From info at leagueoffans.org Mon Jan 10 12:48:01 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Mon Jan 10 13:05:31 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Nader's Washington Post op-ed on why D.C. should own the Nats Message-ID: <41E2BFD1.9070008@leagueoffans.org> Green Bay on the Potomac: Why D.C. Should Own the Nationals by Ralph Nader Op-ed: Washington Post Sunday, January 9, 2005; Page B08 If the District is going to pay most or all of the costs of a new baseball stadium, why shouldn't it own the team and earn the profits the stadium is likely to generate? Or, put more directly, if the District is absorbing most of the costs of attracting baseball to Washington, why shouldn't the District own the team? Consider the economics of the stadium deal. The District could spend as much as $631 million to build a stadium. The new owners of the baseball team will pay Major League Baseball about $300 million for the team, to be known as the Nationals -- a team the league acquired from its previous owner in 2002 for $120 million. Control of the stadium and a huge chunk of the profits it generates -- concession sales, naming rights, parking revenue -- will go to the team's yet-to-be determined owners. Those owners also will enjoy the profits from ticket sales, merchandise and TV rights. Given the level of fan commitment to purchase season tickets, those profits could be munificent. A municipally or community-owned team could use these profits to cover the costs of a stadium -- including acquiring land, environmental cleanup, expanding Metro and construction. How might municipal ownership work in the District? The District could find the financing to buy the Nationals by selling 49 percent of shares publicly, as the Cleveland Indians baseball team and the Boston Celtics basketball team have done. The District also could float Class B stock or sell small-denomination -- of say, $100 -- bonds redeemable only for face value. The idea would be to tap into regional enthusiasm for baseball, and let the fans pay for -- and own a chunk of -- the team. The Green Bay Packers -- one of the most venerated and successful teams in professional football -- is community-owned. The nonprofit Packers is financed through the issuance of stock, and more than 100,000 people own shares in the team. Packers stock cannot be resold, except back to the team for a fraction of the original price. Limited transfer -- to heirs and relatives -- is allowed. No dividends are paid. To prevent any one person from gaining control, no one is allowed to own more than 200,000 of the more than 4.7 million shares of stock. With similar municipal or community ownership, the Nationals' profits could be directed to paying off bonds floated to pay for the stadium. And Major League Baseball has ensured that the team will be profitable because its owners will capture so much of the revenue associated with the new ballpark. Green Bay shows that structures can be put in place that lead to effective management by a publicly or community-owned team. The Packers' stockholders elect a board of directors, which elects an executive committee. That committee directs management, which handles the business of the team. While a Green Bay-style approach isn't guaranteed to work in Washington, fans here have had plenty of experience that shows that single-person or group ownership doesn't automatically bring success either. What is more certain are the economics and control issues. With municipal ownership, the District never again would face shakedown threats that the team would move unless some new demand from commercial ownership was satisfied. And the District would get back some financial return on the hundreds of millions it is preparing to pour into the stadium. A community-owned stadium still wouldn't be the smartest priority for a city with so many unmet needs, but it would be a lot better than the giant giveaway the District now plans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57857-2005Jan7.html ------------------------- ### ------------------------- Help spread the word! Send copies of this message to your friends and help them turn their sports industry grievances into action for reform. If you would like to add yourself to the "Alerts" list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. Founded by Ralph Nader, League of Fans is a sports reform project working to improve sports by increasing awareness of the sports industry's relationship to society, exposing irresponsible business practices, ensuring accountability to fans, and encouraging the industry to contribute to societal well-being. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Fri Jan 14 18:14:47 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Fri Jan 14 18:16:24 2005 Subject: [Alerts] League of Fans Position on the Use of Steroids in Sports Message-ID: <41E85267.40808@leagueoffans.org> January 14, 2005 Yesterday, Major League Baseball announced its new policy regarding steroid testing of players and penalties for failed tests. League of Fans believes that although the new policy without a doubt represents a step in the right direction, it is a very small step that may reduce the performance-enhancing drug problem but will not likely rid baseball of it. The testing procedures appear to be a strong point of the new rules. MLB will now conduct an undisclosed number of random tests during the season in addition to one random mandatory test per player. Although there is no provision for testing all players in the offseason, random offseason testing of an undetermined number of players will be conducted in baseball for the first time, regardless of where players travel. The major problem with MLB?s new policy is that the penalties are extremely weak for offenders. Penalties include a 10-day suspension for a first positive test, increasing to one year for a fourth positive. Such paltry penalties are no match for the competitive and financial pressures on players to gain an edge, and will not restore the full confidence of baseball fans that what they are watching is fair play. ----- League of Fans' Position on the Use of Steroids and other Performance-Enhancing Substances in Sports The use of steroids and other substances to enhance performance robs sports competition of any semblance of fairness. Fans, athletes and sports governing bodies need to defend the integrity of sports. They should hold accountable the athletes who use performance-enhancing substances (PESs) as well as those who help them cheat. This is vitally important for the well-being of spectator and participatory sports around the world. Fair play and cheating aside, there are other reasons why using substances to enhance sports performance is wrong and justifies accountability. Those who use PESs risk severe physical and behavioral health problems, and in some cases even death. The health risks that go along with some widely illegal PESs, such as anabolic steroids, are well-known. But less known are the long-term risks associated with unregulated PESs that are relatively new and readily available throughout much of the world. Athletes, as well as adults and adolescents in the general populace, are the test subjects for these substances, using them with no guarantees of safety, effectiveness or even ingredients. Privacy rights and personal choice -- what people put into their own bodies is their own business -- are used as arguments against any attempt to rid sports of PESs. In most situations in life and work, these arguments would be valid. But not in this case. Athletes who use PESs to gain an advantage over competitors in turn pressure those competitors -- if they want to win or remain at the same competitive level -- to use PESs as well. This scenario is especially evident in professional sports and international events such as the Olympics, where livelihood, prestige, paychecks or endorsement contracts depend on winning and superior athletic performance. Problems relating to the use of PESs are not limited to professional or otherwise elite athletes. Adolescents who wish to emulate their athletic role models believe that they can accomplish their goals by ingesting or injecting PESs. There is evidence that the health consequences of PES use are more severe for adolescents because of the natural physiological transition of the body. Steroids, for instance, are known to interfere with -- and can actually stunt -- adolescent growth. Certainly, some of the blame for fostering substance use in athletes must be placed on sports cultures with misguided "win-at-all-costs" attitudes. But individuals and groups also should be held accountable: governmental regulatory agencies, professional sports leagues and governing bodies, professional athletes and athletic trainers, and drug producers and marketers. Adolescents may not understand the health consequences of PESs, but they are well aware of what their athletic role models are using or endorsing and where they can make purchases legally or otherwise. Without accountability for PESs, we are robbing young people of their health and safety, and cheating fans and competitors of sports integrity. And cheating has no place in anything we call sport. Authored by Shawn McCarthy, director of League of Fans ------------------------- ### ------------------------- Help spread the word! Send copies of this message to your friends and help them turn their sports industry grievances into action for reform. If you would like to add yourself to the "Alerts" list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. Founded by Ralph Nader, League of Fans is a sports reform project working to improve sports by increasing awareness of the sports industry's relationship to society, exposing irresponsible business practices, ensuring accountability to fans, and encouraging the industry to contribute to societal well-being. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Tue Jan 25 14:54:49 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Tue Jan 25 15:10:51 2005 Subject: [Alerts] GOOD SPORTS / BAD SPORTS (1/25/05) Message-ID: <41F6A409.7090305@leagueoffans.org> GOOD SPORTS / BAD SPORTS League of Fans - January 25, 2005 -------------------------------------------------- GOOD SPORTS - Steroid Precursors No Longer Available Over the Counter ----- BAD SPORTS - Chairman of President's Fitness Council Peddling Junk Food -------------------------------------------------- * GOOD SPORTS * - Steroid Precursors No Longer Available Over the Counter Progress is being made in the fight against untested and unregulated sports supplements. On January 20, 2005, under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, "Andro" and other prohormones (also known as steroid precursors) joined anabolic steroids as controlled substances and will now be considered illegal without a prescription under federal legislation signed into law last October. Baseball fans unfamiliar with performance-enhancing drugs or other sports supplements may remember that Mark McGwire used andro (androstenedione) during his record-breaking home run season of 1998. In response to the doping scandal that has enveloped professional sports in recent years, andro was banned by Major League Baseball in 2004 as it had been by most other major sports leagues, the NCAA and International Olympic Committee. But it is the health risks associated with muscle building prohormones (which essentially act as steroids inside the human body and carry with them similar side effects) that have brought so much controversy to these substances. Some of the known side effects for men and women include kidney and liver damage, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, increased aggression and severe acne. For men specifically, side effects include breast development, baldness, enlarged prostate, reduced sperm production, testicular shrinkage and impotence. For women, side effects include deepened voice, increased facial hair growth, enlarged clitoris and disruption of menstrual cycles. For teenagers, side effects include disruption of normal growth patterns and processes, and stunted growth. So, another sports supplement bites the dust. The last to be removed from the market were supplements containing ephedra. After about 150 known deaths from ephedra (and more reports of stroke, arrhythmia, heart attacks, chest pain, seizures and hypertension for ephedra than for all other dietary supplements combined) it took the high-profile 2003 Spring Training death of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler to finally get ephedra-containing supplements removed from shelves. Andro and ephedra products were previously available to everyone, regardless of age, with no guarantees of safety, effectiveness or even ingredients. But even with the ban, it is typical industry practice to replace one untested chemical with another. To be sure, other substances are already available with similar characteristics, and with the lack of testing, potentially comparable and dangerous side effects. The Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) is the federal law that gutted the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to regulate nutritional supplements. Today, unlike drug products that must be proven by the FDA to be safe and effective for their intended use before marketing, DSHEA frees any product that calls itself a dietary supplement from federal regulation before they reach the consumer and does not require manufacturers and distributors to record, investigate or forward to the FDA any reports they receive of injuries or illnesses that may be related to the use of their products. Last week, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies issued a report titled "Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States," a major part of which addressed the problems associated with DSHEA. The report recommended to Congress that the regulation of dietary supplements be amended to improve quality control and consumer protections and to create incentives for research on the efficacy of these products. It is the position of League of Fans that DSHEA be repealed. Public health and safety needs should come before the interests of the powerful and well-funded supplement industry. In sports, supplement use is widespread from the professional level all the way down to the junior high school athletes who easily purchase and fill their lockers with unregulated substances. These athletes are guinea pigs for the sports supplement industry, with no guarantees of safety, effectiveness or even ingredients. League of Fans does not advocate the ban of dietary supplements, only that they be tested for safety prior to marketing and be produced in facilities meeting guidelines similar to those required of non-prescription and prescription drug makers. We are opposed to the promotion of dietary supplements for any use that has not been proven to the FDA. ----- More Information: Andro Supplement Ban Takes Effect National Public Radio - January 20, 2005 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4460819 Supplements (this five-part piece is over three years old now, but is still the best report on supplements and DSHEA) Luke Cyphers and Michael O?Keefe, New York Daily News - July 15, 2001 http://apse.dallasnews.com/contest/2001/writing/over250.enterprise.third1.html A deadly game of politics (published after the ephedra-related death of Steve Bechler) Luke Cyphers, ESPN The Magazine - March 18, 2003 http://espn.go.com/magazine/cyphers_20030318.html League of Fans' Position on the Use of Steroids and other Performance-Enhancing Substances in Sports - January 14, 2005 http://www.leagueoffans.org/drugsposition.html Ralph Nader and League of Fans Urge Leaders to Take Real Action Against Ephedra and Dietary Supplement Law - March 11, 2003 http://www.leagueoffans.org/ephedrarelease.html ----- * Take Action! * 1) Urge Congress to take real action against the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA): Contact your senators: http://www.senate.gov/ Contact your representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/ Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard to be connected with your senators' or representative's office: (202) 224-3121 2) Emphasize participation over winning in your own household, school and community. The pressure of a sports environment that has a "win at all costs" attitude jeopardizes health and safety and increases the potential for injury. Our current sports culture fuels the use of performance-enhancing substances at almost all levels of competition and age groups, as well as in most sports. Putting the health and safety of players at risk just to win should have no place in sports. For players, sports should be about safe participation and enjoyment, never winning at all costs. -------------------------------------------------- * BAD SPORTS * - Chairman of President's Fitness Council Peddling Junk Food Conflict of interest? Pro football Hall of Famer Lynn Swann, chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, was paid to appear next to a vending machine filled with junk food alongside elementary school kids at a vending machine trade group press conference on January 13. Over the last 20 years, rates of obesity have doubled in children and tripled in teens and there is a nationwide movement against the junk food and vending machine industries for their roles in this epidemic. Lynn Swann was hired by the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) to help push a plan to place labels ranking the nutritional value of vending-machine products in an attempt to beat back efforts by parents and public health groups to curb the sale and marketing of junk food in public schools. This public relations ploy is called the Snackwise Nutrition Rating System and is being promoted as a "national campaign to fight childhood obesity." "A presidential appointee whose primary job is to promote physical fitness has no business cutting financial deals with an industry that is peddling junk food," said Merrill Goozner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). "It is a gross conflict of interest. His job is to do just the opposite. His job is to get the junk food out of kids daily diets because it is a major contributor to childhood obesity which is growing at epidemic proportions in this country." "We knew that he (Swann) was with the President?s Council," NAMA spokesperson Jackie Clark said. "That matched our message very nicely. But Lynn Swann asked us not to mention his relationship because it would look like an endorsement from the President's Council. And he is doing this as an individual." But NAMA's press advisory for the event identified him as the chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Michael Jacobson, the executive director for CSPI, wrote a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson to urge President Bush to fire Swann and to dismiss any other council members who take junk food money. "An appointment to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports is a great honor," Jacobson wrote. "Surely we can reserve it just for those athletes and others who choose not to profit financially through affiliations with makers and distributors of junk foods." It is the position of League of Fans that schools should help parents promote health, fitness and good nutrition, rather than support junk food companies that target children with products high in added sugar and fat. School lunch programs should be fully funded and should make healthful food available to children. The marketing and sale of junk food should be prohibited on school property. We discourage sports personalities from paid endorsements for unhealthful products, especially for those marketed to children and those marketed in schools. ----- More Information: Bush's Fitness Chair Lynn Swann Hooks Up With Vending Industry Corporate Crime Reporter - January 12, 2004 http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/swann011205.htm Nutrition Watchdogs Urge Firing of Lynn Swann Center for Science in the Public Interest - January 13, 2005 http://www.cspinet.org/new/200501131.html Michael Jacobson Wants Bush to Fire Lynn Swann Corporate Crime Reporter - January 13, 2005 http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/resign011305.htm Guidelines for Marketing Food to Kids Proposed Center for Science in the Public Interest http://cspinet.org/new/200501051.html Childhood Obesity Prevention Agenda for States, Municipalities and School Boards Commercial Alert http://www.commercialalert.org/copa.htm Parents' Bill of Rights Commercial Alert http://www.commercialalert.org/pbor.pdf (PDF) The Fast Food Trap: How Commercialism Creates Overweight Children Gary Ruskin, Mothering - November/December 2003 http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php/category_id/2/subcategory_id/36/article_id/236 ----- * Take Action! * 1) Contact Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tommy Thompson and ask him to urge President Bush to prohibit the commercial endorsement of junk food manufacturers by members of the President?s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. The Honorable Tommy Thompson Secretary Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 tel (202) 619-0257 Secretary Thompson, who is soon to leave HHS, did a good job in pushing for the federal government to promote healthier lifestyles and encouraging the food and beverage industries to alter advertising and offer healthier choices to consumers. Confirmation by the full Senate is expected next week for Michael Leavitt, President Bush's nominee to replace Tommy Thompson as Secretary. 