Radwan Hamed

[mpickard2087]

I'm pretty sure the club has tried to help Hamed and his family since this happened. I have vague recollections that he was kept on a contract for at least 2-3 years and there being talk of them trying to find a role for him at the club.

 

[alfie103]

Would we be saying it isn't really the clubs fault if it was West Ham or Arsenal?

 

[jambreck]

You seem to think you know better than the judge!

Nope. Hence why I wrote, "As employers, Spurs were ultimately responsible, of course". But they were only vicariously so.

Since he did not get proper protection for his heart condition from people employed by the club then I can see why it would be held to account.

Better to have apologised and paid up without having their family go through a lengthy legal process to get what they need to care for their brain damaged son.

Absolute nonsense.

What would be the point in a company taking out employer's liability insurance if, as soon as a case arose for which the insurance was directly applicable, the company said, "no, no.....you keep your money in your pocket, nice insurance man, we'll pay"? You do understand the whole idea of insurance, right?

As to there having been a lengthy legal process, that is doubtless true. But do you know when the claim was first filed? Do you know how intimately involved in the actual nuts and bolts of the case the family have been? Do you know that it has been an ordeal for them? My guess is that, other than occasional meetings with their solicitors, they have simply been passengers - getting on with their lives while the legal process reached its conclusion at its customary glacial pace.

And in the meanwhile, Spurs have done the right thing by the family and supported them in whatever way necessary. If they hadn't......if they had been brazenly lying about the support that they have given.....do you think that there is any chance that a family member or friend wouldn't have gone to the press and caused a media shit storm for the club?

 

[jambreck]

Would we be saying it isn't really the clubs fault if it was West Ham or Arsenal?

Who is saying that it isn't the club's fault?

They are, of course, ultimately responsible as a consequence of employing experts who failed to do their job properly.

 

[JerryGarcia]

A lot of people are catching the tail end of this and falling for the sensational headlines, in reality Spurs have been updating us on Radwan's case periodically over the years and claim to have supported him. It's being presented as if Levy himself demanded that he played despite the ECG but when you hire an expert and they give you "expert advice" you listen to them because that's what you're paying them for.

It's a tragedy that this happened but it can happen at any club. The main thing for me is that the club hasn't tried to get away with anything, they've conducted themselves properly and helped his family.

 

[striebs]

I have a history of heart problems and had an arrhythmia last year .

Fortunately I have an implanted cardioverter defibrilator (ICD) which detected it and discharged shocking my heart back into a rhythm that actually pumps blood .

Poor Radwan has been less fortunate . Same thing could have happened to him if he had given up sport but now that it has happened the main thing is that there will be funding to make his life and that of his family more comfortable .

If you have kids phone up the doctor and get them tested whether they do sport or not . Whilst an ECG will not always spot problems it's worth having done .

 

[thekneaf]

A lot of people are catching the tail end of this and falling for the sensational headlines, in reality Spurs have been updating us on Radwan's case periodically over the years and claim to have supported him. It's being presented as if Levy himself demanded that he played despite the ECG but when you hire an expert and they give you "expert advice" you listen to them because that's what you're paying them for.

It's a tragedy that this happened but it can happen at any club. The main thing for me is that the club hasn't tried to get away with anything, they've conducted themselves properly and helped his family.

I think I probably did jump the gun, mainly just because it's very sad that this happened at all. Sometimes where Spurs are concerned I lose sight of the fact they are a massive company with insurers and lawyers and the rest, and that this impacts on what you can say, when you can say it. Also that media noise now does not necessarily mean radio silence from the club over the last 7 years.

I hope he gets everything he needs, and that football as a whole learns from this to prevent a repeat.

 

[fortworthspur]

It wont be the club but their insurers that are in court and they will be the ones settling the claim.

unfortunately true, at least in the States. The club could settle out of its own pocket I suppose, but what is the point of insurance if you do this? The insurance company is going to want the issue decided in court.

