Why Lance will be just fine

Last week, just after Lance Armstrong announced that he would not contest the USADA proceedings, I did a radio interview in which the interviewer relayed the comments of a marketing expert who suggested that Armstrong was done as spokesman, fundraiser, and endorser. I disagreed, saying (consistent with similar arguments made elsewhere) that Lance would benefit from not participating in the proceeding; he would argue that the proceedings were biased and illegitimate, that he was the wronged party and justified in not participating (and thus giving USADA legitimacy), and that he remains a clean champion cyclist.

Case in point: Armstrong's speech yesterday to the World Cancer Congress, which he began as follows: "My name is Lance Armstrong. I am a cancer survivor . . .  I'm a father of five. And yes, I won the Tour de France seven times." Combined with reports that Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation saw a dramatic uptick in donations last week, it looks like, at least in the short term, my instinct was right--Armstrong is going to come through this just fine.

PEGs: Performance Enhancing Gloves

Researchers at Stanford, led by two biologists, are close to having a commercially viable cooling glove, a device designed to cool core body temperature by cooling blood in particular veins in the palm that are devoted to temperature regulation. (H/T: My colleague Tracy Hresko Pearl).

The research team also discovered that the glove carries athletic benefits. Cooling the body also cools muscles. Muscle fatigue, it has been found, is a product of the temperature in the muscle getting too high (something to do with a chemical enzyme); by cooling the muscles, the glove essentially resets the state of muscle fatigue, allowing an athlete to start over. In a six-week period, one member of the team went from doing 180 pull-ups in a session to over 620; they found similar improvements in bench press, running, and cycling. And several teams--including the Raiders, Niners, Man United, and the Stanford football and track teams--have begun using it.

Given this level of improvement, one of the researchers said that the glove was "[e]qual to or substantially better than steroids … and it's not illegal." But should it be? And if not, returning to a question I asked when I first started blogging, why is the glove different from steroids or HGH or EPO or blood doping or other performance enhances that we have outlawed and decried? All use modern technology and modern scientific knowledge (the science behind cooling was not fully understood until 2009) to improve athletic performance. Athletes training with any of these have a technological advantage not available 10, 20, or 50 years ago.

The only apparent difference is the negative health consequences associated with steroids. But is that all there is? And in our new Libertarian Era, should that be enough?

So Why Not Have a Boxing Dream Team?

A Look at the Potential Implications of Amateur Boxing’s Governing Body Allowing Professional Boxers to Retain Olympic Eligibility

Amateur boxing has a rich history in the Olympic Games. Fordecades, many of the world’s top professional boxers have introduced themselves to the world in medal winning performances in amateur boxing. It thus came as a shock this past month to read about AIBA, the governing body that presides over amateur boxing worldwide, signing several top Olympic boxers, including two-time gold medalist Vasyl Lomachenko, to professional contracts under the new outfit AIBA Professional Boxing (“APB”). Most surprising was the Associated Press report which indicated, in part, that the top 56 boxers who sign with APB to begin their professional careers will have Olympic quota places reserved for them, “while regular professional boxers wouldn’t be eligible for an Olympic shot.” If interpreted as it appears to read, boxers who turn professional under the umbrella of APB, an off-shoot of amateur boxing’s international governing body, will be permitted to return to the Olympics and compete in the boxing competition even though they will have fought as professionals by then, yet those who do not sign promotional agreements with APB cannot. If one thinks that this sounds patently unfair and could eventually spell the death in the participation of amateurs in Olympic boxing, such thoughts do not seem so farfetched. Why would any nation feel compelled to keep sending its best amateurs when those nations with APB signees can send their best professional boxers? A quick look at the intention behind APB and what a country such as the United States might be able to do in order to send its own professionals follows.

For the article, please go to this link.

Union Solidarity?

The gauntlet has been thrown down and things are about to get interesting. As the NFL continues to negotiate with the NFLRA over terms of a new CBA for the league’s officials, replacement officials work pre-season games. In a bold move yesterday, the NFLPA pulled out the “health and safety” card in support of the NFLRA.

In a pointed statement yesterday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith stated:

“In America it is the employer’s obligation to provide as safe a working environment as possible. We believe that if the National Football League fails in that obligation we reserve the right to seek any relief that we believe is appropriate. The NFL has chosen to prevent the very officials that they have trained, championed and cultivated for decades to be on the field to protect players and — by their own admission — further our goal of enhanced safety.”

Let’s be clear, player safety is the priority for the NFLPA. Above salary, compensation, free agency, two-a-day practices, an 18 game schedule, and anything else you can imagine. According to reports the gap is approximately $6,000 per game to get the best football officials in the world back onto the field. The NFL’s annual revenues? Somewhere in the neighborhood of $9.3 billion PER YEAR.

A few thoughts:

1. Great to see solidarity across unions. Always wondered why the various professional sports league unions (MLBPA, NBPA, NFLPA, & NHLPA) didn’t cooperate more than they do.

