Speaker 1: Dot com if you were listening to Utah's Home of
the l A rams k O v O pro bo
k U d d H D two one O three
nine that ninety eight three ESPN the fan.
Speaker 2: Wow, who is that Jake Chef. I don't know if
you guys remember that one that had.
Speaker 3: Had absolutely Jake Schoff played with my nephew.
Speaker 4: There you go. Yeah, yeah, so Ben Jake Schoff is
married to Ben's sister. So yeah, So now Jake, I
forget uh, it's it's tragic, man.
Speaker 2: So he was just driving on I fifteen and just
passed out and his car hit like one of the
cars that takes the other cars and travels across the country.
He flipped, uh and it was a four car accident.
Luckily no one else has heard. And then he just
rolled over his uh because he was in a g
wagon and nothing. He didn't break his neck or anything,
and he just passed out and they said he was
dead before uh, you know, the impact happened and nothing,
and they didn't find anything in the out time. So
I mean, I guess the peace of mind for the family,
but yeah, so I guess it was just his time.
Speaker 4: So they're doing that.
Speaker 3: He was a big He was a big dude, wasn't he.
Speaker 2: Oh No, Jake was a big dude. I I Jake
made me look like a peanut. Honestly that when I
stood next to him. Jake was a seven three and fifteen, big,
big pound dude.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he played with my nephew, Garrett's cousin, Chris.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, I know who he is.
Speaker 3: I didn't know he passed away.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So okay, well I'm out, Jordan start to rejoin,
and then we're just gonna get into it.
Speaker 4: I'm ready kick Kay, thank Ky, go for it. He
just tied to check in with question and Garrett.
Speaker 1: Handy of Handy and Handy for sports court. Handy and
Handy are your accident and personal injury attorneys ready to
assist with any related questions.
Speaker 4: You may have.
Speaker 1: Visily them online at handy Law Utah dot com.
Speaker 5: Big Firm Experience, Small firm Attention.
Speaker 2: Had Welcome back to Cooper Sports here, I want it
or not three espn Evan Ronald the three man weaver here.
Speaker 4: Filling in for Big Cripple.
Speaker 2: As we keep it going, gonna get into our sports
court segment.
Speaker 4: That's right, It's time to play judge.
Speaker 2: Jerry, what's the verdict on the biggest headline of sports
in law today?
Speaker 4: It's time for the Sports Court, brought to you by our.
Speaker 2: Good friends at Handy and Handy, Big firm experience, small
firm attention. Each week, we break down the real life
legal drama, intersecting your favorite athletes, teams, and leagues from
contract disputes, niloko sideline scandal's courtroom battles. We're diving indeed,
with Utah's most trusted injury attorneys, Garrett and Preston Handy.
Speaker 4: How we doing today, folks?
Speaker 3: Hey doing well?
Speaker 4: How you doing?
Speaker 3: Ron?
Speaker 4: Doing good?
Speaker 2: Appreciate you guys joining me today. I just want to
mention this Ben. We'll be back next week. Everybody. You
celebrating a family event on Jake Choff's brother in law
passed away a year ago, so he's out of the
office today, but he will be back.
Speaker 4: He just wanted to express his apologies.
Speaker 2: He hates when he has to miss this with you guys,
but has delegated to me to hold it down.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, give you our best.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, let's get right into it. Something around the local.
This is something that i've the Morning Show deals with.
They're part of the WHACK and UVU. But the WHAC
is suing UVU over exit fees.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is this is interesting. So the WA, the
Western Athletic Conference UVU is.
Speaker 4: Part of it. Now.
Speaker 3: About a year ago they announced that they were going
to bounce to the Big West Conference and leave the WHACK.
So you know, this is a common thing when just
with all this conference realignment and schools leaving conferences, they
are part of their bylaws and contracts that require an
exit fee. I mean there was a big deal where
Florida State and Clemson tried to leave the ACC and
they were gonna have to pay like one hundred and
forty million something crazy like that. But so we just
got word that the WHAC Conference is suing UVU, claiming
that they claim that UVU has refused to pay the
million dollar exit fee to the WHACK after announcing his
plan to move to the Big West Conference. So there
have been no doubt. Before a lawsuit happens, there are
things going on behind the scenes where the parties try
to negotiate and come to a compromise, and they both
put their positions out there and say what's happening, and
the WHACK I'm sure came to UVU and said, hey,
you got to pay this exit fee. You're leaving, good
luck to you, but you got to pay a million dollars.
