By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible
Earlier this month, the NFL's already damaged image took another shot when Denver running back Travis Henry tested positive for a banned substance...again. In 2005, Henry, a Titan at the time, was suspended four games for violating the league's substance abuse policy for a second time. Following this infraction, Henry could face a one-year suspension.
When an NFL player tests positive for a banned substance, the general assumption is that the player was randomly selected to undergo a drug test consisting of the player giving up a urine sample. Sounds pretty simple right? Well, not quite.
After Travis Henry was exposed yet again for allegedly failing another drug test, the league's policy became an issue. Although it is clearly stated in the NFL collective bargaining agreement, most people have no idea what the league's policy consists of. One would think that a player is randomly selected to submit a urine sample and if it tests positive for a banned substance, then that player is dealt with appropriately. Once again, not quite.
When a player is tested for banned substances in the NFL, he gives two samples - an "A" and a "B" sample. If the "A" sample tests positive, then the "B" sample is used to confirm the "A" sample. When the league attempts to confirm the "A" sample, the NFL's collective bargaining agreement allows the player to have an independent expert present while the league analyzes the "B" sample. The only requirement is the player's expert is prohibited from being affiliated with a laboratory.
Apparently, Henry's chosen expert was affiliated with a laboratory. Henry's chances of a successful defense are looking bleak. For a player who has a history of violating the league's substance abuse policy, Henry shouldn't even be in the vicinity of those using banned substances.
Regardless of Henry's outcome, the NFL's drug testing policy is somewhat of a anomaly. Why is it that you need two samples to confirm that a player tests positive or not? Sample "A" contains the same urine as sample "B." It seems perfectly legitimate to use one sample and the NFL's current policy only opens the door for player challenges.
Henry is sticking to his story that it was second-hand smoke that caused his "A" sample to test positive. And chances are, if and when the NFL tests the "B" sample, the result will be the same. As for the NFL drug policy, change might be the way to go.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
TO SCALP OR NOT TO SCALP? THAT IS THE LEGAL QUESTION
By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible
I just got back from overseas and I couldn't help myself from researching this topic that almost every sports fan can identify with. While in London, I went to an English football match and paid double the face-value for a ticket. Some would say that's ludicrous. Others would say I got a good deal.
Take the New England Patriots. They have developed into a dynasty and their domination does not seem like it's ending anytime soon. Getting a ticket to a Patriots home game is near impossible, but not impossible. That's where the wonderful world of ticket scalping comes into play. Brokers are well aware of current markets. They know a hot ticket when they see it. They also know that die-hard fans will pay any amount to see their team take the gridiron.
Unfair? Maybe. Others would disagree and say that this is a capitalistic society and if people are willing to pay top-dollar for a game ticket, than so be it. But is it legal?
New York is the biggest market in the country for ticket scalpers. It wasn't until earlier this year that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer signed a bill eliminating all pricing restrictions on the resale of tickets. While ticket brokers can now charge whatever they please, the law does bar scalpers from operating within 1,500 feet of a large stadium. Therefore, to stay legal, scalpers in New York must sell their merchandise outside the confines of the stadium. Enter Stubhub, EBay, Craigslist and a plethora of on-line ticket brokers.
Other states have began to lift their price restrictions as well. Florida used to prohibit scalpers from selling a ticket for more than $1 above face value. In fact, it was a second degree misdemeanor. In June of 2006, Jeb Bush signed a bill essentially creating a free market system allowing brokers to charge any price.
Under Pennsylvania's old state law, only "licensed" brokers could resell tickets for a maximum of twenty-five percent above face value. Earlier this year, Governor Rendell removed the cap and simply required the seller to give a refund if the event is cancelled or the ticket is not valid upon entry. Good luck locating your friendly broker for a refund if you are denied entry to a Cowboys Eagles Monday Night showdown.
In contrast, the state of Massachusetts, home of the Patriots, Celtics, Bruins and Red Sox, has an antiscalping law that dates back to 1924. Their law prohibits scalpers from reselling tickets for more than $2 above face value. While this seems like an archaic law, it is rarely enforced and practically ignored.