2) Support the "Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act" (S. 2894) introduced on October 5, 2004 by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). "A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the coordination of Federal Government policies and activities to prevent obesity in childhood, to provide for State childhood obesity prevention and control, and to establish grant programs to prevent childhood obesity within homes, schools, and communities." Among the excellent provisions, the bill would require schools that receive federal funds to establish polices to "ban vending machines that sell foods of poor or minimal nutritional value," such as soda, soft drinks and candy. The "Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act" is currently in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Contact your senators and urge them to support this bill: http://www.senate.gov/ Read the summary: http://www.commercialalert.org/pcoasum.pdf (PDF) Read the full text: http://www.commercialalert.org/pcoa.pdf (PDF) 3) Write a letter to the members of your local school board, asking them to ban the marketing and sale of junk food in your local schools. 4) Contact your state legislators and ask them to introduce and support state legislation to ban the marketing and sale of junk food in your state?s schools. To find out the names and contact information of your state legislators, go to the Project Vote Smart website: http://www.vote-smart.org/mystate_government_resources.php ------------------------- ### ------------------------- GOOD SPORTS / BAD SPORTS is an email bulletin of recent news items and suggested actions regarding issues in the world of sports. It goes out regularly to League of Fans "Alerts" listserv subscribers. Help spread the word! Send copies of this message to your friends and help them turn their sports industry grievances into action for reform. If you would like to add yourself to the "Alerts" list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. Founded by Ralph Nader, League of Fans is a sports reform project working to improve sports by increasing awareness of the sports industry's relationship to society, exposing irresponsible business practices, ensuring accountability to fans, and encouraging the industry to contribute to societal well-being. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Fri Jan 28 14:34:16 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Fri Jan 28 14:40:37 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Super Bowl Commercial Assaults on Children's Health Message-ID: <41FA93B8.2090807@leagueoffans.org> If Only there were the Outrage for Super Bowl Commercial Assaults on Children's Health as for the "Wardrobe Malfunction" In the Public Interest By Ralph Nader January 28, 2005 Last year, the Super Bowl halftime ?wardrobe malfunction? led to an intense level of public outrage. The performance of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake prompted over a half-million complaints to the Federal Communications Commission, leading to increased fines against indecent broadcasters. The nationally televised flash of a woman?s breast was shocking. But the potential for some of the products advertised during the Super Bowl to harm young viewers merits a comparable degree of indignation. Consider the combination of unparalleled hoopla surrounding the Super Bowl commercials themselves mixed with the National Football League and networks shamelessly peddling products during the game and commentary. It is without question that given the effectiveness of targeted advertising, the overabundance of commercialized air-time and the nature of the products being pushed, widespread harm is being done to exploitable young viewers. For the 2005 Super Bowl, which will most certainly be the highest rated television program of the year, Anheuser-Busch has purchased the most ad time (10 of the 60 total half-minute spots at a $2.4 million avg. per) for their skillful commercial appeals to get more people to drink more alcohol. Anheuser-Busch will argue that underage persons are not the intended targets for these ads, but it is impossible to plausibly claim the ads will have no impact on kids. The funny, provocative, trend-setting, youth-oriented beer ads aired during recent Super Bowls with their clever use of cartoons, animals, athletes and music provides good evidence that young people are being targeted. Over 30 million young people under the age of 21, about forty percent of the underage population, will be watching the Anheuser-Busch Super Bowl commercials. Many will be watching the ads with great expectations, some even as the main attraction. Those worried that a nationally televised breast is a threat to their children?s well-being should be especially infuriated by the prominent place alcohol advertising has in Super Bowl broadcasts. The reduction of cognitive faculties from excessive drinking increases the likelihood of unprotected sex, which then increases the risk of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Alcohol-related sexual assault and date rape on college campuses are also consequences of excessive and underage drinking. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a federal agency under the National Institutes of Health, alcohol is the number one drug of choice among children and adolescents, and is the leading contributor to injury death -- the largest cause of death for persons under age 21. Young drivers under 21 who have been drinking are involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes at twice the rate of adult drivers according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Forty percent of those who start drinking before the age of 15 meet criteria for alcohol dependence at some point in their lives, increasing their risk for a number of diseases including cancer and heart disease. But the Super Bowl blitz on children?s health doesn?t stop with alcohol. The junk food corporation PepsiCo will be targeting youngsters watching the Super Bowl with aggressive advertising for its Pepsi-Cola sweetened soft drinks and Frito-Lay processed snack foods which are predominately high in calories and low in nutrition. Such items have become unhealthy staples in the daily diets of many young people, increasing the likelihood for the occurrence of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Studies show that food marketing attracts kids' attention and affects their food preferences and choices. PepsiCo pays millions of dollars for exclusive marketing rights in schools and other locations frequented by adolescents, undermining parents' efforts to provide healthful diets for their children. Another NFL event, the ?Pepsi NFL Punt, Pass and Kick,? allows PepsiCo to market directly to more than four million boys and girls (age 8-15) each year. Not to be outdone, the fast food chain McDonald?s will push its unhealthy junk food with Super Bowl ads as well. Experts at targeting children, McDonald?s uses some of the most beloved characters (Nemo, Tarzan, Winnie-the-Pooh, 101 Dalmatians, Furby, Beanie Babies, etc.), collectible toys and gimmicks to peddle its high-calorie, low-nutrition Happy Meals. The rise of McDonald?s and other fast junk food chains has reshaped the diets of kids, who are encouraged to nag their parents, and has paralleled the boom in childhood obesity. The marketing-related and diet-related disease of childhood obesity has doubled in children and tripled in teens over the last 20 years, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, yet we glorify Super Bowl ads that are designed to have these youngsters harm themselves. If only the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and parents across the country expressed a fraction of the outrage for repeated commercial assaults on children?s health as they did for Janet Jackson. Sometimes events become so emblematic of a culture that we don't notice because we?re so thoroughly steeped in it. Super Bowl advertising, marketing and promotions are a perfect example. Not only have the commercials become an event unto themselves, but broadcasters have given way to a blurring of the line between ads and programming. Advertising has become such a major focus of the Super Bowl broadcast, and such a regular part of our lives, that we no longer consider what it says about us or what it's doing to youngsters right down to little children. ----- www.leagueoffans.org From info at leagueoffans.org Mon Feb 7 14:09:27 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Mon Feb 7 14:11:50 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Celebrate National Girls & Women in Sports Day Message-ID: <4207BCE7.8010903@leagueoffans.org> Celebrate National Girls & Women in Sports Day on February 9 League of Fans posted: February 7, 2005 On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, thousands of people across the country will celebrate female athletic achievement and emphasize the importance of sports and fitness participation for girls and women. Your support of National Girls & Women in Sports Day (http://www.aahperd.org/ngwsdcentral/) will go a long way toward increasing visibility for female athletes and advancing their struggle for equality in sports. Even though there are many new and exciting developments for female athletes, sports participation opportunities for women and girls, operating budgets, and scholarship and recruitment dollars are still vastly lower than for men?s sports. One of the most important and successful civil rights laws in U.S. history, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bars sex discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal funding, including athletics. Two years ago, League of Fans and Ralph Nader joined with many organizations and individuals in the fight to preserve Title IX from a Bush Administration attempt to weaken the law. President Bush?s appointment of a Blue Ribbon panel, called the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, made recommendations to change Title IX policies that would have diminished three decades of progress in athletics for women. This energized millions of supporters who exposed baseless arguments from opponents of Title IX and finally led to the Department of Education upholding the Title IX standards of compliance now in use. It was a great victory. The benefits of Title IX are not limited to opening opportunities for girls and women who are happier, healthier and more confident because they have played sports. And the benefits do not end with the countless women who have gone on to successful careers and trace their accomplishments back to Title IX. What Title IX has achieved in influencing boys and men who respect girls and women and their athletic, academic and workplace abilities is every bit as important and nothing short of remarkable. But there are perpetual attempts to challenge and dismantle Title IX, which therefore requires its continual defense and celebration of female athletic achievement. League of Fans asks that to commemorate National Girls & Women in Sports Day, readers participate in some way to help women?s athletics. The National Association for Girls & Women in Sport (http://www.aahperd.org/nagws/) suggests 10 simple ways to make a difference: 1. Buy a basketball, glove, soccer ball or other sport gift for your favorite sportsgirl - send her the message that you think she can play sports. 2. Take your friends and family to a women's sports event - high school, college, or professional sports. 3. Watch a women's sports program on television and call the station to thank them for carrying women's sports (so they'll continue to air women's sports programs). 4. Write a letter to your local newspaper editor either asking them for fairer coverage of women's sports or thanking them for great coverage. 5. Buy women's collegiate and professional sports merchandise like t-shirts and hats. It's an important way to advance the economic success of your favorite team. 6. Take someone who has never attended a women's sports event to a high school, college, or professional women's sports game. Introduce others to the excitement of women's sports. Help grow the fan base! 7. Visit your local sports retail store. If they are not carrying licensed merchandise for your favorite women's sports team, write to the manager to tell him or her you want to purchase this product and you would appreciate it if they would carry it. If they are carrying the product, thank them for doing so. 8. Write to sponsors of women's sports to tell them how much you appreciate their support of women's sports. 9. Conduct a sports clinic for local elementary school girls. Tell each girl why it's so important for them to play sports and how much fun it is. 10. Grade your school on whether it is treating male and female athletes equally. Write a letter to the principal either asking for change or applauding the school's commitment to girls' sports. Get a School Report Card (http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/geena/school/repcard.html) from the Women?s Sports Foundation to give you a better understanding of how well your educational institution complies with Title IX. ----- - More on National Girls & Women in Sports Day - National Girls and Women in Sport Coalition http://www.aahperd.org/ngwsdcentral/ Women?s Sports Foundation http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/events/article.html?record=163 ----- - Her Life Depends On It (a report from the Women?s Sports Foundation) - ?...the most comprehensive compilation of research to date about the impact of physical activity on the physical, psychological and cultural health of girls. The report points to physical activity and sport as fundamental solutions for many of the serious health and social problems faced by girls.? Executive Summary http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/body/article.html?record=991 Full Report http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/binary-data/WSF_ARTICLE/pdf_file/990.pdf (PDF) ----- - More on Title IX - National Women's Law Center http://www.nwlc.org/display.cfm?section=athletics Women?s Sports Foundation http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/rights/index.html League of Fans http://www.leagueoffans.org/titleixaction.html ------------------------- ### ------------------------- Founded by Ralph Nader, League of Fans is a sports reform project working to improve sports by increasing awareness of the sports industry's relationship to society, exposing irresponsible business practices, ensuring accountability to fans, and encouraging the industry to contribute to societal well-being. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. To add yourself to League of Fans' "Alerts" email announcements list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. From info at leagueoffans.org Fri Feb 18 19:01:08 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Fri Feb 18 19:01:35 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Statement on the NHL Cancellation of the 2004-05 Season Message-ID: <421681C4.6040709@leagueoffans.org> Statement on the NHL?s Cancellation of the 2004-05 Season and the Ongoing Lockout League of Fans February 18, 2005 Prior to the September 15, 2004 expiration of the National Hockey League Collective Bargaining Agreement, which resulted in the owners locking-out the players, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and franchise owners could not find the motivation to begin a dialog of compromise with the NHL Players? Association to save hockey for millions of loyal consumers. Now that Commissioner Bettman has driven the final icy stake into the hearts of hockey fans by cancelling the NHL season, it is apparent that compromise was never an option. Despite proposals from the NHLPA for significant and surprising concessions to appease the grievances of NHL owners, the league chose to stick with a hard-line position with unilaterally determined and imposed terms rather than to participate in collective bargaining. NHLPA Executive Director & General Counsel Robert Goodenow offered two considerable concessions in favor of the owners: (1) a 24 percent rollback on all player salaries -- effectively redistributing hundreds of millions of dollars from players to owners in the first year and over $1 billion over three years, and going against the contracts owners offered and players signed; and (2) a salary cap -- conceding the major element that owners craved. And yet, no deal and no hockey. The owners turned down the offer from players to give back nearly a quarter of their money and cap future earnings. As it turns out though, the goal of NHL owners is not simply to have their concerns successfully addressed by the union. Rather, the all-encompassing objective is union-busting. From the beginning, instead of concentrating time and resources on negotiations with the NHLPA in an honest effort to reach agreement, the NHL spent much of its time trying to sway fans and media against players with its public relations strategy. Commissioner Bettman and the NHL owners used the opportunity to repeatedly push dubious claims that player salaries are to blame for high ticket prices and the league?s economic difficulties. Team owners pay salaries as an investment based on what they believe players are worth. Given that ticket prices are a function of supply-and-demand, with owners typically putting prices at their highest revenue-generating potential regardless of how high or low player salaries are, the relationship between salaries and ticket prices has been overblown by the NHL in an effort to get fans on their side. High player salaries may contribute to the alienation of fans, but with all of the luxury box-filled publicly-funded arenas and robust revenue growth in the NHL, league and franchise mismanagement and lack of revenue sharing is certainly more to blame for financial troubles. By refusing a labor deal in their own financial favor, Commissioner Bettman and the NHL owners have left themselves completely exposed, and their arguments unjustifiable. Instead of collectively bargaining with players, they have collectively driven the NHL into the ground and no longer have anything to hide behind or anyone to blame but themselves. The NHL has taken its fans and host cities of the league for granted and in so doing, have re-defined the status of professional hockey in North America for years to come. Before returning to the game in great numbers and before handing over any more of their hard-earned dollars to NHL owners, it is essential that hockey fans demand respect. The NHL needs to realize that its operations must change. Owners should not be able to get away with catering only to the white-collar luxury market. If the NHL is to become profitable again, the league must please the average fans. The NHL will no longer be able to sustain itself by ignoring fans and hoping they will still pay exorbitant prices for parking, concessions and mediocre seats at games. State and local governments should never again tax the public to pay for new arenas for the benefit of NHL owners, especially those who manipulate and threaten them into doing so. Further, those public entities should seek compensation from the NHL for all payments made toward subsidized arenas during the lockout. Finally, Commissioner Bettman should resign before he further disgraces this once celebrated and heroic game. ------------------------- ### ------------------------- League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. If you would like to add yourself to League of Fans' "Alerts" email list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Wed Mar 23 17:53:23 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Wed Mar 23 18:12:20 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Fenway Park is Saved! - Statement by League of Fans Message-ID: <4241F363.8040000@leagueoffans.org> Fenway Park is Saved! - Statement by League of Fans March 23, 2005 Today, the Boston Red Sox officially announced that historic Fenway Park will remain their home for the foreseeable future. This occasion finally puts to rest the push launched by the Sox? previous ownership to destroy Fenway Park -- a unique national treasure that serves fans as a palace for the national pastime -- and replace it with a stale imposter based on every other new baseball stadium across the country. If it were not for the tireless efforts of the organization Save Fenway Park!, along with many other neighborhood and community organizations and individuals, Fenway Park would not be standing today. League of Fans would like to congratulate Save Fenway Park! for their victory, and thank the organizers of the grassroots campaign for including League of Fans in their efforts. As the novelty wears off of the modern ?mallparks,? and the ?honeymoon effect? for each replica gets shorter with the opening of another, Fenway Park?s popularity and revenues soar. With the current owners of the Boston Red Sox committed to the renovation and preservation of Fenway, baseball fans can look forward to a future as long and magnificent as its past. League of Fans thanks the Red Sox ownership for recognizing the importance of preserving Fenway Park. In an attempt to convince the previous owners (who wished to take a wrecking ball to Fenway) to recognize the importance of the preservation of Fenway Park, Ralph Nader wrote to (then) Red Sox CEO John Harrington in June, 2000 that: ?There is nothing that a new stadium can provide that Fenway Park cannot. . . . If you truly believe in the extraordinary relationship between the Red Sox and the community that has made the franchise so special, then you can surely respect the virtues of historic preservation and its benefits to society. Preservation is good business and contributes much to the quality of our lives. Fenway Park is a perfect example, as it maintains a link with Boston's past and connects the citizens with the experiences of the people who came before them, in turn giving us a better understanding of our connectedness.? ?This is a no-strings-attached commitment,? team president Larry Lucchino said at today?s news conference announcing the Red Sox? plans to remain at Fenway. Still, League of Fans is hopeful that the Red Sox owners will refrain from demands for taxpayer funds. As today?s Boston Globe editorial points out: ?A commitment to remain at Fenway Park is not grounds, however, to tap public funds. Too many policymakers got swept up in efforts by previous ownership to build a new stadium. Tens of millions of dollars in pledges were made to defray infrastructure and site acquisition costs. Thankfully, the new park was never built and the public funds were never expended. Taxpayer subsidies for sports facilities are all too common across the nation. Exaggerated claims get tossed about regarding the economic multiplier effects of new stadiums. Yet the only sure winners in the game of public funding for stadiums are the owners and the players.? But for now, it?s celebration time for fans of the Red Sox, of baseball, of Fenway and of history. What seemed like a long-shot a few years ago is now a reality. Fenway Park is Saved! ----- Park it here for the future By Dan Shaughnessy Boston Globe - March 23, 2005 http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/03/23/park_it_here_for_the_future/ Faithful to Fenway Boston Globe Editorial - March 23, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/03/23/faithful_to_fenway/ Red Sox: Commitment to Fenway Park has no strings attached Associated Press - March 23, 2005 http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=74770 ----- For more on the efforts of Save Fenway Park!, visit: http://www.savefenwaypark.org For more on the efforts of Ralph Nader and League of Fans to save Fenway Park and prevent a publicly-funded replacement, visit: http://www.leagueoffans.org/bostonaction.html ------------------------- ### ------------------------- League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. If you would like to add yourself to League of Fans' "Alerts" email list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Fri Mar 25 18:42:02 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Fri Mar 25 18:44:07 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Bush Administration Weakens Title IX Message-ID: <4244A1CA.8040301@leagueoffans.org> Bush Administration Weakens Title IX - League of Fans Calls for Action to Protect Anti-Discrimination Law March 25, 2005 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, one of the most important and successful civil rights laws in U.S. history, has been undermined by the Bush Administration. Title IX bars sex discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal funding, including athletics. The law gave women access to classes, facilities and opportunities that had historically been male-only. Despite the gains women have made under Title IX, resources for women's sports have never caught up to resources for men's sports at most colleges and universities. Women's athletic programs continue to lag behind men's programs by every measurable criterion, including participation opportunities, athletic scholarships, operating budgets and recruiting expenditures. Two years ago, League of Fans and Ralph Nader joined with many organizations and individuals in the fight to preserve Title IX from a Bush Administration attempt to weaken the law. President Bush?s appointment of a Blue Ribbon panel, called the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, made recommendations to change Title IX policies that would have diminished three decades of progress in athletics for women. This energized millions of supporters who exposed baseless arguments from opponents of Title IX and finally led to the Department of Education upholding the Title IX standards of compliance. But in the latest move in a years-long attempt to weaken Title IX, the Department of Education quietly cut the legs out from under the anti-discrimination law last week, inviting no public comment on the new guidelines before posting them on the Department?s website. The ridiculously offensive alteration allows schools to comply with Title IX by making female students justify that they are deserving of equal opportunities in athletics by responding to e-mail surveys. If these surveys do not show enough interest in, or ability to play, sports, or if there is a lack of response to the survey, then a school can avoid offering sports opportunities to women and be in compliance with Title IX. As Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women's Law Center questioned in a press release, ?How many people open, let alone respond to e-mail surveys? This is simply an underhanded way to weaken Title IX and make it easy for schools that aren?t interested in providing equal opportunity for women to skirt the law.? Julie Foudy, captain of the gold medal-winning U.S. Olympic women?s soccer team who defended Title IX as part of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, told USA Today, ?I can hear it now. ?We lost a women's team because the e-mail survey got stuck in my spam folder for six months.?? The benefits of Title IX are not limited to opening opportunities for girls and women who are happier, healthier and more confident because they have played sports. And the benefits do not end with the countless women who have gone on to successful careers and trace their accomplishments back to Title IX. What Title IX has achieved in influencing boys and men who respect girls and women and their athletic, academic and workplace abilities is every bit as important and nothing short of remarkable. NCAA President Myles Brand said in a statement that, ?The e-mail survey . . . will not provide an adequate indicator of interest among young women to participate in college sports, nor does it encourage young women to participate -- a failure that will likely stymie the growth of women?s athletics and could reverse the progress made over the last three decades.? Brand also expressed his disappointment that officials issued the change ?without benefit of public discussion and input.? Until women have the same opportunities as men to enjoy the psychological, physiological and sociological benefits that sports participation can provide, we must all insist on the protection and strengthened enforcement of Title IX. Currently young women make up 53 percent of the student body in Division One schools, yet they receive only 41 percent of the athletic opportunities, 36 percent of the athletic budgets, and 32 percent of the recruitment budget. For now, this rollback of Title IX is official. But the Bush Administration is once again underestimating how much equal opportunity means to people in this country. League of Fans urges all to speak out against this weakening of Title IX and in support of the anti-discrimination principle that we treat our daughters as well as our sons. If you'd like to help, please visit http://www.leagueoffans.org/titleixtakeaction.html, where contact information is provided for key government offices and public officials concerning Title IX as well as the citizen organizations dedicated to the law?s protection and enforcement. ----- More on the Bush Administration?s Weakening of Title IX: Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test -- Part Three (the letter explaining the weakening of Title IX) http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9guidanceadditional.html National Women's Law Center http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=2198§ion=newsroom Survey says: E-mails no way to judge Title IX Christine Brennan USA Today - March 24, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2005-03-24-brannan-title-IX_x.htm ------------------------- ### ------------------------- League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. If you would like to add yourself to League of Fans' "Alerts" email list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Mon Apr 11 18:51:40 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Mon Apr 11 18:57:59 2005 Subject: [Alerts] "Millions for Stadiums, Peanuts for Schools" rally in DC Message-ID: <425AFF7C.7040607@leagueoffans.org> League of Fans Supports DC School Advocacy Rally to Protest ?Millions for Stadiums, Peanuts for Schools? posted: April 11, 2005 When: Washington Nationals' Opening Day, Thursday, April 14 at 6:00 pm. Where: RFK Stadium, Main Entrance on East Capitol St., SE The ?Millions for Stadiums, Peanuts for Schools? rally will send the message that a city flush with revenue, and spending at least $581 million on a new stadium, should not cut the DC Public School?s capital budget by 44 percent over the next two years as proposed in Mayor Anthony Williams? budget. The FY 2006 budget includes no additional funding for athletic programs in DC Public Schools. On opening day of the Nationals at RFK, school advocates will rally at the newly renovated stadium to demand that city leaders invest in school buildings just like they have chosen to invest in Major League Baseball. The rally is sponsored by the DC Public Schools Full Funding Campaign, a coalition of students, parents, school workers and concerned DC residents who believe that the conditions of DC Public Schools are unacceptable. For more information, call the DC Public Schools Full Funding Campaign: (202) 491-6593. ------------------------- ### ------------------------- League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. If you would like to add yourself to League of Fans' "Alerts" email list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Tue Apr 12 14:57:21 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Tue Apr 12 14:58:53 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Letter asking LeBron James to curb child marketing in endorsement deals Message-ID: <425C1A11.9050403@leagueoffans.org> April 12, 2005 Ralph Nader and League of Fans Ask LeBron James to Push for Child Marketing Curbs in Contract Negotiations with McDonald?s and Coca-Cola Today, Ralph Nader and the sports reform project League of Fans sent a letter to NBA star LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers asking him to advocate for more responsible marketing practices to help minimize the risk of obesity in children in his anticipated endorsement contracts with McDonald?s and Coca-Cola. The letter follows. ----- Dear Mr. James: Congratulations on your amazing rise to become one of the best players of the NBA, exceeding the expectations of virtually everyone and handling the pressure and hype like an experienced veteran. Two years ago we requested, unsuccessfully, that you use your new and unparalleled commercial influence and negotiating power to help improve conditions in the contracted factories for the workers who make the Nike products you endorse. We remain hopeful that you will not forget about these sweatshop workers and will someday choose to support justice for them and even visit them. It was reported by the New York Daily News that you are in negotiations for new endorsement deals with two other large multinational corporations: McDonald?s and Coca-Cola. We would like to extend our hope that, prior to signing, you will do something positive for the many children whose health and well being are put at risk by the marketing practices of these junk-food* giants. American children are suffering from an epidemic of obesity. The marketing-related and diet-related disease of childhood obesity has doubled in children and tripled in teens over the last 20 years, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Junk-food marketers such as McDonald?s and Coca-Cola have reshaped the diets of kids, and the dramatic rise in fast food and soft drink consumption has paralleled the boom in childhood obesity. Experts at targeting children with aggressive advertising, McDonald?s and Coca-Cola no doubt plan to use you as they have so profitably used other star athletes before: as a vehicle to push their unhealthy junk food on kids and, ideally for these corporations, to hook or ?brand? them for life. According to Margo Wootan, Director of Nutrition Policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, ?Children often lack the skills and maturity to comprehend the complexities of good nutrition or to appreciate the long-term consequences of their food choices. Furthermore, young children don?t understand the persuasive intent of advertising and are easily misled. Older children, who still don?t have a fully developed understanding of advertising and the consequences of unhealthful diets, have considerable spending money and opportunities to make food choices and purchases when their parents are not there to guide them.? On your website, you are quoted at a holiday community event for kids in your home town, stating: ?I say this all the time and I mean it, I?m all about the kids. I remember being here just like them and I?ll always give back to the kids.? But we doubt that encouraging children to eat and drink junk foods and beverages that might as well have been specifically designed to make them fat was a contribution you had in mind. Today, McDonald?s and Coca-Cola are synonymous with childhood obesity. But with your anticipated endorsement contracts, you have the chance to use your cultural status to help improve the health and well-being of children by helping to change the current practices of junk-food marketing to kids. If McDonald?s and Coca-Cola were to market more responsibly, as the largest and most influential companies of their respective market categories, it would pressure the entire food and beverage industry to change. Studies show that food marketing attracts kids? attention and affects their food preferences and choices. Food commercials, mostly for products low in nutrition but high in fat, sugar, salt and calories, account for the most television advertising during children?s peak viewing hours. Such items have become unhealthy, obesity-promoting staples in the daily diets of many young people, increasing the likelihood for the occurrence of other chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, stroke and heart disease. According to the Institute of Medicine, food and beverage companies spend an estimated $10 billion to $12 billion a year pitching products to children and adolescents. Television advertising is just one way McDonald?s and Coca-Cola profit by pushing obesity- and disease-causing junk foods and soft drinks on children. Formerly places where good nutrition was taught and where profit-seeking corporations were much less ubiquitous, schools (especially those facing budget shortfalls) have become a paradise for junk-food marketers. In schools, McDonald?s and Coca-Cola are able to bypass parental authority and use their relentless skills and resources (including child psychologists) to influence the food choices of a captive audience of developmentally vulnerable children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 94 percent of high schools, 84 percent of middle schools and 58 percent of elementary schools allow the sale of soft-drinks on their premises. 