And it was reported that a letter from the president
of UVU said we are not going to pay this fee.
And you know, you look at that and think, well,
that can't just be, you know, just an exclusive thing.
I'm sure that it's based on a legal position that
they got that for some reason they don't need to
pay that. But the Western Athletic Conference responded and said, no,
this is part of our contract. It's part of our
by laws. If someone leaves, you got to do this.
You're bound by this, and you know, lawsuits can drag
it out and things like that.
Speaker 4: And the reason you know.
Speaker 3: We're talking about it is because it comes at a
time that's really interesting because the WHAC Conference has stated
as part of their losses, they said UVU is not
permitted to participate in conference championship events, NCAA championship events,
or appear on conference sponsored television, radio or other media.
So basically they're saying, Okay, you haven't paid your exit fee,
and part of our contract is if you don't pay this.
You don't get to participate in this stuff. And that's
important because UVU right now is they're type for first
in the West Athidic Conference. You know, they have a
good chance to do well in their tournament and potentially
get a automatic bid or even in that large bid.
But the WA's taking a hardline position on this and
saying you don't even get a play in this. So
it's going to be interesting to see how this works out.
Number one, I think the UVU has dug its heels
in and maybe they didn't think that they were going
to assert this part of the contract and the WAX
is digging their heels in, and so we'll see what happens.
I think you've used doug in on their position, but
they might bend to this. There might be negotiations, we
might hear that it's taken care of. But that's why
it's having such a big impact.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a lot going on with this. Now.
Speaker 2: This is obviously going out of Texas, so it'll be
Texas case. I'm curious, pressing, is there a way to
get some type of motion or something for them to
still be able to participate. I don't know how you
can put things on hold and still participate in the
NCAA tournament.
Speaker 3: How that will work, Well, the WAX certainly doesn't want that,
and the wills of justice moves slowly, so I'm sure
that there will be there will be motions. So what
happens is the loss is filed, and you're right, it
was filed in the Federal District Court in Texas because
I think that's where the headquarters of the Western Athletic
Conference are. And what will happen is UVU with their lawyers,
will come in and answer what's called the complet the lawsuit,
and they will respond to all the allegations in it,
and they'll take their position and they'll take our hardline position,
and then we start a process. It's called discovery, you know.
And so I bet there will be some probably some
early motions, maybe even a motion to this myth, basically
saying to the judge, hey, this is no good. It
needs to be dismissed. It's it's in, it's you know,
it's a doesn't really have any merit. But then what
will follow probably will be a motion for a preliminary
injunction where they ask the court to say, hey, this
is a dispute. We're at odds on it. We have
difference of opinion on it. But while we resolve this,
the Conference should be enjoined from enforcing this part of
the contract because down the road we might prove the
contracts no good and we don't need to pay this.
But right now, the Conference should be enjoined from you know,
restricting us from paying an these things. That's what I
think you'll see and how the judge will ruin. I
don't know, they'll look at it, and you know, preliminary
injunctions have to show that it you know, if not
granted their there's like irreversible stuff that could happen, which
would be you'd miss this tournament. So I wait for
that to happen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm gonna be waiting as well.
Speaker 2: I was shocked when I saw Pete Damil, you know,
the College Football Insider put this out the school literally,
you know, just a few minutes away from BYU, A
local one of that never thought that we would see this,
but everything happens in the world.
Speaker 4: Of sports core. Let's move on.
Speaker 2: Floyd Mayweather Junior Money Mayweather as they call him, Sue's
showtime former, you know, executive for a three hundred and
forty million allegend years of fraud.
Speaker 4: That's a lot of money.
Speaker 5: He hits a lot of money. Yeah, he's not called
money Mayweather for nothing. I mean I'd forgotten this wrong,
but I mean here in two hundred and fifty million
dollars just that one fight with Manny Pacyao, it's huge money.
