial evidence (cancer rates among smokers, etc...) was just so overwhelming that it was a no-brainer loss.
If the circumstantial evidence keeps getting worse, the argument's just going to get harder to make.