Beginning October 1, people will be able to shop for the expanded insurance coverage made possible by ACA. As part of its publicity effort, the Department of Health and Human Services is seeking to partner with the NFL and other sports leagues in publicity efforts. This does not sit well with GOP Sens. Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, who sent this letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell.
The letter chastises the league for risking its "inclusive and apolitical" brand, expressing surprise that a pro sports league would take "public sides in such a highly polarized public debate." But I would reject the suggestion that the NFL, or any other sports league, is or ever has been apolitical. Putting aside the way leagues regularly engage in politics for their own direct benefit--antitrust, labor law, stadium funding. Leagues and teams regularly get involved in public issues--gay rights, women's rights, racial equality, war and the military. At least some of these are at least as contentious as ACA. In fact, as the letter acknowledges, the Boston Red Sox in 2007 participated in efforts to encourage enrollment in Massachusetts' program. The reason for this being different, they argue, is that ACA passed on a party-line vote using "legislative gimmicks" and "ridiculed political favors." Stated differently, ACA passed through the ordinary legislative process, but the process worked to our disadvantage. Thus, the law is illegitimate, so you, as an apolitical entity, should stay out of it.
There also is a hint of the paranoid. They express concern for "the Obama Administration's record of using the threat of policy retaliation to solicit support for its policies or to silence its critics" and helpfully tell the NFL to come to them if they are feeling threatened or coerced so the Senate GOP can protect them from the big, bad President. Of course, in emphasizing how unheard-of and wrong-headed the NFL's involvement would be , the letter could be read as its own threat designed to solicit support for the McConnell/Cornyn side in this debate. It actually is the classic bully trick--you better come to me for protection from that other who is threatening you.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
A Murder in Massachusetts: Aaron Hernandez
Hope you can pick up a copy of this week's issue and out the article.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
MMA in Indian Country
An interesting piece on MMA in Indian Country (I had not realized the sport somewhat got its start there) and regulatory conflicts between states and sovereign Indian nations. My colleague Alex Pearl was a source for the story.
The Ends Do Not Justify the Means in MLB's Current PED Investigation
I am excited to have been invited to become a contributor to Sports Law Blog, and this is my first post, where I will look at topics that involve the intersection of legal ethics and professional responsibility with sports law. For this post, what follows are my opinions about and understanding of MLB’s current PED Investigation.
MLB and MLBPA have a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and they have a Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program that in part “provide[s] for, in keeping with the overall purposes of the Program, an orderly, systematic, and cooperative resolution of any disputes that may arise concerning the existence, interpretation, or application of this Program. Except as otherwise provided herein, any dispute arising under the Program shall be subject to resolution through the Grievance Procedure of the Basic Agreement.” The CBA and the Joint Program are neither MLB’s nor MLBPA’s: They are their mutually negotiated and agreed to contracts governed by federal labor law.
Rather than follow the Joint Program, MLB filed a straw-man lawsuit in Florida state court for what appears to be the sole purpose of obtaining discovery that it could not otherwise have obtained, which is per se an improper purpose, I believe. We can surmise that was the purpose, because in exchange for the information it wanted, MLB apparently settled with the primary defendant and indemnified him against claims by the players. Clearly, all MLB wanted was information, and its claim for tortious interference was simply a front. MLB’s billion dollar weight was thrown against defendants without apparent financial means, who would have been expected to cave and did. To date, while apparently leaking information to the media as to whom is going to be suspended or who is under suspicion, MLB has not followed any part of the Joint Program, or at least none that has been reported. Certainly, the Joint Program doesn’t provide for discovery lawsuits against third-parties, and, instead, it specifically requires that the “[Joint] Program shall be subject to resolution through the Grievance Procedure of the Basic Agreement.” If there is reasonable cause to believe that a player has violated the Joint Program, notice to and testing of the player is a required prerequisite, yet that has assumedly not occurred, because MLB has no such “reasonable cause,” which is presumably why it went on its fishing hunt in the first place. If MLB thought it needed additional avenues for discovery, it was free to negotiate that with MLBPA, yet it did not do so.
With this apparently extortionate power that comes with the Goliath versus David lawsuit, and with no one, not even the players or the Union, taking action to stop them, MLB may have interfered with the players’ right to keep confidential their medical information under both federal and state law, and the Florida state court has just ordered that such medical records be returned immediately to one of the deponents in the case. Moreover, according to news reports, MLB’s attorneys may have violated Model Rule 3.4 through their client’s payment for records and testimony, not to mention their client indemnifying the primary defendant, which should subject that ill-gotten information or testimony to evidentiary exclusion, and which may expose MLB’s lawyers to grievances before the attorney regulatory agencies of the applicable states. On the sidelines, MLB, either directly or through the teams, appears to be coercing the minor league players to roll over. They are not even members of the Union, unless they’re on the 40-Man Roster, so imagine how “cooperative” their cooperation really is, when they are being compelled to speak under what one may imagine is at least an implied threat of suspension or termination.
MLB filed its lawsuit for tortious interference with a collective bargaining agreement, when there is no such tort—they just made it up. The players’ contracts are with the teams, and if one wanted to make a tortious interference claim for those contracts, the individual teams would be the appropriate plaintiffs. Labor law is the exclusive province of the federal courts, yet MLB filed in state court, and to make dumb dumber, the Florida state court has noted that it probably lacks subject matter jurisdiction, yet it is waiting for one of the defendants (versus third-party deponents) to make a motion to dismiss on the basis of standing, when no one has standing, if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (in which case, the court is supposed to dismiss the case on its own).
What is clear in my opinion is that MLB’s foray into Florida state court is frivolous under Civil Rule 11 and other related sanctions tools. I am published on and edited the leading treatise on this topic. MLB seems to have filed a bogus lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction against people who have no ability to fight back, it seems to have illegally or unethically obtained confidential information and testimony from them, it seems to have used this material to smear odd-numerous professional baseball players without ever making formal accusations against them, it seems to have leaked to the Press that it has already prejudged these players, whose rights to respond under the Joint Program have been rendered meaningless, and so on. If I was designing a frivolous case example for a law school text book, this would fit the bill, where there seems to be no good-faith basis in law or fact for the lawsuit, and where the lawsuit seems to have been filed for an improper purpose.
