* I have a new column on SI.com concerning a "last second" appeal brought by the prosecution in the Barry Bonds trial, which was set to begin on Monday and now likely won't start for weeks, if not months. The prosecution wants the Ninth Circuit to reverse Judge Susan Illston's evidence rulings concerning the exclusion of various BALCO related materials. I don't think the appeal will work and because of the delay it is poised to cause, it may backfire on the prosecution. Hope you can check out the column.
* Ian Fischer of Florida Law Online has a great write-up of the recent University of Florida sports law symposium that I had the good fortune of being a part-of. The event had some star panelists, including ESPN founder Bill Rasmussen and Kevin Sullivan, who was White House Communications Director under President George W. Bush.
* Kirk LeCureux, the Managing Editor for the University of Florida Entertainment Law Review, tells me that his journal is interested in sports law article submissions. If you have written a sports law paper that is good, consider e-mailing it to Kirk at kirk.lecureux[at]ufl.edu
* The National Sports & Entertainment Law Society Blog has some good posts up, including on how the bad economy impacts on sports law and posts on Tejada and A-Rod.
* Howard and I were interviewed by Paul Elias of the Associated Press on pre-trial evidence rulings in the Bonds case.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Implications of Kevin Durant's Jersey Retiring
Congratulations to Kevin Durant, whose No. 35 was just retired by his alma mater, the University of Texas. Durant's time at UT was admittedly brief; he played just one season before turning pro. But it was quite the season: he averaged 26 points and 11 rebounds per game, leading his team to the second round of the NCAA tournament and earning the honor of 2006-07 National Player of the Year.Still, it was just one season.
Should a player receive such distinction by a university when his commitment to the school would seem to have been mainly about satisfying the NBA's age limit, which requires that a player be 19 years of age plus one year removed from high school? I wonder, how often did Durant attend classes in the spring semester? What was his involvement in the university, other than his exceptional basketball play -- did he participate in any student clubs or perform any community work ? Did he at least follow the rules for living in his freshmen dorm, if in fact he lived in one? What does all of this say, if anything, about the student-athlete mission of the NCAA?
Maybe those questions don't matter. Their relevance would seem to depend on the criteria for jersey retiring. If it's all about basketball production, and if one season of play is enough, then Durant certainly deserves to have his number retired. Also, as my Vermont Law School colleague and friend Jason Czarnezki (of Empirical Legal Studies blog fame) wonders, Durant's earning of the National Player of Year might, like at UNC, automatically mean jersey retirement. Should these be the tests for an institute of higher education?
Let's think about Durant's contributions. In addition to his excellent play, Durant generated a lot of money for UT, with his jerseys selling well and with improved attendance to UT basketball games. I imagine his presence also helped with recruiting, and perhaps also in attracting alumni donations and maybe even in generating more applications from high school students (aka, "The Flutie Effect").
But for an institute of higher education like UT, which has a preeminent academic reputation in various fields, there's an argument to be had that jersey retiring should at least acknowledge the student-athlete's contributions as a student. It's not clear that happened here. In fact, for what it's worth, the official story on the University's website is entirely about Durant's basketball achievements.
As several of us have argued, these would be avoidable situations if there was no restriction on supremely talented high school basketball players being eligible for the NBA Draft. There is plenty of empirical support for letting high schoolers turn pro, be it on-court perfromance, off-court performance, or related points (see e.g., Alan Milstein's "Kobe" and "Reggie Bush Sweepstakes"). Plus, if no restriction existed, then a player like Durant who chose to attend college, and to presumably also attend college classes, would have done so without people questioning why he is there.
Sonny Vaccaro in the Hoosier State
For those of you near Indiana University-Bloomington, Sonny Vaccaro will present there on Monday, March 2nd from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. He will discuss the NCAA's treatment of student-athletes, particularly male basketball players, and the relationship between those players contributions to their universities and the income generated by those universities from sports TV contracts and related revenue sources. He will also address the NBA's age limit and the possible trend of teenage star basketball players who are ineligible for the NBA due to age going to play pro hoops abroad (like Brandon Jennings is doing in Italy).For more information about Sonny's talk at Indiana University-Bloomington, click here. My thanks to Ryan Rodenberg, who teaches at Indiana University-Bloomington and runs Sports Law Professor blog, for the information.
For those of you near Indiana University-Indianapolis, Sonny will be speaking there on March 4th from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Details of that event are available here.
Presuppositionalism
The presuppositional apologetics of Sye's Sinner Ministries kept us busy for ages on this blog. Paul C. drew my attention to this very clear treatment of presuppositionalism from the philosopher Gene Witmer. It's good.
I am also reading Greg Bahnsen's book "Always Ready" (Greg being a [now deceased] presuppositionalist Sye knew and clearly admires).
What's interesting, reading this other stuff, is that while Sye clearly uses a lot of standard presuppositional stuff, some of his moves are novel. Here is an illustration:
Sye asks "What's your account of logic, etc.?"
Me "You mean, what makes the laws of logic hold? Well, I 'm not sure. But here are three answers I quite like." [I present them - one is Quinean and one Wittgensteinian. At least two explain why the laws of logic may not even require an "explanation" or "underpinning".)
Sye "But what's your account! You must have one! I am not going to deal with positions you don't even hold."
Me "But I am not committed to one."
Sye "Ah! So your world view cannot account for logic!"
Me "No. It may be one of these answers is correct. Or perhaps some other non-Christian view is. I am just not sure, that's all. But you say you have an argument that no non-Christian account can possibly be correct. What is it?"
Sye: "But what's your account of logic?"
And round and round we go. These moves are pure Sye, I think - all his own handiwork.
By the way, my own version of presuppositionalism is available here. It's fun using some of Sye's own "moves" against him.
Incidentally, there is one move open to presuppositionalists that Witmer does not deal with, which we might discuss. As Witmer says, it's open to an atheist to say, "Hey the laws of logic, moral principles, etc are just "brute" - they are basic features of reality not further explicable. They constitute our presuppositions. As we atheists are allowed to have presuppositions too, what's the problem with our world view? Where is the internal contradiction?"
I did point this out to Sye fairly early on, in fact (back in July/August).
Anyway, a presuppositionalist could reply:
"But what about simplicity? The God hypothesis is highly economical - on my world view, one single, simple thing accounts for logic, morality etc. etc. But on your world view, you need a whole load of different presuppositions to account for these different things. As your world view values simplicity, so it does at least contain an internal tension (you favour simplicity, yet your world view ends up being complex, requiring also sorts of things to be presupposed, rather than just one thing) - your own commitment to simplicity gives you reason to favour my world view over your own!"
I have my own ideas about how to deal with this move, but put it up for debate....
I am also reading Greg Bahnsen's book "Always Ready" (Greg being a [now deceased] presuppositionalist Sye knew and clearly admires).
What's interesting, reading this other stuff, is that while Sye clearly uses a lot of standard presuppositional stuff, some of his moves are novel. Here is an illustration:
Sye asks "What's your account of logic, etc.?"
Me "You mean, what makes the laws of logic hold? Well, I 'm not sure. But here are three answers I quite like." [I present them - one is Quinean and one Wittgensteinian. At least two explain why the laws of logic may not even require an "explanation" or "underpinning".)
Sye "But what's your account! You must have one! I am not going to deal with positions you don't even hold."
Me "But I am not committed to one."
Sye "Ah! So your world view cannot account for logic!"
Me "No. It may be one of these answers is correct. Or perhaps some other non-Christian view is. I am just not sure, that's all. But you say you have an argument that no non-Christian account can possibly be correct. What is it?"
Sye: "But what's your account of logic?"
And round and round we go. These moves are pure Sye, I think - all his own handiwork.
By the way, my own version of presuppositionalism is available here. It's fun using some of Sye's own "moves" against him.
Incidentally, there is one move open to presuppositionalists that Witmer does not deal with, which we might discuss. As Witmer says, it's open to an atheist to say, "Hey the laws of logic, moral principles, etc are just "brute" - they are basic features of reality not further explicable. They constitute our presuppositions. As we atheists are allowed to have presuppositions too, what's the problem with our world view? Where is the internal contradiction?"
I did point this out to Sye fairly early on, in fact (back in July/August).
Anyway, a presuppositionalist could reply:
"But what about simplicity? The God hypothesis is highly economical - on my world view, one single, simple thing accounts for logic, morality etc. etc. But on your world view, you need a whole load of different presuppositions to account for these different things. As your world view values simplicity, so it does at least contain an internal tension (you favour simplicity, yet your world view ends up being complex, requiring also sorts of things to be presupposed, rather than just one thing) - your own commitment to simplicity gives you reason to favour my world view over your own!"
I have my own ideas about how to deal with this move, but put it up for debate....
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
2009 Tulane Law School Moot Court Mardi Gras Invitational Sports Law Competition
Last week, Tulane Law School hosted the 2009 Tulane Law School Moot Court Mardi Gras Invitational Sports Law Competition. This year’s problem was based on hybrid of the single entity issue raised in the American Needle case and the release issue raised in the MSG-NHL case .
I want to take this opportunity to thank the students at Tulane Law School—in particular Susan Jaffer, Paul Lund, Demelza Baer, and Taryn Brown—for all of their hard work in putting this event together. I also want to thank our “celebrity” guest judges for joining me on the panel to judge the finals of the competition. The guest judges were: Don Fehr, Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association; Gary Roberts, Dean and Gerald L. Bepko Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis; and Richard House, General Counsel of the New Orleans Hornets. And, of course, thanks to the students from the 37 different law schools from around the country for competing in this year’s event. All of the judges were impressed with the quality of the teams from the first round through the finals. I hope you enjoyed the competition and were able to find some time to take advantage of all that New Orleans has to offer (well, maybe not all of it) during Mardi Gras.
Finally, congratulations to the winners of this year’s competition. As always, the winning brief will be published in The Sports Lawyers Journal. Here are the results:
The winner of the 2009 Competition was: William & Mary Law School.
Semi-Finalists were: William & Mary Law School, Western State University Law School (second place), University of Virginia and Capital University.
The best brief was submitted by: Florida Coastal School of Law.
The top 5 Oralists were: 1) Sarah Grimm (Ohio State University Moritz School of Law), 2) Arpan Sura (William & Mary), 3) Mathew Spriggs (Ohio State University Moritz School of Law), 4) John J. O'Kane (William & Mary) and 5) Adam Milasincie (University of Virginia School of Law).
Here are the schools that competed in this year’s competition.
