Over the last day, I have written three new columns on SI.com -- I hope you have a chance to check them out:
Hope you all enjoy the weekend.
Friday, January 30, 2009
University of Baltimore Law School Sports Law Symposium: "From Rookie to Retirement"
The University of Baltimore School of Law has schedules what looks to be an excellent sports law symposium on February 26, 2009. Congrats to Professor Dionne Koller and others for putting the event together. Below are the details.* * *
The University of Baltimore School of Law invites you to attend its first annual Sports Law Symposium. This year's event will focus on the effect of economic realities on the NFL player – from his rookie year through retirement. Baltimore Ravens President Richard Cass will be the keynote speaker for the event. Panelists include in-house legal counsel for the NFL and NFL Players' Association, top agents, and active NFL players.
The symposium will take place on Thursday, February 26 from 10 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. at the School of Law. There is no charge to attend the event. Online registration is now available here: Sports Law registration. For more information about the symposium, please contact the Office of External Relations.
10:30 a.m. Opening Remarks: Dean Phillip J. Closius, University of Baltimore School of Law
10:30 – 11:45 a.m. PANELS ON NFL ROOKIES
Preparing the Rookie: Pre-Draft Prep: Trace Armstrong, CAA Sports
Negotiating the Contract and Salary Cap, Now and in the Future: Pat Moriarty, Baltimore Ravens & Tom Condon, J.D. '81, CAA Sports
11:45 a.m. – 1 p.m. Luncheon Keynote Speaker: Richard Cass President, Baltimore Ravens
Assistant Professor of Law Dionne Koller will introduce Mr. Cass.
1:00 – 1:50 Collective Rights and Benefits – The Future of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement: Harold Henderson, NFL Legal Counsel & Richard Berthleson, NFLPA Legal Counsel
2:00 – 4:00: PANELS ON NFL VETERANS
Negotiating the Second and Third Deals Andrew Brandy, nationalfootballpost.com & Tony Agnone, J.D. '78, EAS
NFL Player Benefits: What's Next?: Sarah Gaunt, NFLPA Pension Plan & Doug Ell, the Groom Law Group
Player Marketing in the New Economic Reality: Howard Skall, CAA Sports & Kristen Kuliga, Agent for Doug Flutie
Private/Public Partnerships: Ira Rainess, J.D. '92
For more information, click here.
Sye is back - and telling fibs?
If you were reading this blog last July/August you will remember a very, very long exchange between myself and Sye, of Sinner Ministries.
Sye has a "proof" of God which is based on "presuppositonal apologetics". We spent ages - two or three weeks and over 30 main posts - slowly and carefully unpacking Sye's arguments and rispostes, until, eventually, he was left with nowhere to run.
I kind of enjoyed doing it, but some of you got highly irritated, I know.
Anyway, the 30 odd posts can be found listed under "sinner ministries" on my sidebar menu.
Well, Sye now turns up on the debunking atheists website where he is peddling the exact same arguments, winding people up all over again.
When one commentator mentioned that I had dealt with a point Sye raised on this blog, Sye, I'm told, said:
"I guess you haven't been paying attention Dale. We discussed my time at Stephen Law's blog at an earlier entry here, and also the fact that he never once said how his own wordlview accounted for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic."
Sye later added:
"He did not want to reveal his own worldview, because he did not want to commit to a view he knew I would dismantle."
Notice how Sye seems actually to be presenting himself as the victor in our discussions. He's suggesting that he cornered me.
Now some of you may remember that I did in fact offer not one but three different atheist-friendly views of logic, not one of which Sye was able to refute. If you want to count them, they are here, here and (Quinean one, from my book) here.
It's pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion that Sye is just telling a barefaced lie here and hoping no one will notice (Sye's lying for Jesus, I guess?)
Care to come over here and explain yourself Sye?
If you want to check out what Sye's up to now see the debunking atheism thread here (it's huge - you need to scroll down and then hit "newest" to reach the end).
Sye has a "proof" of God which is based on "presuppositonal apologetics". We spent ages - two or three weeks and over 30 main posts - slowly and carefully unpacking Sye's arguments and rispostes, until, eventually, he was left with nowhere to run.
I kind of enjoyed doing it, but some of you got highly irritated, I know.
Anyway, the 30 odd posts can be found listed under "sinner ministries" on my sidebar menu.
Well, Sye now turns up on the debunking atheists website where he is peddling the exact same arguments, winding people up all over again.
When one commentator mentioned that I had dealt with a point Sye raised on this blog, Sye, I'm told, said:
"I guess you haven't been paying attention Dale. We discussed my time at Stephen Law's blog at an earlier entry here, and also the fact that he never once said how his own wordlview accounted for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic."
Sye later added:
"He did not want to reveal his own worldview, because he did not want to commit to a view he knew I would dismantle."
Notice how Sye seems actually to be presenting himself as the victor in our discussions. He's suggesting that he cornered me.
Now some of you may remember that I did in fact offer not one but three different atheist-friendly views of logic, not one of which Sye was able to refute. If you want to count them, they are here, here and (Quinean one, from my book) here.
It's pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion that Sye is just telling a barefaced lie here and hoping no one will notice (Sye's lying for Jesus, I guess?)
Care to come over here and explain yourself Sye?
If you want to check out what Sye's up to now see the debunking atheism thread here (it's huge - you need to scroll down and then hit "newest" to reach the end).
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Quick Update on Retired NFL Players vs. NFLPA
The Sports Business Daily reports that U.S. District Judge William Alsup upheld the jury’s verdict awarding a class of NFL retired players $28.1 million in its suit against the NFLPA We discussed the case back in November here (as is often the case, the meat of the discussion is contained in the comments).
Playing drums Saturday
I am playing the drums with Ropetrick - one of three bands on at the Wheatsheaf pub in Oxford this coming Saturday (31st Jan). We probably should have rehearsed more....
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A Clarification of My Last Post on Salary Arbitration
The two anonymous comments to my January 23 posting offered good observations and questions, and they point out my need to be more precise about my last sentence -“One of my arguments has been that salary arbitration usually works because most of the time the parties agree to a figure at the midpoint or slightly below the midpoint.” Thank you for forcing me to apply more rigor to my statement. This reply to the first anonymous response became so long that I decided to move it up to the main page because I wanted more readers to see it. Plus, the response deserves a wider audience on the main page.
I will offer some thoughts about how the Astros, Marlins, and Rays methods are pushing the balance towards management in a follow-up to this reply.
My argument that the salary arbitration system actually works is that it usually produces a settlement instead of forcing a hearing. Furthermore, there are strong incentives for both parties to submit a reasonable figure if numbers are exchanged. So I would have been more accurate concerning my position if I had said - “One of my arguments is that the salary arbitration process usually works because most of the time the parties agree to a figure without the need for a hearing.”
Many observers of the process focus on the teams and players that proceed to a hearing first and the group that exchanges numbers second. This ignores all of the cases that are settled either before the exchange of figures or prior to a hearing. Look at some of these recent figures -
Year - Cases Filed - Cases Settled - Number of Hearings
2005 - 89 - 86 - 3 (Teams won 2 out of the 3)
2006 - 100 - 94 - 6 (Teams won 4 out of the 6)
2007 - 106 - 99 - 7 (Teams won 4 out of the 7)
2008 - 110 - 102 - 8 (Teams won 6 out of the 8)
Since the beginning of the process in 1974, my research lists the total number of cases filed at 3,043 (all of the lists that I have seen concerning salary arbitration differ as to some of the numbers in the 1970s and early 1980s). Of that number, 2,554 were settled, 484 proceeded to a hearing, and 5 were released (neither settled nor a hearing). That is a ratio of 83.9% settled cases and 15.9% hearings (the additional 5 cases account for the 0.2%).
So, my evidence for the revised statement is that 84% of the cases are settled, and that is, I think, the point of single-offer or final-offer arbitration. Now, the system is supposed to produce reasonable figures from both camps. If one of the figures is not plausible or defensible, you have created every incentive for the other side to go to a hearing because the chance of winning has increased significantly. Over the years, the teams have won 58% of the cases (279-205). The last time that the players exceeded .500 was 1996 (players won 7 of 10 hearings).
I am including a listing below showing the results of players and teams who exchanged numbers but settled before a hearing during the past five years. Note that during that five year period, 68% of the cases were settled at the midpoint or below the midpoint. This was part of the source for my original last sentence because that is what has happened in a strong majority of the recent cases. However, as I was properly taken to task, that is evidence for a different conclusion. My argument is that these statistics support the conclusion that the majority of cases are framed by the two exchanged numbers at an agreeable point for both parties. The general thought of hearing decision-making is that you determine the midpoint between the two figures. If the player is worth $1 or more above the midpoint, the arbitrator chooses the player’s figure. If the player is worth $1 or more below the midpoint, the arbitrator chooses the team’s figure. The decisions at hearings are supposed to be made within 24 hours by a panel of three. For many years a single arbitrator made the decision. An article last year at the end of the hearing season quoted veteran arbitrator Stephen Goldberg as follows: “Each arbitrator casts a vote but my impression is that 99 percent of the decisions are unanimous.” Ameet Sachdev, “Former NU Professor Says Multimillion Dollar Salary Hearings Have Grown Less Contentious,” Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2008. If Mr. Goldberg is correct as to the voting, he is arguing that the presentations are quite strong for one side or the other.
Notice that the next largest percentage (22%) are the 40 multiyear deals. This year there are already five multiyear deals between teams and players who filed numbers (Prince Fielder, Milwaukee Brewers; Zack Greinke, Kansas City Royals; Jason Kubel, Minnesota Twins (pending a physical); Nick Markakis, Baltimore Orioles; Jayson Werth, Phillies). The multiyear deals portion of the data merits its own posting and discussion.
Major League Baseball Salary Arbitration
Players and Teams Who Exchanged Numbers But Settled Before a Hearing
Results - 2004-2008
Year - Multiyear Deals - Above Midpoint - At Midpoint - Below Midpoint - Total
2004 - 5 multiyear - 1 above - 6 at midpoint - 8 below - 20 total
2005 - 8 multiyear - 3 above - 5 at midpoint - 21 below - 37 total
2006 - 7 multiyear - 8 above - 9 at midpoint - 14 below - 38 total
2007 - 10 multiyear - 4 above - 12 at midpoint - 22 below - 48 total
2008 - 10 mulityear - 2 above - 7 at midpoint - 21 below - 40 total
Multiyear Deals - 40 (22%)
Above Midpoint - 18 (10%)
At Midpoint - 39 (21%)
Below Midpoint - 86 (47%)
Total - 183 (100%)
I apologize if this posting is too long or not in your area of interest. I appreciate the comments because, as I stated above, they force me to be more rigorous in my work on this topic. Also, I think one of the purposes of the blog is to get feedback.
I will offer some thoughts about how the Astros, Marlins, and Rays methods are pushing the balance towards management in a follow-up to this reply.
My argument that the salary arbitration system actually works is that it usually produces a settlement instead of forcing a hearing. Furthermore, there are strong incentives for both parties to submit a reasonable figure if numbers are exchanged. So I would have been more accurate concerning my position if I had said - “One of my arguments is that the salary arbitration process usually works because most of the time the parties agree to a figure without the need for a hearing.”
Many observers of the process focus on the teams and players that proceed to a hearing first and the group that exchanges numbers second. This ignores all of the cases that are settled either before the exchange of figures or prior to a hearing. Look at some of these recent figures -
Year - Cases Filed - Cases Settled - Number of Hearings
2005 - 89 - 86 - 3 (Teams won 2 out of the 3)
2006 - 100 - 94 - 6 (Teams won 4 out of the 6)
2007 - 106 - 99 - 7 (Teams won 4 out of the 7)
2008 - 110 - 102 - 8 (Teams won 6 out of the 8)
Since the beginning of the process in 1974, my research lists the total number of cases filed at 3,043 (all of the lists that I have seen concerning salary arbitration differ as to some of the numbers in the 1970s and early 1980s). Of that number, 2,554 were settled, 484 proceeded to a hearing, and 5 were released (neither settled nor a hearing). That is a ratio of 83.9% settled cases and 15.9% hearings (the additional 5 cases account for the 0.2%).
