New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is again probing into the NFL’s hiring policies, over concerns the coaches have been asking college players about their sexual orientations. This is just three years after Schneiderman looked into the NFL for the same kind of concerning questions in 2013.

At last month’s Scouting Combine–a weeklong showcase of promising college players for coaches and other officials every February–Ohio State cornerback Eli Apple was asked by a coach for the Atlanta Falcons if he “liked men.” The coach in question, Marquand Manuel, has since apologized.

Schneiderman wrote a letter to Robert Gulliver, the Chief of Human Resources for the NFL, alerting him to these concerns. In the letter, Schneiderman points out the history that his office has had with working with the NFL over issues of sexual discrimination. He wrote:

I write today with serious concerns regarding the persistence of conduct at League-affiliated recruiting events that may violate New York State law concerning sexual orientation discrimination, and specifically regarding reports of an incident at this year’s Scouting Combine that appears nearly identical to the incident which triggered my office’s initial inquiry into the League.

The investigation that was conducted in 2013 found no specific issues but as a result the NFL put in place things like a revised player code of conduct to try to prevent sexual orientation discrimination.

Schneiderman also highlighted other issues that the NFL has had with these kinds of questions in the past. He specifically mentioned questions asked about Michael Sam, the first publicly gay player to be drafted by the NFL.

Essentially, Schneiderman’s letter focused on how questions that reference players’ sexual orientation have consistently been issues in the past, and while the NFL has taken those steps to prevent those changes, complaints keep springing up. As a result, Schneiderman is asking for the league to provide “a detailed summary of the steps that it has taken to to eliminate sexual orientation discrimination and to prevent such incidents as these from occurring since our first engagement in 2013.”

Brian McCarthy, a league spokesman, stated:

NFL players and prospective players have the right to work in a positive environment that is free from all forms of harassment, intimidation and discrimination. […] Our policies stress that clubs must ensure that our Draft-eligible players and potential signees are afforded a professional and safe NFL environment that is consistent with state and federal law and the CBA and reflects our shared commitment to diversity and inclusion, conduct and character.

While the probe didn’t really turn up anything in 2013, Schneiderman’s renewed look will hopefully keep coaches and other team officials from asking inappropriate questions moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NY AG Probes NFL Questions About Players’ Sexual Orientation appeared first on Law Street.

Greg Hardy, a defensive end for the Dallas Cowboys, is returning to the field after a four-game suspension for domestic violence. According to court records, he allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend Nicole Holder, at one point throwing her onto a futon covered in assault rifles. But now that he’s back, it’s all sunshine and rainbows for Hardy, as he made inappropriate jokes to interviewers about coming out “guns blazin,'” and commented on the attractiveness of other players’ wives in a spectacularly sexist  fashion. Hardy deserved some seriously hefty criticism for the fact that he showed no remorse for his actions, recognition that he’d done anything wrong, or respect for women. Well, he got what he deserved, as the harshest and arguably most badass criticism came from “Garbage Time” host Katie Nolan. And she totally, utterly, nailed it. Check out the video below:

Nolan has hosted the show, which airs on Fox Sports 1, since earlier this year. Playing off the title of her show, she denounced Hardy as a “garbage human,” for his behavior, as well as the NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and sports media for not speaking out about his inappropriate comments.

Nolan hits all the important points in her criticism, including but not limited to:

1. Hardy’s totally cavalier attitude.
2. The NFL’s seeming endorsement of his comments when they put them on the league’s website.
3. The Cowboys’ posting of the interview on their site.
4. The fact that a reporter asked Hardy a question about finding another player’s wife attractive instead of following up with him about the very real, important, and upsetting reasons why he was suspended.

But what hit closest to home was Nolan’s explanation of the fact that no one seems to find this problematic because the NFL doesn’t care about its female fans. She stated:

Greg Hardy had to pretend to respect women for 12 minutes — just 12 minutes — and he couldn’t even do that. And what’s worse: No one stopped him. They let him go on about girlfriends and guns, and posted video of it on DallasCowboys.com, because who f***ing cares, right? Women won’t see it. Women only care about football during those events they run where they tell them what to cook on game day and give them free manicures.

