Club questions Keith Pontin's inquest verdict.

Keith Pontin: Cardiff City comments after death "insulting".

The family of a former Wales footballer say suggestions his death was not due to dementia caused by playing football were an "insult to his memory".

Keith Pontin died of dementia caused by repeated head trauma during his career, an inquest found.

His widow said it was "distressing and insulting" to hear his former club, Cardiff City, question the evidence of a diagnostic neuropathologist.

Cardiff City said the questions raised at the inquest were "legitimate".

Pontin played for Cardiff from 1976-1983, and died in August 2020, at the age of 64.

Ex-footballer's dementia caused by head trauma
Diagnostic neuropathologist Dr William Stewart had examined Mr Pontin's brain and tissues following the post-mortem examination.

He told the inquest he had found extensive evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive brain condition believed to be caused by repeated blows to the head and episodes of concussion, which eventually leads to dementia.

A legal representative for Cardiff City attended the inquest and questioned Dr Stewart over his findings, claiming there was not enough evidence to prove Mr Pontin's career in football had caused CTE.

However, coroner Mr Regan said he found Mr Stewart "extremely persuasive" and concluded: "Keith Pontin died from chronic traumatic encephalopathy caused by repetitive head injury suffered as a professional footballer."

Janet Pontin said: "The suggestion that Keith died of natural causes was distressing for us as a family, but it was insulting to his memory.

"That was the most difficult part of the inquest. I was angry about it, how dare they make that suggestion."


Cardiff City said in a statement: "The questions raised by the club's representative at the inquest were legitimate and intended only to assist the coroner to evaluate the medical evidence in this developing area of science.

"The club did not intend to dishonour Mr Pontin's memory in any way and regrets that Keith's wife and family are upset about this. Keith is remembered fondly by the club and its supporters and he is very much part of its history."

Keith Pontin played for Cardiff City and Wales

Mrs Pontin said her husband was kind, loving and caring. He died just before their 35th wedding anniversary.

"He was an unassuming, modest family man, he liked socialising, but his main joy was his family," added Mrs Pontin.

She described how the family watched him struggle through the last few years of his life as he battled dementia and CTE.


"We made the decision to donate for further research so Keith didn't die in vain.

"His death will help further the research being done, and hopefully the research that will be made in future."

Mrs Pontin hopes by speaking out it will contribute to the wider conversations around head injury in football.

She also said an initiative launched by the Professional Footballers' Association on Monday asking former footballers concerned about neurodegenerative diseases to come forward as "long overdue".

"Football authorities have tried to sweep this under the carpet," she said.

"We need a central record so they know the extent of the problem, of how many players it's affected in the past, current players and players who have had to retire, who are suffering as a result of it."


Just how low can this club stoop?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61396531

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

He was also involved with Barry... but original point is the club had right to question the expert.. same as you or I would expect our lawyer to question the findings if it was us in firing line... it's a tragedy for the family but we cannot expect the club to say nothing just like sala case it doesn't matter if its insurers or not it will still fall on club in some way.... but now the family are joining the organisation that is looking into such incidents regarding head injuries hope they get what they deserve in way of answers

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

He was also involved with Barry... but original point is the club had right to question the expert.. same as you or I would expect our lawyer to question the findings if it was us in firing line... it's a tragedy for the family but we cannot expect the club to say nothing just like sala case it doesn't matter if its insurers or not it will still fall on club in some way.... but now the family are joining the organisation that is looking into such incidents regarding head injuries hope they get what they deserve in way of answers

what planet are you on, that is disgraceful from ccfc, the man alongside phil dwyer was a legend and you want these foreigners and non football idiots to disgrace the name of heroes - shocking from any city fan

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

He was also involved with Barry... but original point is the club had right to question the expert.. same as you or I would expect our lawyer to question the findings if it was us in firing line... it's a tragedy for the family but we cannot expect the club to say nothing just like sala case it doesn't matter if its insurers or not it will still fall on club in some way.... but now the family are joining the organisation that is looking into such incidents regarding head injuries hope they get what they deserve in way of answers

what planet are you on, that is disgraceful from ccfc, the man alongside phil dwyer was a legend and you want these foreigners and non football idiots to disgrace the name of heroes - shocking from any city fan

What's disgraceful? That they questioned an expert ... you do know that inquests are there to establish cause of death and experts are frequently challenged on their opinions.... so why is ccfc any different? If you disagreed with someone you would say so or would you just say ok your right even if think their wrong ? I'm not saying club are right but they do have the right to challenge what was said like anyone else ?
Or you saying that club should be quiet and accept specialist opinion regardless of what was said ...
And what's shocking about what I said? it's what happens at inquests
It's that simple