So, my evidence for the revised statement is that 84% of the cases are settled, and that is, I think, the point of single-offer or final-offer arbitration. Now, the system is supposed to produce reasonable figures from both camps. If one of the figures is not plausible or defensible, you have created every incentive for the other side to go to a hearing because the chance of winning has increased significantly. Over the years, the teams have won 58% of the cases (279-205). The last time that the players exceeded .500 was 1996 (players won 7 of 10 hearings).
I am including a listing below showing the results of players and teams who exchanged numbers but settled before a hearing during the past five years. Note that during that five year period, 68% of the cases were settled at the midpoint or below the midpoint. This was part of the source for my original last sentence because that is what has happened in a strong majority of the recent cases. However, as I was properly taken to task, that is evidence for a different conclusion. My argument is that these statistics support the conclusion that the majority of cases are framed by the two exchanged numbers at an agreeable point for both parties. The general thought of hearing decision-making is that you determine the midpoint between the two figures. If the player is worth $1 or more above the midpoint, the arbitrator chooses the player’s figure. If the player is worth $1 or more below the midpoint, the arbitrator chooses the team’s figure. The decisions at hearings are supposed to be made within 24 hours by a panel of three. For many years a single arbitrator made the decision. An article last year at the end of the hearing season quoted veteran arbitrator Stephen Goldberg as follows: “Each arbitrator casts a vote but my impression is that 99 percent of the decisions are unanimous.” Ameet Sachdev, “Former NU Professor Says Multimillion Dollar Salary Hearings Have Grown Less Contentious,” Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2008. If Mr. Goldberg is correct as to the voting, he is arguing that the presentations are quite strong for one side or the other.
Notice that the next largest percentage (22%) are the 40 multiyear deals. This year there are already five multiyear deals between teams and players who filed numbers (Prince Fielder, Milwaukee Brewers; Zack Greinke, Kansas City Royals; Jason Kubel, Minnesota Twins (pending a physical); Nick Markakis, Baltimore Orioles; Jayson Werth, Phillies). The multiyear deals portion of the data merits its own posting and discussion.
Major League Baseball Salary Arbitration
Players and Teams Who Exchanged Numbers But Settled Before a Hearing
Results - 2004-2008
Year - Multiyear Deals - Above Midpoint - At Midpoint - Below Midpoint - Total
2004 - 5 multiyear - 1 above - 6 at midpoint - 8 below - 20 total
2005 - 8 multiyear - 3 above - 5 at midpoint - 21 below - 37 total
2006 - 7 multiyear - 8 above - 9 at midpoint - 14 below - 38 total
2007 - 10 multiyear - 4 above - 12 at midpoint - 22 below - 48 total
2008 - 10 mulityear - 2 above - 7 at midpoint - 21 below - 40 total
Multiyear Deals - 40 (22%)
Above Midpoint - 18 (10%)
At Midpoint - 39 (21%)
Below Midpoint - 86 (47%)
Total - 183 (100%)
I apologize if this posting is too long or not in your area of interest. I appreciate the comments because, as I stated above, they force me to be more rigorous in my work on this topic. Also, I think one of the purposes of the blog is to get feedback.
Media ethics and law prof blogging
I am quoted today in an op-ed in the Daily Tar Heel. (H/T: My former colleague Joel Goldstein). The op-ed discusses the motion filed by former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, the main culprit in the Duke lacrosse mess, seeking to dismiss the § 1983 actions against him on absolute prosecutorial immunity grounds (and without seeing the motion, I have argued previously that he has a pretty strong argument). The op-ed, clearly not coming close to understanding what prosecutorial immunity is all about, argues that Nifong should not have immunity because by "withholding DNA evidence, Nifong clearly deprived the defendants of their right to due process." Um, yeah, but the point of immunity is that does not matter, because other policy concerns trump. AndI did not read the piece as arguing that prosecutors should not have immunity (an arguable point), only that Nifong should not.
Anyway, I am identified as a Saint Louis University law professor and described as saying that Nifong only has immunity for those things he did as an advocate for the state. One problem--I never spoke with anyone at the Daily Tar Heel at any point. (Actually, I suppose a second problem is that I no longer teach at SLU, so there is a pretty glaring factual error there that would get them nailed in a newswriting course). The "comment" attributed to me was something I wrote in one of several posts, here and at Sports Law Blog, analyzing the players' lawsuits against Nifong, Duke, and others.
So, my question--Did the authors of the piece act appropriately (as a matter of journalistic practice) in attributing a comment to me without identifying it as something I wrote on a blog and attributing the blog? Is it OK for reporters to make it sound instead as if we had had a conversation? I am not suggesting that journalists should not read blogs as part of their reporting or that they should not report what they see written here. Indeed, one purpose of blogging is to be part of the broader public conversation beyond the academy, so having newspapers report on what we write here goes a long way to making us part of that conversation. My question is strictly how journalists should describe the source of a comment when they get it not from an interview, but from something the source has written.
Anyway, I am identified as a Saint Louis University law professor and described as saying that Nifong only has immunity for those things he did as an advocate for the state. One problem--I never spoke with anyone at the Daily Tar Heel at any point. (Actually, I suppose a second problem is that I no longer teach at SLU, so there is a pretty glaring factual error there that would get them nailed in a newswriting course). The "comment" attributed to me was something I wrote in one of several posts, here and at Sports Law Blog, analyzing the players' lawsuits against Nifong, Duke, and others.
So, my question--Did the authors of the piece act appropriately (as a matter of journalistic practice) in attributing a comment to me without identifying it as something I wrote on a blog and attributing the blog? Is it OK for reporters to make it sound instead as if we had had a conversation? I am not suggesting that journalists should not read blogs as part of their reporting or that they should not report what they see written here. Indeed, one purpose of blogging is to be part of the broader public conversation beyond the academy, so having newspapers report on what we write here goes a long way to making us part of that conversation. My question is strictly how journalists should describe the source of a comment when they get it not from an interview, but from something the source has written.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
"Flyer" Goes Down: Wisconsin Supreme Court Finds Cheerleading to be a Contact Sport
Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its opinion in Brittany L. Noffke v. Kevin Bakke. Howard Wasserman discussed this matter on this Blog last month. Also, check my post on the Sports Law Blog for cheerleader injuries from 2006, and discussions on sports injuries from myself and Geoffrey Rapp here, here, and here. Also, see Geoffrey's recent law review piece on the reckless standard for injuries on the playing field.
The basic facts: Noffke, a "flyer" (the elevated cheerleader during stunting), fell while practicing a "post to hands" stunt in an area without mats. Bakke, the "post" (the one who elevates the cheerleader onto the shoulders of the "base"), lifted Noffke onto the "base," and let go. Instead of moving to the rear to spot Noffke, Bakke moved to the front. Noffke fell to the rear of the "base" and struck her head. This was the first time this stunting group practiced this particular stunt. At the time, her coach (also a middle school teacher from this district), was supervising another group of cheerleaders approximately ten feet away.
Procedural history: Noffke sued Bakke for negligence (failure to spot Noffke), and sued the school district (Holmen) for negligence (failure to provide a second spotter and failure to provide appropriate surfacing/mats). Both Bakke and the school district were granted summary judgment; Bakke succeeded as the circuit court found cheerleading to be a "contact sport" requiring a finding of recklessness to impose civil liability. The school district succeeded on summary judgment as no known and compelling danger arose that gave rise to a ministerial duty on the coach's part. On appeal, the appellate court found that Bakke was not immune from suit since cheerleading is not a "contact sport" as defined by Wis. Stat. 895.525(4m)(a), but affirmed the school district's immunity. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin today affirmed the circuit court's ruling.
For Bakke to achieve immunity under the statute, cheerleading would have to be found by the Court to be a contact sport in this setting (amateur, high school sport). The Court found cheerleading to fit within the plain language of the statute ("physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams"). The Supreme Court goes on to cite to those "recreational activities" that do not enjoy immunity, such as hunting, bowling, horseback riding, and skiing.
The Supreme Court found cheerleading to be a sport because it involves "physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs," and it is a team sport because "a group is organized to work together" to lead fan participation. Utilizing a dictionary and the spirit rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that cheerleading is a contact sport as it involves physical contact (at times "forceful") between cheerleaders during participation.
Noffke argues that the physical contact between cheerleaders is not of the type contemplated by the Wisconsin legislature (football, hockey, etc.), but rather cheerleader contact in incidental. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, responded that the legislature did not intend to just give immunity to participants in "aggressive" sports (side-note: in the Karas decision in Illinois, Justice Burke added an enhanced exception for "full-contact sports"). Noffke then argues that immunity should not apply in this case because cheerleading is not "competitive," but competition is not a requirement in the plain language of the statute, and a "competition" requirement would result in inconsistent results (cheering a team vs. cheerleading competition; practice vs. game).
Interestingly, the Court concludes its opinion relative to Bakke by encouraging the legislature to examine the Supreme Court's opinion and address how the statute would apply to other sports like "golf, swimming, or tennis."
To defeat this immunity, Noffke would have to show that Bakke was reckless, but the facts here did not support such a high standard, so the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that Bakke was immune under the contact sport recreational immunity statute. Contrast this with the Karas case in Illinois, which made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court for review of a Motion to Dismiss based on the pleadings, and as such, evidence was not in the record for determination of whether the "Illinois contact sports exception" applied to the facts outside of the complaint.
With regard to the school district, Noffke argued that the coach (as an employee of the school district) violated a ministerial duty by not providing a second spotter and mats as required by the spirit rules, and that the coach, himself, should have known there was a compelling danger as appropriate safety precautions were not taken for these cheerleaders performing this stunt for the first time. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that the school district was not bound to the spirit rules because it did not adopt the same, and as such, the coach had discretion on whether to provide a second spotter and mats. Further, looking to the actual spirit rules, there are no additional spotters or mats "required", but rather, the same are "suggested".
Of note here factually: the cheerleaders had performed more difficult stunts together before, both Noffke and Bakke thought they could perform this stunt, Bakke was a trained spotter, the stunt could be accomplished safely without Bakke's spot (Bakke was not the "base"), and the coach knew the level of difficulty of this stunting group to be "much higher". These same facts were essential to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in finding there to be no known or compelling danger that would remove the coach from immunity.
This decision continues to shed light on the fact that cheerleading is a dangerous sport, and as such, proper coach training (both technique and safety) is imperative. Cheerleading has evolved along with the sports that it supports (i.e. football), but while advances in safety equipment (helmets, pads, etc.), training, and playing/practicing surfaces has advanced in sports like football to go along with the faster, bigger, and stronger athletes, cheerleaders are exponentially advancing the physical difficulties of their sport with no real change in safety since football players were wearing leather helmets. It is a good step for the courts to acknowledge the athleticism and physical contact involved in cheerleading, but continued participation in cheerleading may suffer if safety policies are not adopted as rules rather than mere suggestions to coaches and teams.
The basic facts: Noffke, a "flyer" (the elevated cheerleader during stunting), fell while practicing a "post to hands" stunt in an area without mats. Bakke, the "post" (the one who elevates the cheerleader onto the shoulders of the "base"), lifted Noffke onto the "base," and let go. Instead of moving to the rear to spot Noffke, Bakke moved to the front. Noffke fell to the rear of the "base" and struck her head. This was the first time this stunting group practiced this particular stunt. At the time, her coach (also a middle school teacher from this district), was supervising another group of cheerleaders approximately ten feet away.
