Radwan Hamed

[NEVILLEB]

You're trying to reason with the sort of person who is glad that a young man has had a terrible thing happen to him because it gives him a stick with which to beat Levy and our board.

You are disgusting.

 

[NEVILLEB]

I would have saved Rahmad's parents the stress of a legal battle on top of dealing with their brain damaged son.

We clearly (as a club) let them down and the judge agrees.

Apart from that one comment (awful but I don't hold grudges), I think I'll agree to disagree that we acted in a manner befitting our club.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

You are disgusting.

Funny, that's exactly how I feel about you. Perhaps saying you're glad is OTT but you certainly seem far more concerned about trying to use the situation in a way that suits your anti levy agenda than you do about the young man's wellbeing.

 

[NEVILLEB]

Funny, that's exactly how I feel about you. Perhaps saying you're glad is OTT but you certainly seem far more concerned about trying to use the situation in a way that suits your anti levy agenda than you do about the young man's wellbeing.

It's not OTT it's just disgusting and shows what type of pathetic person you are.

 

[jambreck]

I would have saved Rahmad's parents the stress of a legal battle on top of dealing with their brain damaged son.

For the umpteenth time, you wouldn't have had a choice in the matter. Your insurers would have insisted that the case was contested. And, as it turned out in this instance, Spurs' insurers were right to do so because it was agreed that Dr Charlotte Cowie's and Dr Mark Curtin's public liability insurers would pay damages. Not Spurs'. That couldn't be more telling.

Besides which, why do you imagine that the case was so stressful for the Hamed family? There was never any suggestion that they wouldn't win compensation. It was only ever a matter of who would be paying that compensation.

We clearly (as a club) let them down and the judge agrees.

Yes, as employers of two of the three doctors who failed in their duty of care to Hamed, Spurs were found to be "vicariously responsible" (look it up). That is the strict judgement whenever an employee acts negligently within the scope of their employment and causes harm to others. It doesn't mean that the club as a whole has acted badly.

 

[NEVILLEB]

For the umpteenth time, you wouldn't have had a choice in the matter. Your insurers would have insisted that the case was contested. And, as it turned out in this instance, Spurs' insurers were right to do so because it was agreed that Dr Charlotte Cowie's and Dr Mark Curtin's public liability insurers would pay damages. Not Spurs'. That couldn't be more telling.

Besides which, why do you imagine that the case was so stressful for the Hamed family? There was never any suggestion that they wouldn't win compensation. It was only ever a matter of who would be paying that compensation.

Speaking outside court, Hamed’s father, Raymon, said: “We are relieved more than happy that it is over. If you can imagine, a young man having everything taken away overnight and you didn’t know about it [the cause]. We had to pick up all the pieces. It is the hardest bit. We couldn’t help him because we didn’t know.

“Emotionally it has been draining. It has been draining for a long time but the last two weeks have been difficult. We were never given the chance to protect Rad.” Radwan’s mother, Christabel, said: “We’re happy, we thank God that we are able to secure something for his future. We’re very happy with the outcome. Financially if we had lost the case we would have been homeless, because we didn’t have any financial backing.”

Yes, as employers of two of the three doctors who failed in their duty of care to Hamed, Spurs were found to be "vicariously responsible" (look it up). That is the strict judgement whenever an employee acts negligently within the scope of their employment and causes harm to others. It doesn't mean that the club as a whole has acted badly.

Mills recommended a clinical review be undertaken after abnormalities were spotted in Hamed’s scans. Although he undertook an MRI scan – where no indications of HCM were apparent – a clinical review never took place.

Hickinbottom stated that one of the club’s sports physicians made a “serious error of judgment”. He said: “The club owed a duty of care to the claimant as a result of both the doctor-patient and employer-employee relationship … it was their responsibility, as specialist physicians and employers, to ensure that relevant risks were identified and communicated to the claimant and his parents to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether to bear them. In this they singularly failed.”

Commenting on behalf of Radwan’s family, Diane Rostron, medical negligence expert at Linder Myers Solicitors, said: “On the third day of the trial Dr Mills finally conceded that he owed Rad a duty of care and that he failed in that duty. The club maintained their denials. The judge has now decided that the club failed in their duties to Rad, both as an employer and with the doctor-patient relationship that he had with their doctors. The club failed Rad.”

See above in bold

 

[DaSpurs]

See above in bold

No one is denying that the club, and its employees and consultants, screwed up. But what you are continuing to fail to comprehend, and consequently use to accuse the club of very extreme malevolence, is the extremely important distinction between actively denying responsibility and being forced to follow the insurance claims process. The club quite literally had no choice whatsoever but to take on the legal proceedings, because they knew they had a losing case, and judging from the club spokesman's statement it was quite clear that the club knew they were going to lose and were hardly the comments of a defendant trying to duck responsibility/keep fighting.

