Following up on my recent post on the story, I had the opportunity to speak with Colin O'Keefe of LXBN regarding the recent litigation...
Read MoreLast week, Major League Baseball sued the notorious South Florida "health" clinic known as Biogenesis of America. Most civil lawsuits are about one thing...
Read MoreWe understand that Joe Paterno's wife, Sue Paterno, and his family believe that the former Penn State coach's legacy was wrongly tarnished by the...
Read MoreSo we know Lance Armstrong lied. According to Lance Armstrong his Tour de France victories were all based on "one big lie" that involved...
Read MoreFollowing up on my recent post on the story, I had the opportunity to speak with Colin O'Keefe of LXBN regarding the recent litigation filed by Major League Baseball against anti-aging clinic Biogensis. In the brief interview, I explain why MLB is suing Biogenesis and what I believe is their ultimate goal.
Last week, Major League Baseball sued the notorious South Florida "health" clinic known as Biogenesis of America. Most civil lawsuits are about one thing and one thing only – money. Soon we will learn that the MLB wants "paper" too, it wants all the documents about Biogenesis' past clients which may include Alex Rodriguez, Ryan Braun and Gio Gonzalez (and others).
The first thing to understand is Biogenesis is closed and its principal, Anthony Bosch is now reportedly out of the country. This is not what I would call a "target defendant" for a big pay day. But this lawsuit is not about money (at least not yet).
The MLB is claiming that Biogenesis peddled banned substances to players such as testosterone and HGH. The MLB alleged that these drugs caused players to violate their contracts with their teams. Here, the goal is discovery and documents not money (and maybe contract voiding later).
This lawsuit gives the MLB a power is has been craving since the steroid ban came into the game, subpoena power. This lawsuit allows the MLB to collect documents and subpoena individuals for depositions under oath (maybe even players).
The bottom line here is that Biogenesis couldn't print enough money to have the MLB dismiss this case. The MLB wants this potentially damaging information about players much more.
We understand that Joe Paterno's wife, Sue Paterno, and his family believe that the former Penn State coach's legacy was wrongly tarnished by the NCAA and the media. Obviously, they believe Paterno was a good and decent man and was another victim of the convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky.
In support of their beliefs, the Paterno family has released its own investigative report which claims that Joe Paterno was the victim of a "rush to injustice." All you really need to know about the Paterno Family report is there is nothing that Former FBI Director Louis Freeh could have done that would have been good enough for the Paternos.
When you continue to open the Sandusky can of worms, the same disturbing facts reappear. Joe Paterno knew of allegations of child abuse connected to Jerry Sandusky from a 1998 incident. He was also told by Mike McQueary of another incident in 2001. In your life, how many people do you know that have been accused of pedophilia twice in two years? No way. The very premise that the all powerful Coach Paterno could do nothing or was a victim here was and is incredible.
As for a "rush" to "injustice", common sense dictates the opposite conclusion. Fifteen years ago, there was proof that Sandusky was abusing young boys. In 2013, Penn State officials still await trials on their alleged roles in covering up Sandusky's crimes. I am missing the "rush" here?
Likewise Jerry Sandusky was allowed to abuse boys for over a decade while Paterno and Penn State officials did nothing. Looks like the "injustice" was allowed to flourish for a sickening about time.
So we know Lance Armstrong lied. According to Lance Armstrong his Tour de France victories were all based on "one big lie" that involved a scheme of blood doping and taking performance enhancing drugs ("PED"s). Armstrong can now take his place among the great sports liars of our time, Bonds, Clemens, McGuire and all the rest in sports. There are so many.
But Armstrong went further then the rest (even Roger Clemens). To preserve his "one big lie" and financial empire, he sued countless people, newspapers and companies who dared to challenge Armstrong with the truth. Armstrong ruined reputations and actually took millions of dollars in awards based on false defamation suits. He hid behind is cancer charity and used it as a shield against his detractors. For Armstrong to accomplish this feat, he had to take his lying to highest level, perjury.
Now, perjury (or lying under oath crimes) can be difficult to prosecute. Just ask the Justice Department in the criminal case against Roger Clemens. Any lie under oath can be potentially explained by not understanding the question posed or answering a "bad question" with a shady answer.
The problem is that the fundamental principle of our justice system is that the oath to tell the truth is sacred. Think about it, if we allow perjury to be accepted and routine then the entire system has no chance. Everyday, people take the oath to tell the truth and testify in criminal and civil cases. We expect the once under oath, a witness will not lie. We believe that truthful testimony is at the heart of our court system.
Given this fact, every prosecutor (state and federal) in every jurisdiction where Armstrong has given testimony under oath has an affirmative responsibility to investigate a perjury charge. Armstrong cannot be allowed to get away with wholesale lying just because prosecutors are busy with bigger issues and cases.
If we cannot trust the system to demand the truth, then justice has been the biggest victim that Armstrong cheated.
Now, that we all recovered from the shock, the question is what can be done to deter this type of embarrassment and disgrace in the future? Right on cue, the racing organizations, sponsors and corporations that helped create Armstrong are peddling as fast as possible to distance themselves from him. In that vein, the always righteous International Cycling Union has now demanded that Armstrong return the prize money that he won in the Tour De France. The ICU also now intends to investigate itself on whether it helped to cover-up Armstrong's positive tests. Don't hold your breath on that one.