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

He was also involved with Barry... but original point is the club had right to question the expert.. same as you or I would expect our lawyer to question the findings if it was us in firing line... it's a tragedy for the family but we cannot expect the club to say nothing just like sala case it doesn't matter if its insurers or not it will still fall on club in some way.... but now the family are joining the organisation that is looking into such incidents regarding head injuries hope they get what they deserve in way of answers

what planet are you on, that is disgraceful from ccfc, the man alongside phil dwyer was a legend and you want these foreigners and non football idiots to disgrace the name of heroes - shocking from any city fan

What's disgraceful? That they questioned an expert ... you do know that inquests are there to establish cause of death and experts are frequently challenged on their opinions.... so why is ccfc any different? If you disagreed with someone you would say so or would you just say ok your right even if think their wrong ? I'm not saying club are right but they do have the right to challenge what was said like anyone else ?
Or you saying that club should be quiet and accept specialist opinion regardless of what was said ...
And what's shocking about what I said? it's what happens at inquests
It's that simple

Good post.

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

He was also involved with Barry... but original point is the club had right to question the expert.. same as you or I would expect our lawyer to question the findings if it was us in firing line... it's a tragedy for the family but we cannot expect the club to say nothing just like sala case it doesn't matter if its insurers or not it will still fall on club in some way.... but now the family are joining the organisation that is looking into such incidents regarding head injuries hope they get what they deserve in way of answers

what planet are you on, that is disgraceful from ccfc, the man alongside phil dwyer was a legend and you want these foreigners and non football idiots to disgrace the name of heroes - shocking from any city fan

What's disgraceful? That they questioned an expert ... you do know that inquests are there to establish cause of death and experts are frequently challenged on their opinions.... so why is ccfc any different? If you disagreed with someone you would say so or would you just say ok your right even if think their wrong ? I'm not saying club are right but they do have the right to challenge what was said like anyone else ?
Or you saying that club should be quiet and accept specialist opinion regardless of what was said ...
And what's shocking about what I said? it's what happens at inquests
It's that simple

Good post.

You do realise the club had no record that Keith ever existed or played for the club.The only record of Keith's injuries came from his mothers'scrapbook.I suggest you watch the interview with Keith's wife on the link provided at the top of the article.

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

He was also involved with Barry... but original point is the club had right to question the expert.. same as you or I would expect our lawyer to question the findings if it was us in firing line... it's a tragedy for the family but we cannot expect the club to say nothing just like sala case it doesn't matter if its insurers or not it will still fall on club in some way.... but now the family are joining the organisation that is looking into such incidents regarding head injuries hope they get what they deserve in way of answers

what planet are you on, that is disgraceful from ccfc, the man alongside phil dwyer was a legend and you want these foreigners and non football idiots to disgrace the name of heroes - shocking from any city fan

What's disgraceful? That they questioned an expert ... you do know that inquests are there to establish cause of death and experts are frequently challenged on their opinions.... so why is ccfc any different? If you disagreed with someone you would say so or would you just say ok your right even if think their wrong ? I'm not saying club are right but they do have the right to challenge what was said like anyone else ?
Or you saying that club should be quiet and accept specialist opinion regardless of what was said ...
And what's shocking about what I said? it's what happens at inquests
It's that simple

Good post.

Thanks I was simply putting across that club had the right to question the expert because that's what inquests are there for... yes its upsetting for relatives but doesnt mean club cant challenge him..... my post doesn't mean I support club in this but just a balanced view.... arri as a pathological dislike of the regime so not surprised by his post attacking club which I feel is not warranted.

Diagnostic neuropathologist Dr William Stewart had examined Mr Pontin's brain and tissues following the post-mortem examination.

He told the inquest he had found extensive evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive brain condition believed to be caused by repeated blows to the head and episodes of concussion, which eventually leads to dementia

As low as people want it to be! But dont you think the club have the right to question things at an inquest? That is what inquest are for .... or do we expect the club to just agree to everything said accept liability and pay out millions on compensation! Think it's open season on the club at moment.. roll on start next season when can talk football.

They don't keep records,the club stated that at the inquest.The club wouldn't have to pay anything.It would be the clubs insurers at the time.
The story is on BBC WALES news at 6.30.pm tonight.

