Last week, the NFL issued Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott a six-game suspension for violating the NFL’s personal-conduct policy, following an investigation into domestic abuse allegations. Now the former Buckeye has filed an official appeal, hoping to discredit his accuser by highlighting a text exchange between her and a friend in which she discussed leveraging sex videos featuring her and Elliott for money from the player.

Yahoo! Sport’s Charles Robinson obtained a 160-page report prepared by NFL investigators, which reportedly contains a series of text messages between Elliott’s ex-girlfriend Tiffany Thompson and an unnamed friend that suggest the pair considered blackmailing the second-year pro for $20,000.

According to the report, here is the exact exchange between Thompson and her friend on September 21, 2016:

[Thompson]: What if I sold mine and Ezekiel’s sex videos

[Friend]: We’d all be millionaires

[Friend]: We could black mail him w that

[Thompson]: I want to bro

[Friend]: Let’s do it

[Thompson]: Scared

[Friend]: Shit

[Friend]: Id be like look give me 10k or I’ll just sell our sex videos for the same amount flat

[Friend]: Me and my friends tryna go on vacation and get boob jobs

(the report notes a pair of blank texts)

[Thompson]: 10k Bitch I want 20k

[Thompson]: Go big or go home

[Friend]: That’s fine too

“While none of this appears to be evidence that can conclusively clear Elliott of domestic violence, the NFLPA and his lawyers believe it speaks to the credibility aspect that may ultimately determine the success of his appeal,” writes Yahoo! Sports.

Elliott, 22, was accused of assaulting Thompson in Columbus, Ohio, in July 2016, after she posted images of bruises all over her body to her Instagram, tagging Elliott. In the captions, Thompson said Elliott picked her up and threw her across the room by her arms and choked her. She later called Columbus police and told officers that Elliott had been hitting her for “the past five days.”

Elliott, who was neither arrested nor charged in the case, continues to maintain his innocence.

However, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Elliott after four independent advisers concluded that there was “substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016.” The league found the “photographic and medical forensic evidence corroborates many critical elements of the allegations regarding the causes of her injuries.”

Following the release of the text messages, many were accused of shaming the victim with their responses on Twitter.

Tiffany Thompson was willing to ruin @EzekielElliott career so she and her pals could get $20K worth of boob jobs. https://t.co/QEUpT1Pk6e

— mike fisher ✭ (@fishsports) August 16, 2017

This doesn’t clear Zeke. It just tears away at her credibility. Makes me wonder how unimpressed they were with Zeke’s credibility

— Mark Friedman (@friedo1033) August 16, 2017

I see we’ve reached the “trash the victim” point in Ezekiel Elliott case. Lovely. Remember victims can behave badly, still have been abused

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) August 16, 2017

Seeing people paint Ezekiel Elliott as the victim in this situation is … something.

— Scott Bell (@ScottBellDMN) August 11, 2017

Elliott’s lawyers intend to further attack Thompson’s credibility in their appeal using documents that show she allegedly lied to the Columbus Police department during its investigation, and her various threats to “ruin his career,” including one that was racially based, according to sources. In one such threat, Thompson allegedly told Elliott on July 22, “You are a black male athlete. I’m a white girl. They are not going to believe you.”

Elliott will be eligible to make his season debut October 29 against the Washington Redskins. His appeal hearing is scheduled for August 29.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ezekiel Elliott’s Accuser Admitted to Suggesting Blackmail Over Sex Tapes appeared first on Law Street.

There was a lot going on last night during the Super Bowl. But caught up in the hysteria–somewhere between people pointing out the game’s eery similarities to this past year’s election, the Tom Brady roasting, the Tom Brady adoration, the Lady Gaga jumping gifs, and the commercials that every American loves to hate or hates to love–a ton of people donated a ton of money to various organizations and charities around the country.

Using the hashtag #AGoodGame, people took to Twitter to pledge to donate a certain amount of money every time their team scored a touchdown or a field goal.

Watching #SuperBowl w/ democracy, civil rights, & environment in mind. #AGoodGame for @ACLU @PPact @splcenter @AWIOnline @NatlParkService pic.twitter.com/SZBYScSnah

— Amber Baillon (@Vambaillon) February 5, 2017

$100 to ACLU, $50 to Planned Parenthood and $50 to Standing Rock Sioux. #AGoodGame #SuperBowl @joshgondelman Thanks for the inspiration!

— Kristen Callisto (@HaleiwaHoney) February 6, 2017

5 Brady sacks = $100 to @splcenter, & $100 to @AlbanySAFEProj to help support survivors of sexual assault and DV #AGoodGame @joshgondelman https://t.co/9Ud0OdEtAn

— Bear Brian (@Brian___H) February 6, 2017

I have paid off my #AGoodGame promise to @SavetheChildren. My math looks like this: pic.twitter.com/komMvvdQ3h

— Owen King (@OwenKingwriter) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame Donating to Boston area women’s shelter @RosiesPlace pic.twitter.com/09WfXr8T94

— Estelle Nickleby (@estenickleby) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame was started by comedian Josh Gondelman, a writer for “Last Week Tonight” and a lifelong Patriots fan, who, on Thursday, tweeted his intention to support his team while rejecting the politics of some of the organization’s members.

I’ve been a Patriots fan for my whole life but I am way off on the political spectrum from much of the organization. https://t.co/3p3oVKzwkW

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

I’d like to be able to cheer for the team I grew up loving without cheerleading the Trump administration. Is this anyone else?

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

My friend @emma_sandoe and I thought that maybe people who feel ambivalent could donate to a good cause for every Pats FG or TD.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

It seems like a practical way to do a little good without staging a (small and ineffective) boycott of the Super Bowl.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

If you have political Patriots fan ambivalence, maybe pledge a little money to a good cause when they score using the hashtag: #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

Because of Tom Brady’s garbage politics, I’m donating $100 for every Patriots TD and $50 for every FG to the @NAACP_LDF. #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

The politics of some of the members of the Patriots organization has been a running sub-plot in the NFL this season. In September, a “Make America Great Again” hat was seen in the Patriots’ superstar quarterback Tom Brady’s locker. Brady has also made comments that have quietly alluded to his support of  President Donald Trump.

In November, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was criticized for sending a letter to Trump congratulating him on a “tremendous campaign” and touting him “the ultimate competitor and fighter.”  Additionally, Patriots owner Robert Kraft has described Trump as a “a very close friend” and was seen at Trump Tower a week after the election ended.

In an interview with Esquire, Gondelman said he would have felt “weird” not acknowledging the relationship these members of the Patriots have with Trump. “I have this large social media reach, and fortunately a little money I could donate to a good cause,” Gondelman said, “So it just felt like to do that would be putting my money where my mouth is.”

While donation totals from #AGoodGame have not been collected yet, last night’s surge of generosity follows a trend that has sprung up in response to some of Trump’s policies. At the end of the weekend Trump’s polarizing travel ban took effect, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported that the ACLU had received 356,306 donations totaling over $24.1 million–five times more than the organization usually receives in a whole year. Planned Parenthood also has seen a rise in donations. According to The Atlantic, Planned Parenthood received 80,000 donations in the three days after the election.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anti-Trump Super Bowl Donation Campaign Raises Money for Various Organizations appeared first on Law Street.

When NFL player Joe McKnight was shot to death in an apparent case of road rage last Thursday, the suspect was not charged immediately, despite reportedly telling the police officers that he was the shooter. The incident caused an uproar; many drew parallels between McKnight’s shooter–a white man–and the numerous instances of white police officers or individuals killing black people. On Tuesday, almost a week later, Sheriff Newell Normand announced that he had charged Ronald Gasser with with manslaughter. He also defended the delayed arrest, explaining that the police wanted to wait until they found reliable witnesses before moving forward.

Sheriff Normand held a news conference on Tuesday in Louisiana to explain the circumstances of Gasser’s arrest. Gasser is a 54-year-old white man who had an altercation with McKnight on a bridge while they were both driving. The two men kept racing each other and shouting, driving into a New Orleans suburb, until they both came to a stop. McKnight allegedly exited his car and walked up to Gasser, who took out his gun and shot the 28-year-old football player three times. He confessed immediately when police arrived at the scene, but initially told officers that he feared for his life and that the shooting was an act of self defense. Gasser was taken into custody but released after hours of questioning.

the craziest thing about the mcknight case is it’s being treated as if the outcome should be in any sort of doubt.

— El Flaco (@bomani_jones) December 6, 2016

When he announced the arrest at the news conference on Tuesday, Sheriff Normand seemed agitated and defensive, slamming his fists on the podium repeatedly and emphasizing that the department had done nothing wrong. “This isn’t about race. Not a single witness has said… a single racial slur was uttered,” he said. Despite the lack of racial slurs, the incident could have easily been about race. But at this point, the evidence does point to a case of plain road rage.

Says they didn’t charge Gasser Thursday night bc not enough evidence & he was cooperating without atty. Got consent to search Gasser’s home.

— T.J. Quinn (@TJQuinnESPN) December 6, 2016

The sheriff read aloud some of the racist and foul-mouthed verbal attacks that he, other officers, and lawmakers have received on social media and via email for not dealing with the case fast enough. He read a few out loud that were offensive enough that MSNBC cut away from the live broadcast and apologized for the language. The sheriff said that had they made an arrest right away, witnesses might have been hesitant to come forward. They’ve now found 250 possible witnesses based on license plates placed in the surrounding area.

Gasser’s temperament is certainly at issue–he had a similar fight with another man ten years ago at the exact same intersection. In 2006, he was driving a truck, when a fellow motorist called a number printed on the side of the truck to say that the driver was driving erratically. The number actually went to Gasser’s phone. The two men got into a fight over the phone and Gasser followed the man to a gas station where he confronted him and beat him up. The only consequence for Gasser was a misdemeanor summons that was later dismissed.

McKnight played three seasons for the New York Jets and one for the Kansas City Chiefs. The Jets held a moment of silence in his honor on Monday night before playing a game in New York.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Who Allegedly Killed NFL Player Joe McKnight Charged with Manslaughter appeared first on Law Street.

The National Football League suspended a Buffalo Bills player Tuesday for violating the NFL’s substance abuse policy. Offensive tackle Seantrel Henderson was suspended for 10 games. According to what Henderson’s agent Brian Fettner said to the Associated Press, this suspension comes from the player’s use of medical marijuana to treat his Crohn’s disease

The Bills announced the league had notified them on Tuesday of their player’s suspension.

“The league has notified us of the suspension and we are moving forward with our preparations to play the Oakland Raiders this Sunday,” the Bills said in their statement.

This is Henderson’s second suspension of this year; he began the season with a four-game suspension.

Henderson was diagnosed with Crohn’s a year ago, and underwent multiple surgeries on his intestines in the previous offseason.

Disgusted at Seantrel Henderson’s suspension for treating his Crohn’s with prescribed cannabis. #NFL couldn’t care less about player health

— Jake Silver (@jakeofsilver) November 29, 2016

“The reality is, the NFL’s position has been if you need medical marijuana then you’re too sick to play,” Fettner also said. “But that’s just not the case for Seantrel Henderson.”

The NFL’s substance policy does not allow medical exemptions for marijuana use, although it does for some other banned substances.

According to Yahoo, “If he were to fail a third drug test, Henderson would be banned for life, with the ability to apply for reinstatement after a year.”

Henderson has spoken in defense of the drug previously.

“I’ve got doctors telling me this is the No. 1 medicine that would help your disease,” Henderson told The Buffalo News. “You try to tell that to the league and it seems like they didn’t care too much.”

@ZIGGY15X Thankfully @h_seantrel didn’t beat a woman or they might have tacked another game onto the 10 game suspension for mmj.

