Ron Paul and Victory

The Iowa Straw Poll is today, and Mitt Romney is the heavy favorite to win it. But it would be amazing if Ron Paul did. But as a libertarian, I have gotten used to seeing my hopes dashed.

No matter how you look at it, the Ron Paul for 2008 campaign is something special. To me, we have already won a victory by moblilizing a lot of people to do something. It has brought together groups who would never have met or thought they had anything in common. Ron Paul has also put to rest the notion that there is no option. Dr. Paul is an option for those wanting honest and principled leadership.

The reason Dr. Paul won't win is because the vast majority of the American public has shit-for-brains. This is the bottom line. There is a sizable minority of Americans like me who believe in freedom and have a decent understanding of economics and the importance of free markets. But the rest of the country will continue to give their votes and support to the scumbags who promise them the most slop from the public trough. Nevermind that this system can't last and hurts the country as a whole. As long as people keep getting their government checks or believe the government is doing the right thing by tearing up other countries, you can expect more of the same.

But I am doing what I can for the campaign. It isn't much, but I am getting the word out, passing out DVD's, etc. I am trying to get people motivated on this stuff, and I think some of them will come around. Hopefully, a good showing in Iowa will get Dr. Paul some more mainstream exposure, and we can take this campaign to the next level.

Vote for Ron Paul!!

Read More

International and Comparative Sports Law Conference

On Friday, September 28, 2007, the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School will host a conference on "The Increasing Globalization of Sports: Olympic, International and Comparative Law & Business Issues" at the Hilton Milwaukee City Center in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Four conference panels composed of leading sports lawyers, sports law professors, and industry professionals, will address cutting edge legal and business issues related to the global expansion of sports and its implications, global sports marketing and legal protection of intellectual property, resolution of international sports disputes, and a comparative analysis of sports league structure, governance and player restraints. The conference will also feature the presentation of the Master of the Game Award to Michael Conley, Gold Medalist, 1992 Olympic Games and Executive Director, World Sport Chicago, during the conference lunch. Conference sponsors include Foley & Lardner LLP, Greenberg & Hoeschen, LLC, and the Sports & Entertainment Law Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

The conference is from 9 am to 5 pm. Conference registration includes a continental breakfast, conference lunch, attendance at each conference panel, and a reception after the final conference panel. Complete details of the conference, including conference panels and participants as well as registration costs and forms, are available here. It is anticipated that conference attendees will be able to earn approximately 8 CLE credit hours (50 minute states).

Read More

Don't Print That! Teams and Leagues Limit Media Access to Boost Online Profits

Official websites for professional teams and leagues have become much more useful over the last few years. The days of those websites resembling bland, propaganda-style news sources are long gone. Just check out MLB.com, which, to me, seems like the best league website. Most usefully, it freely provides the gameday service, "a near-live streaming box score of baseball games," as well as plenty of other content that frequently brings readers back--and back they come, as MLB.com averages approximately 7 million hits a day. Many individual teams have developed good websites as well, sometimes delivering videos and photos that aren't available elsewhere. Others just look cool, like the website for the Portland Trailblazers, which offers a artistic display of their players.

Those websites are not only bringing in viewers, they are also bringing in money. Plenty of tickets, merchandise, and memorabilia are sold through team and league websites, as are exclusive services for readers willing to pay fees. Just consider how MLB Advanced Media, which is MLB's media and Internet company, has annual revenue of $400 million.

So as official websites for teams and leagues become more visited and lucrative, its not surprising that those teams and leagues are developing commercially-viable ways to directly inform fans, as opposed to (or in addition to) sharing a message with the media, which in turn shares it with fans, hoping to sell newspapers and local ad revenue in the process. Indeed, teams no longer have to rely on the local media to report on them in the next day's newspaper--teams can just post their story on their website, which the newspaper's website can immediately comment on, but so too can ESPN.com or a fan-run website, blog, message board, or related website. Sure, I still want to read the Boston Globe writing about about the Celtics possibly signing Reggie Miller in the next morning's newspaper, but I'm more likely to learn of that info from Celtics Blog or True Hoop, and to learn the moment the news becomes available.

None of this is really all that Earth-shattering. In a day and age when voters can directly ask presidential candidates questions in a televised debate, and where those same candidates can speak to voters through blogs rather than solely through the filter of the New York Times or Washington Post, the media's role has changed, with newsworthy persons better able to directly communicate to their own targeted audience.

But can teams and leagues go too far in essentially competing with the media? David Williams of the Memphis Commercial Appeal has an excellent column on this topic, particularly as it relates to the NFL trying to "control the message" and, in turn, make a lot of money. He interviewed me for the piece, and here are some excerpts from it:

The National Football League, in a move that would seem to steer traffic to its own NFL.com site, is limiting media outlets to 45 seconds of online audio and video from interviews and press conferences. The league also says the footage must be removed within 24 hours. [a topic Rick blogged about in September 2006]

In another rule, the league says news photographers at NFL events must wear red vests bearing the logos of NFL sponsor Canon and licensee Reebok -- turning photojournalists into "walking billboards," according to a national editors organization.