He was also involved with Barry... but original point is the club had right to question the expert.. same as you or I would expect our lawyer to question the findings if it was us in firing line... it's a tragedy for the family but we cannot expect the club to say nothing just like sala case it doesn't matter if its insurers or not it will still fall on club in some way.... but now the family are joining the organisation that is looking into such incidents regarding head injuries hope they get what they deserve in way of answers

what planet are you on, that is disgraceful from ccfc, the man alongside phil dwyer was a legend and you want these foreigners and non football idiots to disgrace the name of heroes - shocking from any city fan

What's disgraceful? That they questioned an expert ... you do know that inquests are there to establish cause of death and experts are frequently challenged on their opinions.... so why is ccfc any different? If you disagreed with someone you would say so or would you just say ok your right even if think their wrong ? I'm not saying club are right but they do have the right to challenge what was said like anyone else ?
Or you saying that club should be quiet and accept specialist opinion regardless of what was said ...
And what's shocking about what I said? it's what happens at inquests
It's that simple

Good post.

You do realise the club had no record that Keith ever existed or played for the club.The only record of Keith's injuries came from his mothers'scrapbook.I suggest you watch the interview with Keith's wife on the link provided at the top of the article.

This is about club questioning the expert as is their right as my post pointed out.....totally understand
relatives view on this but doesn't alter fact club was entitled to do what they did... as for no record
that was debated previously and possible reasons why there wasnt any...anyway that's enough from me not worth hassle going on

From the media...


What is CTE?

A progressive brain condition that is thought to be caused by repeated blows to the head and repeated episodes of concussion.

It is associated with contact sports, such as boxing and American football.

Research is under way to find a reliable technique to diagnose the condition

Symptoms vary, but tend to be similar to Alzheimer's disease
Gradually develops several years after injury.

The symptoms affect the functioning of the brain and eventually lead to dementia.

I don’t understand why the club had to be there anyway?

Are they anticipating being sued for it?

Surely allowing ex players/families to sue clubs for the effects of heading the ball opens a massive can of worms?

This football club has the morals of the current Tory cabinet.

Thousands of ex NFL players have brought lawsuits against the league for CTE suffered as a result of playing and for the NFL of not advising them of the risks. For those wanting to know more, there is a 2015 film called Concussion, Will Smith plays the forensic pathologist who discovers the conditions link to the sport and how the NFL tried to dismiss his findings.

I have previously read UK pieces that make a link of brain injury risk from repeatedly heading a football/head clashes so it does raise valid questions.

It sounds like the club are concerned about potential legal challenges and given what's happened in the US, I imagine that all clubs are covering themself and possibly the league bodies too.

Not pleasant for Keith's family though, I've been to inquests and they are tough.

Thousands of ex NFL players have brought lawsuits against the league for CTE suffered as a result of playing and for the NFL of not advising them of the risks. For those wanting to know more, there is a 2015 film called Concussion, Will Smith plays the forensic pathologist who discovers the conditions link to the sport and how the NFL tried to dismiss his findings.

I have previously read UK pieces that make a link of brain injury risk from repeatedly heading a football/head clashes so it does raise valid questions.

It sounds like the club are concerned about potential legal challenges and given what's happened in the US, I imagine that all clubs are covering themself and possibly the league bodies too.

Not pleasant for Keith's family though, I've been to inquests and they are tough.

Sums it up

I don’t understand why the club had to be there anyway?

Are they anticipating being sued for it?

Surely allowing ex players/families to sue clubs for the effects of heading the ball opens a massive can of worms?

Yes it would as any club in similar circumstances can be sued over duty of care just like the rugby players are doing now with world rugby for same thing... it's not nice but battling to get justice is never nice and people are going to be upset and attack companies/clubs for protecting themselves... it's just how things are in such cases .... so some of reaction to clubs stance is done without consideration to the mechanism of inquests and why they are held.

I have used Dr. Stewart myself on head injury claims. I believe I used him in a claim involving a Boxer who started to suffer seizures many years after he ceased boxing. Soccer-related injuries are a specific interest of his and he is probably one of the best in the country to comment.

Again, from a legal point of view, I am unsure why the club is getting involved. In a previous post (regarding Sala) I explained that there was a big difference between being at fault for something and being negligent.

In order to be Negligent, in a Court of law, you need to be aware that a condition could arise. There needs to be some "Foreseeable Risk".

My view is that between 1976-1983 there was no publicized risk that heading a football could cause dementia.

Accordingly, if there is no evidence of risk - how can anyone (including CCFC) be found guilty of negligence.

