Ohio State's Maurice Clarett Sues NFL

ABC/ESPN Breaking News ^ | September 23, 2003 | staff writer

[Bikers4Bush]

#1 because it's their business and as long as they follow federal guidlines and don't discriminate they can do what the hell they want.

#2 do you understand the concept of an anti-trus exemption?

The NFL will have one just like baseball before all is said and done.

[Bikers4Bush]

The NFL will have an anti-trust exemption before all is said and done.

Clarett is going to have to act like a big boy and wait until he's eligible.

[VRWCmember]

Excellent point. Based on that there is even less argument that the NFL is impeding his right to make a living.

[Bikers4Bush]

How is it a monopoly when we have arena football as well?

It's good reason is that they don't want immature players.

Yes they will pursue it and they'll win.

[John O]

Wodner if he'll be treated like a scab if he wins.

He'll be treated like a scab if he wins or if he loses. He's already marked himself to be seriously injured by a dirty hit at the earliest convenience (summer mini-camp maybe?) and put out of football entirely.

It will be a great thing to see. He doesn't deserve to play.

[John O]

He has a right to provide for his family, right to work, etc

Which he can do by sweeping floors, driving truck, delivering Krispy Kreme donuts or hundreds of other career choices.

[JonH]

Today is the first day of the fall quarter at OSU.

It will be interesting to see if Maurice shows up for classes.

I would bet he is a no show and that is a shame!

[John O]

I wonder if Mr. Upshaw and the rest of the PA will compensate Mr. Clarett if he blows out a knee before he becomes "eligible" for the draft?

Why should they? Football is a game where injuries happen. If he blows out a knee or a spine or whatever and can never play football again, that's just the nature of the game.

The three year rule is meant to minimize these permanent types of injuries. If he wins the case and gets to play early, I'd be expecting him to get sidelined permanently with some injury. He's just not physically mature enough yet.

[rftc]

Does Maurice have to be enrolled in classes at OSU to keep the case going?

[John O]

The NFL will not pursue this case....it will let Clarett play through the supplemental draft, just like Cris Carter.

I think you're wrong. I think the NFL will pursue the case until at least after the next draft, then hold a supplemental draft sometime too late for the players to play in the 2004 season but before the 2005 draft, then (if they feel there is a chance that they will lose) they'll settle the case out of court (if they feel that they will win they will keep the case alive forever just to keep clarett from playing at all).

In this way the rule never gets really challenged, clarett loses big time bonus type moneys and he only gets to play at his normal expected time to play.

Then I expect someone to take him out as soon as conveniently possible. He has painted a huge target on himself and the players will not put up with scabs lightly

[John O]

I've heard all the subjective arguments but the bottomline is he is an industry unto himself and to deny that industry the right to sell it's product is an unfair restraint of trade.

The NFL is not denying him the right to sell, they are just saying we are not buying immature product. You don't go to the farmers market to buy unripe fruit do you?

If he wants to sell his unripe product he can go to the arena league or the CFL or some other league that will buy not-quite-ready-for-market produce

He has the right to sell, he does not have the right to force others to buy. And that is exactly what he is doing.

[ContemptofCourt]

Umm, not quite...you see, T Suggs was only 20 when he was drafted this year. P. manning was only 22 when he started for the Colts.

And he is hardly a scab....I have read numerous statements by NFL players that say Clarett should be able to play.

[ContemptofCourt]

How is it a monopoly when we have arena football as well?

Are you serious? This does not even warrant a response.

It's good reason is that they don't want immature players.

This, too, is just a stupid comment. They don't want immature players? HAHAHAHA. Lets see, immature players drafted in the first round....how about R. Moss for starters.

Yes they will pursue it and they'll win.

On what legal basis do you come to this conclusion? Think group boycott and the Antitrust Act. Case citations and analysis would be helpful.

[ContemptofCourt]

He has the right to sell, he does not have the right to force others to buy. And that is exactly what he is doing.

Wrong....no NFL team has a right to purchase his services, as the NFL will not allow him to be eligble for the draft. The NFL is denying any of its teams from entering the market.

[John O]

So he can sell to the CFL or to the arena league. He doesn't have to sell to the NFL. He cannot force the NFL to buy.

If a team wanted to buy then they could sue the NFL. He doesn't have standing as he is not being injured

[Bikers4Bush]

He can earn a living, he does not have a right to earn a living in the NFL.

And yes I'm serious. He is physically immature.

Like I said in another post, expect the NFL to receieve an anti-trust exemption.

[Bikers4Bush]

He is not qualified to play since he has not met the requirements.

What is so hard for you to understand about that?

[rftc]

And Gene Upshaw is putting a target on the guys back as well with his comments..

[kinghorse]

haha. you don't really believe what you wrote do you? The NFL is one big monolith? No team wants him? Doubtful. Add collusion and anti-trust to the restraint of trade claim.

He'll win. Especially since he's a running back and running backs don't need to be "fully mature" to juke a DB out of his sneaks.

[TheOtherOne]

#2 do you understand the concept of an anti-trus exemption?

Yes, quite well. The NFL does not have one, the MLB does. That is precisely why the NFL will lose. You keep defending them, and then saying that they will get the exemption. So does that mean that you agree, without it, they will lose the case? That they are violating antt-trust laws.