Using Sex to Recruit?: The Boulder (CO) District Attorney has accused the University of Colorado of using sex parties to recruit star athletes, especially in football, the Denver Post reported Thursday. The allegation came in a deposition given this past October in a case involving a former Colorado student who says she was raped in 2001 at a party with players and recruits.



Not surprisingly, the university is denying this claim, but the media and the governor are calling for a full investigation.



Do top-tier athletic departments use sex to recruit star athletes? It certainly would not be surprising, especially considering the amount at stake for top boosters and coaches. If a team gets the top athletes, it wins championships. If it does not, the school often misses out on the championships, top Bowl games and media attention that accompanies winning teams. It is of little surprise that athletic departments (and I doubt Colorado is alone here) use any means necessary to convince star athletes that their school is the best, athletically and socially. This does not make the practice any better, but if the NCAA steps in, it must remember that Colorado most likely is not the only school to use such a practice.

Read More

IAAF Challenging US Decision on Sprinter: According to the LA Times, the IAAF, the global governing body for track and field, is expected to lodge a formal legal challenge against a decision made by USA Track & Field in 2000. The decision cleared sprinter Jerome Young to compete in the 2000 Sydney Olympics, despite the fact that he had tested positive one year earlier for a banned substance. Normally, such an affirmative test would result in a two-year ban, which would have made Young ineligible for the Games.



The IAAF plans to take the case to the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport. If successful, Young and five other American runners could be forced to forfeit their gold medals from the 1,600 meter relay. Only two American athletes in history have won medals and then been forced to give them back. You can read more about the Court's procedures and recent case history on its official website.

Read More

CART Bankruptcy Goes Before Judge: The assets of CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) and perhaps the future of open-wheel racing are in the hands of US Bankruptcy Judge Frank J. Otte today. Judge Otte will be administering the auction of CART's assets between two main bidders: a group of current CART team owners intent on keeping the series alive, and IRL president Tony George, who wishes to shut it down. Under the law, Otte has a great deal of discretion, but he must ensure that his decisions are best for CART's creditors, employees, and shareholders, in that order.

Read More

'He Hate Me' Trademarked by Smart: Last night's SportsCenter included a feature on Rod Smart of the Carolina Panthers, who played one season in the XFL under the moniker 'He Hate Me' (click here for picture). This gained Smart enormous exposure, both during after the days of the XFL, including yesterday at Super Bowl Media Day. ESPN's Chris Mortenson asked Smart if he had trademarked 'He Hate Me' and Smart replied, "Yeah, it's all mine."



I thought this was a joke until I visited the US Patent and Trademark Office website. It turns out that Smart has indeed trademarked 'He Hate Me' in category 41 (which includes entertainment services). The mark was published for opposition on July 15 of this year. If you go to this page and enter 'he hate me' in the search term box, you can pull up Smart's record.



After seeing all of the attention he has gained this season, Smart looks just that for trademarking the phrase. The question now becomes if he will be able to prove "continued use" as required to maintain the mark under federal law. Most likely, the answer is yes, as he has plans to produce some merchandise in association with the Super Bowl trip. You can read more about Trademark requirements here.

Read More

Gay Marriage and Sports: The Atlanta-area Druid Hills Golf Club has found itself in a battle between state law, city ordinances, antidiscrimination laws and the right of a private club to freely set its own policies. The country club has retained a lawyer after a city panel found that it discriminated by not extending spousal benefits to the partners of its homosexual members. No lawsuit has been filed as of yet and the city has until mid-February to decide whether to conduct further investigation. The club released this statement last week.



This case showcases the difficulties created as the country sorts out its stance on gay marriage. Georgia state law forbids homosexual marriage, but the city of Atlanta allows gays to register with the city as "partners." In addition, the city has an ordinance which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The club argues that it accepts homosexual members but, following state law, does not recognize them as "married" to their partners. At least one editorial has called upon the club to give their homosexual members spousal benefits, stating that there would be no real harm to the club in allowing in a few more spouses.