But the concept of the return of prize money, by a doper, can also raise a possible proactive solution to the problem. Why should a race winner get the prize money all at once? Given the continuing scandals in cycling (as well as many other sports), why shouldn't the winner prove that he didn't dope over time? We all know how cycling works, someone wins a race (see Floyd Landis) and then the whispers and rumors start about drug use. So from now on, why shouldn't prize money be held for safe period time (like ten years) in an interest bearing account until we have some certainty that the winner actually won? Due to the cheating of too many riders, the public can have no confidence in the outcome of a race.
This type of sacrifice of prize money might restore some lost faith.
With the Olympic games going on and the pennant races heating up, you might have missed some important news legal news that developed concerning Jonathan Vilma's lawsuit against the NFL. In short, Judge Ginger Berrigan stated that she believed Commissioner Goodell abused his authority by punishing Vilma for the Saints' bounty scandal by withholding evidence, acting too harshly and violating Vilma's union rights under the CBA.
The court went even further by stating that it would rule in Vilma's favor if the judge found she had jurisdiction and Vilma suffered "irreparable harm" under the law. For Vilma to stop the Goodell's punishment he will have to show that harm caused by Goodell's decisions cannot be reversed. Will a season's suspension by enough damage? It sounds like the judge believed that it was under the circumstances. However, the jurisdictional argument is more difficult to ascertain. If this issue was clear Judge Berrigan would have ruled in Vilma's favor last week. My suspicion is that a federal court's jurisdiction over an NFL disciplinary matter maybe a difficult road. We shall see.
But the significance of the eventual outcome cannot be understated. Until now, Goodell just doesn't lose, he rules with an iron fist over players, coaches and even owners. Ask Mike Vick or the NFL union leaders how they liked getting crushed by Goodell (ever see a guaranteed contract for an NFL player?). Goodell has sought to expand his power to be judge, jury and executioner in all NFL disciplinary matters. No one has stood in his way, until now.
As this litigation plays out, it is crucial to keep in mind that Goodell acted harshly against the Saints as a direct result of all the head injury lawsuits filed against the NFL. Goodell is trying to show that he will not tolerate any intentional injuring of a player beyond the normal NFL risks. Yet, in the concussion lawsuits, one of the NFL's primary defenses is that the league (and the league alone) must police the game and protect its players (and it has done everything reasonable in that regard) so the court has no jurisdiction.
If Judge Berrigan finds that she has jurisdiction to reverse Goodell's punishment of Vilma, the NFL could lose a critical argument in courtrooms across the country.
While the BP oil spill in the gulf and the Penn State scandal are very different disasters, they both have a few important similarities. Both disasters had a heavy human toll and were major news stories. Both incidents involved intuitional failure and a fracturing a trust. Both disasters need to be concluded the same way.
Recently, the president of Penn State said the university would use a “combination of funds” to pay the heavy fines imposed by the NCAA and to use for litigation costs incurred by the prospective plaintiffs. But just like the massive claims that arose in the BP mess, Penn State should follow the same approach to resolve the potential onslaught of lawsuits. Penn State needs to put those funds to work now.
The Freeh investigation and report concerning Penn State’s failures to protect the innocent from a sexual monster provides a roadmap for civil liability. Moreover, Penn State has publically admitted that the findings of it failures by the Freeh Commission were correct. Even though the NCAA turned Penn State’s football program into a zombie, the university still can show it has something left.
Just like BP, Penn State should establish a settlement fund, which will need to be substantial, to address and compensate the victims of Sandusky. Penn State should hire a credible attorney to administer the fund and resolve claims quickly, economically and fairly. A settlement fund will allow Penn State to stop the negative press and put this catastrophe behind it. Just like BP, Penn State needs to buy its peace and make amends as soon as justice will allow.
Check out Chris Fusco's post on Claims Management's Website here.
While the Tour de France rolls on without Armstrong, he still manages to grab headlines during the grueling three week event. On Monday morning, Lance Armstrong filed suit in the United States District Court in Austin, Texas seeking injunctive relief against the USADA, to stop USADA's levying sanctions against him for allegations regarding his alleged performance enhancing drug use. Only a few hours after it was filed, the suit was dismissed by USDJ Sam Sparks. Armstrong asked the Court for an injunction against the USADA by Saturday, the agency's deadline for Armstrong to either contest the charges or accept sanctions to be levied by USADA.
Armstrong's Complaint filed with the Court was full of colorful language which Judge Sparks was less than pleased with. In fact, Judge Sparks, in his ruling, stated that the eighty page, 261 paragraph Complaint contained "allegations that are wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claims and which, the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants." Judge Sparks further stated that the Court was not inclined to "indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims." The Court dismissed Armstrong's claim without prejudice and instructed Armstrong to refile his claim as long as he can comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which demands a short and plain statement of detailed facts, and not as Judge Sparks stated "a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants."
Armstrong's attorneys intend to refile the Complaint to comply with the the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not risk sanctions. However, just because the Court has allowed Armstrong to refile the Complaint, does not mean it will grant the temporary injunction and restrain USADA from issuing its sanctions.
My name is Christopher Fusco. I am the managing partner of Callahan & Fusco, LLC with offices in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.More...
Add this blog to your feeds. Or, receive email notifications by typing your email address in the box below.