What next? Will other sports entities -- NASCAR or the LPGA, say -- claim rights to media photos shot during their events? There are reports of it already happening.

And in June, a reporter from Louisville's Courier-Journal was tossed from an NCAA post-season baseball game over in-game blogging. [a topic Howard blogged about in June]

"What we want to do is our job," said Karen Magnuson, editor and vice president of news at the Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle. "We've served the public in the past without any restrictions and want to continue without any restrictions -- no matter what platform we're working on."

Magnuson is president of the Associated Press Managing Editors, an organization of U.S. and Canadian editors whose newspapers are members of The AP. In her president's role, she's written letters of complaint to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

"We recognize the importance of the Internet to traditional media organizations," said NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy. "But at the same time, we also are in the business, as well. So we're trying to find that balance."

What's happened is that the world has changed -- newspapers don't just print news on paper. Faced with declining print advertising revenue, they're morphing into multimedia companies, with streaming audio and video, blogging and, in the case of this newspaper, "AppealTV."

* * *

. . . [A]s Magnuson wrote in her letter to Goodell, "In effect, the photographers will become walking billboards for NFL sponsors."

McCarthy said such complaints are vastly overstated, in terms of logo size and league intent. He said Reebok made the vests, Canon paid for them, and the logos "can only be seen from a few feet away. You could measure it, but it's something like less than one inch in height and less than two inches in width."

On the vest issue -- or "Vestgate," as it was dubbed on a Web site for professional photographers -- the media have a valid case, said Michael McCann, an assistant professor at the Mississippi College School of Law and contributor to the Sports Law Blog.

But on matters of online content, McCann said the leagues are rightly protecting their business interests.

"MLB.com is enormously successful, from what I understand," he said. "My sense is that the NFL and the NBA, they look at the Major League Baseball model and say, 'They're making a lot of money out of this. Maybe we should be doing the same thing,' in terms of protecting content -- and restricting access, in essence. That's obviously going to annoy some people, but at the end of the day, they're in it to make money."

Visit NFL.com and it's clear the league would like to be the site for all things NFL. There you can watch video, read commentaries, respond to poll questions, shop for customized jerseys and catch up on the latest news.

There's even -- take that, traditional media -- bad news: "Goodell orders Vick not to report to camp" and "Falcons CB Williams faces marijuana charge" were among the headlined stories on a recent day.

But, journalists counter, NFL.com could never become the definitive news source, because it's not driven by journalistic ideals and ethics.

But McCann, the law professor, said the media shouldn't worry -- that fans would never settle for a league-only perspective.

"I don't believe the teams are going to be able to shut off the media completely and speak directly to fans," he said. "I don't think fans want that. Fans, they don't want to read press releases. Every time a team signs a player, they'll say, 'Terms not disclosed.' Fans don't want that. Plus, other actors are involved. You have players who could speak. You have agents who could speak. So there's still going to be a market that will go beyond the team and the league, no matter what the league and teams try to do to control content."

The NFL's McCarthy also downplays a sense of competition between traditional media and official league media.

"It can be complementary, is the way we look at it," he said, "with our overall goal of spreading the word of football to our fans. It's that balance that I keep coming back to -- which is protecting our media assets with that need to receive extensive news media coverage. . . . "

For the rest of the column, click here. For related posts on Sports Law Blog, see Rick's The NFL's New Sideline Ban: Another League Effort to Control Content and Howard's More Speech Restrictions in Sports: The NCAA and Live-Blogging, New Sports Media v. Old Sports Media, and Credentialing Sports Bloggers. Also, Eric McErlain over on Off Wing also has an excellent post entitled The Final Cut on Media Credential Guidelines, while Beau Dure on USA Today's Sports Scope likewise has a great post entitled This NFL Photo Brought to You By . . .

Read More

Sports Law Blog on Facebook

If you are among our readers who use Facebook to stay in touch with classmates and friends, Jason Chung of the Project on Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard Law School has created a Facebook group devoted to Sports Law Blog. Our thanks to Jason for putting it together and we hope you check it out if you are a Facebook user.

Read More

Extreme Sports . . . Extreme Liability?

Last week's spectacular fall by skateboarder Jake Brown during the X Games in Los Angeles was a scary sight. As reported, Brown scaled a 62-foot tall, 293-foot long "Mega Ramp" where he attempted two full rotations, a move no one has ever attempted. Once he completed the move, he lost control and the momentum carried him away from the ramp wall into open air, where he fell the equivalent for five stories into the wooden base.

According to the New York Times report, he landed with such force that some thought he died or was paralyzed. Fortunately, he was able to walk from the scene, but suffered a bleeding liver, two sprained wrists, a bruised lung and whiplash to his back and neck. Still, he was very fortunate.

An earlier post by Greg on the subject of risk in a Hawaii case involving the disappearance of a kayaker, noting correctly, that the old doctrine of assumption of risk in the recreational sports industry. However, this case involves some interesting questions and although Brown is a professional athlete in a dangerous sport, I do not think that the organizers of the sports can use the assumption of risk defense to a dismissal to a trial on the liability question.

