Athletes and the Law: Boating while Black

On Saturday, May 3rd, Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson was arrested after officers from the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) say that he failed a sobriety test, failed to comply with officers' directives, and was eventually pepper-sprayed. Recently, witnesses have come forward to say that Benson was not intoxicated and did not resist, calling into question the officers' versions of events. What is interesting here is that Lake Travis, where Benson was boating with some friends (and his mom!), is well-known as a "party cove" where boaters congregate to engage in heavy drinking and alcohol-fueled idiocy. In fact, there have been 22 fatalities on the lake in the past 3 years alone, leading to an increased presence from the LCRA. However, the Lake is located immediately adjacent to a wealthy, predominantly white suburb of Austin, Texas (Benson attended the University of Texas in Austin). In addition, Benson's 31.5-foot boat (valued at less than $200,000) is actually small (in both size and value) in comparison to numerous other boats typically found on the lake. Did the LCRA target Benson because: (1) he got into some trouble when he was at UT, and is thus well-known to them (Benson was arrested twice while at UT - once for marijuana, and once for trespassing); or (2) he was a black man partying with some white women on a boat that looked out of place on Lake Travis?

There has been much research over the past decade into the phenomenon of DWB - driving while black. Recent concern over the stop-and-frisk tactics of the NYPD have even led some to posit that WWB (walking while black) is an actionable offense in some areas. Now it appears that several witnesses are arguing that Benson was the victim of BWB - boating while black. Although it is difficult to untangle everything that went on during the arrest due to the location (i.e. fewer overall potential witnesses when the situation occurs on a boat in the middle of a lake), many people are suspicious of the fact that the LCRA is refusing to release the audio tape of the arrest. It would seem that if they feel that they acted appropriately, the LCRA should not have a problem releasing that tape. If, however, their reasons for the initial stop were suspect, and they did in fact treat Benson inappropriately, then clearly the audio tape coming to light would work against them. Benson seems ready to mount a vigorous defense (particularly since his status with the Bears is uncertain due to poor performance on the field) to clear his good name, so we may eventually uncover the whole truth.

Crime?

I don't know why I can't get the story of Eight Belles and the Derby out of my head. I have enjoyed many a horse race with my family in KY, and the grandeur of the animals is amazing. I have friends who own horses who argue that the derby is torture because of the age and the frailty of the horses.* Thoughts from our sportswriters?

As an aside, hubby's grandpa still participates in horse cart races at the age of 80.

The Longest Yard

I came across this article on SI today. Here is the text from the article regarding Vick and prison football.

The odds that Michael Vick recently played football for a federal prison team are about as good as the chances of escaping Alcatraz, federal prisons officials say. Sure, the former Falcons quarterback might have tossed the ball around with a few inmates at the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary Camp, officials said Monday.
But he didn't become an inmate at the Kansas facility in time to suit up for the prison football season. in Kansas, staying in shape by tossing the ball. Vick, convicted of federal dogfighting charges in December, arrived at the minimum-security prison in January, said Tracy Billingsley, a spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. He was too late for the football season, which includes only a handful of games. "They only play [football] in the fall," she said. Falcons owner Arthur Blank remembered things differently.

This is interesting to me for some reason. In my internship, I was responsible for helping with rec activities (Bingo, baseball, managing the weight room). I have a number of stories about the power of remunerative controls such as these. At the same time, I was surprised that they have a formal football season in Leavenworth. I guess it would be flag football without pads. I would love to see this up close. Time to work on a proposal to study federal prisons.

Izzone

Are You Ready?

Violence and the American Athlete - The Case of Domestic Violence

It is generally accepted as fact that male American athletes engage in acts of domestic violence more often than the average American male (and a rate disproportionate to their representation in the population). It is relatively easy to find articles espousing that point of view, but do the statistics bear this out? Clearly, domestic violence in any numbers is too much, but is there truly something about male athletes that makes them more likely to engage in these acts?


There are plenty of examples that one could point to when examining the issue of athletes and domestic violence. There is the poster child of athletes committing domestic violence in Lawrence Phillips, the former Nebraska football player. Just in the past 7-8 years, we have the following incidents: (1) basketball player Jason Kidd is arrested for allegedly slapping his wife (curiously, during their divorce his wife even alleged that he "struck her with everything from a large rock to a cookie"; (2) baseball player Brett Myers is arrested for striking his wife in the face; (3) basketball player Ron Artest is arrested for shoving his girlfriend and preventing her from calling 911; (4) basketball player Glenn Robinson besmirches the Boilermaker name by being arrested for domestic battery, assault, and illegal possession of a weapon after striking his ex-fiancee several times; and (5) just days ago, football player Cedrick Wilson besmirches the name of Cedrick by being arrested for punching his ex-girlfriend in the face.