1) Florida Coastal School of Law Team
2) University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
3) Indiana University School of Law
4) University of Connecticut School of Law
5) UC Hastings College of Law
6) Florida State College of Law
7) Drexel University Earl Mack School of law
8) University of North Dakota School of Law
9) Charlotte School of Law
10) Western State University College of Law (Second Place)
11) Brooklyn Law School
12) The George Washington School of Law
13) Marquette University Law School
14) Capital University Law School
15) William & Mary Law School (Winner)
16) Temple Law School
17) Cornell University Law School
18) Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
19) Nova Southeastern University Law Center
20) Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
21) West Virginia University College of Law
22) Wayne State University Law School
23) Howard University School of Law
24) University of Maryland School of Law
25) Harvard Law School
26) DePaul University College of Law
27) Wake Forest University School of Law
28) University of Wisconsin School of Law
39) Thomas Jefferson School of Law
30) University of North Carolina School of Law
31) Emory University School of Law
32) Ohio State University Moritz School of Law
33) University of Michigan Law School
34) Villanova School of Law
35) University of Virginia School of Law
36) The John Marshall School of Law
37) The University of Toledo College of Law
1) Florida Coastal School of Law Team
2) University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
3) Indiana University School of Law
4) University of Connecticut School of Law
5) UC Hastings College of Law
6) Florida State College of Law
7) Drexel University Earl Mack School of law
8) University of North Dakota School of Law
9) Charlotte School of Law
10) Western State University College of Law (Second Place)
11) Brooklyn Law School
12) The George Washington School of Law
13) Marquette University Law School
14) Capital University Law School
15) William & Mary Law School (Winner)
16) Temple Law School
17) Cornell University Law School
18) Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
19) Nova Southeastern University Law Center
20) Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
21) West Virginia University College of Law
22) Wayne State University Law School
23) Howard University School of Law
24) University of Maryland School of Law
25) Harvard Law School
26) DePaul University College of Law
27) Wake Forest University School of Law
28) University of Wisconsin School of Law
39) Thomas Jefferson School of Law
30) University of North Carolina School of Law
31) Emory University School of Law
32) Ohio State University Moritz School of Law
33) University of Michigan Law School
34) Villanova School of Law
35) University of Virginia School of Law
36) The John Marshall School of Law
37) The University of Toledo College of Law
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The 22nd Sports and Recreation Law Association Conference
The 22nd Annual Sports and Recreation Law Association takes place from March 4 - 7 in San Antonio, with presentations and speakers covering a number of issues. SRLA's s conferences focus on issues of school and amateur sports, particularly questions of personal injury and risk management. The subjects may be of interest to those interested in teaching, writing and practicing in those areas of law that do not get the media publicity as legal issues of professional sports do.
Professional sports issues will be covered as well. The keynote speaker is Greg Kondritz, corporate counsel of the Houston Texans who will discuss "Life as an In-House Counsel with an NFL Franchise" on March 5th at 11:00 AM. For more information about the conference, check the organization's website srlaweb.org.
Professional sports issues will be covered as well. The keynote speaker is Greg Kondritz, corporate counsel of the Houston Texans who will discuss "Life as an In-House Counsel with an NFL Franchise" on March 5th at 11:00 AM. For more information about the conference, check the organization's website srlaweb.org.
Law Professor's New Book Argues for Unionization of Minor League Baseball
Via the Workplace Law Prof blog and my colleague Joseph Slater, McGeorge Law Professor and labor arbitrator Don Wollett has released a new book, Getting on Base: Unionism in Baseball. The book argues that minor league baseball players should be organized into a union. Among the responses so far:
Great! …[I] agree … not affording collective-bargaining to minor leaguers is self-serving and outrageous. Chuck Mack, Vice President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Great contribution to baseball history…invaluable insights. Judge Alan Hancock.
After you’ve read Getting On Base…, you, the silent partner, may want to stand up and be heard, Duane Beeson, Esq., senior partner Beeson, Tayer and Bodine.
Don’s ideas about “members-only” bargaining for minor league players in, for example, the independent minor league teams in the U.S., and a different kind of “full services union” (complete with hiring halls) in the foreign player market, are very creative, Charles Askin, arbitrator.
Public Favours Religious Values
This piece on BBC website is interesting.
A BBC poll suggests that most people want religion and the values derived from it to play an important role in British public life.
Of 1,045 people questioned by ComRes, 62% were in favour.
Meanwhile, 63% of those questioned agreed that laws should respect and be influenced by the UK's traditional religious values.
Thanks to anticant for drawing my attention to it.
A BBC poll suggests that most people want religion and the values derived from it to play an important role in British public life.
Of 1,045 people questioned by ComRes, 62% were in favour.
Meanwhile, 63% of those questioned agreed that laws should respect and be influenced by the UK's traditional religious values.
Thanks to anticant for drawing my attention to it.
New Sports Law Scholarship
Recently published scholarship includes:
Ian C.B. Davis, Note, An analysis of horse racing jockeys riding under Kentucky’s workers’ compensation laws, 97 KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL 173 (2008-2009)
Dionne L. Koller, How the United States government sacrifices athletes’ constitutional rights in the pursuit of national prestige, 2008 BYU LAW REVIEW 1465
Raymond Shih Ray Ku, Is nominal use an answer to the free speech and right of publicity quandary?: lessons from America’s national pastime, 11 CHAPMAN LAW REVIEW 435 (2008)
Michael A. Mahone, Jr., Note, Sentencing guidelines for the court of public opinion: an analysis of the National Football League’s revised personal conduct policy, 11 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF ENTERTAINMENT & TECHNOLOGY LAW 181 (2008)
Matthew J. Mitten, A triple play for the public domain: Delaware Lottery to Motorola to C.B.C., 11 CHAPMAN LAW REVIEW 569 (2008)
Anthony Vecchione, Comment, Fantasy sports--has recent anti-gambling legislation ‘dropped the ball’ by providing a statutory carve-out for the fantasy sport industry? 61 SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1689 (2008)
Maureen C. Weston, The fantasy of athlete publicity rights: public fascination and fantasy sports’ assertion of free use place athlete publicity rights on an uncertain playing field, 11 CHAPMAN LAW REVIEW 581 (2008)
Jade: My Amazing New Hope For Life
...is the headline of today's Daily Star. Non-Brits may not know that Jade Goody is a celeberity known for her appearances on Big Brother. She became notorious second time round for calling an Asian actress called Shilpa Shetty "Shilpa Popadom" - which resulted in her being branded a racist chav. Jade is certainly pretty poorly educated.
Anyway, Jade, now 27, was then diagnosed with cancer, and then terminal cancer. She has two young boys, and got married this weekend to her partner Jack. Her imminent early death is a tragedy, and it's being covered in pretty much every newspaper (orchestrated by PR guru Max Clifford).
Today, The Daily Star reports:
"Jade Goody is having secret healing sessions in a final bid to beat the cancer that is overwhelming her body - with amazing results, she revealed last night."
"...her condition took an immediate positive turn after the the first session with a mystery New Age 'healing hands' spiritualist. And his actions had such a profound effect medics are talking up the prospects of restarting chemotherapy to stop her cancer spreading."
"Jade also talked about embracing religion, saying 'I'm still reading my Bible. I take a lot of comfort from it, which is why I decided to get the boys Christened. I want them to know I'll be in heaven watching over them."
I wonder how much of this story has been invented (the bit about medics, I'm guessing)? Perhaps Jade is using the healer to reduce pain, but the spin put on the story ("new hope for life", "beat the cnacer", "little miracle", etc.) is - she's hoping for a miracle cure.
News here.
Baggini on Hume (II)
Julian Baggini's second post on Hume is up at the Guardian.
Julian explain's Hume's position on miracles. But we don't get, yet, to Julian's defence of his view that:
The most pressing and telling critiques of religion not only cannot, but should not, attempt to deliver any fatal blows...
Julian explain's Hume's position on miracles. But we don't get, yet, to Julian's defence of his view that:
The most pressing and telling critiques of religion not only cannot, but should not, attempt to deliver any fatal blows...
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Evidence excluded in Bonds case
Judge Illston's order is here Download USAvsBondsOpinion021909. Straightforward, but a good review for my Evidence class of a number of concepts--real evidence requires a chain of custody, the chain of custody requires admissible evidence, the search for hearsay exceptions, and the unreviewable discretion that district court judges have on procedure and evidence.
Only one part of the opinion gave me a pause: She excluded one of three audio transcripts of conversations--the one in which Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson (the guy whose refusal to testify is the cause of all this) speaks with Bonds' personal assistant about random drug testing for the upcoming (2003) season and seems to suggest that he knows someone at the testing lab and he will be tipped in advance to when, if ever, Bonds will be tested. Judge Illston rejected the government's argument that this is admissible as a statement against interest, because "the government has not established that it was a criminal or civil offense in 2003 to help athletes evade
detection by professional sports associations."
But this seems a bit too quick. If a lab employee were tipping off players (or members of their posses) about upcoming tests, wouldn't MLB have some claim against the lab and the employee (fraud, interference with business expectation, something else (help me out, tort people))? And wouldn't MLB also have a claim against the posse member (in this case, Anderson) who received the tip and passed it along, also frustrating MLB's business expectations? Maybe this just was a matter of what the government brought forward on the motion. But it seems Anderson could have gotten into some trouble by receiving and passing along these tips, such that his admission of it would be against his interest.
Only one part of the opinion gave me a pause: She excluded one of three audio transcripts of conversations--the one in which Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson (the guy whose refusal to testify is the cause of all this) speaks with Bonds' personal assistant about random drug testing for the upcoming (2003) season and seems to suggest that he knows someone at the testing lab and he will be tipped in advance to when, if ever, Bonds will be tested. Judge Illston rejected the government's argument that this is admissible as a statement against interest, because "the government has not established that it was a criminal or civil offense in 2003 to help athletes evade
detection by professional sports associations."
But this seems a bit too quick. If a lab employee were tipping off players (or members of their posses) about upcoming tests, wouldn't MLB have some claim against the lab and the employee (fraud, interference with business expectation, something else (help me out, tort people))? And wouldn't MLB also have a claim against the posse member (in this case, Anderson) who received the tip and passed it along, also frustrating MLB's business expectations? Maybe this just was a matter of what the government brought forward on the motion. But it seems Anderson could have gotten into some trouble by receiving and passing along these tips, such that his admission of it would be against his interest.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
WTA Fines Dubai Tournament for Ban on Israeli Player
It is a truism that sports and politics should not mix. It is an equal truism that they do. The question is in the justification. Nations have boycotted the Olympics and the Olympics have boycotted nations, such as Apartheid-era South Africa. Numerous debates as to the wisdom of boycotts and their effect on sports have gone on for years.
But sometimes there comes a political act that is so wrongheaded that it is difficult to come up any justification for it -- except obvious discrimination. Such a decision came last week when Israeli tennis professional Shahar Peer was barred from competing at a WTA-sanctioned event in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Dubai Championship, with millions in prize money, is an attempt by the country and its rulers to create an attractive venue for premier sporting events. Touting itself as a welcoming place for people all of the world, the UAE's rulers wish to create a friendly, tolerant place for sports to flourish. Friendly and tolerant to all, except, apparently Israeli citizens.
