Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ContemptofCourt
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."

265 posted on 09/24/2003 8:36:56 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]


To: 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."

266 posted on 09/24/2003 8:38:13 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies ]

To: Bikers4Bush
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.
267 posted on 09/24/2003 8:48:42 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies ]

To: Bikers4Bush
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.

270 posted on 09/24/2003 9:01:43 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson