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 "Tie goes to the runner" and other myths "Redskins" win (again), for now Andrew Oliver Scores Another Victory in Oliver v. ... Roger Clemens' Interview on ESPN Radio Are pirate nicknames OK? (Half-serious) Release of New Journal on NCAA Compliance New Sports Law Scholarship On Being Manny, Part II (the sequel): Can the Dod... On Being Manny. Who's Responsible for Collapse of Cowboys' Practic... 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 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 Broadcast Network 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 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010
Blogarama |
Monday, May 18, 2009
On Jeremy Mayfield: You’ve Got a Fast Car, and an Unusual Drug Policy. Let me start this post about Jeremy Mayfield’s indefinite suspension for violating NASCAR’s new drug policy with two admissions. First, for many years, my favorite stock car driver was Cole Trickle. Second, I have found myself shouting “shake and bake”(in my head) after making a good point in class. Over the past few years, however, I have gained a new appreciation for NASCAR and real stock car drivers, and Trickle has slipped out of my top spot (I’m not ready to give up on shake and bake yet). Now, on to the Mayfield situation. Most of you have probably read the stories by now, but here’s a quick recap of some of the key facts. For nearly twenty years, NASCAR only tested drivers if there were a “reasonable suspicion” that the driver was using drugs. In 2007, a push was made—both by NASCAR drivers and NASCAR management—for a stricter drug policy after Aaron Fike admitted that he had used heroin on days when he was competing in a NASCAR Truck series race. Fike was not suspended by NASCAR until after he was arrested for possession of heroin in July 2007. NASCAR’s new, stricter drug policy was revealed on September 20, 2008. The reason for implementing a stricter policy was clear—a driver under the influence of drugs racing at speeds well over 100 miles per hour presents a danger (Grave danger? Is there another kind?) to himself, other drivers and fans. Under the new regime, which began on January 1, 2009, drivers and pit crew members will undergo mandatory preseason drug tests and random drug tests throughout the year, in addition to reasonable suspicion testing. Additionally, AEGIS, an independent laboratory, will conduct the drug tests for NASCAR, unlike under the previous policy, where NASCAR itself did (or, more commonly, did not do) the testing. Without question, these are all positive changes designed to make drug testing more effective and deception more difficult. So, what’s the problem, and where’s the controversy? Well, NASCAR’s new policy has a few other interesting features. First, the policy does not identify the substances that are banned. Any drug—legal or illegal, prescription or over-the-counter—can result in a positive test. Second, the policy does not provide a clear list of penalties for failed tests. Instead, the policy indicates that a driver will be indefinitely suspended for a first violation and suspended permanently for a third violation, but NASCAR officials have noted that the policy allows for a permanent suspension for a first offense. Third, the policy provides no appeal for a suspended driver or crewmember. And, any reinstatement—if permitted at all—is conditioned on the entrance into a rehabilitation program. So, to sum up, under NASCAR’s new drug policy, drivers can be suspended indefinitely, without appeal, for using an unspecified quantity of an unnamed drug. That is essentially what happened to Jeremy Mayfield earlier this month. The Mayfield saga (or is still the Mayfield story? When does something like this convert from a story to a saga?) allows us to focus on two questions: First, why would NASCAR create a drug policy that does not have a list of banned substances (aka, who was the ad wizard who came up with that drug policy?)? If drug use by drivers is so dangerous, why not provide a list to the drivers of the drugs known to be dangerous? One obvious is answer is: because they can. Unlike in most of the other pro sports in the U.S., the players (here, drivers) had no input into the drug policy. In fairness, many of the drivers seem to support the new policy, though my guess is that Mayfield is not one of them.The other reason for a drug policy with no drug list comes straight from NASCAR: The reason we don't have a list is we believe that a list is restrictive. As you've seen with a lot of other leagues, the policy is constantly changing. We know that there's new drugs out there every day. By having a broad policy that doesn't list anything, we feel like we can test for any substance that may be abused….Or, as Kyle Petty put it: "Look, a drug is a drug is a drug. This is not shooting hoops; this is not hitting a fastball. This is life and death. In a sport like this, everything should be off limits unless there is a medical reason." NASCAR’s reasoning is simple—every drug is potentially harmful, so drivers should assume that every drug is off limits. If NASCAR were to come up with a list, it would look like this: Banned Substances: Everything. Of course, the same argument could be made by other sports organizations, yet the drug policies of the World Anti Doping Agency and all of the major professional sports leagues in the U.S. contain lists of banned substances. Second, does the absence of a list increase the likelihood that Mayfield (or the next suspended driver) could successfully challenge the suspension in court? The short answer is: yes. I’m not claiming that Mayfield could successfully challenge the suspension, but I do think he has a stronger case because there is no list. NASCAR’s concern for safety is laudable, and they are no doubt right that abuse of any drug, whether it is cocaine, Sudafed, or Tylenol PM, can be dangerous when combined with cars moving at 150 miles per hour. The question is, do NASCAR’s legitimate concerns justify the creation of a drug policy with no list of banned drugs? And, if not, is there anything a potential plaintiff like Mayfield can do about it? As a general rule, courts are reluctant to interfere with the disciplinary decisions of private, voluntary associations, such as NASCAR. Under this principle of judicial noninterference, courts will defer to private associations and only interfere in one of three circumstances: 1) when the association’s rules or conduct are contrary to public policy or violate concepts of fundamental fairness; 2) when the association violates its own rules; or 3) when the association’s decision is motivated by prejudice, bias, or bad faith. Here, however, Mayfield has a stronger argument