The recent war in Gaza was the pretext for the government's actions. The organizers said that they feared fan anger over Israel's actions because the anger would spill into riots if Peer were to play. In fact, these have been tough times for Israeli athletes. An Israeli basketball team was chased off the court during a game in Turkey and the players were attacked with bottles thrown from some "Pro-Gaza" demonstrators. (Incidentally, Turkey was given credit for a "victory"). An upcoming Davis Cup match in Sweden will be played without fans because of threats.
The Sony Ericsson WTA sanctions the Dubai event and the organization initially criticized the action, but did not take any action until today. In a statement posted on their website, the Tour's board, after criticizing the UAE's action as "unjust discrimination," announced the following actions:
But sometimes there comes a political act that is so wrongheaded that it is difficult to come up any justification for it -- except obvious discrimination. Such a decision came last week when Israeli tennis professional Shahar Peer was barred from competing at a WTA-sanctioned event in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Dubai Championship, with millions in prize money, is an attempt by the country and its rulers to create an attractive venue for premier sporting events. Touting itself as a welcoming place for people all of the world, the UAE's rulers wish to create a friendly, tolerant place for sports to flourish. Friendly and tolerant to all, except, apparently Israeli citizens.
The recent war in Gaza was the pretext for the government's actions. The organizers said that they feared fan anger over Israel's actions because the anger would spill into riots if Peer were to play. In fact, these have been tough times for Israeli athletes. An Israeli basketball team was chased off the court during a game in Turkey and the players were attacked with bottles thrown from some "Pro-Gaza" demonstrators. (Incidentally, Turkey was given credit for a "victory"). An upcoming Davis Cup match in Sweden will be played without fans because of threats.
The Sony Ericsson WTA sanctions the Dubai event and the organization initially criticized the action, but did not take any action until today. In a statement posted on their website, the Tour's board, after criticizing the UAE's action as "unjust discrimination," announced the following actions:
- Fined of the Dubai tournament $300,000
- Awarded $44,250 to Peer – an amount equal to the average prize money that she earned per tournament (singles and doubles) in 2008
- Awarded $7,950 to Anna Lena Groenefeld, who was to be Shahar Peer’s doubles partner in Dubai and who was unable to compete in doubles with Ms. Peer. The amount is equal to the average prize money that she earned per tournament in doubles in 2008
- The posting by the Dubai tournament of a $2 million financial performance guarantee
- Shahar Peer Ranking Points - The awarding of 130 ranking points to Shahar Peer – an amount equal to the points that she earned during the same week in 2008 (week of Memphis) that she was unable to defend this past week in Dubai as a result of the denial of her entry visa by UAE. Such points will remain on Ms. Peer’s ranking until such time as she has had an opportunity to earn equivalent points at the next tournament offering ranking points equal to the Dubai tournament.
- Most importantly, the Dubai organizers also must confirm that qualifying Israeli players will get visas at least eight weeks in advance to remain on the tour schedule for 2010.
According to the WTA, the $300,000 fine represents the highest fine ever levied against a Tour member and proceeds will be used to compensate Peer and Groenefeld.
In the wake of this criticism, the UAE decided to grant a visa to Israeli men's player Andy Ram for an upcoming tournament after the men's counterpart, the ATP had warned that future events could be in jeopardy if Ram wasn't allowed to enter.
The WTA's actions are a justified moral response to the UAE's actions and also a good example of governance control. The organization -- like the ATP -- is not a sports league in the traditional sense, but an organization representing individual players which sanctions tournaments and set forth conditions for their players. It has a detailed structure -- with more than 400 pages of organizational materials, rules and regulations.
Some would argue that the actions do not go far enough. The fine may be a drop in the bucket for the UAE and this year's tournament took place without Peer. Although some wanted the WTA to stop its sponsorship of this year's event, that would have been impractical because of the last-minute nature of the visa rejection. After being assured of a visa, Peer was about to leave to Dubai from Thailand, when she was denied entry to the country. The other players were already there, so the tournament went on. That makes their action more egregious, and the WTA at the very least put the tournament's organizers on notice.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Dorset Humanists tomorrow
Speaking tomorrow (Sat 19th) at a Dorset Humanist group event. Go here.
Where: Moordown Community Centre, Coronation Avenue, Moordown, Bournemouth, BH9 1TW
When: Saturday, 21 February 2009, 1.30pm (for 2pm) to 3.30pm
Where: Moordown Community Centre, Coronation Avenue, Moordown, Bournemouth, BH9 1TW
When: Saturday, 21 February 2009, 1.30pm (for 2pm) to 3.30pm
2009 Arbitration Season Ends with Settlement
The Washington Nationals and Ryan Zimmerman settled early this morning prior to their scheduled hearing at the midpoint figure of $3,325,000. So, the players prevailed in 2 of the 3 hearings this season and that marks the first time since 1996, when the players won 7 of the 10 hearings, that the players defeated the teams in arbitration. For the record, there have now been 487 hearings, and the teams have won 280 and the players 207. Teams are ahead in percentage, 57% to 43%. That is a 1 percentage point change from last year (58%-42%).
I went 0-3 in predictions. I was just as poor at this as I was with my 2 fantasy football teams this past season.
The final tally on the 43 settled cases:
Multiyear deals - 11
Above the midpoint - 5
Midpoint - 11
Below the midpoint - 16
I went 0-3 in predictions. I was just as poor at this as I was with my 2 fantasy football teams this past season.
The final tally on the 43 settled cases:
Multiyear deals - 11
Above the midpoint - 5
Midpoint - 11
Below the midpoint - 16
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Harvard Law School Sports Law Symposium: Sports Law in an Economic Downturn
I'm pleased to be joining Rick as a participant in this year's Harvard Law School Sports Law Symposium, which will be held on Friday March 13th and Saturday, March 14th at the law school.The symposium, which is hosted by the Harvard Law School Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law, is in honor of Harvard Law School Professor Paul Weiler, one of the founders of U.S. sports law and the person who may deserve more credit for the growth of sports law than any other legal scholar.
The symposium's subject matter is "Resiting the Recession: Growth Opportunities for Sports in an Economic Downturn."
The event is open to the public, and details can be read at this link. In addition, Harvard Law School 3L Megha Parekh -- the sports co-chair of the Committee -- can be contacted with questions at mparekh[at]jd09.law.harvard.edu.
Here are some of the detiails:
New Stadiums
Friday, March 13, 2009 – 5 pm
Harvard Law School, Langdell North
The “New Stadiums” panel, moderated by Professor Peter Carfagna, will focus on the new stadiums that have been built recently, the difficulties teams face in financing stadiums, the use of public monies, and other issues associated with the development and leasing of sports venues.
Friday, March 13, 2009 – 5 pm
Harvard Law School, Langdell North
The “New Stadiums” panel, moderated by Professor Peter Carfagna, will focus on the new stadiums that have been built recently, the difficulties teams face in financing stadiums, the use of public monies, and other issues associated with the development and leasing of sports venues.
Moderator:
Peter Carfagna
Partner, Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland, OH)
Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School
Panelists:
Derek Jackson
Vice President & General Counsel
Florida Marlins
Damon Jones
Vice President / Club Counsel
Washington Nationals
Andy Lee
Former General Counsel
New York Jets
Mike Lufrano
Senior Vice President, Community Affairs/General Counsel
Chicago Cubs
Allan G. Mutchnik
Partner
Skadden, Arps (Los Angeles)
New Media
Saturday, March 14, 2009 – 10:30 am
Harvard Law School, Langdell North
The “New Media” panel, moderated by Professor Rick Karcher, will cover how sports leagues and teams exploit new media and fantasy sports to generate revenues.
Saturday, March 14, 2009 – 10:30 am
Harvard Law School, Langdell North
The “New Media” panel, moderated by Professor Rick Karcher, will cover how sports leagues and teams exploit new media and fantasy sports to generate revenues.
Moderator:
Rick Karcher
Florida Coastal School of Law
Panelists:
Bob Bowman
President and Chief Executive Officer
Major League Baseball Advanced Media LP
Frank Hawkins
Partner
Scalar Media
Mike Mellis
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
Major League Baseball Advanced Media LP
Bryan Perez
Senior Vice President and General Manager
NBA Digital
Michael Zarren
Assistant Executive Director of Basketball Operations/Associate Counsel
Boston Celtics
New Markets
Saturday, March 14, 2009 – 2 pm
Harvard Law School, Langdell North
The “New Markets” panel, moderated by Professor Mike McCann, will cover how sports leagues choose which markets to reach, the legal challenges associated with expansion into new markets, and how leagues approach branding and marketing their sport domestically and abroad.
Saturday, March 14, 2009 – 2 pm
Harvard Law School, Langdell North
The “New Markets” panel, moderated by Professor Mike McCann, will cover how sports leagues choose which markets to reach, the legal challenges associated with expansion into new markets, and how leagues approach branding and marketing their sport domestically and abroad.
Moderator:
Michael McCann
Associate Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Legal Analyst and Si.com Columnist, Sports Illustrated
Co-Founder, Harvard Law School Project on Law and Mind Sciences
Panelists:
Rob Friedrich
NBA China
Eric Nyquist
Vice President, Strategic Operations
NASCAR
Jon Oram
Partner
Proskauer Rose
Jim Renacci
Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee
Arena Football League
Keynote speakers include Andrew Zimbalist (economics professor at Smith College and rewnowed sports business expert) and Jeff Pash (NFL's Executive VP and General Counsell)
It should be a great event.
Catching Up with Some Links
* Oliver v. NCAA: Last week, Alan Milstein blogged on an Ohio state court's ruling in favor of Oklahoma State University star pitcher Andrew Oliver, who had been suspended by the NCAA. The NCAA had suspended Oliver after learning that, years earlier, Oliver had met with Minnesota Twins representatives with his attorneys while contemplating whether to retain his amateur status and attend college or turn pro after high school. A few days ago, Southern Illinois University Professor Tassos Kaburakis blogged on the same subject on the National Sports and Entertainment Law Society's blog. Alan supports the decision, while Tassos disagrees with it. I'd check out both posts (though I'd read the decision in its entirety first).
* Darren Rovell's Sports Biz on CNBC: Always a great website to check out, Darren has had some particualrly interesting posts of late, including on commissioners' salaries and the NCAA's efforts to ban certain vitaminwaters.
* National Sports and Entertainment Law Society Blog: has some excellent posts up, including on age limits in pro sports -- this blog has been generating very good content. And the Society's main website is also worth checking out.
