Two Sides to the Suit
If I were an NFL attorney, I’d be concerned with former 49ers center Jeremy Newberry’s claims about routinely getting shot up with the painkiller Toradol—and not being told, according to Newberry, that he risked kidney failure by taking the drug. Newberry has lost much of his kidney function now, and he claims it’s because he took painkillers that were prescribed indiscriminately by team physicians, without regard to what they meant to his long-term health.
That’s a sordid and damaging case, if true and if it can be proven in court. It’s the kind of case the NFL cannot explain away, and there should be some nervous physicians in San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego, where Newberry (pictured above) played from 1998 to 2008.
The other part of the case that should concern the league is the purported systemic use, years ago, of cocktailing drugs to make their effects different than what their individual intentions were meant to be. To mix Toradol with even a minor pain-relief medication like Aleve is dangerous, and if it can be proven players were advised to do this and risk major organ failure … well, that’s a gigantic lawsuit.
I am bothered by a few things in this lawsuit, filed last week by eight former players against the NFL, claiming that teams didn’t properly notify them about the risks of taking painkillers during their careers. The attorneys for the eight players claim they are the name plaintiffs, and they represent 500 other players. I am bothered that players sued the league rather than individual teams; if it’s team doctors that willy-nilly handed out drugs to keep players on the field, why not name names and sue team doctors? Keith Van Horne, Jim McMahon and Richard Dent are three of the eight plaintiffs, and they played mostly for the Chicago Bears. Why is it the NFL that’s getting served here and not the doctors who handed out the medication?
I also am bothered by the timing of it. I do understand it often takes time for symptoms to emerge in retired players, but 37 years? Plaintiffs J.D. Hill and Ron Pritchard last played 37 years ago. They just got a lawyer now? What should the statute of limitations be for retired players to seek damages against either the NFL or their former teams? I don’t know, but two generations is too long. Way too long. I doubt Keith Van Horne, the former Bears tackle, is just now noticing health problems—21 years after last playing—and a quarter-century after learning he played a season with a broken leg without being told of the consequences. But now is when he’s suing.
Newberry and former offensive lineman Ron Stone stopped playing less than a decade ago, and it seems reasonable to suggest that six and nine years after players stopped playing is a fair window to file a suit. But 37 years?
It’s clear the NFL has some skeletons in its medical closet, and I wish Newberry well in his struggle to be adequately taken care of if it’s proven that drugs were dispensed without regard to his future health. And I also wish that the case won’t be settled with a multimillion-dollar payout. I want to see and hear what really happened in NFL trainers’ rooms, so the game can be sure—similar to bounty payouts—the same stuff never happens again.
But whacking team physicians from the seventies and eighties, which is most of what we’re talking about here … how far back will attorneys go to let the sun shine on bad medical practices? A liberal pill dispenser in the sixties? Some crazy trainer in the fifties? That part of it bugs me, not to be unsympathetic to the cases of Pritchard and Hill. But how are we going to get to the bottom of what happened in a trainers’ room 40 years ago? Who is still alive from then? Who has the memory to determine whether Hill or Pritchard is telling the truth—and how many witnesses can be brought forth to tell the truth about something that happened in 1973, or 1985?
I know there is strength in numbers, but if I were Newberry, I’d have flown solo on this case. I don’t see how massing these cases together helps his cause. I’d have sued the teams and their medics who allegedly gave him Toradol without adequate warning. But however it is done, I hope his testimony illuminates a part of football that needs klieg lights shined on it.
Now onto your email:
ON RAY RICE. I usually love your column, but I was troubled by the section in today's MMQB on Ray Rice's press conference with his wife regarding their infamous Atlantic City elevator incident. Domestic violence against men by women is a huge problem in our society due to our culture of male bravado and toughness leading to most cases going unreported, allowing the violence to continue. While it's hard to conceive of a situation in which Rice was justified in knocking Palmer out, it is important to remember that if she was being violent with Rice, his first reaction (as with many people) could have been to fight. If that was the case, that his body's first reaction to being attacked was to fight back, then it isn't so hard to picture how he, a top-tier athlete, might have accidentally knocked out his wife before he could stop his initial bodily reaction. Saying that there is never any excuse to get physical with a woman is exceedingly ignorant and propagates the stereotypes and ideas that make life a living hell for men being abused by their wives or girlfriends. Women are just as capable as men of physically abusing their significant others, and should therefore be under the same scrutiny as men in a situation where both parties seem to be the obvious victim of domestic violence.
Sorry, Ben. I cannot see the argument the way you see it. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that the woman could have been at partial fault here. However, she was the one who was dragged unconscious out of an elevator by Rice. Are there cases in which females are overly aggressive and hurt males? I am sure there are. But there is absolutely no evidence in this case to suggest that.
ON A TOUGHER DUI SANCTION. While I would commend the players' union for adding appropriate punishment to the substance abuse policy, a one-game suspension for a DUI conviction is a laughable deterrent. I would suggest at least four games, if not six. Make these coddled players seriously think about what repercussions their actions may cause by getting behind the wheel after a night of drinking.
—Jared, Silver Spring, Md.
Thank you for writing. While I agree with you that drunk driving should be penalized by the NFL more severely than it currently is, I cannot view a first-time DUI offense as being justifiable to miss 25% or 40% of the season. A one-game suspension is a good start and I believe it will be a better deterrent then the current system.
ON DAN SNYDER. Seems to me that the Washington football team's name issue has been going on for many years and there is always going to be a stalemate because Dan Snyder won't change the name. Has any thought been given by Roger Goodell and/or the other owners that if/when Snyder sells majority ownership of the team or if ownership is otherwise transferred, that a condition of sale or transfer would be a name change? Of course, you run the risk of the team not changing hands for years on end, but at some point, Snyder will either sell or pass away (sorry, I know that sounds morbid). In the meantime, hopefully they can negotiate for a name change, but this way, there is a guarantee that it will occur at some time in the future.
That is an interesting concept. But if Dan Snyder owns the team for, say, the next 25 years, and I believe that’s quite possible, this certainly won't help the situation the league and the team is in now.
MORE ON SNYDER. The fundamental flaw in your Redskins argument is that you assume Daniel Snyder should, or would, do what is in the best interest of the NFL. After the way the team was treated in the salary cap episode, why in the world would he do something that is in the best interest of the league as a whole? At least without massive compensation from the league?
—Stephanie, Evansville, Ind.
The only motivation Snyder has to do something now, other than listening to his conscience, is that he risks the wrath of the other 31 owners by continuing to make this a story for the next two or three years. I am not saying that he will continue to make it a story. The outside world will. But a headline is a headline, regardless of who prompts it.
ON OTHERCAT. I am offended by the name “Othercat." I hope you will join me in a crusade to persuade Mr. Benoit to change the name to a more cat-respectful name. Like "Mr. Fizzles."
—Mike Y., Concord, N.C.
You start the movement, Mike. I will be right on your tail.