FA few years ago, a group of eight rugby players were planning to take legal action against the sport's governing bodies after The Guardian first reported that they had been diagnosed with dementia, including former Wales international Alix Popham and forensic pathologist Bennett Omalu. This is Popham's idea. He had gone public with his own diagnosis and planned to start a charitable foundation to raise awareness about brain health. I had seen a film about Omalu's life, Concussion, and wanted to know more about his story.
Omalu describes himself as the first to diagnose chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in the brain of an American football player. He's a colorful character, one of the few people I've met in a decade of reporting on these issues. Even within the small community campaigning for better brain health, there were people who warned me not to talk to him because they felt he exaggerated his achievements. Omalu has its flaws. But it is undeniable that he has done a lot to publicize the dangers of CTE in sports and that he has a better idea of the probabilities than anyone who wants to make bans and arguments.
“They're coming for you,” Omalu told Popham. “They're going to call you all kinds of names.” It would have seemed like a stretch if he hadn't had background conversations with people in the game who openly questioned the credibility of some of the eight players who showed up and, at their lowest point, even pointed out a fact. Among them there was a known history of recreational drug use. I have no doubt that there are many people in rugby today who have had similar conversations and heard the same things.
Soon eight players became a dozen, and a dozen more. The premonitory evidence became overwhelming, the suffering inevitable, and the problem intractable. Officials have finally begun work on implementing some long-delayed measures, including changes to laws and improved welfare for retired veterans.
But those players are still waiting to find out whether they will win their claim or not. The authorities cannot help them because they are involved in legal proceedings. So they are confused. The next hearing is scheduled for February, but neither side expects the case to properly begin before 2026. Both sides are caught in a relentless emotional back-and-forth, as media teams on both sides push and pull. General opinion.
This week, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, Rylands Garth, unsuccessfully sued former England player Will Green for medical expenses. A second opinion contradicts their findings. The firm is now under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for breaching the authority's code of conduct. Representatives for Richard Boardman, the lawyer who brought the broader lawsuit and the company's sole shareholder, said he welcomed the study and that a central allegation by Greene (that he felt pressured to lie about dementia) was false and defamatory. .
However, District Judge Pickering (who is listed as a member of two Rugby Football Union panels), concluded with Green that Rylands had not shown that Garth's expenses were reasonable and that the terms of the undertaking were, at best, the cases, confusing. Boardman was wrong. The SRA will have to decide whether it did worse than that. He is, by the way, a colorful character. He is not a rugby player. He had no club tie, no double-breasted jacket and no tie at Twickenham. He worked in television before turning to law and admits he came across the case after reading about the concussion settlement reached in the NFL. Rylands Garth is a small firm and is overstretched and understaffed due to the size and complexity of the cases they deal with. The Green case has raised even more questions about the processes they used to make their diagnosis.
The good or bad has to be explained in court. All of this makes Boardman an easy target. No one in the game is going to chase players now. But there are people who follow the company that represents them. The public has far less sympathy for lawyers than for injured athletes, and at times the defendants' media strategy appears to try to drive a wedge between the Ryland bandwagon and the players they represent. You can find references to it in some of the public statements published by World Rugby from December 2023.
After newsletter promotion
“The legal action prevents us from reaching out to the affected players to provide them with support,” he said. “But we are deeply concerned about their struggles, we listen to them, we want them to know that they belong to the rugby family… Despite the June 2023 court order, the court noted that there was a 'gap' in the evidence. Provided by the claimant's legal team. It is unfortunate that the case continues to be delayed and the players' lawyers appear to be prioritizing the media when fulfilling their legal obligations, which is a challenge for all involved; At least not the players.”
Gamers could be forgiven for wondering why they should trust their future attention to the same companies that ruined their past attention. They could be forgiven for wondering who would be responsible for their injuries and what exactly would happen to the compensation they were owed if they did not take action.
Richard Boardman and Ryland's Gard did not create this situation. The “Rugby Family” did it. In fact, it was this case that forced the sport to finally take a serious look at these issues. In the end, the problem will not go away if lawyers do it. But the threat of paying several million pounds will still be there.