However, editorials such as these miss the point. If changes are to be enacted, individuals should petition their state government, not a private club. The club has a legal right not to extend such benefits and those opposed to the policy have every right to cancel their membership, go to another club, or protest against Druid Hills. However, making such end runs around the law shortchanges the important issue of gay marriage. If Druid Hills were to change its policy, this would not affect the other 99.9% of homosexual Georgians that are not a member. Real changes must be enacted on a state or national level. If they are not, then what is left is a hodge-podge of conflicting legislation that leaves individuals and organizations wondering exactly what the law is.

Read More

Eminent Domain and the Brooklyn Nets: A strong wave of protest has arisen after Bruce Ratner purchased the New Jersey Nets and announced his plans to move the team to Brooklyn, building a new stadium in the Prospect Heights area. As Denis Hammill writes, the great majority of those protesting are the approximately 800 residents of this area that would lose their residences to eminent domain.



Eminent domain is always a touchy policy, as it involves the most protected of all places, people's homes. However, the need for eminent domain is evident, as great complexes such as the World Trade Center, the Brooklyn Bridge and Rockefeller Center could not have been built without it. A strong anti-stadium group has arisen in Brooklyn, challenging the need to evict 800 residents to build a new sports arena. One can certainly sympathize with someone who stands to lose their home, no matter how long they have lived there or what the compensation will be.



On the other hand, Ratner and the developers claim that the new stadium area will result in 10,000 new permanent jobs, as well as incredible economic growth for the area. The residents of Brooklyn have been clamoring for a professional sports team for nearly 50 years and will undoubtedly pour money into both the franchise and its surroundings. In the long run, Brooklyn and its people will be better off because of the exercise of eminent domain.



Are there legal obstacles to using the eminent domain power to build a sports arena? Peter Sepulveda (11 Seton Hall J. Sports L. 137) has raised the question of whether the taking in this situation satisfies the "public use" component of the doctrine. As he argues, while the job and economic growth associated with such arenas clearly will benefit the entire community, these figures are often exaggerated, and the community as a whole may not benefit financially in the long run. Precedent, however, appears to be against the homeowners. Recently, the cities of Dallas, Seattle and Detroit have all won eminent domain cases needed to build new sports facilities. In this day and age, we can expect a lawsuit from the protestors over the ruling, meaning that a court will have the final say on interpreting and applying the Brooklyn eminent domain statute.



Even if the city's action is legal, however, some uneasiness remains that these middle- and lower-income families must give up what may be a prized residence in order to fund the dreams of the wealthy, who will own the team, play the games and sit in the luxury suites. I for one hope that the Nets (or whatever the team will be called) will remember this sacrifice and keep down the costs of tickets, so that those who gave their homes can at least cheer on the new Brooklyn team.

Read More

More on Chargers Lawsuit: The city of San Diego has responded to the lawsuit filed in November by the NFL's Chargers, arguing that the team has not met the financial-hardship requirements needed to get out of its stadium lease, and thus, should not be allowed to shop themselves to other cities.



The city has also sent letters to officials in Portland, Carson, Anaheim, Long Beach, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena and the Anschutz Entertainment Group in Los Angeles, warning them that the Chargers are under lease at Qualcomm Stadium and that the city would do what was necessary to protect its rights. The team has responded that it has not yet entered into any negotiations with other possible cities.



The lawsuit centers on the question of the Chargers's revenues. The trigger clause in Qualcomm lease allows the team to start a renegotiation period with the city and shop itself to other venues "if it meets a financial-hardship benchmark that measures the team's player salaries and benefits against a team salary cap." The team claimed in March that it exceeded this amount by $4.3 million; however, it has failed to release any detailed profit or loss statements to support this claim. The city's cross-complaint asks for an "accounting of the books and records" to determine the accurate amount under the agreement.



In addition, if the court finds that the renegotiation period was indeed triggered, it must then determine the ambiguous language in the contract that deals with the city's obligations to offset the Chargers' financial hardship. The Chargers have asked that the city build them a new stadium, or pay the team an annual fee of $20 million coming from parking and concession revenues that are not shared with the league.



The city's answer and cross-complaint.

Read More