all right we will call the calendar richard dent versus the national football league number one thousand dash sixteen thousand and seventeen council thank you for making the trip out for the argument we're looking forward to hearing what you have to say  reserve for minutes ok keep an eye on the clock i'll try and help you ok thank you good morning my name is bill sinclair with silverman thompson from baltimore maryland i'm here on behalf of the plaintiff's opponents in this matter this may be one of the more simple issues that this august panel has ever had to decide for plaintiffs have pled but a single count of negligence and as far as i can tell we're only arguing about one element of that most basic of tort claims which is duty and you have two theories right voluntary undertaking or negligence per se so you're i do think we have two theories there was three that were identified and i spoke with a shot earlier this week and said that we are abandoning the rd so yes i think that it's voluntary undertaking and that it's and so the other issue i think is the one that's that's interesting and i want to talk about a little bit and i think it goes to maybe some confusion that's arisen out of what we also knew before into his debt one the preemption decision that was issued by this panel a couple of years ago there was discussion in dent one about negligence for say and there was discussion about what ultimately the plaintiff might have to prove if they were going to proceed on a negligence per se theory and the to me was pretty clear it was talking about proof and discovery and all those things that come past the pleading stage but i do think the trial court and the n f l sort of seized on that language to what i would say impose a heightened standard of pleading and i don't understand that  perceval to put forth a pleading standard i do think we have to put them on notice that we might be proceeding i don't think it's probably fair to pull the rug out as summary judgment or trial and say oh by the way this is always going to negligence per se case we just didn't believe that  i do think there has to be some notice well as the author of that opinion and i don't mean to speak for my two colleagues here although they did sign a maybe i can help out a little bit you had alleged active involvement by the national football league in the procurement story age and distribution of controlled substances and that is what led to the language in our opinion that if you can prove that that the n f l was actively involved or somehow aided and abetted the teams in violating the either the controlled substances act the food drug and cosmetics act or state pharmaceutical law then we think there's a cognize that will claim for negligence per se not only that it seems to me that under count one of your cause of action there are no pleadings here other than a violation of the statute i am not sure that that's correct i'll give me the give me the cause of action that says there is other then a violation of the statute sure it is that because i'm going down to count one and i started with two hundred and ninety eight and i went down through so tell me where in those it says anything about anything except a violation of the statutes your honor i think you're right that through paragraph three of four i think you're correct but paragraph three of five which is that the record extracted forty says finally to the extent the n f l voluntarily undertook a duty apart from those identified above to ensure the proper record keeping administration distribution medications that breach that no then as to the general negligence duty there are none except the violation o voluntarily undertook one i think that i think that's the allegation the allegation is that they yes there's no doubt that there's an allegation that they voluntarily undertook a duty your honor and i think that the evidence that we had that if i that we have deuced and evans fully supports that and we have well i'm just trying to make sure because i looked voluntarily undertook different different duties if you will but i guess i'm trying to figure out where we're going because the last time we were here it seemed to me that you suggested that the substance of your claim wasn't that the n f l failed to adequately supervise medication but the n f l distributed and dispensed medication in a manner different than the law in other words if we're talking about failing to adequately supervise you had that was all under the c b a and you are saying we don't want to get there it's got to be something that they did specifically it's not a matter that they failed to adequately supervise it is just that they did something to where they distributed distributed and dispensed itself i think that's mostly right i think that it's a little broader than dispense and distributed the language from the panel's decision talked about handling administration and distribution all right and i will add those other of those other verbs i'm just trying to make sure we're not back in their failure to adequately supervise we are not now i absolutely were and i think that the extent that that don't want them so at that point if we're not there you've got to say something they express lee did or that they were supervising their doing i agree your honor i think that to the extent that that one has it as an import here today it is the directive to us to have plaid n f l conduct i think that the operative pleading that we you judged and that one interchangeably spoke of clubs and players and the league and i can guarantee we are not playing games it was simply we didn't have a full understanding of what the relationship and the nature of the relationship was between the clubs in the league the type so and i can tell you i still don't know where in the amended complaint is the n f l do you allege that the n f l undertook to provide direct medical care and treatment to the players we doubt i don't think that's what we allege or i think that we i think that to the extent that you can find a duty in this complaint in the operative complaint i think it deals with the manner in which the n f l whether voluntarily undertook a duty or had a duty but nonetheless injected itself in the administration of controlled substances painkillers and opiates but what we also hear for and do is the drugs let me tease us