Steve Thompson early onset dementia. Suing RFU and others

I posted about this on random irritations earlier Ron, couple of good links, sad and has far reaching implications for contact sports and rugby especially
 
Where rugby is concerned, the removal of the need for higher levels of stamina has allowed players to increase bulk and body mass and there has been a significant increase in head and other injuries from the bigger impacts. Stop the clock more and reduce the number of subs so as you cannot bring on basically a whole new pack after 50 minutes and, hopefully, it will have some effect on the damage that can be caused as players have to reduce their build to be able to play for the full 80 minutes

Really sad to hear about Thompson though. Did he not retire after the world cup on medical advice then start playing again only a few weeks later though.
 
More very sad news.
Luckily I've never played the game, said as a rather 'physical' footballer who'd have embraced the challenge of rugby & consequently have far more injuries than I currently carry from gymnastics, climbing, wind-surfing & caving.
However, simply as a TV observer of Rugby at the top level over the last 20 to 30 years or so there is one word that repeatedly comes to mind....... unsustainable. Though they have worked really hard to reduce the hazardous areas/incidents etc.... that word does not leave me.
 
More very sad news.
Luckily I've never played the game, said as a rather 'physical' footballer who'd have embraced the challenge of rugby & consequently have far more injuries than I currently carry from gymnastics, climbing, wind-surfing & caving.
However, simply as a TV observer of Rugby at the top level over the last 20 to 30 years or so there is one word that repeatedly comes to mind....... unsustainable. Though they have worked really hard to reduce the hazardous areas/incidents etc.... that word does not leave me.


starting to think dislocating my knee cap and tearing 2 ligaments when I was 21 was a blessing in disguise not the horrendous damaging injury Ive always seen it as
 
I got out before the race to bulk up started but still played in the front row for over 30 years and, other than a couple of dislocations, the injuries I had were pretty minor. As I said though, it is a totally different game now and not necessarily better for it.
 
No Way i could play to the level I did thesedays, you don't see many 11stone fly halves these days!! I would be considered tiny for a scrum half these days. To be fair, coaches tried to get me to bulk up years ago.
 
Not the game it was and far poorer for it. Used to be no matter your shape and size there was a position for you. I'd allow 2 or 3 tactical subs and the rest of the bench could only be used as subs with the clearance of an independent doc/physio. That way the players would have to loose some of the bulk.
 
The interchanges don't help either. It allows bigger, heavier players who would not be able to play a full 80 minutes. I played both codes at hooker and that is a role that does have an impact on your head. Luckily I think I got away without too much damage.
 
Whilst it is always sad to see and hear of people being injured or incapacitated, I think the governing bodies of all sports take safety very seriously. Nobody is forcing anyone to play the game, if people don't want to accept the risk then surely they shouldn't play?
 
Whilst it is always sad to see and hear of people being injured or incapacitated, I think the governing bodies of all sports take safety very seriously. Nobody is forcing anyone to play the game, if people don't want to accept the risk then surely they shouldn't play?
Surely that decision can only be made if you are fully aware of all the risks?

You can’t blame the Governing bodies if they are unaware of long term affects, but as the information becomes available they shouldn’t stick their head in the sand either and put all the responsibility on to the players.
 
Surely that decision can only be made if you are fully aware of all the risks?

You can’t blame the Governing bodies if they are unaware of long term affects, but as the information becomes available they shouldn’t stick their head in the sand either and put all the responsibility on to the players.
You don't need to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier to realise a game like rugby comes with certain risks. People have to take responsibility for their own actions instead of always looking to point the blame at others.
 
You don't need to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier to realise a game like rugby comes with certain risks. People have to take responsibility for their own actions instead of always looking to point the blame at others.
Not that clear cut mate, look at Footballers and the constant heading of the old type of Football, medical specialists at the time had no idea of long term affects so why would a lay person, same with American Football.

Like I said, governing bodies should be held responsible if they knew, but from now on they have to be aware of the risks and put practises in place that protect the players.

Plenty of good examples in Sport (including Rugby) were they’ve made changes at the youth levels to protect them and their future.
 
I'm not sure compensation is the prime motive. More getting the authorities to admit to the problem and deal with it to protect current players and future players. There's no need for regular contact sessions in training. That would help reduce the amount of damage being done as they have a chance to recover if it's once or twice a week rather then getting banged about 4 or 5 time a week.


Edit: don't forget these explayers were people employed to do a job. Their employers have a duty of care towards them in the same way as anyone else who's suffers an injury due to their job.
 
Last edited:
Top