Oh, I would love it if the way that people are talking about 16-year-old Melissa Mayeux–an excellent French shortstop (and the first woman to be added to the MLB’s international registration list, which makes her technically eligible to be signed this week)–is how we would talk about men.

Take Yankees outfielder Garrett Jones. How ‘ridiculous’ would it be if I took his ‘supportive’ comments about Mayeux and made them about men? Let’s find out, shall we? (Brackets are where I’ve switched pronouns and other such gender-y words.)

I watched the video of [him] taking ground balls and hitting, and [he] looked really good for being 16… [He] looked good for a 16-year-old [girl]. I’m for it. If a [boy] can play up to the level and compete with [gals], I’m all for it. If [he] can compete and help the team win, why not? It’s pretty cool that [boys] are playing baseball. I didn’t know they had that in other countries, like France. So, why not? If a [boy] can compete with the [gals] and play, why not let [him] play?

Hahaha, funny, right–isn’t it so odd to talk about how surprising it is that boys might be as good as girls at something? But it is not ridiculous–it is, in fact, considered complimentary–when we talk about girls that way. When we’re shocked that girls and women are–not can be, but are–as good as men at sports. Or maybe–gasp!–even better?

Keep your compliments to yourselves, boys. I don’t want to hear that I can play if I’m as good as you. (I already know I’m better.)

And just for clarity there, Jones: were you unclear as to whether people in general play baseball in France? Or that girls are allowed to play?

Probably the second one, because you seem surprised that girls play baseball at all (though I suppose you’re right: it is “pretty cool”).

But I suppose maybe it’s not fair for me to take Jones as a proverbial straw man: he was, after all, trying to be supportive, and anyway, the problem is not limited to him.

There’s a problem in the way that most male-dominated sports-casting is discussing Mayeux: in sporting industries where women must automatically be on the defensive regarding whether or not we are “as good as” men, we are bound to get sexist reporting and commentary that is trying very hard to sound non-sexist.

Except it’s failing. Because it is evidence of a sexist industry when supportive people are referring to Mayeux as a “legitimate” shortstop (would we question a man’s legitimacy in his position?)

It is evidence of a misogynist industry when MLB Director of International Game Development Mike McClellan comments on Mayeux smoking a 91 mile-per-hour fastball that she “looked good doing it.”

It is evidence of a misogynist industry when articles rush to assure readers that Mayeux is not interested in–or (unrealistically unlikely) even aware of–breaking down gender barriers.

If she were an outspoken advocate for her right as a woman to enter the MLB, would she be considered a less “legitimate” shortstop?

In the male-dominated gaze of pro sports? Probably, yeah.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Play Ball Like a Girl! appeared first on Law Street.

Since I love baseball and it’s All Star week in the MLB, I decided that this week’s post would be about America’s favorite pastime. I could have gone the route of talking about Andrew Robert Rector, who is suing just about everybody in the baseball world for $10 million because he says announcers trash-talked him when he fell asleep at a Yankees-Red Sox game. Funny as that story is, however, everybody is talking about it. I like to be unique, and I knew there had to be a whole lot of other baseball stories out there. Lucky for you, I found some weird ones.

Just a Little Outside

If you’ve ever watched or gone to a baseball game, you know that there are a lot of balls flying around, as well as broken bat pieces and whole bats soaring through the air. And let’s not forget that a player might fall into the first few rows as he reaches over to make a spectacular catch.

If you are lucky enough to get a good seat at a major league game, you better be on guard. Even the seats warn you: watch out or you just might get hit. The bleachers at little league fields, though, usually don’t come with this warning. Elizabeth Lloyd, a New Jersey resident, probably wishes they did.

A few years ago, she was sitting at a table near a fenced bullpen when the catcher, warming up a pitcher, made an errant throw. The ball left the playing area and hit Lloyd in the face. She reacted in a totally rational manner and decided to sue the 11-year-old boy (13 by the time the suit was filed). I assume she was only trying to teach him the valuable life lesson that some people are horrible and like to do ridiculous, awful things like sue kids. I doubt he has the good sense to appreciate her help, though.

Lloyd is suing for $150,000 for her medical costs alone. Add onto this all of the money she “deserves” for her pain and suffering and what her husband expects for loss of consortium, and I really hope this kid has an extremely good allowance.

The suit claims that the boy’s throw was intentional, Lloyd was “assaulted and battered,” the throw was negligent and careless, and — I’m not making this up — the injury was caused by “inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity.” And I always thought that throwing a ball on a ball field or its practice areas was where you were supposed to play.

