World Rugby CEO challenges concussion lawsuit numbers claim
World Rugby chief executive Alan Gilpin has suggested that the number of former players involved in a concussion lawsuit is smaller than the public figure of almost 200.
Lawyers for the players are suing World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union for allegedly failing to “protect players from permanent injury”.
The claimants include ex-Wales captain Ryan Jones and England’s 2003 World Cup-winning hooker Steve Thompson, with many of the former players diagnosed with early-onset dementia and other irreversible neurological impairments.
Legal documentation has been submitted to all three organisations.
“When the original action was issued to us some time ago it was involving nine players. More recently, they have started to claim that number has grown significantly,” Gilpin told the Daily Telegraph.
“It’s not, as far as we can see, in the documentation provided to us quite at the number which is being suggested in some parts of the media.
“One concern is the approach being taken by some parties in that claim to apparently use the media effectively to recruit more players into that action.
“What we would say to those players who aren’t currently part of the action is can we have a dialogue about how we can all provide better support.
“A huge part of this is education, making sure we are pointing players to where that support does exist, or providing a structure where we can listen to them.
“We are now discussing with the International Rugby Players’ Association, national RPAs and other groups how we can provide better care for players who are coming to the end of their careers or have retired, and have concerns about mental health issues or related to dementia.”
Gilpin also said that World Rugby’s dialogue with player welfare lobby group Progressive Rugby had stopped.
“We’ve had a lot of debate with Progressive Rugby over the last 12 months,” he added.
“To be honest, that dialogue has now stopped because there are a number of people we are now aware of involved in Progressive Rugby who are involved in the lawsuit, and therefore we can’t enter into the same direct dialogue with Progressive Rugby and some of those individuals as we could previously, and that in itself is a shame.”
Responding to Gilpin’s comments, a Progressive Rugby spokesperson said: “While we respected World Rugby’s decision to cease player welfare discussions, it was naturally disappointing given the critical need for genuinely independent voices to be at the table.
“It was also somewhat baffling given World Rugby had been aware, since our formation in February 2021, that we had a very small number of members who are involved in the litigation.
“However, what we do find incredibly frustrating and offensive is the inference that Progressive Rugby is part of, or somehow benefits from the ongoing litigation.
“Each member of Progressive Rugby gives their time for free, and we are fiercely proud that our only driver is the welfare of players and the continued success of the game.
“While we clearly have deep sympathy for those living with the effect of early onset dementia and CTE, our focus is solely on learning from the mistakes made in the past so we can better protect the current and future players of this great game.”
Latest Comments
The boy needs to bulk up if wants to play 10 or 11 to handle those hits, otherwise he could always make a brilliant reserve for the wings if he stays away from the stretcher.
Go to commentsIn another recent article I tried to argue for a few key concept changes for EPCR which I think could light the game up in the North.
First, I can't remember who pointed out the obvious elephant in the room (a SA'n poster?), it's a terrible time to play rugby in the NH, and especially your pinnacle tournament. It's been terrible watching with seemingly all the games I wanted to watch being in the dark, hardly able to see what was going on. The Aviva was the only stadium I saw that had lights that could handle the miserable rain. If the global appeal is there, they could do a lot better having day games.
They other primary idea I thuoght would benefit EPCR most, was more content. The Prem could do with it and the Top14 could do with something more important than their own league, so they aren't under so much pressure to sell games. The quality over quantity approach.
Trim it down to two 16 team EPCR competitions, and introduce a third for playing amongst the T2 sides, or the bottom clubs in each league should simply be working on being better during the EPCR.
Champions Cup is made up of league best 15 teams, + 1, the Challenge Cup winner. Without a reason not to, I'd distribute it evenly based on each leauge, dividing into thirds and rounded up, 6 URC 5 Top14 4 English. Each winner (all four) is #1 rank and I'd have a seeding round or two for the other 12 to determine their own brackets for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I'd then hold a 6 game pool, home and away, with consecutive of each for those games that involve SA'n teams. Preferrably I'd have a regional thing were all SA'n teams were in the same pool but that's a bit complex for this simple idea.
That pool round further finalises the seeding for knockout round of 16. So #1 pool has essentially duked it out for finals seeding already (better venue planning), and to see who they go up against 16, 15,etc etc. Actually I think I might prefer a single pool round for seeding, and introduce the home and away for Ro16, quarters, and semis (stuffs up venue hire). General idea to produce the most competitive matches possible until the random knockout phase, and fix the random lottery of which two teams get ranked higher after pool play, and also keep the system identical for the Challenge Cup so everthing is succinct. Top T2 side promoted from last year to make 16 in Challenge Cup
Go to comments