Jenson Button in attempted car-jacking in Sao Paulo

Jenson Button, the defending Formula One World Champion, has described how he was threatened by men brandishing machine guns in an attempted car-jacking in Sao Paulo.

The British driver was travelling back from the qualifying round of the Brazilian Grand Prix, in which he is competing today, when six men surrounded his black Mercedes B-Class, which is fitted with bullet-proof glass.

He was with his father, John, his trainer, Mike Collier, and manager Richard Goddard and was travelling past the entrance to one of the city’s “favelas”, or shanty towns.

“It was pretty terrifying,” Button said. “We were moving pretty slowly in traffic just outside when we pulled up outside the entrance to one of the favelas. I saw a dog and remarked 'Oh, cute dog’ when about six men came out. One of them appeared to be holding a truncheon.

“Then I said 'hey, isn’t that a gun?’ and as soon as I said that our driver angled the car and just floored it. He was a complete legend. We bounced off about five cars. We were literally driving over the top of them.

“It looked like we may have been targeted.”

Button, 30, qualified in 11th position for today’s race, which is the penultimate competition of the season.

Button is not expected to retain his title, which could be won today by Fernando Alonso.

Brazil’s favelas are notoriously lawless and crime-ridden shanty towns which have grown up on the edge of the country’s major cities.

The harsh life in the slums was depicted in the Oscar nominated 2002 film City of God.

Read more...

Australia will be without key duo Doug Bollinger and Mike Hussey for the third and final one-day international

Pace bowler Bollinger, who has missed the last two competitive matches, is struggling with a minor abdominal injury, while Hussey has been rested.

Both players will now return home and rest ahead of a crunch Ashes series with England.

Cricket Australia physio Kevin Sims said: "Doug reported some minor discomfort to his abdomen during his rehabilitation from a previous injury.

"We do not think the new issue is serious however it will prevent him from achieving the workloads necessary for him to be available for selection in the third one-day match in Goa.

"Therefore we have decided it is in his best interests to return to Australia for further assessment and to outline further rehabilitation. Doug's return-to-cricket date will be finalised following this assessment."

The absence of both men leaves Australia facing an uphill battle if they are to square the ODI series 1-1 on Sunday.

Read more...

Hamilton: We're in a good position

Lewis Hamilton is burning with desire to step back onto the top step of the podium and help McLaren achieve "greatness" again.

Hamilton has so far endured a rollercoaster season that has resulted in frustration with the team's decision-making in Australia and Malaysia, a brush with the law Down Under, and a penultimate lap smash in Spain following a wheel-rim failure.

Despite claiming this season he is driving the best car McLaren have built for him, even better than his 2008 title-winner, victory continues to elude the far-from-happy 25-year-old.

For a driver so accustomed to taking the chequered flag in his first two seasons in Formula One, the last 18 months have been virtually barren by his high standards, as he has triumphed just twice in his last 24 grands prix.

It is a statistic that catches Hamilton by surprise when it is mentioned to him at McLaren's state-of-the-art Technology Centre in Woking at a promotional event for Vodafone's World of Difference programme, of which he is an ambassador.

"That's not good. That sounds terrible," said Hamilton.

"There were 17 races last year, the majority of which were pretty poor because generally we had a bad car.

"This year I've been unfortunate, but this is racing. Lots of drivers go years and years without having a win or being on the podium.

"So I'm just grateful I've had some wins, and I know I'm in the early stages of my career, so hopefully I have many more to come."

Victory in Turkey in 11 days' time would certainly go some way to easing the unhappiness he is currently feeling as he readily concedes the first part of the season has been up and down.

"In terms of results it's not been a very good season for me so far. I'm not particularly happy with the results I've had, but it's been a learning experience," added Hamilton.

"I've had some great races, and it's great to know the car is competitive, as fast as some of the other guys.

"We at least have a good base to work from, and with 13 races left, there are plenty to win, and lots more points available.

"Apart from once in Spain, I've at least consistently scored points, which is a benefit. Even if you have a bad weekend and you only get one point, it could really help at the end of the year."

But it is the taste of victory again that matters most to Hamilton. He is aware the wait has been too long for a driver of his talent, and given the team behind him - one he knows is not living up to its status at present but which Hamilton remains confident will do.

"The desire to win is burning inside," insisted Hamilton.

"It's there the whole of the way through the season, even if you do have a win because you get that taste and you want to keep on getting it, so it's constantly burning.

"As a team we are also putting ourselves under extreme pressure, and we will continue to do so because that is how you achieve greatness. At least that's how I feel.

"I do feel we will get there. I reckon it's going to take a couple of races and then we will be back up there, back at the front."

Team-mate Jenson Button has at least savoured success in his debut campaign with McLaren this year, although he experienced heartbreak in Monaco on Sunday when he retired after two laps due to a simple mistake made by one member of the team.

That was when a cooling cover was left on a sidepod that covers the radiator, resulting in the engine overheating.

After Hamilton's unreliability in Barcelona, the team have let themselves down over the past two weekends, something Button is looking to be corrected in Turkey next week.

"I was happy before the last two races which were frustrating, especially Monaco with the problem I had," said Button.

"But to be leading into Monaco after five races with the team was not too bad, although I'm obviously not leading now.

"However, it's a lot easier to chase. It's a more difficult position when you're out in front because you're always looking behind to see where the others are coming from.

"But we're still in a good position, and we have a strong team here. Although we've had a couple of issues in the last two races, we have to put those behind us now and focus on the next one in Turkey.

"We've got to come with a stronger car, and we can't make any mistakes."

Read more...

India thrash Pakistan 4-1 in Hockey World Cup 2010

New Delhi: Breaking News! India began their Hockey World Cup campaign on a high note, by trouncing the arch-rival Pakistan 4-1 in a Pool B encounter at the Dhyan Chand National Stadium, New Delhi. The result was quite unexpected, but India deserved the victory.

India played aggressive Hockey from the very beginning and hardly missed any good opportunity. They converted most of their penalty corners. Three of India's four goals came from the penalty corners, while Pakistan could convert just one penalty corner today.

India dominated the proceedings throughout the match. India was leading 2-0 at the half time. They added two more to their kitty in the second half, while Pakistan could manage to score just one goal.

For India, Sandeep Singh scored two goals, while Shivendra Singh and Prabhjot Singh scored one goal each. For Pakistan, Sohail Abbas scored the goal. He was unlucky to miss out on two goals, after hitting the goal bar on two penalty corners.

Sandeep Singh was declared 'Man of the Match'. With this victory, India climbs to the top of the table in Pool B. Spain and England are tied with India at the top with one victory from one game each. However, India leads the tally on goal difference. It was India's first victory over Pakistan in the last four encounters.

Read more...

Petrova says Henin more aggressive in comeback

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) Nadia Petrova has a unique perspective on the recent comebacks of the once-retired Belgian champions Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters, having defeated one and lost to the other at this year's Australian Open.

Petrova's run to the quarterfinals included victories over two reigning Grand Slam champions: U.S. Open titlist Clijsters and French Open winner Svetlana Kuznetsova.

But she tips her hat to Justine Henin, who defeated her 7-6 (3), 7-5 on Tuesday and has now won 13 of their 15 matches - all but two of them before Henin retired in May 2008.

Returning to the tour this month, seven-time major winner Henin is unseeded and unranked in Melbourne but has already advanced to the semis.

Petrova acknowledged the changes in Henin's style, saying she was much more aggressive.

"She's playing closer to the line, she tries to take time from you," Petrova said. "She really tries to rip the ball. She doesn't stick into long rallies like as she used to, to really run everybody. She really tries to go for the winners."

Petrova said Henin's game was much more varied than that of Clijsters. Petrova crushed Clijsters 6-0, 6-1 in the third round here, the Belgian's worst defeat.

Clijsters, who took two years off to get married and have a baby, returned to tennis last year and won the U.S. Open in her third tournament back.

Petrova had lost all four of her matches against Clijsters but, until last week, hadn't played her since her comeback.

"Justine is a little bit different compared to Kim," Petrova said. "The variety of game she has, that one-handed backhand, the slice, you know, with her you really have to mix it up much more than against Kim. ... You never know what's coming."

The 19th-seeded Russian can see Henin taking the Australian Open title in Melbourne.

"She has a good shot," Petrova said. "She has a really good round in the semifinals. Whoever she's gonna face in the final, I'm sure she has a good shot at it."

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW, AND MORE: Wondering what the Australian Open players do in their down time? Just follow their tweets.

Many players are keeping fans updated on everything from movie choices to match commentaries via Twitter, a social networking site where users type "tweets" of 140 characters or less on their computers or cell phones and are "followed" by friends and fans.