* Free Miguel Tejada?: Aaron Zelinsky of Yale Law School and The Huffington Post makes the case that the prosecution construction's of 2 U.S.C. 192 was over-broad and should not include congressional staffers on off-site investigations.
* Crowd Noise and Refereeing: Are referees unknowingly biased by crowd reaction? Even if they try to be fair and tune out hostile and unruly crowds who are yelling at them, does statistical data suggest they often fail? The Situationist has some links on the topic.
* Training Athletes to Safely Use Guns: On Sports Agent Blog, Darren Heitner wonders if it makes sense to train athletes on how to use a gun.
* Sonny Vaccaro to speak at Indiana (Indianapolis) Law School: On Wednesday, March 4th, Sonny Vaccaro will present at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis on the NCAA's treatment of student-athletes, particularly male basketball players, and the relationship between those players contributions to their universities and the income generated by those universities from sports TV contracts and related revenue sources. He will also address the NBA's age limit and the possible trend of teenage star basketball players who are ineligible for the NBA due to age going to play pro hoops abroad (like Brandon Jennings is doing in Italy). For more information about Sonny's talk, click here.
* Sports Law Review Article Submissions: If you have written a sports law paper that may be worthy of publication in a law review, keep in mind that there are many sports law reviews and journals seeking submissions. Just consider those listed in our "Sports Law Resources" link section on the left-hand side of our blog (and yes, we know we have to update our links). One law review that has emailed us of their interest in subsmissions is the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. For more information, contact Lauren Paull, Articles Development Editor, at lpaull[at]virginia.edu
* Darren Rovell's Sports Biz on CNBC: Always a great website to check out, Darren has had some particualrly interesting posts of late, including on commissioners' salaries and the NCAA's efforts to ban certain vitaminwaters.
* National Sports and Entertainment Law Society Blog: has some excellent posts up, including on age limits in pro sports -- this blog has been generating very good content. And the Society's main website is also worth checking out.
* Free Miguel Tejada?: Aaron Zelinsky of Yale Law School and The Huffington Post makes the case that the prosecution construction's of 2 U.S.C. 192 was over-broad and should not include congressional staffers on off-site investigations.
* Crowd Noise and Refereeing: Are referees unknowingly biased by crowd reaction? Even if they try to be fair and tune out hostile and unruly crowds who are yelling at them, does statistical data suggest they often fail? The Situationist has some links on the topic.
* Training Athletes to Safely Use Guns: On Sports Agent Blog, Darren Heitner wonders if it makes sense to train athletes on how to use a gun.
* Sonny Vaccaro to speak at Indiana (Indianapolis) Law School: On Wednesday, March 4th, Sonny Vaccaro will present at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis on the NCAA's treatment of student-athletes, particularly male basketball players, and the relationship between those players contributions to their universities and the income generated by those universities from sports TV contracts and related revenue sources. He will also address the NBA's age limit and the possible trend of teenage star basketball players who are ineligible for the NBA due to age going to play pro hoops abroad (like Brandon Jennings is doing in Italy). For more information about Sonny's talk, click here.
* Sports Law Review Article Submissions: If you have written a sports law paper that may be worthy of publication in a law review, keep in mind that there are many sports law reviews and journals seeking submissions. Just consider those listed in our "Sports Law Resources" link section on the left-hand side of our blog (and yes, we know we have to update our links). One law review that has emailed us of their interest in subsmissions is the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. For more information, contact Lauren Paull, Articles Development Editor, at lpaull[at]virginia.edu
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Not a Problem or Not Enough Money to Fund the Program: Florida Ends HS Anabolic Steroids Testing Program
The Florida High School Athletic Association’s anaboloic steroid testing program, which began in July 2007 for athletes participating in football, baseball and weightlifting, has been put on the back burner, at least for now, due to the economy and the rationale that the money must go elsewhere. In a deteriorating economy, state officials apparently cannot justify spending the $100,000 needed to do the testing (or a cost of $166 a piece). Cristina Alvarez, spokeswoman for the Florida High School Athletic Association, states that in this economy the money must go to the classroom and textbooks. Moreover, of the 600 teens tested randomly at 53 schools, only one steroid user was found.Testing was only performed on one percent of Florida HS student-athletes. Testing was administered by the National Center for Drug Free Sport, Inc, with samples analyzed at UCLA's Olympic laboratory. Testing was limited to tackle and flag football, boys and girls weightlifting, softball, and baseball, and was random (school randomly picked, thereafter, student-athlete randomly picked). Unlike Illinois' voluntary program, which I discussed on this Blog last January, submitting to this random testing was a prerequisite for membership in the FHSAA under Florida law (2007-192). A student-athlete could opt out of the testing program (no consent given), but then could not participate (practice or competition) in the aforementioned sports. Said student-athlete would be permitted to participate in non-tested sports.
Outside of the cost, reasons given for dropping the testing program is there is no problem at the high school level in Florida ("only one positive test"), it was not comprehensive enough (max out at 1% of student-athletes in grades 9-12), and the recent A-Rod scandal. While I believe the last reason is a throw-away, it certainly does not bode well for additional states to pick-up testing for anabolic steroids or other performance enhancing drugs at the high school level when in the midst of one of baseball's superstars admitting using performance enhancing drugs, his home state (starred at Westminster Christian High School in Miami and signed a national letter of intent to play baseball at "the U") drops testing.
For discussions of legality of such testing, see Board of Ed. v. Earls and Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton.
Salary Arbitration Update
There were four hearings set for today, and all proved to be unnecessary as settlements were finalized between Corey Hart and the Brewers, Conor Jackson and the Diamondbacks, Mike Jacobs and the Royals, and Josh Willingham and the Nationals. That leaves only the Atlanta Braves and both Jeff Francoeur and Kelly Johnson and Washington and Ryan Zimmerman left for this year. Of the 40 settled cases this year, we have the following results:
Multiyear deals - 11
Above the midpoint - 5
At the midpoint - 8
Below the midpoint - 16
The 11 multiyear deals are the most for the six year period of 2004-2009. There were 10 in both 2007 and 2008. There were 5 in 2004, 8 in 2005, and 7 in 2006. This is an interesting trend, and I will comment more about this at the end of the week. This really reduces the number of comparables that can be considered.
Multiyear deals - 11
Above the midpoint - 5
At the midpoint - 8
Below the midpoint - 16
The 11 multiyear deals are the most for the six year period of 2004-2009. There were 10 in both 2007 and 2008. There were 5 in 2004, 8 in 2005, and 7 in 2006. This is an interesting trend, and I will comment more about this at the end of the week. This really reduces the number of comparables that can be considered.
Yale Law School Sports Litigation Panel
Next Wednesday, February 25th, Yale Law School will be hosting a panel discussion on sports litigation.The panel will take place from 4:10 to 6 p.m. and is open to the public.
Here are the details:
Yale Law School
Yale Entertainment and Sports Law Association hosts a Panel Discussion on Sports Litigation
February 25 2009 4:10 to 6:00 p.m.
Yale Entertainment and Sports Law Association hosts a Panel Discussion on Sports Litigation
February 25 2009 4:10 to 6:00 p.m.
Moderator:
MICHAEL MCCANN (Professor at Vermont Law School; Legal Analyst at Sports Illustrated)
Panelists:
HAL BIAGAS (Deputy Counsel, National Basketball Players Association; plays a lead role in collective bargaining for players and has advised Stephon Marbury in his on-going dispute with the New York Knicks)
BILLY MARTIN (has litigated on behalf of Michael Vick, Allen Iverson, Jayson Williams, and other athletes; has represented other notable clients, including U.S. Senator Larry Craig and the parents of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky)
ALAN MILSTEIN (has litigated on behalf of Maurice Clarett, Allen Iverson, Eddy Curry, jockey Eddie King, and other athletes, and also a nationally-recognized expert on bioethics and clinical trials litigation)
JEFFREY MISHKIN (has litigated on behalf of the National Basketball Association in all of the league's key litigations over the last 20 years, including in NBA v. Williams and NBA v. Motorola; formerly served as Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of the NBA)
JAY REISINGER (legal adivser to Andy Pettitte and Sammy Sosa during Mitchell Report and Congressional hearings on steroids; also represents MLB players in salary arbitrations)
MICHAEL ZARREN (Assistant Executive Director of Basketball Operations and Associate Counsel of Boston Celtics; directs Celtics in legal matters, including those concerning player contracts and endorsement and licensing deals; also plays a key role in the evaluation of players)
Special thanks to Michael Bloom, a 3L at Yale Law School and Co-Chair of the Yale Sports and Entertainment Law Association, for putting this event together. For information on attending, please contact Michael at michael.bloom[at]yale.edu
Update: My thanks to ESPN's Henry Abbott for telling his readers about the panel. Also, related point to the panel: William Rothstein of the National Sports and Entertainment Law Society and Vermont Law School has a terrific post up today on the NBA's age limit and O.J. Mayo.
Can Barry Bonds Receive a Fair Trial?
I address that question and some others in a new SI.com column. Here's an excerpt:* * *
In addition to avoiding Bonds-haters, counsel for Bonds will seek jurors who are skeptical about the government's decision to prosecute Bonds. A libertarian-leaning person, for instance, might object to the expenditure of millions of tax dollars to prosecute baseball players who used substances to help hit home runs. While Bonds is not on trial for steroids per se, as his case concerns lying under oath, the charges against him would have never occurred but for the government's extensive investigation into BALCO and the interstate sale and distribution of steroids. Bonds' attorneys also figure to seek jurors who could believe that Bonds has been singled out among the many MLB players who used steroids (hence the desire to ask about Rodriguez).
The prosecution, in contrast, will probably try to identify jurors who are inclined to focus on the legal intricacies of the case: the arguably compelling evidence that Bonds knowingly lied under oath, as detailed in each of the 10 perjury counts. Such jurors might be particularly beneficial if prosecutors are only able to prove Count 10, which alleges that Bonds knowingly lied about being injected by personal trainer Greg Anderson. Indeed, Kathy Hoskins, the sister of Bonds' longtime friend/business manager Steve Hoskins, is expected to testify that she saw Anderson inject Bonds. Bonds could thus be found guilty for committing perjury without the government proving that he knowingly took steroids, since the lie would involve the injection itself, rather than its contents. If that is all the prosecution could prove, prosecutors would want jurors who would be willing to find Bonds guilty on that one and only count, as opposed to jurors would be tempted to let an otherwise-exonerated Bonds walk free.
* * *
For the rest of the column, please click here.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
When they say they don't want to politicize sports, . . .
Shahar Peer of Israel, the # 48-ranked women's singles player, was denied an entry visa to the United Arab Emirates to play in this week's Barclays Dubai Tournament, citing security fears of having an Israeli playing in Dubai in the wake of the recent military conflict in Gaza. The denial, by the way, came on Saturday night, with Peer's first match scheduled for Monday. The Tennis Channel refused to broadcast the tournament following the UAE's decision.
