Vikings Were One Of The Teams Supposed To Attend Kaepernick's Workout But

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout.  It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.

FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout.  It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.

Standard tryout waiver is much more narrow than the waiver the NFL sent to Colin Kaepernick

Posted by Mike Florio on November 18, 2019, 5:00 PM EST

Getty Images

The 32-month Colin Kaepernick unemployment has resulted in plenty of false narratives. And there’s a new one that has emerged in the aftermath of Saturday’s aborted workout at the Falcons’ facility.
It goes like this: “The waiver that Kaepernick was asked to sign on Saturday is essentially the same one he’d have to sign to work out for a team during the season.”
On Sunday, PFT obtained the waiver that the league wanted Kaepernick to sign. On Monday, PFT obtained one of the same ones he’d have to sign to work out for a team during the season.
They are very different.
The Kaepernick waiver can be seen here. On Sunday, it was analyzed here. The waiver he’d have to sign to work out for a team during the season contains language much more narrow and much more focused on injuries that could be sustained during the workout, with no acknowledgement that “Player acknowledges that he has been made no promise of employment, and understands that his participation in the Workout does not constitute employment” and no general waiver of “any and all claims . . . caused by, arising out of, occurring during, or related directly or indirectly to the Workout, Player’s presence at the Facility, and any medical treatment or services rendered in connection with or necessitated by Player’s participation in the Workout.”
The waiver obtained by PFT from an NFL team fits on only one page, and it focuses only on liability arising from injuries occuring while on the team’s premises and/or during the workout. The document also contains an acknowledgement of the risks and hazards of trying out for a professional football team, and an express assumption of the risk of engaging in the tryout on the team’s premises.
There’s nothing about the workout not constituting employment, and there’s no broad waiver of claims “related directly or indirectly” to the workout.
It’s possible that other teams use waivers with broader language. But to the extent that anyone is pushing to members of the media the idea that the waiver Kaepernick was asked to sign is essentially the same as the waiver he’d have to sign if/when a team actually gives him a workout at the team’s facility, that’s simply not the case.
It’s important here because of the history of litigation between the two sides, and regarding the possibility for more litigation, if Kaepernick continues to be shunned and if he believes that a formal grievance would yield sufficient evidence that collusion continues after the settlement of his first collusion claim in February 2019. As mentioned yesterday, it would arguably constitute malpractice for a lawyer to allow the client to sign the release that was presented to Kaepernick, given the past legal battle between Kaepernick and the league.

[Guest]

I find it absurd that a contract could have language for a tryout that eliminates causes of action before the tryout or unrelated causes of action after it. 

I also find it absurd that any multimillionaire player with an agent and attorney would sign anything without running it by the lawyers and agent. 

We should get a copy of the typicalNFL waiver, the one the NFL presented, and the one his lawyers drafted. 

[Guest]

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout.  It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.

FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.

so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive?  I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine,  so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver. 

either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.

[Guest]

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

This. 

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout.  It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.

FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.

so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive?  I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine,  so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver. 

either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.

"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."

That is incorrect.  

Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:

"In consideration for the opportunity to participate in the Workout, Player, for himself, his
personal representatives, executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby
releases, discharges, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless National Invitational
Camp, Inc., National Football Scouting, Inc., the owner(s), operator(s) and manager(s) of
the Facility, any and all individuals participating in or present at the Workout, including,
without limitation, Joe Philbin, the National Football League (“NFL”) and each of its 32
NFL Member Clubs, and each of the foregoing parties’ respective direct and indirect
affiliates, partners, subsidiaries, agents, representatives, employees, shareholders, officers,
directors, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (collectively, the “Released Parties”),
from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, grievances,
costs, losses, expenses, damages, injuries, illnesses, and losses (including death) caused by,
arising out of, occurring during, or related directly or indirectly to the Workout, Player’s
presence at the Facility, and any medical treatment or services rendered in connection with
or necessitated by Player’s participation in the Workout." (Emphasis added.)

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

This. 

Heres one.

While I will never condone racism or any kind of negative acts based on race... Ck poured gasoline on an already burning fire.  Police brutality was already front and center when his antics started.   his socks and social stance against all police couldnt have came at a worse time.   He could have made his stance to target the problem, but he instead painted with the wide brush and those that were listening didnt bother to look at the actual facts,  they ran with the "Cops are Bad" narrative.

we had cops being targeted all over the country,  organized violence against our nations police officers because of the actions of a small minority of their fellow boys in blue.   I dont doubt that there are bad cops that target blacks out of racism,  but the narrative wasnt about bad cops,  it was about all cops.  and we have innocent police officers losing their lives for no other reason than they were targeted for the uniform they wore and the badge they put on.  the fact that he used his platform and fame so recklessly,  that IMO is enough to despise his actions and by default him as they were a conscious decision on his part and he has cashed in as a result.    Lets put this shoe on the other foot and its lawsuits,  imagine if a famous supporter of our nations police started to hold all black youths up as criminals and such because of the actions of very small % of black youths that are involved in criminal activities?  

the nation is supposed to support kapernick (and others)  when they profile an entire nation of police,  but yet those same police are physically and socially brutalized for using the same tactics when trying to keep our streets safe?   I dont support police tactics that would stop a person because of the color of their skin,  I am not going to support a person that uses a persons occupation in the same manner.

