|
|
Post by knight9299 on Jul 13, 2009 21:30:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by teachcoachwm on Jul 13, 2009 21:36:53 GMT -6
This is a sad statement on where our country is headed if the judicial system lets this happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Jul 13, 2009 21:48:33 GMT -6
Let's all start playing soccer......
</sarcasm>
|
|
|
|
Post by alneufeld on Jul 13, 2009 21:52:36 GMT -6
Unbelievable. What the hell is that judge thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jul 13, 2009 22:35:55 GMT -6
Warning label saying what?
I'm not sure what it could say that would have prevented this tragedy.
I'm sorry that this guy died, that is a terrible tragedy for his family. But would a warning label stop this guy from getting overheated? I'm sure it wouldn't have.
It's the NFL for goodness sake.
OJW
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 13, 2009 22:37:48 GMT -6
I wonder if contractors will be forced to put a sign on all doors "warning, leaving this dwelling might be hazardous to your health"
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 14, 2009 2:48:45 GMT -6
Wow...hopefully the jury will have more common sense than this judge!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jul 14, 2009 6:28:30 GMT -6
point the fingers at the trainers and coaches. Leave Riddell and doctors out of it. If I remember that day correctly it was so damn hot here and the humditiy was as bad as it gets here in Minnesota. Why not pracitce early morning or late evening? Why not go shells? They were full gear in the middle of the afternoon.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 14, 2009 6:54:14 GMT -6
R.I.P Common sense in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpdaley25 on Jul 14, 2009 7:36:53 GMT -6
Another CYA situation we all have to worry about.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 14, 2009 8:37:57 GMT -6
And that cup of steaming hot coffee might burn your mouth if you drink it too fast. Better warn the consumer. OMG!
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 14, 2009 10:25:07 GMT -6
Will L.L. Bean be forced to warn consumers that you'll get hot if you wear one of their parkas and run around in August?
|
|
tarrant
Sophomore Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by tarrant on Jul 14, 2009 12:22:25 GMT -6
Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, but wasn't he using an ECA stack at the time as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 14, 2009 12:26:44 GMT -6
Will L.L. Bean be forced to warn consumers that you'll get hot if you wear one of their parkas and run around in August? That is the first thing that came to my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Jul 14, 2009 12:26:48 GMT -6
ridiculous
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 14, 2009 13:28:29 GMT -6
it is sad but clearly Ms. Stringer is still a bitter woman who will not let this go. she has brought suits against everyone so far that she could. the vikings were kind enough to pay her salary.
I know it is sad he died but I think some one needs to explain that Korey Stringer killed himself by being overtly obese. his weight would routinely be at 400lbs at the start of training camp and he would work his way down to around 365.
|
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Jul 14, 2009 16:01:05 GMT -6
WARNING: WEARING MORE THAN JUST A JOCK STRAP DURING 100 DEGREE DAYS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO A HIGHER INSTANCE OF HEAT STROKE!
Reminds me of the McDonalds coffee burning that old lady. Jay Leno had a great cup for that, the warning said "LOOK OUT IDIOT, THIS {censored}'S HOT!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 14, 2009 16:09:52 GMT -6
WARNING: WEARING MORE THAN JUST A JOCK STRAP DURING 100 DEGREE DAYS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO A HIGHER INSTANCE OF HEAT STROKE! Reminds me of the McDonalds coffee burning that old lady. Jay Leno had a great cup for that, the warning said "LOOK OUT IDIOT, THIS {censored}'S HOT!!! Bad analogy. There was more to that coffee story than what was written as I've heard. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 14, 2009 16:20:10 GMT -6
WARNING: WEARING MORE THAN JUST A JOCK STRAP DURING 100 DEGREE DAYS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO A HIGHER INSTANCE OF HEAT STROKE! Reminds me of the McDonalds coffee burning that old lady. Jay Leno had a great cup for that, the warning said "LOOK OUT IDIOT, THIS {censored}'S HOT!!! Bad analogy. There was more to that coffee story than what was written as I've heard. You are correct. The Mcdonald's coffee was much hotter than was to be expected (holding temp. range btw 180 and 190 degrees) It takes about 1 second to receive a severe burn from 156 degree liquids. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 14, 2009 19:31:55 GMT -6
Warning: Wearing this helmet and a thermal lined down parka while using Ephedra or other stimulant substance that causes the body's core temperature to rise while engaging in vigorous physical activity in hot humid weather may result in heat stroke or death.
Don't laugh, it's coming!
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 14, 2009 20:33:17 GMT -6
What about my warm winter cap? Shouldnt it have a warning that I shouldnt wear it when it's hot out? Extortion, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Jul 16, 2009 5:32:33 GMT -6
I cant even believe what I just read.