And so, you know, as these boxers and all athletes do,
they've got agents and promoters and and Mayweather's had this
agent for a long long time. And really the relationships,
the way it's come out in this lawsuit was based
on an oral contract, kind of a handshake that hey,
he's going to take ten percent of his earnings. And
so this relationship has been going on for years, and
he's got this contract with Showtime Network and they're shelling
out these payments and it's going to the agent who's
then taking his cut, you know, allegedly, and then giving
the rest of it to Floyd Mayweather. And well, what's
what's come out now is that why we've got this
lawsuit again where he's seeking three hundred and forty million dollars.
It's a lawsuit against the network, against Showtime Network because
he's saying there's been a misappropriation of funds, right, and
that this money that went to his agent, really he
never got his fair share of what he was supposed
to get. Because really what's happening is this agent is
he's siphoning off some of the money and he's he's
taking his ten percent, but he's taking more in addition
to that, and he's claiming, you know, for quote reimbursements
you know is taking you know, these are a twenty
million dollars reimbursement on for things. I don't know what
that would be for, right, But he's there's so much
money here that he's taking more than his fair share course,
so misappropriating those funds. And so what's curious to me,
as we've talked about this is that this agent's not
part of the lawsuit. This is a lawsuit again Showtime,
and the allegation is basically that hey, you guys, you
guys should have known that something was up, that this
was that this money and the way it was getting
structured and transferred, you should have known that it wasn't
getting to Floyd Mayweather, right, and that you guys have
a responsibility. And once you realize that something shady is
going on. You can't keep participating in this scheme. You've
got a duty to me under this contract. And so
that's the basis for his lawsuit. I think it's so
is a tough claim, right. The person who's actually stolen
the money is not even a part of the lawsuit.
But he's just saying, hey, you guys should have kept
a closer eye on my own agent and this agent,
you know, the way he does business, and that this
could be a reason why he's not involved in the
lawsuit is there's not much of a paper trail with him.
He does things kind of old fashioned, right with a handshake.
There's not you know, a lot of electronic files or
documentation or emails. He doesn't do any of that, and
so I maybe it's been hard to kind of piece
together from a you know, forensic accounting standpoint. And that's
why they're going back to showtime and saying, hey, you
guys should have known better and shouldn't have been given
him all of the money.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of money, man, that's life change of money.
So you've mentioned a two hundred and fifty thousand that
would change a lot millions for society, millions for people.
Speaker 4: I do have a follow up, just a quick one.
Speaker 2: How likely is it that a case like this settles
out in court versus going to try. Given the high
profile and a large amount.
Speaker 5: Of dollar, I think it's very likely that's something like
this settles out of court, you know, I mean, is
Floyd Mayweather going to get three hundred and forty million dollars?
I mean, I doubt it. I mean, I think there
will be some sort of compromise here, But I mean,
they've got to through this process, and Preston was just
describing this this the discovery process. They're going to have
to come up with some really solid evidence to show
that of what they knew, that they knew that there
was this shady scheme going on, and and that might
be hard. It might be hard to come up with
that kind of a smoking gun. But I mean, if
you have some of that, it would give you some
leverage and some negotiations. But one way or another, I
would expect that something like this will we'll settle out
of court.
Speaker 2: Definitely settle, Yeah, settle. I'm definitely going to see if
this one's settled. Because the best box of all time
is has settled You know, beating everybody. Well, see if
he's able to win it again and beat this case.
We'll see if he's able to win it. Let's get
an update on mil Tucker and he beats a defamation lawsuit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I should have been a boxer on Garrett story.
You know. But this Mel talker situation has been going
on for a number of years. Just a little background.