"Looking at Rogers game made me feel a new comer in tennis," No. 3 Svetlana Kuznetsova tweeted about Federer's three-set win over Lleyton Hewitt on Monday night.

That same night, Andy Murray tweeted a link to a photo of himself in shorts and sitting in a bath full of ice bags, perhaps in preparation for his Tuesday evening match against Rafael Nadal.

While Serena Williams mostly uses her tweets to promote her charity work, other players share opinions or the minutiae of their days.

"Love australia... where else can you watch nfl playoff games with breakfast???" Andy Roddick tweeted on Monday.

Victoria Azarenka told the Twittersphere about her morning walk to buy fruit for breakfast on Australia Day, the national holiday; Caroline Wozniacki tweeted that she dined at Nobu two nights in a row, and later hit the town with American players John Isner and Sam Querrey, whom she called "the twin towers."

And Bob Bryan, doubles champion with his brother Mike, chugged some bottled water while he watched "The Time Traveler's Wife."

The Australian Open has its own Twitter feed and includes links to the player's Twitter pages.

About 58 million people around the world use Twitter.

BRONZE BUSTS FOR THE WOODIES: Australians Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde - the most successful doubles combination in tennis history - say their induction into the Australian Tennis Hall of Fame is the greatest honor of their careers.

The pair - nicknamed the Woodies - won 11 Grand Slam titles, 61 ATP doubles titles and gold and silver Olympic medals in their nine years together, starting in 1991 and ending at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, where they took home the silver.

"It's such an incredible honor and probably equal, if not better, than winning the Wimbledons and the Olympics," Woodforde said. "I think it just reflects back about how well you succeeded in the sport."

Bronze busts of the pair were to be unveiled before the night session Tuesday, which is Australia Day, and will be installed in the Garden Square alongside other Australian tennis greats.

They are already in the Sport Australia Hall of Fame.

Individually, the two had modest singles careers, but it was on court together that they dominated. Woodforde thinks all players should be required to compete on doubles teams, saying it would improve their skills and experience the full game.

"Still kind of rankles us that we were called doubles players," he said. "Tennis is about playing singles and doubles."

Woodforde retired in 2000 and Woodbridge continued to play doubles until 2005. The duo were playing a match later Tuesday against Australian Patrick Rafter and Henri Leconte of France as part of the Legends tournament.

Read more...

Cong MP had raised Bindra's frustration early this month

NEW DELHI: A Congress MP from Punjab had alerted the national sports administration that Olympic gold medallist Abhinav Bindra was being

maltreated by the National Rifle Association of India and the issue, if not handled well, could blow up on the country's face

At a meeting of the sports officials early this month, which included Union sports secretary, DG, SAI, and director, NIS Patiala, Manish Tiwari is learnt to have said that Bindra was angry at the attitude of NRAI and the issue needed to be resolved lest it become an embarrassment.

The Ludhiana MP, who is an AICC spokesman, flagged the issue at the meeting as it became clear to some of the ruling party members that all was not well with the country's best medal prospect. While the sports ministry cannot do much with autonomous sports bodies, there may be a case for some informal influence in cases like an Olympic gold medalist.

The shooter felt disturbed as he was being called back by NRAI every few months from training abroad and had reportedly confided to friends that he could quit.

The Bindra episode is seen to highlight the poor sports management in the country and the limited ways to deal with it. There is not much the sports ministry can do with sports associations except intervene in smaller associations with which it enjoys some leverage. It, however, is completely helpless when it comes to issuing directions to bigger ones.

However, the Bindra episode may nudge the Centre to look at ways it could exercise some oversight where national prestige is at stake. The issue is being seen as serious especially with Commonwealth Games in the country and then the Olypmics on which some of the medal prospects are focused.

The recent fiasco in hockey where players went on a strike to drive home the neglect faced by them from Hockey India has only underlined the urgency to set the house in order.

Read more...

AT&T terminates sponsorship of scandal-hit Tiger Woods

NEW YORK -- AT&T, Inc. said on Thursday it was terminating its sponsorship agreement with Tiger Woods, joining the list of companies that have distanced themselves from the top golfer in the wake of a sex scandal.

The US telecommunications company is the latest corporate sponsor to back away from the world’s first billionaire athlete since he became engulfed in allegations of multiple extramarital affairs following a mysterious minor car accident outside his Florida home on Nov. 27.

AT&T, which had previously said it was assessing its relationship with Woods, said in a brief statement on Thursday: “We are ending our sponsorship agreement with Tiger Woods and wish him well in the future.”

Woods, believed to be the world’s wealthiest athlete, estimated to earn about $100 million a year in endorsement deals before his troubles, confessed on Dec. 11 to “infidelity” to his Swedish wife Elin Nordegren. He announced he would take an indefinite break from golf to save his marriage.

The scandal may have cost shareholders of companies endorsed by the world’s no. 1 golfer $5 billion to $12 billion in losses, according to a study by two economics professors from the University of California, Davis.

“Our analysis makes clear that while having a celebrity of Tiger Woods’ stature as an endorser has undeniable upside, the downside risk is substantial, too,” one of the professors, Victor Stango of UC Davis Graduate School of Management, said in a statement released along with the study.

Some economic analysts, however, have questioned the accuracy of the UC Davis study, although they acknowledge that Woods’ own marketable value as a subject for corporate endorsement has been badly hit by the scandal.

Sponsors who have revised their relationship with Woods include technology outsourcing and consulting firm Accenture Plc., which ended its endorsement, and Procter & Gamble Co.’s shaving products maker Gillette, which dropped the golfer from its marketing.

Some other companies, however, like American athletic shoe maker Nike, Inc., have said they are standing by the golfer.

The scandal saw a parade of more than a dozen women -- from cocktail waitresses to porn stars -- come forward to say they had affairs with the married father of two.

Since the start of the scandal, Woods, who had previously carefully maintained a public image of a clean-living sports and family man, has kept out of sight of the media.

A spokesman for AT&T declined to give any details of its deal with Woods. -- Reuters

Read more...

GOLF NEWS

Tiger Woods considered his U.S. Open win "probably the greatest tournament I've ever had."(Getty Images)

Woods tops Mediate in 19 holes for 14th major

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- With a throbbing knee and a pounding heart, Tiger Woods made one last improbable escape Monday and won the U.S. Open in a 19-hole playoff over Rocco Mediate, his 14th career major and maybe the most amazing of them all.

Tiger Woods embraces his caddie Steve Williams after the win.(Getty Images)

Related

Hole-by-hole scoring
Notes from the playoff
U.S. Open playoff history
Monday's best pics
Quotes: Woods
Quotes: Mediate

One shot behind after a collapse no one saw coming, Woods birdied the 18th hole to force sudden death at Torrey Pines against a journeyman with a creaky back who simply wouldn't go away.

But that one extra hole was enough to doom Mediate, trying to become the oldest U.S. Open champion at 45 years, 6 months.

He put his tee shot in the bunker at No. 7, knocked his approach off a cart path and against the bleachers, chipped some 18 feet past the hole and missed the par putt.

On the verge of one of golf's greatest upsets, Mediate instead became another victim.

"Great fight," Woods told him as they embraced on the seventh green.

Woods, who delivered so many spectacular moments over four days along the Pacific bluffs, only needed a two-putt par to win the U.S. Open for the third time, and the first since it last was held on a public course at Bethpage Black in 2002.

It capped a remarkable week for the world's No. 1 player, who had not played since April 15 surgery on his left knee and looked as though every step was a burden. But the knee held up for 91 holes, and the payoff was worth the pain, even if doctors had warned him that he risked further injury by playing the Open.

"I'm glad I'm done," Woods said. "I really don't feel like playing anymore. It's sore."

Woods joins Jack Nicklaus as the only players to capture the career Grand Slam three times over.

Mediate's odyssey began two weeks ago when he had to survive a sudden-death playoff simply to qualify for this U.S. Open. Even more unlikely was going toe-to-toe with Woods -- whom Mediate referred to as a "monster" -- and nearly slaying him.

He had a 20-foot birdie putt on the 18th hole to win, but it slid by on the left.

Mediate struggled to keep his emotions after taking bogey on the first extra hole, but he walked off Torrey Pines with 12,000 new friends who crammed both sides of every fairway for a playoff that was tighter than anyone imagined.

"Obviously, I would have loved to win," he said. "I don't know what else to say. They wanted a show, they got one."

Did they ever.