I have used Dr. Stewart myself on head injury claims. I believe I used him in a claim involving a Boxer who started to suffer seizures many years after he ceased boxing. Soccer-related injuries are a specific interest of his and he is probably one of the best in the country to comment.

Again, from a legal point of view, I am unsure why the club is getting involved. In a previous post (regarding Sala) I explained that there was a big difference between being at fault for something and being negligent.

In order to be Negligent, in a Court of law, you need to be aware that a condition could arise. There needs to be some "Foreseeable Risk".

My view is that between 1976-1983 there was no publicized risk that heading a football could cause dementia.

Accordingly, if there is no evidence of risk - how can anyone (including CCFC) be found guilty of negligence.

Is there a parallel with other such injuries like in American football or rugby which as you know players are suing the authorities for not doing enough for players safety regarding head injuries..... surely club took advice on responding to the expert before they did? Presume it was bad advice.

The club has a right to ask questions and asking questions generally helps these matters. In the end it seems the right conclusion was found. I have no problems with this.

The title of this thread is totally incorrect and a sign of how words are manipulated nowadays.

The club DID NOT question the inquest verdict, they asked questions during the inquest.

Totally two different statements.

The title of this thread is totally incorrect and a sign of how words are manipulated nowadays.

The club DID NOT question the inquest verdict, they asked questions during the inquest.

Totally two different statements.

Rubbish.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... r-23933825

The title of this thread is totally incorrect and a sign of how words are manipulated nowadays.

The club DID NOT question the inquest verdict, they asked questions during the inquest.

Totally two different statements.

Rubbish.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... r-23933825

I've read the article. Still questions asked by the club DURING the inquest and NOT questioning the verdict.

The title of this thread is totally incorrect and a sign of how words are manipulated nowadays.

The club DID NOT question the inquest verdict, they asked questions during the inquest.

Totally two different statements.

Rubbish.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... r-23933825

I've read the article. Still questions asked by the club DURING the inquest and NOT questioning the verdict.

Paragraph from the said article
. During the inquest, the club's barrister questioned the neuropathologist's diagnosis that Mr Pontin's dementia was caused by chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and suggested that it had instead stemmed from natural causes

The title of this thread is totally incorrect and a sign of how words are manipulated nowadays.

The club DID NOT question the inquest verdict, they asked questions during the inquest.

Totally two different statements.

Rubbish.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... r-23933825

I've read the article. Still questions asked by the club DURING the inquest and NOT questioning the verdict.

Paragraph from the said article
. During the inquest, the club's barrister questioned the neuropathologist's diagnosis that Mr Pontin's dementia was caused by chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and suggested that it had instead stemmed from natural causes

Club didn't question verdict they questioned the findings of the specialist as is the right of anyone.... you can say its same thing but once verdict was given the club did not question coroners verdict at all ... should the club have gotten involved well thats questionable butv as Keith was an employee of club guess they had interest in inquest and coroner allowed club to question specialist so they did ... why make out club as done something wrong when in reality they didn't..
But having said all that can understand wifes distress with club insinuating he died of natural causes when clearly he got dementia from heading ball rugby got same problem regarding concussions. Hopefully authorities act on what's happening. In general.

The title of this thread is totally incorrect and a sign of how words are manipulated nowadays.

The club DID NOT question the inquest verdict, they asked questions during the inquest.

Totally two different statements.

Rubbish.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... r-23933825

I've read the article. Still questions asked by the club DURING the inquest and NOT questioning the verdict.

Paragraph from the said article
. During the inquest, the club's barrister questioned the neuropathologist's diagnosis that Mr Pontin's dementia was caused by chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and suggested that it had instead stemmed from natural causes

Club didn't question verdict they questioned the findings of the specialist as is the right of anyone.... you can say its same thing but once verdict was given the club did not question coroners verdict at all ... should the club have gotten involved well thats questionable butv as Keith was an employee of club guess they had interest in inquest and coroner allowed club to question specialist so they did ... why make out club as done something wrong when in reality they didn't..
But having said all that can understand wifes distress with club insinuating he died of natural causes when clearly he got dementia from heading ball rugby got same problem regarding concussions. Hopefully authorities act on what's happening. In general.

Unfortunately, in these "times", people do not believe that anything should be questioned. If the "expert" stated it, it must be de facto!. I beg to disagree, everything should be questioned.....that is the only way we learn and move forward.

The club were quite within their rights to question the expert and as you rightly state Allan, the verdict was never disputed by the club, the expert's opinion was.