 

[NEVILLEB]

Nope. Hence why I wrote, "As employers, Spurs were ultimately responsible, of course". But they were only vicariously so.



Absolute nonsense.

What would be the point in a company taking out employer's liability insurance if, as soon as a case arose for which the insurance was directly applicable, the company said, "no, no.....you keep your money in your pocket, nice insurance man, we'll pay"? You do understand the whole idea of insurance, right?

As to there having been a lengthy legal process, that is doubtless true. But do you know when the claim was first filed? Do you know how intimately involved in the actual nuts and bolts of the case the family have been? Do you know that it has been an ordeal for them? My guess is that, other than occasional meetings with their solicitors, they have simply been passengers - getting on with their lives while the legal process reached its conclusion at its customary glacial pace.

And in the meanwhile, Spurs have done the right thing by the family and supported them in whatever way necessary. If they hadn't......if they had been brazenly lying about the support that they have given.....do you think that there is any chance that a family member or friend wouldn't have gone to the press and caused a media shit storm for the club?

You've asked me 'Do you know' over and over and then followed with 'My guess is that'. Hypocritical.

The judge has found the club 70% liable.

The specialist we employed made an error of judgement but did ask the club to make regular checks on his heart which they failed to do. There were faults at both ends. The specialist admitted his error during the trial but the club maintained they did nothing wrong even in the face of evidence they did. Clearly the judge thought they were lying.

We didn't follow up the Specialists recommendations and for that we are guilty. Obviously we also hired the wrong Specialist but I guess that can happen to any company.

 

[NEVILLEB]

A lot of people are catching the tail end of this and falling for the sensational headlines, in reality Spurs have been updating us on Radwan's case periodically over the years and claim to have supported him. It's being presented as if Levy himself demanded that he played despite the ECG but when you hire an expert and they give you "expert advice" you listen to them because that's what you're paying them for.

It's a tragedy that this happened but it can happen at any club. The main thing for me is that the club hasn't tried to get away with anything, they've conducted themselves properly and helped his family.

The 'Expert' recommended regular checks on his heart. Something the club forgot to do. That's why the judge has found them 70% accountable.

They denied any fault so how can you say they conducted themselves properly?

 

[yankspurs]

Who cares who's liable or negligible? It is bitterly dissappointing the club has seemingly failed to do anything for Hamed and his family here. What's even more dissappointing is that we didnt have regular checkups on the kid. The fact this has gotten to this point is disheartening, IMO. Shameful on the club.

 

[JerryGarcia]

The 'Expert' recommended regular checks on his heart. Something the club forgot to do. That's why the judge has found them 70% accountable.

They denied any fault so how can you say they conducted themselves properly?

I was talking about their support for him and his family. Who at the club was responsible for carrying out these regular checks though? It sure wasn't Levy or anyone on the business side of things so I'm not sure what the club could do apart from let the lawyers play it out?

 

[DaSpurs]

You've asked me 'Do you know' over and over and then followed with 'My guess is that'. Hypocritical.

The judge has found the club 70% liable.

The specialist we employed made an error of judgement but did ask the club to make regular checks on his heart which they failed to do. There were faults at both ends. The specialist admitted his error during the trial but the club maintained they did nothing wrong even in the face of evidence they did. Clearly the judge thought they were lying.

We didn't follow up the Specialists recommendations and for that we are guilty. Obviously we also hired the wrong Specialist but I guess that can happen to any company.

No one here is denying that the club screwed up at the time. They screwed up the second they were handed an abnormal ECG and didn't look into it further.

But since that moment, according to all accounts, it seems as if the club has handled it accordingly. An employee of theirs screwed up massively, and they've taken responsibility for it and helped out the family. So again, the club does not deserve the criticism you originally levied at them here.

 

[NEVILLEB]

I was talking about their support for him and his family. Who at the club was responsible for carrying out these regular checks though? It sure wasn't Levy or anyone on the business side of things so I'm not sure what the club could do apart from let the lawyers play it out?