It’s a powerful statement, but more importantly, it really does seem to be true. After the controversy over Ray Rice’s suspension–also for domestic violence–last year, the NFL pledged to do better. While the NFL has taken some positive steps, including partnering with organizations that combat domestic abuse and violence and reforming some of its polices, the way that Hardy’s return to the game was handled shows that it’s clearly not enough. The NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and the reporters who interviewed Hardy could all still do way better. Many kudos to Nolan for pointing it out.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Katie Nolan Says What Everyone is Thinking About the NFL and Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Tom  Brady is officially a free man–free to play in the first four games of this year’s season, that is. Earlier today, Judge Richard M. Berman nullified the punishment that the NFL levied against Brady for his role in the famed deflategate scandal of last year’s playoffs.

Berman’s ruling was based mainly on procedural concerns. According to the decision:

The Award is premised upon several significant legal deficiencies, including (A) inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline (four-game suspension) and his alleged misconduct; (B) denial of the opportunity for Brady to examine one of two lead investigators, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash; and (C) denial of equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes.

Berman’s decision could have brought finality after a drawn out back-and-forth battle between the star Patriots’ quarterback, represented by the NFLPA, and the NFL. However the NFL is going to continue to appeal it–the case will now make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell elaborated in a written statement today:

We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today’s decision. We will appeal today’s ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. The commissioner’s responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season.

So, the NFL has now signed itself up for an even lengthier court process than it probably originally bargained for. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will assign a panel of three judges chosen from a pool of 23 once the appeal is filed. The NFL will then have to convince two or more of the three that Berman was wrong in the way that he applied the law. While that seems simple enough, it’s the waiting game that dominates appeals cases that is at issue here. A case can take up to a year to appear in front of an appeals court, which means that this whole controversy will be hanging over the NFL, the NFLPA, and Brady for quite a bit longer. If the appeal does go through, it’s unclear how Brady could actually be punished, although a suspension appears to be a possibility.

Brady will play in the first regular season game next Thursday against the Pittsburgh Steelers. So why is the NFL even bothering to appeal?  One big issue is that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent for how the NFL handles suspension–the door has now been opened for another round of scrutiny in the appeals process by the courts. That could get expensive, and mean that the threat of NFL punishment holds less weight for players because there’s a new avenue for an appeal. For example, Cowboys player Greg Hardy is apparently looking to appeal his four-game suspension for domestic violence. At the end of the day, this entire debacle doesn’t look great for the NFL, regardless of whether or not Brady was actually in the wrong and aware of the under-inflated balls.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How is DeflateGate Still Not Over?: The Next Steps for the Belabored NFL Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Fantasy football players received an early Christmas present this week, as leagues throughout the country crowned new champions following week 15 of the NFL season. For most, that present was the gift that keeps on giving: cold, hard cash. Anybody who has played in a fantasy league will tell you that these winnings are the result of hours of research, informed speculation, and hard work…or at least hard television-watching. Even those of you who don’t understand fantasy sports have still probably noticed the growing popularity of fantasy leagues. So with millions of dollars being legally exchanged this week for fantasy winnings, it’s time to re-visit the age old question: why are fantasy sports legal while most sportsbooks–places where gamblers can wager on sports–remain illegal?

The answer to this question lies in a small, perhaps capricious distinction between chance and skill. In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) which essentially outlawed online sports gambling. The law excluded most fantasy sports leagues, exempting bets with:

An outcome that reflects the relative knowledge of the participants, or their skill at physical reaction or physical manipulation (but not chance), and, in the case of a fantasy or simulation sports game, has an outcome that is determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting events, including any non-participant’s individual performances in such sporting events…

Essentially, the government created a naughty-or-nice list. If you place bets based on skill, you’re nice. If you place bets based on chance, it’s coal city for you.

Exploiting this distinction has made fantasy winners happy, and fantasy businessmen even happier. FanDuel, which specializes in daily fantasy sports matches, is projecting $40 million in 2014 revenue. Boston-based DraftKings has raised over $75 million in investments since it was founded in 2012. Clearly, the industry heads of “skill” based sports wagers are at the top of the nice list, but the ambiguous language Congress has utilized may leave room on the list for others.

Most sportsbooks typically offer their clients bets on a particular team’s outcome in a particular game. Arguably, the results of these games are determined based on home-field advantage, strength of the opponent, and the collective performance of the team. Some larger sportsbooks offer player-props, which are estimations of how a particular player will do either in a particular game, or over the course of a season. For example, if a gambler banks on Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson to catch more than 1.5 touchdowns in a specific game, he reaps a monetary reward. Sound familiar?