out a little bit because i understood your voluntary undertaking theory to include the promulgated of policies like the toward all policy and the conduct of audits of how the teams were storing and distributing and documenting the medical necessity for the distribution and in the face of those it results they should have been on notice that the clubs were violating the controlled substances and pharmaceutical laws to the detriment of the players and took no action to stop because of the return to play policy is that a fair summary of your theory it is yeah i think that this is different than the good samaritan laws that the n f l cites right this is not the situation we're driving down the road used you see as a complete stranger drown in a lake and you say should i stop and if i stop what is the duty of this person what do i do right those are the good samaritan laws that i think the case of the n f l talked about this is a situation in which you know there's no doubt i mean the very opening of this panels  associate of dr lawrence brown this is a paragraph nine of the currently operative complaint dr lawrence bragg has been the medical advisor to the n f l for the last thirty years there's no doubt that he is an f l personality dr so here's what confuses me  substances so that just a euphemism so that an overgeneralization and then a couple of lines later let's say i'm going down the line i'll go down to a good lie number twenty one and f l doctors and trainers again is that just euphemistically or are van horn stone pritchard mcmahon wiley each one of those each one of those has a paragraph in which is alleged that the n f l is doctors and trainers that's your phrase quote n f l is doctors and trainers so you're not alleging that the n f l zz doctors and trainers gave any of those plaintiffs drugs you know i don't think that the n f l has a doctor or truck but this is what's confusing i mean this appears to be responsive to dent one but if you're backing off that then you've over argued your case and it seems the district court seized on that what i'll call conflation of who these people are a ctually working for i mean clearly the league promulgated safety policies telling the clubs that they did they had to have emergency rooms certified doctors an orthopedist standing by  to take care of the players who were injured during the game but that doesn't make them n f l players or excuse me n f l employees i think i understand i agree i recognize that to some extent the operative played in this you here falls victim to the same problems that with that fell victim to the nd vatican play and i think i get no i promise you we're not playing games i've taken depositions that have been that i've read all the documents and i still don't have a good understanding of where the league stops and the play and the club start well i well i guess i'm going to follow up on judge by bees question because there are also allegations here about trust and reliance i go to dan it's twenty seven i go to new birdie it's thirty six i go to green i can name they say they trust me relied on the n f l doctors and trainers but you're not really saying that you're saying they relied trusted on the legs trainers we are yada but i think it's all part of the story i don't know  what part of the story the thing that i'm worried about is the die i've got to find a violation of the statute and i got to find a violation of the statute by the n f l and i've therefore after having find these i've got find where did the n f l start and where did the league where did the leagues or where the club start and that's why i'm asking you the question i understand it and i do think it's part of the story i don't think we can tell the story without it but i don't think that you have to find a violation i think that that is one forward i think a path forward that this panel identified for negligence count if we're going to apply the evidence or presumption which is negligence for say would be to plead that these statutes at issue what we all refer to as the drug laws apply to the n f l and that they of his negligence allegations i think it's in part i think it's a part of the basis and i think it's in part the base and i agree i gree it's in part the basis on those allegations but i think that you can look to the round factors that this court this panel talked about and that one and the activity and nothing of what you said there talked about the fact that we had to play a violation of the law what you said there and what we took to heart what i think is right is that if they end up any entity that has somehow involved itself so much in controlled substances the handling of ministration or distribution there up and lax reasonable care and what they do then there's a duty but that that is essentially if we were to apply an analogy to criminal law and aiding and abetting theory that the actual breach of the statute was by the team physicians and trainers but that it was the n f l that was also complicit in aiding and abetting the violation by procuring large quantities of the drugs overseeing the distribution and storage to the teams auditing their compliance with the law but then not taking any action in violation which we're back to the voluntary undertaking right i mean it's hard to keep does the n f l have any separate medical employees beyond using club doctors i understand there's the physicians association i forget the specific title but say the duty was voluntarily assumed why isn't that preempted i mean the district court adequately talked about that last time and we said we're we're looking very tough at that and it's only when you get outside of this where there's direct allegations of somebody doing something giving something away doing something be directing it why is it that this is not presented says what they have the duty to do and what they don't have the duty to do or if the c b a says if they did anything they have no problem they are this says either that they disclaimed any duty there's nothing to be done there why is there any then that you can come in i mean the district court said this is been preempted because i don't you know this is the i mean this this this principle applies throughout the law you say an independent contractor or you're really an employee you say you don't have a duty but you act in a different way what