Speaker 1: All ras.
Speaker 2: You just time to check in with Preston and Garrett
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 a visit
them online at Handylawutah dot com. Big Firm Experience, Small
Firm Attention.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to your sports Little A three nine ninety
point three ESPN Evan. I've in fortal broadcasting from the
road Home the road Home dot org. Is the season
to be giving, and because we've been given up much,
we too must give. Let's give back to those in
most need at this time as they are in need
of hygiene items, nonperishable food items, clothing items, blankets, whatever
it is that you have to offer, whatever it is
that you can spare, please get back to those in
most need here at the road Home the road home
dot org. Go to road home dot org sports slash donate.
You can donate a monetary donation as well. It is
stop a Little Sports Court one of my favorite segments.
It's time to play Little Judge and Jury the verdict
on the biggest headlines in sports and law. Its time
for a little Sports Court, brought to you by our
good friends at Handy and Handy, Big Firm Experience, Small
Firm Attention. Each week, we break down the real life
legal drama intersecting with your favorite sports teams and leagues.
From contract disputes and Ioko sideline scandals and courtroom battles.
We're diving deep with Utah's most trusted injury attorneys. We
got Garrett, we got pressman, Handy on the line, Handy
Law Utah dot Com.
Speaker 1: Gentlemen, how are you guys doing?
Speaker 4: Hey, Ben doing well? How you doing? Hi?
Speaker 5: Been doing fantastic living the dream 'tis the holiday season.
Grateful for you guys, Grateful that you're a part of
our show. Grateful that you guys are always giving back
to those that need, you know, help, especially when they've
been injured in an accident. Let's start off with that
real quick. You guys are trusted injury attorneys, right, That's
what you guys do on the day that you come on.
We talk sports court, we talk we talk sports and law,
but your main gig is to represent those that have
been injured in accidents.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's right. We we helped people all throughout the
state of Utah and and make sure if you've been
in an accident it wasn't the fault of your own
We help people make sure they get the compensation they deserve.
Speaker 5: Well, we appreciate that, and uh we we invite everyone
to head over to handy Law Utah dot com.
Speaker 1: Let's start off with.
Speaker 5: The sports court with some Power Conference commissioners defending NC
double A red shirt rule in court. So eligibility has
been a point of conversation over the last few years,
whether or not you were a maybe you were a
juco player, right or maybe you played you know, you
had a red shirt or a medical red shirt. And
so this continues as Power Conference commissioners defend the NC
DOUBLEA redshirt rule in court.
Speaker 1: What what's the summary on this one?
Speaker 7: Yeah, So, I mean why is the LGB eligibility rule
an issue?
Speaker 4: Why are we talking about that?
Speaker 7: Well, it's because of the almighty dollar and what's happened
with nil opportunities for athlete.
Speaker 4: So this is an evolving thing going on, and.
Speaker 7: This is regarding the red shirt rule that the NCAA
has And I'm going to focus on one side of it.
On another piece that we're going to do Garrett's going
to talk about the other one.
Speaker 4: But what's going on here is the eligibility that used
to be that you knew band was you.
Speaker 7: Had five years to have your four years of eligibility,
and there were some exceptions to that, like medical red
shirt things that happened in the transfer. We know that
that it became a little more flexible a few years ago,
where they said, hey, if you play four games or less,
you're still eligible to be red shirted even though you played,
or it used to be if you even played one
snap or one quarter of a game, you gave up
your eligibility. Well, now this is an issue in the
courts and the commissioners have all banded together because they
really want to force this predictability on eligibility. And the
arguments that they're throwing out there are a few, and
one of them is they say, you know, first, they're saying, hey,
this is college sports, and eligibility is something unique to it.
This isn't pro sports. We do have eligibili limits. I mean,
if we just kind of gave it no limits to eligibility,
it really would give a really unstable and unpredictable situation.
The other thing that the commissioners are stating that this
is eligibily focused on. I mean, there's been arguments where
you mentioned ben if you were a juco player or something,
but this is kind of they're going at, if you
played D one athletics, basketball or football, you have four
years of eligibility. And here's what I think they're both.
One of the best arguments was and I hadn't thought
about it, but they said to these athletes that are
seeking more eligibility, and you know, based on this red
shirt thing, they've said, by agreeing to the House Settlement,
you agreed to roster limits. One of the big points
of contention and back and forth before the House Settlement
was agreed to by both parties was was roster limits,
and it was a big point of contention.