The tournament organizer, Dubai Duty Free, said Peer's "presence would have antagonized our fans." The statement then added "We do not wish to politicize sports, but we have to be sensitive to recent events in the region and not alienate or put at risk the players and the many tennis fans of different nationalities that we have here in the UAE."
Sorry, folks; you cannot have it both ways. Shahar Peer is neither an Israeli political official nor a member of the Israeli military; she played no role in the events in Gaza and those events have nothing to do with her--and certainly nothing to do with her as a tennis player. You have banned an Israeli player from the tournament (the country, actually) explicitly on the ground that her mere presence as an Israeli (playing for herself, not even on behalf of her country) would "antagonize" and "alienate" people and be insensitive of recent (political) events. By definition, you are politicizing sports; you are incorporating socio- and geo-political considerations having nothing to do with sport into decisions decisions about who gets to participate in a sporting event. And it is insulting and dishonest to claim otherwise.
This is not necessarily to criticize politicizing sport. If you believe that the actions of Israel are such that its citizens should not be permitted to participate in international competitions, make that argument; but acknowledge that you are being explicitly political--and take the hit when others respond to those political positions, as by (perhaps) pulling the event off the WTA schedule.
Interestingly, this whole thing might be repeated at next week's men's tournament. Andy Ram, an Israeli doubles specialist, still is waiting for his visa.
The tournament organizer, Dubai Duty Free, said Peer's "presence would have antagonized our fans." The statement then added "We do not wish to politicize sports, but we have to be sensitive to recent events in the region and not alienate or put at risk the players and the many tennis fans of different nationalities that we have here in the UAE."
Sorry, folks; you cannot have it both ways. Shahar Peer is neither an Israeli political official nor a member of the Israeli military; she played no role in the events in Gaza and those events have nothing to do with her--and certainly nothing to do with her as a tennis player. You have banned an Israeli player from the tournament (the country, actually) explicitly on the ground that her mere presence as an Israeli (playing for herself, not even on behalf of her country) would "antagonize" and "alienate" people and be insensitive of recent (political) events. By definition, you are politicizing sports; you are incorporating socio- and geo-political considerations having nothing to do with sport into decisions decisions about who gets to participate in a sporting event. And it is insulting and dishonest to claim otherwise.
This is not necessarily to criticize politicizing sport. If you believe that the actions of Israel are such that its citizens should not be permitted to participate in international competitions, make that argument; but acknowledge that you are being explicitly political--and take the hit when others respond to those political positions, as by (perhaps) pulling the event off the WTA schedule.
Interestingly, this whole thing might be repeated at next week's men's tournament. Andy Ram, an Israeli doubles specialist, still is waiting for his visa.
Baggini on Hume
There's a Guardian series of posts from Julian Baggini on Hume on religion. In the first, Julian says:
The most pressing and telling critiques of religion not only cannot, but should not, attempt to deliver any fatal blows...
Cannot? Should not?
Julian does not explain why he makes these claims in the first post. Looking forward to hearing his arguments, though, which I'll certainly be discussing - and, I anticipate, criticising - here.
The most pressing and telling critiques of religion not only cannot, but should not, attempt to deliver any fatal blows...
Cannot? Should not?
Julian does not explain why he makes these claims in the first post. Looking forward to hearing his arguments, though, which I'll certainly be discussing - and, I anticipate, criticising - here.
ABA Teleseminar this Thursday
This Thursday, the ABA Section of Antitrust Law Trade, Sports & Professional Associations Committee, Section of Intellectual Property Law, The Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education are sponsoring a 90-minute teleseminar and live audio webcast titled, Whose Home Run is it Anyway? Practical Advice on Intellectual Property Issues in Sports.
The teleseminar will explore the ownership and use of intellectual property by sports leagues, their member teams, player associations, and other entities. The panel will focus on the efforts of professional sports leagues and player associations to control the intellectual property activities of both teams and third-parties, including:
Panelists will also discuss disputes that have also arisen regarding intellectual property among some professional teams and the leagues of which they are members. Some teams have sought to manage and profit from their intellectual property in ways not sanctioned by the leagues, leading to legal disputes, including--most prominently--the New York Rangers' recent lawsuit against the National Hockey League.
Program Time
1:00 PM - 2:30 PM Eastern
12:00 PM- 1:30 PM Central
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Mountain
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM Pacific
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM London
7:00 PM - 8:30 PM Brussels
Panelists
Program Moderator: Scott Walker, Counsel, Lowenstein Sandler PC
Glenn Colton, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Annette L. Hurst, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Rick Karcher, Director, Center for Law and Sports, Florida Coastal School of Law
James Keyte, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Andrew Lee, General Counsel, New York Jets
This is a great way to pick up CLE credit because you can listen to the seminar right at your desk. To register, click here.
The teleseminar will explore the ownership and use of intellectual property by sports leagues, their member teams, player associations, and other entities. The panel will focus on the efforts of professional sports leagues and player associations to control the intellectual property activities of both teams and third-parties, including:
- The burgeoning fantasy sports industry
- The efforts of individual teams to gain increasing control of their own intellectual property
Panelists will also discuss disputes that have also arisen regarding intellectual property among some professional teams and the leagues of which they are members. Some teams have sought to manage and profit from their intellectual property in ways not sanctioned by the leagues, leading to legal disputes, including--most prominently--the New York Rangers' recent lawsuit against the National Hockey League.
Program Time
1:00 PM - 2:30 PM Eastern
12:00 PM- 1:30 PM Central
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Mountain
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM Pacific
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM London
7:00 PM - 8:30 PM Brussels
Panelists
Program Moderator: Scott Walker, Counsel, Lowenstein Sandler PC
Glenn Colton, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Annette L. Hurst, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Rick Karcher, Director, Center for Law and Sports, Florida Coastal School of Law
James Keyte, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Andrew Lee, General Counsel, New York Jets
This is a great way to pick up CLE credit because you can listen to the seminar right at your desk. To register, click here.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Michael Phelps Saga
We've somehow ignored the much discussed Michael Phelps situation concerning a certain photo, for which he has apologized. I was recently interviewed by Ed Berliner on Stone Cold Sports to discuss it. Here are my comments can be heard at this link.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Two Arbitration Hearings Postponed
The Associated Press reported yesterday that the arbitration hearings for Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim pitcher Ervin Santana and Tampa Bay Rays infielder Willy Aybar were postponed. I cannot remember a postponement of a hearing in recent years, but the general consensus is that the Angels and Rays are close to a settlement with Santana and Aybar. That leaves 11 players and teams scheduled for hearings next week as salary arbitration will come to an end for 2009.
New Article: The Truth about Collusion in Baseball
For those interested in the history of baseball collusion and its implications on the game today, here is a link to my newest article -- "Moving Past Collusion in Major League Baseball: Healing Old Wounds and Preventing New Ones."This article discusses the history of collusion in Baseball, as well as explains how Baseball collusion in the 1980s led to more recent allegations of collusion (A-Rod, Bonds) and other troubling aspects of Baseball's labor-management relationship (for example, drug testing disagreements).
Here are a few highlights from the piece:
(1) Selig's Documented Role in Collusion: Although MLB Commissioner Bud Selig continues to deny any role in collusion, Arbitrator George Nicolau in his Collusion II ruling cited testimony from Philadelphia Phillies president William Giles that Selig -- in the capacity of Milwaukee Brewers owner -- called him to discourage the Phillies' signing of catcher Lance Parrish (p. 619-20).
(2) George is the Good Guy: Although often maligned for other reasons, Yankees owner George Steinbrenner was probably Baseball's least culpable owner during the Collusion Era. In Arbitrator Thomas Roberts' Collusion I ruling, he cites an offer Steinbrenner made for catcher Carlton Fisk as the only bona fide free agent offering during the 1985-86 season. (p. 615).
(3) The Smallwood Plan: Major League Baseball continues to criticize Barry Bonds's collusion allegations as being unrealistic and fanciful. However, the idea really can't be that off-the-wall. On September 1, 2006 -- long before Bonds was out of baseball -- Philadelphia Daily News reporter John Smallwood wrote an editorial piece explicitly suggesting that clubs collude against his services (p. 630).
(4) The Solution: Want to keep future allegations of collusion out of Baseball? The answer involves four steps: (i) returning the game's oversight to a neutral, outside commissioner; (ii) separating the role of Baseball CEO from Baseball Commissioner; (iii) allowing union lawyer oversight of Major League Baseball's off-season meetings; and (iv) providing full disclosure to players and fans about past collusion (p. 635-639).
(This article is cross-posted at SportsJudge Blog).
International Conference in Gothenburg/Sweden - Why is Secularism Essential?
8 March 2009
Why is Secularism essential?
Organization for Women's Liberation is organizing a one day conference in commemoration of 8 March, International women's day on the impact of religion on the situation and status of women. Why is secularism essential? In this conference veteran women's right activists and scholars are coming together to analyze the devastating effects of rise of religious movements and religion's influence in the running of state in many countries on the situation of women: the effect of catholic church, orthodox church, Judaism and political Islam will be discussed.
We are pleased to announce that following organisations have supported our conference:
Centre for Inquiry
European Feminist Initiative
International Network against Honour Crimes
Women for Peace (Sweden)
Guest speakers so far confirmed:
Homa Arjomand; coordinator of No Sharia Campaign; Canada/Iran
Soad Baba Aissa; European Feminist Initiative; France/Algeria
Imma Barbarossa; Partito della Rifondazione Communista, Italy
Julie Bindle Journalist; a founder of feminist law reform NGO Justice for Women, and of the Feminist Coalition against Prostitution; England
Malene Busk; women's right activist, Center for Inquiry; Denmark
Buthina Canaan Khoury; Film maker; Palestine
Beth Ciesielski; Centre for Inquiry, Rumania/USA
Hugo Esterla; Centre for Inquiry, Italy/Argentina
Caroline Fourest; writer; columnist, activist and a Member of Libre Pense; France
Maria Hagberg; MD in social work and chair of Network against Honour Crimes; Sweden
Lilian Halls French; sociologist, President of the European Feminist Initiative; France
Boriana Jonsson; Member of the Coordinating Committee of European Feminist Initiative, Bulgaria/Sweden
Parvin Kaboli; coordinator of White Carnation; Sweden/Iran
Khanum R. Lateef, manager Asuda women's center Suleimania; Iraq/Kurdistan
Azar Majedi; President of OWL, writer; England/Iran
Azza Kamel Mohamed Abdel Meguid, Appropriate Communication Techniques for Development, ACT, Egypt
Lia Nadaraia; President Feminist Club, Georgia
Layla Naffa Hamarneh; Director of Projects Arab Women Organisation of Jordan
Karim N. Noori; Mäns nätverk mot hedersförtryck, Sweden/Iran
Frances Raday: Chair, Israeli Association for Freedom of Science, Religion and Culture; Israel
Nina Sankari; Polish Rationalist Organisation and EFI Poland
Sabine Salmon; President of Femmes Solidaires; France
Lisa Sorush; women's right activist; Afghanistan
Susana Tampieri; writer, women's right activist, Argentina
Nawal Yazeji, researcher and activist on women issues, Syria
Moderator: Maryam Kousha; editor of Women's Liberation,
We invite all concerned feminists, secularists and human right activists to participate in these events. We need to demonstrate a show of secularist force against religious inroads in the society.