the words on the c d a say i'm not sure matter all that much but this is your response and i'm really using you as a foil to talk to my brother her blankly trying to answer your question yeah because you didn't think you answer and abetting analogy is binding on the n f l and the clubs breach those statutory standards they can't contract away a liability under the c b a for violating this the controlled substances laws said it far better than i let well i thought that was your position i'm glad you've adopted his position i guess what i'm trying to do is get to the bottom line not trying to take a position near i read what you have here let's take  allegations eighteen of them name your best to one of those allegations which would suggest that they violated the statutes in doing what they did your honor that's the only thing you've alleged a violation of the stat monitoring and auditing that's the beginning yes your honor ok so so so what so what is the thought that what duty if they violated their what is it that they've done i don't think anything they violated their yacht or i think that that sets up how the n f l became involved with the controls  voluntary undertaking theory is that your voluntary undertaking very bad is that the that is a part yes that is the that sets the story the story for the voluntary undertaking but but the problem comes if you go to voluntary undertaking then i get back to where i was in the beginning because you've already said to the district court and to us we're not talking about what they knew and didn't get involved in we're not talking about the fact that they didn't supervise so what did they do wrong you know just because they do these i mean i've got eighteen things they could have done now i've got another one that you said in three or five what did do wrong i think i mean that's the problem you can't say well they didn't adequately supervise it i think what they did wrong is essentially what just almost talking about with aiding abetting i don't think abetting mean that sounds good and criminal but what are you really talking what did they do to aid in a band here's the only thing i can figure out is they didn't adequately supervise so tell me a different of broach i don't ok so what they did is they came in and said this is how it's going to be run this is you're going to provide audits to us every year and you're going to tell us that you are complying with these federal laws on the state laws and you're good we're going to tell you how to store these drugs and we're going to tell you there's allegations in here that do go to distribution we're going to tell you how to safe them and we're going to tell you that you have to impose this toward all policy for all of your players and we're going to tell you that come two thousand and fifteen we're going to impose this the medical liaison program that's a require you to act in a certain way all of those are all those are statutory things they should have been doing they could have to comply with the statute yet when we get to the end of the story there's nothing to suggest that they violated the statute all land is to help them do what they're supposed to do under the statute it's at the bottom line and says with all due respect to be remarkable to me to say that you can come in and say that we're going to tell you how to do everything you're going to tell us that you're doing it totally wrong and we're going to say even though we're the ones who've now  responsibility for ensuring you're doing this and you're doing it wrong and you're not doing it the correct way we get a pass it i think your argument in a nutshell i have a very difficult time understanding how that goes one step further doesn't the reason maybe this goes to motive but the reason that they fail to take adequate action in the face of the audit findings was because they had a return to play policy and it was in the league's best interest to maximize television revenue by putting their injured stars back on the field i appreciate my colleague answering your question but i can ask for it just as an easy question and that is i've got to look at the c b a and find out why there's an allocation of duty and there's an allocation of why you do and why you don't determine the duty here but if i if i know you don't want me to look at it but if the c v a adequately controls what's exactly supposed to happen and i've got a look there to find it you're preempted but you don't have to look there in the st place well enough to look out if  contracted to do not kind of get around it and come to the federal court system based on a new theory but that i understand but yeah if the if the if the duties voluntarily assume that it then but then obviously it please the court but the for apple e the national football league the one thing that i thought we had agreed upon by the time we got to this case after the after den one after the revised complaint and after the briefing to this court here is that the one thing that seemed to be clear was that they had to allege that the n f l itself file a did some state or federal drug law and yet i just heard plaintiff's counsel say in response to the questions what's your best allegation that the drugs to its players in an amount in manner that violate federal and state drug laws here is the st line from its brief to this court this time around for decades the n f l directed it controlled the distribution of controlled substances and prescription drugs to its players in amounts and in a manner that violate federal in state drug laws it's replete throughout their arguments last time to this court to their revised complaint this court's opinion and dent one where one thousand one hundred and twenty one dollars accepting their representation of their argument this court said quote the merits of plaintiff negligence claim will require the players to establish that relevant statutes apply to the n and that n f l violated those statutes i'm having the same problem that mr sinclair alluded to and that is the n f l is an unincorporated entity an association of the member cl and with the exception apparently of dr lawrence brown the only doctors and trainers that are in play here are employees of the individual clubs and the physicians society that advises the league it is made up of those doctors yesterday and those are the doctors