To New Jersey attorney Charles Humphrey, it sounded like a fantasy sports wager. That’s why in 2006, Humphrey filed an action in federal court arguing that fantasy leagues and sportsbooks were essentially the same, and that ESPN was breaking gambling laws by collecting fantasy entry fees. The District Court of New Jersey ruled against Humphrey, but chose not to tread into the murky waters of the UIGEA’s skill/chance distinction when relying on the law.

Few others have opined on whether player props are skill-based and technically legal under the UIGEA. That’s probably because it’s political. Some casinos with money and clout have set their sights higher than online player props, attempting instead to push through live-action sportsbooks in places like Monmouth, New Jersey. And seeking to compete online with the aforementioned FanDuel and DraftKings is also probably more difficult than it appears. Beyond deep pockets, those two companies belong to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association (FSTA). The FSTA is no stranger to lobbying and legal action, and although they typically argue in favor of the sports-wagering industry, don’t bet on them siding with a start-up company looking to specialize in prop bets and take a piece of their pie. After all, some of the biggest opponents of the online expansion of gambling happen to be other gamblers.

Regardless of hurdles, the valuation of a professional athlete’s performance is highly lucrative, and part of an industry that is getting bigger and bigger. It’s only a matter of time before some brave company offers player prop bets under the guise of a fantasy league. To prepare, Congress should rewrite the UIGEA’s skill/chance distinction, because the current list of who’s naughty and who’s nice doesn’t make much sense…even if you check twice.

Andrew Blancato

The post Fantasy Sports: Good Fun or Illegal Gambling? appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) made unannounced visits on Sunday to multiple National Football League teams as part of a continuing investigation. Agents investigated the San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Seattle Seahawks. This investigation was fueled by  a class action lawsuit brought against the NFL last summer.

In May 2014, the NFL painkiller lawsuit was brought by approximately 1,300 former players claiming in essence that the team doctors “intentionally, recklessly and negligently created and maintained a culture of drug misuse, substituting players’ health for profit.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that since 1969, team doctors have been supplying medications in ways that constituted a dangerous misuse, and that the doctors fraudulently concealed the dangers and side effects from players in order to keep them on the field. They believe that the NFL placed priority of profit before the health of the players. Plaintiffs claim that they have sustained severe injuries from this medical misfeasance, including but not limited to heart attacks, kidney failures, and addiction. The NFL has requested that the federal judge dismiss the suit.

Among other defenses, the NFL is likely to assert that the plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations, which is a legal device to ensure that claims are brought in an efficient matter. Specifically, these statutes set the maximum period in which a plaintiff can wait before filing a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not brought within the time frame then the right to make a claim on that matter is lost. In some instances, however, a statute of limitations can be extended, or tolled, based on a delay in discovery of the injury. This would enable the plaintiff to have an extended period beyond the statute of limitations to bring such action upon the defendants once injury is discovered, and to prevent unjust enrichment.

In California, the statute of limitations for a personal injury suit is two years. In other words, from the time the cause of action occurred–in this case the date of injury–the plaintiffs’ have two years to bring forth a lawsuit. The NFL will likely argue that the statute of limitations has expired, and bar Plaintiffs from bringing the lawsuit. Specifically, it would argue that some of the specific actions brought within the complaint date back to 1969, which far exceeds the statute of limitations.

Under the delayed discovery rule, the statute of limitations deadline is tolled and time does not start to run until the Plaintiffs’ discover, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injuries or harm and that it was caused by the wrongdoing of the defendants. The plaintiffs’ have argued just that. In their amended complaint, they claim that the statute of limitations should be tolled, on grounds that they had not discovered, and had no good reason to know of their injuries until recently. Specifically, they argue that league doctors did not reveal the names of medications, and there were poor records regarding dispensing medication. Thus, such acts constituted concealment, which ultimately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The NFL is clearly under a lot of heat at the moment. It still has the NFL Concussion Litigation going on, and the DEA’s visits last Sunday only added fuel to the fire with the current lawsuit. This case is still being heard in the northern district of California on the ruling of NFL’s motion to dismiss, but my gut tells me that there will be no dismissal. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the statute of limitations arguments play out, and more importantly, what actions are implemented within the NFL.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Painkiller Class Action Lawsuit is a Toss Up Between League and Players appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I love a good football story, but I am a little bit tired of all of the crappy ones coming out of the NFL these days. Ray Rice likes to hit women, Adrian Peterson is suspended for the remainder of the 2014 season, and now the DEA raids teams at away games.

