Congress communicated with the NFL and the Player's Union on Thursday to set up a meeting between the football league, the players and the United States Doping Agency. A main agenda point of the meeting is the implementation of H.G.H testing for players, which had been conditionally agreed to by the NFL and the Union during the collective bargaining negotiations. The tests have yet to be implemented. The government stated its interest in the testing was conveying an interest in protecting the health of young athletes. Read this New York Times article to learn more.
News, commentary, and legal updates from Preti Flaherty's Sports Law attorneys
Congress Seeks Meeting with NFL, Union and Drug Agency
Friday, September 30, 2011
Labels:
anti-doping
Preti Sports Law Attorneys Paul Greene and Matt Lane featured in article published in the Sports Litigation Alert
Monday, September 26, 2011
Attorneys Examine ‘Olympic Movement’ at Sports Law Symposium
The sports law symposium “Law and the Olympic Movement” was held in Portland, Maine on September 13, 2011.
Moderator Paul Greene, an attorney with Preti Flaherty who focuses his sports law practice on protecting athletes’ rights, began the proceedings by explaining how the United States Olympic Committee was founded as well as the bodies that govern each Olympic sport. Mr. Greene laid the foundation for an afternoon exploring several legal issues confronting athletes and others in the Olympic space.
Peter Carlisle, the Managing Director of Octagon’s Olympics and Action Sports Division, was first to speak. Mr. Carlisle, who represents Olympic icon Michael Phelps and two-time snowboarding gold medalist Seth Wescott among others, discussed the global business of managing Olympic clients and the complicated world of Olympic sponsorships. Mr. Carlisle described the tensions that exist when the IOC, the USOC, the national governing body (“NGB”), and the athlete all have their own sponsors with, often, conflicting agendas. Depending on the specific circumstances within each Olympic sport or discipline, there can be few marketing rights left for the athlete to give to potential sponsors. In sports on which the spotlight is focused only every four years, maximizing athletes’ marketing rights and understanding the inherent tensions between the many sponsors is invaluable.
Sonja Keating, the Senior Vice-President & General Counsel for the United States Equestrian Federation (“USEF”), provided the more than 100 lawyers and students in attendance with an overview of the duties of an NGB under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Ms. Keating explained some of the unique features of USEF including USEF’s internal anti-doping program. In following Mr. Carlisle’s presentation about sponsors, Ms. Keating described how USEF attempts to give the individual athletes the right to use their images in competition while protecting USEF’s marks and being cognizant of the rights of other sponsors whose marks and logos often appear in event arenas.
Next, Florida Coastal School of Law Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar, an Olympic champion and national leader in the fight for women’s rights in sports, gave a presentation on where the law should be going in the fight to protect athletes’ rights. Prof. Hogshead-Makar called upon NGBs like USA Swimming to do a better job of protecting young athletes from abuse and molestation at the hands of coaches—an issue which is often overlooked. The coach/athlete relationship is not always given the same level of importance as the attorney/client or physician/patient relationship, but it is one in which the coach wields significant power and influence over a young athlete who is putting his or her trust in the coach. While Prof. Hogshead-Makar explored the weaknesses within the regulations of certain NGBs, she explained to the audience that the USOC has the inherent authority to mandate certain regulations be adopted by the NGBs. The USOC policy against athlete/coach relationships, Prof. Hoghead-Makar explained was in her opinion excellent and should be adopted by all the underlying NGBs.
Finally, Matt Lane, an attorney with Preti Flaherty, who was a professional track and field athlete before launching a law career, explained how difficult it is for athletes to understand their rights. As a competitor in the 5,000 meters, Mr. Lane focused on his experience at the 2004 U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials, where a complicated selection process confused everyone involved and created uncertainty around the selection process for the Olympic team at 5000 meters, even days after the race had been run. The selection procedure—a combination of Trials race results and the qualifying standards obtained by the athletes in the lead-up to the Trials—created a perfect storm that resulted in the selection of a group of athletes that barely resembled the traditional Top 3 that the average fan is accustomed to seeing on the Olympic team.
The second-half of the Symposium was highlighted by a spirited discussion among the speakers moderated by Mr. Greene. Perhaps predictably, the topic of discussion quickly turned to doping and the dangers of tainted and/or mislabeled supplements for athletes who compete under the strict requirements of the World Anti-Doping Code. Other topics of discussion included:
How the rights an athlete is entitled to under the law can be better explained or communicated to them. Mr. Carlisle had particular insight on the attempts to educate athletes about their rights, but the panel acknowledged that most athletes need an advocate who can be on the lookout for them.
The parallels between the rights of Olympic athletes and the rights of NCAA athletes. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act defines “amateur athlete” in a very different way than the term is defined under the NCAA bylaws.
The inaugural version of “Law and the Olympic Movement” was highly successful and plans are already underway to make it an annual fall event with a post-London 2012 Olympic Games discussion on the horizon next year.
The event was sponsored by Preti Flaherty and The University of Maine School of Law.
The sports law symposium “Law and the Olympic Movement” was held in Portland, Maine on September 13, 2011.
Moderator Paul Greene, an attorney with Preti Flaherty who focuses his sports law practice on protecting athletes’ rights, began the proceedings by explaining how the United States Olympic Committee was founded as well as the bodies that govern each Olympic sport. Mr. Greene laid the foundation for an afternoon exploring several legal issues confronting athletes and others in the Olympic space.