If the NCAA was behaving this way, we’d all expect its poor judgment, but MLB? What are they thinking? So if MLB is trying to litigate a bogus dispute in the wrong place, why are they doing that? You may recall that the NCAA wrongfully got information from a civil suit in Florida, too. How about MLB? Is it trying to secure and securing discovery by these wrongful means to use against the players? And where does MLB plan on using this information against players? In the context of its labor agreements before a labor arbitrator!
Sooner or later, either the players or the Union are going to file a federal court action to declare what is obvious, which is that MLB is constrained by the agreements it negotiated, that it cannot violate HIPPA and/or various state laws regarding medical confidentiality and privacy, that it cannot file frivolous lawsuits, and that it cannot taint evidence by unethically paying for it, if not also coercing or extorting it, and then still expect to be able to use it. The same result will happen if any of the defendants remove the current lawsuit to federal court, or if the players or the Union intervene and do the same.
The players who have already been smeared should have already intervened, as they have nothing to lose now, the Union should have intervened by now to protect the integrity of the process it negotiated and agreed to, and both the players and the Union should be seeking an injunction against MLB from using any of its ill-gotten information or any fruits from the same. There is no principled argument that can be made to allow MLB to use unethically or illegally obtained so-called evidence. And the larger public policy issue is that collective bargaining agreements between very sophisticated parties must be followed rather than eluded, especially when they are being eluded for apparently improper purposes. Certainly, the players and the Union should be seeking an injunction to compel compliance with the CBA and the Joint Program.
One of the things that trial lawyers think about in regards to investigating facts is whether we can get relevant information, but also whether we can do so ethically and pursuant to applicable law, and if so, whether we can use it, i.e., is it admissible or can we use it to gain admissible evidence? The NCAA forgot this in regards to the University of Miami, and MLB has forgotten this in regards to its current PED investigation.
MLB and MLBPA have a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and they have a Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program that in part “provide[s] for, in keeping with the overall purposes of the Program, an orderly, systematic, and cooperative resolution of any disputes that may arise concerning the existence, interpretation, or application of this Program. Except as otherwise provided herein, any dispute arising under the Program shall be subject to resolution through the Grievance Procedure of the Basic Agreement.” The CBA and the Joint Program are neither MLB’s nor MLBPA’s: They are their mutually negotiated and agreed to contracts governed by federal labor law.
Rather than follow the Joint Program, MLB filed a straw-man lawsuit in Florida state court for what appears to be the sole purpose of obtaining discovery that it could not otherwise have obtained, which is per se an improper purpose, I believe. We can surmise that was the purpose, because in exchange for the information it wanted, MLB apparently settled with the primary defendant and indemnified him against claims by the players. Clearly, all MLB wanted was information, and its claim for tortious interference was simply a front. MLB’s billion dollar weight was thrown against defendants without apparent financial means, who would have been expected to cave and did. To date, while apparently leaking information to the media as to whom is going to be suspended or who is under suspicion, MLB has not followed any part of the Joint Program, or at least none that has been reported. Certainly, the Joint Program doesn’t provide for discovery lawsuits against third-parties, and, instead, it specifically requires that the “[Joint] Program shall be subject to resolution through the Grievance Procedure of the Basic Agreement.” If there is reasonable cause to believe that a player has violated the Joint Program, notice to and testing of the player is a required prerequisite, yet that has assumedly not occurred, because MLB has no such “reasonable cause,” which is presumably why it went on its fishing hunt in the first place. If MLB thought it needed additional avenues for discovery, it was free to negotiate that with MLBPA, yet it did not do so.
With this apparently extortionate power that comes with the Goliath versus David lawsuit, and with no one, not even the players or the Union, taking action to stop them, MLB may have interfered with the players’ right to keep confidential their medical information under both federal and state law, and the Florida state court has just ordered that such medical records be returned immediately to one of the deponents in the case. Moreover, according to news reports, MLB’s attorneys may have violated Model Rule 3.4 through their client’s payment for records and testimony, not to mention their client indemnifying the primary defendant, which should subject that ill-gotten information or testimony to evidentiary exclusion, and which may expose MLB’s lawyers to grievances before the attorney regulatory agencies of the applicable states. On the sidelines, MLB, either directly or through the teams, appears to be coercing the minor league players to roll over. They are not even members of the Union, unless they’re on the 40-Man Roster, so imagine how “cooperative” their cooperation really is, when they are being compelled to speak under what one may imagine is at least an implied threat of suspension or termination.
MLB filed its lawsuit for tortious interference with a collective bargaining agreement, when there is no such tort—they just made it up. The players’ contracts are with the teams, and if one wanted to make a tortious interference claim for those contracts, the individual teams would be the appropriate plaintiffs. Labor law is the exclusive province of the federal courts, yet MLB filed in state court, and to make dumb dumber, the Florida state court has noted that it probably lacks subject matter jurisdiction, yet it is waiting for one of the defendants (versus third-party deponents) to make a motion to dismiss on the basis of standing, when no one has standing, if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (in which case, the court is supposed to dismiss the case on its own).
What is clear in my opinion is that MLB’s foray into Florida state court is frivolous under Civil Rule 11 and other related sanctions tools. I am published on and edited the leading treatise on this topic. MLB seems to have filed a bogus lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction against people who have no ability to fight back, it seems to have illegally or unethically obtained confidential information and testimony from them, it seems to have used this material to smear odd-numerous professional baseball players without ever making formal accusations against them, it seems to have leaked to the Press that it has already prejudged these players, whose rights to respond under the Joint Program have been rendered meaningless, and so on. If I was designing a frivolous case example for a law school text book, this would fit the bill, where there seems to be no good-faith basis in law or fact for the lawsuit, and where the lawsuit seems to have been filed for an improper purpose.
