Sports Law Blog |
All things legal relating to the sports world... |
|
Main Page
Atom Feed RSS Feed Honored by Fast Company as one of Three Best Sports Business Blogs and by the American Bar Association Journal as a Top 100 Law Blog Contributors Rick Karcher Michael McCann Geoffrey Rapp Greg Skidmore Howard Wasserman Guest Contributors Mark Conrad andre douglas pond cummings Marc Edelman Ed Edmonds Timothy Epstein Gabriel Feldman Stijn Francis Nathaniel Grow Paul Haberman David Katz Alan C. Milstein Other Guests Sports Law Blog (one word) -at- gmail -dot- com Recent Posts Free Agents and Salary Arbitration And you Thought only the Mets were Playing in Taxp... Sentencing of O.J. Simpson The Legal Woes of Plaxico Burress The Press Provokes Unnecessary Controversy Between... Thoughts on Indiana New Developments in Alleged DNA Evidence Against R... American Bar Association Journal Features Sports L... Indiana University Largely Escapes NCAA Punishment... Can Letters of Intent have Opt-Out Clauses Should ... Our Publications Rick Karcher's Law Review Articles on SSRN Michael McCann's Law Review Articles on SSRN Michael McCann's SI.com Columns Geoffrey Rapp's Law Review Articles on SSRN Greg Skidmore's A Proposal to Pay College Athletes and the Impending Conflict with Title IX Howard Wasserman's Law Review Articles on SSRN Our Social Network Pages  View Michael McCann's LinkedIn Profile
Sports Blogs & Links ACC BasketBlog AOL NBA Fanhouse Baseball Crank Baseball Musings BasketBloom Beaneball Big East Basketball Report Bioethics and Sport Blog Maverick Blog a Bull Boston Dirt Dogs Boston Sports Media Watch Celtics Blog Celtics Stuff Live Chris Isidore/CNN Money College Basketball Blog College Athletics Clips Darren Rovell's Gatorade Blog Darren Rovell's SportsBiz Deadspin Don Walker's Bus.-Sports Blog DraftExpress Duke Basketball Report ESPN Federal Baseball Hoya News I Heart Celtics Ian On Sports Infinite Intensity Jones On The NBA Just Another Blog on Sports Keeping Score: The Media and Women's Sports Legal Issues-College Athletics National Football Post NBA Draft Net Only Baseball Matters Off Wing Opinion Playbooks and Profits Remember Black Baseball Sabernomics Sports Blog Sports Business Daily Sports Business News Sports Central Sports Court Sports Crumedgeon Sports Filter Sports Illustrated Sports Judge Sports Media Review Sports Overload Sports Policy Blog Sports Prof Teal Sunglasses The Sports Economist True Hoop True Hoop ESPN USA Rugby Blog Women's Hoops Blog Zagsblog (Adam Zagoria) Sports Law Resources ABA Forum on Sports All Sports Agents Directory Athlete Agent Blog Connecticut Sports Law Denver Sports Ent. L.J. DePaul J. Sports L. Duke Center Sports Law/Policy Duke Sports & Ent. L. Society Find Law Sports FIU Sports & Entertainment Law Florida Coastal Center for Law and Sports Florida Coastal Database of College Coaches Contracts History of Sports and the Human Condition I Want to be a Sports Agent Illinois J. Bus. L. Society Lex Sportiva (Portugese) LII: Sports (Cornell University) Marquette Sports Law Program Mark Alesia's NCAA Study National Sports and Entertainment Law Society National Sports and Entertainment Law Society Blog Orpheus Sports and Entertainment Seton Hall J. Sports & Ent. L. Sports Law Review Sports Lawyers Assoc. Sports Litigation Alert Texas Rev. Ent. & Sports L. The Sports Lawyers Journal Title IX Blog Vanderbilt J. Ent. & Tech. L. Vermont Law School Sports and Entertainment Law Society Villanova Sports & Ent. L. J. Virginia Sports & Ent. L. J. Willamette Sports L. J. World Sports Law Report Law Blogs Antitrust Review Concurring Opinions Conglomerate Contracts Prof Blog Crim Prof Blog Crime and Federalism En Passant Franchise Law Blog Houston's Clear Thinkers How Appealing Inside Legal Blogs JD2B Law and Letters Law Career Blog LawCulture Legal Theory Blog Madisonian.Net Media Law Prof Blog MoneyLaw Neuroethics and Law Blog Overlawyered Harvard Law Professor Paul Weiler's Blog Real Lawyers :: Have Blogs Sex Crimes Law Blog Southern California Law Blog Sports Law Professor Supreme Court Blog Taxonomy of Legal Blogs TaxProf Blog The Legal Scoop The Situationist Trademark Blog Truth on the Market Volokh Conspiracy Wall Street Journal Law Blog Workplace Prof Blog Other Links Blog Search Engine Chris Uggen (Sociology Blog) Economics Roundtable Filsteu Florida Coastal School of Law Fuss is Human-Rant is Divine! Google Blog Search Harvard Business Sports Club Harvard Law Record Inside Higher Education Journeys of Jack Tripper Market Power Mississippi Coll. School of Law New Scientist Picks and Policy SSRN Technorati The Metropolis Times Univ. of Toledo College of Law Washington Monthly Wordsmith's Dance Disclaimer Information contained on this site is for informational or amusement purposes only. Nothing written is intended to be legal advice or legal counsel. All original work is protected by applicable copyright laws. Thank you. < ? law blogs # > Archives 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 
Blogarama |
Friday, December 05, 2008
Let Them Play! (at least on this Sunday) U.S. District Court judge Paul Magnuson granted a temporary restraining order earlier today which will permit Will Smith and Deuce McCallister of the New Orleans Saints to play in their game this Sunday in New Orleans (the TRO also applies to Charles Grant, but he is on the injured reserve list and thus unable to play). Judge Magnuson also upheld the temporary restraining order granted Wednesday in Hennepin County District Court to Pat Williams and Kevin Williams of the Minnesota Vikings, which will allow them to beat, er, play against, the Detroit Lions this Sunday. The players had been suspended for four games pursuant to the NFL Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances (the “Policy”) after testing positive in training camp this summer for the banned diuretic bumetanide. Bumetanide and other diuretics are on the banned substance list because they can be used as masking agents to prevent the detection of steroid use. The bumetanide consumed by the players was apparently contained in the dietary supplement StarCaps, but was not listed as an ingredient on the bottle. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Policy, the players filed an internal appeal, which was heard by Jeffrey Pash, the chief legal officer of the NFL. Pash upheld the suspensions. Despite the fact that the Policy states that the result of the internal appeal “will constitute a full, final, and complete disposition [and]…will be binding on all parties,” the players then filed an action seeking to vacate the suspensions. How can the players challenge the decision in court if the Policy states that the result of the appeal is final and binding? Well, the NFL argues that the players can’t, but the players have contended that the NFL’s internal arbitration proceedings were “fundamentally unfair and the result of evident partiality” because the arbitrator, Jeffrey Pash, “was reviewing and immunizing misconduct by his own office, in which his own subordinate was involved.” This is obviously not the first time an athlete has challenged a positive drug test result in court. But, in many of the recent cases, the athlete has challenged the result on the basis of a faulty test or a breakdown in the integrity of the drug testing procedures. In this case, however, the players are making a very different argument. The players are not challenging the test itself. In fact, the players appear to have conceded that the drug test was accurate. Instead, the players are arguing—with an interesting twist—that it is not their fault that bumetanide was in their system. In typical cases, this argument would be a non-starter because the Policy employs a strict liability standard. According to Section 3.E.: “Players are responsible for what is in their bodies, and a positive result will not be excused because a player was unaware that he was taking a [banned] substance.” This strict liability standard, like the standard contained in the World Anti-Doping Agency Code, removes intent as a requirement for a finding of a violation and makes players responsible for any substance that is present in their body, regardless of how it got there (with some extremely limited exceptions). Strict liability standards are often criticized for being unfair because they can result in the punishment of “innocent” individuals (ie, one who did not have the intent to commit the violation), but, in the typical tainted supplement case, I don’t think there’s much of a case to be made that imposition of a strict liability standard is unfair. Given the apparent frequency of unlabeled banned substances appearing in supplements (and particularly given the language in Appendix F discussed below), NFL athletes are on notice that taking a supplement is a risky behavior which may lead to punishment. This notice, in essence, serves as a substitute for intent. This case, however, is not the typical tainted supplements case. In this case, the players are not just arguing that they did not intend to take the banned substance. Instead, they are arguing that the NFL’s Independent Administrator on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances (Dr. John Lombardo) and NFL lawyers knew that StarCaps contained bumetanide, but failed to disclose this fact to the NFL players or the NFL Players Association. The players claim that this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, endangered the health of the players, and “fatally tainted the suspensions so that enforcing the [suspensions] would unfairly punish the players and condone the improper behavior and breaches of duty by the NFL, in violation of public policy and the essence of the CBA.” As I mentioned in a NY Times article today, I believe that these additional facts alleged by the players make for a compelling and sympathetic case, but the players have a very difficult fight ahead of them. Even assuming, as the players appear to have argued, that the Independent Administrator had an affirmative duty to warn the players of tainted supplements, the NFL has a strong argument that they satisfied the duty in Appendix F to the Policy, which states: (each version of emphasis in original) In addition, Section 3.E. of the Policy states: “If you have questions or concerns about a particular dietary supplement or other product, you should contact Dr. John Lombardo…Having your Club’s medical or training staff approve a supplement will not excuse a positive test result.” (emphasis in original). Granted, this falls short of warning the players that the NFL has specific knowledge that a particular supplement is tainted, but the NFL can argue that they put the players on notice that every supplement is tainted. That is, the players should assume that every supplement contains a banned substance, unless told otherwise by the Independent Administrator. Of course, as a broader argument, the NFL can argue that it does not matter that the Independent Administrator did or did not know of the presence of a banned substance in StarCaps, because the Policy calls for a suspension “if you test positive…. You and you alone are responsible for what goes into your body.” This case presents a number of different issues and provides an interesting test for the scope of strict liability standard. I hope to write more these issues as the case unfolds. For now, I will enjoy one more Sunday (at least) of watching Deuuuuuuuuuuuce in the Superdome... 12 Comments:
I find it hilarious that a Minnesota judge, albeit a federal one, just took away the best chance the Lions had of winning a game this season. As a Lions fan I saw this coming a mile away. I would bet my mortgage that this gets reversed first thing Monday morning just as Marinelli is trying to explain another lopsided loss to the press. Great post and keep them coming.
I usually play basketball with my friends during weekends.
At some point, the NFL may want to stop hiding behind its lawyers and ask whether their "strict liability" standard is hurting their on-field product. Granted, the performance-enhancing drug debate was never about player health or product quality -- it's always been about appeasing a narrow group of self-righteous political hacks who see themselves on a higher moral plane. That said, there's not a shred of evidence that these type of suspensions "protect" the game from undue influence or improve the product offered to the customer. A business should serve its customers, not outside political interests.
This post has been removed by the author.
Rachel,
the fact that Steroids, ephedra, and other "enhancing" products have proven to be extremely harmful when misused is reason enough for those "self-righteous political hacks" to make them illegal
OMG, the poor Lions! What else is going to go wrong for them this season?
Isn't this the judeg who always rules against the NFL? The judge the NFL has (unsuccessfully) tried to get removed from deciding their disputes?
John--
You said, "I don’t think there’s much of a case to be made that imposition of a strict liability standard is unfair. Given the apparent frequency of unlabeled banned substances appearing in supplement" This statement is misleading because you're implying that the players actions were negligent or even reckless; so of course holding the players strictly liable in this case won't appear unfair.
Does anyone know if it is actually possible for a NFL player to avoid a positive test for steroids or other illegal performance enhancers after an NFL drug test simply by taking Bumetanide. If so, would this be possible with anything less than an extreme concentration?
|