Mel Tucker as a coach who signed a ten year,
almost one hundred million dollar deal with Michigan State University
to be the football coach a few years ago. And
he's had a lot of success and is a really
good coach. Well, as part of his coaching, he brought
in a consultant, woman named Brenda Tracy to come talk
to his team. And she is a sex assault advocate
and she'd come talk to the team about sexual content,
things that red flags you could get in trouble for
because we know some of these athletes they made poor
decisions or they're targeted or whatever. So she was a consultant. Well,
aside from that, Mel Tucker, you know, they developed a
friendly relationship. And this is where it is. Did she
claims that Tucker was pursuing her and that there was
some inappropriate, salacious things going on in texting and over
the telephone and things, and she maintained she just wanted
to keep a professional relationship just as friends. Well, it
came out that, you know, she made these allegations, and
just like that, Michigan State fired him. They said they
fired him for cause. We'll get to that in a minute.
But then she sued mel Tucker on her own and
she claimed a number of things. She claimed. Her main
thing was she said that Tucker intentionally tried to ruin
her public image and reputation with false statements when he
came out, including his claims, and she made up these
allegations just to extort him for money. She claimed a
breach of contract for the contract she had to do
things tortures, interference, and she claimed sexual harassment. So this
has been going on for a number of years, and
we just got worried that Big mel Tucker got himself
a victory. The judge has dismissed her claims against him,
claiming that the judge's reasoning was that said that it
violated or did not meet the statumentations means she didn't
file on time and that the facts were there if
they went ahead in the trials, she would not prevail.
That's what has been reported. I haven't read the opinion.
But so there are other lawsuits going on in this
Mele's getting out of these and we'll see if there's appeals.
But Mel has his lawsuit going against Michigan State. They
fired him for cause he said, no, I didn't violate
the contract because you know all along about my relationship
with her, and you know it was up front, he
disclosed it. She has a lawsuit going against Michigan State
saying that they didn't protect her and they knew that
things were going on. So Mel's getting a victory on
his personal side of things, and so we'll see what happens.
Speaker 2: Sometimes you you take a loss somewhere else and you
get a w you know. And mL Sark was able
to beat this one. He's been in the headlines before,
no doubt, no doubt about it. Let's continue on FATS
push discrimination claims against Nike. What's going on with this one?
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, this is a this is a claim by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the e e o C
against Nike. Honestly, it took to me it comes a
little out of left field. But this is a push
by the eeo C to say that that Nike's DEI
related hiring practices are discriminatory, and essentially they're arguing that
this is reverse racism against white employees who are applying
for jobs at Nike. This doesn't come from any complaint
from somebody who was trying to get a job at Nike.
This is just the e on their own and they're
getting their marching orders, I guess to make this complaint.
And so what's happened and why it's hitting the news
now is the EEOC, and in these employment cases, they
kind of you know, have their own little process. But
they issued a subpoena to Nike and they were trying
to get information and back and forth about this complaint
that they've filed against them, and apparently from the eeoc's perspective,
they weren't getting compliance, and so they went ahead and
filed the motion in federal court to help to enforce
this right and so now it becomes public. Nike their
response has been, well, wait a minute, you know, we're
being blindsided by this. We've been complying in good faith.
We've been providing you as information where what's this about
so again, I mean, it's it's kind of interesting. This
is not the type of claim we typically in the past,
you know, for decades and decades have seen from the EEOC.
This is a new kind of a claim of a
verse racism claim. So I don't know, we'll see, we'll
see where this thing goes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is interesting.
Speaker 2: My follow up question is how does the concept I
guess of reverse discrimination work legally? And sorry if that
means I'm you know, not educated enough, I'm.
Speaker 5: Curious, Well, exactly, I think I think one of the
what the EEOC is is pointing to in twenty twenty one,
for example, Nike, they you know, this is internal stuff,
but they presented a five year plan for having a
more diverse workforce and they had a target of a
thirty five percent representation of racial minorities in the company.
And so the e EEOC is taking exception with this,
and they're saying, hey, you shouldn't have these kind of quotas, right,
you know, regarding racial minorities working for your company. Again,
that's something typically in all kinds of areas in you know,
in our multicultural, pluralistic society, you know, whether it's in education,
or in corporate business that has you know, been the
idea is to promote diversity, and this is taking a
swing at it from the other way to push back
against that. We've seen it in higher education right with
affirmative action of this sort of things. And so that's
that's kind of what this is about.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll see if it's a swing and a swing
and a miss or yeah, or what.
