Is there any distinction in terms of insurance pay-out level for retiring due to concussion or a gammy elbow? Iām sure the former would also adversely impact future employment opportunities, life assurance and all sorts of other things much more than the latter so I can understand a player going along with the official version of events. Patch him up and ensure he plays a few games after the real career ending incident?
Obviously the rugby football crowd bankrupted the country from inside our financial institutions so have no qualms about engaging in dodgy practices. I imagine the affected teams and association would benefit greatly from being able to point to an elbow ailment rather than concussion as the retirement reason in the event of a retired player subsequently succumbing to brain disease.
Could rugby football administrators be in cahoots with the medical profession and big business in mistreating vulnerable players?
Apologies @Fagan_ODowd if this felt cuntish. I was thinking about your various GAA stories of clattering/being clattered by an assortment of rogues/psychos/criminals/alright sorts etc while hurling rather than your ironing issues.