Bobbie Goulding reveals battle against dementia

[josie andrews]

Bobbie Goulding has revealed that he is battling dementia as he heads a ten-man ex-rugby league group in a bid to bring a lawsuit against the Rugby Football League (RFL).

Former Great Britain and England international Goulding enjoyed a 17-year career with clubs including Wigan, Leeds, Widnes and St Helens is standing alongside Rylands Legal – a legal firm representing 50 former rugby league stars in a negligence suit against the RFL.

The allegations are that the RFL failed in its duty of care to protect them from the risks associated with concussions and sub-concussions.

49-year-old Goulding, who has had problems with alcohol and drug addiction, was diagnosed with early onset dementia/probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) earlier in October.

I didn’t think about dementia at all, I just thought it was the way life was. I was 13 stone, 5ft 6in, playing against blokes who were 6ft 2in and 19 stone, and didn’t even bother about it. But it takes its toll in the end, especially if they’re angry,” Goulding told the Sydney Morning Herald.

I played within days of serious knockouts on at least three occasions. I remember playing on a Sunday for Leigh at Huddersfield towards the end of my career. I was in Huddersfield Royal Infirmary on the Sunday night after being seriously knocked out, and played the following Saturday against Batley.

“I didn’t have one doctor check on me during that week. ‘Bob, are you ready to play?’ he said. ‘Yeah I’ll play.’ If you watched the video, you’d be shocked.”

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/bobbie-g ... tia-44743/

[josie andrews]

I can understand how ex players are reacting, but it is only the last few years that it has been found that there is a link playing sports like rugby, football, boxing & NFL can affect the brain & later mental health issues.

[Caboosegg]

While I feel for the people suffering (and I really do) I think these legal actions are a joke.

1. Injury and potentially life threatening injuries are part of job risk, they know this when they decide on that career.

2. It's only as new research becomes available that the links are made so they are suing with hindsight. What are the RFL meant to do other than use the facts available at the time.

I know it's not as bad as dementia but does this mean if I'm blind in later life from prolonged computer use I can sue my employer even though I chose the job and they provide eye tests and VDU glasses if needed.

Again I really do feel for people suffering bit these legal cases are daft.

Worse you know the defense will bring drugs and Alcohol use into it, which .amicably also have links to brain related diseases.

[widdenoldboy]

10 players intending to sue

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/59045827

[AndyNick]

This has been coming for a while. We've seen it in the NFL and Rugby Union, it was only a matter of time before RL saw something similar, No surprise its the same solicitor who is running the Union class action.

The issue RL has is that it is light years behind RU and NFL when it comes to dealing with head injuries. Week in week out we're seeing head shot after head shot go unpunished, and any suggestion of clamping down is met with a chorus of "Games gone soft" and "In My Day" responses.

[DaveO]

The issue RL has is that it is light years behind RU and NFL when it comes to dealing with head injuries.

That might well be true today but what about the time Goulding is on about? He will be suing for how it was then not now. Back then you could possibly argue RU with its scums and "amateur" nature and the NFL which won't have had anything like the head injury protocols of today in place were as bad or worse.

That doesn't let the RFL off for today's handling of the issue or even what went on then but "today" is surely not what he is suing them for?

[DaveO]

While I feel for the people suffering (and I really do) I think these legal actions are a joke.

1. Injury and potentially life threatening injuries are part of job risk, they know this when they decide on that career.

2. It's only as new research becomes available that the links are made so they are suing with hindsight. What are the RFL meant to do other than use the facts available at the time.

But surely point 2 says they didn't know the risks as outlined in point 1 as the research mentioned in point 2 had not been done. I don't think you can use the players ignorance of the danger as a defence.

Point 2 is different. From what I have read over things like asbestosis cases, an employer was entitled to rely on recognised and established practice at the time. Foreseeability of injury should not be judged with the benefit of hindsight but that doesn't get them off the hook if developing knowledge starts to suggest danger and the employer was ignoring that developing knowledge and just carried on allowing dangerous practices.

So it probably all hinges on if there is evidence, say half way through his career, that the kinds of head injuries he was getting would lead to issues and the sport/clubs ignored it.