Peter Carlisle, the Managing Director of Octagon’s Olympics and Action Sports Division, was first to speak. Mr. Carlisle, who represents Olympic icon Michael Phelps and two-time snowboarding gold medalist Seth Wescott among others, discussed the global business of managing Olympic clients and the complicated world of Olympic sponsorships. Mr. Carlisle described the tensions that exist when the IOC, the USOC, the national governing body (“NGB”), and the athlete all have their own sponsors with, often, conflicting agendas. Depending on the specific circumstances within each Olympic sport or discipline, there can be few marketing rights left for the athlete to give to potential sponsors. In sports on which the spotlight is focused only every four years, maximizing athletes’ marketing rights and understanding the inherent tensions between the many sponsors is invaluable.
Sonja Keating, the Senior Vice-President & General Counsel for the United States Equestrian Federation (“USEF”), provided the more than 100 lawyers and students in attendance with an overview of the duties of an NGB under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Ms. Keating explained some of the unique features of USEF including USEF’s internal anti-doping program. In following Mr. Carlisle’s presentation about sponsors, Ms. Keating described how USEF attempts to give the individual athletes the right to use their images in competition while protecting USEF’s marks and being cognizant of the rights of other sponsors whose marks and logos often appear in event arenas.
Next, Florida Coastal School of Law Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar, an Olympic champion and national leader in the fight for women’s rights in sports, gave a presentation on where the law should be going in the fight to protect athletes’ rights. Prof. Hogshead-Makar called upon NGBs like USA Swimming to do a better job of protecting young athletes from abuse and molestation at the hands of coaches—an issue which is often overlooked. The coach/athlete relationship is not always given the same level of importance as the attorney/client or physician/patient relationship, but it is one in which the coach wields significant power and influence over a young athlete who is putting his or her trust in the coach. While Prof. Hogshead-Makar explored the weaknesses within the regulations of certain NGBs, she explained to the audience that the USOC has the inherent authority to mandate certain regulations be adopted by the NGBs. The USOC policy against athlete/coach relationships, Prof. Hoghead-Makar explained was in her opinion excellent and should be adopted by all the underlying NGBs.
Finally, Matt Lane, an attorney with Preti Flaherty, who was a professional track and field athlete before launching a law career, explained how difficult it is for athletes to understand their rights. As a competitor in the 5,000 meters, Mr. Lane focused on his experience at the 2004 U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials, where a complicated selection process confused everyone involved and created uncertainty around the selection process for the Olympic team at 5000 meters, even days after the race had been run. The selection procedure—a combination of Trials race results and the qualifying standards obtained by the athletes in the lead-up to the Trials—created a perfect storm that resulted in the selection of a group of athletes that barely resembled the traditional Top 3 that the average fan is accustomed to seeing on the Olympic team.
The second-half of the Symposium was highlighted by a spirited discussion among the speakers moderated by Mr. Greene. Perhaps predictably, the topic of discussion quickly turned to doping and the dangers of tainted and/or mislabeled supplements for athletes who compete under the strict requirements of the World Anti-Doping Code. Other topics of discussion included:
How the rights an athlete is entitled to under the law can be better explained or communicated to them. Mr. Carlisle had particular insight on the attempts to educate athletes about their rights, but the panel acknowledged that most athletes need an advocate who can be on the lookout for them.
The parallels between the rights of Olympic athletes and the rights of NCAA athletes. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act defines “amateur athlete” in a very different way than the term is defined under the NCAA bylaws.
The inaugural version of “Law and the Olympic Movement” was highly successful and plans are already underway to make it an annual fall event with a post-London 2012 Olympic Games discussion on the horizon next year.
The event was sponsored by Preti Flaherty and The University of Maine School of Law.
IAAF: Women's World Records Can Only Be Set In Women-Only Races
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The International Association of Athletics Federations ("IAAF"), the world governing body for track and field, amended its rules in late August to preclude a female runner from setting a world record in a mixed gender race. Now, to estabish a world record, a woman must set the time in an all female event. Any time established in a race where both men and women are running will only be considered a world's best.
The international runner immediately impacted by the rule is Paula Radcliffe of England. Prior to the enactment of this rule, Radcliffe held the world record of 2 hours 15 mintues and 25 seconds, which she set at the London Marathon in 2003. In that race, male pacesetters were used for elite female runners. Since the enactment of the rule, the world record is 2 hours 17 minutes and 42 seconds, which Radcliffe ran at the London Marathon in 2005. In 2005, women began the marathon 45 minutes ahead of the men and finished separately.
Radcliffe expressed disappointment with the IAAF's new rule but will have the opportunity to challenge her current world markes this weekend, Sunday, September 22, 2011 in Berlin. The course Radcliffe is running in Germany is purpoted to be one of the fastest courses in the world. The race this Sunday might allow Radcliffe to make her 'world's best' once again world record.
For more information, check out this recent New York Times article or visit the IAAF website.
The international runner immediately impacted by the rule is Paula Radcliffe of England. Prior to the enactment of this rule, Radcliffe held the world record of 2 hours 15 mintues and 25 seconds, which she set at the London Marathon in 2003. In that race, male pacesetters were used for elite female runners. Since the enactment of the rule, the world record is 2 hours 17 minutes and 42 seconds, which Radcliffe ran at the London Marathon in 2005. In 2005, women began the marathon 45 minutes ahead of the men and finished separately.
Radcliffe expressed disappointment with the IAAF's new rule but will have the opportunity to challenge her current world markes this weekend, Sunday, September 22, 2011 in Berlin. The course Radcliffe is running in Germany is purpoted to be one of the fastest courses in the world. The race this Sunday might allow Radcliffe to make her 'world's best' once again world record.
For more information, check out this recent New York Times article or visit the IAAF website.
Labels:
IAAF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