Speaker 4: But finally it was reached and the commissioners.
Speaker 7: Saying, hey, if you've agreed to these roster limits and oh,
by the way, if you get another year of eligibility,
guess what that does. That takes another player's roster spot away,
whether it's an incoming high school kid who's got excited
and he's ready to get in there and going, or
someone who is transferred and committed to a university. If
that person gets another year, you take away someone else's year.
And the other point is they said, the courts have
looked at this, and they don't want the courts arbitrarily
deciding what eligibility limits are. Courts decide. They did decide
that athletes can benefit from their nil name engine likeness
and that they could get educated education related benefits, but
they don't want the courts jumping in and trying to
address this issue of eligibility because we've seen different courts
are given different rulings on this. So they want some stability.
That's what we all want in the whole thing. But
this is just another area where they're looking for stability.
Speaker 5: Let me get your your opinions on this, right, And
it's this is more of a maybe a macro philosophical
view of collegiate athletics. We have these institutions of higher
learning combined with athletic departments that are behemos, right, one
hundred and fifty million, two hundred million dollars plus organizations
that focus on sport, right, And they say student athlete,
but we all know it's athletes student for the most
of them.
Speaker 1: Especially for football. Men's football, men's.
Speaker 5: Basketball, because of the the eyeballs, the TV, the money,
and just the bandwidth that you can only only have
twenty four hours in a day. So, like you take
the landscape into account and you wonder if you allowed
for these big brands, right the Ohio States, the SEC,
the Big Ten, the Big twelve, these power conferences to
essentially like almost operate as a professional league with a
brand association with the university that's no longer so academically
n C double A connectivity focused and you allow for
elongated uh I guess uh tenure of eligibility? What would
that do for the football product at the jucos, at
the nai A schools, the D two s, the D three's, uh,
the D one Double a'suh, even the the G six programs.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that wouldn't that improve.
Speaker 5: Or give maybe more opportunity for those I just wonder
what the the the socioeconomic and also the product portion, uh,
how that would maybe impact the overall product of of
the still the the the altruistic student athlete component? Does
that make sense where like all these other schools are
still yeah athletics.
Speaker 7: I think players and students at these schools are they're
seen as you know, student athletes.
Speaker 4: I mean they're not getting ANIL deals.
Speaker 7: They're happy to get their their scholarship or whatever. They're
getting to earn a degree and they're not caught up
in this. But you know, as we know happens. You know,
if you perform at one of these schools, guess what
you're jumping into the NIL world and your focus change.
I don't know the answer to this, Ben, I've wondered
about this now that the NIL world's come into there.
What are the academic requirements of a player?
Speaker 4: Do you have minimum requirements?
Speaker 7: I mean you used to hear, oh that so and
so couldn't play because he didn't make grades or she
didn't make grades.
Speaker 4: You never hear that anymore.
Speaker 7: I mean the example you're you're going to hear is
I mean the one locally is aj Debanta. I mean,
he's going to school this semester.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 4: He's not to finish the next semester. He's not even
to finish the next semester.
Speaker 7: Basketball ends and he's gonna You're gonna withdraw from school
and the end of story. So I don't know what
the academic requirements are at you know, not just BYU
all schools, you know, for these players. But it has
changed it and you know, and as you point out,
I think it's most people think it's heading towards a
semi pro model, you know, where there might be a
collective bargain agreement, which in my opinion would be good
because it would give some guardrails and predictive predictability.
Speaker 5: Yeah, all right, Well, it's very intriguing that this is
also anti trust, isn't it like when you say when
you put a when you put a limitation legally on eligibility,
even if so if I'm I'm thirty year old Ben
Krittle and I'm I'm not thirty, I wish I was,
but and I still have you know, I still want
to play football, and I'm enrolled at school. Why can't
I enroll in play football? If someone if I'm good
enough to play football, does that make sense? Like, is
there any anti trust legality that limits me? And can
I go in and try to sue somebody the university
of the NCAA from not allow me to play?
Speaker 7: Well, yeah no, Garrett's going to talk about that in
another story that's pending with five players, But that has
been the claim of all the players that not allowing
me to compete is a violation of anti trust, and
that's how they're getting around this.