Speaker 4: Will happen in the future with this. Let's finish up
with this.
Speaker 2: Going back to some local news, Utah bill would allow
concealed firearm permits holders to bring guns to jazz mammoth games.
Speaker 4: I'm intrigued by this one. Please give me the update
on this.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, we're this is the legislative part of Sports Court.
It was reported yesterday that Representative Candice Perucci of Harriman,
she is putting forth a bill that said it would
require any private entity, business, or venue that has received
more than one million dollars in public funding to allow
concealed fire arms permit holders to bring their guns to events.
She comes out and says, hey, we're a Second Amendment state.
We really have a robust concealed carry permit. We think
we ought to get into this discussion where things are
happening to prohibit people's Second Amendment rights. So where the
Delta Center and Jazz and the Mammoth fall into this
is part of the bill is that the legislature they
fall under this area that where they they have received
public subsidies, they've received subsidies from the legislature. It shows
that nearly a billion dollars in subsidies to Salt Lake
City's Sports and Entertainment District, which is where the Delta
Center is, So they fall in there. So why is
this tricky? Well because up to now, you know, you
couldn't do that. You've got metal detectors, all kinds of
things like that, and the NBA and then AHL part
of their policy is people can bring weapons, any kind
of weapon, including a firearm to the games. So you're
getting into this mess here and what happens in this
you know. And so this bill has just been put forth.
I think it's an interesting bill. I think I don't
think a lot of people are going to want to
jump on board with this. I don't think a lot
of people are going to want to go to public
venues knowing that people might be carrying firearms. You know,
they like the security of going to this or there's
big events simply because we've seen terrible things over the
years more than we want to talk about at public
events where they're shootings and that type of thing. So,
you know, any level of security I think people I
am anyway in favor of and not taking a Second
Amendment stance on this, but I just think in certain
situations you absolutely should have security. So my bet is
this will not pass. But it's being put out there.
She claims she's responding to her what her constituents want.
Speaker 4: This is definitely interesting. I never thought this.
Speaker 2: I'm with you growing up going to bulls games and
even now going to jazz games. I have a little
one definitely feel protected with the security and gonna go
that nothing against the Amendments at all, but yeah, we'll
see what happens with this one. I know there are
a lot of people that probably have a lot of
opinions about this, and we'll let them have that. Guys,
before I let you go, always appreciate you guys coming
on sports court before I go, just if how can
people get a hold of you guys and reach out
to you guys?
Speaker 4: If with you know, the serious questions that they have.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Ron, the best way to reach us really is
just give us a call. We'd be happy to talk
to you about your legal questions. Again, we get on
here and we talk about sports a lot related issues,
but really we help people who've been injured in accidents.
We help them through that process. If you've been injured
in an accident and no fault to your own, give
us a call eight zero one two six' four six
six seven, seven or you can go to our Website
handylawutah dot.
Speaker 4: Com you heard, him.
Speaker 2: Mate zero one six four six six seven. Seven that's
eight zero one two six four six six seven, seven
or visit handylawutah dot. Com big thanks to, You preston And.
Garrett always appreciate you guys joining. Us and, remember if
you've been, injured you're not. Alone, right have a good.
Speaker 5: Day hey see.
Speaker 4: You we'll let them.
Speaker 2: Go that's pressing To Garrett handy of handy Law utah dot.
Com that's a verdict on this week's addition of Sports
court powered By handy And Handy handylawutah dot. Com Personal
attention proven r results will go to, break don't go
anywhere still a lot more to get.
Speaker 4: To let's get into a little No. Theefoe let's close out.
Speaker 2: The show with Little nodefae coming up, Next we're gonna
HAVE i believe If i'm. Correct one of the basketball
play by play For, Houston Jeremy branhan is. Brand excuse,
me he's going to join us. Next he's joined us.
Before we're gonna get to know This houston basketball team
and can be why you get a quad won't win
against the top ten. Team this team is. Physical he's
gonna tell us all About it's gonna be a tough.
One can be what you get on track tomorrow at
The Marriout center against The Houston.
Speaker 4: Cougars