If the NCAA was behaving this way, we’d all expect its poor judgment, but MLB? What are they thinking? So if MLB is trying to litigate a bogus dispute in the wrong place, why are they doing that? You may recall that the NCAA wrongfully got information from a civil suit in Florida, too. How about MLB? Is it trying to secure and securing discovery by these wrongful means to use against the players? And where does MLB plan on using this information against players? In the context of its labor agreements before a labor arbitrator!
Sooner or later, either the players or the Union are going to file a federal court action to declare what is obvious, which is that MLB is constrained by the agreements it negotiated, that it cannot violate HIPPA and/or various state laws regarding medical confidentiality and privacy, that it cannot file frivolous lawsuits, and that it cannot taint evidence by unethically paying for it, if not also coercing or extorting it, and then still expect to be able to use it. The same result will happen if any of the defendants remove the current lawsuit to federal court, or if the players or the Union intervene and do the same.
The players who have already been smeared should have already intervened, as they have nothing to lose now, the Union should have intervened by now to protect the integrity of the process it negotiated and agreed to, and both the players and the Union should be seeking an injunction against MLB from using any of its ill-gotten information or any fruits from the same. There is no principled argument that can be made to allow MLB to use unethically or illegally obtained so-called evidence. And the larger public policy issue is that collective bargaining agreements between very sophisticated parties must be followed rather than eluded, especially when they are being eluded for apparently improper purposes. Certainly, the players and the Union should be seeking an injunction to compel compliance with the CBA and the Joint Program.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Planned mass protests in Egypt echo Cairo’s Tahrir Square uprising
Ultras play cat and mouse
By James M. Dorsey
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and militant, street battle-hardened soccer fans, in a replay of the run-up to mass protests two years ago that ousted Hosni Mubarak are positioning themselves for planned watershed mass demonstrations for and against the government this weekend.
In a statement almost identical to the one they issued on January 24, 2011, the eve of 18 days of protests that toppled Mr. Mubarak, Ultras Ahlawy, the militant support group of crowned Cairo club Al Ahli SC that played a key role in the former president’s overthrow, said this week that as an organization it would not participate in the demonstrations on the anniversary of Mr. Morsi’s ascendancy as Egypt’s first freely elected president, but that its members were free to do so.
The statement insisted that that Ultras Ahlawy was a group of soccer fans “that has nothing to do with politics.” It said the group had decided “not to get involved in politics again after realizing that the opposition doesn’t care about the country but simply aims to rule.”
Militant Egyptian soccer fans, who constitute one of Egypt’s largest civic groups, have a history of publicly defining themselves as non-political and as a group refusing to openly underwrite political protests. Ultras leaders told their tens of thousands of followers privately two years ago after officially declaring that they would not take part in the Tahrir Square uprising that the protests were the litmus test they had been preparing for and that they were free to participate.
The tactic employed by similar groups in Turkey and elsewhere was designed to shield soccer fan groups from being exposed to allegations that they were political organizations and as a result more vulnerable to government attempts to suppress them. 74 members of Ultras Ahlawy were killed last year in a politically loaded brawl in the Suez Canal city of Port Said.
Ultras Ahlawy as well as the Ultras White Knights (UWK), the supporters of Cairo arch rival Al Zamalek SC, and fans of two other Egyptian clubs last weekend stormed stadiums where there clubs were playing in protests against a ban on fans attending soccer matches. Egypt’s league that restarted in February after a one-year suspension in the wake of Port Said has again been suspended in advance of this weekend’s protests. Zamalek coach Jorvan Vieira announced that he was taking extended leave because of Egypt’s mounting volatility.
This weekend’s protests were organized by ad hoc grassroots group Tamarud (Rebel) that hopes to commemorate Mr. Morsi’s anniversary with a million-man march on the presidential palace. Tamarud has reportedly collected 15 million signatures, two million more than the 13 million votes the president garnered a year ago, on a petition demanding Mr. Morsi’s resignation and new elections.
The petition that a significant number of militant soccer fans are believed to have signed, takes Mr. Morsi to task for his failure to tackle the country’s economic crisis, dispel fears that he is pursuing an Islamist agenda, and his haughty style of government that many see as a continuation of Mubarak’s authoritarianism. It calls on the military and the judiciary in violation of the constitution to lead the country to new elections.
In an echo of terminology used by Mr. Mubarak and more recently Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to denounce their detractors, Mr. Morsi said that the interior ministry had established a special unit to combat thuggery. The ministry controls the police and the security forces that are among Egypt’s most hated institutions because of their execution of the Mubarak-era repression and the deaths of some 900 protesters since the overthrow of Mr. Mubarak for which officials have yet to be held accountable. Brutal police force turned recent smaller protests in Brazil and Turkey into massive anti-government demonstrations much as the brutality of security forces on Tahrir Square two years ago strengthened protesters’ resolve.
Fears of violence this weekend have been further fuelled by the expectation that Morsi supporters will hold counter demonstrations this weekend. Those fears were reinforced by recent attacks by Morsi supporters on Tamarud representatives as they publicly collected signatures on street corners and other public spaces.
Supporters and opponents of Mr. Morsi clashed earlier this month for hours in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria. Two people were killed and more than 200 injured this week in clashes in the Lower Egyptian cities Mansoura and Tanta. Four Shiites were stabbed, lynched and mutilated by a mob in a village near Cairo last Sunday in an attacked that had been motivated by opposition by militant Sunni Muslim sheikhs to a religious feast.
The ultras in past protests in Egypt, much like like-minded groups more recently in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, often see their role as protecting protesters against abuse by the security forces. Their approach is rooted in a deeply rooted sense of having been abused and mistreated for years in clashes with security forces in stadiums. The Black Bloc emerged earlier this year as a group of masked black clad vigilantes founded primarily by battle-steeled soccer supporters with the aim of protecting protesters against violence by Morsi supporters.
The sense that this weekend could mark a watershed in Egypt’s volatile transition from autocracy to a more open society was heightened by a statement this week by the country’s top general describing the role of the security forces as a safety valve against political conflict. Security officials said the military had moved troops closer to Egyptian cities in advance of this weekend’s protest and armored vehicles appeared this week in the streets of Cairo.