TORREY PINES KNOWLEDGE, SHOTMAKING HELPS WOODS OVERCOME PAIN
By Mike McAllister, PGATOUR.com Managing Editor

LA JOLLA, Calif. -- We may never know the true extent of the pain Tiger Woods endured this week with his surgically repaired left knee, or the limitations he faced on the torque and flexibility required to play the kind of golf no one else can match. He spent the entire week at the U.S. Open trying to downplay the matter, to answer as succinctly as possible -- usually with one word, sometimes just with a slight nod -- when asked about his health.

Woods

But we saw the grimaces. We saw how he needed two clubs, acting as canes, to get out of a bunker. We saw him hobble and limp at times, a somewhat disturbing image for a golfer who's still in the prime of his career and remains the fittest on the PGA TOUR. Tiger didn't need to tell us he was hurting, that he wasn't 100 percent. We could see it.

In his own way, though, Woods finally did offer an indication that winning the U.S. Open on Monday was nothing short of a miracle. After all, he essentially defied doctors' concerns that he might suffer long-term damage to his knee by playing this week. Then he held up under 72 holes, making all the big shots when he needed them. Then another 18 holes in a playoff with Rocco Mediate -- and as if that weren't enough, still another sudden-death hole before finally subduing the pesky and endearing Rocco.

MEDIATE PROVES HE CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURE
By Helen Ross, PGATOUR.com Chief of Correspondents

LA JOLLA, Calif. -- He said he didn't want to get his butt handed to him.

Mediate

And Rocco Mediate certainly didn't. In fact, the part of his anatomy that was most evident Monday during his 18-hole playoff with Tiger Woods to decide the 108th U.S. Open was his heart.

He may not have won the match -- Woods closed him out on the first hole of sudden death and the 91st the two had played at Torrey Pines this week -- but Mediate walked away with legions of fans and proved something very important to himself.

"I can handle this heat," he said firmly. "I've won golf tournaments, but not this stuff. I can handle this heat. And especially against him with everybody in the world all looking in and everything everyone is expecting me to get my ass handed to me and I didn't.

"And I almost got it done. I almost got it done."

IS 18-HOLE PLAYOFF THE WAY TO GO?
By John Maginnes, PGATOUR.com Contributor

LA JOLLA, Calif. -- I was wrong. Don't tell my ex-wife. The fact of the matter is that at some point I wrote an impassioned defense of the 18-hole playoff that the USGA uses to determine its U.S. Open champion. I spoke of things like equity and the magnitude of winning our nation's most important tournament. Blah, blah, blah.

I stood by that position right up until I cancelled my flight east on Sunday night. The echoing cheers that reverberated around Torrey Pines as Tiger's birdie putt at the 72nd hole curled in the right side of the hole were in direct contrast to the collective silence that enveloped the media center and the workers and volunteers at Torrey Pines.

You would be hard-pressed to find a sportswriter in attendance who would argue for an 18-hole playoff. After all, if golf is, in fact, entertainment then the opportunity to finish with the No. 1 player in the world at the U.S. Open in prime time is too good to pass up. After the high drama of Sunday afternoon, though, the question was posed to Tiger: would he rather finish it on Sunday or have a Monday playoff?

"I would rather go right now, but that is just me," he said.

Rocco Mediate, the other protagonist in this U.S. Open drama, took the opposite view. "I think the 18-hole playoff for the national Open is the way to go," he said.

Mediate went on to say that the title was more important than a sudden death playoff. Of course, he is right. I am not arguing that. And there is no other way to have an 18-hole playoff without playing on Monday morning. So what is the premise for my new position and the foundations for my argument? I admit I have nothing. Sure, you can argue that there are grandmothers all over the country who are missing their "stories" on Monday. But soap operas tend to move about as fast as Tiger and Lee Westwood did on Sunday so I don't think that they will miss much.

Tiger Woods' career playoff record (11-1)

Year Tournament Result 1996 Las Vegas Invitational Defeated Davis Love 1997 Mercedes Championship Defeated Tom Lehman 1998 Nissan Open Lost to Billy Mayfair 1999 WGC-American Express Defeated M.A. Jimenez 2000 Mercedes Championship Defeated Ernie Els 2000 PGA Championship Defeated Bob May 2001 WGC-NEC Invitational Defeated Jim Furyk 2005 Masters Defeated Chris DiMarco 2005 WGC-American Express Defeated John Daly 2006 Buick Invitational Defeated Olazabal/Green 2006 WGC-Bridgestone Invitational Defeated Stewart Cink 2008 U.S. Open (18-hole playoff) Defeated Rocco Mediate by one stroke in 19 holes

BY THE NUMBERS

4	Number of majors Woods now has to win to tie Jack Nicklaus.
6	Top 10s for Woods in a U.S. Open.
17	Consecutive weeks where Woods has led the FedExCup standings.

RECORD-SETTING PERFORMANCE

The improbable statistics and amazing records just keep building up for Tiger Woods. With his victory at the U.S. Open, Woods became the fifth player to win the U.S. Open after not playing in a tournament since the Masters earlier in the year.

In an odd twist, three of those five U.S. Opens went to a playoff. Byron Nelson accomplished this feat in 1939 and Retief Goosen accomplished it most recently in 2001.

At the start of the playoff, Woods had just 12 putts in his first 10 holes, which is the fewest putts for Woods in a major championship through 10 holes. His previous low was 13 putts in major championships and 11 putts for all PGA TOUR events.

Read more...

Olympics thoughts

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

 
Fantasy Leagues Now Profiting from the Likenesses of College Athletes

Of course, I couldn't withhold my thoughts on today's press release that CBSSports.com has decided to make millions using the names and performance statistics of college football and basketball players in a fantasy league game without paying for it. There are a couple of points in the press release that I need to address:

1. A fantasy college game has never been widely accepted or attempted before because of a reluctance to utilize anything but broad signifiers in identifying college athletes. CBSSports.com had previously developed a game using generic terms including only a team and a position, like "SYRACUSE RB" and "MICHIGAN WR," instead of players' names. But it never caught on with users, due mainly to the disconnect between the robotic names and the fantasy audience, according to senior vice president and general manager Jason Kint.

Yeah. No kidding! You know why it never caught on with users? Because the game only has value if you use their names!!! But I suppose we can keep pretending that players don't have a right of publicity because "fantasy leagues only use their stats which are in the public domain." What a joke.

2. National Collegiate Athletic Association spokesman Bob Williams says that the NCAA did send a letter to CBS informing them that their bylaws were being violated by using player likenesses in the game. But he adds that because of the added exposure fantasy sports can bring the student-athlete, the NCAA does not intend to stand in the way of the fantasy game for now. "We are concerned with protecting the amateur status of the student athlete," Mr. Williams says, but he also believes that the bylaws, which were enacted "before new media," do not properly address a situation like this. Still, he warns that NCAA lawyers will be watching closely.

Umm,....o.k.,....yeah. Let me try to break this down:

a. The NCAA says its bylaws are being violated because player likenesses are in fact being used.

b. But, the NCAA says it is going to allow the violation to occur, for now, because of the added exposure fantasy leagues bring the student-athlete [which is apparently a good thing].

c. But wait a minute, the NCAA says it is concerned about "protecting" the student-athlete from this added exposure. [If you're totally confused at this point, wait, it gets better.]

d. The NCAA says it can't do anything about fantasy leagues because the bylaws don't address this situation. [Go back and read a. and b. again.]

e. The NCAA says its lawyers will be watching closely. I'm not quite sure what the lawyers will be watching, except maybe the continued exploitation of college athletes.
-- Posted by Rick Karcher @ 7/30/2008 04:15:00 PM -- Comments (7) -- Post a Comment

 
Tim Donaghy Sentencing

Much has been written about yesterday's sentencing of disgraced former NBA referee Tim Donaghy to 15 months in prison. Here are some stories that may be of interest:

* I wrote a piece on SI.com on the sentencing. My thanks to the folks on Celtics Blog for their nice words about it.

* Jeffrey Standen of The Sports Law Professor weighs in as well.

* And so does Lester Munson of ESPN.com.

* Mark Fass of the New York Law Journal (by way of Law.com) has an intriguing take on the surprising background of the federal charges that were used to prosecute Donaghy.

* An unrelated but really interesting piece by Darren Heitner of Sports Agent Blog on basketball agents using overseas employment opportunities as leverage in negotiations with NBA teams.

* Another unrelated but really interesting piece by Marc Isenberg of Money Players that seeks to debunk educational arguments in favor star basketball players attending college and then going pro. He notes that Latrell Sprewell and Jason Caffey each spent four years in college only to make some bad life decisions.

