Stewart Wins!!!

Tony Stewart has salvaged my suck ass weekend by winning the race at Watkins Glen. I was also laughing at the Harvick-Montoya altercation. Juan Pablo is pissing off a lot of people with his driving style, but that wreck that took both him and Harvick out was not Montoya's fault.

I was also pleased to see Jeff Gordon spin out and lose the lead to Stewart. That was the highpoint of my weekend. It doesn't get better than that.

Read More

JACKSON POLLACK, No.5

Read More

Suck Ass Weekend

This weekend so far realy sucks. I think only a Tony Stewart victory at Watkins Glen could pull this one out for me.

My first bit of depressing news is that Ron Paul was a blip in the Iowa Straw Poll. Considering that top guys like Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson weren't in it and that Paul placed behind a nobody like Mike Huckabee, this does not fare well for the campaign. I expected Ron Paul to place second behind Romney. Instead, we have Snakes on a Plane.

The reality is that the libertarian viewpoint is probably a permanent minority viewpoint. It is what it is. I was hoping the ISP would gain Paul some mainstream attention, but it just isn't going to happen.

In other stuff, I have had to deal with various women in my life over the weekend, and I have reached the conclusion that they are all nuts. One of the things that has really blown my mind is how many women I meet who are on meds and have a diagnosis of "bipolar disorder." Over the last two weeks, I have met four.

I can't reiterate enough how right Aristotle was on women. They are without virtue. They lack rationality. You can't trust them. The evidence for this is overwhelming. I have grown absolutely frustrated dealing with any woman. They lack constancy and logic. They love you one minute and hate you the next. And every one of these women tells me how they can't stand being around other women. Most women are misogynists, too.

Finally, I have ended a friendship with someone I cared about a great deal. This friend is a woman which makes it so remarkable for someone like me. But I realize that men and women can't be friends. It never works out. It has been pointed out to me by others that I am in love with this friend because I spend so much time talking to her and talking about her. I am just in denial over it. This may be true. But I should feel some pain over not having her in my life. I don't. The reality is that this friend of mine has flattered herself at my expense and even gone so far as to use me. I don't need friends like this. Naturally, she isn't sorry for any of it.

I am pretty much condemned to being a loner for the rest of my life. I console myself with the reality that most people face the same shit I do. Rampant infidelity and divorce show that this is true. You'd have to be an idiot to ever get married. I'm with George Clooney now. No marriage and no kids. Cynicism wins.

Read More

Professional Tennis, Cheering, and Love of Country

A question that came to mind while watching the Rogers Cup semi-final between Rafael Nadal (of Spain) and Novak Djokovic (of Serbia), won by Djokovic for the right to lose in tomorrow's Finals to Roger Federer (of Switzerland):

When did professional tennis become a forum for fan expression of patriotism and love of country in rooting for particular players? Or, put a different way, when did professional tennis players begin playing "for country," becoming so identified with their countries of origin that fans who root for that player do so as a form of cheering for ountry, often by specifically invoking aspects of love of country in cheering. This was illustrated in this semi-final, where there were competing Serbian and Spanish flags hanging from the grandstand walls. Federer's fans turn out in t-shirts with the Swiss national symbol (red cross on white field).

Has it always been this way? Tennis players always have been identified with their home countries--Bjorn Borg was Swedish; Steffi Graf was German; Margaret Court was Australian; John McEnroe used to wear a "USA" warm-up jacket onto the court. And the media always made a big deal of it--Bud Collins used to refer to Graf as "Fraulein Forehand"). But it seems as if the player/country connection is more explicit from the player's standpoint and the fans have picked up on it in their rooting. Djokovic's win tonight becomes a source of Serbian pride. But tournament tennis is not like the Olympics or the World Cup or the Davis Cup, where one represents one plays on a "national" team, thereby explicitly representing or playing for one's country. But fans root for particular players as if they were.

Maybe this is just a product of the globalization of sports, something hardly limited to tennis. Fans always have and will latch on to players from "their" lands or who share their backgrounds and take personal pride in that player's success (interesting comments on this phenomenon here). And the increasing globalization of professional sports, with more athletes from more places on the scene, means there are more players from "my homeland" for whom I can root. It then is only a small step to waving Swiss flags and singing the Swiss national anthem after Federer wins.

Read More

How Dangerous is Wrestling? Some Thoughts on Pacman Jones, Injunctions, and "Other Activities"

The past few days have seen a flurry of activity relating to suspended Tennessee Titans player Pacman Jones. On Thursday, Jones appeared via tape on a "Total Nonstop Action" Wrestling broadcast (you can view a TNA trailer featuring Jones here). Jones did not wrestle, but rather opined about how misunderstood he was, and his performance garnered mixed reviews. On Friday, the Titans went to court to obtain a temporary restraining order barring Jones from participating in future TNA broadcasts.

The Team won an injunction (I have not yet seen the written ruling on line), with Judge Robert E. Lee Davies ruling that "Mr. Jones is hereby restrained from providing any 'wrestling' or 'performing services' to TNA ... including but not limited to the TNA Hard Justice pay-per-view event ... for as long as this restraining order is in effect." The injunction barred "Jones from participating in any TNA event, as a 'wrestler, spectator, announcer, participant or otherwise . . . .'" Jones and the Titans settled their dispute overnight, with the team agreeing to allow Jones to appear on TNA broadcasts so long as he did not actually wrestle or do anything else to put himself in danger.