Mr. Morsi, in a carefully worded rebuke insisted he was the commander in chief and that the army's role was solely to protect the country's borders. Amid wild speculation of what the military may do, much rides on whether the protesters, who see this weekend’s demonstration as a launching pad for a second revolution, succeed in mobilizing large numbers and whether events and to what degree they turn violent.
The last two years have demonstrated that the leaders of violence-prone militant soccer fans are struggling to control their rank and file which often itches for a confrontation with security forces whom they see as the symbol of their perceived misery. Said a young militant earlier this year: “To hell with our leaders. This is not the moment to backdown.”
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Aaron Hernandez Charged with Murder
I have a new SI column on the charges and how Hernandez might wage a defense strategy.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Transition in Qatar: Will he or won’t he?
By James M. Dorsey
Conventional wisdom predicts that 33-year old Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani will adhere to his father’s use of sports as a key foreign, defense and security policy tool to embed Qatar in the international community. Experts and pundits suggest that Sheikh Tamim at best will nibble at the fringe of his father’s at times bold policies by expanding the government’s focus on domestic issues.
No doubt, Sheikh Tamim has demonstrated his interest in sports as head of the Qatar Olympic Committee and by creating Qatar National Sports Day, a popular annual event on February 14. That move coupled with his chairing of the Supreme Education Council lies at the core of the suggestion that he will focus not only on the emirate’s regional and global projection but also on his country’s domestic affairs.
As always, the devil is in the detail. No doubt, outgoing emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani will be remembered as a visionary who put his tiny country on the world map, changed the Middle East and North Africa’s media landscape with the creation of the Al Jazeera television network, offered the Gulf an alternative vision of leadership by stepping aside to make place for a younger generation and turned Qatar into a nation with the world’s highest income per capita of the population.
Few Qataris will question the achievements of Sheikh Hamad, who on Tuesday handed over power to his son, a virtually unprecedented step in a region in which rulers hang on to power untill death even if they at times have experienced a deterioration of health that has incapacitated them not only physically but also mentally. A wave of demand of change sweeping the Middle East and North Africa only serves to highlight the significance of Sheikh Hamad’s move. “The time has come to turn a new leaf where a new generation steps forward… Our young men have proven over the past years that they are a people of resolve,” Sheikh Hamad said in a nationally televised address.
Sheikh Hamad’s accomplishments notwithstanding, conservative segments of Qatari society with whom Sheikh Tamim at times appeared to empathize have questioned some of the side effects of the emir’s policies, including:
n Huge expenditure on a bold foreign policy that put Qatar at the forefront of regional demands for greater freedom and change but also earned it significant criticism;
n Unfulfilled promises of change at home that would give Qataris a greater say in where their country is going;
n A stark increase in foreign labor to complete ambitious infrastructure projects many of which are World Cup-related and have exposed Qatar for the first time to real pressure for social change;
n More liberal catering to Western expatriates by allowing controlled sale of alcohol and pork;
n Potential tacit concessions Qatar may have to make to non-Muslim soccer fans during the World Cup, including expanded areas where consumption of alcohol will be allowed, public rowdiness and dress codes largely unseen in the Gulf state, and the presence of gays.
A discussion in Qatar about possibly transferring ownership of soccer clubs from prominent Qataris, including members of the ruling family, to publicly held companies because of lack of Qatari interest in “the sheikh’s club” illustrates a degree of sensitivity to popular criticism.
Sheikh Tamim has moreover enhanced his popularity by his close relationship to Qatari tribes, his upholding of Islamic morals exemplified by the fact that alcohol is not served in luxury hotels that he owns and his accessibility similar to that of Saudi King Abdullah. He was also the driving force behind last year’s replacement of English by Arabic as the main language of instruction at Qatar University. He is further believed to have been empathetic to unprecedented on-line campaigns by Qatari activists against the state-owned telecommunications company and Qatar Airways. Sheikh Hamad appeared to anticipate a potententially different tone under Sheikh Tamim by urging Qataris “to preserve our civilized traditional and cultural values.”
Much of the criticism of Sheikh Hamad’s policies have been quietly supported by Saudi Arabia whose relation with Sheikh Hamad, who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1995, has more often than not been troubled. Sheikh Tamim could well bring a different tone to Saudi-Qatari relations. Since the eruption of the crisis in Syria, Sheikh Tamim has been the point man in coordinating policies with the kingdom and instead of the emir greeted guests as they arrived in March for an Arab summit in Doha.
“Sheikh Tamim will not rock the boat. He is well-versed and immersed in Qatari vision and policy. He understands the importance to Qatar of sports. At most, he will be more publicly embracing of traditionalism in what remains at the bottom line a conservative society,” said a Qatari with an inside track.
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog.
Breaking Down the San Jose vs. MLB Lawsuit
 |
| Image from SanJose.com |
As others have noted, San Jose faces an uphill battle in the lawsuit as MLB has a number of potential defenses at its disposal. The most obvious defense for MLB is its historic exemption from antitrust law. In a series of three decisions (Federal Baseball in 1922, Toolson in 1953, and Flood v. Kuhn in 1972), the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that federal antitrust law does not apply to professional baseball, thus apparently undermining the city's Sherman and Clayton Act claims.
In response to the antitrust exemption argument, San Jose's best hope may be to persuade the district court to follow a series of precedents from the early-1990s limiting the scope of baseball's immunity. Most notably, in the 1993 case of Piazza v. Major League Baseball, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided a suit similarly challenging MLB's relocation policies after the league refused to approve the proposed relocation of the San Francisco Giants to Tampa Bay. The Piazza court allowed the plaintiffs' antitrust claims against MLB to proceed despite the league's exemption by interpreting the Supreme Court's baseball trilogy as only protecting the reserve clause from antitrust scrutiny. Because major league players successfully defeated the reserve clause via arbitration and collective bargaining in the mid-1970s, the upshot of the Piazza holding was that MLB's antitrust exemption was effectively null and void.
