The problem is for any kind of study you need access to raw data. Unfortunately, much of it is tied up with the sport. And they aren't likely to be too co-operative with any study which the end results of mean potentially serious and expensive upheaval.

Gridiron lucked out with players donating their brains for further research. Outside it's the chicken-and-egg situation - no one is likely to donate his brain to a non-existent issue. But without the studies it's difficult to know there is an issue.

You may, sadly, be right. A club truly concerned about player welfare would be hypocritical to withhold the data. Concerned players (or League13) might still submit an FOI request, but I don't know if it would get anywhere. The cynic in me suggests it might not - the defence of "we incompetently lost it" would all too plausible

FOI is fine but the DPA would override this.

The Data Protection Act 1998 also covers the rules regarding use of "sensitive personal data"; that is data that consists of information about an employee's:
racial or ethnic origins;
political opinions;
religious beliefs;
trade union membership (or non-membership);
physical or mental health or condition;
sex life or sexual orientation;
criminal (or alleged criminal) activities; or
criminal proceedings, criminal convictions (or any sentences imposed by the courts).

Sensitive personal data must not be held on a personnel file without the employees express consent - unless held to comply with an employer's legal obligations. This data may also be retained for so long as may be necessary for the original purpose.

is the only exemption I see being relevant. If the player asks for their own information, the DPA would require the club to hand over the data (by my understanding). If the data is not health data but instead [iperformance[/i data, I wonder how that might be interpreted.

To answer Mugwump's original question: looks like [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32525472tonight[/url.

Bizarre, did Mugwump know about this?

Any possibility he'll take action against anyone? Flower even? Or am I reading too much into it? If he didn't have symptoms before the GF and does now it looks bad.

They would have to show a causal link between that incident and the symptoms he is suffering from now. It could be tricky.

Why? He'd no doubt have medical records showing he was fine before and medical records showing he was injured afterwards. He would surely have gone for assessment after the Grand Final as a precaution as well, which would state the injuries evident at the time. I'm not saying he would persue Flower/SL/Wigan/Saints/RL, but it does seem plausible.

He's spent 13 years as a professional in the premier collision sport on the planet. Demonstrating that Flower's punches were what caused his condition is likely to be difficult.

Where there's blame, there's a claim. If I was Flower, or Wigan, I would be very worried, this is going to hang over them for years. I would also suggest that the big money lawyers will have Wane in their sights. The bad news for them is that Lance is retiring to the U.S., he is going to be bombarded by ambulance chasers, particularly on the back of the NFL cases.

The original post is the issue though. All the evidence I've seen points to the problem being due to cumulative effects rather than one-offs. IIRC smaller knocks can be the worst, because players won't necessarily show any symptoms but have suffered bruising/swelling of the brain. As a result they aren't taken off the field as they nowadays are when clearly concussed, and take more hits to an already bruised brain.

As an aside, this is the sole reason why shoulder charges were banned. RL would indeed have found itself in deep legal poop if the sport continued to not just condone but glorify shoulder charges. The NRL saw the future issues arising from the NFL and banned shoulder charges almost overnight as a result.

You can defend your sport being tough, contact etc and that players are aware of general physical danger. But if the prosecution for an ex-player (or even worse a whole bunch of them) cracked open a highlights reel of RL shoulder charge 'big hits' together with commentators having verbal orgasms, crowds cheering' the 'tackling' player being high-fived by teammates whilst his opponent is either unconscious or staggering around on jelly legs and the ref waving play on, it would be pretty hard to explain to a court (most likely not containing RL fans) how the sport had really fulfilled its duty of care to players.

Legal teams are a bit smarter these days, medical evidence and player intent to injure are taken on board in a more serious manner.
I,m sure the Smith v Stankavitch case or the Newton v Long assault would have had a different outcome if it was dealt with today.

You can definitely define the likely age of brain injuries. It was on 'Bones' last night. And that guy had been through an industrial mincing machine.

Hopefully this is all a non-issue. Hopefully Lance will be fine and not have any long term problems.

Once you accept that a sport has a duty of care to players you really do become hostage to the next round of legal one-upmanship. I mean, suing the sport over a stress-fracture of the toenail sounds incredibly unlikely - not to mention silly. But if you look at it as the furthest possible milestone in a series of consecutive legal challenges which move the bar incrementally forward from cases we deem "serious" today it suddenly becomes not so outlandish an end-result.

As far as I know, SL club Dr's have been reporting Head injuries/concussion to the RFL (paper based) since SL was started. The event itself, the injury, the environment, the weather, state of the pitch etc. Thats an awful lot of good data which is sitting there at Red hall.

www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/C-Enigma.gif

www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/C-Enigma.gif

Which their natural instincts will be telling them not to share.

It won't be the RFL sued it will be individual clubs or even coaches. There's been the rule about players with signs of concussion not being allowed to play for 2 weeks and the rule change this year with on field assessment and players not being allowed back. As medical evidence has become more accepted on the issue then the RFL have adapted. Maybe not particularly quickly, but certainly more than other sports.

There's more of an issue with clubs and coaches making a player return to the field or playing with signs of concussion, possibly even fudging results to allow it. That's not the RFL

I think the Wane video may well end up getting Flower off the hook. The way that he sent out his players, means that the vicarious liability lies firmly with the club, and not the individual players, who were only doing what the club encouraged them to do.

very handy for a solicitor as the club (and chairman) have alot more money then the player in question

You may well think that. However, throwing around terms such as vicarious liabilitry won't save your post from being anything other than mere opinion that is quite nonsensical in legal (or indeed any) terms.

By the way, in my opinion; based on some actual, though by no means expert (in this context); legal knowledge; Lance won't be getting anywhere near court against anyone - indeed I don't think he has any intention of doing so - which no doubt will be a disappointment to all the popcorn crunchers desperately trying to illustrate how it would be a fait accompli.

I'm rather puzzled by Saints fans logic here. Repetitive injury doesn't lead to concussive injury in the same way. Effects, by LH own statement happened after he started playing again, thus theres a causality linkage being made purely on correlation. Where is the evidence to support this link?

Also, the NFL, Boxing and Football where the same injury exists haven't been sued into nothingness.

The FoI Act applies only to public authorities defined in the Act; sports clubs and the RFL are not public authorities, so the Act does not apply.

The DPA does very much apply, however. Assuming the performance data are not anonymised each player has the right to access his own data through making a subject access request and then to do with those data what he will. The clubs have no way to prevent such access within the law, so any player minded to analyse his data to see if a case can be made can do just that.

I don't see that. Unless Wane or the Wigan club has specifically instructed him to carry out an on-field assault with intention it's going to be very hard for the club to be held liable i.e. telling players to be aggressive is within the rules of the game. If a player breaks that rule there may be repercussions for the club under RL rules but under civil or criminal law? I don't think there's much to go on without a direct instruction as evidence e.g. if a fight breaks out and somebody is killed in a melee I doubt a club would be held financially responsible for any compensation to the deceased's family.



Well, the NFL case is still in process so you can't say anything with conviction about what will happen there, although I suspect it will result in a big settlement rather than go to court. As for boxing, it's completely different. It is an accepted term and condition of the sport that being hit unconscious is a likely outcome for participants. Whilst that is partly true with RL, the sport has rules and regulations to prevent such attacks (intentional or not). The sport has to show a duty of care if it becomes aware of danger resulting from play (intentional or not). What that means for long-term accumulations of concussions I don't know but it is clearly different to boxing i.e. whilst there is a risk of concussion in RL it is not an accepted outcome of the normal process of playing the game.