Procedural history: Noffke sued Bakke for negligence (failure to spot Noffke), and sued the school district (Holmen) for negligence (failure to provide a second spotter and failure to provide appropriate surfacing/mats). Both Bakke and the school district were granted summary judgment; Bakke succeeded as the circuit court found cheerleading to be a "contact sport" requiring a finding of recklessness to impose civil liability. The school district succeeded on summary judgment as no known and compelling danger arose that gave rise to a ministerial duty on the coach's part. On appeal, the appellate court found that Bakke was not immune from suit since cheerleading is not a "contact sport" as defined by Wis. Stat. 895.525(4m)(a), but affirmed the school district's immunity. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin today affirmed the circuit court's ruling.
For Bakke to achieve immunity under the statute, cheerleading would have to be found by the Court to be a contact sport in this setting (amateur, high school sport). The Court found cheerleading to fit within the plain language of the statute ("physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams"). The Supreme Court goes on to cite to those "recreational activities" that do not enjoy immunity, such as hunting, bowling, horseback riding, and skiing.
The Supreme Court found cheerleading to be a sport because it involves "physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs," and it is a team sport because "a group is organized to work together" to lead fan participation. Utilizing a dictionary and the spirit rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that cheerleading is a contact sport as it involves physical contact (at times "forceful") between cheerleaders during participation.
Noffke argues that the physical contact between cheerleaders is not of the type contemplated by the Wisconsin legislature (football, hockey, etc.), but rather cheerleader contact in incidental. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, responded that the legislature did not intend to just give immunity to participants in "aggressive" sports (side-note: in the Karas decision in Illinois, Justice Burke added an enhanced exception for "full-contact sports"). Noffke then argues that immunity should not apply in this case because cheerleading is not "competitive," but competition is not a requirement in the plain language of the statute, and a "competition" requirement would result in inconsistent results (cheering a team vs. cheerleading competition; practice vs. game).
Interestingly, the Court concludes its opinion relative to Bakke by encouraging the legislature to examine the Supreme Court's opinion and address how the statute would apply to other sports like "golf, swimming, or tennis."
To defeat this immunity, Noffke would have to show that Bakke was reckless, but the facts here did not support such a high standard, so the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that Bakke was immune under the contact sport recreational immunity statute. Contrast this with the Karas case in Illinois, which made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court for review of a Motion to Dismiss based on the pleadings, and as such, evidence was not in the record for determination of whether the "Illinois contact sports exception" applied to the facts outside of the complaint.
With regard to the school district, Noffke argued that the coach (as an employee of the school district) violated a ministerial duty by not providing a second spotter and mats as required by the spirit rules, and that the coach, himself, should have known there was a compelling danger as appropriate safety precautions were not taken for these cheerleaders performing this stunt for the first time. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that the school district was not bound to the spirit rules because it did not adopt the same, and as such, the coach had discretion on whether to provide a second spotter and mats. Further, looking to the actual spirit rules, there are no additional spotters or mats "required", but rather, the same are "suggested".
Of note here factually: the cheerleaders had performed more difficult stunts together before, both Noffke and Bakke thought they could perform this stunt, Bakke was a trained spotter, the stunt could be accomplished safely without Bakke's spot (Bakke was not the "base"), and the coach knew the level of difficulty of this stunting group to be "much higher". These same facts were essential to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in finding there to be no known or compelling danger that would remove the coach from immunity.
This decision continues to shed light on the fact that cheerleading is a dangerous sport, and as such, proper coach training (both technique and safety) is imperative. Cheerleading has evolved along with the sports that it supports (i.e. football), but while advances in safety equipment (helmets, pads, etc.), training, and playing/practicing surfaces has advanced in sports like football to go along with the faster, bigger, and stronger athletes, cheerleaders are exponentially advancing the physical difficulties of their sport with no real change in safety since football players were wearing leather helmets. It is a good step for the courts to acknowledge the athleticism and physical contact involved in cheerleading, but continued participation in cheerleading may suffer if safety policies are not adopted as rules rather than mere suggestions to coaches and teams.
Monday, January 26, 2009
New SI.com Sports Law Column on Kirk Radomski's New Book
I have a new column on SI.com on potential legal implications for Roger Clemens relating to Kirk Radomski's new book, Bases Loaded: The Inside Story of the Steroid Era in Baseball by the Central Figure in the Mitchell Report. Here is an excerpt from the column:* * *
The inconsistency over specific information shared by McNamee to Radomski may seem to be on the periphery of the central question of whether Clemens used steroids and knowingly lied to Congress, but it offers Clemens' legal team a valuable card in a potential trial in which McNamee would be subject to cross-examination: Why should a jury believe McNamee's recollections over those of Clemens when McNamee's account is, at least in part, contradicted by the published words of his friend Radomski?
Then again, jurors might dismiss potential inconsistencies in dates and other historical facts as relatively immaterial. After all, the inconsistencies seem several steps removed from the legal question of whether Clemens knowingly lied under oath, and jurors recognize that all humans occasionally err while recalling details and minutiae.
Clemens' legal team would likely disagree. Remember, to convict Clemens of perjury, the government would need to leave a jury without any reasonable doubt as to whether Clemens knowingly lied under oath; although jurors might ultimately believe that Clemens more likely than not knowingly lied under oath, any reservations triggered by questions of McNamee's memory and veracity could instill the requisite "reasonable doubt" in those jurors' minds. Such an outcome would lead to Clemens being found not guilty, which in turn would bolster his chances for rehabilitating his reputation in baseball and the public at large.
* * *
Hope you have a chance to check out the rest.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
New York City - accom. required
I am in Manhattan nights of the 8th and 9th of April 2009 (and am around daytime 9th, flying to Washington evening of 10th) and need some cheap accommodation. If anyone can recommend anything do please let me know.
I'll also happily speak, do school event, etc. if you buy me a burger!
I'll also happily speak, do school event, etc. if you buy me a burger!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Cubs Suing Former Sponsor Underarmour
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports a suit filed on Thursday by the Chicago Cubs for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against Underarmour. Driven to abandon the sponsorship due to the effect of the economic climate on overpriced polyester sports clothing, the company now faces this $10 million suit. As more sponsors abandon pricey sports team deals in the face of economic tumult and public criticism, such lawsuits may multiply.
The Tampa Bay Rays and the "File-and-go Strategy"
Bill Chastain, an MLB.com reporter covering the Tampa Bay Rays, wrote an informative piece on January 20 about Willy Aybar and Dioner Navarro’s salary arbitration negotiations with the Rays. (“Aybar, Navarro will go to arbitration; Pair of players unable to come to terms with Rays before deadline). The article outlines the Rays’ “file-and-go strategy,” and it contains a number of quotations about the team’s philosophy from Gerry Hunsicker, Senior Vice President, Baseball Operations. It is worth reading if you are interested in baseball labor relations. This has been the club’s policy for some time under Andrew Friedman, Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations.
As Bill Chastain points out in the article, “Josh Paul is the only player to go to arbitration during Friedman's tenure and the backup catcher lost on both occasions.” Those two hearings were in 2006 and 2007. In 2007, Paul requested $940,000, and the team offer was $625,000. The arbitration panel of Robert Bailey, Richard Bloch and Christine Knowlton sided with Tampa Bay. In 2006, Paul wanted an increase from $450,000 to $750,000 and Tampa Bay countered with a modest increase to $475,000. The arbitration panel for that hearing was Dan Brent, Margaret Brogan, and Elliott Shriftman.
In 2002, the team went to a hearing with Esteban Yan. Yan was seeking an increase from $743,000 to $2,400,000, and Tampa Bay felt that $1,500,000 was the appropriate figure. The arbitration panel of Dan Brent, Roger Kaplan, and Carol Whittenberg agreed with the team. After the Phillies lost to Ryan Howard last year for their first setback at a hearing (the Phillies are now 7-1 in their 8 hearings), the Rays became the only team with a perfect winning record in arbitration hearings.
After reviewing the exchanged numbers between the two parties, I thought I spotted an interesting point. The differences between the two figures are amongst the closest of all of the 46 exchanged figures this year.
Willy Aybar
2008 salary = $401,200
Team offer = $900,000
Player request = $1,050,000
Difference = $150,000
Midpoint = $975,000
Dioner Navarro
2008 salary = $412,500 (base salary) - $10,000 for making the All-Star team
Team offer = $2,100,000
Player request = $2,500,000
Difference = $400,000
Midpoint = $2,300,000
I have at least two thoughts about this. If the parties were that close, why couldn’t they get a deal done before the deadline? Second, does the “early deadline” prompted by the “file-and-go strategy” help push the two parties closer to each other? One of my arguments has been that salary arbitration usually works because most of the time the parties agree to a figure at the midpoint or slightly below the midpoint.
As Bill Chastain points out in the article, “Josh Paul is the only player to go to arbitration during Friedman's tenure and the backup catcher lost on both occasions.” Those two hearings were in 2006 and 2007. In 2007, Paul requested $940,000, and the team offer was $625,000. The arbitration panel of Robert Bailey, Richard Bloch and Christine Knowlton sided with Tampa Bay. In 2006, Paul wanted an increase from $450,000 to $750,000 and Tampa Bay countered with a modest increase to $475,000. The arbitration panel for that hearing was Dan Brent, Margaret Brogan, and Elliott Shriftman.
In 2002, the team went to a hearing with Esteban Yan. Yan was seeking an increase from $743,000 to $2,400,000, and Tampa Bay felt that $1,500,000 was the appropriate figure. The arbitration panel of Dan Brent, Roger Kaplan, and Carol Whittenberg agreed with the team. After the Phillies lost to Ryan Howard last year for their first setback at a hearing (the Phillies are now 7-1 in their 8 hearings), the Rays became the only team with a perfect winning record in arbitration hearings.
After reviewing the exchanged numbers between the two parties, I thought I spotted an interesting point. The differences between the two figures are amongst the closest of all of the 46 exchanged figures this year.
Willy Aybar
2008 salary = $401,200
Team offer = $900,000
Player request = $1,050,000
Difference = $150,000
Midpoint = $975,000
Dioner Navarro
2008 salary = $412,500 (base salary) - $10,000 for making the All-Star team
Team offer = $2,100,000
Player request = $2,500,000
Difference = $400,000
Midpoint = $2,300,000
I have at least two thoughts about this. If the parties were that close, why couldn’t they get a deal done before the deadline? Second, does the “early deadline” prompted by the “file-and-go strategy” help push the two parties closer to each other? One of my arguments has been that salary arbitration usually works because most of the time the parties agree to a figure at the midpoint or slightly below the midpoint.
Klug - Not in My Name
My colleague Brian Klug has posted a couple of pieces on the Guardian comment is free section, which may be of interest (whether or not you agree with them). I paste one in here. The link to the other is here:
For many Jews today, Israel is not a normal state - it is a cause or ideal.
Not in My Name
NOT IN MY NAME
In the midst of the carnage in Gaza, it defies belief that my synagogue has asked me to march in solid support of Israel
Brian Klug
In any conflict between peoples, there is a time for balancing the books, for placing facts neatly in the debit and credit columns, for issuing measured statements about the rights and wrongs on both sides. But not in the midst of one-sided carnage. The only decent thing to feel at the present time is outrage. The only thing for decent people to do right now is to condemn, without reserve or qualification, the brutal campaign that the Israeli military is waging against the population of Gaza. Every if and but derogates from decency.
Earlier this week, my synagogue sent its members an email containing details of two rallies in support of Israel "which we would urge you to support". No ifs and buts here, just solid support for the perpetrator in the midst of the horror it is perpetrating. Is it possible to go further in the opposite direction to decency?