20 percent of schools allow the sale of brand-name fast food on their premises. Apart from exclusive contracts to sell products directly in schools, junk food is often marketed in schools: on the Channel One television station; by placing logos, spokes-characters and other product marketing on vending machines, in books and curricula, on scoreboards, buses and other school property; by sponsoring educational incentive programs that provide food as a reward for academic achievement; and incentive programs that provide schools with money or school supplies when families buy a company?s products. McDonald?s and Coca-Cola continue their assault on the health of school kids despite growing criticism from parents, school officials, legislators, and community and health organizations. Some schools have actually become Coke pushers with contracts that include financial incentives for schools to sell more, thus encouraging kids to consume more soft drinks. Using a different strategy to market to children in an eye-rolling attempt to link their products with health experts, McDonald?s has launched a new program with Ronald McDonald going to elementary schools to talk to kids about fitness. In the coming weeks and months, you will find yourself in a strong position with the ability to help protect children?s health. The aforementioned Center for Science in the Public Interest has provided criteria for marketing food and beverages to children in a manner that does not undermine children?s diets or harm their health. Released in January 2005, the enclosed ?Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children? provide recommendations that McDonald?s and Coca-Cola have a responsibility to work toward to improve marketing practices and minimize the risk of obesity in children. As McDonald?s and Coca-Cola negotiate contracts for your services, we urge you to push for inclusion of the following five (paraphrased) ?Guidelines? as contract conditions. McDonald?s and Coca-Cola must: (1) support parents? efforts to serve as the gatekeepers of sound nutrition for their children** and not undermine parental authority including through encouraging children to nag their parents to buy nutritionally-poor*** foods and beverages; (2) support healthy eating in schools and not market, sell, or give away nutritionally-poor foods or brands anywhere on school property; (3) eliminate advertising for nutritionally-poor foods and beverages during television shows for which more than a quarter of the audience is children; (4) eliminate the use of product or brand placements for nutritionally-poor foods and beverages in media aimed at children, such as movies, television shows, video games, websites, books, and textbooks; (5) eliminate general brand marketing (marketing that does not promote individual products, but rather a line of products or a whole company or subsidiary) aimed at children when more than half of the products are of nutritionally-poor quality. At the very least, we ask that you demand from McDonald?s and Coca-Cola a guarantee that any product which uses the ?LeBron James? name or likeness meet the five conditions listed above. If none of these conditions are met, we urge you to refrain from endorsing these companies. If you feel that you are not yet in a position to make an informed decision on whether to leverage your power to diminish the effects of marketing junk food to children, let us recommend that you call on the talents of the many health experts and activists in the fight against childhood obesity who would be very pleased to assist you in learning about the practices and effects of marketing to children and the roles which McDonald?s and Coca-Cola play. Some of these experts are listed in the attached ?Guidelines.? We wish you continued success in your professional career and look forward to your response, unlike two years ago when your agent recommended that you not have the courtesy to reply to our first letter. Sincerely, Ralph Nader Shawn McCarthy Director, League of Fans * The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have defined junk food as ?foods which provide calories primarily through fats or added sugars and have minimal amounts of vitamins and minerals.? ** The ?Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children? apply to children of all ages (less than 18 years of age). *** Nutritionally-poor is extensively defined in the enclosed ?Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children.? ------------------------- ### ------------------------- The entire ?Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children? are available online (pdf) at: http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/kidsmarketingguidelines.pdf The letter is available online at: http://www.leagueoffans.org/3lebronletter.html ------------------------- ### ------------------------- League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. If you would like to add yourself to League of Fans' "Alerts" email list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Wed May 18 13:43:09 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Wed May 18 13:58:41 2005 Subject: [Alerts] GOOD SPORTS / BAD SPORTS (5/18/05) Message-ID: <428B7EAD.2040607@leagueoffans.org> GOOD SPORTS / BAD SPORTS League of Fans - May 18, 2005 -------------------------------------------------- GOOD SPORTS - Commissioner of Baseball Shows Commitment to Stopping Performance-Enhancing Drug Use ----- BAD SPORTS - Adidas, Reebok Overstepping Commercial Bounds by Interfering with Sports -------------------------------------------------- * GOOD SPORTS * - Commissioner of Baseball Shows Commitment to Stopping Performance-Enhancing Drug Use In anticipation of today?s (May 18) Congressional hearing on the Drug Free Sports Act before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection -- where commissioners of the major professional sports leagues will testify -- Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig wrote a letter directed toward the ?Fans of Major League Baseball,? outlining his new goals for testing and penalizing Minor League players for performance-enhancing drug use. Selig stated that he would also negotiate these plans with the Major League Baseball Player?s Association to change the Major League Drug Policy. But Selig added, ?However, in the event that we are unable to achieve agreement with the MLBPA on this matter and I am left with no reasonable alternative to address this critical issue, I will support federal legislation, as it has been introduced by congressman Stearns.? The Drug Free Sports Act would create national standards for professional athletes modeled after the Olympic testing and penalty policies against performance enhancing drugs, and would mandate a two-year suspension for the first offense and a lifetime ban for the second offense. Selig?s letter outlines a potentially significant improvement over MLB?s current policy (adopted January 13, 2005), which introduced limited testing with paltry penalties that are no match for the competitive and financial pressures on players to gain an edge, and which have not restored the full confidence of baseball fans that what they are watching is fair play. But his plans, even if approved by the MLBPA, fall well short of what the Drug Free Sports Act would mandate. Still, it appears that positive momentum continues in the battle to rid performance-enhancing drugs from professional sports. Selig?s letter follows: May 16, 2005 Dear Fans of Major League Baseball, On Wednesday, May 18, 2005 I will appear before the Subcommittee on Commerce Trade and Consumer Protection of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce to offer testimony concerning the Drug Free Sports Act, which has been introduced by Congressman Cliff Stearns. This bill creates minimum drug testing standards for professional sports. I want to be clear concerning the position of Major League Baseball on this important issue. The eradication of performance-enhancing substances from all of professional baseball is my top priority. This priority is and always has been shared by the owners of all 30 Major League Clubs. They have reiterated their long-standing determination to rid our game of these substances by a unanimous resolution passed during our recent MLB owners' meetings in New York. We have been fighting the use of these drugs in the Major Leagues and the Minor Leagues for a long time and in 2002 were successful for the first time in reaching agreement with the Major League Baseball Players Association on a testing program. Our program was strengthened in January, 2005. I believe then, and I believe now, that the improvements we made were a strong step forward in achieving our goal. However, it is clear to me that you and your elected representatives in Congress expect more in order to restore faith in the integrity of our rules and the performance of our players. Therefore, I will amend Major League Baseball's Minor League drug policy, effective for the 2006 season. First-time offenders will be suspended for 50 games. Second-time offenders will be suspended for 100 games and third-time offenders will be permanently banned from Major League Baseball and all Minor League Clubs who are affiliated with Major League Baseball. Testing for performance-enhancing drug use in the Major Leagues, and the resulting penalties, is a topic we believe we are required to discuss and negotiate with the players' union before any further action can be taken. We have been encouraged by the MLBPA's sensitivity to this issue as reflected in the positive changes made to our program last January. I am certain that this sensitivity reflects the near-unanimous concern which has recently been publicly expressed on this issue by our clubs' players, who make up the membership of the MLBPA. I have invited the MLBPA's Executive Director to consider the following changes to the Major League Drug Policy: 1. I believe that the discipline for the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the Major Leagues should be exactly what I have determined will be applicable to players in the Minor Leagues in 2006: 50 games, 100 games and a permanent ban. 2. I believe amphetamines should be banned under our program and considered performance-enhancing substances for the purpose of penalties. 3. I believe we should increase the frequency of testing, and ... 4. I believe we should agree on a single, independent administrator who is responsible for all aspects of the program. It is clear to me that we must act quickly because the existence of these substances provides cause to question the integrity of each and every player, creates an uneven playing field to the advantage of those who elect to cheat and raises important health concerns. Most importantly, the use of these substances by any player in our game has the potential to influence young people in a disastrous direction. Finally, I believe that expeditious, effective changes in our agreement, whose elements are consistent with the goals I have outlined above, is a course of action far preferable to federal legislation on this issue. However, in the event that we are unable to achieve agreement with the MLBPA on this matter and I am left with no reasonable alternative to address this critical issue, I will support federal legislation, as it has been introduced by Congressman Stearns. I am convinced that he and his committee chairman, Congressman Joe Barton, share my goal of eliminating illegal performance-enhancing drugs from Major League Baseball. Since I will be speaking publicly on this matter this week and there is likely to be a considerable amount of media coverage and opinion expressed, I thought it was important to let you know where I, as the Commissioner, stand on this issue. Very truly yours, Allan H. Selig Commissioner ----- More Information: Link to Commissioner Selig?s letter: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2005/m05/d16/c1051858.jsp Link to H.R.1862 - Drug Free Sports Act of 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1862.IH: Selig ready for drug fight By Michael O?Keefe, NY Daily News May 17, 2005 http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/310243p-265473c.html Press Release from Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), co-author of the Drug Free Sports Act: http://www.house.gov/upton/press/press-04-26-05.html Press Release from Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), co-author of the Drug Free Sports Act: http://www.house.gov/stearns/PressReleases/PR2005Releases/pr-050502-steroids.html League of Fans' Position on the Use of Steroids and other Performance-Enhancing Substances in Sports - January 14, 2005 http://www.leagueoffans.org/drugsposition.html ----- * Take Action! * 1) Urge your Congressional representative to support H.R.1862, the Drug Free Sports Act of 2005. Contact your representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/ Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard to be connected with your representative's office: (202) 224-3121 2) Emphasize participation over winning in your own household, school and community. The pressure of a sports environment that has a ?win at all costs? attitude jeopardizes health and safety and increases the potential for injury. Our current sports culture fuels the use of performance-enhancing substances at almost all levels of competition and age groups, as well as in most sports. Putting the health and safety of players at risk just to win should have no place in sports. For players, sports should be about safe participation and enjoyment, never winning at all costs. -------------------------------------------------- * BAD SPORTS * - Adidas, Reebok Overstepping Commercial Bounds by Interfering with Sports Two recent, unprecedented developments in the commercial takeover of sports: 1) Adidas, the German sports equipment manufacturer, holds an exclusive deal with the German national soccer team to supply all of the team?s shoes and equipment. But some of the best players, including Dietmar Hamann, Miroslav Klose and Jens Lehmann, may be excluded from the national team for the World Cup because they prefer other equipment makers. As Sporting Life (UK) reports: ?Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann, who has also been employed as a spokesman by [Adidas], bowed to their greater influence . . . by telling reporters that those players unwilling to heed the sponsors' demands will simply be excluded from consideration hitherto. He said: ?There will be nobody representing the national team without wearing Adidas boots. If any player says that he must wear an alternative (brand), he can go home and watch the game on television.?? Klinsmann has sent letters to several players threatening this corporate ultimatum. Adidas to Give Dissenters the Boot By Peter May, Sporting Life (UK) May 4, 2005 http://www.sportinglife.com/football/worldcup2006/story_get.dor?STORY_NAME=international_feed/05/05/04/manual_213213.html&TEAMHD=soccer Klinsi: No Adidas Boots, No World Cup Deutsche Welle May 6, 2005 http://www.deutsche-welle.de/dw/briefs/0,1574,1575627,00.html German FA support Klinsmann in ?battle of the shoes? Malaysia Star May 11, 2005 http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/5/12/sports/10926720&sec=sports - 2) The National Football League is refusing to allow new San Francisco 49ers Head Coach Mike Nolan to wear a coat and tie to coach his team. The NFL?s $250 million contract with Reebok mandates that, on the sideline, every coach must wear clothes made by and sponsored by Reebok. Nolan. This from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: ?The request was simple, the sentiment heartfelt. San Francisco's Mike Nolan said he'd like to wear a coat and tie for his first NFL head coaching game as an homage to his father, Dick Nolan, former head coach of the 49ers and Saints. ?To me, it's professional. I think it's respectful,? Nolan was quoted as saying in the San Francisco Chronicle. As a youth, Nolan roamed the sideline with his dad, opposite the likes of the dapper Hank Stram and stoic Tom Landry, always dressed to the nines. Modern-day coaches in the NHL and NBA seem to share Nolan's feelings that a well-dressed leader adds to his air of authority and lends a touch of class to what's supposed to be a professional sport. The NFL begged to differ and summoned Nolan to the star chamber.? NFL is missing the mark on coat and tie that bind By Kathleen Nelson, St. Louis Post-Dispatch May 14, 2005 http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/11648486.htm Commercialism is out of control Santa Cruz Sentinel May 16, 2005 http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/May/16/edit/stories/01edit.htm ----- More Information: League of Fans? Sport Commercialism Action Page: http://www.leagueoffans.org/commercialismaction.html ----- * Take Action! * 1) Contact German Football Association (DFB) President Gerhard Mayer-Vorfelder and demand that he stand up to Adidas and not allow their marketing contract to interfere with the German national team. Gerhard Mayer-Vorfelder President Deutscher Fussball-Bund (German Football Association) Hermann-Neuberger-Haus Otto-Fleck-Schneise 6 60528 Frankfurt/Main, Germany tel +49-069/6788-0 fax +49-069/6788-266 info@dfb.de - 2) Contact NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and demand that he stand up to Reebok. Corporate marketing agreements should never interfere with sports or take precedence over honor, tradition and culture. Paul J. Tagliabue Commissioner National Football League Inc. 280 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 tel (212) 450-2000 fax (212) 681-7599 3) Write to San Francisco 49ers Head Coach Mike Nolan to show support in his effort to honor his father buy wearing a coat and tie to coach his first game instead of the imposed Reebok apparel. Mike Nolan Head Coach San Francisco 49ers 4949 Centennial Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95054 4) Contact Adidas and Reebok and demand that they stop interfering with sports. Adidas-Salomon AG Adi-Dassler-Strasse 1-2 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany tel +49-9132-84-0 fax +49-9132-84-2241 - Adidas America 5055 N Greeley Ave. Portland, OR 97217 - Reebok International Ltd. 1895 J. W. Foster Blvd. Canton, MA 02021 tel (781) 401-5000 fax (781) 401-7402 ------------------------- ### ------------------------- GOOD SPORTS / BAD SPORTS is an email bulletin of recent news items and suggested actions regarding issues in the world of sports. It goes out regularly to League of Fans "Alerts" listserv subscribers. Help spread the word! Send copies of this message to your friends and help them turn their sports industry grievances into action for reform. If you would like to add yourself to the "Alerts" list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. Founded by Ralph Nader, League of Fans is a sports reform project working to improve sports by increasing awareness of the sports industry's relationship to society, exposing irresponsible business practices, ensuring accountability to fans, and encouraging the industry to contribute to societal well-being. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Wed Jun 8 15:30:07 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Wed Jun 8 15:33:26 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Sports Injury Prevention Message-ID: <42A7473F.5060100@leagueoffans.org> Ralph Nader and League of Fans Call for Federal Government-led Advancement in Prevention of Sports Injuries Today, Ralph Nader and the sports reform project League of Fans sent a letter to federal health and safety officials arguing that their agencies "have been collectively deficient in research, preservation of data, recommendations and overall recognition of the public health magnitude of sports injuries." The letter was sent to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services; Julie Louise Gerberding, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Ileana Arias, Acting Director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; and Hal Stratton, Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Enclosed with the letter are recommendations urging the establishment of a task force to formulate sports injury policy and implement "a pro-active national program regarding health and safety in sports, at all levels and age groups, with the goal of minimizing the risk of injury to participants in informal and organized sports, recreation and exercise." The letter and recommendations follow, and can also be accessed at: www.leagueoffans.org/injuryrelease.html. ----- June 8, 2005 The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt Secretary, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Ileana Arias, Ph.D. Acting Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Hal Stratton Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Dear Guardians of Public Health and Safety: Sports injuries, which cost American consumers tens of billions of dollars each year, could be significantly diminished by injury prevention programs. According to the 2002 CDC Injury Research Agenda, ?More than 10,000 people receive treatment in the nation?s emergency departments each day for injuries sustained in [sports, recreation, and exercise] activities. At least one of every five [emergency department] visits for an injury results from participation in sports or recreation.? Many preventable sports injuries cause long-term damage. As Sara Pierce reported in the May 2, 2005 edition of the Montgomery Blair High School (Silver Spring, MD) newspaper Silver Chips, Erica Nowak, now a senior, sprained her ankle during a lacrosse game in 2002 but returned to play two days later against her doctor?s warnings and now suffers the painful consequences of poor injury management. Three years later and still playing, with the pain unbearable at times, Nowak?s ankle requires weekly physical therapy sessions. ?It?s gotten to the point where I need major physical therapy and maybe even surgery,? said Nowak. ?But as much as I appreciate what the doctor tells me, sitting out the season is really not an option.? Even if Nowak?s original injury was not preventable, the long-term, possibly life-long damage from injury mismanagement certainly was preventable. Some preventable sports injuries can cause death. Such is the case with the October 1, 2003 death of six-year old first-grader Zachary Tran from Vernon Hills, Illinois. According to Brooke de Lench, Editor-in-Chief of MomsTeam.com, the official cause of death was cardiac arrest due to massive head injuries. But had the soccer goalpost that fell on him during practice been secured, as it should have been, Tran would still be alive. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Tran was at least the twenty-seventh person to die from a falling goalpost since 1979. A preventable death. 14-year old Eisenhower High School (Alsip, IL) freshman football player James Van Slette had a known history of concussions, four (three from football) in the previous five years, and one so serious that it knocked him unconscious. Three days after playing in the final game of the season, Van Slette died in the middle of the night after earlier waking up feverish and vomiting. According to Brooke de Lench, Van Slette ?had confided to friends -- but not to his family or coaches -- that he was having severe headaches and might have suffered a fifth concussion? during the final game. While preliminary autopsy results were inconclusive, it is possible that Van Slette died of ?second impact syndrome,? suffered when a second head injury (such as a concussion or cerebral contusion) occurs before symptoms associated with a previous head injury have cleared. In all likelihood, Van Slette?s death was also preventable. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that injuries to children younger than 15 years old involved with 29 popular sports cost the U.S. public more than $49 billion per year. Many of these injuries are overuse injuries that are preventable. Relatively few people, however, are aware of the serious and growing problem of overuse injuries. As Bill Pennington reported in the February 22, 2005 edition of The New York Times, ?Around the country, doctors in pediatric sports medicine say it is as if they have happened upon a new childhood disease, and the cause is the overaggressive culture of organized youth sports.? Pennington wrote that ?. . . one factor was repeatedly cited as the prime cause for the outbreak in overuse injuries among young athletes: specialization in one sport at an early age and the year-round, almost manic, training for it that often follows.? As David H. Janda, M.D. wrote in his book The Awakening of a Surgeon: One Doctor's Journey to Fight the System and Empower Your Community: "With increasing worldwide participation in sports, injuries have become an epidemic of global proportions. Those of us on the front lines of health care delivery feel frustrated and perplexed by the apparent inability of government, business and medical research facilities to focus on the issue of injury and injury prevention." We believe that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have been collectively deficient in research, preservation of data, recommendations and overall recognition of the public health magnitude of sports injuries. Therefore, we urge your respective agencies to make it a high-visibility priority to: 1) establish a task force to formulate sports injury policy due to the differing jurisdictions of the various government agencies dealing with sports injuries; and 2) implement a pro-active national program regarding health and safety in sports, at all levels and age groups, with the goal of minimizing the risk of injury to participants in informal and organized sports, recreation and exercise. Injury is the major reason people quit a sport. And common misconceptions about sports injuries act as a barrier to increased participation in physical activity. Nonetheless, increasing numbers of Americans are participating in various sports activities and taking advantage of the many benefits that sports and physical activity can provide. Unfortunately, the lack of a coordinated and pro-active approach toward preventing sports injuries in this country contributes to an increase in the number and severity of injuries for youth, adult and senior level sports participants. These injuries undercut not only the ability of people to participate in sports, but the efforts of the many public and private organizations working to get more Americans physically active. According to Bruce Svare, Ph.D., founder and director of the National Institute for Sports Reform (NISR), in his book Reforming Sports Before the Clock Runs Out: "Clearly, more time, effort, and resources need to be devoted to the important area of prevention if this [sports injury] trend is to be reversed. Our athletes are becoming more skilled and are training harder than ever before, but we do not devote adequate resources and attention to health and safety issues. Many studies now show that equipment and training changes could effectively prevent many sports injuries. However, sports governing bodies do little to incorporate these changes because of cost, tradition, pressure from equipment and insurance companies, and the benign neglect of our federal government." Current federal efforts do highlight the need to get people participating in sports and other physical activities and address the treatment of injuries when they occur. But programs to prevent sports injuries are overlooked, suffer from inadequate focus, insufficient funds allocated to a meaningful effort, and from the lack of administrative consolidation that could launch a concrete program with a concrete purpose that would have broad support across the country. The ?Preventing Injuries in Sports, Recreation and Exercise? chapter of the 2002 CDC Injury Research Agenda is a start. These nine pages recognize the sports injury problem in this country and indicate that the CDC has an interest in doing something about it. Most importantly, perhaps, is that the CDC admitted in its report that the federal government lacks good data on sports injuries, stating: "Few data exist about injury incidence and prevalence, costs, relative risks of injury from different activities, risk and protective factors, and effective programs to prevent [sports, recreation, and exercise (SRE)] injuries. While some [emergency department (ED)] surveillance data are available, they lack exposure information and exclude the large proportion of sports, recreation, and exercise injuries that are treated in primary care settings, sports medicine clinics, orthopedic clinics, and chiropractic clinics." Despite the federal government?s lack of data on sports injuries, the CDC report touched on the known magnitude of sports injuries: - SRE injuries . . . place a large burden on the health care system for both initial care and rehabilitation. They also result in costs related to lost productivity and other factors. Despite the large number of ED visits for these injuries, most medically treated SRE-related injuries are treated by health care providers outside of the emergency setting, indicating that the magnitude of the problem is much greater than ED statistics suggest. - In 1999, Americans made an estimated 1.5 million ED visits for injuries sustained while playing basketball, baseball, softball, football, or soccer. Approximately 715,000 sports and recreation injuries occur each year in school settings alone. Injuries are also a leading reason people stop participating in potentially beneficial physical activity. - Recent reports estimate that approximately 3.7 million ED visits occur each year for injuries related to participation in sports and recreation. - The cost of [anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)] reconstruction alone, not including initial evaluation or rehabilitation, is just under $1 billion per year in the U.S. Data from other countries also suggest that the cost of other SRE-related injuries is quite high. - In 1996, people ages 65 and older made 53,000 sports-related ED visits. This represented an increase of 54% since 1990, while the population grew by only 8% in the same time period. As Americans live longer, they will likely remain active longer, increasing the need for effective injury prevention strategies for active older adults. Additionally, research suggests that exercise is important for older Americans to maintain physical and mental health and independence. The CDC report also recognized the federal government?s responsibilities for injury prevention: - CDC?s mission includes both promoting physical activity and preventing injuries. While another center at CDC has an active research program in physical activity, the Injury Center includes a focus on sports, recreation, and exercise injury prevention. Although the scope and depth of this research has been limited, the Injury Center is uniquely positioned to provide epidemiologic and prevention research about SRE-related injuries. - Working with other agencies, nonprofit organizations, and professional organizations, the Injury Center can provide complementary research to facilitate safe sporting environments and identify risk and protective behaviors. The CDC report acknowledged that prevention measures work to minimize sports injuries: - Effective interventions exist to prevent SRE injuries, but they frequently are not used. . . . CDC?s strength in program implementation, evaluation, and health communication makes research in this area a natural opportunity, and advances will be broadly applicable to other health promotion areas. - Many promising interventions exist but have not been evaluated. These include modifications of physical play environments, use of current and newly designed safety gear, and gender- and age-specific equipment requirements. One example of a potentially successful injury prevention measure is the use of breakaway bases, as opposed to stationary bases, on baseball and softball fields. Baseball and softball have long been plagued, and continue to be plagued today, by injuries due to sliding into stationary bases. In fact, about 70 percent of all softball and baseball injuries are caused by sliding into a base. Some of the more serious injuries include ankle fractures, knee sprains, wrist and shoulder dislocations, and head injuries. The previously mentioned Dr. David Janda is one of the experts leading the fight in the area of sports injury prevention in this country. An orthopedic surgeon based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Dr. Janda founded and directs the independent, nonprofit Institute for Preventative Sports Medicine (IPSM). Over a two year period (1986-87) and during his residency at the University of Michigan, Janda studied the effectiveness of the breakaway bases for injury prevention and documented his findings in The Awakening of a Surgeon. The stationary bases still found all across the country are just that -- fixed, immovable objects. The base is ?bolted to a metal post, then sunk into the ground, and fixed in concrete. . . . So a player who slides into this iceberg the wrong way can do a tremendous amount of damage to him or herself,? writes Dr. Janda. In the conclusion of his study, Dr. Janda states: "Base-sliding injuries are the result of many factors, including judgment errors by the runner, poor technique and inadequate physical conditioning. But the breakaway base can effectively modify the outcome of these factors as a form of passive intervention -- in much the same fashion as an automobile air bag mitigates the outcome of an accident caused by another driver." The breakaway bases Dr. Janda studied consisted of a rubber mat attached to a post which is inserted into the ground and a base that snapped onto the rubber mat. The bases came in youth, teen, adult and pro models, and differed only in the amount of force it took for the bases to breakaway. Under normal play, breakaway bases separate during just 3% of slides, posing little threat to game quality. When the bases did release, umpires did not have difficulty with judgement calls since the rubber mat that is flush with the infield surface was considered the base when determining if the runner was safe or out. Over the two years of the study, there were no complaints by players or administrators regarding the use of breakaway bases as opposed to traditional stationary bases. According to Dr. Janda, on the fields used for the study: "Teams played 637 games on breakaway-base fields and 635 on stationary-base fields. The same players in the same leagues played in all the games. By the end of the study, 45 people sustained injuries on the stationary-base fields, and two on the breakaway-base fields. In other words, we realized a 96% reduction in injuries by switching from stationary bases to breakaway bases. Furthermore, the 45 people injured on the stationary bases had medical bills of over $50,000 during a one-year period. The two people injured on the breakaway bases had medical bills of $700. So we experienced a 99% reduction in health care expenditures by switching from stationary to breakaway bases." The breakaway base study was later published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, and analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Janda wrote that ?Based on their analysis of our study, the CDC concluded that if all the [bases on baseball and softball] fields in the United States were switched from stationary to breakaway bases, it would prevent approximately 1.7 million injuries a year and save two billion dollars in associated health care costs a year nationally.? Despite these findings, and many more injuries and medical bills, breakaway bases still haven?t been widely adopted. How can it be that a federal government agency makes such a clear conclusion about the benefits of a simple injury prevention measure that would not interfere with the integrity of the sport but would prevent millions of injuries and save billions of dollars in health care costs yet nothing is done? One reason may be that several stationary base companies attempted to sabotage the financing, block production, undermine distribution , and misrepresent breakaway bases to leagues and officials. As Dr. Janda explained: "[The Hollywood Base Company] did everything they could to prevent the use of breakaway bases solely because they didn?t have a financial interest in the product. During trade shows and on business calls, they would tell people that breakaway bases were inferior, that our studies were wrong, and that the product shouldn?t be used. I firmly believe that one of the reasons Major League Baseball refused to adopt breakaway bases had to do with its ties either through licensing agreements and/or fees to the Hollywood Base Company and other stationary base manufacturers." No matter the financial interests of powerful companies, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has the regulatory authority to effect change. Unfortunately, this appears to be typical of government inaction, even in the face of overwhelming independent evidence, regarding sports injury prevention. The federal government's continued delay in supporting basic initiatives in sports health, safety and injury prevention is not without its price, as the safety of millions of American sports participants is heavily influenced by sporting goods manufacturers and governing bodies of the various sports whose interests, financial or otherwise, may coincide with maintaining the status quo. Such is the case with the continued use of high-performance aluminum bats in college, high school and youth baseball. These bats carry a greater injury risk to players from batted balls than wood bats due to the higher speeds at which baseballs are propelled from them, and due to the larger ?sweet spots? the high-performance bats possess. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), have each stated in the past that they want the performance of bats to be wood-like, yet neither governing body is willing to either: 1) require bats to be made out of wood; or 2) require aluminum bats to not exceed the performance of wood in any way. Instead of bringing bat performance in line with the ?wood standard,? a level of injury risk associated with wood bats that has been generally accepted by all associated with the game of baseball as a ?reasonable? level of risk for over a century, the NCAA and NFHS have failed to take the necessary steps to lesson the likelihood for tragedy. As the major high-performance bat manufacturers (who also make wood bats) fight to maintain their profit margins, they argue that aluminum bats are as safe as wood and that there is no way to prove that the players who have been injured from balls launched off aluminum bats would not have been hit if the balls came off wood bats. But as Bill Thurston, baseball coach at Amherst College and former rules editor of the NCAA baseball rules committee, told The New York Times, ?That's true. If I have a car accident going 70 mph, I can't prove it wouldn't have happened if I were going 55 mph. But I would like those chances.? J.W. MacKay, a designer of high-performance bats for Hillerich & Bradsby from 1986 to 1997 resigned out of concern that the bats being designed and produced were much too dangerous to players. Now a whistleblower, MacKay works to undo his past work through lobbying for tougher regulations, providing expert testimony and releasing internal memos from the bat companies showing their disregard for safety. ?Little did I know when I designed those bats, we would end up with something that was just lethal,? MacKay told the Associated Press. ?Bats now act like tennis rackets.? MacKay has also requested that the federal government establish rules requiring all non-wood baseball bats to perform like wood bats, and has asserted that bat manufacturers violated federal law by failing to report information about serious injuries sustained by people injured by their products. As MacKay told the News and Observer, ?Every time someone gets hit by an impact from an aluminum bat, they get a fractured skull, it seems like. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what we did was wrong.? On April 24, 2005, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer signed ?an unprecedented resolution calling upon American Legion baseball, with its thousands of teams nationally, to adopt wood bats out of concern that aluminum counterparts propel balls at dangerous speeds.? In response, the American Legion issued a press release on May 5, 2005, stating ? . . . the American Legion?s National Baseball Subcommittee has concluded that there is no substantial evidence in scientific research to support the claim that baseball bats made from wood are ?safer? than bats manufactured from metal or composite materials.? Larry Price, Chairman of the subcommittee, added ? . . . The American Legion will maintain the current rule, which leaves the option for wood bats to the teams that play American Legion ball.? Gov. Schweitzer?s non-binding measure was a reaction to the 2003 death of 18-year-old pitcher Brandon Patch, who was struck and killed by a high velocity line drive off of an aluminum bat. ?We have a responsibility to protect our young people in their sports endeavors,? said Gov. Schweitzer. ?Sometimes, common sense solutions have to come from an unlikely place like Montana.? The establishment of adequate standards of responsibility in sports injury prevention should not be left to the manufacturers, as it mainly is now. The low quality of their performance in many cases accentuates the urgent need for publicly defined and enforced standards of safety in sports. Basic industry philosophy is a barrier to a rational quest for sports injury prevention. Companies within the sporting goods industry, not unlike many other companies and industries, are often concerned more with market share and profitability than with public welfare where their products are involved. Only the federal government can undertake the critical task of stimulating and guiding public and private initiatives for safety and injury prevention in sports. A democratic government is far better equipped to resolve competing interests and determine whatever is required from the vast spectrum of available science and technology to achieve a safer sports environment than are corporations whose all-absorbing objective is higher and higher profits. As ?the lead federal agency for protecting the health and safety of people,? the CDC, through its National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and with the implementation of enforceable standards by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, is the ideal agency to establish a task force to implement adequate standards in sports injury prevention. Dr. Janda explained instances in The Awakening of a Surgeon where he tested sporting goods products on behalf of the Institute for Preventative Sports Medicine with the intention of releasing the scientific evidence for the benefit of the public. Ethical problems arose as manufacturers of the products being tested put profits over people in attempting to suppress the data and protect their flawed products. These problems, and suppressed solutions, cannot be left to the vagaries of the market. As documented in The Awakening of a Surgeon, one example illustrates the point: Worth Inc. spent millions of dollars to market its RIF (Reduced Injury Factor) baseballs with an advertising campaign using the names of children who had died after being struck in the chest with baseballs. The firm was promoting the superior protective safety of its baseballs, implying that if they were in use, those children would still be alive. But the Institute for Preventative Sports Medicine?s independent scientific research found that the RIF baseballs afforded no significant protection and may have actually increased the risk of the injury it was marketed to prevent. This illustration included: the admission by a representative of Worth Inc., in deposition and under oath, that the company never actually tested the product for what it was supposed to prevent; threats directed toward scientific researchers who were testing the product; Worth Inc. claiming its product had met the requirements of the National Operating Committee for the Safety of Athletic Equipment (an organization funded by the sporting goods manufacturers, with an especially close relationship to the president of Worth). The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) eventually recommended the product as effective, ignoring all of the scientific research that had proven otherwise and leading to the question of whether company pressure had been applied to the CPSC. Varying types and degrees of RIF baseballs and softballs are on the market today. The government?s approach to the sports injury problem is fragmented and scattered among numerous federal agencies whose studies, for the most part, exclude sports equipment from their areas of responsibility, produce few policy recommendations and are not evaluated with the idea of translating knowledge into action. If your respective agencies are to be made capable of securing continually safer sports for everyone that will allow them to reach their goals of a more active and healthier citizenry, they will require a sharply focused supportive constituency that is dedicated and skilled in pursuing the interests of sports injury prevention. Until this constituency assumes the leadership role that their superior knowledge makes available to them, legislators, governing bodies and other sports administrators will continue to display indifference toward action. This indifference is supported by a major misconception that is so entrenched in the lore of the sports world it is itself a clich? applied to virtually every instance in which a player is injured during a television or radio broadcast sporting event. Commentators, coaches and even athletes in interviews typically assert that ?injuries are part of the game? and that there is very little anyone can do to prevent them or to reduce their severity. False! Consider the severity of injuries trainers and doctors would be dealing with if not for the advancements in safety used in today?s sports -- advancements that in no way disrupt traditional game play. In baseball, equipment improvements such as batting helmets, catching equipment, padding on outfield walls and closer monitoring of pitchers intentionally throwing at batters have prevented countless injuries. In addition to improved helmets and other protective equipment in football, rules changes that have come into effect, such as those preventing spearing, chop-blocking (though for some reason not completely illegal in the NFL), clipping, clothes-lining and late hits on defenseless players, have prevented potentially devastating injuries. It doesn?t take a persistent orthopedic surgeon dedicated to the prevention of sports injuries to know that many injuries can be prevented. For example, fans of the National Football League have all seen severe injuries which could have been prevented such as the season ending knee, ankle and foot injuries to celebrated players caused by artificial turf, sometimes without contact with other players. Some former players have said that artificial turf is responsible for shortening their careers, due either to severe injuries caused by the turf or due to the quicker wearing down of the body over a period of time when playing on turf. And some of the game's greatest stars, such as Gayle Sayers, Billy Sims and Jack Lambert, attribute career-ending injuries to artificial turf. In February, 2005, Results of the ?2004 NFL Players Association's (NFLPA) Playing Surfaces Opinion Survey? were released and included the opinions of 1514 active players from all 32 teams. The questions asked players to compare grass to artificial turf: ?Which surface do you think is more likely to contribute to injury?? 91.2 percent answered ?Artificial Turf?; ?Which surface do you think causes more soreness and fatigue to play on?? 96.4 percent answered ?Artificial Turf?; ?Which surface do you think is more likely to shorten your career?? 85.6 percent answered ?Artificial Turf? (13.5 percent ?Neither,? 0.6 percent ?Grass?); ?Do you believe that you have had one or more injuries on artificial turf that would not have occurred on grass?? 41.5 percent answered ?Yes? (22.8 percent ?No?); ?Which surface do you think is more likely to affect your quality of life after football?? 87.4 percent answered ?Artificial Turf? (9.8 percent ?Neither?); ?When you become a free agent, how important a consideration will it be for you to sign with a team which has a grass home field?? 23.5 percent answered ?Very Important,? 43.5 percent ?Somewhat Important,? 33 percent ?Not Important?; ?What type of surface do you prefer to play on?? 84.6 percent answered ?Grass? (8.5 percent ?No Preference,? 6.9 percent ?Artificial Turf?). The results of the NFLPA survey clearly show that NFL players almost unanimously agree that, even with the new generation of artificial turf fields installed in some football stadiums, they are safer playing on natural grass fields. And the risks are certainly not limited to football. Fans of Major League Baseball have witnessed how some of the best players are forced to take days off because their home field has artificial turf which can cause severe back, leg and joint pain that could lead to more serious injury and the need for extended time on the disabled list. These situations are outrageous and amount to knowing refusal to prevent trauma. Many injuries are preventable and players need no scientific evidence to know that they have been put in harms way just by having to play on artificial turf. Today, new artificial turf surfaces are being installed for recreational fields all across the country despite the only claims of safety coming from the manufacturers. The only valid justification for using artificial turf is that it reduces costs of field preparation. Will preventable injuries be dismissed as ?injuries are part of the game? in the youth and adult organized and recreational sports played on these fields as well? It is up to our guardians of public health and safety to investigate whether they are being put in harms way, and if so, to work to minimize the risk of injury. A federal government task force dedicated to the advancement of sports injury prevention efforts and dispersal of news, information and recommendations on sports health, safety and injury prevention would give state and local governmental organizations, athletic governing bodies, educators, coaches, players, parents, health care providers, equipment manufacturers, insurance companies, activists and communities the best available tools to adopt, encourage or demand preventative measures. If we are to fully combat the problems associated with sedentary lifestyles and physical inactivity, we must develop safer sports practices so more people can participate in them for longer periods of time. Better resources for injury prevention would also promote the nonphysical benefits of sports participation such as self-confidence, teamwork, character-building, skill development, self-efficacy, perseverance, sportsmanship and so on. Is it not the responsibility of government to protect public health when it is known safety conditions can be improved? We believe that each of you and your respective agencies have the responsibility to take a pro-active role, making it a priority to prevent and reduce the severity of sports injuries at all levels, thereby increasing participation in sports and other physical activities, changing attitudes toward a healthier lifestyle and improving public health. Enclosed are summarized recommendations for some of what a national pro-active sports injury prevention program should incorporate. Sincerely, Ralph Nader Shawn McCarthy Director, League of Fans --------------------###-------------------- Recommendations for a National Pro-Active Sports Injury Prevention Program by League of Fans June 8, 2005 Because prevention solutions to the sports injury problem are scattered among numerous federal agencies -- including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and others -- a sports injury prevention task force should be established to implement a pro-active campaign concerning health, safety and injury prevention in sports with national responsibility for the reduction in number and severity of injuries in sports at all levels. The sports injury prevention task force will require the superior knowledge of a sharply focused supportive constituency that is dedicated and skilled in pursuing the interests of sports injury prevention, implementing the needed programs, and dispersing the news, information and recommendations that will turn knowledge into action. As the attainable levels of sports health, safety and injury prevention rise, so do the moral imperatives to use them. Following are summarized recommendations for some of what a national pro-active sports injury prevention program should incorporate. For the most part, these principles are common sense steps that would improve public health if given priority and implemented by the federal government. The sports injury prevention program must: 1) Work to ensure the use of proven protective equipment. Used specifically to prevent injury, protective equipment can include items worn by players, safer versions of objects used or propelled by players as well as safety provisions on or around the field of play. For the full benefits of safety and injury protection, the program should implement an evaluation system, based on independent scientific research, for federal safety standards, certification and recommendations for sports equipment as effective protection against injury. For example, many eye care professionals see sports as an area ready for change. According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, eye injuries are the leading cause of blindness in children. David Hunter, M.D., assistant professor of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, says: ?Anyone who works in ophthalmology sees cases of sports-related eye injuries. It?s frustrating because they?re almost all preventable.? Using baseball as an example to push the need for reasonable and realistic eye protection in sports, Dr. Hunter argues: "Little League is one place we?d really like to see a change. There are some great helmets available with face shields, but peer pressure keeps them from being used. If shields were required, by law or by the league, peer pressure would no longer be an issue. An interesting footnote to this problem is that when kids wear face shields, their batting improves. This may be because they?re no longer scared that the ball is going to hit them." 2) Ensure a safe sports environment. This should include assessing the safety of outdoor and indoor facilities, playing surfaces, playing equipment and weather conditions. In addition, a qualified person properly trained in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) should be available to administer first aid at games and practices with quality first aid equipment, including a portable defibrillator. A qualified individual should provide supervision for youth sports participants at all times. Ensuring a safe environment, before play begins, will reduce the potential for injury and the severity of injury and allow for better play and more enjoyment. A system of monitoring and reporting environmental hazards, with written policies to deal with cancellation and postponement issues is crucial to making this step effective. A system of federal safety standards, certification and recommendations, like that suggested for protective equipment (see recommendation 1), should also be implemented to ensure the safety of all artificial playing surface products, such as artificial turf, that are intended for use in place of natural grass or dirt playing surfaces. New artificial turf surfaces are being installed for recreational fields all across the country with the only claims of safety coming from the manufacturers. These should be tested for all types of potential injury and wear prior to installation. Absent certification by the federal government that artificial turf surfaces are at least as safe as natural surfaces in all potential injury categories, and do not sacrifice safety in one area for another, they should not be installed. 