Sins Of The Father

The sports-law world may be about to undergo a debate of biblical proportions.

Auburn, the number two team in the land and, Cameron Newton, its Heisman leading quarterback are, as most of you know, the subjects of investigations both within and outside the NCAA. Cameron Newton’s father, a pastor at Newton, Georgia’s The Holy Zion Center of Deliverance, is accused of possibly conspiring with a former Mississippi State football player to solicit a $180,000 payoff in exchange for delivering his son unto the Mississippi State football program. Pastor Newton, whose congregation supposedly was in desperate need of funds to refurbish its time-worn church, denies the charges as does a former football player. No one suggests either Auburn or Cam Newton knew anything about these alleged acts, even if they prove to be true.

Current NCAA Commandments hold such conduct to be mortal sins justifying excommunication or worse for everyone involved.

The question is an old one: should the sins of the father be held against the son. The bible itself is split on the issue. Exodus 20:5 speaks of “a jealous God, punishing the children for sin of the fathers . . .” Three books later, at Deuteronomy 24:16, we learn: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers.”

What shall it be then? Even if the allegations prove true, and those who know Pastor Newton say he is a good man who would never participate in such unholy activities, do we punish the gifted son, if he was indeed an innocent, for the acts of the wayward dad? I think not. We should listen to the Prophet Ezekiel at 18:20: “The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity.”

Cheering speech, again

The Cavs, the NBA, and the Cleveland Police Department are taking steps in preparation for LeBron James' return to Cleveland on December 2. These include trying to limit the anti-LeBron messages fans chant, wear, and display:

The team has done research on the various crude and offensive James T-shirts in circulation locally, and officials will be stationed at entrances to make sure no fans enter with such shirts or signs that disrespect James or his family members. They'll also be in the stands, authorized to take away inappropriate apparel. Fans who have such shirts will be required to remove them and then will be given a Cavaliers-branded T-shirt to wear instead. All inappropriate signs also will be confiscated and officials will be on the lookout throughout the game for inebriated fans or fans who are preparing to throw things onto the court.

"We don't want to create a police state," said Tad Carper, the Cavaliers' senior vice president of communications. "We've always had a real energetic, super-charged home crowd and we want to encourage that for every game, including Dec. 2. We want people to enjoy themselves and express themselves, but we don't want fans to cross the boundaries of decency. We're not going to allow profanity and things like that. We'll have no tolerance for anyone trying to cross those boundaries."

Note the imprecision in this all--is it about profanity and decency or is it about disrespect (and what constitutes disrespect for James and his family? What makes something "inappropriate"? Why shouldn't fans have some leeway to harshly criticize a person they see as a traitor to the city? I am not sure who owns/operates the Cavs' arena, so this may be a moot point as far as the First Amendment is concerned. But I will be interested in hearing how this plays out.

Sportsmanship, ethics, and cheating

I generally do not care for the work of Selena Roberts (formerly of The Times, now of Sports Illustrated). She was one of the worst of the Mike Nifong apologists during the Duke lacrosse case and she pushed the "maybe-they-didn't-commit-rape-but-it-doesn't-matter-because-they-hired-a-stripper-so-they-deserved-what-happened-to-them" line even after. Her SI columns see few shades of gray in the world.

Her latest morality play comes from Connecticut high school football. The coach at Southington High got hold of the opposing team's coded play list, which had fallen off a player's armband during first half. The coach used the play list (how many times seems to be in dispute) during the second half to alert his players to what the opposing team was going to run. Southington won 28-14 (the game had been tied at the half). The coach is D.J. Hernandez, a former UConn captain and the brother of Aaron, who plays tight end for the New England Patriots. Hernandez was suspended for one game. The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference is reviewing the case. Roberts insists that a forfeit is required. And she takes a parting shot at one CIAC member, who is quoted as saying "It's what we call ethics between coaches and good sportsmanship; I don't believe it's cheating per se."

But did Hernandez cheat? First, I am not sure how much of a role it really plays. Teams often know what the other team is going to run or what their plays are--sometimes through good scouting and game preparation, sometimes because of movement between coaching staffs. Recall the Bucs players claims that they knew exactly what the Raiders were going to run during Super Bowl XXXVII--Tampa coach Jon Gruden previously had coached the Raiders. And, of course, "stealing signs" is part of baseball. This is not precisely the same, obviously. But the "advantage" Hernandez's team gained (knowing what plays were being called) is one that often is sought and gained within the rules of the game.

Cheating to me implies breaking rules. In the absence of a prohibition on using the other team's found play list, this does not seem like cheating. Yes, it is bad sportsmanship and probably unethical--not the kind of behavior we would like coaches to engage in. Roberts compares this to NBA players flopping on charges, or Derek Jeter pretending to be hit by a pitch, or Reggie Bush pushing Matt Leinert across the goal line--all of which Roberts sees as examples of society's (and sport's) moral decline. Actually, I find what Hernandez did worse than any of these, as a matter of sportsmanship. Not sure why--maybe because players cannot get away with any of that if the officials are doing a decent job of calling games in the moment. Hernandez was not going to be caught at this by an official on the ground. So, Roberts is right that we should hope for better from coaches, especially at the high school level. And we could have fun with this question in a game of Scruples. On the other hand, this is far from the greatest ethical/sportsmanship breach in history.

