Friday, November 30, 2007 Column on Sentencing of Michael Vick's Co-Defendants

I have a new column on Sports entitled "As the Dominoes Fall: Assessing Michael Vick's Fate after Co-Defendants' Sentencing." It examines the potential impact of today's sentencing of Vick's co-defendants, Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips, on his upcoming sentencing on December 10.

Earlier this week, Alan Milstein wrote an excellent piece that takes a critical approach in studying the Justice Department's high degree of interest in the wrongs committed by Vick and Barry Bonds.

Hope you have a chance to read my column.

As an aside, good luck to all the law students who read this blog and who are taking final exams over the next few weeks.

Alabama Jury Gets Revenge Against NCAA

Yesterday, a jury in Alabama awarded $5 million to a former University of Alabama football booster, Ray Keller, who claimed the NCAA defamed him when it imposed penalties on the Crimson Tide in 2002. Keller maintained that the NCAA wrongly lumped him in with other boosters who were accused of making improper contacts and payments to recruits in the 1990s. A timber dealer and Crimson Tide fan, Keller argued that the NCAA slandered and libeled him during the announcement of penalties by referring to him and others as "rogue boosters," "parasites" and "pariahs." According to the press report, the NCAA didn't use the name of Keller or other boosters in announcing penalties against Alabama, but their names appeared in news accounts and the university sent Keller a letter barring him from its athletics program. The jury awarded him $3 million in punitive damages, $1 million for mental anguish, $500,000 for economic loss and $500,000 for damage to reputation.

This trial wasn't about defamation. It essentially amounted to a rehearing of the penalties imposed on the Alabama football program five years ago by the NCAA, but this time the case was heard by 12 Crimson Tide fans! As a torts professor, I've read plenty of defamation cases and I will be really surprised if this judgment ends up sticking on appeal (but I've been surprised before so I guess that's not saying much).

First, a statement must be defamatory by definition, which means that the statement must tend to adversely affect the plaintiff's reputation, for example, by impeaching the plaintiff's honesty or integrity. Referring to the former boosters collectively as "parasites" and "pariahs" is not any more defamatory than it is to simply say that the boosters made improper contacts and payments to recruits in violation of NCAA rules. In other words, what is potentially damaging to the former boosters' reputations in the community is the fact that the NCAA implicated them in wrongdoing which led to sanctions imposed on Alabama's football program, not that the NCAA called them parasites and pariahs.

Second, even if the NCAA's statement is deemed defamatory, the damages award seems excessive. Keller would most likely be classified as a private person, not a public figure. However, when the defamatory statement relates to a private person involving a matter of public concern or controversy -- such as penalties imposed on Alabama's football program as a result of improper activity by boosters -- the U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) held that the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the defendant was negligent in ascertaining the truth of what it published. The NCAA performed a full investigation and determined that the boosters made improper payments and contacts. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of bad faith or even a negligent investigation on the part of the NCAA.

Finally, even if the NCAA was negligent in ascertaining the truth of what it published, Gertz held that damages are limited to the "actual injury" sustained by the plaintiff, which includes out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation, humiliation and mental anguish. However, there must be competent evidence of actual injury. Damages are not presumed, which is typically the case in libel actions relating to private persons involving matters of purely private concern. Thus, any award of punitive damages in this case can hardly be justified absent a showing that the NCAA made the statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Also, $1 million for mental anguish on these facts seems fairly excessive.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

More on instant replay

At ESPN, Jim Caple argues, on the eve of The Big Game and the 25th Anniversary of The Play, that it is a good thing there was no instant replay in 1982.

Three key comments from the story:

Nowadays, officials would review replays of The Play for so long that before they reached a verdict, Silicon Valley engineers would have developed another digital recording system that Microsoft and Apple would make us purchase in order to further analyze the decision. And then the refs would undoubtedly overrule The Play -- with more than two dozen players from both teams on the field, plus more than a hundred band members and cheerleaders, a replay official surely would find something objectionable -- and ruin the greatest play in college football history.
* * *
With today's video technology, we could review The Play from a dozen angles and use computer enhancements until we felt certain whether Dwight Garner's knee was down or if Mariet Ford's lateral really was backward. But, chances are, neither side would go away happy with the result.

But football is a game, not a court of law. And if you try to achieve perfection, you lose something more important. The beauty of sport is that it is played by humans, not computer programs. We are imperfect. We make mistakes. We fumble the ball, drop passes and trip over our own feet when there is nothing but open field ahead. And sometimes, Gary Tyrrell runs onto the field with a trombone. That's what makes the game unpredictable. That's what makes it compelling. That's what makes it fun.

[Editorial Comment: Even if it were a court of law, I remain unconvinced that video evidence necessarily gives perfection or even brings us closer to it].

What matters is that a group of trained, dedicated referees followed The Play that day as best they could, and they ruled on it as fairly and honestly as possible.

I have made before how I feel about instant replay. Looks like I found at least one person who agrees.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Loyola Law School Los Angeles Symposium on Discrimination in Sports

Professor Daniel Lazaroff of Loyola Law School Los Angeles and director of his school's Sports Law Institute, passes along the following info about what should be an engaging and provocative sports law symposium:

* * *
On Friday, January 18, 2008, the Loyola Sports Law Institute and Loyola Law School will be presenting our fourth annual symposium. This year's event is entitled "Discrimination Issues in Sports: Race, Gender & Sexual Orientation." The symposium will begin at 8:30 A.M. and run until 3:45 P.M. We think it will be an informative and enjoyable event.

The race discrimination panel will include Dusty Baker (Manager, Cincinnati Reds), Bill Gould (Professor, Stanford Law School) and Ken Shropshire (Professor, Wharton School). The gender panel features Anita DeFrantz (IOC Member), Nona Lee (V.P. and General Counsel, Arizona Diamondbacks), Jacqueline Michaels (OCR, U.S. Dept. of Education) and Kim Ng (V.P. and Ass't G.M., Los Angeles Dodgers). The scheduled sexual orientation speakers are Jim Buzinski (, Karen Doering (Senior Counsel, National Center for Lesbian Rights) and Claire Williams (Graduate Teaching Ass't, Ohio State University).

Beginning on Thursday, November 29, 2007, access to registration will be available online at this link. I would greatly appreciate it if you would share this information with your colleagues and students. We will admit students from any law school at no charge, Others will be required to pay $50 for the symposium and lunch ($70 with 5 hours of MCLE credit).

* * *
Please feel free to contact Dan with any questions.

Where Have You Gone Barry Bonds?

Over on The Situationist, Will Li has an excellent piece on the myth-making of baseball records. He takes particular notice of Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak and Barry Bonds career home run record, which currently and maybe permanently stands at 762 home runs.

It's an enjoyable read for anyone interested in baseball history. The lack of attention DiMaggio received at the time of his record is almost unbelievable, though years later he would be duly honored.

As Will details, the treatment of DiMaggio's record invites the intriguing question of how Bonds and his record might be remembered decades from now. Might future generations hold Bonds and his record in higher esteem than do many of us today, perhaps because they will focus more on the extraordinary raw number and less on the flaws of the person responsible for it?

Sunday, November 25, 2007

The Bonds Market

Sorry for the awful pun. But back in journalism school, we practiced writing tacky headlines just for the fun of it.

Dave Hoffman at Concurring Opinions writes that trade on the prediction markets shows a belief among traders in a 75 % estimate that Bonds will be convicted or plead guilty to the original charge. And given the trading rules, Dave suggests there is a near-certainty among traders that Bonds will be convicted or plead guilty to something.