The Court's injunction was based on the "Other Activities Clause" in Jones's contract. I blogged about baseball's Other Activities Clause in connection with the Nintendo Wii here and football's in connection with motorcycle riding here. The NFL version of the clause provides:

OTHER ACTIVITIES. Without prior written consent of the Club, Player will not play football or engage in activities related to football otherwise than for Club or engage in any activity other than football which may involve a significant risk of personal injury. Player represents that he has special, exceptional and unique knowledge, skill, ability, and experience as a football player, the loss of which cannot be estimated with any certainty and cannot be fairly or adequately compensated by damages. Player therefore agrees that Club will have the right, in addition to any other right which Club may possess, to enjoin Player by appropriate proceedings from playing football or engaging in football-related activities other than for Club or from engaging in any activity other than football which may involve a significant risk of personal injury.

In Pacman's case, the preliminary injunction clearly went too far. The Other Activities Clause forbids a player from engaging in activities involving a "significant risk" of personal injury. To be sure, actually wrestling might pose such a risk, although that depends on how acrobatic Jones's (scripted) performance worked out to be. But I fail to see how "performing services" for an entertainment company, like TNA, including the kind Jones apparently provided on Thursday, raises a significant risk of physical injury. Certainly, appearing on air while not wrestling is less dangerous than riding a motorcycle (and probably less dangerous than playing the Wii as well).

Read More

Random Thoughts on Various Subjects

1. BARRY BONDS

Baseball has been changed forever with Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's home run record. I have never seen such an achievement greeted with such ambivalence.

2. 50 CENT

Rapper 50 Cent has a beef with Kanye West and vows to quit his career if he fails to outsell West on his upcoming album. Damn. Personally, I like both performers, but a beef is good entertainment. . .until somebody gets shot.

3. IDIOT OF THE WEEK

The award goes to the shithead at AT&T who elected to censor Pearl Jam's political content bashing George Bush on an internet broadcast. Personally, I think politics should stay out of entertainment, but that is a personal preference. If I ran any kind of network, I would let people say what they wanted. Candor is a good thing even if some stupid shit gets said from time to time.

Read More

The Tax Implications of Bonds' Home Run Balls

Believe it or not, there are far more interesting legal issues surrounding the new home run record than steroids. For example, what are the tax ramifications to the fans who caught the record-tying 755th home run ball and the record-breaking 756th home run ball? Here on the blog, we very rarely discuss tax law issues in sports. It's one of those areas that people tend to shy away from either out of fear or boredom. But tax law and policy is actually a fascinating and intellectually stimulating subject area. My advice to any law student interested in eventually practicing sports law is to strongly consider taking a basic federal income tax course.

The fan who caught number 755 announced yesterday that he was going to sell the souvenir ball through SCP Auctions and SCP expects the ball to fetch at least $75,000 to $100,000. But the fan who caught number 756 told NBC's "Today Show" on Thursday that he was leaning toward keeping the ball, even though it could fetch around $500,000. So here's an interesting tax question: Does the fan recognize taxable gain when he catches the ball and takes possession, or does the fan recognize the gain when he sells or disposes of the ball?

There is a classic case in all the casebooks about a taxpayer who suddenly finds a bag of cash stashed away in an antique piano that he purchased years before. The court held that the taxpayer recognized taxable gain in the year he found the cash, not when he obtained the piano, because the cash wasn't reduced to possession until he actually found it. But I don't see how the IRS could take the position that the fan recognizes taxable gain when he takes possession of the ball. The reason being that the ball is not like cash, which would be recognizable gain because cash is immediately liquid. The ball is more like stock; until it is liquidated (i.e. sale or dispossession), its value is not recognized by the taxpayer. Treating the gain as taxable on sale or dispossession of the ball makes sense from a policy standpoint as well. While the IRS could determine the amount of the gain prior to sale or dispossession based upon a reasonable estimate of the ball's value at the moment, that value is subject to major fluctuation up or down (much like stock) depending upon the results of baseball's steroid investigation as well as the future prospects of A-Rod challenging Bonds' record (which, by the way, is becoming more difficult for him as Bonds keeps hitting more home runs).

On the other hand, lottery winnings and non-cash prizes are subject to tax withholding. For example, if the fan had instead won a car at the game that night, the value of the car would be taxable to the fan this year. The ball is distinguishable from lottery winnings because it's not in the form of liquid cash like lottery winnings. But is the ball analogous to a non-cash prize such as a car? While both contain the element of "an accession of wealth," non-cash prizes (unlike the ball) typically result in immediate use and benefit to the taxpaper, e.g. the taxpayer gets to drive around in a brand new car or wear a shiny new watch out on the town.

The Associated Press notes that the IRS seems reluctant to clear up the confusion:

With six-figure treasures so rarely falling out of the sky, the agency declined to comment Wednesday on what regulations would apply and whether they would be enforced in the case of the Bonds ball. History does not provide much of a guide since most fans who have been lucky enough to snag previous long balls have chosen to sell their mementos. And at least one ball was as much a source of embarrassment for the IRS as revenue. As Mark McGwire chased the mark for most home runs in a season in 1998, IRS officials initially said the ball that broke Roger Maris' long-standing record could be subject to taxes even if it were returned to McGwire. The statements were ridiculed by politicians and quickly disavowed by the agency's top brass. "All I know is that the fan who gives back the home run ball deserves a round of applause, not a big tax bill," then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti said at the time.

And then there is the issue of whether the gain is ordinary gain subject to higher ordinary income tax rates, or capital gain subject to lower capital gains rates. Don't worry, I won't torture you any longer.....

Read More