The DEA showed up unannounced on Sunday after several games to check on the visiting teams and medical staff. The San Francisco 49ers’ staff was checked at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey after playing the New York Giants; the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ staff was checked at the Baltimore-Washington International airport after playing the Redskins; and the Seattle Seahawks confirmed via the team’s Twitter account that they were spot-checked as well after they played at Kansas City against the Chiefs.

“DEA agents are currently interviewing NFL team doctors in several locations as part of an ongoing investigation into potential violations of the (Controlled Substances Act),” Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Rusty Payne said Sunday. Of course there were also no arrests because we all know that would be plastered all over the news. Does this show that the NFL is doing what it’s supposed to be doing? Surprise, surprise the NFL might actually take something seriously when it comes to its players!

The DEA claims that the teams involved were not specifically targeted, but rather they were chosen because they were travelling and the DEA wanted to see if visiting clubs were in compliance with federal law. DEA agents requested documentation from the visiting teams’ medical staffs for any controlled substances in their possession, and for proof that doctors could practice medicine in the home team’s state.

The investigation was triggered by a lawsuit filed in May on behalf of more than 1,200 former NFL players going all the way back to 1968.

The lawsuit alleges that the NFL and its teams, physicians, and trainers acted without regard for players’ health by withholding information about injuries while at the same time handing out prescription painkillers such as Vicodin and Percocet and anti-inflammatories such as Toradol, to mask pain and minimize lost playing time.

The NFL is also trying to finalize a $765 million class-action settlement reached in August 2013 over complaints by thousands of former players that the NFL concealed the risk of concussions.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around certain lawsuits. Guys, if a team doctor is handing you drugs and you feel uncomfortable with it, why not just say no? Or get a second opinion? You do have the right to refuse treatment and see another doctor outside of the NFL world. You might have to pay for the visit yourself but I’m pretty sure you make enough to afford a visit to a doctor who will tell you the truth and let you know what you should be on. I understand that the team physicians are supposed to be there to help out the players, but let’s be honest about where the loyalty really lies. Players don’t sign those big fat checks those doctors are cashing.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DEA Raids NFL Teams After Sunday Games appeared first on Law Street.

With all the media hoopla surrounding Ray Rice’s domestic violence issues and Adrian Peterson’s child abuse controversy, the NFL diverted its attention from its previously spotlighted concussion policy. In fact, the NFL’s recent media attention to domestic violence issues threatens to expose its player health policy by subjecting it to increased scrutiny as a result of its players’ recent predicaments.

Well, the issue here isn’t domestic violence, but rather Roger Goodell’s non-partisan approach to controversial issues concerning player welfare, accentuated by the NFL’s re-emerging concussion policy. Perhaps Goodell going on this media blitz has taught him a football fundamental; keeping his eye on the ball. Read on to learn about what could become of the NFL’s newest scandal: concussion policies.

When did the NFL become conscious of the unconsciousness of its football players?

In 1994, the National Football League created a committee responsible for overseeing brain injuries to its players after a series of permanent and near-fatal neurological issues to former players. The NFL named Dr. Elliot Pellman, a doctor without any brain-injury experience, the head of its newly-formed Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee. Thirteen years later, Pellman stepped down after his highly criticized finding that returning to play after sustaining a concussion did “not involve significant risk of a second injury either in the same game or in the same season.“

Between 2008 and 2010, the bodies of twelve former professional American football players underwent post-mortem evaluations for CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), a degenerative brain-functioning disease, which contributes to suicide, apathy, memory loss, changes in behavior, and depression. The proteins developed in an NFL player’s brain are inherent to a chronic sufferer of Alzheimer’s or epilepsy. Within months the NFL faced legal action from players and responded by implementing a telephone hotline for players to call when forced to play contrary to medical opinion. Nevertheless, by 2012, after unsuccessfully trying to wiggle its way out of the media onslaught, the NFL finally admitted its role in neurological dysfunctions.

