Pete Prisco Is, At Best, An Insensitive Prick

[Gravdigr]

First, read this article, then read this article.

Then watch this video.



Pete, you're a prick.

[Lamplighter]

You know how they say that everyone reads an article for the ideas they already believe.

I'm afraid that watching Oberman on MSNBC do his political rants
has poisoned my appreciation of him.
After reading both articles and watching the video, I'm with Pendola's friend
who dissected Oberman's critique, mainly based the second sentence in that email:

One, he failed to acknowledge the obvious hyperbole
in Prisco's comments and attacked him as if it was said straight...

This is Oberman - straight faced and full blown

I read Prisco's entire column and found it quite easy to separate many
of his remarks as such hyperbole, and ended up agreeing with his final remark:

The good news is the league will do more to make it safer.
The good news is the NFL, as we know it, isn't going anywhere.
That's the best thing of all.

FWIW, I don't follow sports and have no idea who the various named players
were in Oberman's video, or even what happened to them.
I do feel sympathy for those who were actually injured in the game.
... just as I feel sympathy for those in the military who are injured or killed.

But there is something to be said for the voluntary nature of professional sports
as well as a straight forward risk/benefit analysis of the changing "state of the art" in sports medicine.

[Gravdigr]

Would you have written the article the way Prisco chose to?

Would you have posted the post you posted if some of those guys were your hero?

These guys weren't stupid. No, nobody forced them to play pro football. But, pro football urged/prodded/goaded these guys to play injured, to ignore injuries, and when these guys were used up, pro football tossed them into the gutter like refuse.

[Lamplighter]

Having grown up watching the deterioration of Mohammed Ali,
the public rejection of warnings of the dangers of trampolines,
and other (emotional ?) public responses to sports injuries.

I remember that the Am.Assoc. of Pediatricians tried to get boxing
removed from the schools and colleges due to head injuries.
But parents and sports enthusiasts would have none of it.
I believe most of the public doesn't really care about what happens
during these entertainments, until it happens to their team or their child.

Also, I read Prisco's article and understood him to be saying
it's not really possible to know whether an injury to a given player
happened during their tenure in the professional football,
during their college career, or earlier ... in childhood or even at birth.

Whether I would have written such an article, I don't know.
I've grown quite callous to what happens in professional sports.
I don't know if, over the years, the state of the art of "sports medicine"
has been such that anyone can point an accurate finger at the culprit.

Unfortunately, some of these injuries are permanent, and as I said,
I have sympathy for all those who have been so injured.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Would you have written the article the way Prisco chose to?

Would you have posted the post you posted if some of those guys were your hero?

These guys weren't stupid. No, nobody forced them to play pro football. But, pro football urged/prodded/goaded these guys to play injured, to ignore injuries, and when these guys were used up, pro football tossed them into the gutter like refuse.

I don't know what Prisco's like, prick or otherwise. I've watched and enjoyed pro football (and high school and college football) for many years, and no, I wouldn't have written the article like Prisco did. I wouldn't have written it that way because I believe, as Gravdigr does, that the NFL in this case, has *used* these players, and that's not right.

In the everlasting struggle between Labor and Capital, the individual who contributes his labor is at a permanent disadvantage, and this disadvantage has been exploited by the NFL. When the NFL has decided that they're no longer getting their money's worth from a player, they end the relationship and carry on with minimal interruption. As an entity, they have such enormous momentum that losing one body, one brain, is an easily recoverable loss. For the individual, the loss of one body, one brain obviously represents a much bigger problem. What is not fair, is the risk and rewards are not proportional, as they would be in a fairer arrangment.

Yes, the players play voluntarily, and the NFL employs voluntarily. Both sides sign mutually agreeable compensation packages. But what has been lacking until now, the very point of Prisco's article, is fair compensation for the risk taken by the player, not the NFL, for long term loss. The compensation should be similarly long term, but it hasn't been, more like use'em up, toss'em out. That's wrong.

I can't say with confidence who knew what and when they knew it about the damage concussions wreak, but this very settlement, and the especially telling detail that the NFL is not compelled to admit any wrong (see, that's where the corporation has a long-term vulnerability like the individual has to live permanently with their only body), this settlement indicates that both sides know *NOW* that work they players do carries risks that last long after their playing days are done, and that the rewards *SHOULD* be in proportion to that risk. This settlement is just catching up to the losses incurred by those players, while they're still living. What would be fairer is to have contracts that have two tiers, one for playing time and another for retirement time. The players give something of value during both periods, and deserve fair compensation for that value that the NFL has enjoyed. They *DO* deserve this settlement. And current players deserve to be paid for their play today and to be indemnified against the loss of what is valuable to them, even if that loss is only identified in the future if that loss was incurred during the time when both parties were benefiting from the playing time.

[Lamplighter]

V, I don't, and I suspect no one else, disagrees with your remarks.

But is all this about the football players really any different than
what several/many other corporations do with respect to their employees ?
e.g., vermiculite workers in Libby MT coming down with asbestos-related lung disease;
workers involved with radioactive materials; organic pesticides; etc.

In these situations too, we say the employment is "voluntary".
Unfortunately, there is not the public involvement nor the
player-unions, etc with lots of $ to confront the sports team owners.


*rant: But don't let anyone take away your "right to work" or you
may be not be "protected", and you may "forced" to join a union

A Right to Work law secures the right of employees
to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.
However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries
are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work
on a federal enclave may not be.

[Gravdigr]

I like you guys.

[Gravdigr]

Looks like Deion Sanders is a prick, too. And a hypocrite.

What a shocker.

[Lamplighter]

...for what he claimed was a safe sport.

Now that's a gotcha !
Irony and/or karma would be if California comes after him for filing a false claim.