Quote
waterfield
I think he's referencing a "doctor" simply to clarify this argument. But that's not likely to happen since it would be improper to render an opinion w/o examining the subject. So everyone's got an "opinion" regardless of what word is being used. And really-does it matter whether its a flare up or a trauma caused tear? A flare up can even be worse than a traumatically caused structural damage -especially if its consistent whereas a muscle tear, etc might be "fixed" and the player resumes his normal activities.

Yes it does matter. A lot, in fact.

If it were an actual physical trauma injury he GOT in game one, that means that the Rams never reported it or treated it, and that Gurley ran on it. Both things are bad. Not only that but they would have NEVER treated it if it was surgical, and except for 2 weeks in December, he played full tilt for about 10 games or more (didn't look) before they sat him. With an actual injury that is dangerous and irresponsible neglect, both by the team and by Gurley. Along with all the lying. (And even worse, according to the people taking MJD at face value, Gurley not only lies right along with the team but then...later admits it to a member of the press!) (!!??)

If it is an underlying condition that can flare up, you can actually play with that for a few years. I mean, not when it acts up, but before and after. In fact Faulk DID play on precisely that for a couple of years. He had a surgical knee that would flare up. Farr talked about Gurley on their most recent podcast. Farr mentioned Faulk. He said Faulk's knees were worse than his (Farr's) and Farr's knees are what made him retire. But Faulk could work around it. They managed snaps, they probably did medical things like injections (not painkillers but things that keep knee conditions like this at bay). He could still run when he was not in a flare-up situation. In fact in 2001 it got so bad in the summer they sat him for 3 weeks...and he had a good season that year.

But the main thing is, if it is some kind of condition (arthritic), not only can he actually play with it until it flares up, but there's every other important consideration too---he would not be putting himself stupidly at risk with an untreated injury he and the team lie about to the league, which is against league rules.

NOTHING supports that that is what happened. Just MJD misinterpreting something and misspeaking about it.

And if what MJD says happened, DID happen, it would have been bad. A bad thing to do. For the player and his health, for the team, and for the Rams standing as a stand-up team.

That all matters a lot.

....