Throwing Tennis Matches

The New York Times reported Sunday on several investigations into possible throwing of matches at the behest of gamblers, including a withdrawal loss by world-No. 4 Nikolay Devydenko in Poland last summer. The trigger for the investigation was irregular betting activity on the match through Belfair, an English online sports exchange. Belfair voided the bets on the match. Its records showed that nine betting accounts in Russia (Davydenko's home country) stood to make $ 1.5 million if Davydenko lost. The story mentions several players who have acknowledged being approached about tanking matches and describes the sense among players that tanking, or at least efforts by gamblers to approach players with offers to fix matches, happens frequently. Right now, no one is naming names. The ATP has compiled a list of 140 "suspicious" matches since 2002.

The common assumption is that mainstream professional sports are not fixable because players make so much money that there is no incentive to throw games. But there are some things about tennis that call this into question. First, while the lack of financial incentive perhaps is true at the very top levels (Davydenko notwithstanding), lower-ranked players do not make the kind of money that automatically immunize them to temptation. The players mentioned in the story as having been approached by gamblers generally are ranked in the second-50 or outside of the top-100.

Second, tennis is an individual sport, so a player can throw a match without having to get cooperation from teammates. Third, Patrick McEnroe is quoted as saying that tennis is a very easy game to manipulate, that a player could throw a match and the untrained eye never would know it.

Fourth, and related, tennis is a long season with a lot of travel and a lot of nagging and not-so-nagging injuries (Davydenko retired from the suspicious match because of a foot injury); even the best players are going to have letdown matches, losing in the early rounds to lower-ranked players in more-obscure tournaments. This last point has two effects. First, it provides a temptation to players--"If I am feeling so exhausted or nicked up to play my best, why not take the money from a gambler?" Second, it makes an otherwise-inexplicable loss less suspicious, except for the strange gambling activity.

Finally, tennis is an international game. Thus, the risks of gambling have to be considered not solely from the standpoint of the American economy but also from the still-developing economies of former Soviet-bloc nations, notably Russia. Several of the stories about attempted fixing happened at events in Russia. This international flavor makes enforcement an interesting question. Both the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and the International Tennis Federation (ITF) are investigating for possible administrative enforcement. But there is a question of what country, if any, could enforce its laws against such activity and against whom.

Worth watching the story.

Vick, Bonds and the Questionable Pursuit of Justice

Now that Michael Vick sits in a jail cell and appears to be slowly losing all the money he has rightly earned over the past few years, is it time to talk about some of the more troubling aspects of the story? By all accounts, if you can put aside the dog fighting violations for a minute, and maybe you can’t or shouldn’t, Vick was one of those superstar athletes who really cared about those less fortunate and worked to make things better in the communities like the one he grew up in. He was certainly a joy to watch. Without question, he made a serious error in judgment and did wrong. But those involved in this field of sports law might be ready to discuss some of the issues his prosecution and conviction raise.

First, where were Vick’s advisors: his agent, his attorneys, his friends, teammates and coaches? Surely some of these people knew he was involved in this activity and either turned the other way or encouraged his belief that there were no consequences for an athlete of his stature for such conduct. Too often, those close to stars like Vick are obsessed with staying close to stars like Vick, so much so they are afraid to tell the man what he may not want to hear. Vick grew up in the projects of Newport News, Virginia, a crime-ridden area known as BadNewz. As he told an interviewer, “When I was 10 or 11, I would go fishing even if the fish were not biting just to get out of there.” Vick now is one of the all too many African American young men imprisoned in this country, though it appeared he had escaped such a future. No matter how passionate you feel about the plight of animals, that is a human tragedy.

Second, many of us have been surprised to learn that this culture of dog fighting is fairly widespread. Some 50,000 Americans apparently are involved in the activity. Internet sites and numerous books promote and cater to what many call the “sport.” Apparently, many a small town Southern sheriff knew where and when the dog fights were and did nothing to stop them. Yet the United States Justice Department saw the necessity to get involved and prosecute Michael Vick. This is the same Bush/Gonzalez Justice Department which spent four years and millions of dollars to indict Barry Bonds, another prominent African American millionaire athlete, the same Justice Department which had trouble telling the truth when testifying before Congress about the way it conducts its business, the same Justice Department that had an interest in moving the Administration’s numerous failures off the front page.

Why Vick? Maybe he was just doing the wrong thing at the wrong time and the Feds had no choice but to prosecute him when they learned of his criminal activity while executing a search warrant on unrelated matters. Maybe the Feds also had little choice but to prosecute Bonds once they believed he committed perjury, even if the conduct he refused to admit had occurred was not a crime and had obviously been committed by numerous others including the white player who supposedly “saved” baseball.

All I know is that the prosecution of either of these splendid athletes gives me no joy, as it apparently does for some in the media and others who love to see superstars brought down to size.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Players and Clubs: Quit Paying Agents Huge Commissions!

Sports economists may be able to justify the Yankees' decision to pay A-Rod $275M based upon economic formulas that take into account attendance, broadcast fees, concessions, merchandising and other forms of revenue (See, e.g., Jorge L. Ortiz, A-Rod Deal is Still a Revenue Winner for Yanks, USA Today, 11/21/07). But what about the decision of the Yanks and A-Rod to pay $14M to a third party agent who didn't even negotiate the deal? Jerry Crasnick, an reporter and the author of License to Deal, wrote an interesting article last weekend analyzing the Yankees/A-Rod deal as well as the role that Scott Boras played in the process (Boras Took a Hit But He'll Survive,, 11/19/07). Here are some excerpts:
[Boras will] soon receive a commission of $14 million or so for A-Rod's deal with the Yankees, and he didn't even have to pay Kinko's to print and collate a 100-page "homage to Alex" binder.
We know that A-Rod, after seeking guidance from investment icon Warren Buffett, got the ball rolling by contacting the Yankees directly. The Steinbrenners, who wanted no part of Boras, are now dealing with him because baseball's labor contract
decrees they do so.
For a multitude of reasons, the A-Rod affair will not go down as Boras' crowning achievement. The decision to exercise an opt-out clause during Game 4 of the World Series -- and no matter what Boras says, it came from his end -- was incredibly ill-timed. Then the bidding war that Boras was expecting failed to materialize, to the point that Rodriguez, with the support of his wife, Cynthia, felt the need to reach out personally to the Yankees to achieve détente. What was the ultimate cost to Rodriguez? As ESPN's Buster Olney recently reported, the Yankees were willing to begin talks with Boras with an opening offer of five years and $150 million, in addition to the three years and $81 million remaining on his deal (with $21 million coming from Texas). The Yankees might, indeed, have been willing to go to nine years and $260 million in the end, but we'll never know for sure.
Is Boras entitled to his 5% commission, let alone any commission at all? And even if Boras had negotiated A-Rod's deal with the Yankess, I still couldn't justify the fee. As a starting point, A-Rod is obviously worth at least $25M per year without an ounce of help whatsoever from any agent. Why should an agent take any percentage whatsoever of that first $25M?
This post isn't a criticism of Boras as an individual or anything he did regarding A-Rod's deal; it's a criticism of the third party agent system in general. In the introductory paragraph above, I purposefully posed the question why the Yanks and A-Rod both decided to pay such a large commission to a third party. I say "both" because I fail to understand why the unions and leagues continue to allocate to third parties to the player-contract relationship such a huge chunk of the revenue pie -- Granted, it may have been justifiable 30 years ago but times have certainly changed. I've written about how the system is detrimental to both the players and the clubs in all kinds of ways, and how unions and leagues could collectively bargain for changes that would be mutually beneficial, including unions representing players in individual contract negotiations. In his article, Crasnick quoted a statement made by Nationals president Stan Kasten on XM Radio, who tends to agree: "I used to think of Scott as a necessary evil, and now I've changed, I no longer think he is necessary. He and I are friendly enough personally, but I think the way he conducts himself is perfectly consistent with the job he's given within the system we have. I think the system could be better, and I've talked about this publicly, for all of sports, for all of fans, and for all of players, if the union took over that job, and we had an agent free universe, I think everything would be better."
But Crasnick suggests that the union really needs agents like Boras:
We know for starters that the Players Association has a major stake in Boras' emerging from this saga with his clout intact. You see the union's devotion to Boras every time a younger, less established agent complains that one of Boras' "scouts" in the minor leagues is trying to steal a client. And you see it when Fehr issues a statement saying the union is worried about collusion in regard to A-Rod's contract talks. The union loves and protects Boras because he negotiates the record contracts that set the market for the smaller deals. He creates the rising tide that lifts all boats.
I think Crasnick is overexaggerating the union's dependence on Boras. For starters, the fact that the union has chosen not to proactively discipline Boras for client stealing is not due to a "Boras protectionism" effort as many agents might like to think. It's more a component of the myriad issues surrounding a union's disciplining third party agents for misconduct, which include affording agents sufficient due process, affording each player autonomy in the choice of agent, allocating sufficient resources towards enforcement, lack of sufficient evidence, numerous factual issues, and concerns regarding arbitrary enforcement. I also disagree with Crasnick that Don Fehr's recent statements about collusion associated with A-Rod's contract had anything to do with a "devotion" to Boras.
Indeed, approx. 15 years ago when player salaries were half of what they are today, Fehr even questioned whether a commission-based agent fee is the best system for the players:
[W]e are beginning to get fairly significant pressure from players to consider modifying [the player-agent] relationship. There has to be another way to do this because the fees are getting out of hand. As an athlete begins to earn 3 or 4 or 5 million dollars a year, is the work involved that much more lengthy than it was before? As a matter of fact, the agent's skills may improve and his or her bargaining power may be greater which could mean the process entails less work. Do percentages make any sense? Well, maybe not. (See Donald Fehr, The Second Annual Sports Dollars & Sense Conference: A Symposium On Sports Industry Contracts And Negotiations, Union Views Concerning Agents: With Commentary on the Present Situation in Major League Baseball, 4 MARQ. SPORTS L. J. 71, 81 (1993)).
Maybe the players need to consult a sports economist for a formula to justify the $14M commission paid on A-Rod's deal....

