NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is the first major professional sports commissioner to support legalized sports betting.
Today was supposed to be a good day. Screw good, today was supposed to be an amazing, nailed a 6-team parlay kind of day.
I awoke to numerous messages about how NBA Commissioner Adam Silver had penned an Op-Ed in the New York Times supporting the legalization of sports betting. Halle-freaking-lujah. Leave it to a Jewish lawyer to transform into the messiah of American sports gamblers.
Since taking over the NBA in February, Silver has relished the role of being the cool uncle in major professional sports. He swiftly dealt with the Donald Sterling mess, openly acknowledged that teams are encouraged to tank due to the NBA’s asinine draft system (I see you Sixers), and embraced paid daily fantasy. His peers, Roger Goodell, Gary Bettman, and Bud Selig are basically cold, wet blankets who seem to enjoy ruining everyone’s fun and getting booed at every public appearance.
But then I actually read Silver’s op-ed. It was nothing more than a turd sandwich.
Driving. Selecting a college. Deciding whether or not to send a nude selfie. Choosing whether to go play Single-A baseball or join the NCAA cartel without the assistance of an advisor. These are all major, adult decisions and activities that 16 and 17-year-olds routinely face in America. Some psychologists even think teenagers should be allowed to vote. They can’t be much worse than our current electorate, right?
At the very least, high school juniors and seniors should know better than to sexually assault classmates and teammates. However, two recent cases involving suburban high school football players highlight the unwillingness for the criminal justice system to try teenagers as adults particularly when victims are also under the age of 18.
Last year, two Steubenville, Ohio football players, ages 16 and 17, received juvenile detention center sentences for raping a classmate and then spreading videos and photos of the sexual assault on the Internet. One of the men convicted is actually now back playing football at Steubenville High School.
This year, seven varsity football players from Sayreville, New Jersey are accused of hazing and sexually assaulting freshman teammates in the school locker room. The accusations prompted school officials in Sayreville to suspend the players and coaches involved, and to cancel the remainder of the football season.
Yet this week, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office decided to charge the attackers as juveniles. After speaking with a former New Jersey prosecutor and a current Illinois public defender, it appears that this unexpected move is the right one.
Georgia RB Todd Gurley is the latest victim of NCAA hypocrisy.
Georgia star running back Todd Gurley violated an NCAA rule by accepting $3,000 for autographing memorabilia. Period. End of story.
Gurley admitted his wrongdoing, effectively forfeiting the Heisman Trophy, and he prepared to face an appropriate punishment.
But then the NCAA did what the NCAA does best — overreact and punish everyone but the real offender.
Forget that Gurley’s coach makes $3.2 million per year. Forget that the league Gurley plays for, draws ratings for, and sells tickets for, the SEC, has a $2 billion TV deal with ESPN. Even forget that this 20-year-old might want to take a girl out on a date, buy some new clothes, or just get a meal outside of the cafeteria but has no way to earn extra money since he works 80-hour weeks making his school, his coach, and his league more money than some nations’ GDPs.
Forget all of that, because what we are dealing with is an athletic league acting as judge, jury, and executioner on a kid who made a few bucks selling his autograph — an act that does not violate American law and has absolutely no impact on the “competitive balance” of college football.
Yet on October 9, the NCAA suspended Gurley for four games and denied his appeal of this excessive punishment.
By Larry Josephson, a freelance writer who lives in Norton, Mass. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Gamblers can bet on the Detroit Lions this Sunday in London, but they better not dare do so in New Jersey.
Apparently two plus two does indeed equal three.
At least in New Jersey Federal Court, where U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp granted a temporary restraining order on Friday preventing race tracks and casinos from accepting wagers on professional and college games at the request of the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, and NCAA. (Notably, Judge Shipp is the brother of former college/NFL player Marcel Shipp. Marcel Shipp is now an assistant coach at the University of Massachusetts.)
The ruling was yet another punch in the gut for backers of legal sports wagering, and narrows the margin for error as the state moves forward with its efforts to battle federal law preventing sports betting.
Dennis Drazin, a legal adviser for Monmouth Park, which had hoped to take bets as early at this Sunday, vowed to fight on despite the injunction: “We have to step back and evaluate what we’ll do next, but certainly we will not be taking bets this weekend.”
Awkward metaphor, but we get the point. More on that in a bit, but first a few thoughts on Judge Shipp’s faulty reasoning.
By Larry Josephson, a freelance writer who lives in Norton, Mass. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wasted no time late last week in signing a bill that would legalize sport betting in New Jersey, in effect nullifying in the Garden State the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which prevents unfettered wagering on sports events in all states except Nevada.
Gov. Christie’s signature on the new law was immediately met with a demand from the four major professional sports leagues and the NCAA that the federal court issue an injunction preventing New Jersey from implementing sports betting. New Jersey wants to start accepting wagers this weekend at Monmouth Park. However, the leagues
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order Tuesday in an effort to halt New Jersey’s plans.
The state must file its response to the leagues’ restraining order request Wednesday. The leagues will file another reply Thursday, before U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp reviews the filings and decides if oral arguments are required. Judge Shipp will decide if the leagues will be irreparably harmed by betting at Monmouth Park before granting the restraining order.
So what does it all mean?