The club is as responsible for the actions of its medical employees as it's business ones.

Why would you think otherwise?

 

[NEVILLEB]

No one here is denying that the club screwed up at the time. They screwed up the second they were handed an abnormal ECG and didn't look into it further.

But since that moment, according to all accounts, it seems as if the club has handled it accordingly. An employee of theirs screwed up massively, and they've taken responsibility for it and helped out the family. So again, the club does not deserve the criticism you originally levied at them here.

They haven't taken responsibility. They denied it and the judge has found them at fault.

That's the point.

 

[DaSpurs]

They haven't taken responsibility. They denied it and the judge has found them at fault.

That's the point.

They didn't deny it, they helped with Hamed's family and undertook due course of action as mandated by any insurance company and initially tried to push the majority of blame in the eye of the law onto the consultant physician. Both insurance companies, for both the physicians and the club, undoubtedly took this angle as that is simple insurance company policy. Otherwise, each respective company would have the right to not deliver coverage, which neither side wanted as it was pretty clear given the facts that each side shared a degree of guilt and clearly the judge agreed. So no, the club did not shirk responsibility at any point, they just took due course of action per mandate and seem to have done what they could to have taken care of Hamed and his family in the time being.

 

[JerryGarcia]

The club is as responsible for the actions of its medical employees as it's business ones.

Why would you think otherwise?

I don't think otherwise, obviously it should go without saying that the club's board is ultimately responsible for everything that happens there but there's nothing they could have done in this case. Stop trying to make something out of my comment that isn't there, if Radwan hadn't been a footballer he could have still had the same thing happen to him on the street, our medical staff were in the wrong though and we all know that. What I didn't like was the media making it out that the entire club was rotten and deceitful.

 

[NEVILLEB]

They didn't deny it, they helped with Hamed's family and undertook due course of action as mandated by any insurance company and initially tried to push the majority of blame in the eye of the law onto the consultant physician. Both insurance companies, for both the physicians and the club, undoubtedly took this angle as that is simple insurance company policy. Otherwise, each respective company would have the right to not deliver coverage, which neither side wanted as it was pretty clear given the facts that each side shared a degree of guilt and clearly the judge agreed. So no, the club did not shirk responsibility at any point, they just took due course of action per mandate and seem to have done what they could to have taken care of Hamed and his family in the time being.

Ofcourse they denied it. That's why there was a court case. They didn't try to shift some of the blame. They put it all on the Consultant.

Go and read a bit more.

 

[DaSpurs]

Ofcourse they denied it. That's why there was a court case. They didn't try to shift some of the blame. They put it all on the Consultant.

Go and read a bit more.

You have quite literally no concept of legal process or insurance policy do you?

They had to "deny" the blame in the eyes of the court or else their liability insurer would have legitimate cause to deny a claim. It is nothing more than due process, not full blown "denying responsibility." If they were truly doing so, they would have never done anything to help Hamed's family and they would likely have already appealed this judge's decision. But of course, trials get reported, and the media get to butter it up and paint a portrait for the ignorant to succumb to.

 

[JerryGarcia]

You have quite literally no concept of legal process or insurance policy do you?

They had to "deny" the blame in the eyes of the court or else their liability insurer would have legitimate cause to deny a claim. It is nothing more than due process, not full blown "denying responsibility." If they were truly doing so, they would have never done anything to help Hamed's family and they would likely have already appealed this judge's decision. But of course, trials get reported, and the media get to butter it up and paint a portrait for the ignorant to succumb to.

I'm no expert but that was very much what I got from the whole thing.


Does anyone know if the £7m damages being quoted is purely based on his required level of care or potential loss of earnings as a football player? I'm guessing the former as these things add up and I hope he gets all that he needs, I imagine it will be a massive weight off the families shoulders when this is finally settled.