Attached was a flyer for a "Mass Rally in Support of Israel" organised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, with "the support of the major organisations of UK Jewry", to be held in London this weekend. The flyer proclaims: "End Hamas terror!" No ifs and buts here either. No hint at the unspeakable state terror being unleashed, day after day, by the Israeli military. It defies belief.
So, let me place on record the following fact: the board does not speak for all British Jews and certainly not for this one. Nor does the so-called Leadership Council, nor any of the organisations associated with this misbegotten event. None of them represents me or the Judaism that I cherish and which leads me to say as follows: I condemn utterly the military offensive by the government of Israel against the people of Gaza. The loss of any human life, on whatever side of this conflict, is a terrible thing. At this juncture, though, my heart is with the Palestinians on the ground in the midst of their misery. And I extend my hand to those Israelis who are speaking out against their own government.
For alternative views among Britain's Jews, see the website of Independent Jewish Voices.
This is also rather moving.
Atheist bus complaint rejected
More news on Stephen Green's silly complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency about the atheist bus adverts which say "There's probably no God". Green said:
"Advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers. This means that advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their products or services before an ad appears."
The above complaint resulted in this verdict:
"The ASA council concluded that the ad was an expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation. Although the ASA acknowledges that the content of the ad would be at odds with the beliefs of many, it concluded that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence."
I disagree with this verdict because I believe the claim on the buses is capable of objective substantiation. Indeed, it's substantiated.
Source here.
A Level Philosophy One day Conferences 2009
A Level Philosophy One day Conferences 2009
Programme - Thursday 5th March 2009 and Friday 6th March 2009
10.30 Registration
11.00 Chris Horner: Ethics tips for A Level
12.00 Nigel Warburton (Philosophy: The Basics; Philosophy: The Classics): Mill and Plato on Freedom
1.00 - 2.00 Lunch break
2.00 Stephen Law (The Philosophy Files, The Philosophy Gym): Descartes proof that he is not his body
3.00 Michael Lacewing (co-author of Philosophy for AS Level): The origin of God
4.00 End
VENUE:
The venue is Heythrop College, Kensington Square, London W5 8HX, which is just a two minute walk from Kensington High Street tube station.
COST:
£16 per student/teacher.
Bookings will be accepted via e mail at alevelconference@heythrop.ac.uk and post.
Please note that payment must be received within ten days or the booking will be automatically cancelled.
Cheques should be made payable to HEYTHROP COLLEGE.
Please note that fees are non-refundable.
Confirmation of your booking will be sent along with travel directions.
OTHER INFORMATION:
A sandwich lunch will be provided for teachers.
There is a canteen on site which is open to all visitors selling a range of snacks, drinks, sandwiches and hot food.
Enquiries can be sent to alevelconference@heythrop.ac.uk
The college reserves the right to alter the programme.
Programme - Thursday 5th March 2009 and Friday 6th March 2009
10.30 Registration
11.00 Chris Horner: Ethics tips for A Level
12.00 Nigel Warburton (Philosophy: The Basics; Philosophy: The Classics): Mill and Plato on Freedom
1.00 - 2.00 Lunch break
2.00 Stephen Law (The Philosophy Files, The Philosophy Gym): Descartes proof that he is not his body
3.00 Michael Lacewing (co-author of Philosophy for AS Level): The origin of God
4.00 End
VENUE:
The venue is Heythrop College, Kensington Square, London W5 8HX, which is just a two minute walk from Kensington High Street tube station.
COST:
£16 per student/teacher.
Bookings will be accepted via e mail at alevelconference@heythrop.ac.uk and post.
Please note that payment must be received within ten days or the booking will be automatically cancelled.
Cheques should be made payable to HEYTHROP COLLEGE.
Please note that fees are non-refundable.
Confirmation of your booking will be sent along with travel directions.
OTHER INFORMATION:
A sandwich lunch will be provided for teachers.
There is a canteen on site which is open to all visitors selling a range of snacks, drinks, sandwiches and hot food.
Enquiries can be sent to alevelconference@heythrop.ac.uk
The college reserves the right to alter the programme.
CFI web forum on events
If you came to our WEIRD SCIENCE event you can now contribute to a web forum on the event at the website: www cfiuk.org.
Do please contribute!
Do please contribute!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
This is likely to become the defining event of this "war"
Israeli forces order 49 members of a family into a house for "safety" - and then start firing both shells and missiles at it.
All these claims were repeated as fact by Channel 4 News this evening (and are corroborated by UN and Red Cross sources). Israel says "it has no documentation of this event."
I'll just repeat my earlier analogy: Suppose that after a few IRA attacks leaving 11 Brits dead, the British Government invaded Catholic areas of Northern Ireland with tanks and air strikes, seeking out IRA members and arms caches, but bulldozing entire villages, making 50,000 people homeless, and killing over a thousand innocent Catholic by-standers in the process. What would have been the world's opinion about that? And would this military action have been constructive, do you think?
One way or another, if there is to be peace, Israel will have to talk to Hamas. Just as the British Government talked to the IRA.
All these claims were repeated as fact by Channel 4 News this evening (and are corroborated by UN and Red Cross sources). Israel says "it has no documentation of this event."
I'll just repeat my earlier analogy: Suppose that after a few IRA attacks leaving 11 Brits dead, the British Government invaded Catholic areas of Northern Ireland with tanks and air strikes, seeking out IRA members and arms caches, but bulldozing entire villages, making 50,000 people homeless, and killing over a thousand innocent Catholic by-standers in the process. What would have been the world's opinion about that? And would this military action have been constructive, do you think?
One way or another, if there is to be peace, Israel will have to talk to Hamas. Just as the British Government talked to the IRA.
Bailed-out AIG to drop pricey sports team sponsorships
One of the reasons I've been blogging relatively lightly in the past few weeks is that I've discovered the Fox Soccer Channel is part of my digital cable package. Although I've been enjoying a number of great soccer games, it is always a bit jarring to see a team of millionaire soccer players running around in jerseys that proudly display the name of a corporation that has recently come begging for money to the U.S. taxpayers.
Today, Reuters broke the story that insurance giant and bailout recipient AIG will not be renewing its $100 million sponsorship of Manchester United, a top English soccer team. AIG is also seeking to renegotiate its current sponsorship -- likely in an effort to escape from the contract's remaining years.
At the time of the bailout, AIG and other corporate sports sponsors receiving federal funds, like Citi, insisted they had no plans to discontinue such sponsorships even in the face of public criticism and the common "Taxpayer field" jokes.
Expect AIG's lead to be followed by other recipients of bailout funds.
Baseball Salary Arbitration - Players and Teams Exchange Figures
Over the past few days there has been a flurry of activity between baseball teams and player agents negotiating contracts for players eligible for salary arbitration. On Thursday, January 15, 111 players filed for arbitration. Between last Thursday and yesterday’s deadline for exchanging numbers, 65 deals were finalized leaving 46 players and teams involved in exchanging numbers yesterday.
The big buzz is about Ryan Howard who went to a hearing with the Phillies last year and beat his team. Of course, most of you are aware of his effort last year for the World Series Champions. Howard is seeking $18 million and the Phils offered $14 million. Howard’s request is the third highest figure sought since the process began in 1974. The next largest request this year is from Prince Fielder. Fielder requested $8 million, and the Brewers countered with $6 million. I am still digesting all of the deals reached before the deadline yesterday and looking over the exchanged numbers figures. I will be posting some of my insights shortly on this blog.
The big buzz is about Ryan Howard who went to a hearing with the Phillies last year and beat his team. Of course, most of you are aware of his effort last year for the World Series Champions. Howard is seeking $18 million and the Phils offered $14 million. Howard’s request is the third highest figure sought since the process began in 1974. The next largest request this year is from Prince Fielder. Fielder requested $8 million, and the Brewers countered with $6 million. I am still digesting all of the deals reached before the deadline yesterday and looking over the exchanged numbers figures. I will be posting some of my insights shortly on this blog.
Reviews of CFI WEIRD SCIENCE event
Martin has been kind enough to put up links to various reviews of the Weird Science event we put on last Saturday. I had a great time... My talk was probably the most "serious" - Wiseman and French were very funny, as usual, and Ben Goldacre said the "F" word. All three talks were genuinely excellent.
Go here.
Here is Richard Wiseman's video of the amazing floating cork, which he used in his talk.
And also Wiseman's amazing colour-change card trick.
Our next event is God in The Lab, on 21st March. For details go to www.cfiuk.org.
Go here.
Here is Richard Wiseman's video of the amazing floating cork, which he used in his talk.
And also Wiseman's amazing colour-change card trick.
Our next event is God in The Lab, on 21st March. For details go to www.cfiuk.org.
Monday, January 19, 2009
"Religion is false, but useful!" Comment on Matthew Parris on religion
Following on from the previous piece, which was a response to Matthew Parris's piece "As an Atheist, I truly Believe Africa Needs God", a few more thoughts on using religion as a social tool.
Perhaps the right way to think about religion as a tool is as a catalyst. It does seem to have a supercharging power. Take our tendency to strive to improve our collective lot, to be benevolent and caring, etc. Add a pinch of religion, and the tendency is magnified.
However, the catalytic power works just as well with negative tendencies, such as the desire to dominate and exploit. Take the subjugation of women, mix in a few drops of the heady brew of religion, and watch how much more entrenched and hard-to-shift the subjugation becomes; add a few drops more, and watch how some become sufficiently intoxicated to start flinging acid in the faces of young girls who dare to attend school. Add a dollop of religion to homophobia, and suddenly the attitude becomes far more difficult to shift, grounded as it now seems to be in holy scripture. Mix some religion into an oppressive regime, and watch how its domination is magnified by the thoughts that God is on their side, that God has ordained them as leaders, that those who reject them are the enemies of God, etc. Take one slightly dodgy but charismatic leader, rub on a bit of religious snake-oil, and watch as he - it's almost always a he - takes on the irresistable persuasive powers of a David Koresh or the Reverend Jim Jones.
The catalytic power of religion is, in and of itself, morally neutral.
Yes, Parris can point to its application in positive ways, and can note how effective it has been in magnifying the positive. Dramatically effective.
But then, it has, often as not, magnified the negative. Dramatically.
Moreoever, once evangelical religion has been introduced into a community, it's a bugger to deal with when things start to go wrong. Attitudes can metamorphize fairly quickly, so that what started out as benign can quickly become highly toxic. And now you're really in trouble, because, being evangelically religious, it's now going to be very hard for any rational arguments and objections to reach them.
Introducing evangelical religion into a situation where there is already a great deal of corruption, homophobia, misogynism, etc. and yes, you may get some good impressive short-term effects. More dramatic effects than you could get by other means. But, boy, you are playing with fire.
Secularist, humanist views combined with a rational rather than a faith-based approach to problems may not have the short-term positive effects of evangelical religion. I admit they probably lack the dramatic impact religion can have.
But, over the long haul, such views are, I'd suggest, far more constructive and beneficial. And far less risky. I point to how Western civilization has gradually improved over the last 400 years since the Enlightenment.
Of course these are largely assertions, not here backed up by evidence, etc. But I think they are plausible claims and put them up for discussion (n.b. I know some religious folk will at this point start banging on about how the Holocaust was the fault of such Enlightenment-inspired secular views.)
Perhaps the right way to think about religion as a tool is as a catalyst. It does seem to have a supercharging power. Take our tendency to strive to improve our collective lot, to be benevolent and caring, etc. Add a pinch of religion, and the tendency is magnified.