Due to the constant increase in ticket prices, more and more states are beginning to lift restrictions off scalping. The rationale is that if people are willing to pay an astronomical amount for tickets, why prevent the broker from making a profit? It's simple supply and demand. Whether or not you agree with it, it's the reality in today's sports world.
The scalper will always be there. He's been there even when state's had laws preventing them from selling above face-value. He can be a cruel individual who won't negotiate under any terms. He can also be your key to the game. It's a love-hate relationship with the scalper - and while you can't be sure which arm or which leg he will be charging for that ticket, you can be sure he will co-exist with professional football forever.
I just got back from overseas and I couldn't help myself from researching this topic that almost every sports fan can identify with. While in London, I went to an English football match and paid double the face-value for a ticket. Some would say that's ludicrous. Others would say I got a good deal.
Take the New England Patriots. They have developed into a dynasty and their domination does not seem like it's ending anytime soon. Getting a ticket to a Patriots home game is near impossible, but not impossible. That's where the wonderful world of ticket scalping comes into play. Brokers are well aware of current markets. They know a hot ticket when they see it. They also know that die-hard fans will pay any amount to see their team take the gridiron.
Unfair? Maybe. Others would disagree and say that this is a capitalistic society and if people are willing to pay top-dollar for a game ticket, than so be it. But is it legal?
New York is the biggest market in the country for ticket scalpers. It wasn't until earlier this year that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer signed a bill eliminating all pricing restrictions on the resale of tickets. While ticket brokers can now charge whatever they please, the law does bar scalpers from operating within 1,500 feet of a large stadium. Therefore, to stay legal, scalpers in New York must sell their merchandise outside the confines of the stadium. Enter Stubhub, EBay, Craigslist and a plethora of on-line ticket brokers.
Other states have began to lift their price restrictions as well. Florida used to prohibit scalpers from selling a ticket for more than $1 above face value. In fact, it was a second degree misdemeanor. In June of 2006, Jeb Bush signed a bill essentially creating a free market system allowing brokers to charge any price.
Under Pennsylvania's old state law, only "licensed" brokers could resell tickets for a maximum of twenty-five percent above face value. Earlier this year, Governor Rendell removed the cap and simply required the seller to give a refund if the event is cancelled or the ticket is not valid upon entry. Good luck locating your friendly broker for a refund if you are denied entry to a Cowboys Eagles Monday Night showdown.
In contrast, the state of Massachusetts, home of the Patriots, Celtics, Bruins and Red Sox, has an antiscalping law that dates back to 1924. Their law prohibits scalpers from reselling tickets for more than $2 above face value. While this seems like an archaic law, it is rarely enforced and practically ignored.
Due to the constant increase in ticket prices, more and more states are beginning to lift restrictions off scalping. The rationale is that if people are willing to pay an astronomical amount for tickets, why prevent the broker from making a profit? It's simple supply and demand. Whether or not you agree with it, it's the reality in today's sports world.
The scalper will always be there. He's been there even when state's had laws preventing them from selling above face-value. He can be a cruel individual who won't negotiate under any terms. He can also be your key to the game. It's a love-hate relationship with the scalper - and while you can't be sure which arm or which leg he will be charging for that ticket, you can be sure he will co-exist with professional football forever.
Friday, October 12, 2007
TOP 10 NFL PLAYER ARRESTS SINCE 2005
By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible
10. Bryant McNeal
McNeal was arrested on July 5, 2007 for a routine traffic stop. Police discovered that he had an outstanding warrant in Florida for defrauding a pawn broker and writing a bad check for $1,500. To make matters worse, he was driving with a suspended license and a busted headlight. Case is pending.
9. Justin Miller
Miller was arrested and charged with Assault on May 20, 2007. Miller allegedly hit a woman after he took a swing at a man who ducked inside a New York Nightclub.
8. Lionel Gates
Gates punched a pregnant woman in the face and was initially charged with felony battery in March of 2007. That was later dropped and he paid a $3,200 fine and had to attend anger management.
