Eight former NFL football players have filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL, claiming the league supported an environment in which prescription drugs and controlled substances were “illegally administered” by athletic trainers.
The plaintiffs, who collectively played in the NFL for 16 different teams over 40 seasons from 1969 — 2008, included Jeremy Newberry, Richard Dent, Roy Green, Keith Van Horne, Ron Stone, Jim McMahon, J.D. Hill and Ron Pritchard.
More than 600 other former NFL players have already joined the lawsuit, leveling numerous allegations against the NFL, including:
“…NFL has illegally and unethically substituted pain medications for proper health care…”
“…medications were often administered without a prescription and with little regard for a player’s medical history or potentially-fatal interactions with other medications. Administering medications in this cavalier manner constitutes a fundamental misuse of carefully-controlled prescription medications and a clear danger to the players.”
“NFL directly and indirectly supplied players with and encouraged players to use opioids to manage pain before, during and after games in a manner the NFL knew or should have known constituted a misuse of the medications and violated Federal drug laws.”
The Law Firm of Namanny, Byrne & Owens, which is representing some of the plaintiffs pointed out that “retired NFL players misuse opioids at a rate more than four times that of their peers, according to a 2010 study of 644 league veterans by the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Even upon retirement, 15 percent of those who misused opioids during their careers continued to misuse, according to the study, even though they were no longer playing.”
Jordan Kobritz, a Professor in the Sport Management Department at SUNY Cortland, wrote that while the allegations “may be difficult to prove in a courtroom, the conduct described in the 85-page complaint is both frightening and sickening. Furthermore, if true, it was clearly unethical and illegal, a violation of federal drug laws.”
Kobritz wasn’t finished.
“While the suit portrays a culture in the NFL that differs from what one might expect outside the sport, the players’ allegations aren’t that difficult to believe,” he wrote. “When we see players carried off the field after a crushing blow and then miraculously return within minutes, it’s not because they’re super human. They just have better access to pain medications than the rest of us.
“People who make illegal drugs available on the street are called ‘dealers.’ Those who engage in similar activity in the NFL go by the name ‘doctor’ or ‘trainer.’ Which name is more accurate in this instance may ultimately be answered in a court of law. If the allegations in the complaint are proven, the players may not be the only ones who are feeling the pain.”
The NFL’s Defense?
Michael McCann, professor of law and director of the UNH Law Sports and Entertainment Law Institute, wrote a column for The MMQB earlier this week, which suggested the NFL might offer six difference defenses:
“1. Preemption
“The NFL will argue that painkiller claims brought by the retired players are preempted by federal labor law. …
“2. Blame the NFLPA
“A related argument to preemption is that the players should place most of the legal blame on their union, not the NFL. …
“3. Unreliable evidence and unavailable witnesses
“The eight players involved in the lawsuit collectively played from 1969 to 2008. In some cases it might be difficult to corroborate their claims through team records, medical files, letters and memoranda. …
“4. Lack of causation and assumption of risk
“A causal link between physical harm and painkillers might not be easily proven. …
“5. Team doctors and trainers were independent contractors, not team employees
“The employment status of NFL team physicians and trainers has varied over the years and by team, and has been a key issue in malpractice cases against team physicians. …
“6. Statute of limitations have expired
“The NFL will argue that the retired players’ claims are barred by the relevant statutes of limitation. …”
McCann went on to suggest that the litigation may leave an opening for a less addictive drug — Marijuana. “Its gradual legalization raises the possibility that marijuana might eventually become a viable alternative to suppress pain,” he wrote.
McCann’s column can be read here: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/22/nfl-painkiller-lawsuit/