-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/30/2008 01:37:00 PM -- Comments (3) -- Post a Comment

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

 
IOC lifts Iraq's Olympic Suspension

Last week, Aaron Zelinsky argued that the IOC should reverse its ban on Iraqi players from the Olympics. Today, the IOC did just that (though only two of the seven banned athletes remain eligible to participate in the Olympics, meaning the other five won't benefit from the IOC's reversal).
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/29/2008 05:25:00 PM -- Comments (2) -- Post a Comment

Monday, July 28, 2008

 
Duke Lacrosse at SEALS

Tomorrow I will be at SEALS, hosting and moderating a panel titled The Phases and Faces of the Duke Lacrosse Controversy. This will be a moderated conversation about the multiple facets, details, and issues of this still-ongoing legal controversy. Panelists include KC Johnson of Brooklyn College (author of a bestselling book on the case), James Coleman of Duke Law (who chaired a University committee that investigated the case), Michael Gerhardt of UNC Law, Lyrissa Lidsky of Florida Law, and Angela Davis of American/Washington College.

I hope to have an audio file to post here later in the week and the proceedings will be published in the Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment. I hope to write more about the many and varied issues implicated in this case. And I think it would make an interesting single-topic seminar to explore the multiple angles raised by one controversy, akin to the class on Wal-Mart.

If you are at SEALS, I hope you can check the panel out.
-- Posted by Howard Wasserman @ 7/28/2008 11:20:00 PM -- Comments (0) -- Post a Comment

Saturday, July 26, 2008

 
Minor League Pitcher Charged With Felonious Assault in Brawl


The AP reports that Peoria Chiefs pitcher Julio Castillo will be charged with felonious assault in the aftermath of a brawl between the Chiefs and the Dayton Dragons. Castillo has been arraigned and ordered to give up his passport.

During a bench-clearing brawl (which you can view in its lengthy entirety here or here, Castillo seems to have thrown a baseball towards a member of the opposing team, or perhaps (as some reports suggested, but as the video seems to contradict) towards the opposing team's dugout. The baseball went into the stands, however, and struck 44-year-old fan Chris McCarthy.

In Ohio, the crime of "felonious assault" requires that a person knowingly cause "serious physical harm to another" or knowingly "cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another . . . by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance." The fan here was released from the hospital that night, so it would not seem that we have a case of "serious" physical harm. Instead, what the prosecutor must be thinking is that a baseball, at least in the hands of a single-A pitcher, constitutes a deadly weapon.

"This charge is a result of outlandish and inexcusable conduct by a professional baseball player," Montgomery County Prosecutor Mathias Heck Jr. said in a statement.

Perhaps true. But there are numerous examples of inexcusable conduct during bench-clearing brawls that don't lead to criminal charges. What is obviously different here is that a fan got bloodied.

For a discussion of criminal liability for on-field behavior, see Greg's posts here and here.
-- Posted by Geoffrey Rapp @ 7/26/2008 10:46:00 AM -- Comments (4) -- Post a Comment

Friday, July 25, 2008

 
Testimony of Expert Witness for Hamburg Almost Leads to a Mistrial

SportsBusiness Journal's Daniel Kaplan reports that during the ATP-Hamburg trial yesterday, one of Hamburg's expert witnesses, sports economist Andrew Zimbalist, took with him to the witness stand a 17-page document on which he apparently based his testimony, even though witnesses are not allowed to bring notes up to the stand (Zimbalist Testimony Almost Results in Mistrial in ATP-Hamburg Trial, 7/24/08, subscription only). His appearance was halted once it was noticed, after 90 minutes of testimony. According to Kaplan, a transcript indicates that Hamburg lawyer Rob MacGill informed the judge that he had told Zimbalist yesterday morning not to bring the outline and that the outline was prepared in conjunction with MacGill.

There are two problems here. First, apparently the outline was not disclosed to ATP's counsel. Second, an expert witness' opinion must be his own opinion -- if he is testifying on the stand from the lawyer's outline, then he is merely parroting the lawyer's opinion. Kaplan notes that at one point during his testimony, Zimbalist corrected MacGill and asked him if he asked the right question. The ATP called for a mistrial and the judge dismissed the jury at noon, at least five hours early. The judge said he would consider striking the testimony from the record and told the lawyers after discussing the issue, “Well, I have seen it all.”

Who would have thought that an antitrust case could bring such Matlock-type excitement....
-- Posted by Rick Karcher @ 7/25/2008 07:00:00 AM -- Comments (9) -- Post a Comment

Thursday, July 24, 2008

 
Aaron Zelinsky's "Let Iraq Play"

We received an excellent submission from Aaron Zelinsky, a rising 2L at Yale Law School, concerning today's IOC decision to ban Iraq from Olympic participation.

* * *

Let Iraq Play

After months of public outcry, with the Olympics mere weeks away, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) took dramatic action. Its principled stand: banning seven Iraqi athletes from the 2008 Summer Games.

The IOC ban was unnecessary, counterproductive, and hypocritical. The IOC should reverse its decision and allow Iraq's seven Olympic athletes to compete.

The IOC banned the Iraqi delegation under section 28(9) of the Olympic Charter, which authorizes sanction when “any governmental or other body causes the activity of the [National Olympic Committee] or the making or expression of its will to be hampered.” Iraq's Olympic Crime: Prime Minister Maliki disbanded the Iraq National Olympic Committee in May and appointed an interim committee, alleging corruption and vote stealing.

The IOC ban is unnecessary. The Olympic Charter does not proscribe automatic suspension for governmental interference with a National Olympic Committee (NOC). Rather, section 28(9) declares that the IOC executive board “may take any appropriate decisions for the protection of the Olympic Movement in the country of an NOC.” The draconian club of disqualification is one the IOC wields voluntarily.

The IOC ban is counterproductive. Banning Iraq will hardly lead to the “protection of the Olympic Movement” in Iraq, as called for by the Olympic Charter. Rather, it will likely further discourage athletes and fans. The ban is particularly sad in light of the Cinderella-story of the 2004 Iraqi Olympic Soccer Team, which provided one of the few moments of national unity and hope during troubled times.

The IOC ban is hypocritical. The same body that proclaims the need to uphold the “principle of not wanting sports and politics to mix” allowed Uday Hussein to serve as the head of the Iraq National Olympic Committee during his father's dictatorial reign. On Uday's teams, athletic failure -- or early retirement -- was punished with whippings and torture, despite the IOC's commitment to “safeguarding the dignity of the individual.”

If the IOC were truly committed to individual dignity, it would allow the Iraqi athletes to compete, regardless of national bureaucratic squabbling. The IOC should reverse its unnecessary ban and let Iraq play.

Aaron Zelinsky is a member of the Yale Law School Class of 2010
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/24/2008 05:32:00 PM -- Comments (5) -- Post a Comment

 
IASL Congress on Sports Law

On November 28th and 29th, the International Association of Sports Law (IASL) will be hosting its 14th International Congress on Sports Law in Athens, Greece. Papers on various international sports law topics may be submitted, and selected papers will be announced at the Congress. Some selected papers will be published in the International Sports Law Review. The main theme of this year's Congress is "Sports Law: An Emerging Legal Order; Human Rights of Athletes".
-- Posted by Rick Karcher @ 7/24/2008 08:35:00 AM -- Comments (0) -- Post a Comment

 
Two Good Links

Eric McErlain of The Sporting News has an extensive article on Russia's nascent Kontinental Hockey League, which may soon rival the NHL in attracting top players, including those from Canada and the United States. Eric considers, among other points, the legal and economic significance of the lack of player transfer agreement between the NHL and the KHL.

JB of Celtics Blog and Celtics Stuff Live has a thoughtful article entitled "Zebraphobia Pt. II" on the NBA referee scandal. JB includes new empirical research on Scott Foster, the NBA referee who spoke often with Tim Donaghy, which suggests that Foster's officiated games had unusual scoring patterns.
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/24/2008 12:05:00 AM -- Comments (0) -- Post a Comment

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

 
Where's the Harm to the Consumer?

This week the ATP Tour is in court defending its recently-adopted scheduling format against Hamburg. A jury, who reportedly appears to possess very little knowledge of professional tennis, will soon determine whether the anticompetitive effects of the ATP's scheduling changes for 2009 outweigh its procompetitive effects. I have maintained the position that it is pretty much a given that the decisions of sport governing bodies, such as the ATP, PGA and LPGA, regarding scheduling of events, format of play and player ranking systems are necessarily going to impact third parties (e.g. tournaments like Hamburg that are not selected as one of the "elite tournaments"). Should these governing bodies be required to defend the reasonableness of their decisions in court each time some third party claims to be disadvantaged by one of their decisions? Even if the ATP wins this case, they had to spend gobs of time and resources proving that the scheduling change was reasonable and they will be subject to suit by the next disgruntled third party challenging a different rule or decision.