On top of all this, Lloyd is demanding a jury trial. I think that’s really ballsy. I certainly wouldn’t want to try to convince a whole group of people that the cute kid who was playing an innocent sport instead of being out causing mayhem in the community should be punished.

I’ve seen enough major league baseball games to know that those million dollar salaries don’t always mean perfect aim and control. I’ve seen errors that would shock even the most sports illiterate. And when these stupid errors occur, I hear announcers make the same type comment over and over.

“It’s like watching a little league game.”

“I haven’t seen that bad an error since little league.”

“He’s the best at his position in the league, but that play was straight out of little league.”

Courtesy of DEADSPIN.

That’s right, people. Little leaguers aren’t yet at that major league level of almost-but-not-quite perfect. They make a lot of errors, such as throwing a ball to a place or toward a person that they didn’t mean to throw it.

There is this thing called the “baseball rule,” which basically says you cannot sue for injuries caused by events that happen on the field because, since you know there is good risk you’ll get injured, you assume the risk when you attend. Shouldn’t this rule apply all the way down to those players who have less talent and skill than the big leaguers? I hope for the sake of this player and his family that this court thinks so.

There’s No Crying in Baseball

The problem with little league sports is that there is a lot of whining and temper tantrums involved. But since it’s a bunch of young kids playing, that is to be expected.

One such temper tantrum took place recently in California. A 14-year-old boy scored the game-winning run and, for some child-like, immature reason, he had the nerve to get excited. In his ridiculous happiness, he threw off his helmet to celebrate with his teammates and rudely threw it in the air — something every no professional player would ever do — admittedly after being told not to.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

As the helmet landed, it hit Alan Beck in the ankle, sending him into a major hissy fit. To be fair, the helmet allegedly tore his Achilles tendon, so I’d probably be a little upset, too; however, I most likely would not sue. I’m not a 14-year-old boy, though. Then again, this suer wasn’t either. He was a little bit older than the rest of the players, which is why he was coaching the team instead of playing on it.

Yep, the coach sued the player for $500,000. According to his lawyer, the coach has a case because “a guy who volunteers his time to coach should not be subjected to someone who throws a helmet in the manner that he did.” What? So what I’m hearing is that a baseball coach shouldn’t be subjected to normal baseball celebrations.

According to CBS Sports, the suit will likely be dropped for the above mentioned baseball rule, but even better, the coach said that he would simply drop the case – if the boy apologized.

The boy did what I would do in the same situation. He said no way! I wouldn’t apologize to a cry baby, either. I do hope, though, that the case is dropped before the family has to dish out any more money defending itself.

If you want to do a little research, there are a lot of these “sue little leaguers for not being perfect” cases out there. I never thought I’d have to say this, but can we all stop suing kids for ridiculous things? And happy second half of the baseball season: may your team win so long as your team is my team!

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Edwin Martinez via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post For the Love of the Game: Lawsuits and Little League appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL’s drug enforcement policy is making news again, this time because the Cleveland Browns’ only reason for existing star receiver, Josh Gordon, failed another drug test for allegedly smoking marijuana. The Browns are now likely to be without Gordon for the entire 2014-2015 season because the League’s Policy and Program for Substance Abuse (a cleverly couched title for a lengthy drug rulebook) imposes a one-year banishment from the league as the minimum penalty for stage three infractions.  Much like a judicial body, the NFL and a few other leagues have devised a lengthy program to curb drug use. Unlike a judicial body, however, the NFL is not a tax-payer funded institution entrusted to balance the punishment and rehabilitation of society. So why do they try? It probably has to do with image. Drug-using players make for poor role models, which is why the issue remains uncontentious between player unions and ownership (at least compared to wages). But with public opinion changing and player drug-use actually elevating, it’s probably time to relax the rules with regard to weed.

The League should remove marijuana from its drug policy list of controlled substances because the public doesn’t care if athletes smoke weed. A majority of Americans now support efforts to legalize marijuana, and 18 states have decriminalized non-medical marijuana possession. Will Sports Illustrated for Kids soon be posting pictures of Johnny Manziel on its cover smoking a joint? Probably not, but it’s already pretty clear that not all pictures of athletes exude professionalism.

Athletes who use marijuana also don’t hurt their game. Several athletes have admitted to smoking marijuana, even those who rely on lung capacity. If weed cost them a competitive edge and consequently money, why would they continue to smoke?

League drug policies aren’t curbing drug use either. In 2000, marijuana use among NBA players was reported to be small. Now, reports have used the word ubiquitous to describe the prevalence of smoking pot. The drug’s popularity is likely what prompted Arizona Cardinals cornerback Antonio Cromartie to exclaim that penalizing the drug serves no punitive function. Besides, leagues that haven’t penalized marijuana use, such as the NHL, have remained competitive and are not yet overrun with Jeffrey Lebowskis on ice.