Date: 7 March 2009
Venue: Folkets Hus Göteborg
Olof Palmes Plats
Järntorget
Admission: 100 SKr or 10 Euros
Details of the events will be published as soon as they become available.
For more information or to register please write to:
Majedi.azar@gmail.com;
Phone:
Azar Majedi:+44 (0)7886973423
Shahla Nouri: +46(0)737262622
Medusahuset Göteborg
wlmedusahuset@gmail.com
maria.hagberg@minheder.nu
Or visit our website: www.womensliberation.net/
Why is Secularism essential?
Organization for Women's Liberation is organizing a one day conference in commemoration of 8 March, International women's day on the impact of religion on the situation and status of women. Why is secularism essential? In this conference veteran women's right activists and scholars are coming together to analyze the devastating effects of rise of religious movements and religion's influence in the running of state in many countries on the situation of women: the effect of catholic church, orthodox church, Judaism and political Islam will be discussed.
We are pleased to announce that following organisations have supported our conference:
Centre for Inquiry
European Feminist Initiative
International Network against Honour Crimes
Women for Peace (Sweden)
Guest speakers so far confirmed:
Homa Arjomand; coordinator of No Sharia Campaign; Canada/Iran
Soad Baba Aissa; European Feminist Initiative; France/Algeria
Imma Barbarossa; Partito della Rifondazione Communista, Italy
Julie Bindle Journalist; a founder of feminist law reform NGO Justice for Women, and of the Feminist Coalition against Prostitution; England
Malene Busk; women's right activist, Center for Inquiry; Denmark
Buthina Canaan Khoury; Film maker; Palestine
Beth Ciesielski; Centre for Inquiry, Rumania/USA
Hugo Esterla; Centre for Inquiry, Italy/Argentina
Caroline Fourest; writer; columnist, activist and a Member of Libre Pense; France
Maria Hagberg; MD in social work and chair of Network against Honour Crimes; Sweden
Lilian Halls French; sociologist, President of the European Feminist Initiative; France
Boriana Jonsson; Member of the Coordinating Committee of European Feminist Initiative, Bulgaria/Sweden
Parvin Kaboli; coordinator of White Carnation; Sweden/Iran
Khanum R. Lateef, manager Asuda women's center Suleimania; Iraq/Kurdistan
Azar Majedi; President of OWL, writer; England/Iran
Azza Kamel Mohamed Abdel Meguid, Appropriate Communication Techniques for Development, ACT, Egypt
Lia Nadaraia; President Feminist Club, Georgia
Layla Naffa Hamarneh; Director of Projects Arab Women Organisation of Jordan
Karim N. Noori; Mäns nätverk mot hedersförtryck, Sweden/Iran
Frances Raday: Chair, Israeli Association for Freedom of Science, Religion and Culture; Israel
Nina Sankari; Polish Rationalist Organisation and EFI Poland
Sabine Salmon; President of Femmes Solidaires; France
Lisa Sorush; women's right activist; Afghanistan
Susana Tampieri; writer, women's right activist, Argentina
Nawal Yazeji, researcher and activist on women issues, Syria
Moderator: Maryam Kousha; editor of Women's Liberation,
We invite all concerned feminists, secularists and human right activists to participate in these events. We need to demonstrate a show of secularist force against religious inroads in the society.
Date: 7 March 2009
Venue: Folkets Hus Göteborg
Olof Palmes Plats
Järntorget
Admission: 100 SKr or 10 Euros
Details of the events will be published as soon as they become available.
For more information or to register please write to:
Majedi.azar@gmail.com;
Phone:
Azar Majedi:+44 (0)7886973423
Shahla Nouri: +46(0)737262622
Medusahuset Göteborg
wlmedusahuset@gmail.com
maria.hagberg@minheder.nu
Or visit our website: www.womensliberation.net/
Friday, February 13, 2009
Diversity and Sports CLE Conference
Next month, Widener Law will be hosting "Diversity and Sports: The History, The Challenges, and The Future." The event is part of the school's Dean’s Leadership Forum On Diversity and will take place on March 16, 2009, at the school's Harrisburg, PA campus.
The brochure for the event can be found here.
Jon Pessah of ESPN Magazine has an interesting investigatory report on the BALCO investigation in the latest online edition of the magazine (Who's on Trial in the Bonds Case? Not Just Barry). Jon is not only a journalist, but he also teaches sports journalism at Stony Brook University and has a unique perspective.
Salary Arbitration Update
The Tampa Bay Rays and Willy Aybar are reportedly close to a 2-year deal. According to my hearing dates chart, they need to get this done today prior to their hearing. Here are the dates that I have for hearings next week:
Edwin Encarnacion (Reds) - Tuesday, February 17
Andre Ethier (Dodgers) - Tuesday, February 17
Jeff Francoeur (Braves) - Friday, February 20
Corey Hart (Brewers) - Wednesday, February 18
Conor Jackson (Diamondbacks) - Wednesday, February 18
Kelly Johnson (Braves) - Thursday, February 19
Ryan Ludwick (Cardinals) - Tuesday, February 17
Nate McLouth (Pirates) - Tuesday, February 17
Josh Willingham (Nationals) - Wednesday, February 18
I have not yet located the hearing dates for Mike Jacobs (Royals), Ervin Santana (Angels), or Ryan Zimmerman (Nationals)
The victory by the Rays over Dioner Navarro lifts the Rays hearing record to 4-0. They are the only unbeaten team left in arbitration hearings history. The Nationals now have a record of 3-2 after their loss to Shawn Hill, and the Marlins are 3-4 after losing to Dan Uggla.
Edwin Encarnacion (Reds) - Tuesday, February 17
Andre Ethier (Dodgers) - Tuesday, February 17
Jeff Francoeur (Braves) - Friday, February 20
Corey Hart (Brewers) - Wednesday, February 18
Conor Jackson (Diamondbacks) - Wednesday, February 18
Kelly Johnson (Braves) - Thursday, February 19
Ryan Ludwick (Cardinals) - Tuesday, February 17
Nate McLouth (Pirates) - Tuesday, February 17
Josh Willingham (Nationals) - Wednesday, February 18
I have not yet located the hearing dates for Mike Jacobs (Royals), Ervin Santana (Angels), or Ryan Zimmerman (Nationals)
The victory by the Rays over Dioner Navarro lifts the Rays hearing record to 4-0. They are the only unbeaten team left in arbitration hearings history. The Nationals now have a record of 3-2 after their loss to Shawn Hill, and the Marlins are 3-4 after losing to Dan Uggla.
School defends stance on girl who told classmate she would "go to hell"
Interesting article in Ekklesia. It's hard to comment, though, without more information.
[pasted in below]
The head teacher of a Devon school has defended its actions in relation to the mother of a young child who upset a classmate by telling her that she would "go to hell" if she did not believe in God and Jesus.
Gary Read, head teacher of Landscore Primary School, Threshers, in Credition, says he spoke "respectfully" to parent Jennie Cain - also the school receptionist - after her daughter had made the remark, and after the child herself was told it was inappropriate.
Mrs Cain, who says her five-year-old's religious beliefs are "not being respected" is being backed by Christian campaigners who say that this is another case of "persecution" against Christians.
But the school strongly denies this. Its governors are also challenging Mrs Cain over remarks she made about it's handling of the issue in an email sent to friends, which has been forwarded to them.
Mrs Cain has not been suspended or disciplined, but she did not go into school yesterday after the publicity.
Mr Read, the headteacher, explained: "We have 271 children in our school from a diversity of backgrounds... We encourage children to discuss their beliefs. What we do not condone is one child frightening a six-year-old with the prospect of 'going to hell' if she does not believe in God."
He added: "“We are a very, very open school and are in no way intimidating people. Unfortunately the context of the conversation between the two girls had a religious nature, but it could have been over any issue. When one pupil is upset by another and is crying, we take action.
“In absolutely no way are we trying to suppress discussion or make it difficult for pupils to discuss or express faith. The school has had a lot of support from teachers and parents.”
Many media reports of the incident have so far downplayed the question of offence and fright, concentrating on allegations that the school told off the child for "talking about God" - the headline in the Exeter Express and Echo this morning.
The Telegraph reported the incident yesterday but made no reference to the "going to hell" remark. The exact wording of the conversation is now being disputed.
Archbishop of York John Sentamu has weighed into the dispute in support of the parent. And MP Ann Widdicombe, a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism, has referred to the schools's actions as "Christianophobia".
But Simon Barrow of the religion and society thinktank Ekklesia commented: "Before shouting 'persecution' Christians need to reflect much more seriously on how they would feel if their children received similar treatment by non-believers or those of other faiths, and the school tolerated it.
"The issue here seems to be that one young child frightened another. It is surely right that behaviour of this kind is respectfully challenged. I am sure the great majority of Christian parents will want to encourage children to speak with love and respect, rather than condemnation, towards others."
Notice how the Telegraph's report omits one crucial detail - that the schools objection was not to a child talking to another about God and Jesus, but to one child scaring another to tears with threats of eternal damnation - thereby putting a very different spin on the story.
George Pitcher in The Telegraph backs Cain here. Note how Pitcher also misses (i) the key fact that the issue was a child being frightened to tears, (ii) that the school's inquiry into possible misconduct has nothing to with Cain (the school receptionist) emailing other parents "for prayers", but because she may have deliberately misrepresented to other parents what actually occurred.
The omission of these details from its initial report suggests the Telegraph author is either guilty of sloppy journalism, or else is deliberately seeking to spin this story into a case of "Christians being persecuted". Ekklesia's Christians, as usual, give a much more balanced account.
The Archbishop of York picked up on the story as the Telegraph reports today. This report does include the school's side of the story, finally.
[pasted in below]
The head teacher of a Devon school has defended its actions in relation to the mother of a young child who upset a classmate by telling her that she would "go to hell" if she did not believe in God and Jesus.
Gary Read, head teacher of Landscore Primary School, Threshers, in Credition, says he spoke "respectfully" to parent Jennie Cain - also the school receptionist - after her daughter had made the remark, and after the child herself was told it was inappropriate.
