Unhappy Cheerleaders Make Me Sad

peruna81 · Post by **peruna81** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:21 pm

So SMU's insurance will not cover the liability of her pacemaker crapping out mid-vault...got it. I am curious when our school got in the business of regulating participation of auxiliaries...

somewhere Stallion is smiling in his law office at the furor this has created.
A pox on you, Counselor.

couch 'em · Post by **couch 'em** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:30 pm

I don't blame them. Anyone can sue for anything these days. It's sad that it has to be this way.

SmooBoy · Post by **SmooBoy** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:32 pm

peruna81 wrote:So SMU's insurance will not cover the liability of her pacemaker crapping out mid-vault...got it. I am curious when our school got in the business of regulating participation of auxiliaries...

somewhere Stallion is smiling in his law office at the furor this has created.
A pox on you, Counselor.

I don't believe Stal-O has the ability to smile, but it's just wrong to wish pox on anyone.

abezontar · Post by **abezontar** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:40 pm

SmooBoy wrote:
peruna81 wrote:So SMU's insurance will not cover the liability of her pacemaker crapping out mid-vault...got it. I am curious when our school got in the business of regulating participation of auxiliaries...

somewhere Stallion is smiling in his law office at the furor this has created.
A pox on you, Counselor.
I don't believe Stal-O has the ability to smile, but it's just wrong to wish pox on anyone.

As an undergrad, wishing a pox upon someone was the basis of most of the insults I directed at the other team ...guess I needed better material.

peruna81 · Post by **peruna81** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:42 pm

Then I am rightfully and thoroughly contrite, Smooboy...a pox might just limit the power of Stallion in the coutroom of life.

(tongue was firmly planted in cheek during earlier post about the pox-stuff

)

SmooBoy · Post by **SmooBoy** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:48 pm

peruna81 · Post by **peruna81** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:50 pm

abezontar wrote:
SmooBoy wrote:
peruna81 wrote:So SMU's insurance will not cover the liability of her pacemaker crapping out mid-vault...got it. I am curious when our school got in the business of regulating participation of auxiliaries...

somewhere Stallion is smiling in his law office at the furor this has created.
A pox on you, Counselor.
I don't believe Stal-O has the ability to smile, but it's just wrong to wish pox on anyone.
As an undergrad, wishing a pox upon someone was the basis of most of the insults I directed at the other team ...guess I needed better material.

I don't get out much...

PonySnob · Post by **PonySnob** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:39 pm

couch 'em wrote:Anyone can sue for anything these days.

The athletic department should be lucky that they haven't been sued for putting such a crappy product on the field/court for football and basketball for the better part of 20 years.

SmooBoy · Post by **SmooBoy** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:46 pm

PonySnob wrote:
couch 'em wrote:Anyone can sue for anything these days.
The athletic department should be lucky that they haven't been sued for putting such a crappy product on the field/court for football and basketball for the better part of 20 years.

Shhhhhhhh...don't tell our star poster.

FWMustangGirl · Post by **FWMustangGirl** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:47 pm

It is our insurance, not SMU policy, that is keeping her from doing Herkies and whatnot. Stupid insurance companies are to blame.

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:28 am

How many college age people have pacemakers? It seems to me that it is a very, very rare occurrence. A pacemaker in a young person definitely signifies significant and life threatening cardiac arrhythmias have been present and have to potential to occur again (or one would not leave a pacemaker in the person). The article presents one side of the story and certainly not the whole story.

As for the scholarship, was SMU aware of the significance of her cardiac status before offering the scholarship? Asking about one├â┬ó├óΓÇÜ┬¼├óΓÇ₧┬ós health status before giving a scholarship may have run into trouble with legal consequences. And it would not be the first time a person was offered a scholarship and then wasn't able to perform the specified activity (happens in football all the time).

Bergermeister · Post by **Bergermeister** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:39 am

SMUMan02 wrote: The ACLU could care less about an issue like this.

could or couldn't?

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:06 am

The question is whether she is still allowed to participate as a cheerleader. The answer is "yes". They've made a reasonable accommodation to her condition by permitting her to act as a cheerleader but limiting her activities from those which could be life threatening to her. There are probably insurance issues, but also, PR issues, as well. To put it bluntly you don't want to have a cheerleader drop dead on the sidelines. And when a heart goes into fibrillation, its not altogether certain whether paddles will do the trick and the person might not make it to the hospital. This is a safe middle ground which allows her to participate, but reduces the risk that something could happen. Jumping, cartwheeling, handspringing, could dislodge the pacemaker. That just a fact.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:16 am

EastStang wrote:And when a heart goes into fibrillation, its not altogether certain whether paddles will do the trick and the person might not make it to the hospital. This is a safe middle ground which allows her to participate, but reduces the risk that something could happen. Jumping, cartwheeling, handspringing, could dislodge the pacemaker. That just a fact.

This sounds like a case of a lawyer who knows just enough about medicine to be dangerous. No offense, I am one too.

However, I'll defer to her doctor, who has apparently released her to do the forementioned jumping, cartwheeling and handspringing. It's his @ss too if something bad happens to her, so I'm assuming some thought went into providing that release.

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:24 am

We make the assumption that the doctor released her to full activities based on the words of the cheerleader├â┬ó├óΓÇÜ┬¼├óΓÇ₧┬ós family. A family with a slight but noticeable bias. One doesn't know for sure exactly what the doctor said or exactly the activities he released her to perform. One gets the impression that a bias was introduced to the media and complete information wasn├â┬ó├óΓÇÜ┬¼├óΓÇ₧┬ót available to the media.