— Big Bacon Moe (@Mykl0) November 30, 2016

If Henderson chooses to, he could pursue a lawsuit against the NFL.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Bans Seantrel Henderson for Using Medical Marijuana to Treat Crohn’s Disease appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL and the NFL Players’ Association have officially added synthetic marijuana to the list of banned substances. Players will be tested for synthetic marijuana, also known as “spice,” “K2,” and “blaze,” just like any of the other nine substances on the banned list, including marijuana.

Synthetic marijuana is a growing trend in the U.S., and refers to a few different kinds of products. According to the NIH:

Synthetic cannabinoids refer to a growing number of man-made mind-altering chemicals that are either sprayed on dried, shredded plant material so they can be smoked (herbal incense) or sold as liquids to be vaporized and inhaled in e-cigarettes and other devices (liquid incense).

These chemicals are called cannabinoids because they are related to chemicals found in the marijuana plant. Because of this similarity, synthetic cannabinoids are sometimes misleadingly called ‘synthetic marijuana’ (or ‘fake weed’), and they are often marketed as ‘safe,’ legal alternatives to that drug. In fact, they may affect the brain much more powerfully than marijuana; their actual effects can be unpredictable and, in some cases, severe or even life-threatening.

Synthetic marijuana has been all over the news a lot lately–a massive group overdose on K2 in Brooklyn, New York this summer worried many observers. Thirty-three people were hospitalized in that incident. Synthetic marijuana, due to the fact that it can be produced in different formulas, is hard to render illegal. Once one particular combination is outlawed, another pops up.

There have been a couple recent instances of players behaving strangely after taking synthetic marijuana. Chandler Jones, who was on the New England Patriot’s roster at the time but was later traded to the Arizona Cardinals, was hospitalized after having a bad reaction to the drug. Derrick Coleman, who plays for the Seattle Seahawks also allegedly took synthetic marijuana before becoming involved in a hit-and-run accident.

The NFL and NFLPA also released a few other changes to the drug policies, including the rule that any drug tests in the offseason use samples that are produced no more than four hours after the players are notified. According to the Denver Post, the list of banned performance enhancing drugs now includes “growth hormone secretagogues and growth hormone-releasing hormones and peptides.”

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 Synthetic Marijuana Added to NFL’s Banned Substances List appeared first on Law Street.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Conclude Denver Broncos Player Aqib Talib Shot Himself in the Leg appeared first on Law Street.

Players on the Miami Dolphins are the latest athletes to protest police brutality by not rising during the national anthem. Last week during the season opener against the Seattle Seahawks, Arian Foster, linebacker Jelani Jenkins, receiver Kenny Stills and safety Michael Thomas knelt when the anthem was played; Foster, Stills, and Thomas also knelt today before playing the New England Patriots.

The Dolphins players were continuing a protest started by Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers. Both Kaepernick and his teammate Eric Reid took a knee during the anthem at their game earlier today. Kaepernick has discussed his inspiration for the protests a few different times, including making the following statement to NFL Media in late August:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.

Other athletes who have joined in on Kaepernick’s protest include Brandon Marshall of the Denver Broncos, and soccer player Megan Rapinoe. Rapinoe has knelt during the anthem while wearing her U.S. uniform; she is believed to be the first player in international soccer history to not stand for her nation’s anthem.

These protests haven’t come without a cost. The Dolphins will have their first home game of the year next week, and the head of the local police union has asked the police to withdraw their detail until the players stand for the anthem. Local union president Jeffery Bell told the press:

We’ve asked the deputies and the Broward Sheriff’s Office not to do the details anymore.

I respect their right to have freedom of speech. However, in certain organizations and certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech temporary while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game.

As the football season continues, supporters and critics alike will surely keep a close eye on which players protest the national anthem.

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 More Athletes Take a Knee During the National Anthem: Who Will be Next? appeared first on Law Street.

“Deflategate” is easily one of the biggest scandals to ever rock the NFL, continuously generating headlines a year and a half later. The intricacies of the controversy have become so complex, that coming this fall the University of New Hampshire’s Law School will offer a class that focuses specifically on the scandal. A legal expert for Sports Illustrated and a nationally prominent UNH law faculty professor, Michael McCann, will lead the course.

According to the class description,

The nationally publicized “Deflategate” case illustrates the power struggle that results when sports and law collide. [The course] will introduce [students] to the role the legal system plays in sports, relevant practices and applications in the field, and the journalistic methods used to fuel a scandal that has dominated the professional sports landscape since January of 2015.

It’s been 544 days since the scandal began with the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts’ AFC Championship Game. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected a request from Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to avoid a four-game suspension for his role in deflating footballs to make them easier to catch during rainy games. For now, it looks like the New England QB will be watching the games from the sidelines.

Why is this still a thing? #Deflategatepic.twitter.com/gLWWtwxGc1

— Ships Have Sailed (@ShipsHaveSailed) July 13, 2016

Click here to read Law Street Media’s previous coverage on “Deflategate.”

The federal appeals court’s decision could finally be the end to a long and embarrassing string of violations, but Brady can still ask the Supreme Court to overrule his suspension. The odds of that happening are slim though, because the Patriot’s first game takes place in less than two months.

“That would be an extremely long shot, and, of course, could not be finally resolved soon, even were the justices to hear the appeal,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

The NFL Players Association issued a statement regarding the court’s ruling to deny Brady’s request. The statement reads:

We are disappointed with the decision denying a rehearing, as there were clear violations of our collective bargaining agreement by the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell. Despite today’s result, the track record of this League office when it comes to matters of player discipline is bad for our business and bad for our game. We have a broken system that must be fixed. We will review all of our options carefully on behalf of Tom Brady and all NFL players.

Tom Brady when he heard his 4-Game Suspension was being upheld. #Deflatriots #DeflateGate https://t.co/l9b3S4hscM

— SteelersNation (@TheSteelZone) July 14, 2016

The transformation and complications of the scandal will make the law course on the topic an intriguing option for students. The scandal has transformed from cheating accusations over the air pressure in footballs, to a multi-million dollar legal battle involving the nation’s top lawyers. It has also raised questions about the powers of the commissioner and unionized employees’ right to due process in a disciplinary hearing.

“When deflated footballs dominate national headlines, it’s clear that sports have become much more than just a casual pastime in the United States,” reads the class description. “Often the real game takes place on a playing field where legal, regulatory, and journalistic systems converge on the governance of professional sports.”

The Patriots’ backup quarterback, Jimmy Garoppolo, is expected to fill in for Brady in games against the Arizona Cardinals, Miami Dolphins, Houston Texans, and Buffalo Bills. Brady would be eligible to make his regular-season debut in Week 5 against the Cleveland Browns.

Despite the team playing with a second-string player, the Patriots are still predicted to perform well this upcoming season. But during those four games, Brady is set to lose approximately $235,294 in salary.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UNH School of Law Offers Course on “Deflategate” appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Cambridge Professor: “Netflix & Chill” Is A Lie

Sorry, not sorry, says Cambridge Professor David Spiegelhalter. The expert bashed all our dreams by explaining that while it may seem like “Netflix and Chill” leads to more sex, people between the ages of 16 and 64 are actually having less sex than just a few years ago.

15 minutes into Netflix and chill and we are still watching Netflix. #notcomplaining

— The *Zack* Impact (@zackdelveaux) June 7, 2016

Speigelhalter predicts that at this rate couples in the year 2030 might not be getting down at all. The reason? Couples now spend too much time binge-watching shows. Oh what a terrible, frightful future!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 7, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Vincente Fox Apologizes to Donald Trump for Profanity

Happy #ThrowbackThursday everyone! Remember when the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, told Donald Trump in an interview with Breitbart that he would not pay for Trump’s “f****** wall”?

That was crazy. But what’s even crazier is how last night Fox tried making amends with the presumptive GOP nominee in another Breitbart interview. Later the ex-president even invited Trump to Mexico. Fox claims it was in good form of him to apologize and Trump should do the same. Others say that the apology only makes Trump stronger. So does Trump win this rant-filled feud? See for yourself:

NFL warns against hefty meat consumption in Mexico and China for athletes

Vegans and health nuts everywhere are having a field day! The NFL is warning athletes not to eat too much meat from Mexico and China. Apparently eating large quantities of meat produced in those countries can lead to a positive test result for clenbuterol–a muscle building stimulant banned by the league’s drug policy. But besides the fact that this is a total vacation damper, it raises suspicion about the possibility of tainted meat from abroad.

Starbucks introduces new frappuccino despite lawsuits

Starbucks has been in the news quite a bit this week. This week, the coffee chain announced its new frappuccino: the Caramel Waffle Cone frap, which, if I’m honest, sounds freaking delicious!

But remember how Starbucks played us all with their ice-drink ratio thievery and their overall under-filling issue? A number of lawsuits have been filed against Starbucks for profiting off these cheap tactics. I certainly will never forget the day I spent $6 on a latte and was given half a cup of milk. I swore never to shop at Starbucks again. But…I wonder if those Caramel Waffle Cone fraps are any good.

You know me when #StarbucksHappyHour FRAPS are back I am there!! Tried the NEW Caramel Waffle Cone Frap! pic.twitter.com/tpuHLPKXqt

— Sydney Sanchez (@sydneysanchez21) May 4, 2016

Los Angeles: City’s Homeless Population Increases 11 Percent in 1 Year, Officials Say

Los Angeles, the city of Angels (and many say one of the best cities in the world, second to NYC) has a major problem: homelessness. In less than a year, Los Angeles’ homeless population  increased by 11 percent. Among the most affected are veterans and, for the first time ever this year, people between the ages of 18 and 24.

Martin Shkreli: Prosecutors Say Former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Facing New Charges

To conclude our Throwback Thursday edition of RantCrush Top 5, let’s talk about Martin Shkreli. Yes, he’s back in the news. This “Pharma bro” is facing new charges, but we mostly remember him as the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who jacked up prices for an AIDS treatment by 5,000 percent overnight. He’s also the same guy who took possession of a prized WuTang Clan album and wouldn’t give it back. But today, Shkreli is facing additional charges for siphoning money from his business to relieve himself of debt at another one of his companies. Seems like everything is just one big game of Monopoly to this kid. Hopefully he’ll soon be out of the news for good.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Cinco de Mayo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Monday saw a new wrinkle in the low level scandal that seemingly won’t disappear: Deflategate. New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady will indeed serve a four game suspension for the upcoming NFL season, due to his still unclear role in using deflated footballs during the AFC Championship game in 2014, when the Patriots defeated the Indianapolis Colts 28-0.

A federal court of appeals concluded on Monday morning that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s actions last September in suspending Brady for four games was in fact within his powers, even given the collective bargaining agreement he signed with the NFL Player’s Association (NFLPA) which appealed his original dictum last September.

The latest developments drew praise from the NFL and disappointment from the NFLPA.

After Monday’s ruling, the league posted this official statement:

We are pleased the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled today that the Commissioner properly exercised his authority under the collective bargaining agreement to act in cases involving the integrity of the game. That authority has been recognized by many courts and has been expressly incorporated into every collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA for the past 40 years.

The NFLPA was less enthusiastic with the ruling, which involved a three judge panel led by U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington Parker, and stated:

“Our Union will carefully review the decision, consider all of our options and continue to fight for players’ rights and for the integrity of the game.”

The judges cited Brady’s decision to destroy his cell phone the day he was set to have an interview with an investigative team as a leading factor in their ruling.

Even Donald Trump weighed in. At his campaign rally in New Hampshire yesterday morning, he had this to say about the four time Super Bowl champ (and his frequent golf partner): “Leave Tom Brady alone!“

And although this decision can be appealed by Brady and the NFLPA, it looks like the prospect of that long and arduous process will result in a Brady-less Patriots for the first four games of the 2016 season. At least that should leave Brady with plenty of time to sneak in a few more rounds of golf with his buddy Trump.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deflategate Returns: Tom Brady to Serve Four Game Suspension to Start 2016 Season appeared first on Law Street.

