Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Media & Entertainment Law Blogs -> Sports Law Blog

Media & Entertainment Law

: Sports Law Blog

More on Star Caps

By Rick Karcher, Michael McCann, Geoffrey Rapp, Greg Skidmore, and Howard Wasserman

As a follow up to Nathaniel?s post on the Star Caps hearing, the written testimony of all of the witnesses and the video of the hearing can be found here (note that the testimony from the witnesses does not begin until about the 1:26:48 mark).

Here is the full witness list: Roger Goodell, Commissioner, National Football League; DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director, National Football League Players Association; Rob Manfred, Executive Vice President, Labor and Human Resources, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball; Michael S. Weiner, General Counsel, Major League Baseball Players Association; Travis Tygart, Chief Executive Officer, United States Anti-Doping Agency; Jeffrey Standen, Professor of Law, Willamette University College of Law; Gabriel Feldman, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Sports Law Program, Tulane University Law School.

Also, although I may be a bit biased, the Minnesota Post did a good job of recapping the hearing.

Here?s an excerpt:

During additional testimony before the committee, Gabriel A. Feldman, associate professor of law at Tulane University and the director for the Tulane sports law program, laid out a more detailed argument against congressional action.

?It is important to emphasize that the Eighth Circuit did not hold that the NFL [Performance Enhancing Drug] Policy violates Minnesota law,? he said in prepared testimony. ?Instead, the court only held that the Williamses may challenge their suspensions in Minnesota state court under state law.?

Thus, Feldman concluded that it was only a ?potential? problem. And even if the court did ultimately rule in favor of the Williamses, it was still a ?narrow? problem because only three states, including Minnesota, currently have drug-testing laws that might conflict with the NFL policy.

?This narrow potential problem warrants a very narrow solution, and many steps should be taken before Congress intervenes,? said Feldman. ?The most appropriate ? and simple ? solution is for the NFL to litigate the case in state court and convince the court that the Minnesota Laws were not intended to apply to the NFL [Performance Enhancing Drug] Policy and that suspensions do not violate the Minnesota Laws. If that suit is unsuccessful, the NFL should seek an exemption from the state Legislature that makes it clear that the Minnesota Laws do not apply ? If that fails, the NFL and the players association should try to bargain around the Minnesota Laws. If that fails, then, only as a last resort, Congress should consider passing a narrow federal law that will protect? the NFL policy.

Goodell retorted that if a national law was not enacted, then other states could ultimately change their laws to conflict with NFL policy. Feldman, however, stated that there was little chance of that happening.

In the end, subcommittee chairman Bobby Rush of Illinois seemed to side with Feldman.

Rush said that he would be keeping a ?wary eye? on the Williamses? case, but warned that ?you can?t tell what members of Congress might ultimately do once you open up Pandora?s Box.?

?I would just ask that you all try to work this thing out,? Rush told the gathered panel.

Finally, Mark Maske of the Washington Post wrote a piece discussing the study of state employee drug testing laws that I conducted for the hearing. The study concluded that only 3 states (Minnesota, Maryland, and North Carolina) currently have workplace drug testing laws that might conflict with the NFL?s performance enhancing drug testing policy. Many thanks to Andrew Miragliotta, a sports law student here at Tulane Law School, for helping with the study.

Full post as published by Sports Law Blog on November 04, 2009 (boomark / email).