for judicial interference because NASCAR is not the typical voluntary, private association. In two different cases involving challenges to the results of NASCAR races, the Second Circuit held that NASCAR is entitled to less deference because it is “a for-profit company that completely dominated the field of stock car racing and…its members have no rights whatsoever with respect to the internal governance of the organization.” See Crouch v. NASCAR, 845 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir. 1988); Koszela v. NASCAR, 646 F.2d 749 (2d Cir.1981). The Second Circuit also noted “courts have demonstrated more of a willingness to intervene in the internal matters of private associations when they conclude that there are inadequate procedural safeguards to protect members' rights.” Crouch, 845 F.2d at 401. Mayfield could thus argue that NASCAR’s list-less drug policy is contrary to public policy and violates concepts of fundamental fairness. Rules must be sufficiently clear to permit people to draw a clear line between permissible and impermissible conduct, so that they may avoid engaging in unlawful behavior. An argument can be made that it is fundamentally unfair to punish someone for engaging in conduct they did not know was unlawful. If NASCAR wants to protect its drivers and fans, it should provide more information, not less, about what types and quantities of drugs might pose a threat to safety. (NASCAR’s response, of course, will be that the drivers should know that use of any drug might violate their drug policy, so they should avoid all drug use—prescribed or not—before getting approval from NASCAR officials.) Mayfield could also argue that the absence of any explicit standards for identifying a positive drug test permits the drug administrators to apply the drug policy subjectively and on an ad hoc basis. And, with no rules to follow, the drug administrators are more likely to be able to make arbitrary and discriminatory decisions. With no standards, no list, and no right of appeal, Mayfield has an argument that NASCAR does not have adequate procedural safeguards in place to protect the rights of suspended drivers. More on this (and my discussion of the relative merits of RC Pro Am and Mario Kart) to come… 12 Comments:
Surely the NASCAR drug policy would look different had the drivers had a union. Some drivers have been very vocal (veteran Michael Waltrip especialy) about about the lack of driver input, although their comments have targeted safety issues rather than drugtesting. NASCAR Truck Series driver Ron Hornaday admitted to the use of testosterone and HGH in 2008 (the use was limited to 2004-2006, before the more strict NASCAR drug policy was put in place.) While NASCAR had the authority to punish Hornaday, it decided not to. Because Hornaday's Testosterone and HGH were prescribed by a doctor, NASCAR decided that Hornaday did nothing wrong. The drugs were shipped to the driver from the Palm Beach Rejuvenation Center. The same center has been drug scandals in both the NFL and MLB.
I have a few problems with your arguements pro-Mayfield.
Sorry, but IRL has a very similar drug policy to NASCAR's, as reported by Paul Newberry, an AP writer on 5-21-09:
Let me preface my comments by saying that I spent 20 years on the road courses and dirt tracks utilized by the International Karting Federation (IKF) and World Karting Association (WKA)--the very same training grounds for nearly all professional race drivers, including many of today's NASCAR stars. Here's my take on all this:
I am sitting here wolfing some chow just trying to figure out what's in the minds of NASCAR with their drug policy & banned substances. I, by no means am condoning the actions of Jeremy Mayfield. I do agree with NASCAR's action in dealing with the offense. But where does NASCAR get off with having a total drug restriction. ( Oh they clarified that with 'only medication prescribed by a physician') That makes it OK. I mean, aspirin is a drug; also many other legal pain meds and symptom relievers; I guess they are all banned. Nascar racing is a dangerous sport. There is no dispute with that. Many over the counter drugs can affect ones ability to function in one way or the other. They must implement a policy similar to US Professional Sports Organizations such as NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL, & so many others, TNTC. Each one has a list of banned substances with penalties assigned to them. Is Nascar exempt?? They are more concerned about pit "SPEED"!!! ooops, did I just say SPEED??? I guess if you have a headache one day; you just suffer ! O just suffer NASCAR's wrath as they see fit.
First, Cindy and Elena must be communists.
Correction on TYPO: "IRL should audit their drug policy as well".
I read on NASCAR.com that mayfield tested positive for meth! I'm sure most people know the effects meth has on folks. I agree that nascar should suspend mayfield and not allow him to return until he has completed a drug treatment program. I wouldn't care what driver it was, Johnson, Gordon, Earnhart JR, anyone, you abuse any drug, prescription or not, you should be suspended and heavily fined. All professional sports could learn alot from nascars drug policy, no list! Lists provide loopholes, when there is loopholes in any policy there will be people who will exploit them for their advantage. Look at the 48 team, they found a major loophole in the setup of their cars and exploit it every weekend. People like that are simply douchebags!
Scott apparently does not have the ability to express a cogent opinion, so he resorts to name-calling--kinda like a school-yard bully.
In total, Mayfield earned a solid 33 million dollars as a driver during his whole career in Nascar. Yet, Mayfield always seem to be implicated in some controversy, one way or another, ending up in paying out huge amounts in lawyer fees. What a waste ! Mayfield was supposed to be building up a new racing team. This man is a disgrace to his team members, his sponsors, Nascar, fans and anybody involved.
I'm by no means a Jeremy Mayfield fan, and just BARELY qualify as a NASCAR fan, but simply the way the drug policy is written, you can tell plainly, that it's NASCAR's typical 800lb Gorilla tactic.
Let's throw in a new scenario here. Wasn't it some few years back when Mayfield was driving for Evernham, that some comments were made by Mayfield concerning Evernhams overall big picture outlook for the team, was being put on a smaller picture in the name of Erin? Then, Mayfields contract wasn't renewed? Then, Evernham went thru some kind of personal/family crisis? Hhmmm...may be some form of latter retaliation? I mean, there's a awlful lot of big money floating around NASCAR and one does have to watch where one steps. |