Speaker 1: ESPN the ban app for free.
Speaker 2: Today you're listening to Cougar Sports on ko v O
probo k U d d HDQ one O three nine
at ninety eight three ESPN The ban alras each time
to check in with Preston and Garren. 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 You may have visit them online at Handy
Law Utah dot com. Big firm Experience, Small firm Attention.
Speaker 3: Welcome back Cougar Sports one O three nine, ninety eight
point three ESPN The Fan. I've been brittle broadcasting from
my Vanderwall Studios Vanderwealth dot com. If you are in
need of financial a financial vision. Without a financial vision,
the people perish. Why not get on a free Q
and a O obligation some to advest Q and A
with our tax more wealth advisors today, betterwealth, betterwealth dot com.
They've been aiding and supporting the BO student athletes for
a long time. They want to support you as well.
The stop a little sport court love my sports court segments.
Getting the latest on what's going on in the sports
and law world. It's time to play a little judge
and jury. What's the latest, what's the verdict on the
biggest headlines in sports and law?
Speaker 1: Sports Court. Each week we're breaking.
Speaker 3: Down real life legal drama, ladies and gentlemen, intersecting with
your favorite athletes, teams, and leagues. From contract disputes and
aoka O sideline scandals and corporate courtroom battles. Let's dive
deep with Utah's most trusted injury attorneys. We got Garrett
and Preston Handy on the line. Gentlemen, how you guys
doing today?
Speaker 4: Hey, Ben doing well? How are you doing?
Speaker 3: I'm doing fantastic, Just talking all manner of Cougar Sports Commentary.
Now we get into the real stuff, the sports and
lost stuff, stuff that is hard hitting and it's just
very intriguing, right, all the things that are happening in
the sports and law world.
Speaker 1: So let's get into it.
Speaker 3: Guys, what's the leaders in the sports court?
Speaker 1: What do we want to start with.
Speaker 4: Well, let's start with a bad actor, a guy named
Darryl Cohen. This is a National Advisor portfolio manager with
Morgan Stanley who was working with a few NBA players
three of them, specifically here, and he was defrauding them
of money. He had a bunch of schemes going. The
first scheme he had going was that he was selling
them life insurance policies. Apparently he had an outfit that
was buying life insurance policies at probably regular prices, regular premiums,
and then he was selling them to these NBA players.
Probably had access to their money at sometimes a markup
of three hundred percent, which is crazy. This is an
example of professional athletes not watching their money. I think
another thing he was doing, and it was found that
another thing he was doing I'll get to that he
was taking money from their accounts. He had access to
their accounts. He took around five hundred thousand dollars and
allegedly put it into nonprofit charities, one called Beast Basketball.
Well it wasn't really going into this nonprofit charity. Then
the other thing he was doing is he was robbing
Peter to pay Paul. He was working with a sports
agency group and using these NBA players' money to pay
off some debts that they had to a Major League
Baseball player. So they're just moving their money around, and
evidence came out that they were using it. He was
using it for personal use, to pay off major debts
on a credit card, to do a lot of home improvements,
and to recreate with his girlfriend. Well, the US Attorney
of New York didn't like that and they prosecuted him,
and that recently here went to trial, which is always
surprising that these things make it to trial. Apparently he
felt he had a pretty good defense, but it was
a five week trial. He was ultimately found guilty of
wire fraud, which carries a potential sense of up to
twenty years. So this isn't the first time that someone's
going to take advantage of professional athletes in their money
and defraud them.
Speaker 1: Crazy.
Speaker 3: I mean, look like, you know, there's always bad players
out there, and you know, these financial advisors they can
get pretty uh, you know, you can toe the line
a little bit with some of these things, defrauding MBAs
that maybe are I mean they're trusting right, there may
be a network, et cetera. So I mean, this was
going on for how long? How long was this occurring for?
Speaker 4: Oh, for years? And they caught wind of it and
it was it was five million dollars, which is a lot,
a lot of money. But you know, Fortunately it wasn't there.