On the surface, the ATP-Hamburg case looks like a classic antitrust problem breaking every rule in the antitrust book -- Simply stated, you have producers of a product (tennis players) agreeing with certain distributors of the product (the tournament organizers) to place various geographic and supply restrictions on the production and distribution of that product. But when you go beyond the surface, the pertinent question for the jury in this case, as in any antitrust lawsuit, is not whether Hamburg has been harmed but whether the consumer has been harmed. Typically in other industries, these types of arrangements drive the price up and the quality down resulting in obvious harm to the consumer. But the ATP is not selling widgets. While I have no idea how the ATP's scheduling changes affect the price of tennis for the consumer, I can say fairly confidently that the quality of the tennis product is much better if the top players are playing against each other in a consolidated number of tournaments each year.

Bloomberg News editor John Helyar, the renowned author of The Lords of the Realm: The Real History of Baseball and co-author of Barbarians at the Gate, wrote an excellent column today discussing many of the problems currently confronting the sport of tennis (Tiger Woods's Knee Ends ATP's Federer-Nadal Dream). Helyar mentions the Hamburg suit and pinpoints what I believe to be a major hurdle for Hamburg, and that is demonstrating how the ATP's scheduling changes actually harm the consumer. Indeed, if anything they benefit the consumer:

The past two weeks make a good case study in the ATP's chronic problem: too many tournaments -- eight of them in seven countries in two weeks -- with too few stars. Casual fans can't make sense of it and can't sustain interest in it. Too much of a geographical challenge; too much of a "Where's Waldo'' aspect to it.

....

Moreover, all these scattered, simultaneous tournaments dilute the game's thin supply of stars and diffuse the sport's focus. Tennis needs more of its stars in the same tournaments -- hell, on the same continent would help.

....

The Rogers Cup gets the top players because it's one of nine ATP "Masters Series'' tournaments. These carry added weight in the ATP points system, which is used to determine which eight players make the rich ($4.45 million) season-ending Tennis Masters Cup. The ATP changes would build on that concept. The tour would mandate that top players compete in all the top-tier events, to be called the Masters 1000s. It would also create a more compelling second tier of tournaments, called Masters 500s and require that players compete in four of the 11 of them. So instead of players scattering to tournaments all over Europe following Wimbledon, more of them would be aggregated in one Masters 500 tournament in Hamburg. Suffice it to say, however, Hamburg is not honored.

If Hamburg is right in this case, it threatens the ATP's existence and could in fact ultimately destroy it. Is that good for tennis? And is that good for the consumer?
-- Posted by Rick Karcher @ 7/23/2008 08:05:00 AM -- Comments (4) -- Post a Comment

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

 
Top Twenty

Paul Caron of TaxProf released his ranking of the Top 35 law-prof-edited blogs, by visitors and page views. Sports Law Blog was number 20, with more than 304,000 visitors and more than 512,000 page views from June 2007 until June 2008.

Thanks to all of you for helping to make this site successful and fun.
-- Posted by Howard Wasserman @ 7/22/2008 10:31:00 AM -- Comments (1) -- Post a Comment

 
NY Times Story on ATP Antitrust Lawsuit

Michael Brick of the New York Times interviews Geoff for a story today on the ATP lawsuit. The story is excerpted below.

* * *

The antitrust lawsuit in United States District Court promises to reveal financial arrangements of a plan known as Brave New World, an effort by the ATP Tour to reinvigorate the sport.

The jurors, selected from a group of three dozen candidates who displayed little awareness of professional tennis, listened attentively as lawyers for a German tournament promoter argued the legal backwaters of civil antitrust law.

“The ATP knew that if it controlled the player-services market, it controlled everything in tennis,” Robert D. MacGill [of Barnes & Thornburg], a lawyer for the Germans, said in his opening statement. “It’s as simple as if you don’t have players, you don’t have a tournament.”

A lawyer for the ATP Tour, Brad Ruskin [of Proskauer Rose], disputed those accusations. “What they’re asking for is special protections, and what they’re hypocritically complaining about in this case is the very types of rules, the very types of structures they have advocated,” he said.

In court documents, the German Tennis Federation has accused the ATP Tour of unfairly manipulating the control of star players to steer money to favored tournaments at the expense of promoters in Hamburg.

The Germans are seeking $77 million in damages. Financial damages in antitrust cases are often tripled.

The outcome of the trial, expected to last two weeks, will probably affect individual sports like golf and skiing that do not feature organized teams and collective bargaining agreements, experts said. The ATP comprises tournament promoters and players.

“This case is going to tell us a lot about how powerful these individual tour sponsors are going to be in the future,” Geoffrey Rapp, an associate professor of sports law and antitrust at the University of Toledo, said in a telephone interview.

* * *

For the rest of the story, click here.
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/22/2008 09:25:00 AM -- Comments (0) -- Post a Comment

Monday, July 21, 2008

 
Catching Up with Some Links

I've been meaning to post on these stories, hope you have a chance to check them out:

~ USA Today's Douglas Robson interviews Rick and me for his story on the ATP antitrust lawsuit, the trial for which began today in the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware.

~ The Tennessean's John Glennon examines the legal issues surrounding Nashville Predators' forward Alexander Radulov, who is signed to play for the Predators next season, but recently signed a three-year deal with Salavat Yulaev Ufa of Russia’s Continental Hockey League. The Predators' are weighing their legal options.

~ Jason Chung has a thought-provoking post on The Situationist on whether the Beijing Summer Olympics will bridge political differences between countries in conflict with one another.

~ I have a new SI.com column on Congress becoming more interested in the Tim Donaghy/NBA referee betting scandal in the wake of learning that Donaghy repeatedly called another referee, Scott Foster, before and after games which Donaghy bet on.

~ Darren Heitner of Sports Agent Blog has a really good piece on Brandon Jennings (photo above), the high school senior who's decided to skip college and go play in Italy, signing a multi-million, multi-year deal to play for Pallacanestro Virtus Roma. Marc Isenberg of Money Players also has a thoughtful piece on Jennings deciding to earn income for the required one-year following high school in order to be eligible for the NBA draft (Jennings will apparently stay in Italy for more than one year, which may in part explain why the Italian team was willing to pay him so much).

I've argued against the NBA's age limit many times--since 2005, eligibility for the NBA draft requires that an amateur player of American origin be at least 19 years old on December 31 of the year of the NBA draft and that at least one NBA season must have passed from when he graduated from high school, or when he would have graduated from high school, and the NBA draft. Jennings, however, could be the start of a new trend where star players right out of high school go to Europe and make a lot of money and then later come back to the U.S. and be eligible for the NBA draft -- presumably with a lot of money already in the bank, much like many of the international players who now join the NBA (to illustrate: Knicks' 2008 first round pick Danilo Gallinari, who is 19-years old and has played pro basketball in Italy since he was 15, has already earned millions in both basketball income and endorsement income).

So imagine you are 18-years old and are an NBA prospect. What would sound better for one year (after which you would be eligible for the NBA draft):

1) earning a ton of money to play basketball in Rome or another European city; or

2) earning no money, but getting to live in the U.S. and enjoy the college experience while playing for Georgetown or Duke or the like?

I could see why some players would elect to stay in the U.S. Being the "big man on campus" plus being closer to home and closer to the U.S. media would have their advantages. But it must be tough to pass up all that money in Europe, especially given the ever-present risk of getting injured and no longer attracting the notice of NBA scouts. Plus living in Rome (or Barcelona or Athens etc.) would probably be a lot of fun and a good cultural experience.
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/21/2008 10:42:00 PM -- Comments (5) -- Post a Comment

 
Third Circuit Vacates 'Wardrobe Malfunction' Fine

In a long-awaited and hardly surprising ruling, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit threw out the Federal Communication Commission's $550,000 fine against CBS for the now-infamous Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake breast-bearing (all 9/16 of a second) 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. In language echoing a Second Circuit ruling in FCC v. Fox over one year ago, this panel, concluded that the FCC's actions in imposing a fine for a fleeting incident was arbitrary and capricious. For the text of the ruling click here. [Before I go on, I want to give full disclosure: my wife works in the legal department of CBS, but was not involved in this litigation.]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Commission could make the arguments it made with a straight face. After 30 years of interpreting "indecency" as encompassing consistent patterns of conduct or language, the FCC argued that by February 1, 2004 (the date of the Halftime Show), a broadcaster in CBS’s position should have known that even isolated or fleeting indecent material in programming could be actionable." How could it? The official change in FCC's policy came a few weeks later on March 3rd.