Mrs Cain, who says her five-year-old's religious beliefs are "not being respected" is being backed by Christian campaigners who say that this is another case of "persecution" against Christians.
But the school strongly denies this. Its governors are also challenging Mrs Cain over remarks she made about it's handling of the issue in an email sent to friends, which has been forwarded to them.
Mrs Cain has not been suspended or disciplined, but she did not go into school yesterday after the publicity.
Mr Read, the headteacher, explained: "We have 271 children in our school from a diversity of backgrounds... We encourage children to discuss their beliefs. What we do not condone is one child frightening a six-year-old with the prospect of 'going to hell' if she does not believe in God."
He added: "“We are a very, very open school and are in no way intimidating people. Unfortunately the context of the conversation between the two girls had a religious nature, but it could have been over any issue. When one pupil is upset by another and is crying, we take action.
“In absolutely no way are we trying to suppress discussion or make it difficult for pupils to discuss or express faith. The school has had a lot of support from teachers and parents.”
Many media reports of the incident have so far downplayed the question of offence and fright, concentrating on allegations that the school told off the child for "talking about God" - the headline in the Exeter Express and Echo this morning.
The Telegraph reported the incident yesterday but made no reference to the "going to hell" remark. The exact wording of the conversation is now being disputed.
Archbishop of York John Sentamu has weighed into the dispute in support of the parent. And MP Ann Widdicombe, a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism, has referred to the schools's actions as "Christianophobia".
But Simon Barrow of the religion and society thinktank Ekklesia commented: "Before shouting 'persecution' Christians need to reflect much more seriously on how they would feel if their children received similar treatment by non-believers or those of other faiths, and the school tolerated it.
"The issue here seems to be that one young child frightened another. It is surely right that behaviour of this kind is respectfully challenged. I am sure the great majority of Christian parents will want to encourage children to speak with love and respect, rather than condemnation, towards others."
Notice how the Telegraph's report omits one crucial detail - that the schools objection was not to a child talking to another about God and Jesus, but to one child scaring another to tears with threats of eternal damnation - thereby putting a very different spin on the story.
George Pitcher in The Telegraph backs Cain here. Note how Pitcher also misses (i) the key fact that the issue was a child being frightened to tears, (ii) that the school's inquiry into possible misconduct has nothing to with Cain (the school receptionist) emailing other parents "for prayers", but because she may have deliberately misrepresented to other parents what actually occurred.
The omission of these details from its initial report suggests the Telegraph author is either guilty of sloppy journalism, or else is deliberately seeking to spin this story into a case of "Christians being persecuted". Ekklesia's Christians, as usual, give a much more balanced account.
The Archbishop of York picked up on the story as the Telegraph reports today. This report does include the school's side of the story, finally.
Paul Bettany interview about playing Darwin
Nigel Warburton's weblog on free speech
Well worth a look: go here. There's a podcast, lots of free speech links, etc.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Court Blows Fastball Down NCAA Pipe
In a long awaited decision, an Ohio state court has ruled in favor of Oklahoma State University star pitcher Andrew Oliver. You might recall, Oliver was suspended by OSU before a critical college tournament game after news emerged that years before he had met with Minnesota Twins representatives with his attorneys while contemplating whether to retain his amateur status and attend college or turn pro after high school. NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2 allows amateurs to retain attorneys or advisors while considering such options as long as such professionals are not present at any meetings with professional clubs.Oliver challenged his suspension in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Ohio, arguing among other things, that such a rule interfered with his attorney client relationship and was against public policy, kind words for a rule that is emblematic of NCAA hypocrisy and arrogance. The NCAA presumably wanted 18 year olds and their families to have to deal with professional clubs without professional help, thus limiting the ability to choose the best option between turning pro and remaining ineligible until the athlete’s junior year. Oliver also challenged his suspension under Bylaw 19.7, which essentially allows the NCAA to punish member schools if they do not immediately suspend an athlete the NCAA finds has violated one of its sacred By Laws.
Judge Tygh M. Tone’s Opinion is remarkable on several fronts. First, the Judge held that student athletes are third party beneficiaries to the agreements between the NCAA and its member schools and that the NCAA thus owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing towards student athletes. Those are concepts long missing from the manner in which the NCAA treats the kids on the playing fields and in the gyms on college campuses across this country. Second, the Judge declared NCAA By Law 12.3.2 “unreliable . . . capricious…illogical . . . and arbitrary” and declared it void and unenforceable. The Judge made a similar finding with respect to By Law 19.7, also declaring it void.
The Court then enjoined the NCAA from issuing any disciplinary action with respect to Mr. Oliver and announced the case would proceed to the next step of establishing damages Oliver suffered by the tawdry treatment he received from an institution thought to be impervious to the standards that govern the rest of us.
I'm leaving (Texas) today . . . New York, New York (Updated)
Updated and Moved to Top
Portions of Roger Clemens' defamation action against Brian McNamee was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, in what sounds (according to the ESPN report) like a very unusual split-the-difference approach. The claims involving the statements to Bud Selig and Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated both occurred in New York, so those claims do not belong in Texas. But the claims involving statements McNamee made to Andy Pettitte, which occurred in Texas, can remain. As I said, this sounds like an unusual approach, since the SI story was published in Texas and the "effects" of the defamation were felt in Texas, where Clemens resides and was working at the time.
Ironically, the dismissal comes a year and a day after McNamee removed the action to federal court.
The order is here: Download Clemens_v._McNamee. A few thoughts after a quick read:
1) The personal jurisdiction analysis as to the claims arising from statements to the Mitchell Commission and Sports Illustrated takes a very narrow approach to Calder v. Jones, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The court took the requirement that the defendant's contacts be directed towards the forum to be about more than the plaintiff's home state and whether the story was published in the state; much depended on the locus of the comments and the events described in the comments, which meant New York. I do wonder about the decision as to the statements made to SI. This is a national magazine with a substantial circulation in Texas, so McNamee surely knew that his statements about a Texan would be heard and would sting in Texas.
2) I wonder if Clemens is going to stick with his claim based on the statements to Pettitte. It is properly in Texas and it survived summary judgment on a statute of limitations defense, but the court held that the claim as stated is not libel per se, thus Clemens had to plead actual damages, which he was granted leave to do. But given that he is going to bring the big claims (the statements to Mitchell and SI) in New York, he probably will bring the whole thing there.
3) For my civ pro teaching purposes, a nice explanation of converting motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment.
Portions of Roger Clemens' defamation action against Brian McNamee was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, in what sounds (according to the ESPN report) like a very unusual split-the-difference approach. The claims involving the statements to Bud Selig and Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated both occurred in New York, so those claims do not belong in Texas. But the claims involving statements McNamee made to Andy Pettitte, which occurred in Texas, can remain. As I said, this sounds like an unusual approach, since the SI story was published in Texas and the "effects" of the defamation were felt in Texas, where Clemens resides and was working at the time.
Ironically, the dismissal comes a year and a day after McNamee removed the action to federal court.
The order is here: Download Clemens_v._McNamee. A few thoughts after a quick read:
1) The personal jurisdiction analysis as to the claims arising from statements to the Mitchell Commission and Sports Illustrated takes a very narrow approach to Calder v. Jones, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The court took the requirement that the defendant's contacts be directed towards the forum to be about more than the plaintiff's home state and whether the story was published in the state; much depended on the locus of the comments and the events described in the comments, which meant New York. I do wonder about the decision as to the statements made to SI. This is a national magazine with a substantial circulation in Texas, so McNamee surely knew that his statements about a Texan would be heard and would sting in Texas.
2) I wonder if Clemens is going to stick with his claim based on the statements to Pettitte. It is properly in Texas and it survived summary judgment on a statute of limitations defense, but the court held that the claim as stated is not libel per se, thus Clemens had to plead actual damages, which he was granted leave to do. But given that he is going to bring the big claims (the statements to Mitchell and SI) in New York, he probably will bring the whole thing there.
3) For my civ pro teaching purposes, a nice explanation of converting motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment.
Guest Post: How A-Rod Can Still Get to Cooperstown (And Save Baseball)
The following is a guest post co-authored by Aaron Zelinsky and Benjamin Johnson of Yale Law School* * *
Americans love heroes, and we love to see them fall. Alex Rodriguez was a hero, and now he’s falling fast. Batting clean-up behind Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Mark McGuire, A-Rod joins the All-Star Team of the players who shot themselves in the foot – or the arm, or the thigh. The accolades and records of these disgraced players will find no place in Cooperstown.
But there’s hope for A-Rod. There’s still time to save himself and baseball.
We Americans also like a story of redemption. There can be second acts in American life after all. At 33, A-Rod still has good playing years left and much work to do on the field. However, it is off the field where he might find the road to deliverance and, with a little luck and a lot of contrition, maybe even the road to Cooperstown.
A-Rod’s comeback needs three things: First, he has to become the public face of baseball purists. He must ask for asterisks on his baseball cards for the years he was doping. He must disavow any claim to any records built even in part on banned substances. In particular, he must make it clear that he will never accept any accolades if he breaks Hank Aaron’s home run record due to those enhanced years in Texas. It will remain Aaron’s record.
Second, A-Rod must devote himself to cleaning up baseball. He needs to pressure the players’ union and the players individually to demand real, regular, and reliable testing. No more heads ups from the union. Everybody gets tested regularly. If you want to play major league ball, you will get tested.
Fans have been clamoring for this program for years, but don’t have the clout to budge the union. A-Rod does. He should follow Lance Armstrong’s example, and have himself tested publicly and regularly. A-Rod should thereby prove himself to be clean and pressure others to follow. If he can’t convince them into action, he can shame them.
Finally, A-Rod needs to stay healthy and play as long as he can play well. He must put up Hall of Fame numbers for the next five years to make the case that he is a Hall of Famer without the juice.
Baseball is an unforgiving game. Shoeless Joe was a great player who will never have his Hall of Fame plaque. Nobody played with more hustle than Pete Rose, but, to see Cooperstown, he will always have to buy a ticket. McGuire hit the ball out of the park, but the sportswriters still won’t let him into the Hall.
But for A-Rod, there is still hope. He can still earn his way to Cooperstown by saving the game he helped destroy.
Benjamin Johnson and Aaron Zelinsky are members of the Yale Law School Class of 2010.