Late Saturday, former New Orleans Saints defensive end Will Smith was pronounced dead after suffering multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. Smith, 34, was driving his Mercedes SUV with his wife Raquel in tow, when a minor auto accident led to an altercation that left Smith dead and his wife with 2 non-fatal gunshot wounds to her legs.

While the incident originally appeared to be a random act of road rage, details emerged throughout the week that provided a clearer picture of what happened that night. Cardell Hayes, 28, who was charged with second-degree murder in the incident, was a prep-school football star who dreamed of playing for the New Orleans Saints, according to The Daily Beast. He also reportedly had worked as a security guard for the Saints at the same time that Smith was a player. On the night of the incident, Hayes’ Hummer was rear-ended by Smith’s vehicle. The exact details of what followed are still fuzzy, but the accident allegedly led to an exchange of words between the two men that ended with Hayes shooting Smith.

Smith played for the Saints from 2004 to 2013, and played an important role in helping the team win the 2010 Super Bowl. His former teammates have expressed grief over the loss, including quarterback Drew Brees who spoke up on the high rates of gun violence and homicides in the city as a major factor.

Hayes has claimed no wrongdoing in the event; his lawyer told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that his client was “not the aggressor” in the situation. He also claimed that toxicology reports should be conducted, as they would “shed light on the behavior of some of the participants,” insinuating that Smith was possibly under the influence at the time of the alleged incident.

Hayes also claims that their prior dealings were just coincidental and had nothing to do with the killing; he allegedly didn’t even know who the victim was until the next morning.

On Wednesday, the lawyer for Hayes’ passenger, Kevin O’Neal, stated that Smith was armed that night and that Hayes’s actions “may have saved both of their lives.”  She referred to the incident as “justifiable homicide.” Police have stated that while they did find a loaded gun in Smith’s car, there was “no evidence” that it had been fired. Smith’s attorney also responded to these claims, saying that Smith did not threaten Hayes and had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

In another strange coincidence, Smith had dinner earlier that day with William Ceravolo, a police officer who had a history with Hayes. In 2005, a dispute in a Walgreens involving Haye’s father, Anthony, led to an altercation with the police that ended in officers shooting Anthony dead; Caravolo was one of the six officers involved. Hayes sued the New Orleans Police Department for his father’s death, but the officers were not charged. There is no indication at the moment that this was related to Smith’s death at all.

Photo:
Will Smith 1-hour before being shot & killed, w/Pierre Thomas & former NOPD commander Billy Ceravolo.
So sad. pic.twitter.com/PMFpRm3vOl

— Fletcher Mackel (@FletcherMackel) April 10, 2016

Until more details emerge it won’t be clear what exactly transpired that night, but this is clearly a tragic situation all around.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What Led to the Shooting Death of NFL Star Will Smith? appeared first on Law Street.

Because “deflategate” can apparently never die for Boston sports fans, Patriots fans are now suing the NFL to block one of the penalties that the league handed down. Seven irate fans want the team’s draft picks reinstated, and have filed a lawsuit in federal court to that effect.

The penalties for deflategate were highly contested from the beginning–the original decision by the league to suspend quarterback Tom Brady for four games was been put on hold by a judge and appeals are still ongoing. One of the other penalties levied by the NFL, however, was the loss of two draft picks for the Massachusetts-based team–this year’s first round draft pick, as well as 2017’s fourth round draft pick.

The suit, Orsatti v. NFL, is filed against the NFL, Roger Goddell, the NFL commissioner who has already received plenty of flak over his handling of deflategate, as well as the owner of the Patriots, Robert Kraft. While it could seem weird to sue Kraft, the man whose team is actually negatively affected by the penalty, the lawsuit claims that he didn’t do enough to fight against the revocation of the Patriots’ draft picks. It states:

Defendant Robert Kraft had remedies to attempt to get plaintiffs’ draft pick back, but he chose his fellow billionaire owners above the plaintiffs and fellow fans.

The lawsuit claims that Goddell, Kraft, and the NFL as a whole have broken a number of laws ranging from consumer protection issues to racketeering. As a result, the fans who filed the suit allege that they have experienced: “embarrassment, ridicule and depression due to the rest of the country who is jealous of the Patriots ‘piling on’ and criticizing the Patriots and their fans for being ‘cheaters.'”

However, legal experts are saying that this lawsuit probably won’t go too far. ESPN talked to Michael McCann, a sports law professor at the University of New Hampshire Law School, who pointed out that the fans bringing the suit don’t really have standing. He stated: “paying for a ticket to watch the Patriots play isn’t interfered with by the team losing a draft pick or two.” While it seems likely that we’ll continue to hear about deflategate as the legal side of the controversy continues to make its way through court, this particular case appears to be dead on arrival.

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 The Controversy That Will Never Die: Patriots Fans Sue NFL Over “Deflategate” appeared first on Law Street.

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.

As of 2015, each NFL team was worth at least $1.4 billion according to Forbes. Despite these massive valuations, three teams–the Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, and San Diego Chargers–hoped to leave their current cities and move to Los Angeles. The reasoning behind the desire to move was a yearning for a new, higher revenue stadium to play in. Each team was eager to leave its current city because of the failure of the local government to fund similar sites. This has increasingly become an issue in the NFL, as with other major sports leagues. It has even made international events like the World Cup and Olympics less appealing to host cities.

Read on to find out more about the real cost of having a hometown team, why the public keeps giving in to team demands, and how this problem has spread around the globe.

The Cost

The cost to taxpayers to renovate or build new stadiums has been enormous, particularly when it comes to America’s most popular sport, professional football. Over the last 15 years, the NFL has received $12 billion in public funds. These funds are not isolated to a few teams either, 29 of the 31 stadiums in the NFL (the two New York teams play in the same stadium) have used public financing to build new arenas. Public support for pro sports teams comes in the form of tax breaks, loans, and grants offered primarily by a city or county and occasionally the state.

Despite this funding, most cities and voters have little, if anything, to show for it. In fact, some reports suggest that using subsidies to pay for stadiums can negatively affect metrics like poverty rates and median income levels. Robert Baade, a researcher of these stadiums and their economic consequences, disputes the clear connection between the two, but his own research suggests that new stadiums almost always fall short of delivering the promised economic uptick suggested when they are funded.

Even stadium-related costs for things like renovation go to projects such as luxury boxes or seat licenses, which are not typically accessible to the casual fan or those with less disposable income. These same fans also do not see any sort of break on the cost of tickets or concessions. In fact, the only group that really seems to make out well in all this is the owners. Not only do the owners get to keep most of the revenues from the stadium, minus a very modest rent, they also pay very little in upkeep costs.

The video below goes into detail about what goes into building these stadiums:

Pay… or Else

Since most economists agree that there are very little, if any, benefits to using public funds to build these stadiums, it may be worth considering why people agree to finance them at all. Sometimes, it may simply be because the public doesn’t know about the plans. In 2013 for example, the Atlanta Braves organization agreed to move the team out of the city and into Cobb County. The move was done in secrecy and all information about the deal was kept from the public because otherwise voters could have rejected the plan.

While the Braves left Atlanta to get funds from a nearby county, the city was already building a new stadium for its NFL team as well as a practice facility for a new MLS team. This move is also unfortunate because the original stadium, which was built for the Olympics and would become the Atlanta Braves’ home, was initially financed without any public money. Making matters worse, that stadium they are so desperate to move out of is not even 20 years old.

In the recent fight for the St. Louis Rams, the court voided a law requiring a public vote to approve stadium funding only to watch the Rams leave for Los Angles anyway. But when citizens actually do get the chance to vote on how their tax dollars are spent, sports teams have mastered an invaluable tactic to keep the money flowing. That tactic is the threat of relocation, or basically taking the hometown team hostage to see if the city and the taxpayers will pay up. Once again, the Rams are not the first to use this threat or to follow through with it. The Baltimore Ravens and Indianapolis Colts, two high-profile teams that have won Super Bowls in the last 10 years, both left the cities they originally played in when their demands for new stadiums were not met.

The following video gives a lighthearted look at how teams use the threat of relocating to get new stadiums:

Case Study: The St Louis (now Los Angeles) Rams

While the Rams are clearly not the only team to move or used the threat of relocation in an attempt to leverage a city for a better stadium deal, it is the most recent. The Rams originally moved from Los Angeles in 1995, lured to St. Louis with a $250 million stadium paid for exclusively with public funds. However, as the stadium aged, Rams owner Stan Kroenke, the 63rd richest person in the United States, worth $7.6 billion, exercised an opt-out clause that let him flee St. Louis for Los Angeles and its much bigger media market.

This decision came even after St. Louis agreed to offer the Rams an additional $158 million while the new site in Inglewood, California offers no public funds at all. This may seem foolish, but as the owner of the new site–which includes amenities beyond just a football stadium–and landlord for whichever other teams play in Los Angeles, Kroenke is likely to make back his initial investment and more. Although Kroenke ultimately opted for a venue that does not utilize public funds, the Rams managed to get a remarkable offer from St. Louis. In the negotiation process, the owner, and to an extent the local government, utilized many of the classic leveraging techniques such as removing the influence of voters, threatening relocation, and ultimately following through on a threat to move.

A Global Epidemic

While NFL stadiums are the biggest and most public culprits of the stadium financing problem, there are a number of high profile examples around the globe. These often come in the form of stadiums built for the World Cup and the Olympics.

After less than two years, many of the sites for the Men’s World Cup in Brazil sit idle, barely being used. Some of the stadiums are only now being finished while others are put up for sale so that the government can make back some of its investment–an estimated $3 billion spent on building and refurbishing the facilities. Brazil is also scheduled to host the Summer Olympics in 2016, a move that comes with similar problems but on an even grander scale.

The abandonment of Olympic stadiums has also become a major issue for host countries. Facilities in places like Beijing, Seoul, Athens, and Montreal sit abandoned or are rarely used just years after costing the cities that built them hundreds of millions of dollars. This is especially disconcerting because it comes with the additional cost of hosting the Olympics. In what makes the NFL’s demands look like pocket change, the cost of the Olympics has averaged $3.6 billion from 1968 to 2010 and $16.2 billion after that. As bad as these costs are, the fact that they have an average cost overrun of 167 percent is even more concerning.

In fact, due to the ever-rising costs of holding the Olympics, many cities now are hesitant to host future events. In the run-up to the selection of the site for the 2022 Winter Olympics; Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Ukraine withdrew their bids when polls showed it would have been incredibly unpopular. Boston similarly followed suit when it withdrew its bid to host the Summer 2024 Games. Ironically, one of the best examples of a city actually repurposing one of its old Olympic stadiums comes from Atlanta where the recently abandoned Turner Field Baseball stadium was created by repurposing the 1996 Olympic Stadium. The accompanying video gives a chilling look at a number of stadiums used for the Olympics and then just abandoned:

Conclusion

Professional sports teams, like any business, are always seeking to maximize their profits and it is unrealistic to expect them to do otherwise. Even though the public usually pays a large portion of the cost for a new stadium, they rarely pay all of it. Instead, that cost is usually spread out between the owner–in the case of the NFL, all the owners by using something known as the G4 Fund. Sports leagues are not the only corporations utilizing these tax breaks and deals offered by local governments. Many companies take advantage of these opportunities and there is often less of an outcry when cities, counties, or states offer huge tax breaks to lure other organizations. While these teams and businesses may have a lot of bargaining power, the decisions to use public funds remain up to local governments, and in some cases, voters.

However, while there is certainly enough blame to spread around, only the owners of these teams or their partners tend to benefit from them. This is particularly true for NFL owners, as they not only benefit from stadiums but media deals as well. Until recently, the NFL was also considered a non-profit organization, giving it even more tax breaks.  All the public has to show for this is more debt, empty stadiums, and the knowledge that the next threat of a move could happen at any time. The situation is increasingly frustrating and begs the question: what can be done?