I dont know about you guys but we are doing more and more practices without pads.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 16, 2009 7:36:50 GMT -6
Bad analogy. There was more to that coffee story than what was written as I've heard. You are correct. The Mcdonald's coffee was much hotter than was to be expected (holding temp. range btw 180 and 190 degrees) It takes about 1 second to receive a severe burn from 156 degree liquids. Right. And she never got millions. The case was appealed and she settled for like $150k or something. She had pretty serious burns in her lap/genitalia that was beyond what you'd expect from spilling coffee on yourself (something I have done many times). I don't think this is the worst thing I've ever heard. It doesn't mean they necessarily owe him a bunch of money, and what if there was evidence that Riddell helmets constricted in heat or something more than others? Then I'd think a duty to warn was appropriate. And again, it's just a warning. Yes no joke it is hotter out when you're wearing a bunch of equipment but I don't think of Riddell as some hapless little guy. And finally let's not assume that the technology for all this equipment has reaches its apex. Maybe they can improve helmets and pads for circulation, etc? I played for some old school coaches who limited water and made you run extra if you ever took your helmet off during practice, save for the one short water break you got (which sometimes was limited to a spritz from a water bottle on the move). I didn't think that was the safest thing then, and there is at least some evidence nowadays that the pads -- which were designed for head injuries and movement, not circulation -- might be inadequate to the task. I'm not saying this is why kids (and professionals) are dying. There's speculation about everything from all these supplements to just people aren't as tough as they used to be, but maybe this is an issue? Why not put the onus on Riddell to at least figure out what the effect of their helmet/equipment is when used in searing heat? Again, the judge hadn't ruled on liability yet. All that said I'm not saying I completely agree, but I don't see it as black and white as some others. But that's my .05 cent input, which ain't worth much. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 16, 2009 8:33:14 GMT -6
You are correct. The Mcdonald's coffee was much hotter than was to be expected (holding temp. range btw 180 and 190 degrees) It takes about 1 second to receive a severe burn from 156 degree liquids. Right. And she never got millions. The case was appealed and she settled for like $150k or something. She had pretty serious burns in her lap/genitalia that was beyond what you'd expect from spilling coffee on yourself (something I have done many times). I don't think this is the worst thing I've ever heard. It doesn't mean they necessarily owe him a bunch of money, and what if there was evidence that Riddell helmets constricted in heat or something more than others? Then I'd think a duty to warn was appropriate. And again, it's just a warning. Yes no joke it is hotter out when you're wearing a bunch of equipment but I don't think of Riddell as some hapless little guy. And finally let's not assume that the technology for all this equipment has reaches its apex. Maybe they can improve helmets and pads for circulation, etc? I played for some old school coaches who limited water and made you run extra if you ever took your helmet off during practice, save for the one short water break you got (which sometimes was limited to a spritz from a water bottle on the move). I didn't think that was the safest thing then, and there is at least some evidence nowadays that the pads -- which were designed for head injuries and movement, not circulation -- might be inadequate to the task. I'm not saying this is why kids (and professionals) are dying. There's speculation about everything from all these supplements to just people aren't as tough as they used to be, but maybe this is an issue? Why not put the onus on Riddell to at least figure out what the effect of their helmet/equipment is when used in searing heat? Again, the judge hadn't ruled on liability yet. All that said I'm not saying I completely agree, but I don't see it as black and white as some others. But that's my .05 cent input, which ain't worth much. Who do you think is going to pay for that in the long run? |
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jul 16, 2009 8:54:25 GMT -6
I wonder if contractors will be forced to put a sign on all doors "warning, leaving this dwelling might be hazardous to your health" coach5085, We've got a building trades program at our high school where the kids build a house over the course of the school year under the instruction of a certified teacher. With so many clowns heading out to the site each day to build, I think there should be a sign put on that house that reads "WARNING, staying in this dwelling may be hazardous to your health." This whole case with Riddell and Stringer's wife is ridiculous. Everyone on this thread is correct that no label would've kept him from dying of heat stroke. He was obviously not hydrated enough, went for too long in very hot temperatures, and he was equipped. I'm sure as well that if he were in better shape come the start of camp that his body would not have had as much difficulty cooling itself down. Another thing that he should have done as a responsible adult and professional athlete was acclimate himself to the conditions that camp was going to occur in. I am still in shock that years later this case is still being pursued to the degree it is. Blame Riddell about not having a label? What is happening in society. If you ask me, his wife was expecting a huge huge salary for the rest of his career that they would live on for the rest of their lives and now he's gone so she had to settle with as many possible groups to compensate. Sad but most likely true. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 16, 2009 8:58:25 GMT -6
Right. And she never got millions. The case was appealed and she settled for like $150k or something. She had pretty serious burns in her lap/genitalia that was beyond what you'd expect from spilling coffee on yourself (something I have done many times). I don't think this is the worst thing I've ever heard. It doesn't mean they necessarily owe him a bunch of money, and what if there was evidence that Riddell helmets constricted in heat or something more than others? Then I'd think a duty to warn was appropriate. And again, it's just a warning. Yes no joke it is hotter out when you're wearing a bunch of equipment but I don't think of Riddell as some hapless little guy. And finally let's not assume that the technology for all this equipment has reaches its apex. Maybe they can improve helmets and pads for circulation, etc? I played for some old school coaches who limited water and made you run extra if you ever took your helmet off during practice, save for the one short water break you got (which sometimes was limited to a spritz from a water bottle on the move). I didn't think that was the safest thing then, and there is at least some evidence nowadays that the pads -- which were designed for head injuries and movement, not circulation -- might be inadequate to the task. I'm not saying this is why kids (and professionals) are dying. There's speculation about everything from all these supplements to just people aren't as tough as they used to be, but maybe this is an issue? Why not put the onus on Riddell to at least figure out what the effect of their helmet/equipment is when used in searing heat? Again, the judge hadn't ruled on liability yet. All that said I'm not saying I completely agree, but I don't see it as black and white as some others. But that's my .05 cent input, which ain't worth much. Who do you think is going to pay for that in the long run? The consumers who buy helmets and equipment from Riddell, with some percentage as cutting into profit margins for shareholders. Is it not better for helmets to cost an extra 50 cents per to reduce the chance of death? Again, I'm really not trying to say that this is the greatest ruling ever, but that I didn't see it as quite as bad or foolish. And, again, some of those costs are already paid for as normal research and development (they develop new ideas that fail all the time, and do testing for safety right now as well, though mostly for impact), and alternatively we're talking about the cost of a written warning, not a nuclear cooling unit implanted in each helmet. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 16, 2009 9:21:26 GMT -6
Who do you think is going to pay for that in the long run? The consumers who buy helmets and equipment from Riddell, with some percentage as cutting into profit margins for shareholders. Is it not better for helmets to cost an extra 50 cents per to reduce the chance of death? Again, I'm really not trying to say that this is the greatest ruling ever, but that I didn't see it as quite as bad or foolish. And, again, some of those costs are already paid for as normal research and development (they develop new ideas that fail all the time, and do testing for safety right now as well, though mostly for impact), and alternatively we're talking about the cost of a written warning, not a nuclear cooling unit implanted in each helmet. Fifty cents? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 16, 2009 9:24:29 GMT -6
spread---keep in mind that based on this article, the legal issue here is whether Stringer was WARNED. Not that the equipment should be modified in any way/shape/means. From a business standpoint, this ruling has no bearing on how Riddell will manufacture equipment, with the exception of including a label.
What I would like to ask the judge (and maybe auburn can help out here as an atty to give some perspective) is this : WOULD HAVING A LABEL caused any changes in Stringer's behavior. Only in the fantasy land that is court proceeding would the answer be "yes, or maybe". I can see an atty making an impassioned statement to a jury saying "we'll never know...". BULL CRAP. So why isn't that a part of the decision making process.
That is the problem I have with this ruling. The label would NOT have changed any behavior. Stringer would NOT have said "well, you know, if I wear my equipment, I might be too hot and overheat. I should sit this one out".
Projecting the ramifications further... this type of ruling will now put the responsibility SQUARELY on the shoulders of us as coaches. Riddell will slap a 1/10 of a cent sticker on their gear and say "We warned you". Now, should something tragic happen to one of our players, WE AS COACHES will shoulder more blame in that we were the ones who "made them wear the pads". In some places down here in (LA, MISS, TX, FLA, BAMA) based on these rulings and guidelines, it is conceivable that the conditions under which a coach wouldn't be found at fault in court for wearing equipment/holding practice is hazardous conditions wouldn't show up until late September.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 16, 2009 14:44:32 GMT -6
Well, a couple of things. not sure what phantom's response means. I guess he doubts that fifty cents would be the cost of any extra effort on Riddell's part when spread out per helmet.
Second, coachd, the judge didn't ultimately rule in favor of Stringer's family that it had to have the warning and that he would have heeded it (i could be wrong, please correct me), but instead is letting a jury decide that ultimate question, i.e. whether the lack of the warning was what caused his death. I'm with you, I don't think it would have, but that's an entirely different Q than whether it should have put the warning out there.
anyway I'm really not trying to argue. not even saying I totally agree with the judge just kind of playing devil's advocate, though I didn't think it was the worst thing Id ever seen
|
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jul 16, 2009 15:29:53 GMT -6
Great read guys, y'all are such good writers. Sometimes a little spat makes for fun reading. But the truth is always somewhere in the middle. It would be great that companies could develop better and safer equipment on their own, often it takes legal situations to change things for the better. Note: McDonald's coffee WAS the worst tasting swill on the market, they made it so blasted hot so that you couldn't taste the crap. I worked for them, I know. (end of rant)  To the point: The seatbelt laws here in Florida are much in the same area of thinking for me. Seatbelts save lives, and on rare occasions kill-I'll leave that out. Seatbelts save lives, which is good. It also decreases the amount of money that insurance companies have to pay out for death and injury. They like that. The insurance industry is very powerful and until a few recent hurricanes down here, very wealthy. So they get laws passed in the state that it's against the law to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt. Good business for them, good health for people in accidents. The loss of a little bit of individual freedom is acceptable. But again, the truth is somewhere in between the profits of insurance companies, the payoffs to lawyers, the health of the community and the position of elected politicians. For me though, more lawyers is certainly a sign of the apocalypse. |
|