However, as I argued in my 2010 law review article Defining the 'Business of Baseball': A Proposed Framework for Determining the Scope of Professional Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, the Piazza precedent is of dubious validity given that it was premised on several erroneous conclusions. Indeed, most subsequent courts considering the scope of baseball's antitrust immunity have disregarded Piazza, making it unlikely that the court in San Jose's suit will adopt such a narrow interpretation of the exemption in this case (unless, of course, the court - itself located in San Jose - is particularly motivated to allow the case to proceed to discovery and trial).
Meanwhile, although unlikely, it is also possible that MLB will decide not to assert its antitrust exemption in the case. The league has been extremely reluctant to rely on its exemption in recent antitrust cases, presumably for fear of triggering an adverse court decision limiting the scope of its immunity. Most notably, MLB did not assert the exemption as a defense in the Garber v. MLB lawsuit filed last year challenging baseball's television broadcast policies under antitrust law. Therefore, should baseball believe that it can successfully persuade the court to dismiss San Jose's lawsuit on other grounds (such as those discussed below), then the league may opt to forgo asserting the exemption in this case. However, given that control over franchise relocation is one of the two most important protections the league derives from the exemption (with the shielding of the minor league system from antitrust scrutiny being the other), San Jose's suit would appear to be a prime case for MLB to rely on its historic antitrust immunity.
In addition to the antitrust exemption, MLB can make at least two other potentially strong arguments in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Most significantly, the city of San Jose's standing to sue in the case appears to be tenuous at best. The city's complaint is based upon an option contract San Jose entered with the team in 2011, under which the Athletics have three years to purchase a parcel of land from the city for just under $7 million. However, the option contract in question does not obligate the Athletics to purchase the land, nor to relocate the team to the city even if the option were exercised. While A's owner Lew Wolff has consistently expressed his desire to move the team to San Jose, he has yet to formally commit to such a relocation, and has never suggested that he would be willing to move the team without MLB approval.
As a result, San Jose's suit poses a similar fact pattern as that litigated back in the late-1970s when the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum first sought to attract an NFL team (following the Rams' move to Anaheim Stadium, but before the Coliseum reached its eventual agreement with Al Davis to move the Raiders to Los Angeles). Specifically, the Coliseum sued the NFL alleging that the league's relocation restrictions prevented the stadium from securing a new NFL team, thus violating antitrust law. The district court dismissed the case, however, concluding that the Coliseum lacked standing to sue. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 468 F.Supp. 154 (C.D. Cal. 1979) ("Los Angeles Memorial I"). In particular, the court held that because the Coliseum had not yet found an NFL team willing to move to the stadium, and because the league had not yet rejected any proposed relocation, there was not yet an actual case or controversy to resolve. It wasn't until Davis formally agreed to move the Raiders to Los Angeles, and the NFL officially blocked the relocation, that the Coliseum was able to move forward with its case (resulting in the so-called Los Angeles Memorial II litigation). Accordingly, given that Wolff hasn't definitively committed to moving the Athletics to San Jose, and because MLB hasn't formally rejected the proposed relocation, the court may very well follow the Los Angeles Memorial I precedent and conclude that San Jose lacks standing to sue.
Meanwhile, MLB can also argue in its motion to dismiss that San Jose's state law claims are preempted by federal law. In Flood v. Kuhn, the Supreme Court not only dismissed Flood's federal antitrust claims pursuant to baseball's exemption, but also his state antitrust claim as well. In particular, the Flood Court held that the regulation of professional baseball required national uniformity, thus concluding that Flood's state law claims were precluded by the Commerce Clause. Consequently, MLB will likely argue that, at a minimum, the Flood precedent requires that San Jose's claim under California antitrust law be dismissed (the league may also assert that some of the city's other state law tort claims -- its unfair competition claim in particular -- are similarly preempted, although that argument will likely be harder to win).
Finally, however, even if San Jose were to survive MLB's motion to dismiss, and the court allows the suit to proceed to trial, the city may still face an uphill battle in winning the suit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held on two separate occasions that professional sports leagues' restrictions on franchise relocation do not automatically violate federal antitrust law. See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 726 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1984) ("Los Angeles Memorial II"); National Basketball Ass'n v. SDC Basketball Club, 815 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1987). For instance, despite ultimately condemning the NFL's refusal to allow the Raiders to move to Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial II court noted that several factors could potentially justify a league's decision to block a proposed relocation under antitrust law. These factors included: (i) an interest in protecting the loyalty of fans in the franchise's current home city, (ii) the maintenance of some reasonable territorial restrictions, (iii) the preservation of traditional rivalries, (iv) giving municipalities time to recoup their investments in local stadiums, and (v) maintaining a league presence in major television markets. While not all of these considerations will apply to the Athletics' proposed move, San Jose will ultimately have to convince the court that MLB's failure to approve the relocation was improper in light of the legitimate factors outlined in Los Angeles Memorial II, should the case proceed to trial.
Of course, the city probably does not intend to take the case all the way to trial. Instead, San Jose's litigation strategy likely hinges on surviving MLB's inevitable motion to dismiss and entering the discovery phase, at which point the city will have significantly increased its bargaining leverage over the league. If San Jose can get to that stage then its litigation strategy may prove fruitful. Given MLB's potential defenses outlined above, however, I suspect that the city will be unable to defeat a motion to dismiss the suit.
Update (6/27/13): Professor Ed Edmonds wisely notes in the comments that San Jose will also have to overcome the text of the Curt Flood Act of 1998 if it wishes to persuade the court to adopt the Piazza precedent limiting baseball's antitrust exemption to the reserve clause. As Professor Edmonds notes, the text of the act would appear to support a broad interpretation of the scope of the exemption.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Help Wanted: Current College Athlete to Join Plaintiffs
Where are we going? I offer big picture perspective, a solution, and immediate needs below:
Big Picture:
Joe Nocera of The New York Times takes a big picture approach to look at the impact the O'Bannon case will have on college athletics in this article titled "The Lawsuit & The NCAA." The theme continues to be, change is coming and the only question is how and when.
One Solution:
Advocating for paying college athletes, I wrote the following piece in The Boston Globe recently. Then, I offered a solution in an op-ed in The Chronicle of Higher Education by proposing the creation of a new NCAA division in this article.