However, the catalytic power works just as well with negative tendencies, such as the desire to dominate and exploit. Take the subjugation of women, mix in a few drops of the heady brew of religion, and watch how much more entrenched and hard-to-shift the subjugation becomes; add a few drops more, and watch how some become sufficiently intoxicated to start flinging acid in the faces of young girls who dare to attend school. Add a dollop of religion to homophobia, and suddenly the attitude becomes far more difficult to shift, grounded as it now seems to be in holy scripture. Mix some religion into an oppressive regime, and watch how its domination is magnified by the thoughts that God is on their side, that God has ordained them as leaders, that those who reject them are the enemies of God, etc. Take one slightly dodgy but charismatic leader, rub on a bit of religious snake-oil, and watch as he - it's almost always a he - takes on the irresistable persuasive powers of a David Koresh or the Reverend Jim Jones.
The catalytic power of religion is, in and of itself, morally neutral.
Yes, Parris can point to its application in positive ways, and can note how effective it has been in magnifying the positive. Dramatically effective.
But then, it has, often as not, magnified the negative. Dramatically.
Moreoever, once evangelical religion has been introduced into a community, it's a bugger to deal with when things start to go wrong. Attitudes can metamorphize fairly quickly, so that what started out as benign can quickly become highly toxic. And now you're really in trouble, because, being evangelically religious, it's now going to be very hard for any rational arguments and objections to reach them.
Introducing evangelical religion into a situation where there is already a great deal of corruption, homophobia, misogynism, etc. and yes, you may get some good impressive short-term effects. More dramatic effects than you could get by other means. But, boy, you are playing with fire.
Secularist, humanist views combined with a rational rather than a faith-based approach to problems may not have the short-term positive effects of evangelical religion. I admit they probably lack the dramatic impact religion can have.
But, over the long haul, such views are, I'd suggest, far more constructive and beneficial. And far less risky. I point to how Western civilization has gradually improved over the last 400 years since the Enlightenment.
Of course these are largely assertions, not here backed up by evidence, etc. But I think they are plausible claims and put them up for discussion (n.b. I know some religious folk will at this point start banging on about how the Holocaust was the fault of such Enlightenment-inspired secular views.)
Matthew Parris on religion - false, but useful!
Matthew Parris' piece, in which he suggest that, though he is an atheist, he thinks religion is a powerful tool for good in Africa, something he recommends we foster and encourage, has predictably provoked responses from atheists. See previous post.
My small contribution here is just to repeat and edited part of my earlier post Is Religion Dangerous. The moral I wish to draw is, obviously, that even if religion can be a highly powerful and useful tool, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to use it.
Many, including Keith Ward, recommend religion for social engineering purposes. They claim that (i) it helps build a sense of community, (ii) it makes people happier and healthier, and (iii) it makes them better behaved [more highly motivated to do good, etc.].
Suppose it does. Even if it were useful in these ways, it seems to me there are nevertheless special dangers attaching to the use of religion as a tool.
Religion is immensely powerful and can behave in unpredictable ways. Take the young earth creationists ... now about 100 million Americans, including smart, college educated people.
[Who would have predicted that in just 50 years or so they would come to have such political influence in the US - to the point where even the last President appears to be a convert? Who would have predicted that 12% of British graduates would come to believe it by 2006]
We have here an illustration of the gobsmacking power of religion to get even very smart people to believe palpably stupid things...
Religion, it seems to me, is a bit like nuclear power. Immensely powerful and (arguably) useful. And, perhaps most of the time, it runs quite happily, doing not much harm [and perhaps even quite a bit of good].
But unless it is extremely carefully controlled and monitored, it can very quickly run out of control. Indeed, just as with nuclear power, you can predict the unpredicted. Somewhere along the line, something probably will go wrong, and when it does, you have a toxic situation on your hands. A religious Chernobyl.
Is nuclear power safe, or dangerous? Perhaps it can be used safely, but that's not to deny that it is potentially hugely dangerous. The same, I'd suggest, is true of religion.
Keith Ward agreed with me, by the way.
Let's also not forget that less than five of my lifetimes ago the Catholic Church was still garroting Europeans who failed to believe what the Pope told them. Yes, I know your local vicar seems like a nice chap, but we'd be wise to remember that our freedom from religious oppression and violence is a very recent development.
My small contribution here is just to repeat and edited part of my earlier post Is Religion Dangerous. The moral I wish to draw is, obviously, that even if religion can be a highly powerful and useful tool, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to use it.
Many, including Keith Ward, recommend religion for social engineering purposes. They claim that (i) it helps build a sense of community, (ii) it makes people happier and healthier, and (iii) it makes them better behaved [more highly motivated to do good, etc.].
Suppose it does. Even if it were useful in these ways, it seems to me there are nevertheless special dangers attaching to the use of religion as a tool.
Religion is immensely powerful and can behave in unpredictable ways. Take the young earth creationists ... now about 100 million Americans, including smart, college educated people.
[Who would have predicted that in just 50 years or so they would come to have such political influence in the US - to the point where even the last President appears to be a convert? Who would have predicted that 12% of British graduates would come to believe it by 2006]
We have here an illustration of the gobsmacking power of religion to get even very smart people to believe palpably stupid things...
Religion, it seems to me, is a bit like nuclear power. Immensely powerful and (arguably) useful. And, perhaps most of the time, it runs quite happily, doing not much harm [and perhaps even quite a bit of good].
But unless it is extremely carefully controlled and monitored, it can very quickly run out of control. Indeed, just as with nuclear power, you can predict the unpredicted. Somewhere along the line, something probably will go wrong, and when it does, you have a toxic situation on your hands. A religious Chernobyl.
Is nuclear power safe, or dangerous? Perhaps it can be used safely, but that's not to deny that it is potentially hugely dangerous. The same, I'd suggest, is true of religion.
Keith Ward agreed with me, by the way.
Let's also not forget that less than five of my lifetimes ago the Catholic Church was still garroting Europeans who failed to believe what the Pope told them. Yes, I know your local vicar seems like a nice chap, but we'd be wise to remember that our freedom from religious oppression and violence is a very recent development.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Response to Matthew Parris from Norm Allen
Source: Africa Needs More Human-Centered Thought and Activism
Norm Allen
On December 27, 2008, the self-professed atheist Matthew Parris argued for religion in Africa in The Times Online, headquartered in the UK. In his article titled “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God,” he spoke glowingly of “the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa….”
I readily admit that missionaries have done some great work in Africa—building roads, clinics, schools, etc. However, missionaries in recent years have also enriched themselves while exploiting the masses, discouraged millions of Africans from using condoms, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of Aids, promoted sexism, contributed greatly to the persecution and deaths of alleged witches, etc. Indeed, Africa provides the perfect example of what Robert Ingersoll said about the historic role of the Catholic Church: “In one hand she carried the alms dish, in the other, the dagger.” The same could be said of organized religion in general.
In Rwanda, Christians were complicit in the genocide that occurred there in the 1990s. Many people were brutally murdered in churches. In Nigeria, Christians and Muslims have been killing each other by the thousands. Throughout Uganda, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and many other African nations, Bible-based homophobia plays a major role in the persecution, and in some cases, murders, of LGBTs.
What Africa needs is what Ingersoll called “a caring rationalism.” The Bible simply contains too many ultra-reactionary and inhumane messages to be blindly embraced by believers. Christian ideas of tolerance are inconsistent with the biblical notion that acceptance of Christ is the only way to reach heaven. The Prince of Peace said he came to bring not peace, but a sword. It is no wonder that there are so many different conceptions of Christianity, not all of them benign.
A humanistic life-stance is the best way to approach the many divisive religious and ethnic conflicts that plague Africa. Human-centered thought and action offer much more for African uplift than piety and prayers ever could. Christian charity is, indeed, commendable. However our appreciation of the missionaries’ alms dish must never blind us to the dagger that so often accompanies it.
Stephen adds: Norm Allen does a great deal of work for CFI in Africa.
Norm Allen
On December 27, 2008, the self-professed atheist Matthew Parris argued for religion in Africa in The Times Online, headquartered in the UK. In his article titled “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God,” he spoke glowingly of “the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa….”
I readily admit that missionaries have done some great work in Africa—building roads, clinics, schools, etc. However, missionaries in recent years have also enriched themselves while exploiting the masses, discouraged millions of Africans from using condoms, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of Aids, promoted sexism, contributed greatly to the persecution and deaths of alleged witches, etc. Indeed, Africa provides the perfect example of what Robert Ingersoll said about the historic role of the Catholic Church: “In one hand she carried the alms dish, in the other, the dagger.” The same could be said of organized religion in general.
In Rwanda, Christians were complicit in the genocide that occurred there in the 1990s. Many people were brutally murdered in churches. In Nigeria, Christians and Muslims have been killing each other by the thousands. Throughout Uganda, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and many other African nations, Bible-based homophobia plays a major role in the persecution, and in some cases, murders, of LGBTs.
What Africa needs is what Ingersoll called “a caring rationalism.” The Bible simply contains too many ultra-reactionary and inhumane messages to be blindly embraced by believers. Christian ideas of tolerance are inconsistent with the biblical notion that acceptance of Christ is the only way to reach heaven. The Prince of Peace said he came to bring not peace, but a sword. It is no wonder that there are so many different conceptions of Christianity, not all of them benign.
A humanistic life-stance is the best way to approach the many divisive religious and ethnic conflicts that plague Africa. Human-centered thought and action offer much more for African uplift than piety and prayers ever could. Christian charity is, indeed, commendable. However our appreciation of the missionaries’ alms dish must never blind us to the dagger that so often accompanies it.
Stephen adds: Norm Allen does a great deal of work for CFI in Africa.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Endowed college coaching positions
Something I just discovered this week: The head coaching positions for Stanford's football and men's basketball teams are endowed. Football coach Jim Harbaugh is the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football; Basketball coach Johnny Dawkins is the Anne and Tony Joseph Director of Men's Basketball.
It seems like a good idea for everyone involved. The endowment presumably pays or helps pay salaries that probably are in the mid- or high-six figures. It seems like the type of naming opportunity a sports-minded donor would jump at--after all, the donor's name will be announced over the PA system during pre-game intros in front of 10,000 or 60,000 fans. Has anyone heard of other schools doing this? Does anyone know why Stanford alone seems to have gone this route?
It seems like a good idea for everyone involved. The endowment presumably pays or helps pay salaries that probably are in the mid- or high-six figures. It seems like the type of naming opportunity a sports-minded donor would jump at--after all, the donor's name will be announced over the PA system during pre-game intros in front of 10,000 or 60,000 fans. Has anyone heard of other schools doing this? Does anyone know why Stanford alone seems to have gone this route?
Train woes
It's almost 5pm. I am supposed to be live on Little Atoms radio show at 7pm (studio nr. Borough tube station, London), but I went into Oxford railway station at 4.30pm to find there are no trains to London. Now sitting on the bus (which has wireless) but I think it's a long shot I'll make it. Annoying.
But they have promised to plug tomorrow's WEIRD SCIENCE event in anycase.
But they have promised to plug tomorrow's WEIRD SCIENCE event in anycase.
How Many British Schools Are Covertly Teaching Young Earth Creationism "As Fact"?
The recent revelation that about 30% of secondary school teachers want "creationism" taught in schools reminded me of the results of a survey reported back in 2006, which is still one of the most disturbing educational surveys I've ever seen. If you are not aware of it, it's worth checking out.
Go here.
The original tables of results of the Opinionpanel survey are here (scroll down to 2006)
Students from British Universities were surveyed on a range of questions, including whether they were Young Earth Creationists, and whether Young Earth Creationism had been taught to them by their parents, school, sunday school, etc.
Amazingly, 12% of these undergrads were Young Earth Creationists. But the real stand-out statistic for me was that 19% of students said that they had been taught Young Earth Creationism "as fact" in school.
19%! One in five students. We are not talking mostly Muslim schools either. The figure for those who were of other non-Christian religion was actually much lower.