You know, it wasn't all of their networks. I remember
as a kid, first time I remember it was Kareem
Abdul Jabbar who trusted his agent, and his agent pretty
much pretty much buried him bankrupt kid to him and that,
you know, and you've heard of it over the years
that these athletes trusting athletes. They get hooked up with
someone that they feel like is going to manage their
money and probably grow their money, and they trust them,
and you know, what are they doing. They're working on
playing their sport and living the good life, have access
to a lot of money, and probably not minding things
like they should.
Speaker 3: Crazy times, guys, what's the current social media trial and
potential connection to sports betting trends? Look, I tell everyone, like,
there's so much going on in the sports betting world
right now that is probably not a good thing. What's
going on in this particular case.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you're exactly right. There's a lot going on in
sports betting that's not a good thing. And so what
we're going to talk about here is sort of another
case that may have some implications or set some present
for potential litigation against these sports betting sites. But so
what's going on is in LA right now, there's a
big trial going on. It's been going on for several
several weeks against a lot of the big social media companies,
including Meta and YouTube. I think this plaintiff has already
settled with like Snapchat and maybe talk. But what the
allegation is, I mean, really simply is this plaintiff, I
think she's in maybe twenty one years old, is saying
that these products are harmful and addictive, right, and that
they've harmed her. And so again this is this is
kind of some groundbreaking litigation, but it's taking a page
out of the book of the big big tobacco litigation, right,
where for a long time nobody thought cigarettes were harmful,
but then here come these lawsuits, right that find out
that there is a very addictive, harmful thing and the
companies knew it and they've been hiding it. So same
situation here. So anyway, the correlation is that sports betting
sites are you know, you could argue, equally addictive, right
and causing a lot of problems with how they lure
you in and make it so easy. Right, that's what
they want you to do. They want you to jump
on and and make you place your bets and ultimately
lose your money. And so these these this could be
a blueprint, right, this social media case for litigation against
the sports betting companies. I don't think they're going to
be immune from it and probably will face those sorts
of lawsuits in the future.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you hope that the truth of some of these
you know sites, You know that the social media platforms,
you know, there's enough qualitative and quantitative data now that
there's going to be safeguards to be put in place,
because otherwise, you know, lawyer's got to step in and
start suing people, right, Yeah, there you go, yep, and
that's what happens. I was having actually this discussion today.
You know, it's a it's kind of an intriguing thing.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: I'm in the orthopedic and sports medicine space on the
daily and then obviously in the sports media space in
the evenings, right, and we were talking about insurance companies
and I'm like, the only entities, the only people that
keep insurance companies in.
Speaker 1: Check are the lawyers. And lawyers get a bad rap.
Speaker 3: It's the insurance companies that need the bad rap.
Speaker 2: Guys.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 5: We're battling against them every single day.
Speaker 1: The checks and balances man.
Speaker 3: Otherwise, there's like days keep on elevating premiums are like
crazy and then denying claims left and right.
Speaker 5: It's crazy, you got it.
Speaker 1: It's crazy.
Speaker 3: If so, I had that discussion with our team, and
so I had to give them a little bit of truth,
a truth, bob. So you're doing you're doing the Lord's work, gentlemen. Anyway,
let's get into this here. Nevada judge is ripping NCAA
eligibility rule and grants the outfield and outfielder's sixth season.
Speaker 1: What do you got here?
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, this is part of the ongoing saga as
the eligibility world turns. This is another case where a
college athlete. This one is Noah Blythe an outfielder at
University of Nevada. He is seeking a six year of eligibility.
He went to the NCAA and said, I want to
play a sixth year. NCAA said, nope, you're done. You
get five years to play four. And his story is
he played a Division one school for Waife Pacific during
the COVID year. He got a COVID waiver. Then he
played three years at the Powerhouse Antelope Valley which is
Naia School, and then he returned to Waye Pacific to
play another year. Now he wants a six year at
University of Pacific. Well as what happens as they follow
the playbook of the patriots sate of eligibility mister Diego Pavia,
he sued the NCAAA in the first thing he did
is he filed for a preliminary injunction. And the standard
for a preliminary injunction essentially is, hey, court, if you
don't grant this and you don't enjoy the NCAA from
enforcing their eligibility rule while we fight about the real issue,
I lose out this, it'll be a reparable harm. The
court also looks at would he prevail on the merits
if this thing went down. Well, the judge here she
granted his preliminary injunction, and she's probably the most vocal
and probably went after the NCAA more than about anyone.