Immediate Concern:
What's become apparent is that the class certification efforts--to include current college athletes as plaintiffs with former college athletes--is that Judge Wilken has indicated a willingness to certify IF a current college athlete is formally willing to participate as a plaintiff. While the plaintiffs asked if the individual could be anonymous, it appears that the answer is "no." Thus, the rights of future college athletes and the framework of this industry are seeking a courageous CURRENT student-athlete.
Andy Staples provided a great overview of the situation in Sports Illustrated with this piece titled "Current College Athlete Set to Become Face of Ed O'Bannon v NCAA." To summarize the requirements, the plaintiffs seek the following:
1. A current student-athlete in the sport of men's basketball or football;
2. Who starts at a school in either the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 or SEC;
3. That gets significant screen time when his team's games are televised (i.e. a star);
4. Who has a pristine personal history;
5. Who is courageous, strong in his convictions, and intelligent.
6. And finally, someone willing to be the face of change in college athletics.
Up to the task?
Footnoting the New Jersey Sports Wagering Litigation
After losing at the District Court level, New Jersey's appeal is premised on three arguments: (i) the sports leagues lack standing; (ii) PASPA violates the 10th Amendment; and (iii) PASPA violates the principle of equal sovereignty. In support of the state's standing argument, the brief includes four footnotes. In sequential order:
Footnote #1 addresses the recurring issue of actual injury (from sports wagering) and injury stemming from the perception of game-fixing. It posits that "[a]ny perceptions of game-fixing - no less than the instances of game fixing themselves - are caused by the Leagues' own agents."
Footnote #2 flags the issue of the sports league plaintiffs holding events in Las Vegas, but not having pro franchises in the city.
Footnote #3 covers the "Sports Wagering Law's carve-out for New Jersey collegiate teams" and posits that "[t]hat exemption was included at the request of the NCAA." The emphasis in bold/italics is contained in the brief. It is not my own. Curiously, this footnote appears to be at odds with a previous report pertaining to the matter. I am unable to reconcile footnote #3 with the the statement made in the article linked in the previous sentence. As such, I am curious if the sports league plaintiffs and/or the DOJ raise this issue during oral arguments or a subsequent pleading.
Footnote #4 gets to the issue of whether PASPA confers any intellectual property right and cites the recent SCOTUS decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, 133 S. Ct. 721 (2013).
I look forward to reading the transcript of the upcoming oral argument and seeing how many of these footnoted issues are covered. My sense is that the over-under is 2.5.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Yesterday's Class Certification Hearing in O'Bannon
Steve Berkowitz of USA Today has an article this morning concerning yesterday's hearing before Judge Claudia Wilken in the O'Bannon lawsuit. Here is an excerpt:
There are some who question how it is that college athletes could possibly have a legal claim or right to the broadcast licensing revenue. Perhaps the better question is, what is it that gives the NCAA, conferences and universities the exclusive right to it? The network is the "author" (and therefore owner) of the broadcast under copyright law. The NCAA, conferences and universities receive from the networks billions of dollars and an assignment of the copyright in exchange for stadium access, and in the process they have shut the athletes out by not giving them a seat at the negotiating table with the networks. This lawsuit can be viewed as requesting or demanding a seat at the table. So what law or case precedent gives the schools the right to exclude them? What law or case precedent gives the schools the exclusive right to broadcast licensing revenue? Hint: it cannot be analogized to the professional sports leagues.
The [defendants'] lawyers also contended that various state laws and legal precedents say that athletes have no property rights for appearing in live, unscripted events – and thus have nothing that the NCAA or the schools are infringing upon when it comes to game telecasts and re-broadcasts.
That led Curtner to state that when it comes to television agreements, schools and conferences were simply "selling access" to their venues.
Wilken appeared to chuckle at the assertion, and after the hearing, Hausfeld attacked it, calling it a "significant admission or acknowledgement" by the NCAA.
"I don't know about any of the broadcasters, but I'm not sure that anyone in their right licensing mind would pay billions of dollars for an empty stadium or an empty basketball court," Hausfeld said. "You're paying for the players, you're paying for the quality of the teams that perform on those courts and in those stadiums. You want and many of the contracts require the conveyance of the name, image and likeness rights of the athletes. So I think the court understood there was a bit of foolishness in that representation."Because college athletes have never legally asserted their right to a portion of the live broadcast licensing revenue, the NCAA, conferences and universities decide on their own that they are entitled to keep 100% of the billions in annual revenues generated by simply selling to the networks access to their stadiums.
There are some who question how it is that college athletes could possibly have a legal claim or right to the broadcast licensing revenue. Perhaps the better question is, what is it that gives the NCAA, conferences and universities the exclusive right to it? The network is the "author" (and therefore owner) of the broadcast under copyright law. The NCAA, conferences and universities receive from the networks billions of dollars and an assignment of the copyright in exchange for stadium access, and in the process they have shut the athletes out by not giving them a seat at the negotiating table with the networks. This lawsuit can be viewed as requesting or demanding a seat at the table. So what law or case precedent gives the schools the right to exclude them? What law or case precedent gives the schools the exclusive right to broadcast licensing revenue? Hint: it cannot be analogized to the professional sports leagues.
Egyptian soccer matches foreshadow mass anti-government protest
By James M. Dorsey
Controversial soccer matches this weekend constitute a potential walk-up to a watershed mass anti-government demonstration on June 30 that has Egyptians of all political stripes bracing themselves for political violence and increased uncertainty
The soccer matches and mounting tension in advance of the protest are likely to be seen by militant, highly politicized, violence-prone and street battle-hardened soccer fans as an opportunity to demonstrate their sustained mettle and resolve. The fans, one of Egypt’s largest civic groups, played a key role in the toppling two years ago of President Hosni Mubarak 2.5 years ago and opposition to the military and the Muslim Brotherhood-led government since.
Concern about clashes at the matches and the protest has also sparked debate within the security forces and the military, who are widely held responsible for the deaths of some 900 protesters since the ousting of Mr. Mubarak, on how to deal with potential soccer-related violence as well as the planned protest.