PBS Concussion Frontline: CTE occurs when repetitive head trauma begins to produce abnormal proteins in the brain known as “tau.” The tau proteins work to essentially form tangles around the brain’s blood vessels, interrupting normal functioning and eventually killing nerve cells themselves. Patients with less advanced forms of the disease can suffer from mood disorders, such as depression and bouts of rage, while those with more severe cases can experience confusion, memory loss and advanced dementia.

Richard Ellenbogen, a neurosurgeon and co-chairman of the NFL Head, Neck and Spine Committee, characterized these issues this year by saying, “The big issue in concussions is when is it safe to return a player back to the sport, or back to exercising? And the fact of the matter is we really don’t know the correct answer.”

Recently, the NFL supported its players after acknowledging its fault and changing some rules by reaching a settlement requiring the NFL to fund medical exams, concussion-related research, and litigation expenses. However, recent progress was overshadowed when a study of 79 former players yielded that 76 players were diagnosed with CTE.

What changes did the NFL implement to mitigate the consequences of playing professional football?

In light of the head-trauma class-action lawsuits targeting the NFL’s policy, one wonders whether the NFL instituted safe precautionary measures. In 2012, 261 players were diagnosed with concussions in preseason and regular-season injuries. Just a year later, CNN reported a 13 percent drop in these injuries, totaling 228 concussions. This decrease was largely attributed to the 2013 change in on-field rules prohibiting runners and defenders from lowering their heads outside of the tackle box and leading with their helmets when tackling. Additionally, the NFL moved the kickoff yard marker from 25 to 35 yards, to help curb player injuries on kickoff returns.

According to PBS Frontline, the preseason and week one games combined produced 15 concussions. The positions most prone to these injury in the past were wide receivers and cornerbacks, with safeties snatching the number three position. Currently, the NFL heads into its fifth week with 22 concussions to date.

Due to the recent uptick in concussions in light of post-football life injuries, the NFL agreed to settle its pending concussion-centered lawsuits for $765 million to 21,000 former players. Although this may seem exorbitant, the NFL’s tax exemptions and billion dollar revenue schemes amount to a $20,000 a year payout for 30 years to each player. Considering about 30 percent of all current NFL players will suffer from dementia or CTE, this amount represents a minor setback, accounting for only .05 percent of the NFL’s annual revenue.

Should the NFL be doing more to prevent concussions?

Truth is, the problem is exacerbated by us, the fans. Too often we hope for big hits and inside play-action passes giving rise to the bone-crushing plays, which provoke these devastating brain injuries. Although the NFL reduces the impact of these injuries by having doctors perform sideline evaluations and requiring a player to miss at least one play after receiving medical attention, progress has been minimal.

Recent changes in technology provide easier and cheaper alternatives that can detect concussion symptoms. One alternative, such as brain sensors in players’ helmets, can ameliorate some of the sting of future injury because they scan the brain for concussion symptoms during the game. As of now, the NFL does not include this technology in players’  helmets. Instead, the NFL relies on an unaffiliated neuro-trauma consultant (UNTC) who stands on the 25-yard line and waits for an emergency call by the team’s physician. This seems paradoxical, considering the team employs the physician who decides whether to allow the UNTC to evaluate a player. Furthermore, there aren’t any guidelines as to when the physician makes that call, which poses questions regarding the NFL’s regulatory capacity. Who regulates these physicians with unfettered discretion making these calls? Why doesn’t the independent doctor have priority, when football games are a billion-dollar, competitive enterprise?

In 2013, Matt Forte, the Chicago Bears’ running back criticized the NFL’s proposed policy and rule changes by tweeting,

“Last time I checked, football was a contact sport. Calling bank now to set up my lowering boom fund.”

Fans may not want to watch a game diluted by yellow flags, commercials, and contact alternatives. On the one hand, players should be careful, but on the other, pro-football players pull in more than ten times the salary of the average citizen; they are compensated for sacrifices to their bodies. This isn’t to suggest the NFL has not protected its players, but it raises questions as to whether the NFL has taken every step to ensure safety as its priority. Nevertheless, even if sensors are added, or rules are changed, football is football, and fans love it.