A recent lawsuit claims playing the women's World Cup on turf equates to gender discrimination. (Reuters)
We love tooting horns here at The Legal Blitz — especially our own.
So for your listening pleasure, we are thrilled to present the soulful sounds of Co-Founder Steve Silver on the Illegal Formation podcast, which you can follow @IformationCast.
Steve joined Chris Metz (@CTMetz) and John Svitek (@RidleyDragon) to discuss Jameis Winston’s twitter happy lawyer, the blurry line for agents and lawyers with respect to the NCAA, the FIFA women’s turf discrimination suit, and a multitude of NFL legal issues. Oh yeah, and we picked this week’s NFL games. Take notes before you head to the bookie.
Enjoy: The Illegal Formation Podcast.
Former NFL running back Clinton Portis is facing a lawsuit over past due casino markers in Las Vegas.
It is no secret that two of my favorite things are football and gambling. Thankfully, former NFL running back Clinton Portis’s recent legal woes provides a perfect opportunity to write about both.
Apparently, the two-time Pro Bowler and 2002 NFL Rookie of the Year had to go to the well a few too many times at the MGM Grand Casino in Las Vegas. The MGM recently sued Portis in Clark County, Nevada for two unpaid markers or short-term, zero to low interest loans, totaling $10,000. The casino is seeking the $10,000 plus $1,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.
Although $10,000 is a relatively low amount for a Vegas casino marker, if there is one lesson I learned after spending a few years living in Las Vegas it is that Vegas will always get its money back — always.
According to the Courthouse News Service, MGM claims Portis received two “negotiable credit instruments known as markers,” worth more than $10,000, on Jan. 31, 2011. The casino says the markers “were presented through normal banking channels for payment” on Portis’ bank account, but they were “returned dishonored and unpaid.” MGM Grand allegedly sent a written demand by certified mail on March 26, 2011 to collect on its debt, but Portis has refused to pay.
Notably, in Nevada, failure to repay casino markers can lead to both civil and criminal penalties.
By Nicholas Galea, a criminal defense attorney in Rockford, Illinois and a 2013 graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law. You can follow him on Twitter at @invertedWAR.
Ray Rice and wife Janay Palmer (left) now find themselves at the center of the nation's attention due to Rice punching out Palmer on video in an Atlantic City casino.
When TMZ released the video of Ray Rice battering Janay Palmer in an elevator, it raised more questions than it answered. It has also placed renewed scrutiny on all parties: Rice, Harbaugh, Goodell, and even NJ prosecutors.
Questions abound. Why the diversionary program? Why two games? Why the different punishment now? Each facet of the issue touches on a few legal concepts that can be rather confusing, even for seasoned attorneys. So now I’ll try to put my criminal law knowledge to good work and attempt to answer some of the more common questions I’ve seen asked.
What’s with the pre-trial diversion program? How could you not prosecute Ray Rice?
The idea that Rice was not prosecuted is 100% false. His placement in a diversion program involves a plea of guilt, the attachment of due process, and all of the usual processes of a prosecution. Guilty pleas in exchange for these opportunities are quite common, especially as criminal justice reformers have embraced a softer approach to sentencing in order to disrupt defendants’ lives less and save money on incarceration.
Although I am not too familiar with New Jersey’s programs, in Illinois it is common for 1st-time misdemeanor offenders to receive court supervision. This gives the offender a year or two to pay a fine, complete public service work, or comply with any other terms deemed fit. With compliance, the case is considered dismissed, and no conviction is entered. This is advantageous for many reasons. However, the courts always have record of prior court supervision terms. It should be seen less as a gift, but more of a firm message sent by the court that we will give you one opportunity to prove you are better than your criminal action.
Le'Veon Bell is starting week 1, but he faces a marijuana-related DUI charge stemming from a preseason arrest.
Today the Pittsburgh Steelers hope to ride running back Le’Veon Bell to victory over the Cleveland Browns despite the fact that Bell and fellow RB LeGarrette Blount were riding dirty a few hours before a flight to Philly for a preseason game last month.
Bell and Blount were nabbed for marijuana possession (about 20 grams worth) and Bell, who was driving, picked up a DUI. Funny thing is, he had no idea DUIs applied to drugs. Frankly, who could blame him? He was smoking marijuana hours before a team flight and he is still starting Sunday. So much for accountability in Pittsburgh.
Ignoring the comical lack of punishment, Bell’s mistaken belief that DUIs only apply to driving while drunk provides a good opportunity to review DUI law in the Keystone State.
Former Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones learned a difficult legal lesson and lost nearly $400,000 thanks to a recent 6th Circuit Ruling.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) might be one of the most important and powerful pieces of American law.
This Section of the CDA makes the Internet the Internet. Without it, YouTube, Reddit, Craigslist, and even this blog might not exist.
Section 230 of the CDA immunizes website creates or “providers of interactive computer services” against liability arising from content created by third parties. Such immunity allows users to post content that may or may not be defamatory. Although this is largely the basis for “free speech” on the Internet, it also allows shady rumor sites like TheDirty.com to exist.
Unfortunately for one former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader, Sarah Jones, upholding the sanctity of Section 230 cost her more than $300,000 in a case that appeared poised to crack the CDA’s broad Internet immunity provision.