that have promulgated these medical rules and regulations that toward all waiver they're the doctors that have commissioned the studies of  drug use and so on and i'm having a very difficult time drawing a line between the n f l as a completely separate entity as if it were a corporation and these wholly independently owned and operated franchisees can you help me sure you understand that because it seems to me the district court and we have struggled with this interrelationship between the league and the clubs which makes the allegation that the n f l actually was involved in the distribution of controlled substances more credible than i think you're willing to concede sure your honor i think the lines in this sort of case a clear that team doctors and club doctors that they allege prescribe the drugs or overprescribe the drugs those are employees of the team and clubs exclusively they do not have a relationship to the n f l the complaint every allegation and their complaint about it ministering drugs dispensing medications everything is the relationship between a club doctor and his patient the player but didn't that actually amended complaint that this court pointed to in its den one opinion that allegation is dropped out of the rd amended complaint and remember what happened between the nd and rd amended complaint is there was extensive discovery  the related evans litigation they took over to deposition the two dozen depositions of team doctors club doctors and the n f l what they say are the two key n f l personnel dr brown and dr polman they took over two dozen depositions including nine club club employed doctors fourteen club trainers and those two n f l personnel after all of that they don't have a single allegation of any  directive to any club doctor to any team trainer to prescribe drugs in a manner that's inconsistent with federal and state law judge alsip gave them took pains to give them every opportunity being faithful to this court's don't want to opinion at the hearing i suggest i would recommend the court look at the supplemental excerpts of record forty eight dollars this is from the district court hearing on remand where he asked point blank just as judge smith did today point blank as plaintiff counsel give me your best factual allegation of any n f l personnel not the club doctors not the team trainers any personnel acting in violation of the drug laws or issuing a directive that would be in violation of the drug laws at excerpts supplemental excerpts of record four thousand eight hundred and forty nine dollars the plaintiff's counsel the best allegation after filing the rd amended complaint which was supposed to be the quote best and final complaint after extensive discovery in evans ninety pages what he came up with this is his response is the n f l was aware of the problems by team club doctors and club physicians and failed to remedy it that was their best allegation and what judge also said well that's the theory that you disavowed before the th circuit that they took inadequate steps to stop the clubs and team doctors from your the nine that was the theory back in two thousand and fifteen the judge also thought he was ruling on in the preemption said that this is that look that n f l didn't take enough steps to stop the misconduct by club and team doctors for that is the motive that that i picked up from their complaint the return to play policy then why can't the n f l be complicit in the violation because it was in their best interest under the plane of theory to keep these injured players back on the field by whatever means necessary doping them up as much as possible so they so when you play a couple a couple responses there st of all this is from their brief to this court the st time around when we thought that was the theory that it was that the n f l was failing to intervene or taking inadequate steps their audits weren't good enough they weren't taking enough proactive steps based on the information that they had this is what they told this court the district and this is quoting the district court analyzed plaintiff's complaint under a fundamental misperception the individual clubs mistreated their players and the need the league was negligent in failing to intervene and stop there are alleged mistreatment they disavowed that and said that their theory was in fact no it was the n f l itself that was violating the drug laws in gauging an illegal conduct that's what this court said they had  and he admitted here that they do not have any allegation in their complaint that the n f l itself directly or indirectly violated the state and federal drug laws that is what they have to show the fact that there may have been information that the n f l had awareness and look the n f l their complaint is replete with all sorts of stuff that the n f l was doing to try to foster compliance with the clubs their theory is the n f l sort of didn't put forth its best effort or intentionally had lax policies so that the clubs and team doctors could sarap tisha silly do this that is a failure to intervene in adequate supervision theory that is th the conduct has to rise to the level of a violation of federal and state law or federal or state law there is no dispute between any of us here today that simply doing that the paper tiger policies would not violate it does not violate the federal cunt controlled substances act or the federal drug and prescription act or any state law they agree with this here they don't have an allegation here that that sort of conduct would violate the law so as a matter of l even if everything they said was true they could prove that to a jury is implausible that is based on the allegations if they could prove that to a jury as a matter of law that would still not show any illegal conduct by the n f l in violation of federal or state drug laws would agree that if the team owner told the team doctors and trainers i don't care what law you have to violate i want these players on the field that that would be a violation is made up of the member clubs and controlled by the owners of the clubs in essence a stablish is this return to play policy why isn't that the same thing as if the team owner tells the doctors and trainers do whatever it takes your honor this would be a completely different case if they had an allegation that the n f l and the n f l personnel