The problem here is that these examples are glaring due to the high-profile nature of the perpetrators. Domestic violence occurs every day (sadly), but when someone so well-known commits such an act it makes people take notice. So, what are the statistics really like? Richard Lapchick (director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports at University of Central Florida) has been conducting research on violent behavior among professional and college players since the mid-1990s., and concludes that there is a 3-to-1 ratio (i.e., athletes are 3x as likely than the average "civilian" to commit these violent acts). This is supported by other researchers, who have found a degree of hypermasculinity among athletes, but there is some research which contradicts these findings.

As with any socio-behavioral phenomenon, the research on this subject is somewhat split. So, perhaps some of my fellow blog authors who conduct research in this area would care to comment?

Hard-Boiled

So, I know that "sports and crime" is the official territory of The NY Kid, but I just have to say that the Spartans' defense was, well, criminally negligent against the Boilermakers last night -- especially against guard/forward Robbie Hummell, who scored a career-high 24 points. (Though, to be fair, he's only a freshman, so it's not like his college career has been particularly long....but still.)

As a Purdue alumni, I'm sure The NY Kid is pleased as punch about last night's outcome. Those of us who are actually loyal Spartan fans (burn!) can check out the highlights lowlights here.

Fashion Crime

Congrats, Ced. We were cheering for ya. One quick comment: Did anyone notice Belichick's shirt? Two words for ya - Under Armour - the sweat t-shirt looked like it was lifted off the rack of Steve and Barry's.

Speaking of our last post, karma much?

Criminal Behavior and Integrity on the Playing Field: Are They at Odds?

So, this story is a little bit older (~1 month), but it is very relevant to us (and me in particular) since it involves criminal behavior in the sports world, and in the Big10 more specifically. After a months-long investigation, Yahoo! (don't they have anything better to do?) found some scary details concerning Big10 football referee Stephen Pamon. The general details are as follows:

• Had filed for bankruptcy in 2002 to the tune of $429,407, with two casinos listed as creditors.
• Had reportedly been fired as a Chicago police officer after two allegations of sexual harassment by female officers.
• Pled guilty to beating three of his stepsons with an electric cord in a deal that dropped the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor.
• Had been the subject of dismissed allegations of the rape of a 19-year old niece and physical spousal abuse by one of his former wives.

While it is not alleged that Pamon ever engaged in unethical conduct on the field, it appears quite certain that he did so off the field. However, considering that a simple background check would have allowed the Big10 Conference to discover these details, it is suprising that Pamon maintained his position as a crew chief for so long. It is even more disturbing given that one could hypothesize that a bankruptcy filing might make Pamon inclined to make/miss certain calls on the field to influence the winner of a certain game, or the spread/point total of a certain game. Clearly, given the recent Tim Donaghy scandal, this is entirely possible. Don't think so - consider these facts:

Pamon's crew was widely criticized for a series of controversial calls in two games: a Nov. 3 game between Penn State and Purdue and Illinois' 28-21 upset victory over then-No. 1 Ohio State in Columbus on Nov. 10. A questionable call on a fumble in the first quarter of the Ohio State game led to the Fighting Illini's first touchdown and potentially might have cost the Buckeyes a chance at an undefeated season.

in conjunction with these facts:

noted sports betting analyst R.J. Bell of Pregame.com said that in both controversial late-season games, a disproportionate amount of money was bet on the teams that benefited from the objectionable calls, though Bell said that possibly is mere coincidence. According to Bell, Penn State opened as a seven-point favorite over Purdue and closed an 8.5-point favorite, while Illinois opened as a 15.5-point underdog to Ohio State and closed as a 15-point underdog. Bell said it is unusual for a marquee team like Ohio State to be bet down. "If a game is fixed, the benefiting team will be bet more heavily," Bell said. "And that was the case in both games in question."

Uh-oh, that doesn't sound so good. As a Boilermaker, I must strenuously object!

Now, let's take out the fact that Pamon owed $425,000. If there were no money involved, and thus limited reasons to fix games, what would be the Big10's responsibility here? Should an official, as a representative of the integrity of the playing field, be removed from his/her duties when it is revealed that they have engaged in criminal behavior? We have previously discussed the rights and responsibilities of professional sports organizations to discipline their athletes for criminal behavior (here and here), but what about amateur sports organizations (which the NCAA technically is) and officials?

Any thoughts?