Presumably, Brown signed a waiver of liability or a release before competing in the event, which precludes a lawsuit in most states. Also known as exculpatory clauses, they may be used to establish "express" or "primary" assumption of risk, (source: lexis, by subscription only) meaning that through a contractual agreement, the competitor agrees to accept the risk of harm from the race organizer's negligent conduct and the participant is barred from recovery. It's the consent, rather than the inherent dangerousness of the activity that counts. On the other hand, many states have recognized "secondary" assumption of risk, where the participant acts unreasonably and thus contributes to the injury. This is more risk-oriented and focuses on the acts, rather than the agreement.

The law regarding the validity of exculpatory agreements varies from state to state. Some states like New York and California have eliminated or merged the concept comparative negligence), others have remained the common law exclusion from liability. But let's assume that the California courts will uphold the validity of such clauses. I don't think such a clause would result in an easy dismissal of a claim. I take "negligent conduct" used in the definition to mean negligent conduct during the race. For example, if there were uninspected areas of the competition area or the ice was not properly cleaned in a speed skating event. Here, the article notes that "in action sports, there are no widely recognized governing bodies or organization" to establish policies as to the level of safety of competitors. This differs from other sports, which, for better or worse, have established rules prohibiting certain dangerous conduct, by either the types of equipment worn or penalties for actions that exceed the rules. I know that is far from perfect, given the concussions and brain injury found by retired or current NFL or NHL players, but it gives a blueprint.

Significantly, courts have ruled that event organizers may have negligence liability if they have not executed emergency plans or requirements that participants wear standard safety equipment. This is the key -- and it could trump assumption of risk, in my view. If extreme sports organizations do not furnish such a blueprint, does it give a license for athletes to push more and more dangerous buttons in the pursuit of victory? If so, does that impose liability?

Service provider liability (such as for school athletic directors, principals, district supervisors) is different from cases against other competitors or coaches and of course different from an act of negligence during the event itself. The lack of uniform organized standards, takes the liability to another level. Call it intent or recklessness or a public policy question. It becomes fundamental to the game itself, rather than the failure of upholding standards.

It also places ESPN, the broadcaster and owner of the X games in a position as a potential defendant. The cable network has a loyal fan base and the highlight of Brown walking away from the accident gave both him and the sport publicity. Would that attract others to do more and more dangerous activities to bank on this?

Finally, here's a thought. To avoid this confusion, why not create a presumption of liability, much like the "inherent dangerousness" standard found in strict products liability to control to situations where no quality control standards exist? In other words, does the lack of any safety standards presumes liability?

Complete elimination of assumption of risk for cases involving injuries to professional athletes is a mistake. But in a sports that generates millions of dollars and is viewed by millions of fans on the most important sports network, the failure to come up with governing standards for competition could result in significant injuries and a lawsuit calling attention to this problems.

Brown was lucky he would not be a plaintiff in that kind of lawsuit.

Read More

What if performance-enhancers were permitted?

Interesting article by Daniel Engber in Slate, playing a thought experiment: What would happen in professional sports (particularly baseball) if leagues permitted, and stopped testing players for, performance-enhancing drugs?

It is an interesting question whether we should simply accept what medical technology (like other human advances) can offer our sports.

Worth a read.

Read More

3 Categories

I catch a lot of flak for my misogyny, and the criticism I hear most often is "not all women are like that." I have to agree. Not all women are the same. So, I ask myself, what would Aristotle do? Well, Ari would come up with a classification system, and that is what I have done. Herewith, the three catgeories of women:

Category 1
These are your gold diggers and sluts. They are bad news for men looking for a relationship. These bitches can't ever remain faithful. They are the bad women. These are the ones to bone but otherwise leave them alone. They will lie to you, cheat on you, steal from you, and break your heart.

Category 2
These are good women with no brains. They are faithful to their man except they always go for a man who is an utter piece of shit. It is hardwired into their brains. They can meet good men, but they will either play games with them or walk all over them in order to be with the scum of the earth. They are retarded, lacking in common sense, and have no self-respect. These women are doormats, and they deserve everything they get.

Category 3
These are good women with brains. They are faithful women who are good, industrious, reliable, and trustworthy. They are worth their weight in gold but about as rare as that precious metal. They are good mothers and faithful wives who never cheat. They wish they had a good man and will keep their man in line with a firm hand. But if he cheats, she will not hesitate to get rid of his ass. That is because the Category 3 girl has self-respect and smarts. There is no bullshit with the Category 3 girl.

There is no fourth category of women. Some people will write to me to differ, but this taxonomy is complete. Naturally, every woman thinks she is a Category 3 girl, but she isn't. I can count every Cat 3 chick I know on one hand. Sad to say, every one of them was taken. I wait for their men to fuck up, so I can catch them on the rebound. It is like a game of musical chairs.

Whenever I meet a woman, I drop her in one of these three categories. I expect these women to ask me which category they are in now that I have put together this classification system. All I can say is that the truth hurts. And for what it is worth, Category 3 women never have to ask. They already know who they are.

Read More