7. Lawrence Tynes
Tynes was arrested and charged with felony battery after he allegedly broke a bouncer's nose in a bar fight in August of 2005. Who said kickers were soft?
6. David Boston
Boston was arrested in October of 2005 after he struck a gate agent at a Vermont Airport when he was not allowed to board a flight. Boston pleaded no contest and paid a $500 fine.
5. Tommy Hendricks
Hendricks was arrested and charged with violating a restraining order filed by his ex wife. Hendricks was cut shortly after this incident.
4. Quintin Williams
Williams was arrested in 2005 and charged with a DUI and dragracing near the Miami Dolphins training facility. Williams was clocked at 111 mph. He pleaded down to reckless driving and receivedsix months probation. He was also cut from the Dolphins a day later.
3. Daunte Culpepper, Fred Smoot, Bryant McKinnie, Moe Williams
Following a night partying on cruise boat in 2005, these four men were charged with indecent conduct, disorderly conduct and lewd or lascivious conduct. The complaint alleged, among others, sex toy usage, topless lap dancing, public sex, etc. McKinnie and Smoot pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, fined one game check by the NFL and given 48 hours community service.
2. AJ Nicholson
In June of 2006, Nicholson was arrested for burglarizing the apartment of a former teammate at Florida State. Nicholson pleaded no contest and received two years probation.
1. Michael Vick
Dogfighting. Enough said.
10. Bryant McNeal
McNeal was arrested on July 5, 2007 for a routine traffic stop. Police discovered that he had an outstanding warrant in Florida for defrauding a pawn broker and writing a bad check for $1,500. To make matters worse, he was driving with a suspended license and a busted headlight. Case is pending.
9. Justin Miller
Miller was arrested and charged with Assault on May 20, 2007. Miller allegedly hit a woman after he took a swing at a man who ducked inside a New York Nightclub.
8. Lionel Gates
Gates punched a pregnant woman in the face and was initially charged with felony battery in March of 2007. That was later dropped and he paid a $3,200 fine and had to attend anger management.
7. Lawrence Tynes
Tynes was arrested and charged with felony battery after he allegedly broke a bouncer's nose in a bar fight in August of 2005. Who said kickers were soft?
6. David Boston
Boston was arrested in October of 2005 after he struck a gate agent at a Vermont Airport when he was not allowed to board a flight. Boston pleaded no contest and paid a $500 fine.
5. Tommy Hendricks
Hendricks was arrested and charged with violating a restraining order filed by his ex wife. Hendricks was cut shortly after this incident.
4. Quintin Williams
Williams was arrested in 2005 and charged with a DUI and dragracing near the Miami Dolphins training facility. Williams was clocked at 111 mph. He pleaded down to reckless driving and receivedsix months probation. He was also cut from the Dolphins a day later.
3. Daunte Culpepper, Fred Smoot, Bryant McKinnie, Moe Williams
Following a night partying on cruise boat in 2005, these four men were charged with indecent conduct, disorderly conduct and lewd or lascivious conduct. The complaint alleged, among others, sex toy usage, topless lap dancing, public sex, etc. McKinnie and Smoot pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, fined one game check by the NFL and given 48 hours community service.
2. AJ Nicholson
In June of 2006, Nicholson was arrested for burglarizing the apartment of a former teammate at Florida State. Nicholson pleaded no contest and received two years probation.
1. Michael Vick
Dogfighting. Enough said.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
THE FINE HEARD ROUND THE WORLD
By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible
During last year's Superbowl media frenzy, Brian Urlacher waltzed up to a podium for an ordinary press conference. Since Urlacher and his Chicago Bears team were practicing throughout media week at the Superbowl, it was only natural that he refresh himself with a cool beverage in between practices. Urlacher also exchanged that helmet of his for a cap he owned. The cap he donned was a Vitamin Water cap and the beverage was the same. This is what the NFL would call a "fashion no-no."
Unlike Gatorade, Burger King, Snickers, Pepsi, Samsung, Visa, etc., Vitamin Water is not an official sponsor of the NFL. Therefore, it has no place on the NFL stage and other corporate sponsors stand to lose millions when players sport other logos. OK, understandable. Players cannot wear unofficially licensed gear at NFL events. A simple warning sounds reasonable. Maybe a small fine would be legitimate.
The NFL took a slightly different route. Roger Goodell decided that Mr. Urlacher's actions were the equivalent of a hundred times the amount that Justin Smith, defensive end for the Cincinnati Bengals, received for pleading guilty to a DUI in 2004.
Urlacher was slammed with a $100,000 fine for wearing the Vitamin Water hat and players must now think twice before attending a certified NFL event in that Gucci leisure suit. From a logical standpoint, wearing an unofficially licensed article of clothing doesn't even compare to a criminal offense. Urlacher most likely wore the hat to freely advertise the drink during media week, but to fine him 100K - that's not justice, it's first degree robbery.
Seriously though, when a player acts outside of the interests of the league, or commits a crime that would tarnish the league's image, fines are an easy way to punish offenders. Everyone knows that most fines are insignificant to players that rake in millions each year, but the fine still has to be justified. How does the NFL justify a $100,000 fine on Urlacher for wearing an unofficially licensed hat? Simple. They can't.
Urlacher wore the hat in a press conference during media week of the Superbowl. So yes, the spotlight is a bit brighter during the Superbowl. However, by hitting Urlacher with a major fine that hit news wires immediately and become a relatively large story, Vitamin Water got an enormous amount of publicity. The NFL actually bolstered Urlacher's original intention - to get Vitamin Water some face-time during the Superbowl!
The NFL today is a business. Corporate sponsors run the show and money is the only thing that talks. Original named stadiums are almost extinct and have been replaced by the likes of Gillette Stadium, Lincoln Financial Field, Bank of America Stadium and Monster Park (this one sounds more like an amusement park than a stadium). The fine that Urlacher received was completely ridiculous. Players should be fined that amount when violating the law, not for violating some NFL bylaw inspired by huge conglomerates.
NFL players, I leave you with one piece of legal advice - to protect your hard earned assets, lose the Prada shades in the post game press conference. Start banking with Bank of America instead of Chase. Fly Southwest because we all know Delta isn't official. Trade in that LG for a Samsung and leave that American Express at home, the NFL only accepts VISA. If it's a Coke that you crave, make it a Pepsi and please, whatever you do, trade in that BMW for a General Motors vehicle, just to be safe.
During last year's Superbowl media frenzy, Brian Urlacher waltzed up to a podium for an ordinary press conference. Since Urlacher and his Chicago Bears team were practicing throughout media week at the Superbowl, it was only natural that he refresh himself with a cool beverage in between practices. Urlacher also exchanged that helmet of his for a cap he owned. The cap he donned was a Vitamin Water cap and the beverage was the same. This is what the NFL would call a "fashion no-no."
Unlike Gatorade, Burger King, Snickers, Pepsi, Samsung, Visa, etc., Vitamin Water is not an official sponsor of the NFL. Therefore, it has no place on the NFL stage and other corporate sponsors stand to lose millions when players sport other logos. OK, understandable. Players cannot wear unofficially licensed gear at NFL events. A simple warning sounds reasonable. Maybe a small fine would be legitimate.
The NFL took a slightly different route. Roger Goodell decided that Mr. Urlacher's actions were the equivalent of a hundred times the amount that Justin Smith, defensive end for the Cincinnati Bengals, received for pleading guilty to a DUI in 2004.
Urlacher was slammed with a $100,000 fine for wearing the Vitamin Water hat and players must now think twice before attending a certified NFL event in that Gucci leisure suit. From a logical standpoint, wearing an unofficially licensed article of clothing doesn't even compare to a criminal offense. Urlacher most likely wore the hat to freely advertise the drink during media week, but to fine him 100K - that's not justice, it's first degree robbery.
Seriously though, when a player acts outside of the interests of the league, or commits a crime that would tarnish the league's image, fines are an easy way to punish offenders. Everyone knows that most fines are insignificant to players that rake in millions each year, but the fine still has to be justified. How does the NFL justify a $100,000 fine on Urlacher for wearing an unofficially licensed hat? Simple. They can't.