Football is inherently a physical sport. People get hurt when they play physical sports. By regulating the hits and plays giving rise to concussions, one might say that the game’s integrity is compromised. The players’ safety is pitted against fans cheering (money, television, and notoriety), which contributes to the NFL’s dilemma, because both are equipoised. The problem of mitigating concussion injuries infiltrates deeper than simply installing sensors in players’ helmets because new technology goes hand in hand with new rules, which lead to more timeouts and less action. For example, all scoring plays are now reviewed. Before, fans felt excitement in hoping their quarterback would summon his offense and snap the ball to kick the extra point.

Although recent changes seem promising because they promote player welfare, one of the biggest problems requires educating the public. Public scrutiny is unforgiving, especially when fans are unaware of why new rules are enacted. In response to public scrutiny, the NFL now provides guidelines for dealing with concussion-related injuries and measures on protecting football players.

What are the latest developments on concussion policies?

Due to the way Goodell handled the domestic violence issue, his cohorts are under the gun to produce some positive changes, especially in light of recent data exposing the NFL’s past efforts in restructuring its concussion policy. Although the NFL was blindsided in some fashion by its players’ conduct, most of which are out of its control, the NFL restructured its policy by pulling players, minimizing competitive interests, and educating the public. Moreover, the NFL’s recent changes reflect its attitude of preserving its players’ welfare. The NFL itself issued a statement last August.

Player safety is the top priority for the NFL. Since its earliest days, the league has continuously taken steps to ensure that the game is played as fairly as possible without unnecessary risk to its participants, including making changes and enhancements to game safety rules.

In recent years, the NFL has modified its playing rules to sharply reduce contact to the head and neck of players. These modifications were made separate from, and in addition to, the league’s longstanding prohibitions against helmet to helmet contact.

Conclusion 

By confronting the issue honestly, settling lawsuits, and changing rules, the NFL has progressed. But at what cost? As the leading example of football everywhere, Goodell will likely return to initiating swift rule changes. In 2007, Goodell’s policy and partial reaction to Austin Collie’s concussion was:

“Medical decisions will continue to override any competitive decisions.”

Recently, the NFL published its Return to Play Policy for concussions and the guidelines for players returning from concussions. After years of debate, it seems Goodell is poised to confront the reality that NFL play permanently injures professional players.

Although domestic violence eclipsed the concussion issue recently, teams scrambled to get in touch with their fans, implementing strategies in an effort to save the organization’s reputation. Progress was made, but the underlying health issue remains. Niles Paul reminded the public of this Thursday night, when he crashed into the ground, motionless. Although the team doctor removed him from the game and issued mandatory time off, the rowdy bar-crowd screams overshadowed his injury, clearly representing the NFL’s dilemma.

Resources

PBS: 76 of 79 Deceased NFL Players Found to Have Brain Disease

MMQB: A Tie’s a Win for the NFL

ESPN: Concussion Case Good for Ex-Cowboys

CNN: NFL Concussions Fast Facts

USA Today: NFL’s Concussion Carousel in Full Motion Week 1

PBS: League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis

ESPN: Seaus to Opt Out of Concussion Deal

Bleacher Report: Why the NFL’s Concussion Policy is Failing

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fans vs. Player Safety: The NFL’s Concussion Dilemma appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve had trouble with the Redskins name ever since I was in elementary school. I never understood why the mascot of a professional football team was just a man with some feathers on his head. You would think that if a seven-year-old kid can see the wrong in naming a team “Redskins,” then adults would too. But sadly many of them do not. So to help get my point across, for the rest of this article I will refer to them as the R*dskins.

Daniel Snyder, owner of the R*dskins since 1999, has been pressured to change the name of the team by fans, politicians, and various advocacy groups who feel that the name is derogatory to Native Americans. In May 2013, in response to a question regarding the team’s name, Snyder told USA Today, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER – you can use caps.”

Seriously?

I get that you’re from Maryland Mr.Snyder, I am too. And I get that you are a die-hard R*dskins fan, though I am not. But can you seriously not see the racism behind the name of your team?

You are literally taking a whole group of people and turning them into caricatures, and when asked to just think about changing the name to something less offensive, your response is always a loud and clear.

Now, my issue with the name of the R*dskins is not just with Daniel Snyder, it goes a lot deeper than that. My issue runs with the players, the fans, the coaches, the media, and the NFL. Any and all these people could take a stand against Snyder and the R*dskins organization and possibly make a change. But who cares about Native Americans right? We only came to their country, took their land, killed their people, and made it ours. Then to rub salt in the wounds we took a stereotypical image of a Native American and made it a mascot alongside the likes of  falcons, jaguars, ravens, bears, rams, and a ton of other animals. Is that what you see Native Americans as, R*dskins fans? Animals?