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Old foes

There is hardly a more forceful contest than that performed by an English and French team on a rugby pitch. The rivalry between the old foes is at its highest when played out on the field of play. But last week’s news that Phil Greening, England’s former international player, had been ordered by a French court to pay Aurelién Rougerie, a French international, EUR 40,500 (US$59,100) as compensation for the injuries caused to the latter by the former on the field of play are a dramatic extension of the documented enmity.

5 years ago, in the course of a game between Wasps (of England) and Montferrand (of France), Rougerie suffered a severe injury to his throat that required 3 surgeries and put him out of the game for more than 4 months. Allegedly, the injury resulted from a hand-off (a technical feature of rugby according to which the attacking player fends-off the attempted tackle by the opposing player by extending his arm, with an open hand, and brushing aside the would-be defender) by Phil Greening. I was unable to find any footage of the incident on the web. However, it generated significant dissent amongst commentators and crucially, citing commissionaires at the game found no evidence on which to pursue any disciplinary action against Greening on the basis of the available footage. It is always risky to deliver an opinion on something you have not directly seen but in all likelihood this was a borderline case.

Even though common law and continental jurisdictions have gone about these sorts of cases in different fashion (following different legal paths and standards), it can be safely said that, in general, the judicial powers have accepted that participants in any sport are bound by a duty of care. Moreover, it has been widely accepted that the specifics of each sport and the environment created by the rules of the game (namely in contact sports) are fundamental in creating a particular environment, which must be taken into account when establishing any thresholds. Where courts have not been so unanimous is in finger-pointing the breaching conduct leading to a “guilty” decision. As a matter of principle (especially because the incident hereunder took place during a rugby match, a highly aggressive sport) let us consider reckless disregard as the applicable standard for the ascertainment of a breaching conduct.

Taking the foregoing into account, can we readily accept such a judgment? It is impossible to say with any degree of certitude whether Greening’s hand-off can be deemed a fair reflection of the rules of the game, even if performed with a level of technical deficiency; moreover, it is impossible to say whether his technical gesture was one that could be expected from a rugby player, a naturally aggressive sort of athlete playing a contact sport, who is required to act accordingly, even if sometimes against the rules (that’s why fouls exist). Or was it an absolutely unreasonable, nonsensical, foolish, absurd, action that goes beyond the foul and into an area of civil liability? In contact sports such as rugby Greening’s hand-off would have to be something bordering the ludicrous to merit such an award. The French court has the benefit of doubt because it reviewed the incident and I did not.

One final note. Rugby authorities and players alike have been very loud in their cries against the decision, claiming it will have repercussions and hinting it may even change the game. I doubt this decision has the potential to create international havoc but at least in France players will be thinking twice before upping their aggressiveness levels in a hand-off or even a tackle.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

DOJ Joins Disabled Veterans in Action Against U of Michigan's 'Big House'

One of the more notable aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act is the statute's requirement that public facilities be accessible to disabled patrons. The question is, however, is in the details and this law -- as laudable as it is -- did not provide very many. Instead, the framers of the statute left the regulatory nitty-gritty to the Department of Justice to iron out.

Like a ceramics artist who creates a work from a mass of wet clay, the DOJ created its standards from similarly hazy circumstances. In doing rtitle III's mandate to ensure "readily accessible and usable for individuals with disabilities" was not adequately defined. Instead the statute directs a board of experts to issue specific guidelines implementing the ADA to the Department of Justice for consideration and adoption. [for more on the process, you can check my article in 8 Marq. Sports L.J. 263 (1998)]. Ultimately, the DOJ essentially adopted a one percent solution and more complex regulations involved adequate sightlines for disabled patrons.

While the DOJ was considering this, a spurt of new stadiums and arenas were being constructed in the mid-1990s and stadium architects and owners had trouble grappling over exactly what the regulations required. The court concluded that the regulations were considered binding, despite some judicial criticism over the confusing process in doing so. (This was noted in Paralyzed Veterans of American v. Ellerbe Becket, 950 F. Supp. 393 (D.D.C 1996) and in its appeal, found at Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 579 (1997)

I thought of the regulatory history when I read that the DOJ joined a lawsuit by the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, claiming that the stadium violated the ADA seating rules. It alleges that the seats are no adequate distributed around the stadium and fell short of the 1 percent requirement.a lawsuit against the University of Michigan's football stadium (known as "the big house").

Although the Michigan stadium dates about 100 years, renovations in 1997 bring it under the purview of the ADA regulations. The suit claims that negotiations between the parties were not successful and with only 88 seats out of 102,000, it falls below the 1 percent standard. Also, the complaint notes that the disabled seating was not dispersed throughout the stadium as all the seats are in the end zones. It adds that accessible toilets, concession stands, souvenir shops or parking was lacking. The University denies these claims.

Although the stadium is the nation's largest, that does not mean that it is necessarily willing to carve out more disabled seating. From the University's point of view, crafting disabled seating would mean taking out seating for non-disabled patrons and would likely result in a loss of seats. Generally (although not always) one disabled seat or space takes the place of two non-disabled seats, meaning a loss of people and revenues. For a venue that regularly sells out, that is not an insignificant issue. Feelings could be hurt and anger may result between non-disabled fans (who may have lost their seats) and the disabled fans who wish to see games. Still, it surprises me that the University has not settled the case. The lawsuit places an prestigious and venerable institution (with an equally prestigious and venerable football team) in the position of defendant a status quo that excludes and stigmatizes disabled patrons.

I will be following this case and will report on any updates.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Kenzie Bouncing Video

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Corporate Stupidity

I get a lot of requests, but I must make one thing abundantly clear. I am not allowed to write about my current employer. I want to keep my job which is why I never write about anything concerning my job including the name of the company I work for. This is a violation of confidentiality, and I don't do things like that at least while I am getting paid or could get sued. But I can write about companies I used to work for.