Clearly, it’s high time (couldn’t resist!) to change the rules.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Erik Drost via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Enough with the Draconian Rules on Pot, Man appeared first on Law Street.

Arbitrator Fredric Horowitz and his panel issued an arbitration decision on January 11 resulting in Alex Rodriguez’s suspension for the entire 2014 Major League Baseball season.  A-Rod vowed to appeal the decision in Federal Court, but what some may not know is that the beleaguered slugger already has a pending case against MLB regarding his steroid feud.

Rodriguez vs. MLB, Allan Huber “Bud” Selig was filed on November 26, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York following its removal from State Court by MLB. The Complaint alleges that Commissioner Bud Selig and other MLB officials have engaged in a systematic campaign of tortious interference in A-Rod’s existing business contracts and prospective business relationships. Specifically, A-Rod is alleging that MLB:

• Obtained evidence against A-Rod by filing a sham lawsuit to commandeer subpoena power.
• Leaked false stories to the press concerning A-Rod’s performance-enhancing drug (PED) use.
• Bribed witnesses with more than $200,000 to cooperate with their case.
• Impersonated security officers and threatened former ballplayers to receive testimony.

The case may not be a slam dunk for A-Rod, but it surely has a better chance of succeeding than his appeal of Horowitz’s arbitration decision. After all, A-Rod’s attorneys at Reed Smith LLP haven’t been the only detractors of MLB’s media blitz against A-Rod. But if the evidence against A-Rod was procured illegally and the conduct of MLB was malicious, why did the arbitration panel roundly rule in their favor? It’s possible that the panel was not concerned with the issue. On pages 27 and 28 of the arbitration decision, Horowitz noted that the panel would not rule on the alleged breaches of confidentiality and they did not have any power to enjoin third parties from breaching provisions of MLB’s Joint Drug Agreement (the arbitration decision, along with A-Rod’s appeal, can be found here). Considering Tony Bosch, MLB’s main witness, testified in the arbitration hearings, Horowitz may not have needed to consider the implications concerning other bribed witnesses.

Regardless of the outcome, the pending litigation should be interesting. The arbitration process had its fair share of fireworks, and if it goes to trial, his tortious interference case could be the grand finale.

Click here to read A-Rod’s Complaint.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post What About A-Rod’s Other Lawsuit? appeared first on Law Street.

The MLB’s recent 65-game suspension of Ryan Braun has several important legal repercussions for both the league and the players involved in the Biogenesis scandal.  Although Braun will most likely avoid any criminal charges regarding the purchase of performance-enhancing drugs, it is important to note that the distribution, sale and use of illegal performance-enhancing substances is against federal drug trafficking and distribution laws.  In order to prevent such charges Braun will most likely refuse to answer questions about his statement of admission until after the statute of limitations passes.

Braun also faces the possibility of a defamation lawsuit from Dino Laurenzi Jr., the collector of his positive drug test in 2012, whom he publicly attacked after the test.  Braun stated that the testing process “broke down,” and that after the fact he “learned a lot of things” about his collector.  Despite Braun’s claims, evidence suggest that Laurenzi was following proper protocol throughout the test.  While Laurenzi may have some ground for a lawsuit, filing one would likely fail, as Braun never directly mentioned Laurenzi by name nor did he specify the “things” that he claimed to have learned about him.

Another important question concerns the Brewers’ ability to void Braun’s contract in light of his recent suspension and potentially contract-breaching actions.  According to his contract, Braun is entitled to $133 million over the next eight years as dictated by his 2011 extension.  Although he has been one of the best players in the league, the question of how much he benefited from performance-enhancing drugs remains.  The Uniform Player contract permits termination in the event a player “fails, refuses or neglects to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship,” which could easily be proven by his admission.  The primary obstacle that the Brewers face is the historic difficulty that teams have had trying to void contracts, sometimes with even more serious offenses.  As a result, they may decide to simply buy Braun out of his contract to save money rather than to void it altogether.

Lastly, Braun’s actions may have important implications for other players connected with the Biogenesis scandal, notably Alex Rodriguez.  Biogenesis director Tony Bosch has recently started cooperating with the MLB’s attorneys; however, his credibility may be harmed due to the league’s portrayal of him as a drug dealer in their lawsuit against the company.  Additionally, many argue that although Braun accepted his suspension without challenge, doing so does not create a precedent for the other players involved.

Although it has not stopped speculation, much remains to be interpreted by independent arbiters before penalties can be determined for related cases.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Paluch via Wikimedia Commons]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legal Consequences of Ryan Braun’s Suspension appeared first on Law Street.