The interior ministry, which controls the police and security forces, initially opposed allowing Egyptian league matches to proceed because of threats by soccer fans to storm stadiums in protest against a ban on spectators. The ministry feared that clashes with fans would add to already mounting tension in advance of June 30. In an about face however, the ministry late this week said it would permit the games to be played on Saturday and Sunday instead of on Thursday and Friday as originally scheduled.
Security forces are nevertheless bracing for renewed clashes with fans that in the past two years have left thousands injured and scores dead. Fans have been largely banned from matches ever since the league resumed in February after a year-long suspension in the wake of the deaths of 74 supporters last year in a politically loaded brawl in Port Said.
"We are giving you 48 hours; we are giving you a chance to stop suppressing and provoking us. Either we return to the stands or … you will know what will happen soon,” the Ultras White Knights (UWK), the militant support group of storied Cairo club Al Zamalek SC, warned this week in a statement.
Mr. Morsi’s Brotherhood spotlighted the importance of soccer and the role of the militant fans in football-crazy Egypt earlier this month by announcing that it would field candidates for the board elections of Zamalek and other major football teams in what many see as a bid to control the politically significant sport.
Attempts by soccer fans to gain access to stadiums this weekend could be a foretaste of what may happen on June 30, the first anniversary of Mohammed Morsi’s inauguration as Egypt’s first freely-elected post-revolt leader. Ad hoc group Tamarud (Rebel) hopes to commemorate his anniversary with a million-man march on the presidential palace. Tamarud has reportedly collected 15 million signatures, two million more than the 13 million votes the president garnered a year ago, on a petition demanding Mr. Morsi’s resignation and new elections.
The petition that a significant number of militant soccer fans are believed to have signed, takes Mr. Morsi to task for his failure to tackle the country’s economic crisis, dispel fears that he is pursuing an Islamist agenda, and his haughty style of government that many see as a continuation of Mubarak’s authoritarianism. It calls on the military and the judiciary in violation of the constitution to lead the country to new elections. Youth groups and soccer fans see Tamarud’s mobilization success and the June 30 march as an opportunity to reinvigorate their movement and launch a second revolution.
Fears of violence have been fuelled by attacks by Morsi supporters on Tamarud representatives as they publicly collected signatures on street corners and other public spaces. Supporters and opponents of Mr. Morsi clashed for hours last week in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria.
To ensure the authenticity of its petition, Tamarud has insisted that signatories identify themselves and register their identity document. Irrespective of whether or not the soccer matches and the June 30 march produce the kind of violence that could shift Egypt’s political paradigm, they indicate just how deeply divided Egypt is and the degree of lack of confidence in Mr. Morsi among a significant segment of the population.
Concern that violence could prevail was reinforced by some Islamist groups calling for counter demonstrations on June 30 as well as the expectation that soccer fans and the Black Bloc, a vigilante group founded by militant soccer enthusiasts, will act as a protective and potentially provocative force during the anti-government march. Attempts by cooler heads within Mr. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups to avert what could prove to be a game-changing outpour of anger against the government by reaching out to opposition groups have so far failed.
The mounting tension has further thrown the spotlight on Mr. Morsi’s troubled relationship with the security forces witness the interior ministry’s dithering on the soccer matches as well as an initial statement that police would stay away from the Tamarud demonstration that was later withdrawn. Security officials fear that the police, which is widely despised because of its enforcement of repression in the Mubarak era and its subsequent at times deadly clashes with protesters, will be seen as being supportive of a Morsi government it distrusts if it comes to clashes with protesters this weekend and on June 30.
Hossam Ghali, the captain of crowned Zamalek rival Al Ahli SC, reflected Egyptians’ worries about where there country is heading by deciding this week to postpone a decision on whether to extend his contract until after the June 30 march. "I'm now considering leaving Egypt because of the ongoing political turmoil, which is seriously affecting Egyptian football. It will be difficult to continue in Egypt under such circumstances," Al Ahli’s website quoted him as saying.
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
O'Bannon v. NCAA: Class Certification Hearing
I have a new article for SI.com on tomorrow's class certification that breaks down what to expect and also features research on Judge Claudia Wilken. Here is an excerpt:
Also, as the O'Bannon hearing nears, there are many in-depth stories on Sonny Vaccaro, including this one in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by J. Brady McCollough. Here's an excerpt from One-Man Rebellion:
The 63-year-old Wilken is no stranger to this case, sports law or class certification hearings. She denied the NCAA and EA's attempts to have O'Bannon's case dismissed, though she did reject several of O'Bannon's claims in the process. On balance, her pretrial rulings have favored O'Bannon.To read the rest, click here.
Wilken also presided over a recent settlement in Pecover v. EA. In that class action, consumers sued over EA's exclusive licensing deals with the NFL, NCAA and the Arena Football League. Those deals prevented rival video game publishers from releasing their own football games with real teams and players. The case was recently settled, with EA agreeing to pay $27 million into a fund that can be claimed by consumers of EA football games. The fact that the parties reached a settlement under Wilken's watch bears notice, as O'Bannon and the NCAA could ultimately do the same.
Wilken usually certifies classes. SI.com conducted an analysis of her 29 orders on class certification from 1998-2013. It found that she denied certification only six times (21 percent), while she granted certification 18 times (62 percent) and partially granted it five times (17 percent). Keep in mind, these orders concerned facts and claims mostly dissimilar from those raised by O'Bannon. Thus they may not be accurate predictors. Still, Wilken's history is a good sign for O'Bannon.
Also, as the O'Bannon hearing nears, there are many in-depth stories on Sonny Vaccaro, including this one in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by J. Brady McCollough. Here's an excerpt from One-Man Rebellion:
"Mr. Vaccaro has that Magic Johnson factor, that aura about him," O'Bannon says. "I don't know if you've met Magic Johnson, but when you talk to him and meet him face to face, you feel like you're the one person that he wants to talk to at that moment. Mr. Vaccaro has that same effect. I've always felt like, when I talk to him, I'm the most important person in his life."
* * *
As the decades passed, Vaccaro became obsessed. He couldn't stomach the NCAA's transfer rules, forcing players to sit out for a year after transferring. He railed against the NBA's age limit of 19, which forced players to play one year of college basketball. The NCAA was glad to have the most talented players on campus, even for just a season.
