How can you possibly draw that conclusion from one quote; you have no facts to hand to form that conclusion? I wonder if said doctor would be happy that you are questioning his credentials/medical reputation on a public forum?



How do you know? You simply cannot make that assessment from a couple of quotes from an article.

I am not surprised in the slightest that Saints have reacted in this manner because it will mean that people like you will think negatively of the club!



It's incredibly damaging to Saints' reputation and standing in the game. Fair enough highlighting issues, but not at the cost of someone's reputation.

Unless Hohaia is able to provide any evidence I can't see how anyone can form any view on this

It's a horrible situation but one where if anyone is facing court action, it should be Ben Flower.

Lance is clearly feeling hard done to about the situation but if you read what is in the public domain, it's not hard to picture a difficult situation. It's not hard to imagine Hohaia, concerned for his career and wanting to prove himself at Saints, not disclosing his symptoms fully to the medical staff. He is quoted as saying he feared having to retire and it's not hard to imagine a player, particularly with the macho culture in league that there is still, keeping the severity of his injury to himself. It seems there was a level of concern from Saints, he is quoted as saying he was given a game off and sent for tests. That doesn't sound like a club which isn't supporting it's players or looking after their welfare. It's also not hard to imagine those tests coming back with no conclusive indication of a problem. If the club was unaware of the severity of his symptoms and the tests were clear, it's not hard to image the club pushing him to return. It's also not hard to imagine them being puzzled when Hohaia asked for an extended, and paid, leave. It's also not hard to imagine the press warping what Hohaia had said.

I really hope this doesn't go any further. Hohaia had a great league career and always seemed a genuinely nice guy. As a Saints fan, I really don't the allegations to be true.

Hohaia has already pretty much questioned it in the article where he states that he had an HIA and was allowed to re-enter the game despite still suffering from concussion symptoms.

All you Saints fans are bothered about is the reputation of your club.

I think there's been a small amount of progress made re concussion in RL but it's still a massive issue in my opinion. I still think it's not taken as seriously as it should be. You can often see a player who goes/stays down with a knock to his head that has obviously affected his ability to get up, just have a cursory "examination" by a physio and then allowed to play on. You also see players go off then to come back on again. Was it Turner for Saints who went off last night and came back on again? That can't be right surely?
I'm not just having a go at Saints, I was both suprised and disappointed when Falloon came back on in the Boxing Day game v Wakefield. And I wonder if had Delaney not been so obviously unsteady on his legs yesterday as to whether he'd have come back on.

I think people often underestimate just how many knocks to the head players receive. If that article on Hohaia is correct then I think him having his nose broken 7 times in a season shows how often they get hit. Halfbacks probably being a bit more vulnerable?
If it's true about Saints attitude toward him then that's disappointing and if it's true about Huddersfield deliberately aiming to hit him in the head then that's appalling.

It shows we need an attitude change in RL and not just the platitudes given out by clubs CEO's or media departments. Partly players are probably going to have to start flagging up the issue themselves more. Possibly where the apparent lack of a powerful players union has an effect?

As for Flower, I know it was done to death at the time but it was about the worst thing I've ever seen on an RL pitch.
I think his suspension was lenient. It wasn't a 6 month ban. It was 12 competitive games. I don't think that was enough for such an incident. I'd have been wanting around 20 games.
Having said that, everyone deserves a second chance, but every offence he commits in the future has that incident as the background to it.

How an employee and an employer see and interpret a situation invariably will differ, sometimes hugely.
I'd be very surprised if St.Helens had not done and gone through certain procedures, however could that have being enough to reveal the true extent of rhings as LH has said he has suffered?
I can fully understand why many months afterward he might feel the need to say what he (genuinely) believes is how things happened. At thebtime he may not have being in a position to do so, it's all too easy to feel trapped in workplace and indeed family situations and can't resolve issues, can't tell people directly what's happening.
It takes those with real understanding of people to figure out something is not right and as mentioned above because of the culture of RL, because men are less likely to come out and say how bad things are to get to the root of things.
Men just as much as women need pro active support and that doesn't always happen to match the situation/person involved despite best intentions.

Whatever the outcome, LH going to a newspaper and putting it in the public domain was an extremely bad decision, if he has a grievance then there are better, far more effective channels to go down.
That said Saints response whilst obviously the words of an angry person and clearly wanting to refute LH side of things should have limited themselves in what they said. The response comes across as out of control (in a.similar vein to LH's) given the potential repercussions.
Chapter and verse most definitely was not required and certainly not the choice/strong wording despite how angry the respondant may feel.

Even Saints statement looks bad, i appreciate there might be some real and valid anger and perhaps a feeling of betrayal at Saints but they arent even helping themselves.

Their insistence on calling it a 'voluntary resignation' and stressing it was 'without due notice' and that he 'clearly wasnt entitled to continue to be paid' shows just where they are in their thinking. Hohaia didnt voluntarily resign. He retired after suffering a serious and long lasting head injury. A head injury the club apparently didnt see, didnt diagnose and allowed him to play on with.

What is worrying is the attitude expressed when they say "Throughout that time he received the highest level of professional support and empathy, both rugby and medical. His subsequent version of ongoing 'concussive symptoms' were entirely retrospective and only raised by him at the end of that period." like the club had no duty of care, no responsibility to be on top of noticing these issues and being proactive in dealing with it. Like the fact he didnt bring it up absolves them of responsibility. Even if everything Saints say is true, it is still on them to be on the lookout for these things, at best it means they missed these symptoms.

Put another way, on the back of that statement, if you were a player suffering similar issues are you going to feel confident in bringing this up? Would you be confident Saints would be proactive about protecting players in a similar situation?

Some very valid points regarding duty of care. The comments about not paying him by saints seem pretty dismissive of him as a person. Lance may have retired from playing and hence not be paid for that but saints could have continued to pay him in some other capacity which wouldn't have counted against the cap. Seeing as his forced retirement came about as a direct result of something that happened whilst he was playing for them it would have been the right thing to do rather than just leave him and his family without his income whilst thousands of miles away from home. Hudds did so with both fielden and currently are with Robinson.

Seems odd... I really can't see Saints being deliberately negligible. As an employer, they will have taken advice on this matter surely.

I am shocked at St Helens' cruel behaviour.

I once gave Eammon McManus a large piece of my steak, while at a post-match dinner at the Wembley restaurant in Canet, southern France, because there was not enough steak to go around.

I will never do that again.

I agree with this.

I feel extremely sorry for how his career has ended, but the crux seems to be payments following his resignation. I understand his frustration at the lack of heart of Saints, perhaps, but you cannot expect a 'golden handshake' when you resign, irrespective if you put your body on the line etc.

You damn well should be able to. How utterly heartless do you have to be see a player under your employ sustain a serious head injury that ends his career and think your responsibility ends there.

Im pretty appalled that his contract wasnt paid up to be honest and its a crying shame how utterly blase the game is about players who leave it at 30 years of age, often having not earned a whole lot, often with bodies battered and broken down and often with not a whole lot of alternative options