Unfortunately, there may not be much that cities can do. In his recent budget proposal, President Obama included a plan to end tax-free bonds for teams, but that has a long way to go before it becomes law. Other suggestions have included anti-trust lawsuits, but these too gained little traction. The ultimate problem is that there are more cities than teams, meaning the teams will always have leverage of some kind and cities are often interested in getting a new team.  The real lesson in all this is while we root for our favorite hometown teams we should remember those teams will likely only remain in our hometowns if the price is right.

Resources

Forbes: The Business of Football

City Lab: The Never-Ending Stadium Boondoggle

The Huffington Post: “Taxpayers Have Spent A ‘Staggering’ Amount of Money On NFL Stadiums

Buffalo Rising: New Stadium Prospectus: Finance-Truth, Misconceptions, and Consequences

The Wire: Voters Don’t Want to Pay for Sports Stadiums Anymore

Curbed: How Atlanta’s Stadium-Building Madness is Nothing New

WBUR: Nearly 20 Years Later, The Legacy Of Atlanta’s Olympic Venues Is Still being Written

The New York Times: In Losing the Rams, St. Louis Wins

St. Louis Business Journal: Kroenke (Stan and Ann) are some of America’s richest

The New York Times: World Cup Stadiums Leave a Troubled Legacy in Brazil

The Wire: Turner Field Is the Latest In a Long Line of Abandoned Olympic Stadiums

Business Insider: The cost of hosting the Olympics is getting out of control

Slate: How to Stop the Stadium Wars

The Atlantic: How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stadium Deals: The High Price of Your Home Team appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday, everyone! While you catch up on your Monday workload, check out the best stories from last week below:

1. Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Performance Causes Political Backlash

Until now, I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to dislike Beyoncé. Yet somehow the internet proved me wrong this week when someone created the hashtag#BoycottBeyonce to bash Bey for performing her pro-black anthem “Formation” during Sunday’s Super Bowl halftime show. Check out Alexis’s full take here.

2. Carly Fiorina Earned Money from Company that Uses Aborted Fetal Stem Cells

Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of abortion, Carly Fiorina, reportedly benefitted financially while on the board for a company producing vaccines using fetal stem cells taken from aborted fetuses, according to corporate documents obtained by Al Jazeera America. Read the full article here.

3. Should States Lower the Tampon Tax?

This week the debate over the tampon tax has made its way to my favorite state–that’s right folks, we’re back to talking about Utah again! The discussion about the feminine tax has recently come into the national spotlight as several states (including Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New Jersey) have gotten rid of taxes on feminine hygiene products altogether. This is a step in the right direction as far as stopping taxes on necessary items goes. Check it out here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL has traditionally received plenty of criticism for its handling of domestic violence–particularly when it comes to the league’s treatment of players who have committed such acts. But Super Bowl 50, tonight, will feature a moving public service announcement drawing attention to domestic violence. Check out the PSA, which appears to be aimed specifically at young people, below:

The ad was created by a non-profit called NO MORE, in partnership with an advertising agency called Grey. The NFL donated the ad time, and paid for the production costs. It features one young woman talking to another about a Super Bowl party. The invitee tells her friend that she doesn’t “think it’s a good idea” because “Jake is in one of his moods.” It ends with the party host asking her friend if she’s ok, and then the ellipses that signal that a message is being typed. But the ellipses never turn into a message, implying that something happened to the young woman whose boyfriend was “in one of his moods.”

This is actually the second year running that there has been a domestic violence PSA during the Super Bowl; last year’s main event featured a similar spot, also produced by NO MORE. A camera panned around a house where someone was attacked, with a 911 voice call as the audio part of the spot. Check it out below:

The NFL’s history with domestic violence has been a storied one, and there’s still a lot of work to be done on the part of the league. For example, the NFL came under fire once again this year for its treatment of Greg Hardy, who was suspended for only four games last year after assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Not only did many view the four-game suspension as entirely too short, but were also unhappy with the fact that he was welcomed back with open arms after his suspension. More recently, there have been allegations that Johnny Manziel, also known as “Johnny Football” threatened and assaulted his girlfriend.

So, while the NFL has done a good thing by promoting the PSAs, actions speak louder than words, and the NFL’s actions still could use some serious work.

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 NFL Takes on Domestic Violence With Super Bowl PSA appeared first on Law Street.

The St. Louis Rams recently announced that they would be leaving St. Louis, Missouri for their new (and also old, given that they played there from 1946-1994) location of Los Angeles, California. However, St. Louis isn’t just losing its NFL team, it’s also now saddled with an all-but-useless, but very expensive, football stadium.

The St. Louis Rams built the Edward Jones Dome in 1995, right after moving to St. Louis. The deal to build it was viewed as potentially problematic by many in St. Louis pretty much from its inception. It was a $280 million deal, and it included provisions that St. Louis would keep the stadium in tip-top shape: it had to be “maintained to a first-tier standard, meaning the facility must be considered among the top quarter of all NFL football facilities.” Naturally, that provision became harder to uphold as the stadium aged, and new stadiums were built.

Recently, while the stadium was still actually being used by the team, revenue didn’t even amount to enough to pay for it, meaning that taxpayers were still stuck with some of the bill. The stadium, as it currently stands Rams-less, will cost taxpayers $144 million in debt and maintenance costs. While that money won’t just fall to the people who live within the confines of St. Louis–it will be also be paid by residents of the surrounding county, as well as the state of Missouri–it’s still a pretty big price tag for a team that now plays on the other side of the country.

St. Louis politicians have attempted to do something about the cost, but likely to no avail. St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed has asked the NFL to help out with the cost, but (predictably) has not received a response, at least as of yet.

Concurrently, the Missouri Senate is trying to pass legislation that would prevent Governor Jay Nixon from issuing bonds on any sort of new stadium without a popular vote or legislature support. It would also require the same provisions for the governor to authorize any improvements to Edward Jones Dome. State Senator Rob Schaaf is sponsoring it, and stated:

We’re just requiring them to get permission that we always thought that they had to have. Who would have guessed that Gov. Nixon would interpret the law to say that they could put us into debt, with a total of payments of $415 million over 30 years, without our say-so.

That bill has created some tension within Missouri’s senate–Minority Floor Leader Joseph Keaveny, a Democrat from St. Louis, told Schaaf: “You’ve done a very good job of discouraging the NFL to stay in St. Louis; I commend you for that!”

So, St. Louis is now saddled with an expensive stadium it has to pay off, and a bunch of angry legislators trying to figure out how to prevent something like this from happening in the future–not great news for the city or state as a whole.

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 Rams Leave St. Louis, Leave Behind Debt-Saddled Stadium appeared first on Law Street.

A judge just ruled that a lawsuit brought against the Buffalo Bills by their cheerleaders–the Buffalo Jills–is allowed to move forward. The cheerleaders are suing the NFL team for better wages and work conditions. While five former cheerleaders brought the suit, the judge’s ruling means that “all Buffalo Bills cheerleaders and ambassadors since April 2008” can join. While this lawsuit is in process, the Buffalo Jills have actually been on hiatus, and haven’t appeared at any games over the last year. But the Buffalo Jills aren’t the first cheerleaders to bring a suit against the team they cheer for–in fact they’re just one more in a growing trend.

The Buffalo Jills each made $1,800 per season, despite the fact that the team takes in a total of $256 million each year. The women claim that their compensation is well below minimum wage. They also claim that they had to attend some events for which they were not paid. The team treated them as independent contractors as opposed to employees, which is how it was able to get away with such low compensation.

Another point of contention in the lawsuit was that the women were held to an incredibly strict, and seemingly inappropriate, guidebook. The book included requirements for things like personal hygiene; for example, it told the women to change their tampons “at least every four hours.” It also instructed them what kind of soap to use, stating: “Intimate areas: Never use a deodorant or chemically enhanced product. Simple nondeodorant soap will help maintain the right PH balance.” My personal favorite is the eating recommendations, which instruct: “Do not overeat bread in a formal setting.”

At the same time that this lawsuit is being allowed to move forward, New York is considering a bill called the “Cheerleaders’ Fair Pay Act.” It would extend all the “rights, benefits and protections” to the cheerleaders that the rest of the team’s employees have.

The Buffalo Jills aren’t the first group of cheerleaders to get into this kind of showdown with the team they cheer for. Other teams that have been sued by their cheerleaders include the New York Jets, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and the Oakland Raiders.

The lawsuit won’t be decided for a while, but allowing the plaintiffs to move forward together in a class-action capacity is a big step.

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 Judge Rules that Buffalo Jills Lawsuit Can Move Forward appeared first on Law Street.

Steve Montador, who played for six different NHL teams over a 13-year career, died earlier this year at the age of 35, due to undisclosed causes. An autopsy conducted seven months ago found that he had CTE, or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the same degenerative brain disorder that has led to criticism of the NFL’s head injury policies in recent years. In light of that discover, Montador’s family is now suing the NHL, claiming that the league failed to provide Montador with accurate information about the long term risks of consistent head trauma.

During Montador’s 13-year NHL career playing for the Calgary Flames, Florida Panthers, Anaheim Ducks, Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, and Chicago Blackhawks spanned a grand total of 641 regular season and playoff games. He was involved in 69 fights during his time with the NFL, and the lawsuit alleges that he sustained thousands of hits to the head. He suffered from fifteen documented concussions; including four over a three month span when he played for the Blackhawks.

One of the Montador family’s lawyers, Thomas Demetrio, stated:

The NHL still refuses to accept the fact that its game creates permanent, progressive brain damage. Instead, the NHL disingenuously gives its players a false sense of security by leading them to believe that repetitive head trauma in the NHL will not cause brain damage or resulting addiction or depression issues

CTE, which can be caused by repeated head injury, can lead to memory loss, changes in mood, and behavioral changes. However, it can only be diagnosed after someone who has it has died. It’s been associated with sports that can lead to repeated instances of head trauma, including boxing, football, stunt cheerleading, and hockey. The NFL has particularly received criticism for its handling of players’ brain injuries over the last few years. In 2013, the NFL settled a lawsuit to the tune of $756 million with over 4,500 former players and/or their families. “Concussion,” a movie about Dr. Bennet Omalu, the doctor who is credited with discovering CTE is coming out this December, reigniting concerns about the effects of repeated head trauma on NFL players.

The NHL hasn’t had quite as high profile attention placed on it as the NFL when it comes to CTE and brain injuries, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been party to lawsuits on the issue previously. A federal class action lawsuit on behalf of former players was filed in October of last year, and is still ongoing. Like Montador’s family, the players allege that the NHL didn’t keep them reasonably safe, or provide them with proper information about the dangers of repetitive brain injury.

Another attorney from the firm working on Montador’s case told the Chicago Tribune:

By burying its head in the sand on the issue of brain damage among its retired player population, the NHL is doing a disservice to the players who gave their blood, sweat and tears to the game. It is high time for the league to recognize that many former players are suffering, and the NHL should step up to take care of these men and their families. The NHL’s body count is growing — how many more players will die with CTE before something meaningful is done to help those suffering?

It’s a tough contention–we’ll have to see if the case filed by Montador’s family makes any difference.

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 Steve Montador: Family of Deceased Hockey Player Sues the NHL appeared first on Law Street.

“Concussion” is a forthcoming movie focused on the story of Dr. Bennet Omalu, who researched the effects of repeated concussions on football players. Although there’s been plenty of controversy over the movie, the first premiere was on Tuesday and some reviews are starting to trickle in. The early consensus appears to be that “Concussion” delivers a hard blow to the NFL’s continued PR issues when it comes to player safety.