I just don't understand why you're still not grasping this crucial detail. I think it would bring you some peace of mind towards the club more than anything else.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

It's not OTT it's just disgusting and shows what type of pathetic person you are.

I merely made an assertion about your actions in this thread, which you may feel insulted by but the fact remained I never attributed a direct insult at you. You have twice attributed a directly insulting adjective to my person, first calling me disgusting and then calling me pathetic. Says more about you than me mate

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

There's all sorts of bollocks being spouted in this thread and right now i'm busy so i'm not even going to begin trying to see who's done what, who's said this and who's upset by that.

As I see it we have two choices.

1: We confine this to discussing the matter at hand and drop the cockwaving insults and childishness with immediate effect

2: I ban you

It's your choice. Fair warning.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

There's all sorts of bollocks being spouted in this thread and right now i'm busy so i'm not even going to begin trying to see who's done what, who's said this and who's upset by that.

As I see it we have two choices.

1: We confine this to discussing the matter at hand and drop the cockwaving insults and childishness with immediate effect

2: I ban you

It's your choice. Fair warning.

Happy to go along but will point out that all I've done is make an inference based on someone's behaviour and have at no point used insulting language.

 

[NEVILLEB]

Happy to go along but will point out that all I've done is make an inference based on someone's behaviour and have at no point used insulting language.

I merely made an assertion about your actions in this thread, which you may feel insulted by but the fact remained I never attributed a direct insult at you. You have twice attributed a directly insulting adjective to my person, first calling me disgusting and then calling me pathetic. Says more about you than me mate

It's fine to have an opposing opinion but usually, in a democracy, this is worked out by debating the subject at hand. When a personal insult is thrown in it's usually a sign that someone is unable to defend their point of view. In my opinion you've lost as soon as that happens.

Your main accusation which you opened with is that I had attacked Daniel Levy. But if you had actually read the thread you would have seen that I never once mentioned his name. It's important to have some facts when making statements. This is why I directly quoted from the individuals 'involved' in the case.

A normally functioning person would not feel it acceptable to accuse another person of wanting a teenage boy, particularly one who played for their club, to be happy that they have received brain damage. How you have got to that conclusion based on this thread is baffling.

Perhaps what you have done is take my opinion on Daniel Levy's 'hiring & firing' managers/directors of football and bring it into this thread. But it's a different argument and as I said before, I didn't use his name once.

Or perhaps you are having a bad day and come here to vent your anger. It doesn't really matter because the comment you made is unacceptable whatever the cause.

If you had taken a moment to look at the case from the Hamed family's point of view then I think you might have a more balanced opinion. Having signed up their teenage son to our club he went through a series of medical tests to determine any risks posed. Even though warning signs were noticed by the external Dr and known by our own internal medical team, the parents or Radwan weren't told about it. Then he had his heart attack and became brain damaged. This was in 2006.

Facing losing their house and with no financial backing (their words!) they took Dr Mills and the club to trial. Dr Mills eventually admitted fault but the club never did. The judge found the club was 70% responsible despite their denials.

Now if you are Radwan's parents you have been looking after your brain damaged son for nearly 10 years. I'm sure you can imagine how they feel. Then they face a court case to get the care they need but they don't have any financial backing (their words). We know that we are partly responsible but we deny it until the judge finds us guiltly. Dr Mills did admit his fault during the case.

I've heard that we couldn't admit liability from other member but they've also told me that the family were sure they'd be winning the case and were financially being supported by the club. Both of those statements is not backed up by the interview they gave after the trial.

We may still disagree but I'm sure you understand that in a democracy, that's how things are.

 

[Jamturk]

Just seen we have been ordered to pay £7m damages to Radwan Hamed, a sad and sorry episode for our club. I'm sure we have learned lessons and hope and wish Radwan Hamed and his family the best for the future.

 

[Adam456]

Our 70% is being covered by the doctors we employed apparently. I am just pointing that out. Glad he and family are being compensated in the end

 

[beats1]

Just seen we have been ordered to pay £7m damages to Radwan Hamed, a sad and sorry episode for our club. I'm sure we have learned lessons and hope and wish Radwan Hamed and his family the best for the future.

I think the Muamba saga made big changes in football as a whole to stop this type of stuff happening

 

[thinktank]

Glad this has been resolved and his family can now comfortably support him for the rest of his life.

 

[JerryGarcia]

Glad this has been resolved and his family can now comfortably support him for the rest of his life.

This is the most important thing and you can only hope that other clubs take note as well and this is never allowed to happen again.

 

[Tucker]

Hope him and his family get the proper support they need now.

 

[danielneeds]

Mistakes happen in medicine more than we like to think. I'm sure the club will have put much more thorough guidelines into place to ensure this never happens again. Most important thing is his family got the money they need to care for him properly.