Ankiel Settles Before Hearing at Midpoint - 13 Still Unresolved
Rick Ankiel settled with the St. Louis Cardinals just before his hearing was set to proceed today. Ankiel accepted a salary of $2,825,000, a figure right at the midpoint. Thirty of the exchanged numbers group have now settled with three proceeding to hearings. The players currently lead 2-1. Thirteen of the 46 exchanged numbers cases are still unresolved. So far this is the scorecard for the 30 settled cases:
Multiyear deals - 7
Above the midpoint - 4
At the midpoint - 5
Below the midpoint - 14
Multiyear deals - 7
Above the midpoint - 4
At the midpoint - 5
Below the midpoint - 14
I'm leaving (Texas) today . . . New York, New York
Roger Clemens' portions of defamation action against Brian McNamee was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, in what sounds (according to the ESPN report) like a very unusual split-the-difference approach. The claims involving the statements to Bud Selig and Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated both occurred in New York, so those claims do not belong in Texas. But the claims involving statements McNamee made to Andy Pettitte, which occurred in Texas, can remain. As I said, this sounds like an unusual approach, since the SI story was published in Texas and the "effects" of the defamation were felt in Texas, where Clemens resides and was working at the time.
Ironically, the dismissal comes a year and a day after McNamee removed the action to federal court.
I am trying to find a copy of the opinion; more later.
Ironically, the dismissal comes a year and a day after McNamee removed the action to federal court.
I am trying to find a copy of the opinion; more later.
Uggla Wins in Arbitration - Ankiel at Bat Today
Dan Uggla’s arbitration hearing was held yesterday in Phoenix, and I just read that he won. The Marlins offered $4,400,000, and Uggla countered with a request for $5,350,000. The midpoint is $4,875,000, and the difference between the two exchanged figures is $950,000. Uggla was paid $417,000 for the 2008 season. Uggla was eligible for arbitration for the first time this year, and he has 3.0 years of credited service.
The panel consisted of Richard Bloch, Frederic Horowitz, and Stephen Wolf. According to my research Richard Bloch, an experienced and veteran baseball salary arbitrator, has a 19-5 record in favor of teams. Fredric Horowitz has a 1-1 record based on his finding in favor of Shawn Hill this year and as a member of the Mark Loretta panel last year that was decided in favor of the Astros. Stephen Wolf has a 4-3 record in favor of teams after his panel voted in favor of the Rays against Dioner Navarro recently. So now that makes Bloch 19-6 for teams, Horowitz 2-1 for teams, and Wolf is even at 4-4.
Uggla has averaged 30 home runs and 90 RBIs in his three years in the National League, and he has been the topic of trade talks most of this off-season. The Marlins have Emilio Bonifacio, who came to Florida with pitcher P.J. Dean and infielder Jake Smolinski in a deal with Washington for pitcher Scott Olsen and outfielder Josh Willingham, who put in significant time in the minors at catcher. Olsen just settled this week with the Nationals and Willingham is slated for a hearing next Wednesday. I would suggest that Uggla will not be with the Marlins next year based upon the trade rumors and the general history of players going to arbitration often being moved to another team by the next year. I have not conducted much analysis of my data about the actual empirical work to support or disprove that basic question. That is work for another day, I guess. However, of the eight hearings last year, it was an even split with Brian Fuentas, Felipe Lopez, Mark Loretta, and Francisco Rodriguez changing teams. Ryan Howard, Oliver Perez, Jose Valverde, and Chien-Ming Wang are still with their same clubs heading into spring training.
Let’s look for a second at the middle infielders of the Phillies. Chase Utley avoided his first year of arbitration eligibility as well as a number of free agency years by signing a 7-year, $85,000,000 deal covering 2007-2013. Therefore, the multiyear deal number of $7,500,000 for 2008 and $11,000,000 for 2009 is not a good comparable data set. A few years ago, Jimmy Rollins moved from $450,000 in 2003 to $2,425,000 in 2004, his first year of arbitration eligibility. The following year he moved to $3,850,000 in base salary before finally landing a multiyear deal in 2006. Rollins hit 30 home runs and drove in 94 runs in his MVP season of 2007.
Would you want to consider Kelly Johnson in this discussion. He has not reached an agreement on his request for $3,300,000 against a Braves offer of $2,350,000. Brandon Phillips has more service time than Uggla. He signed a 4-year, $27,000,000 deal with the Reds covering 2008-2011. Rickie Weeks just agreed to a 1-year deal at $2,450,000. He does not have the power numbers of Uggla, but he is in the same service group as Uggla. I was leaning against Uggla winning his number, so you can mark me down as 0-3. With the Marlins losing this case, I will predict a quicker departure from Florida. But my predictive capability this year puts me in the cellar.
Rick Ankiel of the Cardinals should be conducting his hearing today. He wants $3,300,000 and the Cards offered $2,350,000. The midpoint is $2,825,000, and the difference is the same amount as Uggla's - $950,000. I have also been leaning toward the Cardinals, but maybe I should regroup on this one.
The panel consisted of Richard Bloch, Frederic Horowitz, and Stephen Wolf. According to my research Richard Bloch, an experienced and veteran baseball salary arbitrator, has a 19-5 record in favor of teams. Fredric Horowitz has a 1-1 record based on his finding in favor of Shawn Hill this year and as a member of the Mark Loretta panel last year that was decided in favor of the Astros. Stephen Wolf has a 4-3 record in favor of teams after his panel voted in favor of the Rays against Dioner Navarro recently. So now that makes Bloch 19-6 for teams, Horowitz 2-1 for teams, and Wolf is even at 4-4.
Uggla has averaged 30 home runs and 90 RBIs in his three years in the National League, and he has been the topic of trade talks most of this off-season. The Marlins have Emilio Bonifacio, who came to Florida with pitcher P.J. Dean and infielder Jake Smolinski in a deal with Washington for pitcher Scott Olsen and outfielder Josh Willingham, who put in significant time in the minors at catcher. Olsen just settled this week with the Nationals and Willingham is slated for a hearing next Wednesday. I would suggest that Uggla will not be with the Marlins next year based upon the trade rumors and the general history of players going to arbitration often being moved to another team by the next year. I have not conducted much analysis of my data about the actual empirical work to support or disprove that basic question. That is work for another day, I guess. However, of the eight hearings last year, it was an even split with Brian Fuentas, Felipe Lopez, Mark Loretta, and Francisco Rodriguez changing teams. Ryan Howard, Oliver Perez, Jose Valverde, and Chien-Ming Wang are still with their same clubs heading into spring training.
Let’s look for a second at the middle infielders of the Phillies. Chase Utley avoided his first year of arbitration eligibility as well as a number of free agency years by signing a 7-year, $85,000,000 deal covering 2007-2013. Therefore, the multiyear deal number of $7,500,000 for 2008 and $11,000,000 for 2009 is not a good comparable data set. A few years ago, Jimmy Rollins moved from $450,000 in 2003 to $2,425,000 in 2004, his first year of arbitration eligibility. The following year he moved to $3,850,000 in base salary before finally landing a multiyear deal in 2006. Rollins hit 30 home runs and drove in 94 runs in his MVP season of 2007.
Would you want to consider Kelly Johnson in this discussion. He has not reached an agreement on his request for $3,300,000 against a Braves offer of $2,350,000. Brandon Phillips has more service time than Uggla. He signed a 4-year, $27,000,000 deal with the Reds covering 2008-2011. Rickie Weeks just agreed to a 1-year deal at $2,450,000. He does not have the power numbers of Uggla, but he is in the same service group as Uggla. I was leaning against Uggla winning his number, so you can mark me down as 0-3. With the Marlins losing this case, I will predict a quicker departure from Florida. But my predictive capability this year puts me in the cellar.
Rick Ankiel of the Cardinals should be conducting his hearing today. He wants $3,300,000 and the Cards offered $2,350,000. The midpoint is $2,825,000, and the difference is the same amount as Uggla's - $950,000. I have also been leaning toward the Cardinals, but maybe I should regroup on this one.
The Evolution of Street Knowledge
Webstreaming Live, Today and Tomorrow, Thursday and Friday, February 12-13th:
The West Virginia University College of Law Sports and Entertainment Law Society is proud to present "The Evolution of Street Knowledge: Hip Hop's Influence on Law and Culture." Prominent panelists will explore cutting edge topics in connection with hip hop's impact on many areas of the law, including sports law. Talib Kweli and Cornel West anchor the event as keynotes.
To watch the webstream live, go to:
www.law.wvu.edu/streetknowledge
click on the "webstream" link to the right on the homepage.
OR at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, February 12, 2009, you can go directly to:
http://lawmediasite.wvu.edu/mediasite/catalog/
The symposium schedule, including panelists, is reproduced below:
Moderator: Will Rhee, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law
All are welcome. The event is free and open to the public. The webstreaming is live, but will be immediately archived after the event and available for viewing on the conference website.
The West Virginia University College of Law Sports and Entertainment Law Society is proud to present "The Evolution of Street Knowledge: Hip Hop's Influence on Law and Culture." Prominent panelists will explore cutting edge topics in connection with hip hop's impact on many areas of the law, including sports law. Talib Kweli and Cornel West anchor the event as keynotes.
To watch the webstream live, go to:
www.law.wvu.edu/streetknowledge
click on the "webstream" link to the right on the homepage.
OR at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, February 12, 2009, you can go directly to:
http://lawmediasite.wvu.edu/mediasite/catalog/
The symposium schedule, including panelists, is reproduced below:
The Evolution of Street Knowledge:
Hip Hop’s Influence on Law and Culture
West Virginia University College of Law
WVU Law Center
Marlyn E. Lugar Courtroom
February 12-13, 2009
Thursday, February 12th:
3:00 p.m. Welcome
Dean Joyce McConnell, West Virginia University College of Law
Marjorie Fuller, Director, Center for Black Culture and Research
Emily Chatterjee, American Constitution Society
Panelists: Horace Anderson, Associate Professor of Law, Pace Law School
Olufunmilayo Arewa, Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University Law School
Moderator: Will Rhee, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law
Friday, February 13th:
9:00 a.m. Welcome
Anne Lofaso, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law
9:15 a.m. Panel II—Arrested Development: The Almighty Pursuit of Street Cred
Panelists: Reginald Robinson, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law
andré douglas pond cummings, Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law
D. Aaron Lacy, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Moderator: Atiba Ellis, Legal Writing Instructor, Howard University School of Law
10:30 a.m. Panel III—From The Corner to the Corner Office: Hip Hop’s Impact on Corporate Culture and Law
Panelists: Carla Pratt, Professor of Law, Texas Wesleyan School of Law
Nick J. Sciullo, State Director, Growth Options for the 21st Century
Kamille Wolff, Assistant Professor of Law, Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Moderator: Jena Martin, Legal Writing Instructor, Howard University School of Law
Panelists: Pamela Bridgewater, Professor of Law, American University Washington School of Law
Anthony Farley, James C. Matthews Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Albany Law School
Robin Magee, Associate Professor of Law, Hamline University School of Law
Camille Nelson, Visiting Professor of Law, Washington University Law School
Moderator: Caprice Roberts, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law
All are welcome. The event is free and open to the public. The webstreaming is live, but will be immediately archived after the event and available for viewing on the conference website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)