Before I begin with the bloviating, I want to stress what I consider to be the chief aim of a company. The chief end of a company is to make money. PERIOD. I am a capitalist, and I believe in making a profit. Any company that deviates from this purpose will not remain a company. Some left thinking shitheads may decry this as evil, but it is economic reality much the same way that gravity will always have a tether on you. The upside of gravity is that you don't go flying off into space. The downside of gravity is that sometimes you go flying into the concrete below.

The goal of profit is what determines what is smart and stupid in a company. It is smart to make money. It is stupid to not make money. And it is absolutely retarded to lose money. Yet, Corporate America seems adept at performing all three things. I can't count how many strokes of imbecility I have witnessed at companies, and I am amazed that they remain in business. This corporate stupidity has even spawned a comic strip called Dilbert which I think is the funniest thing in the funny papers these days. Scott Adams thinks much the same way I do. He is not a left leaning shithead but a capitalist. Yet, he is supplied with an endless stream of examples of corporate stupidity by readers who email him. This is probably why Dilbert continues where other high quality strips like The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes folded. Dilbert never runs out of material.

Where does this stupidity come from? Basically, it is an outgrowth of the bureaucracy you see in Washington. For some reason, corporate leaders have borrowed the bureaucratic tendencies of the executive administration within the Beltway and see it as the most effective way to run a centralized organization. The military operates on much the same principle which is why you get a clusterfuck like letting Osama bin Laden get away in Tora Bora because the Pentagon didn't want the CIA and Special Ops getting the credit. And so it goes. . .

The difference between government and business is that government stupidity can continue forever. Business stupidity cannot. When a company loses enough money, it folds and goes out of business. This is why one of the best ways to succeed in business is to capitalize off the mistakes of larger outfits either by starting a competing enterprise or going in and turning around the existing enterprise. Stupidity abounds and so does the opportunity to exploit it. This is why consulting firms make so much money. But I digress. . .

Corporate stupidity is the luxury of profitable companies. When a company makes money, they start getting stupid. It took brains to become successful, but there is a lag time between the fuck up and the results of the fuck up. It is in this lag time that we get utter idiocy. And Machiavellian types who are adept at surfing the seas of backstabbing, credit snatching, and blameshifting become the ones who are best at surviving in this environment. This is how you get a guy like Disney's Michael Eisner who did a few good things at the start and then destroyed what he had built. Eisner is the epitome of corporate stupidity, and he was compensated handsomely for it. He fired guys like Jeffrey Katzenberg who went on to cofound DreamWorks or Michael Ovitz who helped Disney become what it was.

It will become readily apparent to anyone working in the corporate world that many businesses often succeed in spite of not because of their leadership. If you don't believe this, read up on the debacle known as New Coke. It is a testament to the strength of a company that monkeys could run it which is exactly what happens. Unlike Jack Welch's General Electric where executive talent was recruited and rewarded, things such as talent, brains, and initiative are punished in the corporate sector. People who make money for the company are seen as enemies, and they are. They are a threat to the incompetents who have lodged themselves in the upper rungs of the power structure.

At some point in your career, you must decide what kind of person you are going to be. Are you going to be Machiavellian or a moneymaker? Are you going to be a weasel or a tiger? All I can tell you is that in the long run, profit always wins. It is the only thing that wins. It is the sure thing that wins. But you will take your licks on the way, and there is nothing you can do about it. A successful animal often carries with it a host of parasites. That animal would be more robust if free of these pests, but it often survives with them intact.

Here are some examples of corporate stupidity from three places I used to work for. I did not make this shit up.


I used to deliver pizzas in college for a franchise of Domino's. I liked the job, and they liked me. I did a good job. I was reliable and energetic and positive. The owner of the store liked me. But it was a franchise, and our day of reckoning came when a stupid bitch from Quality Control paid us a visit.

I don't know where Domino's got this person, but it was clear to us that she was retarded. Miss Quality Control's job was to make sure our product was up to the standards of the company. This is an understandable aim. You want customers to receive what they expected. This goes to the purpose of the profit. But this was a clueless bitch.

Her method for ensuring quality was to make us remake every pizza we made until she liked the way it looked. I remember making the same pizza three times until it matched her standards. Needless to say, the customer called back and cancelled their order because they got tired of waiting for the pizza. This went on for a couple of days until she left. The franchise survived, but it would not have if she had remained there indefinitely.

I don't know a lot about business, but I do know that a product or a service is a compromise between quality, productivity, and cost. If I want it fast and cheap, I go to McDonald's. If I'm willing to pay and wait a bit, I go to Outback or Longhorn. Domino's is not the Olive Garden. Customers want it fast and cheap which is what we gave them. These people vote with their dollars. If we did a lousy job, we wouldn't stay in business. The ultimate arbiter of what is good or bad in a company is the customer. Too often, what the customer wants and what some corporate weasel wants are often at odds. But, hey, we don't need customers. Fuck 'em.

2. RPS, INC.

This company is now known as FedEx Ground, and I don't know if they follow the same policies now or adopted new shitheaded policies. But this is the story of the crayon.

RPS was a package delivery company that was basically a rip off of UPS. The difference between RPS and UPS is that RPS utilized an automated sortation system for its packages. This thing worked great compared to the manual sortation systems of an older company like UPS which relied on package handlers to hand sort each package to its correct destination.

When you sort packages, you are going to make mistakes even with a state-of-the-art automated sortation system. This is because the automated sortation system works with barcodes that have information on them which was keyed in manually by someone. These people make mistakes which carries down the chain. It happens.

Inside each trailer is a package handler who reads the label of each package before it is loaded onto the trailer. His job is to make sure missorts don't become misloads. He must do this job at the minimum rate of 400 packages per hour. This was the standard.

Naturally, you can load a trailer a lot faster if you don't read those labels or only read some of them. You can catch a slacker by tossing a salt in his chute. A salt was a package that was headed to the wrong destination. If the guy caught it, he was doing his job. If he didn't, he got his ass reamed by yours truly. The quality standard was one misload per 1000 packages. I had days when we had zero misloads for the entire area, and we loaded 10,000 or more for the shift. I must also admit that we had guys who were even better than me on this shit. In fact, they would talk shit to me about it, and I was always mortified by it. Of course, I had the highest productivity which I would rub in on them. But this is when stupidity came into the mix.

RPS became concerned about misloads, so they instituted a program to eliminate misloads. Each package handler was given an industrial crayon and ordered to draw the last digit of the zip code on each package before loading it. Each hub had their own color. Ours was puke green. The purpose of the crayon was to slow down the package handlers because they were working too fast and making mistakes. By using the crayon, a 400+ loader would be reduced to a 200 package per hour slug. I wouldn't care except that the company standard mandated 400 packages per hour. In other words, if you went too slow, you would be fired. But if you didn't slow down and use the crayon, you would be fired for that. It was no-win situation. I even held contests to see if anyone could meet the quality standard while using that crayon. None of them ever did.

Needless to say, the crayon received the same treatment as all other stupid policies enacted by companies or governments. It was ignored, and this was company wide. When getting my ass reamed for not using the crayon, I would grab packages from random and dare my superiors to find a single crayon mark from other hubs in the system. They shut up and left me alone. I was making sense.

Somewhere at RPS, an idiot was put in charge. He drew an exorbitant salary for basically being a fool. The crayon was his idea, and it was ignored. If the policy had been followed, the company would have lost millions of dollars in lost productivity. I know because my boss got fired for this reason. He didn't produce. Meanwhile, I lampooned the company, my superiors, and the entirety of middle management, and they kept me because I did produce. But being young and stupid, I walked off that job in frustration. I had let those bastards grind me down. Never again.