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 6

"Woman accuses Pacman of punching woman in club"

'nuff said.

Legal Ramifications of the Mitchell Report (Major League Baseball)

By now, most people are aware that the Mitchell Report was released to the public yesterday at 2:00PM EST. Conducted by former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, the report is ostensibly a detailed investigation into the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) within Major League Baseball and its associated minor league franchises. Although much of the emphasis was on the use of steroids, there is also some discussion of the increasing use of human growth hormone, for which there has never been a positive test result at any national or international level (including with the International Olympic Committee, which has tested since 2004).

While the report spans 409 pages, and includes interesting tidbits such as photocopies of personal checks written by players to an admitted steroid supplier, as an investigation conducted by MLB there has been the question of what sort of "teeth" the report will have on the use of PEDs. Although MLB commissioner Bud Selig immediately declared that "something" would be done, and there are a number of specific recommendations made, it seems unlikely that the game of baseball will change much over the next few years. Simply put, of the 89 players named specifically in the report, almost none have ever tested positive for, or admitted to using, steroids. There are the usual suspects among those named, including those who: (1) have admitted use (Jose Canseco, David Segui); (2) have tested positive (Guillermo Mota); (3) have admitted to unknowing use (Barry Bonds - yes, he admitted he took "The Clear" and "The Cream", which are steroids, but he claimed he didn't know what they were. Wake up, people!); and (4) inspire large amounts of schadenfreude amongst many baseball fans (i.e. all of the Yankees named in the report, but particularly the surly, 'roid-raging (he threw a bat shard at Piazza!) Roger Clemens).

Many people have derided the report as nothing more than a look into the past, and have consistently claimed that the prohibition against use of steroids did not take effect until the Collective Bargaining Agreement of 2002 between MLB and the MLBPA (Player's Association). However, this is not entirely true. As noted in one of the introductory pages (labelled SR-10) of the Mitchell Report, MLB's drug policy beginning in 1971 specifically prohibits the use of any medication without a valid doctor's prescription, and in 1991 then-commissioner Fay Vincent expressly included steroids in this provision. In addition, even before 2002 (again, as noted in the report), players were suspended from play for drug offenses, which is a category that has included steroids since as early as 1971, and since 1991 at the latest. However, even if we accept the premise that steroids were not specifically banned by MLB until 2002, and that none of the 89 named players used steroids after that period of time (truly an absurd assumption), there is one problem here: The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of February 27, 1991 placed steroids on Schedule III, under federal law. Thus, beginning in 1991 (hmm, that seems to coincide with the year that Fay Vincent outlawed steroids in MLB drug policy. wonder why?), it became a federal offense to sell, distribute, or possess steroids without a valid doctor's prescription. A first offense for possession carries a maximum of 1 year in prison, and a minimum $1,000 fine.

These issues have been touched on here before, re: (1) disparities in drug sentencing; and (2) the ability of pro sports organizations to punish their players for criminal conduct. In the end, the Mitchell report makes it quite clear that a number of players bought steroids, regardless of whether or not they actually used them (note to those in the report - you should have paid in cash, rather than personal check). It is equally clear that very few players had a doctor's prescription for these steroids, and fewer still had a valid medical excuse for obtaining such a prescription. Obviously, our criminal justice system is already clogged with drug offenders, and attempting to go to trial with steroid-abusing millionaires would likely grind the system to a halt, but at least we can still go to the ballpark and make our feelings known.

Hey Clemens, you suck!

Violence and the American Athlete - The Tale of Michael Vick

Michael Vick, former quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, was sentenced to 23 months in prison by a federal judge yesterday for his role as the owner/operator of Bad Newz Kennelz, a dog-fighting operation staged at his Virginia home. After his 3 co-defendants agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, Vick finally admitted to: (1) housing over 50 dogs specifically bred for fighting at his home; (2) staging dog fights at his home; (3) fighting his dogs at dog fights located in other states; (4) gambling on dog fights both at his home and other locations (thus making him guilty of illegal interstate commerce; and (5) (and most heinously) killing dogs who failed to perform to his satisfaction.

Naturally, there have been two types of reaction to the sentencing. There are those who think that the sentence is too severe. Although some of these individuals believe this due to the fact that they worship Vick for his prowess on the field, others have engaged in some reasoned, law-based analysis and argue that Vick was given a longer sentence due to the fact that he initially refused to admit responsibility. The second type of reaction has been that of those who believe that the sentence is too lenient.