You should be ashamed

I’ve been having this argument for years and years, and I have heard the same arguments as to why the R*dskins are a nice, genuine, wholesome team who are just misunderstood. I’ve heard the, “It’s been like that for so long, it would be weird to change the name now,” excuse. Well…

Slavery was normal in America for more than 200 years. People thought it would be “weird” if we gave Black people in America the same rights as White people. Laws change, social systems crumble, but universal truths are constant. What is true and right is true and right for all.

So often when I’m having this argument I say, “What if the team was called ‘Washington Blackskins’ with a Black person wearing a do-rag?” The person is often quiet for a very long moment before replying, “It’s not the same.”

How? How is it not the exact same thing? So what is racist for Black people isn’t racist for Native Americans? That in itself sounds racist to me, and whenever someone says that to me I just simply…

spazz out.

What’s funny to me is that most R*dskins fans are Black, and you would think that they would be more sensitive to racial slurs. I am willing to bet all the money in my bank account that if the team were called the “Washington Blackskins,” there would be a march on Washington, Black religious leaders and other Black activist would be holding press conferences, and a social media campaign with a witty hash tag would be in full effect. Since the slur isn’t directed at the Black community, we don’t really seem to care.

whatever right?

To Snyder, the NFL, and all of the team’s fans, the name isn’t racist. They see it as an entity to be proud of. They’ve watched R*dskins “heroes” such as Joe Gibbs, Sean Taylor, Clinton Portis, and many more, give a good chunk of their lives to this organization. Well I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, R*dskins fans: these guys are not heroes. In fact, they played an essential part in the continuing racism that plagues America today. Also, the original owner of the team, George Marshall, was a loud and proud bigot. He was the last owner in the NFL to integrate his team, and only did so because he was forced to do so by the federal government. “We’ll start signing Negroes, when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing Whites,” Marshall once said. This is the history that makes R*dskins fans proud?

I wish i could roll my eyes further into my head.

Just because you think it isn’t offensive doesn’t mean that it actually isn’t. In fact, many Native Americans do find the name to be incredibly insulting.

• Oneida Nation has encouraged Americans to lobby the NFL in support of the name change at www.changethemascot.org.
• A group of Native Americans sued the team back in 2013 arguing against the team’s trademark rights to the name. Trademarks that are deemed racist are illegal under U.S. federal law.
• The 2,000-man protest at the 1992 Super Bowl consisted of members from various tribes (Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, Choctaw).
•  Hundreds protested at the home stadium in Landover, Md. on Thanksgiving day 2013.
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a video last year that consists of leaders from seven different tribes calling for the name to be changed, and released a new and even more powerful video showing everything that American Indians are, R*dskin not being one of them.

Thankfully they are not competely alone in their fight to get the R*dskins to change their name. There have been numerous politicians, former athletes, and plain old citizens who have helped in the conflict.

• President Barack Obama said, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”
• DC Mayor Vincent Gray said that if the team wanted to relocate from Maryland to DC they would have to consider changing their name.
• Fifty senators sent a letter to the NFL (really just Roger Goodell) saying that the NFL needs to change the name.

“The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter reads. “We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team…We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports.”

thank you… its about damn time

Native Americans aren’t cartoons. They aren’t caricatures, or mascots. They are people like you and me, and deserve to be treated with a lot more respect than we have given them over the past hundred years. Their voice may be small in America, but it can still be clearly heard, and as long as one Native American is offended by the word, I think it’s worth discussing what can be done to fix that.

So, I’m going to help out you R*dskins fans a little bit since I don’t hold grudges. Instead of the R*dskins, you could call yourselves the Pigskins! The name still has the same syllables as the original name, it’s a lot less racist, and pigs are super cute and super smart. You could even have RG3 race a pig across the field to start every game or something.

HTTP- Hail To The Pigskins!

That was just a suggestion off the top of my head, you could change it to literally anything and it would probably be better than the R*dskins. Just please for the love of god change that racist name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Past Time to Change the Racist Redskins Name. Why Aren’t You Angry? appeared first on Law Street.