If 1 in 5 British students are taught in school that it's a fact that the entire universe is less than ten thousand years old and that God made all species as literally described in Genesis, that's a national educational disgrace.
As comparatively few schools (esp. non-Muslim schools) publicly admit to teaching children Young Earth Creationism "as fact", it would appear that much of this teaching is going on under the public radar.
Shouldn't checking up on this - and doing something about it - now be a priority for the Government and for OFSTED? For as I said elsewhere, teaching children that Young Earth Creationism is supported by the available empirical evidence involves teaching them to think in way that are, quite literally, close to lunacy.
In some cases, it may be that the schools themselves are unaware of what's being pushed in their classrooms. I once discovered a YEC science teacher at a top public school - a teacher whose nutty YEC views even the other science teachers were unaware of. Some students then confirmed that this teachers' YEC views were indeed cropping up in his teaching.
Any other anecdotes?
POSTSCRIPT. Put this another way - we have prima facie evidence that Young Earth Creationists now constitute a fifth column in UK schools, presenting YEC "as fact" to perhaps as many as 1 in 5 pupils.
POSTPOSTSCRIPT. The British Government is now clear YEC cannot be taught as fact, or even as a valid theory, in science classes in State schools. See here for their guidelines for teachers. However, there are no statutory guidelines for RE, even for state-funded schools. That's right. None.
Go here.
The original tables of results of the Opinionpanel survey are here (scroll down to 2006)
Students from British Universities were surveyed on a range of questions, including whether they were Young Earth Creationists, and whether Young Earth Creationism had been taught to them by their parents, school, sunday school, etc.
Amazingly, 12% of these undergrads were Young Earth Creationists. But the real stand-out statistic for me was that 19% of students said that they had been taught Young Earth Creationism "as fact" in school.
19%! One in five students. We are not talking mostly Muslim schools either. The figure for those who were of other non-Christian religion was actually much lower.
If 1 in 5 British students are taught in school that it's a fact that the entire universe is less than ten thousand years old and that God made all species as literally described in Genesis, that's a national educational disgrace.
As comparatively few schools (esp. non-Muslim schools) publicly admit to teaching children Young Earth Creationism "as fact", it would appear that much of this teaching is going on under the public radar.
Shouldn't checking up on this - and doing something about it - now be a priority for the Government and for OFSTED? For as I said elsewhere, teaching children that Young Earth Creationism is supported by the available empirical evidence involves teaching them to think in way that are, quite literally, close to lunacy.
In some cases, it may be that the schools themselves are unaware of what's being pushed in their classrooms. I once discovered a YEC science teacher at a top public school - a teacher whose nutty YEC views even the other science teachers were unaware of. Some students then confirmed that this teachers' YEC views were indeed cropping up in his teaching.
Any other anecdotes?
POSTSCRIPT. Put this another way - we have prima facie evidence that Young Earth Creationists now constitute a fifth column in UK schools, presenting YEC "as fact" to perhaps as many as 1 in 5 pupils.
POSTPOSTSCRIPT. The British Government is now clear YEC cannot be taught as fact, or even as a valid theory, in science classes in State schools. See here for their guidelines for teachers. However, there are no statutory guidelines for RE, even for state-funded schools. That's right. None.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Salary Cap, a Rookie Pay Scale and the NFLPA
The week leading up to the Conference Championships, with all of its corresponding movement of coaches and executives, is a good time to take stock of two important bargaining points for the new NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): 1) a rookie salary cap and 2) the traditional salary cap. Both of these issues relate to a more fundamental question—who are the union’s constituents when negotiating the CBA? Does the NFLPA represent each individual member, or “the players” as a group, and how does the group it represents affect the NFLPA’s negotiating strategy?
First, the current CBA provides a limited amount of cap space with which to sign first-year players (the “Entering Player Pool”). The Entering Player Pool is allocated to each team based on the number and position of their draft picks. The size of the pool varies yearly, increasing in proportion with the salary cap, but it will never be greater than 5% of the salary cap. Therefore, on average, a team will spend no more than 5% of player costs on rookies. In fact, Andrew Brandt of the National Football Post reported that the average team spends less than 4% of its cap space on rookies. Therefore, rookie contracts, on average, do not pose a large burden on team cap spaces, except for a few picks at the top of the first round; however, those few picks are driving the current debate over rookie salary reform.
Second, the traditional salary cap performs two main functions, the first well known and the second a bit surprising. It creates a maximum amount of money a team can spend on its roster in a given year. It also guarantees players a large percentage of all revenue earned by the teams for their football operations. The salary cap has long been touted in the public as a way for owners to control costs and prevent “excess” spending by wealthy teams like the New York Yankees in baseball, while having the pleasant effect of increasing parity in the league. The other, often unnoticed, effect is guaranteeing players least 50% and up to 58% of all NFL revenue. The players have received an enormous piece of the proverbial pie. It is thus unsurprising to find out that the players were the group to demand the salary cap in the 1993 negotiations. One reason the public often overlooks this purpose of the cap leads to the final, and I believe unanswered issue—who does the NFLPA represent in CBA negotiations?
We tend to view professional sports unions as representing the individual athlete (the individual model) and not the group of members as a whole (the group model), and in a way this is true. For instance, the NFLPA represents individual athletes in grievances against teams or the league. However, the NFLPA’s constituent group becomes less clear when one looks at CBA negotiations. What is viewed as a “win” by one group of players is a “loss” for another; higher minimum salaries for veterans increases certain players’ wages while simultaneously putting others out of work (if teams do not value them at the minimum salary) and decreases the wages of certain other players (since more cap space is eaten up by older players). I contend that the public misses the idea of the salary cap increasing the pay for players precisely because we only see the NFLPA’s relationship to the players in the individual model, and not the group model. This is why people often cynically viewed Gene Upshaw as an agent for the league and not the players—the players do not individually have guaranteed contracts, so Upshaw must have failed. However, he did obtain a large amount of guaranteed money for the players as a group—up to 60% of all money earned by teams must be paid to players in the form of salary, benefits, and bonuses each year. Similarly, we view rookie contracts as too rich because of the prominence of contracts such as Jake Long’s and Matt Ryan’s deals, yet we do not view the entirety of rookie contracts taken together as a very small percentage of total player wages.
As the NFLPA searches for a new director to lead it through the next round of CBA negotiations, a rookie pay scale or salary cap and revisions to the traditional salary cap will be two of the most hotly debated issues. Whether the union subscribes to the individual or group model will greatly affect its positions. The salary cap currently guarantees a large amount of revenue to the players, but prevents certain superstars from earning A-Rod type contracts—an individually focused union may try to lift the cap and get huge paydays for the top earners. A group-centered union, on the other hand, will continue to demand high revenue guarantees, regardless of the form they take. Similarly, any changes to the rookie pay system will depend on whether the union looks out for each individual rookie (and its right to as high a salary as possible) or the rookies as a group (and its right to higher guaranteed revenue percentages).
First, the current CBA provides a limited amount of cap space with which to sign first-year players (the “Entering Player Pool”). The Entering Player Pool is allocated to each team based on the number and position of their draft picks. The size of the pool varies yearly, increasing in proportion with the salary cap, but it will never be greater than 5% of the salary cap. Therefore, on average, a team will spend no more than 5% of player costs on rookies. In fact, Andrew Brandt of the National Football Post reported that the average team spends less than 4% of its cap space on rookies. Therefore, rookie contracts, on average, do not pose a large burden on team cap spaces, except for a few picks at the top of the first round; however, those few picks are driving the current debate over rookie salary reform.
Second, the traditional salary cap performs two main functions, the first well known and the second a bit surprising. It creates a maximum amount of money a team can spend on its roster in a given year. It also guarantees players a large percentage of all revenue earned by the teams for their football operations. The salary cap has long been touted in the public as a way for owners to control costs and prevent “excess” spending by wealthy teams like the New York Yankees in baseball, while having the pleasant effect of increasing parity in the league. The other, often unnoticed, effect is guaranteeing players least 50% and up to 58% of all NFL revenue. The players have received an enormous piece of the proverbial pie. It is thus unsurprising to find out that the players were the group to demand the salary cap in the 1993 negotiations. One reason the public often overlooks this purpose of the cap leads to the final, and I believe unanswered issue—who does the NFLPA represent in CBA negotiations?
We tend to view professional sports unions as representing the individual athlete (the individual model) and not the group of members as a whole (the group model), and in a way this is true. For instance, the NFLPA represents individual athletes in grievances against teams or the league. However, the NFLPA’s constituent group becomes less clear when one looks at CBA negotiations. What is viewed as a “win” by one group of players is a “loss” for another; higher minimum salaries for veterans increases certain players’ wages while simultaneously putting others out of work (if teams do not value them at the minimum salary) and decreases the wages of certain other players (since more cap space is eaten up by older players). I contend that the public misses the idea of the salary cap increasing the pay for players precisely because we only see the NFLPA’s relationship to the players in the individual model, and not the group model. This is why people often cynically viewed Gene Upshaw as an agent for the league and not the players—the players do not individually have guaranteed contracts, so Upshaw must have failed. However, he did obtain a large amount of guaranteed money for the players as a group—up to 60% of all money earned by teams must be paid to players in the form of salary, benefits, and bonuses each year. Similarly, we view rookie contracts as too rich because of the prominence of contracts such as Jake Long’s and Matt Ryan’s deals, yet we do not view the entirety of rookie contracts taken together as a very small percentage of total player wages.
As the NFLPA searches for a new director to lead it through the next round of CBA negotiations, a rookie pay scale or salary cap and revisions to the traditional salary cap will be two of the most hotly debated issues. Whether the union subscribes to the individual or group model will greatly affect its positions. The salary cap currently guarantees a large amount of revenue to the players, but prevents certain superstars from earning A-Rod type contracts—an individually focused union may try to lift the cap and get huge paydays for the top earners. A group-centered union, on the other hand, will continue to demand high revenue guarantees, regardless of the form they take. Similarly, any changes to the rookie pay system will depend on whether the union looks out for each individual rookie (and its right to as high a salary as possible) or the rookies as a group (and its right to higher guaranteed revenue percentages).
Monday, January 12, 2009
New SI.com Sports Law Column on Roger Clemens' Grand Jury
I have a new column on SI.com on grand jury proceedings into whether Roger Clemens committed perjury. Here's an excerpt:* * *
It is important to not get ahead of ourselves. Clemens has not yet been indicted, let alone convicted. In fact, there are several reasons to believe Clemens would prevail in a trial.
First, Clemens would be able to afford a top legal team, with high-profile expert witnesses. While statistics confirm that prosecutors enjoy tremendous success, those statistics are general ones and not based on prosecutions of remarkably wealthy and famous persons. Along those lines, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that jurors are often "star-struck" by celebrity defendants, a phenomenon which, if true, would likely bode well for Clemens.
Second, perjury and obstruction of justice are usually difficult crimes to prove. In order to convict Clemens on perjury, prosecutors would not only need to establish that he lied under oath, but also that he knowingly lied. Clemens' counsel could borrow from the playbook of Barry Bonds' counsel and contend that Clemens did not fully understand the questions asked of him, or that he even if he used steroids and human growth hormone, he was never told by McNamee that they were banned substances. All Clemens' counsel would need to plant is reasonable doubt in the mind of jurors.
* * *
Hope you have a chance to check out the rest.
Introducing the National Sports and Entertainment Law Society
Two of my students at Vermont Law School -- Andrew Delaney and William Rothstein -- have embarked on creating the National Sports and Entertainment Law Society. It is a national organization for sports law societies across the country.I encourage you to check out the NSELS website and also check out Sports Agent Blog's Darren Heitner's story on the NSELS (and my thanks to Darren for his kind words):
* * *
From the small northeastern state of Vermont, a couple of law students are determined to start an organization that will unite sports & entertainment law societies in law schools around the country. Andrew Delaney and Will Rothstein have recently created the National Sports & Entertainment Law Society. Their stated goal is to create a national network of sports and entertainment law societies. If you are a current law school student and are interested in sports and/or entertainment law, I suggest you check out the site and reach out to one of the two founders. My communication thus far has been with Mr. Delaney. I guarantee he will get back to you about any questions you may have.