Chief Judge Scirica, writing for the panel, slapped the FCC down for relying on a single sentence in a 2001 policy statement to justify the single, isolated event as indecent "standard", which noted that "[E]ven relatively fleeting references may be found indecent where other factors contribute to a finding of patent offensiveness.” Noting that it took the sentence out of context, Judge Scirica found that the term "relatively fleeting" is not the same as one isolated incident to trigger indecency fines. Then, as if the court was lecturing a wayward student, it stated: "While an agency’s interpretation of its own precedent is entitled to deference,” . . . deference is inappropriate where the agency’s proffered interpretation is capricious. Until its Golden Globes decision in March of 2004, the FCC’s policy was to exempt fleeting or isolated material from the scope of actionable indecency. Because CBS broadcasted the Halftime Show prior to [the introduction of the fleeting expletive standard] this was the policy in effect when the incident with Jackson and Timberlake occurred."

The court also addressed a secondary argument, that the indecency policies may differ between words and actions -- something never claimed by the commission. "In the nearly three decades between the Supreme Court’s ruling in [FCC v] Pacifica and CBS’s broadcast of the Halftime Show the FCC had never varied its approach to indecency regulation based on the format of broadcasted content. Instead, the FCC consistently applied identical standards and engaged in
identical analyses when reviewing complaints of potential indecency whether the complaints were based on words or images," Judge Scirica stated. The court also pointed out to the enabling statute, 18 U.S.C. 1464, does not make any differentiation between words and actions.

To add more to the mix, the court stated that the arbitrariness of the standard were not enough to reject the fine, it noted that CBS should not be responsible for performers operating at a live event beyond its control. The FCC claimed vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, but the court, properly questioned how could an employment law concept be applied to independent contractors under no control or supervision of CBS. After an exhaustive review of the question of whether federal law applies to this question, the court concluded that "CBS’s actual control over the Halftime Show performances did not extend to all aspects of the performers’ work. The performers, not CBS, provided their own choreography and retained substantial latitude to develop the visual performances that would accompany their songs. . . . [and] but the performers retained discretion to make those choices in the first instance. . . " Therefore, the performers were considered independent contractors.

With the FCC v. Fox case scheduled for argument in the Supreme Court, I wonder if the FCC will seek a petition for certiorari in this case. If its does, there is a possibility for the court may consolidate both this case and the Fox case for determination next year.

One hopes that this indecency crusade may be rendered moot either by a Supreme Court ruling or a new FCC in the next administration.

-- Posted by Mark Conrad @ 7/21/2008 11:13:00 AM -- Comments (1) -- Post a Comment

Friday, July 18, 2008

 
New Sports Law Scholarship

Recently published scholarship:

Robert Ambrose, Note, The NFL makes it rain: through strict enforcement of its conduct policy, the NFL protects its integrity, wealth, and popularity, 34 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW 1069 (2008)

Robert M. Bernhard, Comment, MLS’ designated player rule: has David Beckham single-handedly destroyed Major League Soccer’s single-entity antitrust defense?, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 413 (2008)

Michael E. Buchwald, Comment, Sexual harassment in education and student athletics: a case for why Title IX sexual harassment jurisprudence should develop independently of Title VII, 67 MARYLAND LAW REVIEW 672 (2008)

Paul Caprara, Comment, Surf’s up: the implications of tort liability in the unregulated sport of surfing, 44 CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW 557 (2008)

Phyllis Coleman, Scuba diving buddies: rights, obligations, and liabilities, 20 U.S.F. MARITIME LAW JOURNAL 75 (2007-08)

Brian Craddock., Casenote, Signed, your coach: restricting speech in athletic recruiting in TSSAA v. Brentwood Academy, 59 Mercer L. Rev. 1027 (2008)

andré douglas pond cummings, Progress realized?: the continuing American Indian mascot quandary, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 309 (2008)

David J. Espin, Book review of Chris Lincoln, Playing the Game: Inside Athletic Recruiting in the Ivy League, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 445 (2008).

Stacey B. Evans, Note, Whose stats are they anyway? Analyzing the battle between Major League Baseball and fantasy game sites, 9 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS LAW 335 (2008)

Jeremy J. Geisel, Book review of Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, Game of Shadows, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 437 (2008)

Aaron S. Glass, 2007 Annual Survey: Recent Developments in Sports Law, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 341 (2008)

Jeffrey P. Gleason, Comment, From Russia with love: the legal repercussions of the recruitment and contracting of foreign players in the National Hockey League, 56 BUFFALO LAW REVIEW 599 (2008)

Nathaniel Grow, A proper analysis of the National Football League under section one of the Sherman Act, 9 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAW 281 (2008)

Spencer H. Larche, Comment, Pink-shirting: should the NCAA consider a maternity and paternity waiver?, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 393-411 (2008).

Daniel J. Louis, Note, Nationally televised segregation: the NCAA’s inability to desegregate college football’s head coaching position, 9 RUTGERS RACE & THE LAW REVIEW 167 (2007)

Alfred Dennis Mathewson, A sports seminar with a free agent market exercise, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 337 (2008)

Michael J. Mellis, Internet piracy of live sports telecasts, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 259 (2008)

Jack N. E. Pitts, Jr., Comment, Why wait?: an antitrust analysis of the National Football League and National Basketball Association’s draft eligibility rules, 51 HOWARD LAW JOURNAL 433 (2008)

Ryan M. Rodenberg, Book review of Ward Farnsworth, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking About the Law, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 433 (2008)

C. Paul Rogers, The quest for number one in college football: the revised Bowl Championship Series, antitrust, and the winner take all syndrome, 18 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW 285 (2008)

Martin M. Tomlinson, The commissioner’s new clothes: the myth of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption, 20 ST. THOMAS LAW REVIEW 255 (2008)

-- Posted by Geoffrey Rapp @ 7/18/2008 10:07:00 AM -- Comments (0) -- Post a Comment

Thursday, July 17, 2008

 
Max Mosley's S&M Escape Leads to Privacy Lawsuit

You have to give Max Mosley, the President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), credit for fighting back. After secretly-recorded videos revealed him in a sado-masochistic role-play with five women (paid about $5,000 in cash for a five-hour session), he has decided to sue and hold on to his position at the helm of the organization.
The tape was given to "News of the World" an English tabloid newspaper which makes its business publishing gossip and celebrity stories. According to the Sydney (Australia) Daily Herald, the week before its Mosley story, the News Of The World published photographs of a Premier League football club manager indulging in consensual sex with an adult woman six years earlier. The Mosley video showed him counting in German — “Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier! Funf!” — as he used a leather strap to lash one of the women. “She needs more of ze punishment!” he cried in German-accented English. One woman appeared to search his hair for lice while another called off items on an inspection list. Mr. Mosley, naked, was bound face-down and lashed more than 20 times. More background is found in the New York Times article here. One of the women had a hidden camera and did the taping. The News of the World article is found here and is worth a read to put the case into context. The video is found here.

The FIA is the international governing body for international motorsports, including Formula-1 racing. Like many leads of international sports organizations, Mosley wields considerable power. Since there are no team owners or players representatives to create and checks and balances system, Mosley and others in his position often have control over sponsorships, schedules and sanctions (although there is an appeals process in the FIA rules). Also, like many of his brethren in other such organizations, he is not universally loved and lives baronially. Commuting in the FIA's £15million executive jet between his homes in London and Monaco, is not going to make him a man of the common folk.

That could be one reason that the video resonated strong reactions by the larger participants. Shortly after it was broadcast (portions available on the Internet), four of FIA's leading participants --Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Toyota and Honda - demanded his removal. Also F.I.A.-national governing such as the American Automobile Association and its German counterpart, sought his exit. It is natural that German auto makers and organizations would want him out, given their historical issues. However, another reason - family background - looms large over this issue. Mosley is the son of Sir Oswald Mosley and Diana Mitford, two card-carrying fascists (he headed the British Union of Fascists) and Hitler admirers who were marred in the dictator's presence. Although it may be unfair to have to carry this baggage, it is part of his identity. Even though he may not carry the views of his parents, an S&M video of allegedly "Nazi-type" activities casts a wide shadow over him.

Mosley fought back by retaining his position and control (his term ends next year) with the help of smaller national bodies. Then he filed a lawsuit against the newspaper based on violation of his privacy rights. The case is currently being heard in London. An earlier attempt at a prior restraint against the newspaper to prevent distribution of the video was defeated, since it was already widely available. However, things seems to be going Mosley's way during the trial. The woman (identified as "Woman E") failed to testify because of her "emotional and mental state." The other women denied that the ritual was "Nazi" refuting the lurid tabloid headline by the News of the World (and other tabloids, to be sure). I will leave it to readers to decide the level of Nazism found in the activity.

