Ohio State's Maurice Clarett Sues NFL

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

[Bikers4Bush]

They will win with or without it and this whole thing will result in them getting the exemption to prevent any of this sort of nonesense in the future.

[ContemptofCourt]

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

What is so hard for you to understand about that?

The "requirement" is completely and totally arbitrary and indefensible....if they were really concerned about maturity issues, then they would impose an age restriction....but that would be impossible to live with, as it would take talent off the market.

The bottom line, which you don't seem to understand, is that this lawsuit will turn on the law, not your silly opinions. When you address the legal aspects of this case, then we can continue our debate.

[ContemptofCourt]

He doesn't have standing as he is not being injured

This demonstrates that you have no clue what you are talking about....he can not participate in the draft, and can not be hired by any NFL team, because the NFL will not allow him to enter the draft and will not allow him to sell his services to the NFL teams. How can you say he is not being injured?

[Bikers4Bush]

I have addressed them, it's you that hasn't.

You just haven't bothered to read my posts.

Please tell me oh gifted one why "three years out of high school" is arbitrary.

You're right, my opinion nor your idiotic socialist one will matter. The NFL will win the lawsuit despite them both.

[Bikers4Bush]

Here you go genius, right from ESPN. Clarett has caused this situation not the NFL he is not eligible through his own negligence and criminal acts.

Now have a seat.

"What is the greatest obstacle to Clarett being granted the preliminary injunction or winning the case?
Milstein told ESPN.com that because the draft eligibility rule is not included in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and that the rule is not a product of negotiation between the league and the Players' Association, the NFL's draft eligibility rule is not exempt from antitrust laws. But that seems up for debate. In Brown v. Pro Football Inc. (1996), eight Supreme Court justices decided that anything that is a mandatory subject of bargaining, which would include the NFL draft or any terms of employment, are immune from an antitrust attack. The fact that Clarett is not a member of the NFL Players' Association does not matter, Roberts said. Roberts said Clarett might be subject to terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as evidenced from Wood v. NBA (1987). Milstein points out that Leon Wood was drafted and therefore became a de facto member of the NBA Players Association. Clarett, he says, is different because he is not eligible to be drafted."

[Bikers4Bush]

And the rest of it.

"If the judge decides that the draft eligibility rule is exempt from antitrust law, both Roberts and Ross expect that Clarett likely will not be granted the injunction because it would be deemed that he is not likely to win the case.

Whether Clarett will suffer irreparable harm by being drafted in 2005 as opposed to 2004 also could be a subject of debate. If he slips in the draft as a result of his inactivity this year, that certainly could hurt him financially. But, at least at this point, Clarett can still play for the Ohio State Buckeyes in 2004 and then enter the 2005 NFL draft, Roberts says.

Irreparable harm also has to go beyond monetary damages, since Clarett could recover millions of dollars -- especially since antitrust damages are trebled -- if he ultimately wins the suit, Ross says. The NFL could argue here that it is protecting Clarett from suffering irreparable harm because he is not physically ready for the league. An interesting point: The lawsuit says that Clarett should be compensated for not being eligible for the 2003 NFL draft. In April, when the draft took place, Clarett wavered, making comments alluding to the possibility of going to the NFL as well as returning to the Buckeyes."

[ContemptofCourt]

Didn't you tell me not to trust anything from ESPN other than the scores? At least you included cases this time. It appears, however, that Wood is inapplicable based upon the facts. I'll have to look at Brown.

[ContemptofCourt]

The NFL could argue here that it is protecting Clarett from suffering irreparable harm because he is not physically ready for the league.

This is such a ridiculous premise...I'd depose every single NFL scout and doubt that one would agree to this....moreover, I'd point out that the last player drafted in the first round of this years draft was and still is "not physically ready for the league," yet he still got a 1st round contract, with 1st round bonus money and a 1st round salary.

[Bikers4Bush]

I sure did tell you that. The day of any breaking story they have wild speculation and general bs.

Subsequently they sometimes hook themselves to someone elses coat tails and get something good.

This is what I would consider good.

Any damage (other than on the field where he is injury prone) suffered by Clarett is self inflicted and the result of criminal acts or sheer arrogance.

[ContemptofCourt]

Per Brown:

Federal labor laws shield from antitrust attack an agreement among several employers bargaining together to implement after impasse the terms of their last best good-faith wage offer.

Hence, Brown is distinguishable.

[Bikers4Bush]

Are you aware of Claretts injury record?

Making statments like that I'd doubt it.

[Bikers4Bush]

"The fact that Clarett is not a member of the NFL Players' Association does not matter, Roberts said. Roberts said
Clarett might be subject to terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as evidenced from Wood v. NBA (1987). Milstein points out that Leon Wood was drafted and
therefore became a de facto member of the NBA Players Association. Clarett, he says, is different because he is not eligible to be drafted."

If he were eligible he would be subject to it therefore he's caught in a catch 22. If he sues to make hismelf eligible then the automatically has to abide by the CBA.

He's going to lose even if he wins.

Get it?

[Alberta's Child]

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

I'm not so sure about that. And even if it does, Clarett is on solid legal ground here until that day comes.

[Alberta's Child]

Please tell me oh gifted one why "three years out of high school" is arbitrary.

As I pointed out in my post from last night, "three years out of high school" can apply to anyone from the age of 12 to 90.

Imagine that -- Wendy's founder Dave Thomas dropped out of high school and ended up getting a GED when he was in his 60s, so he would not have been eligible for the NFL draft (no matter how large, strong, and talented he was) until he was nearly 70 years old.

That sounds pretty arbitrary to me. In fact, I am willing to bet that if this case goes to court the NFL lawyers will not even bother trying to offer a rational explanation for their "three years out of high school" rule -- because they won't be able to do it with a straight face.

[Bikers4Bush]

You might want to take a look at my last few posts.

[John O]

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

Which as union president is exactly what he is supposed to do, protect his membership.

I don't agree with the concept of unions but in this instance they are right. (even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again)

[John O]

How can you say he is not being injured?

He can sell to the other leagues. No one has the right to play in the NFL. Especially someone who doesn't meet the league's agreed upon requirements.

[Alberta's Child]

I have looked at your last few posts. I'm not sure how they relate to this case, since I have not seen any determination that Clarett's case against the NFL would be an "anti-trust" case as opposed to a simple "restraint of trade" case.

Clarett's injury history could actually end up being Exhibit #1 for the plaintiff in this case.

"Counsel for the plaintiff calls Mr. Travis McGahee, formerly of the University of Miami, to the stand . . ."

"Mr. McGahee, I will point out, suffered a serious knee injury in his last game at the University of Miami. This injury threatened his career and resulted in a dramatic decline in his marketability to the National Football League. Can there be any doubt that a player who is forced to play an additional season of collegiate football actually suffers from 'irreparable harm' due to the inherent risk of injury while he is not being insured or compensated for his work?"

[Bikers4Bush]

McGahee is a non-issue. He took out a million dollar policy on his knees before the game.

He was smart, Clarett is just a punk.

[Bikers4Bush]

Please explain to me how it could possibly be restraint of trade when he has not met the requirements needed to make him eligible AND he is free to go play in canada or the arena league.

It would be no different than if the NFL required an IQ test or in the case of the NHL a sigt test and someone failed it. The test is being three years out of high school and he fails that test.