Some law schools have extensive sports and entertainment programs. Marquette, Tulane, and UCLA are institutions that offer a variety of classes in both areas. Would you be surprised if I told you that University of Florida offers no sports nor entertainment law classes? Occasionally, UF offers a Sports Law Seminar, capped at fifteen students (real nice when your school has about 1,200 students all interested in the subject). Oftentimes, the only way for a law student to get involved in entertainment and/or sports law is through a sports & entertainment law society. If your law school does not have one, the National Sports & Entertainment Law Society would like to help you get one started. If one already exists, but there is a need to expand its programs and infrastructure, NSELS will lend a hand as well.
I plan to get involved in NSELS, especially after my term as President of the UF Entertainment & Sports Law Society has expired. Delaney and Rothstein have the guidance of one of the best sports law scholars in the country, Michael McCann, who will be a panelist at the UF Sports Law Symposium on January 23.
* * *
Sunday, January 11, 2009
New Board for AALS Section on Sports and the Law
This past year, I had the honor of serving as Chair of the Association of American Law Schools' Section on Sports and the Law.The AALS is a non-profit association of over 170 U.S. law schools and is legal education's principal representative to the federal government and to other national higher education organizations. The Section on Sports and the Law is composed of sports law professors from those schools.
The AALS held its annual meeting this past week in San Diego and on Thursday our section hosted a forum entitled, "The Emerging Nexus between Sports and immigration law." It was a dynamic event, featuring three terrific panelists: Kevin Johnson (the Dean of UC Davis Law School and also its Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies), Katie Pothier (Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the San Diego Padres), and Robert Colosia (President and Founder of Group C Sports Law agency, which primarily represents soccer players). The panelists examined the various visas required for players to play in the U.S. and also discussed possible changes to relevant immigration law in President Obama's administration.
During the meeting we also elected a new group of section officers and executive officers for 2009. I congratulate the following new section leaders:
Chair: David Caudill (Villanova University School of Law)
Chair-Elect: Edmund Edmonds (Notre Dame Law School and Sports Law Blog)
Secretary: Erin Buzvuis (Western New England College of Law and Title IX Blog)
Treasuer: Tshaka Randall (Florida A&M University College of Law)
I enjoyed my time as Chair in 2008 and look forward to helping out the new leaders in any way. I would also like to especially thank Patricia Cervanka, Gordon Hylton, and Matt Mitten of Marquette University Law School and Geoff Rapp for all of their great advice and assistance this past year.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
New SI.com Sports Law Column on Exemptions in Baseball for Amphetamines
I have a new column on SI.com concerning Major League Baseball authorizing nearly 8 percent of its players to use drugs to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.Here's an excerpt:
While the clinical link between amphetamines and baseball performance is less established than links between steroids, human growth hormone and performance, it is thought that amphetamines and similar substances improve the focus and concentration of players and also enhance their reaction time. Although coffee and energy drinks offer similar types of advantages, amphetamines, which are available through prescriptions, are more potent, more addictive, and more likely to trigger threatening side effects.I hope you have a chance to check out the rest.In defense of baseball and its players, it is unclear how many requests were rejected, either formally or informally, by team physicians or by Dr. Smith (who received approval power last year) between '06 and '08. Indeed, if the number of requests increased by a higher percentage than the number of approvals, then the increase in approvals would be far less notable. The only available information is that the number of new requests to Smith for TUE exemptions for ADHD drugs declined from 72 to 56 last year.
In addition, there may be viable clinical explanations that at least partially account for the precipitous rise in TUEs granted by baseball. Diagnostic challenges for physicians who treat persons claiming to have attention disorders may, for example, prove relevant: it may be scientifically difficult for physicians to separate legitimate from illegitimate cases of attention disorders, thus making it difficult for physicians to reject prescription requests.
It is also possible the increase connects to decreased stigma in acknowledging that one has an attention disorder and needs treatment for it. There is a long history of mental illnesses receiving less sympathy by the public and less protection by courts than physical illnesses, though as neuroscience has increasingly shown that mental illnesses are as much "physical" as physical illnesses, that gap has narrowed. Consequently, as more players apply for TUEs, less stigma may be attached to doing so, thus encouraging more players to apply.
It is also possible that the increase reflects mere coincidence, in that more and more players are simply suffering from attention disorders. Likewise, it could represent a rush to not miss out on a competitive advantage, in that some players may feel disadvantaged by not taking amphetamines while their teammates and competitors do.
Absent a viable explanation, however, suspicions will remain that some players are circumventing the policy to obtain otherwise prohibited amphetamines and that baseball has acquiesced to those players.
University of Florida Levin College of Law Sports Law Symposium
On Friday, January 23, the Entertainment and Sports Law Society at the University of Florida Levin College of Law will be hosting what should be an excellent sports law symposium. I'm honored to be speaking at it. Here are some more details:Speakers
Marc Edelman - Sports law attorney, author, and professor
Max Eppel - Founder, Max Eppel Soccer Agency LLC (MESA)
Joshua Golka - Sports Attorney and Consultant at Law Office of Joshua P. Golka
Jeffrey Harrison - Antitrust, Contracts Law, Copyright, & Economics Professor at UF Law
David Higdon - Sports business management consultant and communications specialist/member U.S. Tennis Association National Committee on Collegiate Tennis
Thomas Hurst - Agency and Partnership, Contracts, Corporations, Securities Regulation, Sports Law Professor at UF Law
Marc Isenberg - Author of "Money Players: A Guide to Success in Sports, Business & Life for Current and Future Pro Athletes"
Michael McCann - Professor at Vermont Law School. Legal Expert and SI.com Columnist at Sports Illustrated
John Meindl - Founder & President of SPORTSBRANDEDMEDIA, INC.
Roger Mussa - Wealth Advisor & Retirement Planner at Morgan Stanley Investment Management
Nick Ohanesian - Resident Officer for the Jacksonville Resident Office of the National Labor Relations Board. UF law professor.
David Peart - Founder & CEO at Spike Consulting Group
Kelly Perdew - CEO Rotohog, Winner of Season 2 “The Apprentice”, Author “Take Command”
Jeff Reel - Vice President & Assistant General Counsel for ATP Tour, Inc
David Snyder - Co-Founder at Search & Social, LLC
Glenn Toby - Owner at Team Management and Founder at The Book Bank Foundation Inc
Matthew Watkins - NFLPA Certified Advisor and Football Division Director at Dynasty Athlete Representation
Gary Wimsett Jr. - UF law alum. Practices health and corporate law with Flanagan & Marchewka, LLP
Adam Zimmerman - Executive Vice President Marketing Services at Career Sports & Entertainment. UF Alum.
Discussion Topics/Speakers
Recruiting
Moderator: Thomas Hurst
Panelists: Joshua Golka, Marc Isenberg, Max Eppel
- The future of athletes leaving to play overseas (the Brandon Jennings experiment).
- Recruiting baseball players from Japan, South Korea, Dominican Republic, etc. New countries in the future?
- Illegal contact with collegiate athletes. How to recruit legally according to the UAAA and SPARTA.
- Registering with state boards. Is it necessary and/or worth it?
- Highschool baseball players on the top of their game. Go to college or straight to the pros?
- AAU basketball. The prevalence of runners.
- The difference between being an agent and an advisor.
- How tools like YouTube and Facebook have changed the game of recruiting.
Negotiation
Moderator: Gary Wimsett Jr.
Panelists: David Peart, Glenn Toby, Jeff Reel
- Will the struggling economy affect free-agent signings in the future?
- How to properly value your clients in a negotiation.
- Tactics in a negotiation setting.
- Will the NFL ever turn to a slotting system a la the NBA?
- The value of holding out.
- Marketing deals, promotion, sponsorship and licensing agreements.
- Should a player ever negotiate his own contract (i.e. Daunte Culpepper)?
Labor Issues
Moderator: Nick Ohanesian
Panelists: Marc Edelman, Michael McCann, Matthew Watkins
- Arbitration strategies for team/player.
- Collusion issues (i.e. - Barry Bonds).
- The tough job for the next NFLPA Executive Director.
- Will we ever see a salary cap in baseball?
- Positives and negatives of the NFL Franchise Tag.
Future of Sports Business
Moderator: Jeffrey Harrison
Panelists: David Snyder, Roger Mussa, Adam Zimmerman, John Meindl, David Higdon, Kelly Perdew
- Convergence of sports and entertainment.
- Agencies offering a multitude of services including legal related services, thus binding them to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
- New kinds of endorsements and marketing opportunities in a digital world.
- Will more women enter this male-dominated field?
- How will the internet affect the sports business landscape?
- Is wealth management becoming a necessary service for sports agents to provide?
- Blogs, social networking, YouTube. How can somebody in the sports business world use these tools to get ahead of the pack?
- More conglomeration? What will become of CAA, IMG, Blue Equity, Octagon?
Pepperdine University School of Law Symposium on Arbitrating Sports
On Friday, February 27, Pepperdine University School of Law (which is located in gorgeous Malibu, California) will be hosting what should be a terrific symposium entitled, "Arbitrating Sports: Reflections on USADA/Landis, the Olympic Games, and the Future of Sports Dispute Resolution."Here are some of the details:
Arbitrating Sports: Reflections on USADA/Landis, the Olympic Games, and the Future of Sports Dispute Resolution
Sessions
- Reflections on USADA v. Floyd Landis
- The Olympic Games
- The Future of Sports Dispute Resolution
- The Perspective of the Press and Public Arbitration
Panelists
Matt Barnett - USADA Lawyer/Barnett & Barnett P.C.
Jeffrey Benz - Arbitrator/AVP
Michael Hiltzik - LA Times
Howard Jacobs - Law Offices of Howard Jacobs
Michael Lenard - International Court of Arbitration for Sport
Richard McLaren - CAS Arbitrator/University of Western Ontario
Matt Mitten - Marquette University School of Law
Maidie Oliveau - CAS Arbitrator/Law Sports
John Ruger - United States Olympic Committee
Mike Straubel - Valparaiso School of Law
Maurice Suh - Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
Maureen Weston - Pepperdine School of Law
For more information call Lori Rushford at 310.506.6342 or email lori.rushford@pepperdine.edu. Approved for 6 hours of MCLE Credit.
For additional information, click here.
University of Oregon Sports Business and the Law Conference
On Friday, January 23, the University of Oregon will be hosting its first "Sports Business and the Law Conference." Here's the press release for it:EUGENE, Ore. -- (Jan. 9, 2009) -- Sports industry professionals will meet in downtown Portland on Friday, Jan. 23, for the University of Oregon’s “Sports Business and the Law” conference. The event is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the UO in Portland’s White Stag Block, 70 NW Couch St.
In a series of panel discussions moderated by faculty members from UO and Willamette University, graduate students and sports business professionals will discuss a variety of topics about legal issues of the sports industry. Scheduled panels will include: The Law of Sports Leagues; Sports Business In-House Counsel; The NCAA and Legal Compliance; and Agents, Contracts and Negotiation.
The conference will feature representatives from the Portland Trail Blazers, Nike, adidas, Columbia Sportswear, Professional Bowlers Association, BDA Sports Management and Sports Management Worldwide.
According to UO’s Jumane Redway, law and business student and conference organizer, this conference is the first of its kind for the university and is a celebration of the richness and depth of the local sports business community.