Widely premiering in December and starring Will Smith, the movie centers around Omalu, a Nigerian-born forensic pathologist who was the first doctor to publish findings of CTE, or chronic traumatic encephalopath, in NFL players. CTE is a degenerative disorder that is found in people who have repetitive brain injuries, such as concussions. It can cause depression, aggression, and disorientation. Omalu discovered CTE after performing an autopsy on Pittsburgh Steelers player Mike Webster. Webster passed away at 50 after developing dementia. Omalu’s quest to bring attention to the issue and his contentious dealings with the NFL are a large part of the second half of the movie.

The film was a point of contention during the Sony hack last year, when emails revealed that Sony wanted to avoid antagonizing the NFL. In September, the New York Times released a piece that claimed that the movie has been altered to avoid doing just that. But the film’s director Peter Landesman denies those contentions, saying:

It’s almost laughable. Anybody who sees this movie knows this movie is a shot between the eyes of the NFL. Not because we’re going after the NFL. Just because the truth is our defense you know and it’s a powerful movie about human beings. It’s not a hit piece about corporate America.

This movie is set to premiere just a few months after the NFL settled a massive lawsuit with former players who suffer from CTE or other head trauma–although that settlement is still pending appeals. As a result of the class action lawsuit, former players could receive up to $5 million for their head injuries sustained while playing, and family members of players who died will also be entitled to money. All said and done, the funds paid by the NFL to former players or relatives could top $1 billion.

Additionally, the NFL is still prone to criticism for its handling of CTE and other mental and brain health issues. New research in September emphasized the risk for NFL players after conducting autopsies on 91 deceased NFL players–87 had signs of CTE.

“Concussion” will be released on Christmas Day, and although it doesn’t provide any new information about the risk of CTE when it comes to our nation’s most famous football players. Mike Freeman, NFL National Lead Writer for Bleacher Report, pointed out the magnifying glass that “Concussion” forces football fans to apply to their favorite sport, saying:

This is the best football movie ever made (and I’ve seen every one), because it does something that I like to do, which is pause and take a look around. I will go back to loving this sport, to playing fantasy football, to writing about the players, but for now, for right now, “Concussion” is causing me to look more closely at a sport we all adore.

And it isn’t pretty.

That’s hitting the nail on the head–because that closer look seems to be exactly the movie’s intention.

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 “Concussion” Movie Takes Aim at the NFL’s Player Safety Controversy 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.

“Deflategate” seems to have become the NFL scandal that won’t go away. In fact, deflategate has made it all the way to federal court. Patriots superstar quarterback Tom Brady appeared in court on Wednesday to appeal the four-game suspension the NFL deemed appropriate for his role in the scandal; now a judge is involved in the legal scuffle that has mainly been conducted behind closed doors.

Brady was suspended for four games, which was deemed an appropriate punishment for his role in the controversy involving the deflated balls used by the Patriots in the January 18 playoff game against the Indianapolis Colts. The suspension was appealed to Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner, who declined to amend it. After a lot of back-and-forth the case has made it to federal court in New York–the NFL is asking the court to uphold the suspension sentence, and the NFL Player’s Association (NFLPA) is working with Brady to ask that the suspension is vacated. The case is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, who publicly questioned both sides yesterday.

Berman appeared to doubt the NFL’s evidence that Brady was involved with the under-inflated balls–pointing out that it lacked a “smoking gun” tying the quarterback to the scandal. During Berman’s questioning to that effect, the NFL representatives did admit that they were missing direct evidence tying Brady to the deflated balls, but instead relied on circumstantial evidence mostly in the form of rather vague text messages. Berman also pointed out that the balls in question didn’t appear to give Brady any competitive advantage, given that he played better with the untouched balls in the later half of the game.

However, Berman did have some concerns about the way that Brady handled the investigation into his actions–particularly the fact that he destroyed his phone. While Brady’s team claimed that he did so in order to protect his privacy, the timing seemed a bit suspect. Brady’s lawyer acknowledged that he could have dealt with privacy concerns in a more prudent way given the circumstances. After Berman questioned both sides, there was a long, private discussion; it’s unclear how much progress was made.

At the end of the day, it does seem like timeliness will be a strong motivation for whatever deal ends up being made between Brady, the NFLPA, and the NFL. There is definitely some pressure to finish this up soon, given that regular season play, and Brady’s suspension, will begin in September. In fact, Berman himself is encouraging them to settle this quickly–if no settlement is reached, both sides will have to appear again in court. As the regular season–and the publicity and profits that go with it loom–it’s in everyone’s best interests to reach a settlement quickly.

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 Deflategate: NFL Scandal Makes it to Federal Court appeared first on Law Street.

In January, New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady attempted to laugh off “deflategate” rumors that alleged that the balls provided by the Patriots during the AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts were intentionally under inflated. Now, following the release of an official report  investigating the incident, the Super Bowl-winning QB could be facing a suspension, thanks to several incriminating text messages sent by him and two low-level Patriots employees.

In the official 243-page report investigating the potential ball tampering, investigators overseen by attorney Ted Wells concluded that:

It is more probable than not that Jim McNally (the Officials Locker Room attendant for the Patriots) and John Jastremski (an equipment assistant for the Patriots) participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referee. Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls.

Investigators also notably found no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of the Patriots’ ownership or any coaches. That includes Head Coach Bill Belichick, who was previously suspected of being complicit in the deflating scandal.

The most damning evidence from the report came in the form of text messages between Patriots employees McNally and Jastremski that allude to potential ball tampering. In one message McNally even goes as far as to refer to himself as “the deflator.”

The NFL #DeflateGate report revealed a text exchange between Jim McNally and John Jastremski http://t.co/rZ4Mx6LGOTpic.twitter.com/DDQvxEIrZa

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) May 6, 2015

In another string of messages sent between Brady and McNally after the deflategate scandal broke, Brady appears to check up on McNally and attempts to put him at ease.

Brady: You good Jonny boy?

McNally: Still nervous; so far so good though. I‟ll be alright

Brady: You didn’t do anything wrong bud.

McNally: I know; I‟ll be all good

When asked about the guilty-looking messages, both parties claimed they were discussing something else entirely, but it appears that investigators weren’t convinced by their justifications.

Now the question that’s on everyone’s mind is what will happen to Brady as a result of these findings. Sports experts have already begun to speculate that Brady will most likely be issued a two game suspension from the league, which was the same punishment initially issued last summer to Ray Rice after punching his girlfriend, now wife, in a casino elevator. However some are speculating that Brady’s suspension could end up being as much as the entire 2015 season.

According to the New York Daily News, the Patriots could also be fined, as they were following the 2007 SpyGate scandal. After those revelations, Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the National Football League, fined them $250,000, took away a first-round draft pick, and hit Belichick with his own hefty fine for running the spying operation.

Ultimately making an example out of Brady by handing out a tougher suspension would show a strong message that the league doesn’t condone cheating of any sort. The deflategate scandal not only tainted the AFC championships, but also called into question the legitimacy of the Patriots’ presence in Super Bowl XLIX and their win against the Seattle Seahawks. However, suspending Brady for an entire season might not be entirely feasible for Goodell given Brady’s popularity amongst fans and his status as one of the NFL’s greatest quarterbacks. This may end up being one of those cases where a potential loss in profits might outweigh doing what is right.

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deflategate: How Will Tom Brady Fare? appeared first on Law Street.

Aaron Hernandez was found guilty yesterday of the first-degree murder of Odin L. Lloyd. Hernandez, a former tight end for the New England Patriots, will serve life in prison without the chance of parole. The legal troubles aren’t over for Hernandez, however, as there are still two more murder charges for the former star. The high profile nature of these cases does now beg a question: how did a man with such a bright spotlight shone on him manage to keep his criminal behaviors in the dark for so long?

Hernandez’s past is often described as a troubled one. He grew up in Bristol, Connecticut, was known to run with bad crowds from time to time, and other members of his family had relatively consistent run-ins with the law. But Hernandez’s talent on the football field always seemed to propel him forward–he shattered Connecticut state records, was very successful playing as a Gator at the University of Florida, and then was a fourth-round draft pick for the New England Patriots. By the time he was arrested he’d made millions of dollars and was still young enough to have many good years in the NFL ahead of him.

He was the “pride” of his small town. But he’s also a murderer–he’s now been found guilty of shooting one man seemingly in cold blood, and it’s looking pretty likely he’ll get convicted in the 2012 murders of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado. Hernandez allegedly shot them after Abreu bumped into him in a club and caused Hernandez to spill his drink.

There are really only two possibilities for what happened here. One is that he was such a brilliant manipulator that he managed to hide his violent tendencies from those around him. The other seems unlikely, although it’s not a completely outlandish theory. Boston.com columnist Bill Speros wrote an op-ed in which he alleged that Hernandez is an undiagnosed psychopath. An interview from right after the Boston murders seems to lend at least some evidence to that theory. He joked and laughed with the media, saying that his summer was “private” but he “still had some fun.” If he did indeed murder Abreu and Furtado, the fact that he could be so callous and removed just 11 days later certainly is a concerning sign.

I think there’s a more likely scenario, however, and that’s that there were plenty of warning signs, but that they were flat out ignored because of his star status. Take an oft-cited incident when he was in Gainesville, for example. He went out with some of his former teammates, got into a dispute over a check, and ended up punching a bouncer in the face. One of his teammates on the Patriots, Tully Banta-Cain, said in 2010:

A lot of guys come into the NFL haunted by the past. Some guys overcome it and some continue to be haunted throughout their careers if they’re not able to disassociate themselves from certain people or certain atmospheres. Aaron may have fallen victim to that.

Aaron Hernandez spent his life thus far with people who were willing to look out for him because they saw promise, or because they saw that he was trying to overcome a “troubled” background. But in an atmosphere like that, it seems like he got away with a lot and those close to him let a lot of things slide.

That wouldn’t be unheard of. The Steubenville rape scandal a few years back, for example, showed an almost textbook example of many people in a small town willing to forgive horrid crimes because of who the perpetrators were.

No one will ever really know how Hernandez–a man who ostensibly could have had a very bright future–ended up as a murderer. But one thing is certain: he’s now going to pay the price.

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 Aaron Hernandez: Sheltered by His Own Talent? appeared first on Law Street.

Looks like Patriots’ Coach Bill Belichick has found himself at the center of yet another cheating scandal, this time over his balls. The NFL has found that 11 out of 12 of the New England Patriots’ game balls were under-inflated during their 45-7 victory over the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship game on Sunday.

According to ESPN, the NFL’s subsequent investigation found that the footballs were inflated two pounds per square inch below what is required by NFL regulations. This apparently went unnoticed by the referee, Walt Anderson, who checked and approved both team’s footballs a little over two hours before kickoff.

So how do under-inflated footballs provide a competitive advantage? In an interview with NPR, scientist Ainissa Ramirez, author of “Newton’s Football,” explained that it helps improve the grip. She stated:

Particularly during that game which was very rainy, it’s hard to hold the ball, it’s hard to catch the ball. So by making it a little softer, it’s easier to catch the ball.

Patriots’ Quarterback Tom Brady tried laughing off the ball-tampering allegations Monday saying, “I think I’ve heard it all at this point,” but I doubt he’s laughing now. In fact, he’s probably putting his head under the covers after a 2011 radio interview surfaced in which Brady admitted he likes deflated balls. I find it highly unlikely that Brady would not have noticed that the balls were lighter throughout the game, but there’s no way he would ever admit it.

This isn’t the first time that Belichick’s coaching methods have been under fire. In 2007 he was disciplined by the NFL for a videotaping controversy dubbed “Spygate.” He was caught recording the New York Jets’ sideline coaches’ signals during a September 9, 2007 game. He was fined the largest fine ever imposed on a coach in NFL history–a total of $500,000. The Patriots were also fined $250,000 and stripped of their 2008 first round draft picks.