Folks, I can only tell you one thing. It is better to show your ass than not show your ass. You are going to get fired either way, so go ahead and speak your mind. Tell them exactly what you think of the operation. I have never been fired for my candor. In fact, I have been offered promotions because of it. Jack Welch at GE found that candor was integral to running his operation. He encouraged people to speak freely because he realized that candor was communication. Problems got fixed because someone had the balls to say something.

Remember, the goal is to make money. Companies will fire you because of this, but who wants to work for a bunch of losers? Give me a team that says that winning isn't the goal, and I'll show you that they are losers. The goal is to win. This is why you play the game. Likewise, you win in business by making money. At RPS, you didn't make money with a crayon in your hand.


This job was bizarro land. I had this job for exactly 89 days because on Day 90 we all became permanent and our benefits kicked in. They shitcanned all of us. This was one of the worst jobs I have ever had.

Basically, Target is a retail establishment with razor thin margins. There is a lot of pressure to make a profit. I should have thrived in an environment like that. Instead, I felt like I had stepped into East Germany. Target had this thing called the Team Target Attitude which was basically a form of brainwashing. You couldn't be candid about anything and that included saying something as innocuous as, "I'm not having a good day today." I am not making this up.

For the first three weeks at Target, we did nothing. We sat in class for training. I have never spent so much time in training in my life for any job. I usually learn by doing which involves WORKING. We didn't work for almost an entire month. Then, they tossed us out there and told we had to meet the productivity standard before 90 days was up. I met my standard. Others didn't. But knowing what I know now, I would have spent the bulk of my shift goofing off. They were going to fire all of us. There was nothing we could do.

It makes no sense to waste all that money training masses of people to do a job when you already know you are going to fire them. Add in the oppressive environment and the ill will they have fostered in the community, I don't see how they pull it off. I have talked with people who worked there, and their experience was the same. After firing people, Target would immediately hire a new batch of recruits and repeat the process.

I was not a fly on the wall, but I already know how this stupidity came about. People still in the 90-day probationary period were not credited on the labor numbers of that company. Nevermind that they are getting paid. For management, this is free money. They get the productivity upside from having extra people on staff without taking a hit on the labor cost side. This is all internal corporate accounting. The bottom line is a loss for the company no matter how you cut it. But within the company, it behooved you to maintain a permanent force of temporary labor. Utter stupidity. Factor in the cost of benefits when the 90 days kicked in, and there you have it.

I probably have this wrong and have overlooked some factors into why Target operates this way. All I know is that you don't make money when you pay people not to work for a month and to underwork for two more months. Somewhere, somebody is working the numbers for the sake of a career but to the detriment of the company. It is what it is.

So, what do I have to say about all of this madness? All I can say is that the customer is always right, and if a company and its owners want to run it into the ground, there's nothing you or I can do about it nor should we. Darwin trumps Machiavelli in the long run. It has taken me my entire adult working life to realize this, but I have seen it happen. The corporate weasels will get what is coming to them. This is because you can't lose money and stay in business. Focus on being a good worker and using common sense. If they want to fire you for this, you don't need that company. And speak your mind. There is no protection in silence. Being a good worker demands candor even if the people you work for are too stupid to listen.

This is an endless topic for me. I can go on and on about it. It just amazes me how people get paid to not make money or to lose money for a company. But as a weasel once told me, "Just do your paperwork and make sure it is done. No matter how bad you fuck up, they can't fire you if you do the paperwork and follow the rules." Folks, I swear to you that I did not make that last part up.

Saturday, November 17, 2007 Column on O.J. Simpson Trial

I've published a new column on Sports on O.J. Simpson facing charges for kidnapping and robbery. The column is entitled "Breaking Down the O.J. Trial."

Yesterday, a judge ruled that prosecutors had established probable cause for the charges, which may lead to a trial. I discuss the prospects for a trial, the quality of the evidence, and ways in which Simpson's attorneys can attack the credibility of his former associates who are now testifying against him.

I hope you have a chance to read the piece.

Friday, November 16, 2007

TF MacKenzie - 4 weeks old!

This 'wee' girl is growing fast!

14 tonne of lime

14 tonne of lime arrived today and was shovelled and barrowed into and around the left hand yard which is where my new crush (not yet completed) is. Hard work but well worth it - It will be great and just needs to settle. Yay!

Barry Bonds, the Home Run Record, and the Hall of Fame

Thursday's indictment of Barry Bonds on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, arising from his allegedly false grand-jury testimony about his steroid use, squarely presents evidence that Bonds did indeed use performance-enhancing drugs. Bonds's statements denying steroid use only can be perjury if there is evidence that he did use steroids. The criminal process will play itself out moving forward.

But there also is the question of Commissioner Bud Selig imposing punishment within the sub-society of Major League Baseball--if it should punish, when it should punish, and how it should punish.

If: The question of whether MLB can punish Bonds for steroid use is somewhat murky. It is not clear whether steroid use was against Major League Rules during the time-frame at issue, roughly 2001-2003. There definitely was no testing for steroids then. On the other hand, steroid use was against federal law. Major League Rule 21(f) prohibits "any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not . . . in the best interests of Baseball." Selig could decide that using illegal performance-enhancing drugs is conduct adverse to the best interests of baseball and punish him accordingly. It also is likely that the Major League Baseball Players Association will contest any league-imposed punishment and appeal any punishment to a labor arbitrator. This actually might present a nice test of the scope of the commissioner's "Best-Interest" power and how it is or might be limited by the CBA.

When: This is the question of whether Selig should suspend, ban, or otherwise punish Bonds now, in light of the indictment, or wait until the criminal process has played out. An indictment obviously is not a conviction and Bonds could well be acquitted, making any punishment now look like a rush to judgment. And a suspension now, pending resolution of the prosecution, likely ends Bonds's career. He is 43; if he is acquitted a year from now and Selig lifts the suspension, his next opportunity to play will be in 2009, when he will be almost 45.

On the other hand, the indictment does mean there is some evidence that Bonds used steroids (the indictment mentions a positive drug test, although it is ambiguous whether the indictment was referring to Bonds or another player at that point). And Selig can impose baseball-related punishment on proof less than beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. Thus, even if Bonds is acquitted of perjury, Selig still could decide there is sufficient evidence that Bonds used steroids and should be punished within the game, such as with a permanent suspension. Historically, this is what happened with the members of the Black Sox who threw the 1919 World Series. The eight players were acquitted (surprise--a Chicago jury would not convict White Sox players), but new Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned the players for life anyway.

How: There are two obvious targets for baseball punishment. One is Bonds's possession of a number of historical records, including the two most-hallowed batting records--single-season home runs with 73 in 2002 and career home runs, currently with 762. The other is Bonds's selection into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

There may be a temptation to strip Bonds of his records in recognition of the fact that he essentially achieved them by cheating--either by erasing his name from the top of the record book or by placing the dreaded asterisk next to his name. I previously have explained why I do not like asterisks. But I similarly reject stripping Bonds of the records. It smacks too much of rewriting history--of creating a "true" (but not accurate) historical record by eliminating from society's official story the enemies of the state, those who have run afoul of those in power. Even in something as (relatively) insignificant as professional sports, a respect for historical truth is important. Better to let the record show both what Bonds achieved and the way he achieved it and to let history judge. If MLB wants to introduce Henry Aaron as the "Real Home Run King" at all official events, fine--so long as the record book remains accurate.

As to the Hall of Fame, I discussed Bonds and the Hall last year, when reports first surfaced that grand jury testimony indicated that Bonds had used steroids and/or perjured himself. But this is a future issue. A player must have ceased playing five calendar years prior to selection, so if Bonds is done playing now, he would first be on the ballot in 2013.

Bonds's eligibility for the Hall of Fame actually depends somewhat on what Selig does. MLB does not control Hall of Fame selection or induction. But HOF Rule 3(E) provides that "[a]ny player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate." So if Selig bans Bonds, Bonds is ineligible for election. Indeed, Selig might impose a ban for that reason, since denying Hall election may be the only way that Baseball could meaningfully sanction him for this misconduct (assuming Bonds is done playing). If Bonds is not suspended or banned, voters still consider "the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played" in deciding whether to select a player for the Hall; cheating could weigh into the balance on Bonds's sportsmanship and character. Suspicion of steroid use has kept, or likely will keep out, several other players, including Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero. But Bonds's Hall credentials are much stronger than either of those players; Bonds arguably is one of the three best players of his generation. It will be interesting to see how this new evidence of steroid use plays into the voters' calculus in the years to come.

(Cross-Posted at PrawfsBlawg)

Web Casts from Reversing Field

As detailed on these pages previously, Reversing Field: Examining Commercialization, Labor and Race in 21st Century Sports Law was held at the West Virginia University College of Law on October 4-5, 2007. Several Sports Law Blog contributers were panelists at the event, including Joe Rosen, Mike McCann and Andre Smith.

All panels and keynote speakers were captured on webcast and are now available for viewing in full. Keynote speakers included Len Elmore (speaking about race and sports), Ken Shropshire (describing the life of Sugar Ray Robinson), Bill Gould (discussing current labor issues in professional sports) and Bernard Franklin (describing the current state of the ncaa). Each keynote speech can be viewed in its entirety by visiting this webcast or by copying this link into your browser:

In addition, each of the panel presentations was captured and all are now available on webcast. Panels included:

Panel I: Commercialization: The Buying and Selling of the College Athlete (featuring Gordon Hylton, Alfred Mathewson and Lisa Pike Masteralexis);

Panel II: Racing From the Past: Examining Racism in Collegiate Athletics (featuring Dana Brooks, Michael McCann and coach Marlon LeBlanc);

Panel III: Professional Equality: The Rooney Rule (featuring Cyrus Mehri, Jeremi Duru, Floyd Keith and Ken Shropshire);

Panel IV: Finding Equal Footing: Gender Issues in Sports (featuring Barbara Osborne, Daniel Malasky and Deborah Brake);

Panel V: False/Positives: Debating the Merits of Drug Testing (featuring David Cornwell, Timothy Davis, Dr. Julian Bailes, and Kevin Kostco);

Panel VI: Balls or Strikes: Are Economic Weapons Finding the Zone (featuring William Gould, Joseph Rosen, Dennis Walsh and Daniel Silverman); and

Panel VII: Reversing Field: Purposeful Progress (featuring Sherri Burr, Andre Smith, Anne Lofaso and andre douglas pond cummings).

all of the panels can be viewed in their entirety at this link or by copying the following into your browser:

Copies of DVDs are available by contacting the West Virginia University College of Law.

Steroids, Baseball, and Truth and Reconciliation

Earlier this week, I was interviewed by Jerry Crasnick at ESPN for a piece on the ever-looming release of the Mitchell Commission Report, what it might prompt MLB and/or individual teams to do to any players named in the report, and the effect that might have on this winter's free-agent market. The story is not up yet, but I will link to it when it is.

During the interview, Crasnick asked whether Commissioner Bud Selig might decide to do nothing in response to the Report--perhaps in a show of mercy and amnesty or perhaps in recognition of the difficulties of punishing any players under MLB rules, under the collective bargaining agreement, and under the terms of individual player contracts. Mike previously offered his thoughts on some of these issues.

My first thought was that if Selig did nothing, he would be eviscerated for waging a phony investigation, for turning Mitchell loose to make MLB look like it was doing something about steroids, giving Selig a PR boost, when in reality it was a meaningless exercise. Alternatively, Selig would be eviscerated for starting an investigation to do nothing more than embarrass individual players named in the Report. But I think this may have been too hasty a view.

Instead, perhaps we can think of the Mitchell Commission as baseball's version of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This is a particular type of legal/political process that investigates, takes evidence, and attempts to reveal the facts and story about past and historical events in a society, but not with an eye towards either punishing wrongdoers or compensating victims. Rather it is for the purpose of discovering historical "truth," setting the historical record straight, and "reconciling" the society to its past as it moves forward. The most famous and successful of these was the Commission established in South Africa to investigate Apartheid. Closer to home was the 2005 Commission that investigated the Greensboro Massacre, the 1979 racially charged killing of five union protesters by a group of Klansmen (while the police did nothing to intervene) in Greensboro, N.C.

Perhaps the Mitchell Report will serve the same function, even if no players are in any way sanctioned. It will set straight the historical record about baseball from 1994 until 2005 by providing evidence and revealing the "truth" as to who was doing what with respect to performance-enhancing drugs. This record enables us to evaluate this era and decide what we should make of the records and accomplishments of the players and teams. This can affect how historians and fans think and write about the game and the players. It affects how writers place players of the era in historical discussions of all-time best players and teams. Perhaps it affects how individual Hall-of-Fame voters cast their ballots. It may have the effect of placing an unofficial asterisk by some records, so long as it is not official. If the Commission gives us that, even if no one is punished, maybe it will not have been a meaningless exercise.

Why I Am Not an Objectivist

Ayn Rand wrote two great books--The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She also spawned a movement known today as Objectivism. I find a lot of value in her writings and in the viewpoints of Objectivists. But I am not an Objectivist. Here's why.

I agree with Ayn Rand when it comes to egoism and capitalism and the need for individual freedom. Unfortunately, Rand took her viewpoints to an extreme that became a distortion and ultimately a caricature of what I consider to be the correct stance to take which I call secular individualism.

Rand was dogmatic. I do not believe in dogma. Much of her speeches and those of her fictional heroes--Howard Roark and John Galt--seem like propaganda patterned on the Bolshevik model. Clearly, she rejected the viewpoints of the commies, but she seems to have borrowed heavily from their style. The result is less than reality. This is fine for a work of fiction, but it is disastrous for a philosophy of life.

I believe in questioning things. I am skeptical, and I encourage others to do the same even if that skepticism is pointed at me. I encourage dissent. Rand did not and neither do her followers. I am willing to take a stand, but I am also willing to admit when I am wrong. My worldview is always a work in progress. For Objectivists, it seems they have all the answers even if it requires pounding a square peg into a round hole.

Another aspect of Rand that I found troubling was her emphasis on pride. I am not big on pride. I don't think you should hate yourself either. I think the best approach is to not take yourself too seriously. I make fun of myself and have a self-deprecating sense of humor. I try to accept myself as I am flaws and all. Rand seems to have been on a quest to make herself and the men she loved into heroic beings. The reality is that they were nobodies. Rand was a good novelist who rested on her laurels and surrounded herself with sycophants who stroked her massive ego. This is where pride gets you.

Finally, I am not a big fan of the Objectivist's love for preemptive war. I realize there are libertarian minded people who have fallen on both sides of this issue, but I think the USA's recent adventure in Iraq should show the folly of going on offense and trying to reshape the world in the name of liberty. Basically, an Objectivist is a libertarian who believes in freedom at the point of a gun. This is why they have found such common cause with the neocons in the GOP. But it isn't freedom if it comes by force.

On a sidepoint, I'd like to comment on the Nathaniel Branden affair. The bottom line is that Rand got her pussy wet for some young stud and got ditched for a younger chick. I have no sympathy for her because she was cheating on her husband and turned him into a cuckold. I don't see anything heroic in any of that. But Rand in her shitheadedness made it like it was the moral thing to do. Stupid.

There is a reason that Objectivism has a cultlike feel about it. It isn't a cult because they stress individualism so much. But like any cult you have your heretics, your dogma, and your schisms. I know I would never have lasted a day in Rand's circle. I would have told that bitch to suck a dick. But I will say that I think she was the smartest woman that ever lived. This isn't saying much since I think there are a whole lot of men that were smarter than her. But she changed my thinking in a profound way, and I think everyone should read her work and understand her. Column on Barry Bonds Indictment

Howard noted the Bonds indictment yesterday, and last night I published a column on Sports on the topic.

I examine the grand jury indictment, prospects for a plea bargain, and how, if there is a trial, Bonds might attempt to show that he did not commit perjury or obstruction of justice.

I hope you have a chance to read the piece.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Bonds Indicted . . .

on perjury and obstruction of justice. ESPN reports here; a Bay-area TV station reports here.

Update: Thursday, 6:00 p.m. C.S.T.: The indictment is here.

Update # 2: Friday, 7:30 a.m. C.S.T.:

Mike Dorf on why
any conviction, standing alone without reference to the subject of the conviction (that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs) should not be enough to keep him out of the Hall of Fame or to warrant stripping him of the career home run record.

Toledo Law Grad Chosen as Executive Director of NHLPA

I'm a few weeks late on this, but I wanted to extend my congratulations to Paul V. Kelly, a graduate of the University of Toledo College of Law, who last month was selected as the Executive Director of the National Hockey League Players Association. The NHLPA's press releases are here and here.

Kelly attended Boston College before earning his law degree at Toledo. He practiced law at the Boston firms of Ropes & Gray, Foley Hoag, and his own firm, Kelly, Libby & Hoopes. He also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, which seems to be where he got his first exposure to professional hockey. Kelly was the lead prosecutor in the federal case against Alan Eagleson, the disgraced former Executive Director of the union.

Kelly's NHL experience also includes representation of players -- including Marty McSorley -- in civil and criminal matters.

Kelly will no doubt play an important role in shaping the future of the NHL, helping decide whether the league remains relevant and recovers from the labor strife of the last decade.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

What Constitutes Collusion?

The free agent "meat market" officially began at midnight on Monday. Sean Gregory has an interesting piece in today's edition of Time Magazine on the announcement made by the MLBPA late last week that it is investigating possible collusive activity during the general managers' meetings (A-Rod's Salary: Watching for Collusion). Gregory explains the impetus for the union's concern:

For one, during baseball's general managers' meetings in Orlando last week, Theo Epstein of the Boston Red Sox and Larry Beinfast of Florida Marlins introduced a new element to the gathering. The GMs assembled in one room and each stated what their off-season priorities were, and who might be available in trades. To the execs, it was an efficient way to horse-trade information that they typically would share in various time-consuming, one-on-one conversations. Some teams spoke in general terms, others got a little more specific, Major League Baseball insists it was not a conspiracy meeting.
Several press reports have also suggested that Commissioner Bud Selig — angry about both the scope of A-Rod's free agent demands and the timing of the opt-out from his New York Yankee contract (during the waning moments of this year's World Series, thus overshadowing the sport's signature event) — could be working the back rooms to keep A-Rod from scoring another pay raise.
And when talking about A-Rod's hefty demands, outgoing Atlanta Braves general manager John Schuerholz told a radio interviewer: "I think it's obnoxious. I admire and respect Alex Rodriguez as much as any ballplayer that has played the game. But for someone to suggest that this is a valid salary level for a professional athlete, no matter what kind of voodoo economics they can do in analyzing the books of MLB, it's absolutely asinine. It only takes one team to have the wherewithal with that player, and then that player and his representatives think 'Well, this is what the market value is.' It's crazy, and so is that level of compensation." Was Schuerholz, who will relinquish his GM duties but stay on as Atlanta's team president, just taking a parting shot at Rodriguez? Or was he sending his colleagues a not-so-subtle signal to stick it to A-Rod. At least one National League GM, who did not want to be identified, expressed support for Schuerholz's sentiments. "We're about team building, not individual players," he says. "The Texas Rangers could talk volumes about how that [deal] worked out."
So what constitutes collusion? Gregory interviewed me for the story, and he and I spoke about this issue at length. The prohibition on collusion regarding free agents arises from the collective bargaining agreement, which simply provides: "The utilization or non-utilization of rights under this an individual matter to be determined solely by each Player and each Club for his or its own benefit. Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs."

I think when you have all of the general managers together in one location in meetings at the same time in which the highest paid and most sought after free agent is available in the market, there are bound to be concerns regarding collusion. To establish a collusion claim, however, it would require fairly strong evidence that two or more teams were discussing in specific terms how much they would be willing to spend on a particular player or players generally. Discussions regarding team philosophies, priorities and overall objectives do not rise to the level of collusion. But there is somewhat of a thin line between information that teams can and cannot discuss, and it can also turn on which particular teams are having the discussions. Suppose one team says to another, "we're not in the market for what A-Rod wants". If the Pirates say it to the Devil Rays, it really isn't too concerning because neither team is in the market for A-Rod. The analysis obviously changes if the Yankees say it to the Red Sox.

In the collusion case from the mid 1980s that resulted in a $280M settlement in favor of the players, the arbitrator noted evidence that, during off-season management meetings, clubs were warned to exercise self-discipline in making operation decisions and to resist temptations to give in to unreasonable demands of players. Clubs were also warned that rash moves to add free agents in hopes of a pennant resulted in negative financial results for clubs. Also, club representatives stated their intent to avoid long-term contracts in response to a poll conducted by the commissioner, and the commissioner repeatedly expressed concerns regarding the financial commitment made by the clubs under "dumb" long-term contracts.

The arbitrator's decision establishes two important points about collusion. First, collusion doesn't require a "common agreement" among the clubs to suppress player salaries. The arbitration panel found that "the distillation of the message of these meetings" resulted in a situation by which the "right of the clubs to participate in the free agency provisions of the [CBA] no longer remained an individual matter to be determined solely for the benefit of each club." Second, the case demonstrates the important distinction between teams discussing in general terms their philosophies, priorities and overall objectives vs. more specific discussions regarding financial matters pertaining to the signing of free agents.

But what about when general managers make specific statements in the press regarding their intentions of not signing particular free agents? As Gregory puts it, was Schuerholz "sending his colleagues a not-so-subtle signal to stick it to A-Rod?" In other words, can the media be used as a vehicle to engage in collusion? We know that collusion can fall short of an agreement to suppress salaries. Where is the line drawn between permissible team discussions and illegal collusion?

Monday, November 12, 2007 Column on Legal Implications of the Mitchell Report

I have a new column on Sports entitled "Implications of the Mitchell Report."

It evaluates the private nature of the report and examines potential outcomes for those who are named in it, including potential punishment by Commissioner Bud Selig (a topic Rick blogged about here), having their contracts attempted to be voided by their teams, and, if any players are erroneously named, their potential to bring libel lawsuits against Major League Baseball.

I hope you have a chance to read the piece.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Sunday Links

Catching up on some links that I had hoped to blog about during the past month:

* * *

Jason Friedman of the Houston Press has an extensive and provocative look at Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey, a 35-year-old with expertise on the intersection between basketball, statistics, and economics and who taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology while previously working for Danny Ainge and the Boston Celtics. I spoke with Jason for his story, as I know Daryl and think the world of his abilities. He's phenomenally bright and possesses outstanding insight on basketball. The story examines how Daryl will be using statistical analysis as one tool in evaluating basketball talent. I suspects the Rockets--which are currently tied in first place in the Western Conference--are in for some great years ahead.

* * *

Aditi Kinkhabwala, a columnist for (archive) and beat writer for The Record, has a couple of great pieces on her blog, Scarlet Knights Newzer, regarding controversial comments by Rutgers University English professor William C. Dowling, who has criticized his school's sports program because, in his words,
If you were giving the scholarship to an intellectually brilliant kid who happens to play a sport, that's fine. But they give it to a functional illiterate who can't read a cereal box, and then make him spend 50 hours a week on physical skills. That's not opportunity. If you want to give financial help to minorities, go find the ones who are at the library after school.
Aditi has two great pieces in response to Professor Dowling's remarks. She interviewed me for her second one and asked about whether Professor Dowling may have committed slander (I opined that he did not--for more, click here).

* * *

The Sports Practice Group at Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP is now publishing an excellent monthly newsletter on sports law issues. One article discusses legal issues of fantasy sports and another examines AT&T and NASCAR settling a logo dispute. The entire first issue is available at this link. For more information, feel free to contact Rob Freeman (chair of the Group) or Peter Scher (an associate in the Group).

* * *

Nate Jones, a 1L at UCLA Law and author of the Jones on the NBA blog, tells me about what should be a terrific event hosted by the UCLA Sports Law Federation this Wednesday:
Leigh Steinberg: A Legend in the Game

Join the Sports Law Federation as we host legendary sports agent, Leigh Steinberg, on Wednesday, November 14th, Rm. 1430 at 6pm. During the course of his 30+ year career, Mr. Steinberg has negotiated over $1 billion in contracts, representing athletes, including NFL quarterbacks Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Leinart, Troy Aikman, Steve Young and Warren Moon.

Mr. Steinberg will discuss the relevance of the law to his work as a sports agent as well as the future of representing top athletes.

Come meet the inspiration behind the hit film, Jerry Maguire, and a sports agent hall of famer. Refreshments will be served!
If you are in the LA area and would like to attend, just give Nate an e-mail and he will set you up.

* * *

Keeping the California theme going, Tracie Parry-Bowers, the chief articles editor for the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review has let me know about her publication accepting article submissions for its next two issues. This journal publishes articles on entertainment, sports, and communications law and is well-regarded. For more information, click here.

* * *

Andrew Smith, the symposium chairman for the Entertainment and Sports Law Society of St. John's University School of Law and to whom I've offered insight for his sports law paper on fixing the NBA lottery system, emails me about his organization's plans for what should be an intriguing symposium in February:
I am currently organizing our first, and hopefully annual, Entertainment & Sports Law Symposium for the spring. We are aiming for mid-February and it will be a joint symposium for both sports and entertainment. We have finalized the general topic of "Legal Issues Facing the NBA" with sub-topics including the growing influx of foreign players, the potential of a European division, also the Tim Donaghy scandal, and ways to remedy any gambling concerns.

I am in the process of contacting potential speakers in the New York area. I was wondering if at all possible you could post a link on your website to our new blog where your readers could learn about our symposium and contact me if they are interested in attending or speaking. Our address is
This event sounds very interesting and if my schedule permits, I hope to be a panelist or moderator at it. Please contact Andrew by e-mail if you have an interest in attending or speaking at the event.

* * *

Thanks to Juiced Sports for naming Sports Law Blog one of the top 50 "most influential sports bloggers" (okay, we're ranked 49, but we've made the top 100 list).

* * *

Hope you all have enjoyed the weekend. I had the good fortune of watching the annual flag football tournament at Mississippi College School of Law on Saturday. The 3Ls dominated the competition. It seems the 1Ls are spending more time studying than practicing football, and I suspect that's a good thing.

Will and Creation

I find joy in cleaning things. I am not a neatfreak by any stretch of the imagination. But I love to bring order to a space. Cleaning is creation. It is imposing one's will on the chaos and bringing out order.

All creation is an act and imposition of will. It is what Nietzsche called "the will to power." It is not a tyrannical impulse. It is simply the expression of what one values and desires projected into the the world. It is this will that turns stones into sculpture, paint into portraits, and steel into structures and machines.

I understand these things which is why I love to work and write and do things. I get a rush that I can only describe with the one word that fits--happiness.

You can see this impulse in various projects. I can't look at a building or a bridge without seeing the will behind the project. I look at athletes and runners who will their bodies to do the seemingly impossible. They call it "being in the zone."

This is the essence of happiness. It is the freedom and the ability to create. It is better than any drug you can take. It is the highest high there is. It beats intoxication or love.

I aspire to live in this zone. I just want to create. I want to make things happen. I want to feel the rush that comes from manifesting my will in the world. I wake up everyday glad to be alive. My days are a blur.

My biggest problem in my life is picking a direction to go in. There are so many things to do that I don't know which to do first. So, I need to decide which projects to work on and which ones to postpone. I have many options but little time. But so far, I am pleased with where things are in my life.

Saturday, November 10, 2007


I think my most far out opinions are those in the political realm. Being for such things as abolition of the income tax, legalization of drugs and prostitution, etc. should really put me on the lunatic fringe for most folks. But, alas, this is not the case. Instead, I am most noted and reviled for my atheism.

Being an atheist is not a big deal for me. I don't spend a lot of my time thinking about it or advocating it. I don't have a personal problem with people who are spiritual or religious. Often, I find common cause with them such as with a man like Ron Paul who is a theist. I do not agree with his religious views, but I enthusiastically support his candidacy for president. I am also dating a theist, and I really have no keen interest in taking away her superstitions. I consider her beliefs part of her eccentricity, and I am sure she thinks the same of my atheism.

I am an atheist, and I do not apologize for it. I will also never change my mind on this. It is not because I am not open to evidence for God's existence. In fact, I am. But like with the flat earth or unicorns or Santa Claus, there comes a point in time when your viewpoint on a matter is settled. My argument to theists is very simple. Show me the evidence. They never give evidence but blather on and on about personal feelings, experiences, and anecdotes. None of this amounts to anything because I am not able to verify any of these things. If something cannot be independently verified, there's not much you can say about it. It is my personal experience that God is a myth, and there you have it. Theism loses on all fronts. It has no scientific basis and is not worth believing in.

All of this brings us to that strange creature known as the agnostic. An agnostic is one who reserves judgment or posits that the God question cannot be definitively answered either way. Functionally, they are indistinguishable from atheists. Intellectually, agnostics suffer from an inability to commit. In short, they have no balls.

Technically, I am an agnostic. I cannot say with absolute certitude that there is no God. But I also can't say with absolute certitude that there is no Santa Claus or that I even exist. This is because it is impossible to exclude all other possibilities. But such a mindset is utterly ridiculous. Should I cancel my next cruise to Australia because of the faintest remote possibility that these round earthers have it wrong? Should I be afraid of dragons because somewhere they might actually exist? Give me a fucking break.

An agnostic takes the same idiotic stance as I have cited in these examples. The agnostic knows there is no God and lives as if there is no God. So, why do they ride the fence? Why do they put so much stress on being open to the possibility of God's existence?

I can answer this question with one word--APPEASEMENT. The agnostic wants to get along with the theist majority or perhaps one theist that may possess a shapely ass and a nice rack. I don't know specific situations, but I can tell you that the agnostic is an atheist without a spine. The agnostic wants to get along with the religious shitheads, so he stuffs his commitment. He emasculates himself in the hopes that his inability to reproduce will let him off the hook. It is damn nauseating.

I don't see the value in riding the fence. People may be shocked by my atheism, but they respect me for having the nads to take a stand. I am not terribly evangelical with my atheism because I see the whole thing as being absurd. But I do take a position on the question, and I do not shy away from telling others exactly what I think. I do not believe in God. I don't see the need to apologize for this or even to be particularly civil about it. I tell people there is no evidence for God, and I treat their long winded sermons and sentimental feelings and unverifiable anecdotes with the response they deserve--mockery, ridicule, and contempt.

People tell me that I should try not to be so opinionated or be so candid. Fuck that. I've been there and done that, and it made me want to die. I have to be who I am, and if people can't handle this, all I can say is sorry 'bout it. I will respect a person's life, liberty, and property, but I don't have to respect their opinions. They also don't have to respect mine. People learn very quickly they can say just about anything to me, and I encourage them to do just that. I'd rather people tell me what they think than tell me what they think I would like to hear.

In conclusion, I think agnostics need to grow a pair.