She totally bought into the anti trust argument that force
enforcing eligibility rules on these players violates anti trust and
anti competitiveness. She came out and said this causes commercial
harm by denying otherwise qualified athletes access to financial, academic,
professional benefits of employment at a D one institution. She noted,
you know, this is this type compensation is not available
elsewhere to these players. Only just a small small percentage
of them get to go on to play professional sports.
She didn't buy into the argument that the NCAA says, hey,
you play your eligibility, you move on, and then there's
players there's freshman incoming taking that eligibility and if you
stay here and keep that spot, you take it away
from them. And she shut down the argument that said,
you know, they argued, well, you know a normal path
for a student in college is four or five years. Well,
and these players are playing six seven years. That doesn't follow.
So she shot it all down and granted him his
extra year. And the crazy thing about it is, these
judges are across the board. There's no predictability. We've seen
several athletes not granted their preliminary injunction requests, and then
we've seen several like Diego Pavia who got his preliminary
in junction and really played an extra two years while
he was just sitting there and then he's done. And
then say, well, let's go find about this in court,
and that's a moot point. So we need some predictability
on this. There's a lot of eligibility fights going on
out there that you know, they're winning and some they're losing,
and you know, the NCAA seems to be kind of
digging in on this eligibility thing, which I personally think
is a good thing. You know, I think there are
extenuating circumstances, but we need some predictability.
Speaker 1: Well, it was interesting.
Speaker 3: I don't know it's not on our list of topics today,
but Trinida Chamblis is being challenged right now by the
NC double A. Right, they're fighting back. I mean there
was a ruling in Mississippi. I think we had discussed
it in a prior segment with Trinidad Chamblass. But the
NC double A is coming back and they're fighting and
trying to strike down. Or maybe there's a judge there
in Mississippi that's a Mississippi fan, not an old miss fan,
that's trying to strike this thing down and maybe support
the NC double I don't know all the details on it,
but these eligibility issues continue to pop up. I'm sure
this is going to be consistent for the next few years.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 3: Let's get into a little legal analysis of the Sharon
Moore hearing. He's scoring maybe a win, may have had
rights violated.
Speaker 1: Give us the latest on Sharon Moore.
Speaker 4: Well, we're talking about this Ben because it's noted around
the state that football college football in the state of
Utah is atoning for the sins and actions of one
mister Sharon Moore. As we know, he was the head
coach at the University of Michigan. It came out that
he was having a inappropriate no no relationship with a staffer.
Following that, he was arrested for felling, home invasions, stocking,
illegal entry, and as we know, he was let go
from his job at Michigan, and had he stayed in
a job at Michigan, one mister J. Hill would still
be the defensive coordinator at BYU. Right. Well, he was
arrested and so his attorney motion for a hearing, and
the basics was that they said they wanted the charges dismissed,
claiming that his due process rights had been violated. Specifically,
they pointed to the fact that the magistrate issued a
warrant based on false and misleading statements presented as facts.
The judge said that there was a glaring omission that
Moore's previous relationship with a woman was not disclosed by
the police detective when the magistrate authorized the warrant for
the rest, and that defendants due process may have been violated.
So he granted a hearing. This is a win for
shron Moore. He granted a hearing. I heard it was
March second, but I haven't heard what the results of
the hearing are. Whether you know, hey, the police law
enforcement have to comply with due as things, and if
they don't, sometimes, and I'm not saying Sharon Moore in
the s capes, sometimes guilty people get off simply because
the due due process steps were not followed. So we'll
see what the judge says about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you bring up a really funny point. And I
had this debate with others.
Speaker 3: I know it's just like a side point, but like
you know, who do who did cougarnation? Blame more for
for everything that and no pun intended. Blame more with
everything that occurred with the the domino effect.