[Caboosegg]

While I feel for the people suffering (and I really do) I think these legal actions are a joke.

1. Injury and potentially life threatening injuries are part of job risk, they know this when they decide on that career.

2. It's only as new research becomes available that the links are made so they are suing with hindsight. What are the RFL meant to do other than use the facts available at the time.

But surely point 2 says they didn't know the risks as outlined in point 1 as the research mentioned in point 2 had not been done. I don't think you can use the players ignorance of the danger as a defence.

Point 2 is different. From what I have read over things like asbestosis cases, an employer was entitled to rely on recognised and established practice at the time. Foreseeability of injury should not be judged with the benefit of hindsight but that doesn't get them off the hook if developing knowledge starts to suggest danger and the employer was ignoring that developing knowledge and just carried on allowing dangerous practices.

So it probably all hinges on if there is evidence, say half way through his career, that the kinds of head injuries he was getting would lead to issues and the sport/clubs ignored it.

Even without update research you know that playing Rugby can have long term life changing injuries.

Should Masoe sue for breaking his back?

They need to prove that it's the rugby that caused it, that the RFL new of a link and didn't do anything to mitigate it or inform the players of risks and that other factors haven't caused it such as Drugs.

As I said I do feel for them but it screams of the American sue for anything you can culture.

[Mike]

Its all about whether RL knew a potential risk existed and didn't take steps to mitigate it. To find that out you need to go to court and have someone decide based on the evidence unfortunately.

I'd say players today might have a lot more of a case - you see plenty of head shots missed in games, and often you see someone that was clearly unconscious or very groggy given the all clear to continue by the doc. I'm amazed that when there's evidence that even heading a ball in footabll causes brain injuries the docs allow someone who seems OK after a head impact so serious that they are unable to stand can carry on in the same game where they are very likely to receive further head impacts.

On the other hand I imagine we'll find out that the impact of a strong body tackle, or hitting the ground, is enough to cause the sub concussions that they think cause CTE. You only need fast accelerations of the head to cause those. If that's the case, then the whole game is in doubt and everyone will have to sign a release saying that CTE is an unavoidable risk or something.

[DaveO]

While I feel for the people suffering (and I really do) I think these legal actions are a joke.

1. Injury and potentially life threatening injuries are part of job risk, they know this when they decide on that career.

2. It's only as new research becomes available that the links are made so they are suing with hindsight. What are the RFL meant to do other than use the facts available at the time.

But surely point 2 says they didn't know the risks as outlined in point 1 as the research mentioned in point 2 had not been done. I don't think you can use the players ignorance of the danger as a defence.

Point 2 is different. From what I have read over things like asbestosis cases, an employer was entitled to rely on recognised and established practice at the time. Foreseeability of injury should not be judged with the benefit of hindsight but that doesn't get them off the hook if developing knowledge starts to suggest danger and the employer was ignoring that developing knowledge and just carried on allowing dangerous practices.

So it probably all hinges on if there is evidence, say half way through his career, that the kinds of head injuries he was getting would lead to issues and the sport/clubs ignored it.

Even without update research you know that playing Rugby can have long term life changing injuries.

Should Masoe sue for breaking his back?

They need to prove that it's the rugby that caused it, that the RFL new of a link and didn't do anything to mitigate it or inform the players of risks and that other factors haven't caused it such as Drugs.

As I said I do feel for them but it screams of the American sue for anything you can culture.

It’s about whether or not the RFL knew that there was a danger from head injuries leading to issues like dementia, when they knew about it and if having known about it, didn’t do anything about it.

It is absolutely no defence to say, yes we knew it could cause dementia but that goes with the territory so we decided to ignore it.

As to other injuries back in 2003 the Welsh RU lost a case where a player, Richard Vowles, was paralysed due to a scrum collapsing. The argument in defence of the referee and the WRU was Volwes voluntarily entered the scrum after the ref gave them he option to go to uncontested scrums due to lack of an experienced front row player. They key point was while Volwes was given the choice and it was argued he knew the risks, it was still a failure of the ref to decide it was too dangerous despite the laws of the game saying the players should be given the option.

So basically a player can choose to play a sport where serious injury may results like RL but the RFL can still be liable if they don’t protect the players.