The NFL is choosing not to comment at this time, so it’s yet to be determined what penalties might be imposed. It’s highly likely that the Patriots will end up being fined and lose their draft picks as well, but that will have to be determined by the NFL. So far, the Patriots are still scheduled to play the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl XLIX on February 1st.

The league should be taking this scandal very seriously. Personally, I think the Patriots should be disqualified from playing in the Super Bowl game. Even though they defeated the Colts by a landslide, cheating is cheating and this scandal threatens the integrity of the game. More fines and lost draft picks are going to be just another slap on the wrist, but taking away the chance at a championship ring will really hurt. Fans and players alike on Twitter seem just as outraged.

11 of 12 balls under-inflated can anyone spell cheating!!! #Just Saying

— Jerry Rice (@JerryRice) January 21, 2015

If you get 100% on a test and only cheat on half of it… It’s still cheating. It doesn’t matter what the score was. #Patriots

— James Rapien (@JamesRapien) January 21, 2015

Breakfast of cheating champions. #patriots cheaters pic.twitter.com/3FFAzLpw0j

— merlisa (@merlisa) January 21, 2015

However, no matter what happens, in an effort to make light of the situation we can always rely on the internet to quickly add some well-timed “balls” jokes. So before you go, enjoy this wonderful Patriots-Cialis parody video.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deflategate: Patriots Caught Deflating AFC Championship Game Footballs 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.

It’s been a few weeks since the announcement that the Ferguson grand jury would not indict Officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown to death. It’s been about a week since a Staten Island grand jury announced that Officer Daniel Pantaleo would not be indicted for the death of Eric Garner. Protests have continued in many major cities, and everyone is still talking about the injustices inherent in our judicial system. #ICan’tBreathe, a reference to Garner’s last words as he died after being put in a chokehold by Panteleo, is still trending on Twitter as I write this.

Now, celebrities are starting to get involved. A few nights ago, Kobe Bryant and other members of the Los Angeles Lakers wore “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirts before their game.

Kobe and the rest of the #Lakers wearing #ICantBreathe T-Shirts during warm ups ( pic via @lakers ) pic.twitter.com/kd2OlxrZfm

— Jeff G. (@TheSportsDude) December 10, 2014

The Lakers weren’t the first team to participate in protests. The St. Louis Rams, shortly after the Ferguson grand jury decision, walked out onto the field with their hands in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that has been a symbol of the Ferguson protests:

Rams players said they ‘absolutely’ would repeat ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture http://t.co/lxshSRD8wrpic.twitter.com/H4Z71QQWau

— Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) December 4, 2014

Rams player Davin Joseph also kept his support going by writing “I Can’t Breathe” on his shoes before a recent game:

R.I.P Eric Garner pic.twitter.com/i84grny7pR

— Davin Joseph (@DavinJoseph75) December 7, 2014

Detroit Lions player Reggie Bush also showed his support with a homemade “I Can’t Breathe” shirt:

ICYMI: Reggie Bush supports Eric Garner with message on shirt http://t.co/N6oDRFTcQD pic.twitter.com/LqMsc2eCsx — Josh Katzenstein (@jkatzenstein) December 7, 2014

It’s not just professional athletes who are showing their support; other celebrities have chosen to throw their weight around as well and bring attention to the Brown and Garner-inspired protests. Singer/songwriter John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen, a model, paid for an entire fleet of food trucks to serve protesters in Lincoln Square in New York on Sunday. 

.@johnlegend and his wife pay for a food truck to feed #EricGarner supporters at #NYC protest. http://t.co/HYLPqHTFZxpic.twitter.com/0JJqqEuIIu — Jassiel Perez (@fl_dreamer) December 8, 2014

Finally, members of Congress have shown their support. Four members have done the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture on the floor of the House of Representatives: New York Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, and Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green. 

Four Members of Congress do ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ gesture on House floor. http://t.co/EMPkdTk6otpic.twitter.com/YanQI5RzJ4 — NYDN Politics (@NYDNPolitics) December 2, 2014

Although many celebrities have made their opinions known about the lack of indictments in these cases, these athletes, celebrities, and politicians have stood out. They’re in good company–it’s only by bringing attention to these issues that we can ever hope to enact change. 

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Celebrities Weigh In 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.

Hey y’all!

I was trying really hard to keep my opinion to myself when it came to the Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and Jonathan Dwyer domestic violence cases, but I just can’t anymore.

Last night I watched as many different male commentators shared their opinions on ESPN about all things domestic violence and what the NFL should do, and then I read an article this morning that has irritated me beyond belief. Female Soccer star Hope Solo was arrested and charged with domestic violence back in June but there is little coverage of the story. The only news I found about her recently is that she set a new “record while awaiting domestic violence trial.” So Hope gets to live her life, play the sport that she loves, and silently await trial for not only causing injury to a child but also to her sister. Now reports say that she was drunk at the time, which is no excuse! No matter if you are sober, drunk, or have some crazy sleep disorder that causes you to hit someone you should not be left on a pedestal while others are ostracized for causing bodily harm to others as well.

I do not support domestic violence and I certainly have a problem with any woman who states “I don’t believe in domestic violence, but I will say: any woman who can hit a man, a man shouldn’t have to sit there and take the abuse. The abuse goes both ways.” This Ray Rice fan, only identified as Kathy, is out of her mind! No one needs to be laying a hand on anyone in a violent manner. Ever. Both men and women should be able to exercise restraint, you are adults!

Do I believe in corporal punishment? Absolutely. But there is a difference between corporal punishment and domestic violence. Domestic violence is defined as “violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.” Corporal punishment is defined as “punishment administered by an adult (as a parent or a teacher) to the body of a child ranging in severity from a slap to a spanking.”

So while Ray Rice is now an ex-NFL player, Adrian Peterson is on the NFL’s “exempt” list (what is that, like Santa’s naughty and nice list?), and who knows what will happen to Jonathan Dwyer, little miss Hope Solo was able to apologize to the public and go back to work. How is this fair? After all these years of women wanting to be treated as equals we go and do this. We allow a woman to hit not one but two people, apologize, and then go back to work and be praised for a 72nd shutout game with her national team?

Men can’t hit women or children, but apparently women can hit men, women, and children while still being able to go about their lives without being judged by the public and no actions are taken from the league she works for? Yes, her charges seem to be misdemeanors but an arrest and a trial, that is enough for me to feel the need to ostracize her and state that she should have been yanked from the league until her trial was over and resolved.

We do things differently in the south. We were all raised on the idea of getting a spanking. In fact, there may have been a time or two where my Mississippi grandmother would order me outside to the weeping willow tree to grab a switch because I had done something wrong. In all honesty I don’t remember if I ever got a whipping but the threat of it and making me pick out my switch was enough to make me not act up again. I also had a father who was a true military man through and through. I would have to say, in my eyes, my dad was a mix of John Wayne and General Patton. All he ever had to do was give a look and I knew not to do what I was about to do. That is the kind of fear we need to instill in our children today. We shouldn’t coddle them, but we also shouldn’t have to actually harm them, that fear is enough. (For me at least, until I got into my teenage years, but that’s a different story.) I love my dad but even to this day he could scare me to death with that look.

Hope needs a reality check. You don’t get to hit people — even if you’re drunk — and still have a career that influences young women all over the world. Many claim that Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer were role models to children. So is Hope. Maybe, as a parent, you should want your child’s role model to be someone in the community and not a celebrity.

Can we also remember that domestic violence is NOT just violence against women! Women beat their husbands and children, too. We can’t spend weeks talking about the male athletes charged with domestic violence like Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer without acknowledging Solo. It’s sexist and full of exclusion.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [love @ll via Flickr]

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 Men Aren’t the Only Superstar Athletes Charged with Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice has been removed from his team and suspended indefinitely by the NFL. The move came after a video surfaced of Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee in an elevator. She was knocked unconscious in the February 15 incident, and then was dragged out of the elevator. She has since married Rice, but the video just made its way into the public consciousness.

The video is below, but I do have to warn you that it’s pretty disturbing.

Now when allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced against Rice, he was originally just suspended for two games. The NFL claims that they didn’t know the full extent of the incident between Rice and Janay, now his wife. “Claim” is the important phrase there. There’s some speculation that the NFL did have access to the damning video, but at this point it’s unknown whether that’s true or not. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King, one of the most well-known sports reporters around, claimed earlier that the NFL had seen the video; he has since recanted that statement. Chris Mortenson, from ESPN, references that this video existed back in July, although he doesn’t confirm whether or not NFL or Ravens officials had seen it.

So, to sum up, we’ve known this video existed for a while. The Ravens and/or NFL officials claim they didn’t see it, despite making inquiries to the police. However, a member of the Ravens’ PR team did send an email to Deadspin, saying:

Only thing we know for sure is that police who arrested Ray and Janay and then let them leave together that night saw the video.

The meaning behind that statement isn’t hard to figure out. The Ravens were essentially saying, “Well we have no idea what happened, but he was allowed to leave with her, right guys???”

That’s pretty crappy logic, and it’s especially bad logic on which to base a punishment. Before the outcry when this video was released, the NFL gave Rice a two-game suspension. They didn’t have all the facts, they didn’t have that video, but they clearly knew it existed. So instead of waiting for the evidence, and playing it safe in the meantime, they just went ahead and arbitrarily created a punishment for him. At least that’s what they expect us to believe, and I understand why, because its certainly better than the alternative — that they knew exactly what had happened in that elevator, gave him a measly two-game punishment, and then rolled it back after their PR nightmare.

No one should be applauding the Ravens for cutting Rice, or the NFL for suspending him indefinitely. They’re doing that to, for complete lack of a better term, cover their own asses. They’re trying to hide the fact that the they either a) didn’t do their jobs and look into the incident appropriately or b) suspended him for only two games despite having seen the evidence. Either way, they do not deserve our applause.

It shouldn’t be a surprise — the NFL is, after all, a business. They’re going to do what serves them the most profit, and avoids the most bad publicity. That’s profit driven too — the worse your publicity, the more you have to pay people to handle it, the more people complain, the less satisfied your customers are. It’s similar to Donald Sterling’s situation with the NBA — they didn’t do anything until the public outcry developed.

The NFL deserves no praise for the way they’ve handled this. They did their job belatedly and poorly. Instead of applauding them for their actions over the last year, we should demand that they do it right if there is, god forbid, another incident like this.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [m01229 via Flickr]

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 Job Poorly Done: The NFL’s Handling of Ray Rice appeared first on Law Street.

Sports stadiums are great places for brawls to break out. Or fist fights, alcohol induced screaming matches, or a whole litany of other inappropriate behavior. So, in some cities with NFL teams, police are coming up with new ways to try to stem the violence. In Seattle, for example, members of the police force are going to go undercover as opposing teams’ fans. At last night’s game against Green Bay, Seattle officers planned to wander around in Packers’ garb.

Apparently this is not a new thing — officers have shown up to games a few times before dressed as opposing teams’ fans. In a post-season 49ers-Giants game last year, for example, there were undercover cops in Giants wear.

The move is an interesting and pragmatic one in a sport that has a history of fighting almost as old as the NFL itself. It’s not hard to find examples of two teams’ fans getting into it — take the nasty fight between fans of the San Diego Chargers and Dallas Cowboys last October, for example. Two groups, each wearing their teams’ jerseys, brawled in the stadium parking lot after one woman slapped a man for reasons still unknown but probably related to the game that had just let out. The fight escalated until people were hit over the head with beer bottles in a confrontation that lasted for a total of 25 minutes. In a follow up with the police after the fight, local news station NBC 7 learned that there are arrests after pretty much every Chargers home game.

The fights don’t even always happen during games that really matter. A few years ago, after a preseason game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders, two men were shot in an apparent sports-induced altercation.