English law is more sympathetic to privacy claims by public figures than in the United States, which gives more protection to the press under the First Amendment. Yet, he could win here as well, although the First Amendment creates a more difficult barrier. In the United States, a case could be brought on one of two privacy claims, intrusion or embarrassing private facts. Intrusion requires that the plaintiff have a reasonable expectation of seclusion and that this seclusion is intentionally invaded in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. In the U.S., this is a normally a jury question, but many cases involve non-public figures. Technically, a public figure (such as Mosley) is treated the same as a non-public figure, but given his status and family background, a jury may not be as sympathetic.

Embarrassing private facts concerns the publication of truthful information concerning the private life of a person that would be both highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern is an invasion of privacy in a number of states. Liability often is determined by how the information was obtained and its newsworthiness. Here, too, a jury would decide whether Mosley's notoriety outweighs the private activity. But the issue of newsworthiness comes to play. Is this so newsworthy as to trump those rights? It would be an crucial question.

The ruling should come down quite soon in the Mosley case and a number of articles I read cite legal experts who think it could set an important precedent. However, in addition to the fascinating law questions (I can't hardly wait to make this a moot court case for my class), there are ethical and business issues as well. Is all this relevant to Mosley's role at FIA? Or, given its high-profile, should Mosley be dismissed for such conduct, if it would hurt the business of auto racing and harm his relationship with sponsors and affiliates? And if so, what damages should News of the World pay?

-- Posted by Mark Conrad @ 7/17/2008 09:50:00 AM -- Comments (4) -- Post a Comment

Saturday, July 12, 2008

 
Final thoughts on WVU v. Rodriguez

So WVU v. Rodriguez ends (as most cases do) with the whimper of settlement. I want to mention three significant and potentially lasting lessons and questions from the case.


The importance of forum selection

WVU filed suit in December 2007 and the case settled in July 2008, meaning it was alive for just over six months. And a big chunk of that time was spent fighting over where the case was going to be litigated and among what parties. Rodriguez removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction but, on WVU’s motion, the court remanded to state court because there was no federal jurisdiction.

The fight over federal jurisdiction was a great lesson in the minutae of diversity jurisdiction, which I wrote about at the time. These include the unique treatment of States as not being citizens; the intensely fact-bound nature of the inquiry into an individual’s citizenship, notably the question of how quickly a person can change his citizenship from one state to another and how courts should determine citizenship; the allocations of cases among different parts of the federal juriciary; and some limitations on unadorned concern for “local bias” as a basis for pushing cases into federal court. As I wrote then, it is hard to imagine a bigger example of local bias than the former football coach of the flagship public university having to litigate against the State itself in state court. But the diversity rules keep this case in state court. I will continue to use the materials from this case to teach removal and diversity.

There also is reason to believe that Rodriguez’s lawyers did not thoroughly research the facts or law prior to removing, always a big no-no. They did not have a good factual record to show that Rodriguez had successfully changed his citizenship from West Virginia to Michigan at the time the lawsuit was filed; he and his family clearly were mid-move at the time. His lawyers also seemed to have assumed WVU’s status as a citizen, rather than as an arm of the state. Ironically, these lawyers previously had represented WVU in litigation and had argued the university could not be sued in federal district court on diversity precisely because it was the state and not a citizen. In moving to remand, WVU also moved for sanctions against the lawyers based on this past representation, although the court denied that motion.

Is settlement a good thing?

More than thirty years ago, Owen Fiss criticized the modern judicial preference for settlement as a method of dispute resolution, arguing that it deprived courts of the opportunity to give meaning to public constitutional values by identifying, elaborating, and expounding on those values. And it deprived the public of the benefit of judicial exegesis on constitutional meaning and values, particularly as that guides future real-world conduct. Fiss focused on settlement in constitutional cases, but the point could be made for all litigation—settlement deprives courts of the chance to establish and elaborate on legal rules and principles and deprives future actors of the benefit of clearer legal rules.

One might make that complaint about the settlement in Rodriguez, a case that had been shaping up as a test case of sorts. How mobile are college football and basketball coaches under long-term contracts? How much leeway do schools have to use steep liquidated damages clauses as a way to at least slow coaches down or make other schools hesitant to hire them? How do schools raid coaches? Is a $ 4 million buyout provision so out of line with the actual damages WVU suffered as to be an unreasonable, and unenforceable, penalty? Did WVU improperly strong-arm Rodriguez into signing the contract with that buyout provision? Was there an under-the-table agreement not to enforce it? Did WVU abide by its contractual obligations to Rodriguez to sink substantial resources into things such as facilities and assistant coaches? When and how did Michigan pursue Rodriguez as its coach? We never found out.

Reading the tea leaves of the settlement

It generally is a bad idea to read anything into a settlement; parties settle for many reasons, usually upon balancing the strength of their case against the cost of litigation, as well as taking into account (as Rodriguez likely did) the value of “moving on.” But can this settlement give any guidance for future clashes between coaches and their former schools and attempts to enforce similar provisions? I find it interesting that WVU will receive the full $ 4 million; the settlement did not compromise on the amount. Back in January, Rodriguez made a $ 1.5 million settlement offer, which the University rejected. The ultimate compromise was over who pays (Rodriguez will pay $ 1.5 million, the University of Michigan $ 2.5 million) and the payment plan (Rodriguez makes three annual installments of $ 500K). This suggests that such a steep buyout clause, even one largely divorced from any real damage suffered by the school, will be enforceable. It suggests that there were no under-the-table agreements beyond what was in the contract and that Rodriguez did not, in fact, sign under duress. It seems to me that if WVU were worried at all about whether its conduct made the buyout less than fully enforceable, it would have given up something monetary.

I would expect that we will begin to see similar multi-million-dollar provisions become the norm in coaching contracts. I also would expect to see payment of all or part of the buyout as a negotiating point with schools looking to hire coaches away from other schools. So, to the extent this was a test case on coaches’ mobility, we did not get a judicial determination on the issue, but we did get a settlement that offers some strong hints.


Cross-Posted at WVU v. Rodriguez: The Legal Perspective
-- Posted by Howard Wasserman @ 7/12/2008 10:37:00 PM -- Comments (2) -- Post a Comment

Friday, July 11, 2008

 
Boston Globe Feature Article on Marvin Miller

Stan Grossfeld of the Boston Globe has an excellent feature today on Marvin Miller, the first executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association (he ran it from 1966 to 1982). Miller, 91, explains why he doesn't want to be in baseball's Hall of Fame. Here's an excerpt from Grossfeld's piece, entitled "A Reserved Clause".

* * *

After getting overlooked in 2003 and 2007 for election and getting passed by on three Veterans Committee votes, Miller recently wrote a letter to the Baseball Writers Association of America asking them to keep his name off subsequent ballots. Even when he's dead.

* * *

He calls the institution "a crock."

He wrote recently, "I find myself unwilling to contemplate one more rigged Veterans Committee whose members are handpicked to reach a particular outcome while offering a pretense of a democratic vote. It is an insult to baseball fans, historians, sportswriters, and especially to those baseball players who sacrificed and brought the game into the 21st century. At the age of 91, I can do without farce."

In 1975, Miller defeated the reserve clause, which had bound a player to a team, and paved the way for free agency. He ushered in salary arbitration, collective bargaining, and stronger pensions. Owners hated him.

Pulitzer Prize-winning sportswriter Red Smith called him "the second most influential man in the history of baseball" behind Babe Ruth. In a poll of people who changed sports, Sports Illustrated once ranked him eighth, just ahead of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Jim Bouton, who wrote "Ball Four," calls him "the greatest figure in sports history." Hank Aaron said the Hall of Fame doors should be broken down to get Miller in. Three-time Cy Young Award winner Tom Seaver, who holds the highest plurality in Hall of Fame history, called Miller's exclusion "a national disgrace."

* * *

Besides the owners, Miller has many enemies. There is no middle ground - people love him or hate him. Some believe he ruined baseball, recalling the strikes of 1972 and '81. And some believe Miller brought about skyrocketing ticket costs that priced out the average fan.

* * *

Miller also denies free agency ruined the national pastime, that small-market teams such as the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates can't compete in payroll with the major television markets. "In the old days before free agency, if you weren't the Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, or Cardinals, you were [upset] . . . The Yankees won every year. Every single year from 1949-58 either the Yankees, Dodgers, or Giants were in the World Series. You think everyone enjoyed that?"