and the n f l has lots of personnel don't labor under the misconception there is an existence a return to play policies or not or is it just simply posed of the teams and doesn't have its own personnel and although it has its own personnel if they had actually alleged that f l personnel had issued a memo directive to team doctors and trainers team owners hey make sure make sure your players stay on the field even if you have to push the boundaries a prescription owners are going to profit from that policy if television revenues are maximize distinct legal entities even plaintiff does not allege that the n r a you heard them here today the n f l is not violating they're not alleging violating federal state laws the violations are being done as they allege it by the team doctors and trainers is the only way to connect it there is no corporate document that incorporates the national football league is there your honor there are not is a separate incorporation but it is its own entity they cite tons of well your honor that their theory all along has been that it is the n f l the n f l directing the team doctors and clubs that's what they that's what they saw this court on the st trial what i'm suggesting is almost  if it was incorporated piercing corporate veil theory of liability that yes we have this unincorporated entity called the national football league but it's really the team owners themselves acting in concert and they all have  home and modus of to maximize your honor this litigation has now been going on six years we're on our rd amended complaint judge is giving them every chance to plead what they said they could plead that theory they have articulated it's not pled it's waived it's forfeited it's just not before this court that would be a very different suit had they tried to plead that they clearly have not pleaded that they've brought two different suits once against the teams and one against the n f l because they are distinct entities that's been their theory all along two different suit seeking two different liability they failed against the teams now all they've got left is you need to tie this to some illegal conduct by the n is what it boss says that it's a possibility is quote a context specific task that requires a reviewing court to draw on its judicial system experience and common sense judge also has lived with this case he saw the discovery in evans he's asked them multiple these allegations they haven't been able to point him to the allegations he hasn't been able to point you to allegations today under very direct questioning there just isn't any plausible allegations here that the n f l committed l was involved in the distribution of the tour go well a couple things about that your honor it doesn't show any involvement that would be in violation of federal and state drug laws which of course is the of the negligence claim in violation of federal and state drug laws if you look at that toward all waiver which i think is attached as exhibit b to the complaint you'll see a couple things one that's a document between a team dr and the player not between the n f l and the player it's i think that one is san diego chargers team team and the player the nd thing is what that toward all waiver is that's an in form if you look at it it's an informed consent document so it's of piece with all of their other allegations with the n f l was allegedly trying to enhance compliance with the law provide informed consent make sure that they were it hearing to the storage and control requirements the travel policy with respect to drugs auditing reporting how many drugs they've used all of that is part of their same allegations that the n f l they say was in adequately monitored for their i mean so the  compliance with the drug laws because what happened is the prior practices the complaint alleges was the teams the team doctors would take the controlled substances with them to away games the d a then came and said that is not a kosher practice and so with the n f l they allege did it in order to enhance compliance with the da directive was make arrangements so that the home that there would be a doctor at the home stadium on site that could to the extent they were requirements and we would dispute that characterization except they were requirements largest to get the short point short i have to accept this sort so let's accept that is true that is not anything that would be in violation of federal and drug state laws that is conduct meant to enhance compliance now maybe they're alleging they didn't enhance compliance well enough they didn't go far enough they weren't aggressive enough in hand in ensur didn't take adequate steps to intervene and stop the illegal conduct but that's again the theory that they explicitly disavowed and i've read you from their brief the last time the brief this time in front of judge  in this a brief in this a brief they say and i just read you the st line for decades the n f l directed and controlled the distribution of controlled substances and prescription drugs to its players in amounts and in a manner that violate federal and state laws that is their theory throughout their complaint and it's because of what they told the court this last time no that's not that's not that's not entirely the theory that i thought that they were ok were going after so i heard l that was inadequate ok within the meaning of our decision and male so i guess a couple responses st i think that there is a stop because that is a theory in which they're saying the n f l took measures right took measures audit's all of these things to stop it but didn't do a good enough job doing it right that's what that voluntary undertaking theory is they're saying it's not about violating the statute it's that they took steps but they were inadequate to stop the problem that is the theory that they disavowed before this court the last time around and that's from the excerpts of their two thousand and fifteen briefs that we've quoted in our brief and that i've read you here today they specifically say we are not our theory is not they called it a fundamental said this is reading from done one having as we read the complaints the plaintiffs are not merely alleging that the n f l failed to prevent medication abuse by teens but that the n f l itself illegally distributed controlled that is right