Speaker 1: Were they more.
Speaker 3: Angry at Kyle Whittingham? Were they more angry at like
uh the the athletic director of the University of Utah
with a more mad at sharmonn More because they lost
some really good coaches in the in the process.
Speaker 4: Well, the truth is in every the More let go. Simultaneously,
there's the Whittingham stepping down. We'll call it no one,
no one, No one saw that Michigan job coming Kyle's way.
No one did you know? And you had Sharon More
not been let go, he'd still be the head coach
of Michigan and he was. He If he were still
the head coach of Michigan, Kyle Woodenham would not be
in that position, and Kyle wood Whittingham would not have
taken many coaches and players from the state of Utah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, crazy times. Thank you, Sharon, Yeah, thank you so much, guys.
Speaker 3: Any other updates on we didn't prep for this, any
updates on the Parker Kingston case from the last time
we chatted anything there.
Speaker 5: I haven't heard anything. I don't know about you, guys,
but yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Know the hearing or maybe like the next meeting hearing
was moved up in. Yeah, so March twenty fifth is
the latest on that. So we'll keep an eye on
that as well. Going back to the l dubility conversation, right,
it's like, I mean, look, you're seeing it in baseball,
You've seen it in basketball, you've seen it in football.
You're like, we have g leaguers trying to make their
way back to teams, and there's judges and rulings and
all these different states we're seeing. I don't know if
you guys saw this recently too. There are certain states
that will not tax. They've decided not to tax nil income.
I thought that was pretty insane. So they're trying to
create a competitive advantage via tax lot least state tax law.
I mean, I don't think they can circumvent federal tax law,
but state tax law for their nil earnings.
Speaker 1: What's your reaction to.
Speaker 5: That, Well, yeah, I mean it's everybody's competing, right, competing
for resources, and those resources are the top players in
the country, and so there's different ways to lure them in, right,
And if a school is having a hard time raising funds,
which again it's just an arms maybe states can step
in and with these schools where you know, again they've
got a vested interest in that. These are a lot
of them public state institutions. So maybe they offer a
tax break. It's maybe a little no different than luring
in a you know, a big company to your state
and offering them some incentives to come. So I think
it's creative. I guess that's my initial reaction. But it's
just it's just more of the same, right money, it's
a big business.
Speaker 1: Big business.
Speaker 3: Indeed, gentlemen, be let's talk a little bit about what
you guys do best. Okay, your business is representing those
that have been injured. Why should our listeners call you
if they've been in an accent if they've been injured.
Speaker 5: Well, what we're gonna do is is really make sure
we understand your case from from top to bottom and
be an adscate for you. We help people who've been injured.
We take them all the way through the process. Sometimes
that results and you know, we get our clients really
good results in settlements out of court, and sometimes we've
got to file lawsuits and take it down that direction.
So we're here ready to do what we what we
have to do and want to do to get people
compensated and help them out. So I'd love to hear
from anybody out there with you know, their legal concerns,
especially in the area of personal injury. You can reach
us at eight zero one two sixty four sixty six
seven seven, or go to our website at Handylawutah dot com.
Speaker 1: Eight ah one two six four sixty six seven seven.
Speaker 3: That's eight to one two six four sixty six seven
seven handy law Utah dot com. Gentlemen, we so let you.
We appreciate you. Always love learning from you. Guys in
a sports court segment.
Speaker 4: I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Thank you, Ben all.
Speaker 1: Right, thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 3: We'll call that a segment brought to you by Handylawutah
dot com. Handylawutah dot com is the place you go
when you've been in an accident. Call them big firm experience,
small firm attention. They will take care of you. We'll
take a brief time out. We'll get to know the
foe on the flip side. With Nathan Geese, Ladies and gentlemen,
he's going to discuss the Texas Tech Red Raiders.
Speaker 1: He's a b writer for the Lubbock Avalanche Journal.
Speaker 3: What weaknesses, what strengths do they bring into provo as
the BAU men's basketball team tries to find a way
to knock off a top ten team and put a
hopefully a nice ending to a solid and I'd say
a good