Speaker 4: Whole eligibility thing.
Speaker 7: But you know, I mean, okay, so you get a
fifth year of eligibility, Well, someone might go, hey, that
was pretty sweet.
Speaker 4: How about a sixth year? You know, that was pretty sweet.
I was doing pretty well and I I've met a
lot of money.
Speaker 7: The patron saint of this eligibility is Diego Pavia, and
we'll talk about the case that has come on the
heels of that, and he had six years.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, let's follow up. I know you let's talk
about the five players real quick. I know we're gonna
go out out of step here, but let's talk about
the five players run to court seeking injunction to allow
to be allowed to play a fifth year.
Speaker 1: What do you got for me?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, sure.
Speaker 6: One of the lead plaintiffs in this in this case
is actually one of Diego Pavia's teammates, a linebacker from Vanderbilt,
and so he and five other players have filed this
lawsuit seeking it seeking to be a class action, and
what they're seeking right now is an injunction because we
are at the very tail end of course of the
college football season, and they're trying to wonder if they
can get a fifth year. And so what these players
have in common again a little different than somebody like
a Diego Pavia who played at a you know, like
a D three school or a Juco or something. These guys,
these players all played their full four years in four years, right.
I mean again, as as Preston's mentioned, I mean, you've
got you know, five years to play four. But these
players didn't take a red shirt, right, they didn't. They
played as freshmen and all the way through his seniors,
they've you know, graduated with bachelor's degrees and they want
another year. And so that's that's really what's going on.
They've got the same lawyer, I think is this is
kind of interesting and probably a good strategic move at
this point. But they've got the same lawyer that did
represent Diego Pavia. And again, as we've kind of talked
about already, I mean, they're they're citing that this violates
antitrust laws, right, that they're being prevented from opportunities to
either have that fifth year to you know qualify for
you know, to be seen by some NFL scouts or
you know, up their draft stock or really just to
make more ANIL money. So I think it's really what
a lot of this comes down to.
Speaker 1: Of course, when you.
Speaker 5: Look at all the data, the the the rulings thus far,
like do you lean one direction or the other as
to what the ruling will end up being? And I
mean it may be by state too, right, Like I
don't know if there's going to be a federal ruling
on any of this, because these are all filed within
you know, state law. But any any way that you're
leaning or what you guys are leaning in this, well.
Speaker 6: The way I'm the way I'm leaning on it is
I'd like to see some predictability. I mean, I don't
see how we can't have eligibility rules right in college.
I mean because right, I mean, this is the classic
flippery slope argument. I mean where does it ends? As
we've talked about, I mean, when you finish your master's degree,
can you get a PhD and you're still you know,
you're still enrolled in school? Why can't you play? Yeah?
So yeah, anyway, so yeah, i'd like.
Speaker 1: To but from a legal standpoint, what do you make
of it?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 5: I think there's a baseline foundational like moral, ethical, uh
even yeah, you know, like pragmatic part of all of us,
Like no, dude, you got five years, like to move on,
go do something else with you know what I mean.
Speaker 6: But then there's been Yeah, from a legal standpoint, Look,
let's let's let's be clear. I mean, the n C
double A has has not had good luck in court
winning anti trust cases, right, and that's what this is.
It's an anti trust case. And so I mean, if
we just look at their track record, it's not good.
So it's gonna be interesting to see what happens.
Speaker 5: Well, great content there, great breakdown. Let's go over to
the suspended sprinter asking second circuit to revive case over
tainted Gatorade gummies.
Speaker 1: What the heck's going on with this one?
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's it's kind of a wild story. I mean,
this is this is involving at the time he was
a high school senior, is some I some asinga out
of Texas and he was really an up and coming star,
you know, in one hundred meter dash and also two
hundred meter and he was selected to be the Gatorade
National Player of the Year by Gatorade, a big honor,
and and part of that Gatorade provided them with more
or less some I'm calling it some swag, right, and
and part of this was some Gatorade recovery gummies. And
on the on the packaging, and.
Speaker 4: I think this is all in dispute.
Speaker 6: It on the packaging, it was certified that it was
safe for sport, meaning that it had gone through some
rigorous testing, and that it didn't have any sort of
band performance enhancing substances or drugs in and there's like
two hundred of them that are identified by the World
Doping Anti Doping Agency. And so anyway, he's taking these
gummies and he submits to a drug test and it
comes up with a banned substance called cardine GW one
five six. The trace amounts, right, what the heck is that?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 6: I don't even know, honestly, and he didn't know either.