they that they are alleging that the n f l undertook certain responsibilities towards the players short of actually dispensing medications right and but the reason why i think that to do that at this stage is because  what the court said in that one is quote with that reading of the complaint in mind we now analyze the negligence claims that we did not it did not a value a judge alsop's preemption decision under that reading which is reading the judge also said that what they're really doing is talking about failing to stop the teams from doing clubs so that they got this court to not apply the preemption theory right not do the preemption now so that there are no you don't have to look at the collective bargaining agreement to see who had the duty to do what right who had the duty to provide the notices who had the duty to do the audit who had the duty to make sure everything was on the up and up they said no you don't have to look at the collective bargaining agreement  that is that would only come in if we were alleging a failure to take inadequate steps in intervene instead we are alleging illegal conduct and what this court said is a with that reading of the complaint in mind we now turn to the question of whether plain then of course it matters who has the duties over that in a collective bargaining agreement the league and the teams divvy up the duties on medical care say you know we are responsible for these things the league is responsible for other things so of course if you're evaluating whether someone is negligent apart from statutes or right and one it was oh well the statutes trump everything but if you're putting the statutes aside well then of course to decide whether someone acted consistent with their duty one would want to know in the collective bargain agreement who allen who had the responsibility over that subject matter of my argument if we were faced with a medical malpractise claim but that's not the claim that the plaintiffs are so why do we need to look at the collective bargaining agreement if notwithstanding their disclaimer of liability for treating players the n f l did something else which case judged by being raised in that case which again is a youth water polo league doesn't involve sophisticated collectively bargain and it is like we have the players association n f l here but what it required in order to trigger liability was an increase in the risk of harm from the voluntary undertaking that's what mail sells it increasing the risk for the n f l proactively doing audit's and compliance methods even if they policies and there's any chance that any of that increase the increase the risk for perhaps by suggesting a cover to the to the to the clubs or of that or that there was no problem since the n f l hadn't had whored about anything then they may have increased the risk to the players and that seems to me that's a that's a that's better reserved at least for summary judgment or perhaps for a jury well your honor i think that's far afield from what what the complaint that they wrote and what they focused on and what they brief all along both in front of judge and both to this court after having extensive discovery remember in the dent case that that is what they're left with even if you don't think it's judicially a stopped or waived it still runs into the it runs smack into the two thousand and fifteen judge also preemption opinion that this court never reviewed based on their representation that they were no longer making that argument to this court so it runs into stoppel collective bargaining doesn't meet the male test which is distinguishable fundamentally distinguishable because that's a youth waterpolo leak of course there may be duties that someone takes on when you're talking about children and supervising them this is a collectively bargain sophisticated enterprise where they have bargained for in intricate level of health care protections player protections all of best voluntary undertaking theory the best voluntary undertaking theory is that the n f l put in place a program to s editor of the court said but there is no document this is a business plan i gree with that your honor but what there is is a document that was produced to us during discovery of this starts a paragraph nine of our complaint that talks about i produced to us and you have that again and i kind of said it any better in coming up with a theory for the business plan and why this is the way it is this is and this is written by dr thomas mcclellan who we understand to be n f l personnel and the most important language in that is that paragraph eleven where he says it is in the players the teams and the leagues reputational and financial interest to use analgesic medications for pain relief these incentives in the nature of the sport combine to make opioid and other pain medication usage much more prevalent in the n f l than virtually any other industry population or endeavor again going to the uniqueness of the situation and the judge thomas has been talking about and it finishes with this with the one sentence i would want you to focus on this is an n f l personnel saying this really means there is shared responsibility and joint culpability for this problem this is an n f l personnel saying shared responsibility responsibility to me is duty culpability is a breach of that duty and the other thing i would point to  what i would have ended on that you can and thank you is a is an email from the doc right we've gone back and forth about the league and the doctors and this is the doctor's own language this is from dr yates who was president of the of the of the physicians society for a long time who was deposed and this is a paragraph two hundred and seventeen of the record extract and this is a direct quote he says in order to solve the n f l a dilemma we all need to work together and get along none of us are immune from scrutiny trainers physicians advisers park avenue management and we all know what that means that's the n f l and so on as i've said before to date there has not been a constructive solution provided by the home n f l office other than the meet and greet with the da and the subsequent legal conference calls the information today to the society is one of good luck and you're on your own to decide how to adhere to the law we are here because of our association with the n