Vaccaro's tipping point came one day when he was watching ESPN Classic and he realized that the NCAA, by licensing the rights of the games to be re-aired on the network, was able to continue making money off the players into eternity. Vaccaro felt that players should be paid residuals anytime their likenesses were used after their careers were over.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Foul up 3?
I long have been a believer in fouling up 3 in the closing seconds. Studies suggest it is advantageous, although not statistically so, at the NBA and college levels, although some studies differ.
But with the Spurs just having blown the NBA title by not fouling in that situation (much as I believe in all things Popovich, no way they bounce back from this on the road), is the consensus on this going to change?
But with the Spurs just having blown the NBA title by not fouling in that situation (much as I believe in all things Popovich, no way they bounce back from this on the road), is the consensus on this going to change?
Ignorance of the laws (of baseball) is no excuse
There has been a lot of criticism directed at umpires for not knowing the rules. But, as this ESPN feature shows, the rules can be pretty complicated and obscure. It includes a rules quiz, one of which touches on the Infield Fly Rule (I did get that one right). I got 5 out of 10.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Iran’s New President: Averting a Popular Revolt
|
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Egypt’s Morsi turns to Syria and soccer to polish his tarnished image
President Morsi announces rupture with Syria in Cairo stadium
By James M. Dorsey
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and his flailing Muslim Brotherhood have turned to foreign policy and soccer to improve their battered image in advance of a planned mass anti-government protest at the end of this month and mounting calls for his resignation.
In a bid to distract attention from his domestic woes, curry favor with the United States and Gulf countries and restore Egypt to a leadership position in the Middle East and North Africa, Mr. Morsi chose a Cairo stadium to announce to his rallied supporters that he was cutting diplomatic ties with the regime of embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The president’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood at the same time said it would field candidates for the board elections of storied Cairo soccer club Al Zamalek SC and other major football teams. The move is an effort to gain control of clubs in a soccer-crazy country whose huge fan base played a key political role in and since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak two years ago.
The fans, one of the largest civic groups in Egypt, are likely to participate in a mass opposition Tamarod (Rebel) march on the presidential palace scheduled for June 30, the first anniversary of Mr. Morsi’s inauguration as Egypt’s first freely-elected post-revolt leader, to demand his resignation and early elections. Egyptian media report that a petition calling for Mr. Morsi’s resignation has so far attracted 15 million signatures, two million more than the 13 million votes the president garnered a year ago. A significant number of militant soccer fans are believed to be among the signatories.
Criticism of Mr. Morsi has mounted in the past year as a result of his failure to halt Egypt’s stark economic decline, his haughty leadership style that many believe harks back to Mr. Mubarak’s authoritarianism and his perceived efforts to Islamize Egyptian society.
Militant, highly politicized, well-organized and street battle-hardened soccer fans have in the last year played a key role in protests against Mr. Morsi. The conviction to death of soccer fans and perceived leniency towards security personnel in a trial earlier this year against those responsible for the death last year of 74 fans in Port Said in a politically loaded brawl sparked a popular uprising in Suez Canal cities and violent protests in Cairo.
Prominent Egyptian artists, writers, actors, filmmakers and intellectuals camped out in front of the culture ministry in Cairo to demand the resignation of Minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz because of his alleged efforts to force the arts to conform to Islamic conservatism called last week on the militant soccer fans to protect them against attacks by supporters of Mr. Morsi.
The Brotherhood’s intention to increase its influence in soccer clubs, many of which are financially troubled as the result of long suspensions sparked by Egypt’s political turmoil since 2011, is the movement’s latest effort to come to grips with the country’s most popular pastime. Brotherhood officials initially toyed with the creation of their own soccer clubs but then opted for a promise to clean the sport of corruption, including the replacement of Mubarak-era officials.
Zamalek coach Jorvan Vieira warned last month that “despite not getting their salaries, the players do their best in the matches. The management must solve the problem as I can't ask them to play while they are losing their concentration."
While Mr. Morsi’s breaking off of relations with Syria strikes a popular cord among Egyptians who are largely abhorred by Mr. Al-Assad’s brutal crackdown on his opponents, his attempt to gain control of soccer clubs risks backfiring against the backdrop of mounting calls for his resignation.
Islamists hardly endeared themselves to soccer fans by recently suggesting that their rivalries were a Zionist plot to destabilize Egypt. Al Hafiz TV, a Salafi television station critical of Morsi that promotes a return to the 7th century lifestyle of the Prophet Muhammad and his immediate successors made the insinuation by airing a video portraying an alleged ultra-Orthodox Jew as advocating the instigation of strife between various groups in Egypt, including soccer fans.
Gamal Abdallah, a member of the Brotherhood’s sports committee, announced the movement’s intention to gain control of clubs on the website of the group's political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party. "The group is considering fielding candidates or endorsing certain contenders in some posts during Zamalek's board of directors election… The group also intends to take part in all club elections in the coming period," Mr. Abdallah said.
The Brotherhood is likely to back Mortada Mansour, a lawyer and Brotherhood supporter, who is challenging incumbent Zamalek chairman Mamdouh Abbas, a wealthy businessman, in elections scheduled for September.
Militant Zamalek fans last month interrupted a news conference by sports minister El-Amry Farouk intended to announce new regulations for clubs and unveil his development plans because of his dismissal of Mr. Abbas and imposition of a temporary board in advance of the September elections. The fans have since demonstrated and blocked roads to demand the release of militants detained during the storming of the minister’s conference.
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Comments on the Redskins Nickname
The issue of the Redskins nickname seems to be hitting a boiling point right now. Here are various pieces talking about it in various contexts. I do agree with the conclusion of the last one (written as an open letter to Dan): You are going to lose this.
McCann on Slate's Hang Up and Listen
Our own Michael McCann was on Slate's sports podcast, Hang Up and Listen, talking about baseball's efforts to suspend players for PED use based on evidence provided by Tony Bosch, the former head of Biogenesis. Mike's segement starts at 17:10. Great segment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)