He's going, wait, what is this? And so it starts
going through all of any substances that he's taking, Right,
He's taking melatonin for sleep, and airborne to fight off
a cold, and you know, drink mix or or whatever.
And so he sends in all these substances to the
anti doping lab and they test it and it's the
Gator EIGHTE gummies that come back positive. And so anyway,
he's he filed a lawsuit a couple of years ago.
The lawsuit was dismissed and now it's been appealed to
the Second Circuit Court, and in the meantime, he's fighting
the suspension because I guess what I didn't mention he
was handed down a four year ban in track and field,
and so it's pretty crushing for somebody when you're eighteen
years old at the you know, just about to be
a breakout star. He's gonna head he was going to
run in the Paris Olympics in twenty twenty four for Sirnam.
He had a full right scholarship to scholarship to Texas
A and m a Nike endorsement deal right that potentially
worth millions. I mean, he'd really proven it on the
on the track that he had a promising career and
so he's he a legend this lawsuit that that was
taken from him, and he's suffered a lot of harm
because of it. But you know, there's some real legal
technicalities for why this case was dismissed by the lower
court and now it's on appeal. And it came down
to the fact that he couldn't show that by ingesting
those Gatorade recovery gummies that he'd suffered any physical harm.
But any harm that he'd suffered was really just economic
and refutational, not that sort of harm you know, by
preventing being prevented. And so it's a kind of a
technical legal thing depending on the types of claims that
he that he brought forth in his case. But yeah,
pretty interesting, and there's a whole story, right, we don't
have time to get into it, but about the testing
back and forth of the different lots of Gatorade gummies
and and you know, test coming up positive and negative
and anyway he's.
Speaker 5: Out though, and you wonder, okay, well where are they
manufacturing these?
Speaker 1: What else are they menu? How did the cartering get
in there?
Speaker 5: Because are they also in that same facility producing some
sort of supplements or you know cartering you know element
that somehow was cross pollin, a cross contaminated you have
cross contamination within these you know, so called f the
approved labs that aren't really regulated, many of them probably
aren't regulated. But gatorade should be regular Holy cow it's
a major organization. Anyway, that's crazy, wild and wacky stuff.
You know what's happening there. Let's let's move on a
couple last things before we let you go. Two federal
judges in cases against DraftKings allow Look, gambling has just
taken over. I mean, it's always been a big part
of sport, but now it's really accessible to everybody. But
DraftKings allow allows cases to go forward for on risk
free betting promotion to go forward.
Speaker 1: What's going on here?
Speaker 7: Yeah, so a group of playtiffs become a class that
put together a class. They have sued DraftKings and their
claim is there is claims of fraud, there's claiming that
there is advertisement and ads that claim where Draft Kings.
Speaker 4: Puts out an ad where they said this.
Speaker 7: Is risk free betting, this is no sweat betting, meaning
you have nothing to sweat about. Well, they brought a
lawsuit against him, saying, hey, wait a minute, it wasn't
exactly risk free and right here this I'm like, anytime
you place a bit, Matt, isn't there a.
Speaker 4: Risk involved with it? And you know that. But their
claim was that according.
Speaker 7: To the complaint, I don't know this from the losses
were reimbursed on as site credits that could not be withdrawn,
So I guess they got money that they couldn't access.
They said there was limitation on the credits were disclosed
only in small print within ads or through linked terms
of condition. That was essentially they said that the disclosures
were insufficient for an average consumer, you know, someone who's
just betting and doesn't know what they're doing to understand
the true costs of the participation. Well, the court rules
with them, agreed with them in large they disagreed with
them in large parts, but they did agree with him.
Speaker 4: They said. The judge came back and said, yeah.
Speaker 7: There are critical terms in tiny print and varied links.
They could become deceptive to the advertising, you know, under
state law. And they were relying on this new Jersey statute,
the new Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the judge, the
judge basically agreed to him, says, we're gonna allow this
to go forward. And what will happen now is it'll
get into a discovery phase where these plaintiffs, who are
represented by lawyers, will start collecting documentation and be asking questions,
doing depositions. That time to learn about what went into
these what they considered were fraudulent ads. It's interesting, Well,
there's an Illinois court that agreed with this in large part.