It’s pretty easy to understand how football games, and other sports for that matter, can end in blows. In addition to freely flowing alcohol, there’s something about sports that can get people so completely riled up. Christian End, a professor of sports fan behavior at Xavier University, explains the phenomenon, pointing out that it’s easy to get swept up in a crowd. As End explains it, “the anonymity of large crowds can afford some fans the opportunity to act in a way that they typically wouldn’t because there’s less accountability and less fear of repercussion.”

There’s few solutions to the problem of fan violence at football games, and the ones that do exist seem entirely unlikely to be implemented. For example, given that alcohol is often fuel for these fights, it would make sense to ban alcohol at sporting events, or at the very least install some sort of drink limit. But given the huge profits made from selling alcohol at football games, I highly doubt any NFL team would ever comply.

So, here we are, with undercover cops dressed up as fans from incoming teams. Well, sort of. They’re undercover in the sense that they are not easily distinguishable as cops, but in Seattle the police are being very forthright about their plans. The operation is an attempt to deter violence in the first place — a message to Seahawks fans not to attack that jerk in the Packers shirt, because he may be able to turn around and arrest you. If it goes well, and the officers are able to respond accordingly to any violence that does break out, it’s a model that would be pretty easily implemented throughout the country at games that are high risk for confrontations. Fights will probably still happen, but hopefully some would-be brawlers will think twice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Jame and Jesse via Flickr]

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 Undercover Cops Coming to an NFL Game Near You appeared first on Law Street.

Punishments often don’t fit the crime, but cases of overly lenient or harsh sentences are especially prevalent in the world of the rich and famous. The NFL in particular has received a lot of attention for its recent punishments, as many see them to be inconsistent. While it may be true that the criminal justice system treats pro football players differently than the average American, much of the recent outrage is focused on the NFL’s internal system of discipline. Athletes in the NFL can commit the same crimes and often receive completely different punishments.

One of the most recent cases involved Ray Rice, a star running back for the Baltimore Ravens. Video cameras captured Rice beating his former fiancée, Janay Palmer, unconscious after dragging her out of an elevator. His punishment for this heinous act was recently revealed by the NFL: Rice will be suspended for two games.

If Rice were not a professional football player, his aggravated assault may have been considered a felony, punishable by up to 25 years in a Maryland state prison. Instead Rice was placed in a diversion program for first time offenders and does not face any prison time. His status as a famous athlete instead of an average Joe seems to have led to his evasion of prison time and a very lax punishment from the NFL.

To contextualize the absurdity of his recent punishment, one must look at other examples of crimes committed by NFL athletes. Another similar case that vastly juxtaposes Rice’s is that of Daryl Washington, a linebacker for the Arizona Cardinals. Washington, like Rice, assaulted his girlfriend, yet received a much harsher penalty of one year of supervised probation. He later got a one year suspension for substance abuse.

Clearly, there is no uniformity dictating the type of punishments doled out to NFL athletes. Their punishments fall at two extreme ends of a spectrum–either far too harsh or far too lenient. Punishments for drug violations in particular have proven to be one area that demonstrates the league’s use of “far too harsh” sentences. Last year, LaVon Brazill received a four game suspension for violating the league’s drug policy by reportedly smoking marijuana. Brazill recently violated this policy a second time, for which he was suspended for an entire year. His most recent punishment also prompted his release from the Colts entirely.

So, let’s compare this to Rice’s case:  Rice was given a two game suspension for beating his wife. On the other hand, Brazill’s first offense for smoking a drug that has been decriminalized or legalized in many states, yielded a suspension that was twice as long, and his second violation left him without a job. While assault and drug use are obviously very different crimes, this kind of disparity doesn’t seem to add up.

In the last year alone, at least 14 players were suspended by the NFL for either substance abuse or performance-enhancing drug use. None of the aforementioned players received less than a four-game penalty. One of them, Indianapolis Colts linebacker Robert Mathis, was suspended for four games by the league for taking a fertility drug.

There are countless more examples of confusing and disturbing punishment inconsistencies. In January 2013, a player for the Indianapolis Colts was kicked off the team after being charged with a misdemeanor simple battery. In February of 2013, Chicago player J’Marcus Webb was arrested for possession of marijuana and all charges were later dropped. The NFL said they would “look into the charges,” but did not end up doling out a punishment. In contrast, two players for the New York Jets were cut from the team for possessing small amounts of the same drug.

Fans have expressed outrage towards the inconsistency of punishments given by the NFL, yet the league maintains that its punishments are consistent. In order to establish true uniformity and ensure that punishments properly fit the crime, the NFL and its players’  association need to reevaluate their current policies and punishment guidelines. Otherwise, these all-over-the-board punishments will continue to be doled out to players committing the same or similar crimes.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Bob Marquart via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recent Suspension Reveals NFL’s Inconsistency in Punishments appeared first on Law Street.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [VJnet via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding 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.

Roger Goodell’s job may be harder than it looks. The ongoing debate over the Redskins name-change seems to have reached its apex under Goodell, and the commissioner’s decision to police illegal hits by increasing fines and penalties has left him with few fans among active players. Still, Goodell’s largest challenge may be satisfying the former players.

Last May several ex-NFL players filed suit in federal court claiming the NFL recklessly and illegally fed players painkillers as a means to keep them on the job. Several players, including ex-Bills star Marcellus Wiley have argued that the amount of painkillers consumed during his playing days left him with partial renal failure in his kidneys. Other players argue that the culture of painkiller dependence turned them into drug addicts upon leaving the league. Former lineman Ross Tucker has defended the NFL, arguing that the plaintiffs are deflecting personal responsibility and just looking for handouts from the League’s deep pockets. But most ex-players don’t feel that way, and that’s a growing problem for Roger Goodell.

While America remains fixated on the record-setting deals for young NFL stars, its often forgotten that many of its old stars are struggling, both physically and financially. The painkillers suit comes on the heels of the League’s concussion suit, another multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by former players. Retired NFL players also recently met with Congressional members to discuss the difficulties they and their caregivers have faced in retirement. Many of their issues stem from the fact that NFL contracts generally remain non-guaranteed, and players’ health benefits expire five years after defection from the League. These issues, combined with the grim reality of the neurodegenerative disease now plaguing many ex-players, have forced retirees to take their former employer to court.

Can Goodell win this game? Experts say that the suit faces numerous hurdles, like obtaining class certification and proving causation. But even if this latest suit is dismissed,  NFL retirees are not likely to go away without a fight.  The National Football League is the world’s top-grossing sports league, (which also happens to be insulated from paying income tax), and Goodell himself was paid more than $44 million as recently as 2012. At some point the NFL is going to have to share a larger part of that pie with its former players by rebooting their pensions. If not, Goodell and his League’s public image may go down faster than a Cadillac off Alligator Alley.

—

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 [Tom Woodward via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Old People Continue to Harsh NFL’s Mellow 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.

It’s no secret that many Americans feel there are too many lawsuits in this country. If you’ve ever been selected for jury duty, then you know that one of the most common questions asked before sitting on a civil case is whether or not people sue too often. The answer back to the attorney is often “yes,” not just because the panelist is seeking to avoid jury service, but because that’s the view espoused by many when reflecting on the American zeitgeist.

This sentiment is caused, or at least reinforced, by the media’s reporting of lawsuits. The headlines that make the largest waves are often based on huge, seven-digit verdicts. Laura Beth Nielsen and Aaron Beim alluded to this correlation in a recent paper claiming the courts are not as favorable to plaintiffs as the media often portrays, yet the media’s reports are what the public absorbs. Neilsen and Beim’s chief example is a Boston Globe report of an MBTA worker who was awarded a $5.5 million discrimination verdict. The verdict was later reduced by 80 percent on remittitur, an important detail the Globe did not feature as prominently as the original verdict. It seems that cases alleging discrimination in the workplace carry a stigma with the public and media.

Just as the figures of a verdict can be lost on the average American, so too can the merits of the underlying discrimination case. In 2009, former Los Angeles Clippers executive Elgin Baylor sued team owner Donald Sterling alleging racial discrimination. A jury of 12 unanimously rejected Baylor’s suit, and many called the hall of famer’s action frivolous.

Cases alleging tales of sexual discrimination are no different. This year alone, cheerleaders from three different NFL teams have sued their employers, often alleging sexual harassment among a variety of different wage claims. Knee-jerk reactions to such suits are often negative, as evidenced in the comments section of ESPN articles covering the matter.

A closer look at both situations may evoke a more tolerant response. Since his lawsuit, Elgin Baylor’s former employer has allegedly been caught on tape making racist comments against African Americans, and some former Clippers aren’t surprised by his discriminatory tendencies. Details have also emerged in the cheerleading case of the Buffalo Jills, whose employer allegedly instructed them on how to control their menstrual cycles and how to wash their “intimate areas.”

In sum, it’s never a bad idea to reserve judgment on a lawsuit that appears in the news or on TV, even one alleging discrimination. In fact, suits alleging workplace discrimination often already have safeguards in place against frivolous litigation, like the EEOC’s Right-To-Sue-Letter. But even absent an EEOC investigation, plaintiffs should be afforded a blank slate. Few things in this country are as ubiquitously opposed as prejudice and discrimination. Those who decide to sacrifice time, money, and privacy to personally combat these evils in a public court should be heard with an open mind.

____

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 [BuffaloProCheer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Rethinking Discrimination Suits in Light of Buffalo Jills, Donald Sterling appeared first on Law Street.

It seemed surreal when news broke that star NFL player Aaron Hernandez would be arrested for the mafia-style execution of local amateur football player Odin Lloyd. In the weeks following that report however, details from the case emerged that painted a very realistic image; the former New England Patriot may have actually committed murder. Ensuing news stories seemed to complete the picture of Hernandez as executioner. A motive for killing Lloyd surfaced. Rolling Stone made public his history of violence and drug abuse. But despite all the plausible connections made in the case, the prosecution was facing several hurdles in convicting the fallen football star. The murder weapon linked to the shooting has not been found and finding credible, cooperative witnesses in the trial has proved difficult for the prosecution. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts could be forced to convince a jury — using only circumstantial evidence —  that a local celebrity is guilty of murder.

This was true until recently, as the prosecution may have received a boost to its case. Last Friday, Hernandez’ alleged accomplices from the night of the murder, Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace, were indicted by a grand jury for the murder of Odin Lloyd. Ortiz and Wallace were originally charged only as accomplices, but the failure of either party to cooperate in the Commonwealth’s case against Hernandez has forced the hand of the prosecution, and likely frustrated its’ attorneys.

The indictment of Ortiz and Wallace is helpful to the prosecution because if a murder was part of a joint venture, the judge presiding over the case may instruct the jury that they may render a guilty verdict without knowing who actually pulled the trigger. Joint venture liability doesn’t make the job easy, but it does allow for conviction if the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime charged.

Now its the defendants’ attorneys who are frustrated, and for good reason. If a jury didn’t believe Carlos Ortiz’s dubious story of ‘just going along for the ride‘ prior to the indictment, it meant he could be charged as an accessory. Now, he could do life. Prosecutors can also potentially use these new indictments as negative reinforcement to get Ortiz or Wallace to cooperate against Hernandez in a 2012 murder for which the former tight end has been investigated. Either way it appears the prosecution has gained an advantage, leaving Hernandez with even fewer teammates by his side.

—

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.

Andrew Blancato

The post Hernandez Associates Charged With Murder: Big Break for Prosecution? appeared first on Law Street.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell may go down in football history as the least liked commissioner with the best intentions. His effort to deter future head injuries among players by fining violent hits has caused his approval rating with players to sink. His effort to aid the health of former players may not be sufficient, according to a federal judge. And his plan to penalize on-field use of the n-word has been called hypocritical by several journalists (here, here and here, to name a few). So why do haters gotta hate on Goodell? The first two issues have fairly intuitive answers; people don’t like paying fines, and settling decades of severe brain trauma probably requires lots of money. The last issue is a bit complicated, but it ‘s probably because taking baby steps to battle prejudice is considered by many to be aggravatingly stupid.