Urlacher wore the hat in a press conference during media week of the Superbowl. So yes, the spotlight is a bit brighter during the Superbowl. However, by hitting Urlacher with a major fine that hit news wires immediately and become a relatively large story, Vitamin Water got an enormous amount of publicity. The NFL actually bolstered Urlacher's original intention - to get Vitamin Water some face-time during the Superbowl!
The NFL today is a business. Corporate sponsors run the show and money is the only thing that talks. Original named stadiums are almost extinct and have been replaced by the likes of Gillette Stadium, Lincoln Financial Field, Bank of America Stadium and Monster Park (this one sounds more like an amusement park than a stadium). The fine that Urlacher received was completely ridiculous. Players should be fined that amount when violating the law, not for violating some NFL bylaw inspired by huge conglomerates.
NFL players, I leave you with one piece of legal advice - to protect your hard earned assets, lose the Prada shades in the post game press conference. Start banking with Bank of America instead of Chase. Fly Southwest because we all know Delta isn't official. Trade in that LG for a Samsung and leave that American Express at home, the NFL only accepts VISA. If it's a Coke that you crave, make it a Pepsi and please, whatever you do, trade in that BMW for a General Motors vehicle, just to be safe.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
LEGAL LINE VOL. IX
JET TICKET HOLDERS: YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING THAN WINNING THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PATRIOTS
By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible
Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots cannot seem to shake their appalling actions revealed earlier this season. In what is now referred to as "SpyGate," the videotaping scandal that raised serious questions about Belichick's credibility has inspired two lawyers from New Jersey to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of Jet ticket holders and against Belichick and the Patriots.
The suit seeks over $184 million in damages and allegedly dates back to 2000, Belichick's first year as head coach with the Patriots. The suit basically claims that Jet ticket holders should be compensated for all games played in Giants stadium between the Jets and the Patriots as a result of the Patriots' fraudulent actions.
The major issue in this case is whether or not the Patriots have done this before and if so, for how long? There are so many problems with this lawsuit and so many unanswered questions that there is no conceivable way that this suit will be successful.
Problem 1
Lack of evidence. The suit claims that the Patriots have performed acts of fraud against the Jets since 2000. In a civil case, "clear and convincing evidence" is necessary for a favorable verdict. Under this standard, you must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true.
Last week, the NFL requested, obtained and destroyed all videotapes stemming from the incident involving Belichick and the Patriots. The NFL's reasoning for the destruction of the tapes was so that no other team could in any way access what was on the tapes.
Apparently, the lawyers bringing this lawsuit feel that they can prove their case with testimony claiming that the Patriots have done this before. To win this case, they need evidence that the Patriots performed fraud against the Jets in the past. Assuming they are unable to obtain any hard evidence, this suit will fade quick.
Problem 2
Valid testimony. Even if these lawyers can find individuals that are willing to testify that the Patriots have done this before, it does not necessarily make it "more likely than not" that the Patriots did it against the Jets in the past. Mere testimony that the Patriots acted fraudulently in the past is too vague. Couple this with a lack of hard evidence and this case has DISMISSED written all over it.
Problem 3
Incorrect Damages. In claiming damages, the lawyers used the number $61.8 million as the amount that it cost fans to attend Patriots - Jets games at Giants Stadium since 2000. The suit claims fraud under federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which allows for triple damages, or $184 million.
Let's hypothetically say that the Patriots engaged in spying against the Jets in the previous eight matchups at Giants Stadium. In each of the Patriots' wins, a good lawyer might be able to argue that Jet fans were deceived - and damaged - through the suspect tactics of Belichick and the Patriots. But what if the Patriots didn't win? Were the fans still damaged?
The Jets defeated the Patriots in 2000, by a score of 20-19. The fans at that game were not damaged. The Patriots quite possibly could have been spying the whole game and certainly broke NFL rules, but Jet fans walked out of Giant Stadium with a victory.
Problem 4
Proving fraud is extremely difficult. Under common law, fraud requires three elements: (1) a material false statement; (2) reliance on that statement; and (3) damages. Although the context here is a little different because we are not dealing with a statement, but rather an action, fraud essentially requires a falsity, reliance on that falsity and a loss of some sort.