There was New York court that disagreed with it. They said, hey,
you know, you couldn't really point to that these ads
were misleading. They said, you couldn't point to a specific
ad that was misleading. So he bumped it, he kicked
it out. He was kind of the same claim and
he didn't agree with what the New Jersey and the
Illinois court did. And there's pending lawsuits in a number
of states, so.
Speaker 4: We'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: Crazy stuff.
Speaker 5: Guys always appreciate a sports court segment.
Speaker 1: I got one more for you, though.
Speaker 5: It is related to the University of Utah in part. Jenshaw,
the wife of I believe Sarishaw, has been released from
prison and it looks like she's back in Salt Lake City.
Speaker 1: What's the latest on this one?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Ben, we want.
Speaker 7: To throw a curveball at the listeners here to try
to gain a bunch more listeners. You know, you know
we're talking about on sports court for one one simple reason.
The jen Shaw who's her fame is that she's one
of these real housewives, reality celebrities. But she is the
wife of the loved University of Utah coach Sharif Shaw.
So that's why we're sneaking in here. But maybe we'll
gain a bunch of more listeners. But yeah, a few
years ago, it was hot news while on that reality
show she was arrested. She was charged, and she was
prosecuted for claims of conspiracy to commit wire.
Speaker 4: Fraud and Monday laundering.
Speaker 7: The claim was that she had a business services group
that marketed to elderly and some business services and they
were fraudulently allegedly. But she pled guilty to these claims
and was sentenced to six and a half years in
prison federal prison and ordered to pay restitution of six
point six million dollars to the victims. Well, here we
are three and a half years later. She has gotten out.
She's apparently there's some terms of parole. It's stated that
she will She has been released to community confinement program
and looks like to be released in full August thirty
of August thirty of twenty twenty six, so about ten
months from now.
Speaker 4: Crazy time listeners.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Hey, well I'll tell you this much.
Speaker 5: I'll give you a social commentary here and you guys
can retort if you want if there was a and
I'm not trying to throw rocks.
Speaker 1: At at at anybody here.
Speaker 5: But if this is a BYU football coach that whose
wife was released from prison, there'd be a lot of
Utah ads jumping on this one. May be a lot
of you tough fans talking about this all the time. Anyway, guys,
great sports Court segment, and we appreciate you joining us.
That's the verdict on the latest in the sports court. Gentlemen,
Handy Law Utah, Handy Law Utah dot com. Why should
they get Why should our listeners give you a call
if they've been injured?
Speaker 6: Well, we think you know, we just do a great
job for our clients all throughout the state of Utah.
I mean, if you've been injured in an accident, we're
gonna commit to give you the personal attention that you
need to make sure that we know your case inside
and out. One of the things we pride ourselves on
is that if you call our office, you're gonna speak
to myself or Preston, and we're going to be the
ones that sit down with you in our first meeting
and throughout your case to make sure we understand everything
and that we can get you the best the best
result that we possible and fair compensation.
Speaker 5: Love that well, Cougarnation, give them a call, set up
an apployment, no cost consultation. You don't pay unless they win.
Eight oh one two six four sixty six seven seven.
That's eight to one two six four sixty six seven seven.
Handy law Utah dot com. Garrett Preston, We salute you man,
Thanks so much.
Speaker 4: Hey, Thanks, Happy holiday, Thank.
Speaker 1: You, Happy holidays, Merry Christmas to you. Guys.
Speaker 5: Will go to break, but before we go to break,
just want to remind you, Cougar fans and Cougar Country
it tis the season to be given. Because we've been
given much, we two must give The road Home the
road Home dot org. Go to the road Home dot org,
forward slash donate for any monetary donations if you'd like
to give back. Last year, the Road Home serve over
eight thousand people across as sheltered housing programs, and that
includes two thousand people. The Road Home remains steadfast and
its mission to help families and individuals experiencing homelessness homelessness,
to stay safe and to put them on the path
towards a stable home. They're also receiving nonperishable food items, blankets,
lightly lose, lightly used, closing items, as well as hygiene items.
Stop by any of the road home locations and let's
give back to those in most need. Let's take a
brief time out. We'll be back recap in the show
and getting into all the news and notes coming out
of Brigham. This is Cougar Sports on one O three
nine ninety eight point three