Goodell’s intentions seem honest enough. Last November the Fritz Pollard Alliance (FPA) — an organization that focuses on  supporting diversity in the League — approached Goodell expressing discontent at the volume of players who use the n-word in the NFL. The FPA again broached the issue with the League last month, and Goodell heeded their advice by proposing it to the NFL’s competition committee. The League is expected now to pass a rule penalizing the slur starting next season.

The move has been hailed by some members of the press, but it has also been criticized as hypocritical in light of the NFL’s much more glaring issue of bigotry: the name of the eighty-two year old NFL franchise in the District of Columbia, the Washington Redskins. The Redskins have been considered a derogatory name for decades, but the debate has gathered steam recently due to their trademark battle for the name. The ‘Skins owner, Dan Snyder, has refused to change the name, and Roger Goodell has given his steadfast support to Snyder on the issue.

Why, you ask? If Goodell’s public statements are to be believed, he genuinely believes that the term “Redskins” is more flattering than disparaging. Goodell and Snyder also seem to genuinely believe, despite the lawsuits, that the majority of American Indian tribes support their name. The other less insane argument is that renaming the near-$2 billion franchise could cost both the NFL and the team big time after all of the branding and intellectual property ramifications are considered.

Whatever Goodell’s reasoning is for supporting the Redskins, his stance is nothing new for those in similar positions. In fact, it seems like an American tradition, perhaps as sacred as football, for those of esteemed authority to get tangled in a web of hypocrisy when they’re trying to placate on the issue of tolerance. Our greatest legal minds held in a 7-to-1 vote that “separate but equal” was an equitable way to deal with racial tension and state’s rights. It took Congress 51 years to afford women the same right as minorities in the voting booth. And still some elected officials and judges find civil unions to be adequate for gays who wish to be married. Watershed moments of civil rights often come after years of slow flooding, rather than through large tidal waves. Were Goodell willing to defy this trend and force Dan Snyder’s hand, he might be able to earn the thundering applause he might like in passing the n-word penalty. But instead, the commissioner of football may have to settle for a golf clap.

—

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 [Staff Sgt. Bradley Lail, USAF via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Why the NFL’s N-Word Ban Gets a Golf Clap Instead of a Standing Ovation appeared first on Law Street.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Low-wage workers are pissed that their multimillion dollar employer pays them next to nothing while spending exorbitantly elsewhere and mooching from the same taxpayers they’re screwing. No I’m not talking about the cashiers at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart or the millions of other employees working at or below minimum wage, I’m talking about the cheering squad for the Cincinnati Bengals. Cheerleaders?! Getting paid?! I know, I know. Next thing you know, gays will want to marry and immigrant soldiers will request a path to citizenship. But these ladies actually seem to have a fair gripe, and their story may be instructive on which direction low-wage American workers are headed.

On February 11, 2014, Cincinnati Ben-Gal cheerleader Alexa Brenneman filed a class-action suit against the Bengals organization on behalf of her cheering squad, alleging that her employer violated federal and state wage laws by paying them less than the minimum wage. In her complaint (which can be read here), Ms. Brenneman argues that she made roughly $855 (or $2.85 an hour) for her work as a Ben-Gal cheerleader in 2013. That work included activities such as required practice, charity appearances, makeup clinics, and photo shoots. Ms. Brenneman also claims Ben-Gal cheerleaders received nothing for the time they spent modeling for and promoting the cheerleader calendar, and they were routinely condescended by Bengals management. The statement below, seemingly authored by Big Brother, is from the organization’s Ben-Gal Rules:

Insubordination: Webster defines this word as “not submitting to authority; disobedient.” Syn. Rebellious, mutinous, defiant. Insubordination to even the slightest degree IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED!!! You will be benched or dismissed!!!

Authority: ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUING OR QUESTIONING THE PERSON IN AUTHORITY!!!

Ms. Brenneman’s argument isn’t one of a kind. Less than a month earlier, a Raiderettes cheerleader sued the Oakland Raiders for similar wage violations. On a more temporary basis, unpaid interns and volunteers have begun organizing their class-action wage suits against movie studios, publishing moguls, and Major League Baseball.  So why all the hostility?

Beyond the inability to make ends meet, the unpaid and low paid could be upset with the massive pay inequality occurring throughout the country. Labor is becoming cheaper and more dispensable, yet ceo pay is continuing to grow, and is often due to the good fortune and political maneuvering that is not available to the average American.

The Cincinnati Bengals may exemplify this point. The Bengals are owned by Mike Brown, the prodigal son of Bengals founder and NFL mogul, Paul Brown. Mike Brown has owned the team since 1991 when he inherited responsibility upon his father’s passing. Since then, he has widely been criticized, often for poor hiring decisions and for refusing to cede management control of player personnel despite amassing one of the worst records in football during his tenure as owner.

Mike Brown is also despised for conning Hamilton County, Ohio into bankrolling a new stadium for his team. In 1995, Brown threatened to move his team to Baltimore if the county didn’t pay for a new stadium. His tactics worked. Brown, a Republican political donor, secured public financing for his new stadium, which would be paid for in part by increased sales and property taxes in Hamilton County. Paul Brown Stadium is still considered one of the costliest publicly financed stadiums in the country, while Mike Brown and his team continue to make millions.

Although the outrage among low-level Bengals workers may be palpable, things are unlikely to become more fair. Instead of increasing wages, employers often double down on the theory that interns and low-wage workers are expendable by eliminating their position entirely. Condé Nast has ended their internship program after they were sued for wage violations last June. In the world of cheerleading, six NFL teams have nixed their squads, and you can bet this number is likely to grow. Just as employers seek to avoid health care expenses, they seek to avoid costly litigation. So although the Ben-Gals squad may be victorious in their class-action lawsuits, professional cheerleaders as a whole may be the latest group of workers left with nothing to cheer about.

—

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 [Chris Breeze via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post NFL Cheerleaders Are Latest Americans Fed Up With Low Wages appeared first on Law Street.

When I hear about bullying I think of children crowded around a playground. I do not think of burly 300-pound men. Well, all of my bullying misconceptions were put to rest this week, after the increasingly odd story revolving around alleged bullying, racism and abuse on the Miami Dolphins.

Any attempt to simplify this story will go horribly astray, because the complicated web of controversy and pure weirdness keeps getting more tangled by the day. My attempt at a timeline will start with the principal players—Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito. Jonathan Martin, an offensive tackle from Stanford has stated that Richie Incognito, a guard who’d been with the team for years, harassed, threatened, and made racist remarks to him. These incidents of bullying came out after Martin left the team on October 28^th. He is currently listed on the non-football injury list and has reportedly checked into a hospital room seeking treatment for emotional distress. Incognito was suspended on November 2^nd.

The messages that Incognito sent to Martin were without a doubt incredibly offensive. The transcript of a voicemail left on Martin’s phone by Incognito was as follows:

Hey, wassup, you half n—– piece of [expletive] . . . I saw you on Twitter, you been training ten weeks. [I want to] [expletive] in your [expletive] mouth. [I’m going to] slap your [expletive] mouth. [I’m going to] slap your real mother across the face (laughter). [Expletive] you, you’re still a rookie. I’ll kill you.

When allegations first came up, the Dolphins originally claimed that they were groundless. But after they were presented with evidence and forced to acknowledge Incognito’s actions, it has come to light that according to anonymous sources, Incognito may have been told to “toughen up” Martin by the Dolphin’s leadership. Incognito still stands by his claims that he was just joking around with a teammate, and not serious about any of the things that he said to Martin. In regards to the expletive riddled voicemail cited above, Incognito stated, “when I see that voicemail, when I see those words come across the screen, I’m embarrassed by it. I’m embarrassed by my actions. But what I want people to know is, the way Jonathan and rest of the offensive line and how our teammates, how we communicate it’s vulgar. It’s not right.”

Other odd facts have come into the story: Martin has hired a lawyer, David Cornwall. Cornwall came out with a statement that claims Martin also suffered a “malicious physical attack” and endured treatment that went well beyond hazing.

Dolphin’s owner Stephen Ross has gone to the NFL and asked for an investigation into the team’s workplace condition. A special counsel will investigate. The NFL Players’ Association has stated that it is not pursuing an investigation, but will try to work with both of the players if need be.

There are also claims of other inappropriate behavior by Incognito. ABC News unearthed a police report from 2012 in which Incognito harassed a 34-year-old female volunteer at a Dolphins golf tournament.

This story has led to a number of different reactions. Dolphins team members claim  that Martin and Incognito were good friends and that they were confused when Martin made these allegations. Commentators and critics have ranged from dismayed over the culture of hazing and bullying in the NFL, to embarrassed that grown men would behave in such a way.

Unlike some past NFL scandals that have been purely about team management and playing style, for example, the Patriot’s 2007 “spygate” scandal, this has the potential to open up a national discussion on so many levels. Conversations on racism, sports culture, hazing, and management are all fair game. Clearly, all need to happen on the Miami Dolphins team.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Douglas McConnell via Flickr]

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 The Miami Dolphins Should Be Embarrassed appeared first on Law Street.

During a recent interview with the Associated Press, President Obama opined that the Redskins should consider changing the name of their $1.5 billion franchise to one that does not offend a “sizeable group of people.” He went on to state: “I don’t know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things.” I agree, wholeheartedly.  If the team name is offensive to any group of people, it should not be in existence.  I equate “redskin” to “blackface,” each being offensive monikers used to identify Native Americans and African Americans, respectively. If you look up the term “redskin” in Merriam Webster, the first words you will find are “usually offensive.”

Lanny Davis, counsel for the Redskins, responded to Obama’s remarks by pointing to a 2004 poll taken by the Annenberg Institute in which 9 out of 10 Native Americans indicated that they were not offended by the “Washington Redskins” trademark.  The Annenberg Institute polls are highly respected and considered reliable based their trade name alone. However, should we discredit the 9% of Native Americans who consider the name to be a racial slur? I doubt that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in 1999, would have ruled to revoke the Redskins’ trademark without good reason (although the decision was ultimately reversed on account of the suit not being filed within certain time parameters). At the Unity Journalists of Color convention, Roxanne Jones, an editor for ESPN Magazine, stated that in a debate over the Redskins’ name, “our Native American peers yelled back, a few of them in tears, that we were being insensitive and ignorant for not understanding that the Redskin name was hurtful and damaging to their community.”  I’m confused, did they not participate in this poll cited by Davis?

Davis drew attention to the fact that, similar to the Chicago Blackhawks, which are located in Obama’s home state, the Redskins “do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group.”  Daniel Snyder, owner of the Redskins team, is likely hesitant to change the mark because of the financial risk he may run of losing brand loyalty. And, of course, we can’t neglect the glaring reality that the team has not been performing well in the playoffs for years.  I don’t watch much football, but my Dad is a diehard Redskins’ fan – even going so far as draping himself in the gold and burgundy fleece blanket I got him for his birthday. So I’m aware that we’ve (being a Washingtonian, I feel affiliated by geography) only won one out of our last four games this season, with a win record of 42% of regular season games in the past decade. My point here is this: the value of the team is largely due to the fan base. So if the mark were changed, there is a high risk of economic damage. Yet, in a society where a team name of “Washington Honkies” would not have been given second consideration due to its disparaging effect, I cannot say I’m in any way surprised.

So is it non-offensive intent or reckless disregard of disparagement in favor of financial gain? Just because a group has lesser representation in our nation should not mean they aren’t owed the same degree of respect.

All Hail the R-words.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hail to the Coldskins appeared first on Law Street.