Proving damages here will be incredibly hard. The integrity of the game may have been tarnished by Belichick and the Patriots' actions, but to say that the fans were damaged in some way is a weak argument. The lawyers are seeking reimbursement for ticket prices over the years, so proving that damage was done to each ticket holder is a must - and a long-shot at best.
New Jersey lawyers Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran have their work cut out for them. A civil suit against Bill Belichick and the Patriots was most likely inevitable, but this case is certainly not a winner. Proof is a necessity in any case and unfortunately, Mayer and Afran have very little, if any at all.
By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible
Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots cannot seem to shake their appalling actions revealed earlier this season. In what is now referred to as "SpyGate," the videotaping scandal that raised serious questions about Belichick's credibility has inspired two lawyers from New Jersey to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of Jet ticket holders and against Belichick and the Patriots.
The suit seeks over $184 million in damages and allegedly dates back to 2000, Belichick's first year as head coach with the Patriots. The suit basically claims that Jet ticket holders should be compensated for all games played in Giants stadium between the Jets and the Patriots as a result of the Patriots' fraudulent actions.
The major issue in this case is whether or not the Patriots have done this before and if so, for how long? There are so many problems with this lawsuit and so many unanswered questions that there is no conceivable way that this suit will be successful.
Problem 1
Lack of evidence. The suit claims that the Patriots have performed acts of fraud against the Jets since 2000. In a civil case, "clear and convincing evidence" is necessary for a favorable verdict. Under this standard, you must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true.
Last week, the NFL requested, obtained and destroyed all videotapes stemming from the incident involving Belichick and the Patriots. The NFL's reasoning for the destruction of the tapes was so that no other team could in any way access what was on the tapes.
Apparently, the lawyers bringing this lawsuit feel that they can prove their case with testimony claiming that the Patriots have done this before. To win this case, they need evidence that the Patriots performed fraud against the Jets in the past. Assuming they are unable to obtain any hard evidence, this suit will fade quick.
Problem 2
Valid testimony. Even if these lawyers can find individuals that are willing to testify that the Patriots have done this before, it does not necessarily make it "more likely than not" that the Patriots did it against the Jets in the past. Mere testimony that the Patriots acted fraudulently in the past is too vague. Couple this with a lack of hard evidence and this case has DISMISSED written all over it.
Problem 3
Incorrect Damages. In claiming damages, the lawyers used the number $61.8 million as the amount that it cost fans to attend Patriots - Jets games at Giants Stadium since 2000. The suit claims fraud under federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which allows for triple damages, or $184 million.
Let's hypothetically say that the Patriots engaged in spying against the Jets in the previous eight matchups at Giants Stadium. In each of the Patriots' wins, a good lawyer might be able to argue that Jet fans were deceived - and damaged - through the suspect tactics of Belichick and the Patriots. But what if the Patriots didn't win? Were the fans still damaged?
The Jets defeated the Patriots in 2000, by a score of 20-19. The fans at that game were not damaged. The Patriots quite possibly could have been spying the whole game and certainly broke NFL rules, but Jet fans walked out of Giant Stadium with a victory.
Problem 4
Proving fraud is extremely difficult. Under common law, fraud requires three elements: (1) a material false statement; (2) reliance on that statement; and (3) damages. Although the context here is a little different because we are not dealing with a statement, but rather an action, fraud essentially requires a falsity, reliance on that falsity and a loss of some sort.
Proving damages here will be incredibly hard. The integrity of the game may have been tarnished by Belichick and the Patriots' actions, but to say that the fans were damaged in some way is a weak argument. The lawyers are seeking reimbursement for ticket prices over the years, so proving that damage was done to each ticket holder is a must - and a long-shot at best.
New Jersey lawyers Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran have their work cut out for them. A civil suit against Bill Belichick and the Patriots was most likely inevitable, but this case is certainly not a winner. Proof is a necessity in any case and unfortunately, Mayer and Afran have very little, if any at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