[Guest]

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout.  It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.

FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.

so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive?  I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine,  so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver. 

either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.

"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."

That is incorrect.  

Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:

"In consideration for the opportunity to participate in the Workout, Player, for himself, his
personal representatives, executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby
releases, discharges, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless National Invitational
Camp, Inc., National Football Scouting, Inc., the owner(s), operator(s) and manager(s) of
the Facility, any and all individuals participating in or present at the Workout, including,
without limitation, Joe Philbin, the National Football League (“NFL”) and each of its 32
NFL Member Clubs, and each of the foregoing parties’ respective direct and indirect
affiliates, partners, subsidiaries, agents, representatives, employees, shareholders, officers,
directors, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (collectively, the “Released Parties”),
from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, grievances,
costs, losses, expenses, damages, injuries, illnesses, and losses (including death) caused by,
arising out of, occurring during, or related directly or indirectly to the Workout, Player’s
presence at the Facility, and any medical treatment or services rendered in connection with
or necessitated by Player’s participation in the Workout." (Emphasis added.)

you might want to try reading that again... how could that release the NFL from anything preceding the workout as you previously suggested?  its a pretty standard waiver of liability,  you likely sign something like that if you were to go to certain higher risk activities and dont even read them.

anything that happened prior to the workout couldnt be related, even indirectly,  to the workout.

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout.  It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.

FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.

so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive?  I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine,  so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver. 

either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.

"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."

That is incorrect.  

Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:

"In consideration for the opportunity to participate in the Workout, Player, for himself, his
personal representatives, executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby
releases, discharges, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless National Invitational
Camp, Inc., National Football Scouting, Inc., the owner(s), operator(s) and manager(s) of
the Facility, any and all individuals participating in or present at the Workout, including,
without limitation, Joe Philbin, the National Football League (“NFL”) and each of its 32
NFL Member Clubs, and each of the foregoing parties’ respective direct and indirect
affiliates, partners, subsidiaries, agents, representatives, employees, shareholders, officers,
directors, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (collectively, the “Released Parties”),
from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, grievances,
costs, losses, expenses, damages, injuries, illnesses, and losses (including death) caused by,
arising out of, occurring during, or related directly or indirectly to the Workout, Player’s
presence at the Facility, and any medical treatment or services rendered in connection with
or necessitated by Player’s participation in the Workout." (Emphasis added.)

you might want to try reading that again... how could that release the NFL from anything preceding the workout as you previously suggested?  its a pretty standard waiver of liability,  you likely sign something like that if you were to go to certain higher risk activities and dont even read them.

anything that happened prior to the workout couldnt be related, even indirectly,  to the workout.

The words are clear.  

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy.  I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK.  This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were.  Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble.  Shows character.  (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)

Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests.  CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution.  The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.  

The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business.  But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league.  He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league.  He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too.  Now for that he gets more criticism?  Whatever.   

The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout.  It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.

FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.

so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive?  I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine,  so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver. 

either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.

"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."

That is incorrect.  

Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:

"In consideration for the opportunity to participate in the Workout, Player, for himself, his
personal representatives, executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby
releases, discharges, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless National Invitational
Camp, Inc., National Football Scouting, Inc., the owner(s), operator(s) and manager(s) of
the Facility, any and all individuals participating in or present at the Workout, including,
without limitation, Joe Philbin, the National Football League (“NFL”) and each of its 32
NFL Member Clubs, and each of the foregoing parties’ respective direct and indirect
affiliates, partners, subsidiaries, agents, representatives, employees, shareholders, officers,
directors, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns (collectively, the “Released Parties”),
from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, grievances,
costs, losses, expenses, damages, injuries, illnesses, and losses (including death) caused by,
arising out of, occurring during, or related directly or indirectly to the Workout, Player’s
presence at the Facility, and any medical treatment or services rendered in connection with
or necessitated by Player’s participation in the Workout." (Emphasis added.)

you might want to try reading that again... how could that release the NFL from anything preceding the workout as you previously suggested?  its a pretty standard waiver of liability,  you likely sign something like that if you were to go to certain higher risk activities and dont even read them.

anything that happened prior to the workout couldnt be related, even indirectly,  to the workout.

The words are clear.  

yeah, clearly not saying what he was inferring that they were saying.