2. If you don’t think the NFLPA is serious about both a) protecting their players; and b) their membership’s unhappiness with the replacement officials you’re not paying attention.

3. Lurking in the shadows of this labor impasse is the dark cloud hanging over the league—the concussion lawsuit. Unequivocally, this lawsuit threatens the financial stability of the league. Do you think that $6,000 per game is too much for the NFL to show the league’s players that safety is a concern?

For fans of the NFL, the next several days are going to be interesting.

American Indian Mascot Sensitivity at the University of Utah

The Sports Law Blog has tackled the issue of American Indian mascots many times over the past few years. Last week, Dr. Chris Hill, the Athletics Director at the University of Utah (nicknamed the "Utes" after the local Ute Indian tribe), posted a youtube "chat" where he asked Ute fans to become more "sensitive" to issues that might offend American Indians in Utah and across the country when they attend athletic contests (see below). Specifically, Dr. Hill asks fans to be aware that painting their faces, wearing headdresses, and bringing faux tomahawks to games likely offend sacred and religious traditions of Native Americans around the country. He impliedly asked Ute fans to leave the feathers, headdresses, face paint and tomahawk chops at home.

[ Download ]

Dr. Hill alluded to the Ute logo, the feather and drumset, as appropriate, likely based on the approval of the use of the name and logo by the Ute tribal counsel, and the NCAA policy, that while generally forbidding the use of American Indian nicknames and mascots, allows an exception for University use of such nicknames and mascots if the local tribe approves. Because of this exception, Florida State continues as the Seminoles and Utah continues as the Utes, while the University of Illinois and the University of North Dakota are no longer able to use Native American imagery as their logos or mascots.

While laudable, Dr. Hill seems to miss the broader point that American Indian imagery and caricatures remain significantly injurious to some American Indian citizens (though some polls indicate that Native Americans are split on the issue of mascot offensiveness). If offensive to some, then why continue the use of the mascot name and imagery? Certainly, University of Utah fans can become more sensitive by educating themselves and leaving American Indian regalia at home on game day. Dr. Hill himself mentioned educating himself on the sacred and spiritual in American Indian culture, which no doubt prompted the message to fans. Still, tradition and culture should not support the continued use of names and mascots that offend.

Legal Issues in Fantasy Sports: Yahoo! More Risk Averse than CBS Sports

As I had predicted last year in my law review article, A Short Treatise on Fantasy Sports and the Law, it was only a matter of time before another public company joined CBS Sports in the cash-prize fantasy football marketplace. As anticipated, Yahoo! has recently announced its launch of Yahoo! Pro Leagues, which are leagues offering up to $500 in cash prizes to fantasy football winners.

Nevertheless, in launching its pay-to-win fantasy football game, Yahoo! seems to be a tad more risk averse than CBS Sports. For example, even though the CBSSports Terms of Service only prevent the paying of prizes to winners in six states (Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Vermont and Washington), the Yahoo! Sports Terms of Service disallows prizes in two more -- Maryland and Illinois.

Yahoo!'s decision not to compete against CBS Sports in either Maryland or Illinois is likely based on the uncertainties in both states' gaming laws. In Maryland, the state governor recently signed into law a bill that exempts certain online fantasy sports games from its gambling prohibitions, and instead grants the state Comptroller the right to regulate the industry. However, to date, the state Comptroller has not issued any regulations related to fantasy sports. Presumably, CBS Sports believes this puts them in the clear to move forward with offering prize-based games.  Meanwhile, Yahoo! is not willing to take that risk. 

Similarly, in Illinois, one section of the state’s gambling law specifies that a person commits a gambling offense if he “[k]nowingly establishes, maintains, or operates an internet site that permits a person to play a game of chance or skill for money or a thing of value.” Yet, another section of that same statute exempts from the law “any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength,or endurance.” CBS Sports must be confident that its fantasy football contest is a "bona fide contest for the determination of skill."  Meanwhile, Yahoo! might be less sure, perhaps based on a 1983 Illinois decision that found poker did not fall into this exemption.

Most interesting to me, however, is that even though Yahoo has taken a more risk averse approach than CBS Sports, it still does not outlaw its game in a number of states where some risk may still exist. For example, Yahoo! is willing to pay cash prizes to contestants in Kansas, even though last fall the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission had language on its website indicating that pay-to-win fantasy sports games were illegal. In addition, Yahoo! is willing to operate in at least one state where a former attorney general has issued an advisory opinion indicating that fantasy sports games are illegal.

Alan Milstein on Al Jazeera English to discuss Lance Armstrong

Terrific discussion on Al Jazeera English with Alan Milstein, Dave Zirin and Grant Wahl. They have a lively, interesting debate on Lance Armstrong. Here's the video:



To read an article on the Milstein/Zirin/Wahl discussion, click here.