But Roberts wants Southington to forfeit its win, a punishment that seems excessive, because it suggests a level of wrongdoing that, absent a clear prohibition on the conduct at issue, is not present here.

"Law and Economics" - Sports Edition

The Southern Economic Association ("SEA") annual conference starts tomorrow in Atlanta. Of the 100+ sessions being held during the three day event, four sessions are devoted to sports. In the course of preparing for my own presentation, I perused the other sports-related papers and was struck by the relatively large number with legal overtones. Legal and quasi-legal topics to be examined using an economic lens include: (i) gambling; (ii) Title IX; (iii) minimum age rules; (iv) crime; and (v) referee-decision making. Such prevalence evidences the strength of both disciplines (law and economics) when analyzing important sports issues. Several papers being presented at the SEA conference are available for download now on SSRN.

My new Boston College Law Review Article on the BCS and Postseason College Football

I just posted on SSRN a free copy of my forthcoming article in the Boston College Law Review titled, "Antitrust, Governance, and Postseason College Football." Here is the abstract:

This Article examines the compatibility of the Bowl Championship Series (“BCS”) with federal antitrust law and the appropriateness of the federal government using its formal and informal powers to encourage a new format for postseason college football. The Article begins by examining the legality of the BCS under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It then discusses the appropriateness of government actors concerning themselves with, and expending taxpayer dollars on, the scheduling of college football games. The Article concludes by offering possible changes to the scheduling structure of postseason college football, with an emphasis on voluntary, efficiency-promoting changes by the colleges, universities, and conferences currently associated with the BCS.

Hope you have a chance to check it out. For another take on this topic, be sure to read Nathaniel Grow's excellent forthcoming article in the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law titled "Antitrust and the Bowl Championship Series."

A New Perspective on the NBA Age Rule

In the course of updating my research file and wrapping up a statistical sequel to my 2008 paper about the NBA age rule, I came across a new law review article in the St. John's Law Review by Susan McAleavey. In the article, McAleavey introduces an "alternative" to the NBA current rule - a spendthrift trust system. It has been over a decade since I took Wills, Trusts, and Estates as a 2L, so I had to dust off my Black's Law Dictionary and refresh my memory about the special characteristics of spendthrift trusts. Such trusts are defined as follows:

A trust that prohibits the beneficiary's interest from being assigned and also prevents a creditor from attaching that interest.

McAleavey has a multi-pronged argument supporting her position. I recommend reading her work, especially Section III of the article, which is novel and clever. I plan on citing her article moving forward.

There is a lot of academic research on the topic of minimum age rules in sports (links to several such articles here). The issue will be one of several hot-button topics negotiated by the NBA and NBPA in their upcoming collective bargaining sessions.

For micro-updates on the legality and efficacy of age eligibility rules in sports over the course of the next few months as I work on several papers in this research line, feel free to follow me on Twitter at (@sportslawprof). I am presenting a quantitative analysis of the WTA age rule at the Southern Economic Association conference this weekend in Atlanta and look forward to feedback and constructive criticism as the paper is vetted.

Reverse Engineering a Doping Allegation

In a wide-ranging interview last week, recently retired tennis pro Christophe Rochus made a number of statements about doping. Such commentary is nothing new. Athletes and others affiliated with sports often make vague, generalized statements about doping without implicating anyone specific. In rare cases, athletes such as Jose Canseco and Floyd Landis actually name names. In an op-ed that was published in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Shermer explains the "game theory" reasons for such specificity.

Rochus's allegation falls somewhere in between the two extremes. In relevant part below, here is what Rochus said:

"I remember a match against a guy whose name I will not say. I won the first set 6-1, very easily. He went to the bathroom and came back metamorphisised. He led 5-3 in the second set and when I came back to 5-5...his nose began bleeding. I told myself it was all very strange."

Rochus makes a point of not naming names, but his insinuation is detailed enough to allow one to attempt to "reverse engineer" his statement and pinpoint specific matches (and opponents) that meet his parameters. Interestingly, Rochus doesn't state whether he eventually won or lost the match in question. In addition, he doesn't state whether the match was two, three, four, or five sets long (Grand Slam tournaments and Davis Cup matches use a "best of five" format while all other pro-level tournaments use a "best of three" format). Nevertheless, a perusal of his playing record from 1993 to 2010 reveals 11 matches that possibly match his description. Of the 11 matches, he won seven and lost four. All four losses took place in the past three years. However, publicly-available online match records do not include details on the sequence of individual games within each set, making it impossible to pinpoint the match(es) in which Rochus was trailing 3-5 in the second set before recoving to 5-5. As such, this attempt at reverse engineering Rochus's statement failed to result in anything definitive. However, with tennis and a majority of other sports spending a lot of resources on their anti-doping efforts, such methodology could be helpful the next time someone makes a "partial" allegation pertaining to drug use and doping authorities proceed to conduct a due diligence follow-up in an attempt to find some actual evidence in support of the claim.