I also have two thoughts here, although they are more compatible than those above. First and foremost, as a dog lover (and "daddy" to an Italian Greyhound and a Jack Russell Terrier), I remain shocked and disgusted that someone could abuse any animal, much less terrorize them to the point that they are forced to fight for their lives and drowned/hanged/electrocuted (all methods used by Vick) if they "underperform". Dog-fighting is a particularly egregious form of animal cruelty, as it forces dogs to "compete" for the amusement and financial gain of sick owners. The argument has been made that it is merely a cultural phenomenon, but careful research shows that it is far-reaching and extremely damaging to the community. Therefore, I do believe that Vick received an appropriate sentence, especially considering that he may still face state charges. However, I do find it disturbing that Vick will spend a minimum of 19 months in prison and is being vilified by the NFL, but Leonard Little remains free to be a feared pass-rusher in that same NFL despite having killed a woman in a DUI accident (and avoiding prison in a separate DUI 6 years later).

Although commissioner Roger Goodell has made efforts to clean up the image of the NFL (as with the suspension of Adam 'Pacman' Jones), there are still numerous players who have faced serious criminal charges (Ray Lewis is perhaps still the most famous) who remain in the NFL. Here's the thing - the NFL does not have to wait for a player to be convicted of something to suspend him (even permanently). The NFL is a corporation, and players have no "criminal justice" rights within that organizational structure. Unfortunately, the NFL is also hamstrung by the players union, which has made it difficult for commissioner Goodell to remove the criminals from the playing field. The real criminal justice system has made its mark on Michael Vick, but the NFL is sadly lagging far behind in making a similar statement. Next time you're watching a football game, realize that you are most likely watching someone who has committed a crime and effectively gotten away with it.

More on Sean Taylor

The NY Kid recently wrote eloquently about the media's characterization of Sean Taylor as a "thug". This week's Newsweek features an editorial by Raina Kelley about this very subject, which some of you may be interested to read. You can find it here.

Violence and the American Athlete - RIP Sean Taylor

For those of you who are unaware, Washington Redskins free safety Sean Taylor died this morning after being shot in the upper thigh sometime last night during what is being called a robbery. The only shot that hit Taylor severed his femoral artery, leading to a great deal of blood loss. Although he slipped into what appeared to be a coma, it is being reported that at some point during the early morning hours, Taylor managed to squeeze the hand of his nurse. He never regained consciousness, however, and the world lost another young black male due to gun violence.

The point has already been made all over the internet, and perhaps rightfully so, that his death is not unique in that young black males die due to gun violence every day in America. So what makes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who have never met Sean Taylor so despondent about the situation? Put simply, he was "their" player - either at "Tha U" (University of Miami) or for the Redskins. Unfortunately, Sean Taylor is no longer quite so unique as a professional athlete either. Darrent Williams was gunned down last New Year's Eve; both Antoine Walker and Eddy Curry were held at gunpoint and robbed in their own homes. While these things happen everyday, millionaire athletes are obviously more visible, and thus the media pick up on these events.

Perhaps the saddest part of the Sean Taylor murder is all of the conjecture surrounding the incident - not because of the conjecture itself, but rather due to some of the vitriol that it spurs. Sean Taylor (whose father happens to be the chief of police in a small Florida town) is known to have associated with some pretty questionable characters and to have displayed some questionable decision-making on the field. It also now appears that several days before his murder, someone broke into his home and left a kitchen knife on his bed in what would seem to be a menacing message. Although we do not know what happened in Sean Taylor's home the night of his murder, it would not be surprising if Sean was murdered, rather than shot during an aborted burglary attempt. The shame of this situation is that almost everyone who knew Sean personally has admitted that while he was immature over the past several years, he had become a different person since the birth of his child and was trying to distance himself from any dangerous friends and activities. Despite this, there has been an astounding amount of commentary on the internet (particularly in the comments section of the ESPN story on his murder) along the lines of "he was a thug and deserved it". Some of this is simply racist idiots trying to stir up trouble, but quite a bit appears to be sincere, which may be even more unnerving. That is, rather than some racist rant, it appears that many of these commenters believe that Sean's death was simply a matter of his past catching up to him, and that he deserved it because of his past. While the former may be true, the latter certainly is not.

Sean Taylor's death is merely the latest high-profile crime against a rich athlete, but it is so much more than that to his family and friends. It represents something far worse - the silencing of a bright future both professionally (in the NFL) and personally (with his family). Yes, young black males are gunned down every day, and the fact that he was a rich athlete does not make Sean Taylor more important than anyone else. But we should use the fact that his death is so visible to really examine what it means to "be a thug" or to "come from the wrong neighborhood", and figure out how we can protect the next generation of potential victims.