www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... atter.html This is something that is very close to home with all at Trinity. On the one hand I think it's a good idea to help prevent anymore tragedies in RL but I also sympathise with the professionals who have concerns about their contacts should any defects be picked up.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... atter.html This is something that is very close to home with all at Trinity. On the one hand I think it's a good idea to help prevent anymore tragedies in RL but I also sympathise with the professionals who have concerns about their contacts should any defects be picked up.

It may well affect their contracts but surely better to save their life?

Yes it would.

I think its a good idea too. However, it will pose a hugh problem with clubs vs player/agent....the clubs will want a 'get out' clause allowing them to terminate a players contract should he develop any heart related issues that could be detremental to his playing/training.....and on the contrary a player would want something in place preventing a club from effectivly sacking them.

Not to mention the legal action that would surely come against a club from a player who has had his contract terminated due to such a screening.

for example, say a 20 year old full time player is screened and subsequently has his contract terminated, he could easily suggest that without screening he could have played for another 10 years without problems....and decides to sue for 10 years worth of money....essentially that could cost a club in the region of £700,000 plus....what would a £700k payout do to a club like us?....

personally, whilst i think its a good idea to screen players for health related problems, it'd cause no end of legal complications.

I think you could be over thinking it. Is it any different from say the BBBA granting liscenses?

Worksop might know more about this.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju ... -scuppered

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju ... -scuppered

Don't really know what to make of that.....

If I were in the players position i think i'd take the chance too.

It doesn't stop the players from getting heart scans on there own if they want.

My sport required a annual medical, incorporating brain scan, heart scan and aids test. In terms of contracts - the RL situation is completely different to my scenario. Legaly speaking i was the empoyer and the contract was between me and a manager, whereas with RL the players are contracted to the clubs as employees.

I know me mate who used to play for Hudds Academy, was sayin that the whole group had to have heart scans every 6 months or something whilst he was there.

What you have to remember though is that there will be insurance policies made to cover this type of thing i am sure, there will be one say for a club to in effect allow a player to sue the club and it not effect a club apart from a fee for the policy itself or for the player much in the same way that income protection is

i see what youre saying re insurance, but....try telling a 23 yr old england international "nevermind...least you have yer insurance payout''

we live in a blame culture and i think insurance or no insurance, it wouldnt stop players trying for more cash....

Insurance companies wouldn't insure for that I dont think, or if they did it would cost a fortune.

I really cannot understand the players fighting this move, of course I understand the contractual implications should a player be found to have a heart defect. I also understand that there will be complications in acquiring the correct insurance cover.

I have to say though that if I were a player today I would rather know that I had a life-threatening heart problem that could potentially end my career, are more importantly my life, as soon as possible.

If the rigours of playing professional rugby league are a likely trigger for such a heart defect then any individual must surely look at the bigger picture, think about his family and seek the necessary treatments.

Anything else is purely burying your head in the sand.

I guess it's a menality thing. The dangers of steroid abuse are well known, and can be easily researched, yet athletes will still risk ill health in later life by taking them. They'll take a cortisone shot to play through injury rather than risk losing their spot. In some, the will to win, the be successful, to be the best, overrides the thought of what will happen once their career is over and they have a broken down body to look after.

Perhaps the players will go out and get these done off their own back.

I think they are just worried of the implications of their clubs finding out.

Rmember an insurance policy is based up the company having 1000 people paying in say £100 into a fund and paying out for 1 person £80k so profiting by £20k so in this case there is a 999 to 1 chance of it happening which I think would not be unthinkable these problems are very rare.

Yes we do live in a blame culture but by having insurance in place at least it would stop players from been put off having life saving checks