“The Portland metro area's beautiful settings and easy access to the outdoors have made it a hub for sporting goods companies,” said Redway. “Portland's position in the sports world presents questions for business professionals and legal experts alike, which make this conference a great opportunity for professionals, students and the general public.”
General admission to the event is $40, and student admission is $15. Participants must register by Wednesday, Jan. 21. For more information about the event and to register, visit http://bizlaw.uoregon.edu/lesa/sports08/. Lunch will be provided. CLE credit is pending.
The conference is sponsored by the UO Center for Law and Entrepreneurship, the James Warsaw Sports Marketing Center and the Sports and the Entertainment Law Forum.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Losers by AKO: Round 2
As a New Commissioner of the New York State Athletic Commission Begins Her Tenure, The Question is Begged as to Whether Two Former World Champions That Were Placed on Administrative Suspension by Her Predecessor Could Have Done Anything to Reclaim Their Boxing Licenses (Continued)
by Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq.
The Arguments Not Made on Behalf of Holyfield and Jones
What arguments could Evander Holyfield or Junior Jones have offered in support of a lawsuit against the Commission? While it would be difficult to show an “error of law” with regard to the Commission’s administrative suspensions, given the wide latitude that it has in administering them, one argument that could have been made was that their suspensions were “arbitrary and capricious.” With Holyfield and Jones, it appears that their early blessings, in terms of ability and talent, became their curses. An argument could be made that they were arbitrarily and with caprice held to a higher standard than the average opponent that is brought in to lose, a local ticket seller of limited capability to begin with, or a more lightly regarded world class contender or titleholder. Perhaps a statistical analysis could have been done of those who were not suspended in New York despite a number of particularly brutal or telling losses over the later portion of their careers. Indeed, Muhammad Ali had success in his lawsuit against the Commission by demonstrating that the basis provided for the denial of his license, his criminal conviction for evading the draft, was arbitrary and capricious after he was able to show that there were scores of individuals with criminal convictions that were granted licenses by the Commission prior to the denial of his application. Similarly, Holyfield or Jones could have attempted to document the losses taken in the later portion of the careers of other boxers that fought in New York around the same time that they were suspended. If a statistically remarkable amount of boxers showed an appreciable decline in their skill levels, but were granted licenses, perhaps a successful argument could have been made that the Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it handed down their administrative suspensions.
Alternately, Holyfield and Jones could have also argued that their respective administrative suspensions lacked rational bases. Holyfield could have made the argument that he simply had a bad night against Larry Donald, himself a former Olympian and top 25 boxer at that time, and that the losses that he suffered prior to the Donald fight were to top flight competition and not to the heavyweight division’s peasant class. Jones, who had not fought in three years prior to his suspension, could have argued that his suspension lacked a rational basis, as it came about without as much as a single comeback fight to demonstrate what abilities he may have had left following his three-year hiatus from the ring.
Each of the above arguments could have been rebutted by the Commission by virtue of the fact that it is bestowed with the ability, under Section 1812 of the Unconsolidated Laws of New York, to “exercise its discretion” in determining whether a boxer has the “general fitness” to be given a license. With regard to a claim that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously with regard to Holyfield, the Commission could have argued that Holyfield, in showing porous defense, minimal offense, and marked lethargy in his loss to Donald, appeared wholly unable to compete any longer on a world class level in boxing and was a threat to his own well-being for as long as he continued to take on the caliber of boxer that he been facing for so many years. In short, the Commission could have stated that Holyfield no longer had the “general fitness” to continue boxing in New York State. Jones, the Commission could have argued, had lost to a boxer that was not on his level in his last match three years earlier, was only three years older at the time he was suspended, and generally appeared more vulnerable to a lesser caliber of boxers that had been the case earlier in his career. Thus, the Commission could have argued Jones was also a threat to his own well-being and that he too did not have the “general fitness” to continue boxing in New York State.
The rational basis arguments could have been rebutted on substantially similar grounds as the arbitrary and capricious arguments. Briefly, the Commission could have argued that it rationally exercised its discretion in finding, through its subjective observations, that Holyfield and Jones did not demonstrate the “general fitness” to box in New York State anymore. In support of their claims, the Commission could have submitted affidavits and sworn testimony on what its members, licensees, and other boxing insiders had observed with regard to each boxer in the months and years preceding their suspensions.
Even Winners Can Be Losers
Whether or not Holyfield and Jones could have succeeded in court on the merits of the above- proffered arguments, or others not advanced herein, a bigger nemesis faced each of them in the event that they lost their initial appeals to the Commission: Father Time. Lawsuits, barring early resolutions, take an appreciable amount of time to make their way through the New York State court system. At the time of their suspensions, Holyfield was already 43-years-old and Jones was 35. In boxing years, time was of the essence to each of their careers. Even if they had fought the decisions to administratively suspend them and won, they would have already lost additional months and years off of the tail end of their careers.
Conclusion
Whatever someone’s personal opinion is of whether or not Evander Holyfield or Junior Jones should have been cleared to continue boxing by the Commission, their administrative suspensions raise some intriguing questions about the powerful sway that the Commission can have over a boxer’s career. Taken to its logical extreme, if the Commission observes a single sparring session in which a formerly untouchable boxer takes an unusual beating, or someone overhears a single conversation during a night of boxing at the Roseland Ballroom where a once capable boxer sounds a little more garbled than he used to, the AKO can be scored against them with little chance of their winning a successful appeal of it. As Melvina Lathan, a long-time professional boxing judge, ventures deeper into her new position as the Chairwoman of the New York State Athletic Commission after replacing Ron Scott Stevens, the man who was ultimately responsible for suspending Holyfield and Jones, one has to wonder if she too will be inclined to take such powerful measures to hasten the end of the careers of other professional boxers. If so, who will be next on the chopping block? Perhaps it will be another aging legend or two. Or perhaps it will be a boxer that you manage or promote if he does not give Lathan and the Commission the right signals while fighting, sparring, or conversing in New York State’s gyms and fight venues. The moral of the story: Even if a veteran boxer protects himself at all times in New York, the administrative suspension can split his guard and end his career in a flash.
[This article will be published in the Spring 2009 issue of the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Journal]
Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. is an attorney at the New York law firm of Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, L.L.P. He is also a New York State licensed boxing manager and the Chairman of the Sports Law Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association. Mr. Haberman represented Junior Jones’s manager back in 2006. Also available at http://www.8countnews.com (with footnotes). ©
by Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq.
The Arguments Not Made on Behalf of Holyfield and Jones
What arguments could Evander Holyfield or Junior Jones have offered in support of a lawsuit against the Commission? While it would be difficult to show an “error of law” with regard to the Commission’s administrative suspensions, given the wide latitude that it has in administering them, one argument that could have been made was that their suspensions were “arbitrary and capricious.” With Holyfield and Jones, it appears that their early blessings, in terms of ability and talent, became their curses. An argument could be made that they were arbitrarily and with caprice held to a higher standard than the average opponent that is brought in to lose, a local ticket seller of limited capability to begin with, or a more lightly regarded world class contender or titleholder. Perhaps a statistical analysis could have been done of those who were not suspended in New York despite a number of particularly brutal or telling losses over the later portion of their careers. Indeed, Muhammad Ali had success in his lawsuit against the Commission by demonstrating that the basis provided for the denial of his license, his criminal conviction for evading the draft, was arbitrary and capricious after he was able to show that there were scores of individuals with criminal convictions that were granted licenses by the Commission prior to the denial of his application. Similarly, Holyfield or Jones could have attempted to document the losses taken in the later portion of the careers of other boxers that fought in New York around the same time that they were suspended. If a statistically remarkable amount of boxers showed an appreciable decline in their skill levels, but were granted licenses, perhaps a successful argument could have been made that the Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it handed down their administrative suspensions.
Alternately, Holyfield and Jones could have also argued that their respective administrative suspensions lacked rational bases. Holyfield could have made the argument that he simply had a bad night against Larry Donald, himself a former Olympian and top 25 boxer at that time, and that the losses that he suffered prior to the Donald fight were to top flight competition and not to the heavyweight division’s peasant class. Jones, who had not fought in three years prior to his suspension, could have argued that his suspension lacked a rational basis, as it came about without as much as a single comeback fight to demonstrate what abilities he may have had left following his three-year hiatus from the ring.
Each of the above arguments could have been rebutted by the Commission by virtue of the fact that it is bestowed with the ability, under Section 1812 of the Unconsolidated Laws of New York, to “exercise its discretion” in determining whether a boxer has the “general fitness” to be given a license. With regard to a claim that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously with regard to Holyfield, the Commission could have argued that Holyfield, in showing porous defense, minimal offense, and marked lethargy in his loss to Donald, appeared wholly unable to compete any longer on a world class level in boxing and was a threat to his own well-being for as long as he continued to take on the caliber of boxer that he been facing for so many years. In short, the Commission could have stated that Holyfield no longer had the “general fitness” to continue boxing in New York State. Jones, the Commission could have argued, had lost to a boxer that was not on his level in his last match three years earlier, was only three years older at the time he was suspended, and generally appeared more vulnerable to a lesser caliber of boxers that had been the case earlier in his career. Thus, the Commission could have argued Jones was also a threat to his own well-being and that he too did not have the “general fitness” to continue boxing in New York State.
The rational basis arguments could have been rebutted on substantially similar grounds as the arbitrary and capricious arguments. Briefly, the Commission could have argued that it rationally exercised its discretion in finding, through its subjective observations, that Holyfield and Jones did not demonstrate the “general fitness” to box in New York State anymore. In support of their claims, the Commission could have submitted affidavits and sworn testimony on what its members, licensees, and other boxing insiders had observed with regard to each boxer in the months and years preceding their suspensions.
Even Winners Can Be Losers
Whether or not Holyfield and Jones could have succeeded in court on the merits of the above- proffered arguments, or others not advanced herein, a bigger nemesis faced each of them in the event that they lost their initial appeals to the Commission: Father Time. Lawsuits, barring early resolutions, take an appreciable amount of time to make their way through the New York State court system. At the time of their suspensions, Holyfield was already 43-years-old and Jones was 35. In boxing years, time was of the essence to each of their careers. Even if they had fought the decisions to administratively suspend them and won, they would have already lost additional months and years off of the tail end of their careers.
Conclusion
Whatever someone’s personal opinion is of whether or not Evander Holyfield or Junior Jones should have been cleared to continue boxing by the Commission, their administrative suspensions raise some intriguing questions about the powerful sway that the Commission can have over a boxer’s career. Taken to its logical extreme, if the Commission observes a single sparring session in which a formerly untouchable boxer takes an unusual beating, or someone overhears a single conversation during a night of boxing at the Roseland Ballroom where a once capable boxer sounds a little more garbled than he used to, the AKO can be scored against them with little chance of their winning a successful appeal of it. As Melvina Lathan, a long-time professional boxing judge, ventures deeper into her new position as the Chairwoman of the New York State Athletic Commission after replacing Ron Scott Stevens, the man who was ultimately responsible for suspending Holyfield and Jones, one has to wonder if she too will be inclined to take such powerful measures to hasten the end of the careers of other professional boxers. If so, who will be next on the chopping block? Perhaps it will be another aging legend or two. Or perhaps it will be a boxer that you manage or promote if he does not give Lathan and the Commission the right signals while fighting, sparring, or conversing in New York State’s gyms and fight venues. The moral of the story: Even if a veteran boxer protects himself at all times in New York, the administrative suspension can split his guard and end his career in a flash.
[This article will be published in the Spring 2009 issue of the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Journal]
Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. is an attorney at the New York law firm of Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, L.L.P. He is also a New York State licensed boxing manager and the Chairman of the Sports Law Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association. Mr. Haberman represented Junior Jones’s manager back in 2006. Also available at http://www.8countnews.com (with footnotes). ©
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)