Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:48:09 -0400

From: Lionel Smith

Subject: Employer's claim for injury to employee

I agree with John. Seems to me it just like Enron. Pump up the share price to overvalue your options, making the shareholders very happy and making yourself very rich. Long term? Ignore. So too with footballers. Perhaps I am cynical but I suspect that a professional athlete would be mistaken to expect his/her club to look out for his/her long term prospects. For the club, the player is a commodity.

It will be clearer when the English courts catch up to the US and Canadians realize that doctors owe a duty of loyalty to their patients ...

Lionel

On 11/10/06 09:12, "Charles Mitchell" wrote:

I think the answer to Jason's question is that the CA thought there could be a potential conflict of interest between the doctor's duty to the player, and his duty to the club, reasoning that the club might want to pressure the doctor into saying the player was fit to play when he wasn't. But would it ever be in the club's best interests to do this?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>