* * *

For the rest of the piece, click here. The photo above is from the New York Times and is of Curt Flood and Miller from back in 1970.

-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/11/2008 11:21:00 AM -- Comments (1) -- Post a Comment

Thursday, July 10, 2008

 
Baseball on the International Front

Kevin Baxter, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, has an interesting piece in Baseball America this week about an ongoing federal investigation into bonus skimming in the Dominican Republic involving MLB club personnel. Federal investigators are interviewing personnel from all 30 teams. Bonus skimming is another term for receiving a "kickback" and the feds are investigating whether club personnel, mainly scouts in the Dominican, are either keeping a portion of the bonuses as a finder's fee or misleading their organizations about the size of bonuses and keeping the difference for themselves. The White Sox recently fired their international scouting director in connection with the investigation.

Some people in baseball are hinting that the recent escalation of bonuses in Latin America is what's fueling the problem because it has made it easier and more profitable to skim money from players and teams. According to Baxter, last year 511 Dominicans were signed for an average bonus of $65,82, which is double the average that teams paid three years ago and more than thirty times what the Athletics paid to sign Miguel Tejada in 1993. And just last week, Oakland gave a $4.25 million signing bonus to 16-year-old Dominican pitcher Michel Inoa, which is nearly $2 million higher than the previous record bonus for a Latin amateur not from Cuba. [The Reds and Rangers reportedly offered even more.]

I can't believe that people in baseball are blaming the high bonuses paid to amateur Latin players in a free agent market (Dominican players are not subject to the amateur draft) as a reason, or a contributing factor, for the illegal practice of bonus skimming. Don't blame bonus skimming on your inability to control your own purse strings! But it gets even worse, because now the federal investigation is being used to support the possible implementation of an international draft. According to Baxter, veteran Dodgers scout Ralph Avila, who helped open the floodgates to Dominican talent when he established the first training academy there 22 years ago, "fears things have gotten so out of hand that the only way to bring order would be to make Dominican players subject to the draft."

There has been a lot of discussion within baseball about implementing an international draft, making all of the Latin American countries subject to the annual MLB amateur draft in June. It's extremely difficult to predict the impact that an international draft would have on amateur players in the United States. Amateur players in the U.S. would be competing with all of the top Latin amateur players (not just from Puerto Rico anymore), so one thing we can say for certain is that fewer U.S. players would be drafted in the top rounds. The high school players in the U.S. would probably be the most adversely affected. Their bargaining leverage would become much weaker if the clubs can sign much cheaper a comparable player graduating from high school in Latin America who doesn't have a full ride scholarship to fall back on.

However, the "unknown" impact to U.S. amateur players is the overall effect that an international draft would have on the bonuses currently being paid in the draft. If overall bonuses did not substantially increase after an international draft, then U.S. players as a whole would obviously be paid much less because (in theory) a U.S. player who would otherwise be drafted in the second round or third round would be drafted in the fourth round or sixth round, respectively.

An international draft can't be unilaterally implemented by MLB. It would have to be negotiated with the union and it will be interesting to see how much MLB pushes for an international draft, as well as the union's position. One thing is for sure, the process of an international draft and its impact on U.S. amateur players will have to be thoroughly examined. If an international draft is going to be implemented and its terms negotiated, it would be an ideal time for MLB and the union to revisit the entire draft bonus structure and how bonuses are to be determined, including the issue of league-recommended "slot bonuses" and what those legally mean (which I've never understood).
-- Posted by Rick Karcher @ 7/10/2008 08:50:00 AM -- Comments (8) -- Post a Comment

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

 
Rich Rodriguez settles with WVU

Michigan football coach Rich Rodriguez and West Virginia University, his former employer, have settled the school's lawsuit over the $ 4 million buyout. WVU will receive the entire $ 4 million, $ 1.5 million from Rodriguez in three annual payments beginning in January 2010 and $ 2.5 million from the University of Michigan. Reports and commentary, including a statement from UM, here, here, and here. And the College of Law's Legal Perspective Blog has details on everything that as happened in the case up to this point. So the case illustrates one final principle of civil litigation--most cases settle in the end.

As for long-term consequences, the fact that WVU will receive the full buyout, and that the real quibble was over who would pay it and when, suggests that schools may well be able to get away with including and enforcing steep buyout clauses in contracts as a way to at least slow the coaching carousel.
-- Posted by Howard Wasserman @ 7/09/2008 01:47:00 PM -- Comments (15) -- Post a Comment

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

 
New SI.com Column on Rogers Clemens' Legal Woes

I have a new column on SI.com entitled "Answering Key Questions about Clemens' Growing Legal Problems." I examine the FBI and IRS' investigations into Clemens and evaluate recent developments in his civil litigation with Brian McNamee.

Hope you have a chance to check it out.
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 7/08/2008 05:38:00 PM -- Comments (0) -- Post a Comment

 
Vick Files for Bankruptcy

Yesterday, Michael Vick filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection in Newport News, VA. For those of you with PACER access, click here. The filing number is 08-50775-FJS (Michael D. Vick). He is represented by Paul Campsen and Dennis Lewandowski of Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., out of Norfolk, VA. Among the creditors listed are the Atlanta Falcons, for the pro-rated $3.75 million signing bonus. Approximately $13 million is claimed as owed to the seven largest creditors.
-- Posted by Tim Epstein @ 7/08/2008 03:21:00 PM -- Comments (0) -- Post a Comment

 
Umpires, Judges, and Interpretation

Like many commentators, I thought John Roberts' suggestion at his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing that judges are simply baseball umpires--calling balls and strikes and not making any value or policy judgments and exercising no discretion-was, at best, fatuous. It was, at worst, demeaning to judges and judging, which is a far more difficult task, demanding interpretation, discretion, and value judgment, than Roberts would acknowledge. And, it turns out, Roberts' comments may have been demeaning to umpires, who must do a lot more than simply call balls and strikes. Consider the following examples.




In June, in a Class-A minor league game, a switch-hitter faced an ambidextrous pitcher. When the batter stepped in to hit right-handed, the pitcher set up to pitch right-handed. The batter then switched to bat lefty, so the pitcher changed hands again. The batter switched one more time and so did the pitcher (watch the video--the fun starts at about the 2-minute mark). Finally, the umpires gathered to figure something out.There are rules in place for switch hitters and when they can switch sides during a single at-bat, usually in response to a pitching change. And there are rules for changing pitchers during an at-bat. But nothing that specifically covered one pitcher able to change hands multiple times. The umpires conferred and decided that both batter and pitcher were allowed one switch per at-bat after the first pitch, but that the hitter had to declare a side first.

To resolve this, the umpires had to do what we think of as judging. They applied a set of generally applicable rules to a unique, probably-unthought-of factual scenario. They necessarily made a value/policy judgment in giving the pitcher an advantage by making the batter declare a side first--which goes against the de facto usual situation of the pitcher declaring first (because typically everyone knows which hand he throws with). Why make hitter-first the default rule--some value or policy judgment must have been in play. By the way, the Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation last week announced specific rules for the situation, allowing one change for each side per at-bat, but requiring the pitcher to make the first move.

This past weekend at Yankee Stadium, a batter hit a long drive that the left-fielder had in his glove momentarily, then lost when he crashed into the fence; the ball popped in the air and landed on top of the fence, where it bounced a few times and came to rest (remember the putt at the end of Caddyshack?), before finally falling back onto the field, by which time the batter was standing on third.

Calvin Massey wonders what would have happened if the ball had remained atop the wall. The ball did not go "into the stands" or "over the fence," although it was not on the playing field. The ball sort of left the playing field, at least for the time it was atop the fence. Had it gotten there "on the fly," when it hit the fielder's glove first? Massey wonders how a Justice Thomas or Scalia would view the situation, given their interpretive approaches. But the important broader point is that we recognize the need for interpretation of text, intent, and context is indeed required even in baseball. The rules clearly account for what happens a) when ball goes over the wall (home run), b) where a ball hits the wall and comes back into play (no home run), and c) where the ball goes under or through the wall (ground-rule double). The rules do not mention a ball stopping atop the wall. Figuring out that situation requires the umpire to engage in an act of judging--what is this situation most like and how does it match the words of the rules? By the way, the umps said it remained a live ball and the batter had a triple. And I think that would have been the correct call even if the ball had remained atop the wall.

There is nothing rote or automatic about what umpires do. Nor is there anything rote or automatic about what judges do. And we do a public and political disservice when we pretend otherwise, especially when used as a dodge to avoid questions about the jurisprudential theory of a Supreme Court nominee.

Read more...