3) Disseminate information widely and comprehensively. Sports are played by different age groups and skill levels everywhere in the United States and participants are therefore at a certain degree of injury risk everywhere in the country. Athletes, physicians, athletic administrators, coaches, parents, educators and communities must be provided with, and have constant access to, the best and most current information available for their respective roles in empowering themselves and each other to prevent sports injuries. 4) Stress that injuries are not an inevitable part of sports participation. It would be imperative that the program dispel the myth ingrained within sports culture from elite professional sports to recreational youth sports that ?injuries are part of the game.? Seemingly a daunting task, the program would have the benefit of calling on the talents of a vast array of experts who have studied injury prevention in sports, as well as the many communities which have already benefitted from such research, implementing proven techniques and using proven equipment while making injury prevention a top priority in their sports programs. One such expert, Dr. David Janda, notes in The Awakening of a Surgeon: ?The number one fallacy is that injuries are inherent: that they are going to happen no matter what you do. The vast majority of injuries are completely preventable.? 5) Design a system of recording, reporting and monitoring injuries. This important step is essential to gathering and analyzing information on injuries so we can learn about how and why they happen, uncover patterns, and develop ways to prevent them from happening again. Such a system should include deciding which injuries will be recorded, what information will be collected, and how the information will be collected and reported. 6) Focus on stemming the epidemic of overuse injuries. Our sports culture often pushes children to over-achieve and play through pain while specializing in, and training year-round for, one sport at an early age. These factors are dangerously conducive to overuse injuries. As reported by Bill Pennington in the February 22, 2005 edition of The New York Times, ?Dr. Lyle Micheli, a pioneer in the field of treating youth sports injuries and director of the sports medicine division of Boston Children?s Hospital, said that 25 years ago, only 10 percent of the patients he treated came to him for injuries caused by overuse. . . . overuse injuries now represented 70 percent of the cases he sees.? Dr. Micheli said, ?By playing one sport year-round, there is no rest and recovery for the overused parts of their body. Parents think they are maximizing their child?s chances by concentrating on one sport.? 7) Develop a system of community, coaching, parenting and administrative sports health, safety and injury prevention clinics. Nothing is better than bringing the prevention message straight to the people who it would benefit. Nation-wide hands-on clinics with information and demonstrations of programs and techniques, including the highlighting of best practices around the country, would be an important aspect for the implementation of a federal program for sports injury prevention. Supplementing instruction in the best practices for injury prevention should be advocacy in ?positive coaching? principles to replace those of ?win-at-all-cost? coaching that dominate youth and school sports today. Jim Thompson, founder of the Positive Coaching Alliance (PCA) and author of The Double-Goal Coach: Positive Coaching Tools for Honoring the Game and Developing Winners in Sports and Life, has developed a certification program that exposes coaches ?to the most up-to-date, research-based strategies, tools and techniques in sports psychology and positive coaching.? PCA has established a goal of certifying one million coaches over the next decade through the National Double-Goal Coach Certification Program. 8) Ensure accountability to communities for safe sports. Prevention checklists for communities should be made available and promoted for all concerned to evaluate various community sports programs for safety and to make improvements where needed. For example, Dr. David Janda outlines in The Awakening of a Surgeon a 20-point injury prevention checklist for parents and community leaders that, if implemented and followed, could prevent the majority of sports injuries. 9) Stress the importance of screening (or physicals). A major part of sports injury prevention comes before a playing season even begins. Every player, at every skill level and age group should be screened to check the player?s health, lifestyle and physical condition. Previous injuries must be assessed to ensure players can safely return to play, and injuries during the season should prompt a re-screening before returning to play. Unfortunately screening is often an overlooked and underestimated part of sports participation and injury prevention. But effective screening: clearly identifies players at risk of injury; pinpoints factors that may make players prone to injury; analyzes variables that may be affecting performance; appraises the effectiveness of a rehabilitation program; measures overall fitness; and most importantly, reduces the potential for injury. 10) Emphasize participation over winning. The pressure of a sports environment that has a ?win-at-all-costs? attitude jeopardizes health and safety and increases the potential for injury. One of the biggest problems is with sports participants rushing back, or being pressured to rush back, too soon following an injury and increasing their risk for re-injury or improper healing. Putting the health and safety of players at risk just to win should have no place in sports. For players, sports should be about safe participation and enjoyment, never winning at all costs. Another serious result of the overemphasis on winning is the growing problem of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances in sports (see recommendation 16). Co-authors Chuck Yesalis and Virginia Cowart argue in their book The Steroids Game: "The fact is that the appetite for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs has been created predominantly by a social fixation on winning and physical appearance. This behavior is learned. Children play games for fun, at least as long as they can before adults intervene to tell them that winning is what?s important. . . . Competitiveness and a fierce desire to win are qualities that have made this nation great. But before we allow our children to compete, we must first establish in them a moral and ethical foundation so they have boundaries they will not cross in pursuit of victory." 11) Establish the necessity of physical conditioning, warming-up, cooling-down and stretching. Being in adequate condition for a sport allows players more participation, better performance and greater enjoyment. Conditioning for balance, flexibility, speed, strength, endurance and power that is specific to each player and sport or physical activity is fundamental to reducing the risk of injury. Some of the most important and easy things to do to prevent injuries in sports, warming-up, cooling-down and stretching prepares the muscles, joints, heart and mind for physical activity and helps them to recover afterward. These procedures improve flexibility, and mental and physical performance. 12) Press for the enforcement of rules and the exercise of good sportsmanship. More important than winning to most people, is the ability to participate in sports and enjoy the games. Players must display good sportsmanship, know the rules of the game and be willing to abide by them at all times to ensure an injury-free environment. If these principles of fair play are broken, sports can become reckless and dangerous, increasing the potential for injury. As Bruce Svare comments in Reforming Sports Before the Clock Runs Out: "Our young people see and hear what happens at the higher levels of sports and come to believe that it is okay for athletes to abuse the values of the game and engage in unethical and illegal behavior. Some athletes develop a sense of entitlement because they have been pampered by a society that treats them differently than normal citizens. This is a cocktail for disaster and it is surprising that our outlaw sports culture is not worse than it is. Clearly, something must be done to return our athletes, coaches, parents and fans to a more sane sports landscape; one in which ethics, sportsmanship and fair play become the focus instead of an afterthought." 13) Urge proper technique and practice. Safety is key to preventing injuries and if technique is poor, player safety can be compromised, opening the door to injury risks no matter the sport. Without any physical contact with other players, poor technique used for an extended period of time can cause persistent injuries, aches and pains. And poor technique where other players are involved can lead to more severe injury. The risky elements of each sport must be identified so technique can receive special focus. In addition, it's important for players to learn proper technique early to avoid habitual poor technique that can put themselves and others at risk of injury. After correct techniques are learned, they must be continually practiced and used during games or matches and reevaluated by coaches. 14) Stress the critical role of adequate hydration and proper nutrition. Maintaining a suitable fuel supply through nutrition and hydration allows players to maintain sports performance, recover more efficiently after or during physical activity, and promotes good overall health. Dehydration and poor nutrition can have detrimental effects on health, safety and injury prevention in sports due to fatigue, decreased concentration and endurance, delayed recovery, and poorly developed muscles and bones. Regarding hydration, Shari Young Kuchenbecker, Ph.D. writes in her book Raising Winners: A Parent?s Guide to Helping Kids Succeed On and Off the Playing Field: "As simple as it is, drinking enough water before, during, and after games and practices provides a crucial mechanism for preventing injuries. Research shows that adequate hydration prevents muscle cramps during games, reduces muscle soreness after games, improves play, and even positively affects the number of points scored. A water-deprived athlete is more likely to make poor decisions, make errors, and be more vulnerable to injuries. The better-hydrated athlete does better, feels better, and suffers fewer problems." 15) Emphasize good injury management. When injury does occur, injured players shouldn't suffer unnecessary additional pain or delayed recovery. And they should never return to play before the injury is healed and the player's sport-specific skills are restored. The better the management of injuries, the less time players will experience discomfort, and the sooner they will be able to safely return to their sports. As Shari Young Kuchenbecker comments in Raising Winners: "The family paying too little attention to a child?s feelings may ignore his or her injuries. . . . It is not uncommon for parents with emotional blinders to wait three or four weeks before having a child?s painful injury examined -- despite obvious signs their child is suffering. Damaged, uncared-for tissues during childhood and young adulthood produce chronic trouble and pain at older ages as well as emotional damage from their being ignored." 16) Work to eliminate performance-enhancing drugs and supplements from sports. From professional, collegiate and Olympic athletes taking performance-enhancers and trying to beat testing systems, to the teenaged athletes in middle school and high school sports putting their health at risk to gain an edge, the misuse of drugs and supplements to enhance sports performance is a growing concern in this country. Along with carrying the risk of serious health problems and the risk of injury (deaths and serious illnesses are occurring with increasing frequency), the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements is contrary to everything sports stand for. Their use breaks the code of fair play as well as the laws of sports and society. The issues of cheating and illegal steroids aside, the use of legal performance-enhancers is a serious health issue that can no longer be taken lightly. These substances are advertised in sports, health and fitness magazines, and promoted by players, trainers, coaches and even some parents. But the boom for performance-enhancers began with passage of the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Unlike drug products that must be proven by the FDA to be safe and effective for their intended use before marketing, DSHEA frees any product that calls itself a dietary supplement (like ephedra, which caused at least 150 deaths and tens of thousands of health problems before it was banned in 2004) from federal regulation before they reach the consumer and does not require manufacturers and distributors to record, investigate or forward to the FDA any reports they receive of injuries or illnesses that may be related to the use of their products. DSHEA must either be repealed, or amended to allow the FDA to perform its regulatory duties prior to supplements reaching consumers. Conclusion If our public health agencies were to use these simple principles to implement a national sports injury prevention program, people who now ignore the issue of injury prevention, including politicians, government officials and the business community, will move toward reaching the level of awareness that can prevent sports injuries. They would come to realize that identifying problems before they occur has many positive ramifications for the public welfare. ### Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and author. League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. ### From info at leagueoffans.org Wed Jun 29 17:53:28 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Wed Jun 29 17:55:20 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Good Sports, Bad Sports (6/29/05) Message-ID: <42C31858.6050907@leagueoffans.org> Good Sports, Bad Sports League of Fans - June 29, 2005 -------------------------------------------------- Good Sports - NBA and Player?s Association Reach Labor Agreement, Avoid Lockout ----- Bad Sports - Robin Hood in Reverse: Supreme Court Decides Private Use is ?Public Use? in Eminent Domain Case -------------------------------------------------- * Good Sports * - NBA and Player?s Association Reach Labor Agreement, Avoid Lockout Congratulations to the National Basketball Association and NBA Player?s Association for reaching a compromise on a new six-year labor agreement. Prior to last week?s pact, conventional wisdom was that the NBA owners would lock-out the players and take a similar hard-line approach toward maximizing revenues for owners as did the National Hockey League. But perhaps the NHL model, under the inept direction of Commissioner Gary Bettman, turned out to be the biggest reason NBA Commissioner David Stern ultimately chose a more reasonable path. NHL owners continue to lock-out their players in a disastrous campaign that has, so far, canceled the entire 2004-05 season, and caused widespread fan resentment with questions as to whether the NHL can fully recover. For Stern, orchestrating another NBA lockout (the last of which forced the shortening of the 1998-99 season from 82 games to 50) without a single sufficient reason for doing so would have caused potentially irreparable damage to the league. But recognizing that, financially, NBA owners are doing very well and that, competitively, the league is benefiting from the NHL debacle, this was no time for the NBA to risk sinking to the NHL?s level. Provisions in the NBA?s new collective bargaining agreement that benefit the owners include shorter player contracts, smaller annual raises, four random drug tests a year, an age minimum of 19 and a minor league. To the benefit of the players, they receive at least 57 percent of the league's revenues, a 3 percent increase in the NBA's salary cap and an additional two jobs per team up to 14 players. League of Fans opposes the 19-year old age limit (the NBA tried for 20). It is a discriminatory policy, obviously directed at young black players, that harms the freedom for these young adults to make a living (for more on racism and the age restriction, see Dave Zirin?s excellent April 21, 2005 column ?Straight Outta High School: Jermaine O?Neal, Race, and Hip Hop? at http://www.edgeofsports.com/2005-04-21-128/index.html). Nevertheless, the age restriction was collectively bargained, and will go into effect in June, 2006. To his credit, Commissioner Stern hinted at an upcoming directive that will ban all NBA personnel from scouting teenagers in high school gyms. A similar mandate should be applied to such school-kid scouting and recruiting meddlers as Major League Baseball, Nike and the U.S. Armed Forces as well. ----- More Information: For commish, CBA helps 'avoid the Apocalypse' By Marc Stein, ESPN.com - June 21, 2005 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2091950 Players' union ratifies new contract with league Reuters - June 29, 2005 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sportsNews&storyID=8928668 A limit that defies logic By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports - June 27, 2005 http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=dw-agelimits062705&prov=yhoo&type=lgns League of Fans' Statement on the NHL?s Cancellation of the 2004-05 Season and the Ongoing Lockout - February 18, 2005 http://www.leagueoffans.org/nhllockoutstatement.html League of Fans on Collective Bargaining http://www.leagueoffans.org/collectivebargainingaction.html -------------------------------------------------- * Bad Sports * - Robin Hood in Reverse: Supreme Court Decides Private Use is ?Public Use? in Eminent Domain Case From Field of Schemes (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/), June 23, 2005: ?The U.S. Supreme Court has made its ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case: In a 5-4 ruling, the court declared that (in the words of the Associated Press) ?local governments may seize people?s homes and businesses against their will for private development.? The ruling clears the way for local governments to continue using eminent domain proceedings to clear land for private projects - including sports stadiums - on the grounds that creating economic development is a ?public use.?? ----- From The Sports Economist (http://www.thesportseconomist.com/), June 25, 2005: ?As readers of this blog well know, the ?economic development? claim is a routine ploy in the political jousting over stadium subsidies. . . . The use of an economic development rationale to justify stadium subsidies has a long history. This history has been extensively studied by sports economists. Here is what we know: (i) Every case for a stadium subsidy is accompanied by an ?economic impact analysis? showing that investment in the stadium will help develop the local economy. (ii) Scholars view these studies as political propaganda, not as objective analysis. (iii) Objective evidence that such development actually takes place is meager at best - virtually every published study fails to find a significant economic impact from sports stadia. The economic literature on stadium subsidies is thus very clear: economic development provides no basis for justifying public investment in stadia. Yet peddlers of fantasy under the economic development banner make their living aiding and abetting major league owners in their quest for public handouts. In Kelo, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to ban this tripe from the courtroom in takings cases. But the decision gives these same peddlers the license to aid and abet developers in tearing down neighborhoods.? ----- From Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?s dissenting opinion, June 23, 2005: ?Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings ?for public use? is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property and thereby effectively to delete the words ?for public use? from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. . . . Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.? ----- Ralph Nader?s statement, June 24, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London mocks common sense, tarnishes constitutional law and is an affront to fundamental fairness. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits government to seize private property for a ?public use,? such as a highway, railroad, or military facility, provided it gives the owner ?just compensation.? Many state constitutions have similar provisions. But in modern times it has become common for the government, usually at the state or local level, to seize property and transfer it to another private party rather than maintaining it for public use. Hundreds of abuses of eminent domain have occurred during the last few decades, with municipalities playing reverse Robin Hood? taking from ordinary citizens and giving to powerful individual developers or corporations. In many cases, the alleged public benefit is a transparent cover for what amounts to legalized theft. With today?s decision, the Court has abdicated its role as guardian of the Constitution and individual rights. This decision authorizes courts across the country to allow self-defining misuses of ?public use? and ?public benefit? requirements. State courts, however, remain free to interpret their own constitutions as imposing more reasonable restraints on government taking of individual property. For a more detailed discussion of this topic see: Ralph Nader & Alan Hirsch, ?Making Eminent Domain Humane,? 49 Villanova Law Review 207 (2004). ----- More Information: Kelo Et Al. v. City of New London Et Al. Supreme Court of the United States Decided June 23, 2005 http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press - June 24, 2005 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/23/national/w073747D75.DTL Proposal Made to Seize Justice Souter's Property Associated Press - June 29, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/ap_on_re_us/souter_property Eminent Domain explanation and background http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html#1 League of Fans on Stadiums and Arenas http://www.leagueoffans.org/stadiumsaction.html ------------------------- ### ------------------------- Good Sports, Bad Sports is an email bulletin of recent news items and suggested actions regarding issues in the world of sports. It goes out regularly to League of Fans "Alerts" listserv subscribers. Help spread the word! Send copies of this message to your friends and help them turn their sports industry grievances into action for reform. If you would like to add yourself to the "Alerts" list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Thu Jul 14 12:07:01 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Thu Jul 14 12:08:38 2005 Subject: [Alerts] What's My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States Message-ID: <42D68DA5.4080300@leagueoffans.org> What's My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States by Dave Zirin Haymarket Books (July, 2005) "Out from the greed, myths, freeloading, cover-ups, censorships, and gouging of big time commercial sports comes the clear voice, honest pen and vigilant eyes of David Zirin. Put this book down only to pray, eat and sleep." - Ralph Nader ----- (Dave Zirin on why he wrote "What's My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States") Storming the Castle: Why We Need To Know Our Radical Sports History by Dave Zirin http://www.leagueoffans.org/zirin.html July 14, 2005 In High School, I was a 5' 10" inch center for the fearsome Friends Seminary Quakers in New York City. It wasn't pretty, but I lived for it and didn't care if the opposing center could spit on my head. I just loved sports. My walls were shrines to Magic Johnson, Lawrence Taylor, and Keith Hernandez. Every stat, every record, and every rule existed only to be memorized. Weekends were for playing ball until sunset. But somewhere along the way, I got a life. 'Operation Desert Storm', and the L.A. Riots burned across my TV screen. As the world seemed to turn upside down, sports began to seem meaningless at best, and at worst, against any concept of social justice. This became jarringly clear during the 1991 Gulf War when I saw "my team's" mascot thrash a person in an Arab suit at half court while the jumbo-tron encouraged chants of U-S-A. Limping away from the arena, I concluded, that sports were part of the problem, and cheering blindly was like going to see 'Rambo' to admire the special effects while ignoring the Vietnamese villagers Stallone was stamping out like bugs. Then in 1996, a basketball player named Mahmoud Abdul Rauf refused to stand for the National Anthem. Rauf believed the flag to be "a symbol of oppression and tyranny," and was willing to suffer the consequences. His courage was stunning, but even more shocking was the howling cries for his head. When Rauf was suspended, some news reports resembled lynch mobs. But others likened him to Muhammad Ali, whose title was stripped for being a draft resistor during the Viet Nam war. This was a history I barely knew. As Rauf began to buckle under the tremendous pressure of right wing bombast, it became clear that our side needed a history of the resistance in US pro sports. To aid this effort, I started writing a column called Edge of Sports, and just completed my first book "What's My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States." When some friends back home heard what I was writing, a Friar's Club Roast seemed to spontaneously generate. These guys seemed to magically morph into a gaggle of Henny Youngmans in baggy jeans. "Pro Sports and radical politics?" one budding Borscht Belter smirked. "That will make a helluva pamphlet!" Or "What's your next book, Dick Cheney's Diet Tips? John Ashcroft's Favorite Black History Moments?" Everyone had a jibe. But my buddies are like Shaquille O'Neal's free throws: simply way off. The history of how social struggles have exploded onto the playing field is vibrant, thrilling and very real. More importantly, it's a tradition that arms us with the ability to challenge the dominant ideas in that swoosh adorned ivory tower known as the Athletic Industrial Complex. The problem is that its political teeth have been so thoroughly extracted that the most compelling parts of the story, the parts that have the most to show and teach us today, reside forgotten in the dust heap of history. For example, we may know that baseball was segregated until 1947. But we don't know the story of Lester "Red" Rodney, the sports editor of the Communist Party's newspaper the Daily Worker. Rodney ran his 1930s sports page as an organizing center to fight for baseball's integration. This campaign garnered over a million signatures, collected at ballparks around the country. ["Red" Rodney is still with us at age 95, and interviewing him for this book was an experience I will never forget]. We may know that Jackie Robinson was the first player to integrate baseball. But we know him only as a kind of quiet suffering black saint, who did it "the right way," under the paternal eye of Dodgers General Manager Branch Rickey. We don't know him as the person who thought, "'To hell with Mr. Rickey's noble experiment. To hell with the image of the patient black freak I was supposed to create.' I could throw down my bat, stride over to the dugout, grab one of those white sons of bitches, and smash his teeth in with my despised black fist. Then I could walk away from it all." We may know that the great boxing champ Muhammad Ali refused to fight in Viet Nam. But we don't know he consciously stood with the National Liberation Front in Vietnam, - the resistance - saying, "The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice freedom, and equality." We may know about the famed Black Power Salute, of Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics. But we don't know that they wore beads to protest lynching, went without shoes to protest poverty, or that John Carlos wore his shirt open because as he said to me, "I was representing shift workers, blue-collar people, and the underdogs. The people whose contributions to society are so important, but don't get recognized." We may know about Billie Jean King's "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match against Bobby Riggs at the Astrodome. But we don't know how intertwined that tennis match was with the fight for Title IX, one of the enduring victories of the women's liberation movement of which King was proudly a part. We also don't know that King was far more than a symbol. She also started a union for women's tennis players to fight for equal pay. We need to know this history because it is a living history - which is precisely what makes it so threatening. As Carlos said to me, "So much is the same as it was in 1968. Look at Mississippi or Alabama. It hasn't changed from back in the day. Look at the city of Memphis and you still see blight up and down. You can still see the despair. It's alive" He's right. But it's also alive anytime athletes today attempt to use their platform to speak on social issues or draw inspiration from struggles in the street. It's alive when NBA Most Valuable Player Steve Nash says, "The war in Iraq is based on oil," while wearing a t-shirt that reads "No War! Shoot For Peace." It's alive when then-Toronto Blue Jays slugger Carlos Delgado made clear that he wouldn't stand on the steps during the seventh inning stretch to God Bless America because the war in Iraq is "murder based on lies". It's alive every time when the NBA's Etan Thomas shows up at anti-death penalty events to read his slam poetry; poetry that calls out the racism of the system in utterly stark terms. And it's alive when the US Congress feared calling Barry Bonds to testify on steroids for concern that he would say to them what he has been saying to reporters, namely "Why is steroids cheating but making a shirt in Korea for 50 cents and selling it here for $150 isn't?" Knowing this history positions us to support and embrace athletes who go out on a political limb, risking their careers for principle. This method allows us not only engage and embrace the Etan Thomases, Carlos Delgados, and other 21st century Athletic Rebels but also the fans that thrill to their exploits. My friends believe that having "some kind of theory" or analysis drains the life out of sports. The opposite is in fact the case. By confronting the messages pumped out through our play, we can dissect what we like, what we dislike, and begin to challenge sports - and our society - to change. When warplanes fly overhead we can ask how many physical education classes are cut to pay for each Blue Angel. When college athletes are pilloried for taking under-the-table payoffs, we can ask whose blood, sweat, and tears paid for the brand spanking new enormo-dome that grace their campuses. When insanely sexist commercials trade on women's oppression for the high cause of selling beer, we can make clear that this has no place in sports. When the announcers on Fox become as aghast as a Southern belle when a touchdown dancer gets raunchy, we can ask why a network that pays Bill O'Reilly millions and promotes shows like Who's Your Daddy? and The Littlest Groom has the right to be the purity police. When our cities are soaked by sleazy stadium deals, we can stand up as sports fans and say, "Hey, we love baseball, but I'm not going to give a billionaire a $350 million present for the privilege of watching it." By speaking out for the political soul of the sports we love, we do more than just build a fighting left that stands for social justice. We also begin to impose our own ideas on the world of sports - a counter morality to compete with the rank hypocrisy of the pro leagues. These are ideas that can embrace and cheer competition. That can appreciate the artistic talents of athletes and the strategy of coaches and players alike. That can thrill to seeing Barry Bonds swinging a bat, or Michael Vick shredding a defense, or Mia Hamm kicking a soccer ball. But unlike the mainstream sports jabber, it's a morality that recognizes male and female athletes - and all women - as human beings with minds as well as bodies. It also needs to understand that the incentive of athletes to speak out for social justice lies not in their individual brilliance but in our ability to build a struggle outside the arena and in the streets. If we want more Muhammad Alis, more John Carlos', and more Billie Jean Kings - if we want to see a gay male athlete have the courage to risk his neck by coming out - then we need to build a broader movement for social justice outside the arena, so our "heroes" will also have people to look up to. In that fight we need every drop of history, experience, and tradition we can get our hands on. As Tommie Smith himself said about his famed Black Power salute, "It's not something I can lay on my shelf and forget about. My heart and soul are still on that team, and I still believe in everything we were trying to fight for in 1968. [It] has not been resolved and will be part of our future." Dave Zirin's new book "What's My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States" is now in stores. You can receive his column "Edge of Sports," every week by e-mailing edgeofsports-subscribe@zirin.com. Contact him at dave@edgeofsports.com. ------------------------- ### ------------------------- Help spread the word! Send copies of this message to your friends and help them turn their sports industry grievances into action for reform. If you would like to add yourself to the "Alerts" list, sign up at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/alerts. League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. To find out more about League of Fans, visit www.leagueoffans.org or write to info@leagueoffans.org. From info at leagueoffans.org Fri Aug 5 16:30:54 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Fri Aug 5 16:31:59 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Ralph Nader's Book Review of "What's My Name, Fool?" Message-ID: <42F3CC7E.4020702@leagueoffans.org> In the Public Interest By Ralph Nader August 5, 2005 http://www.leagueoffans.org/zirincolumn.html Moving into bookstores across the country is a fresh historical account of American progressive resistance and political struggle. Focusing on the United States over the last century, the book connects past struggles with contemporary injustices, and calls on readers to challenge the militarism, homophobia, racism and sexism, the greed, myths, freeloading, cover-ups, censorships, and consumer and taxpayer gouging that continue to tarnish our country. And believe it or not, this is a book about sports. In ?What?s My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States,? author Dave Zirin chronicles the social struggles that have played out on the athletic fields through essays, profiles and interviews with athlete-activists. He depicts the role of professional and amateur sports in the larger issues of politics, commercialism, bias and class. Breaking through what Zirin dubs the ?Athletic Industrial Complex,? ?What?s My Name, Fool?? (the title is a quote from Muhammed Ali, who courageously used his keen social conscience to fight black oppression and resist war in the ?60's) encourages fans both to savor sports, and to inspire activists and athletes to speak out and challenge the dominant power brokers of sports and society. As an increasingly profitable form of mass entertainment (professional sports are now the tenth largest industry in the United States, generating $220 billion in revenue every year), sports are used by the political and financial elite as a way to package, promote and sell their values and ideas. Zirin explains that some fans have thrown in the towel on sports, concluding that ?sports are little more than a brutal reflection of the savage inequalities that stream through our world.? Worse, many sports reporters and editors are shills for the teams and leagues they?re supposed to cover, failing to question the abuses, starting with talented high school players, and telling us to ?grow up? and ?just deal with it? while, as Zirin writes, ?. . . eating free press box sushi while the rest of us are paying $9.00 for a hotdog.? But Zirin has neither sacrificed his ideals to be a sports fan, nor quit cheering to clear his conscience. To the contrary, he is a passionate sports fan and activist who fights for the integrity of sports while enjoying the comradery of rooting for teams, delighting in the breathtaking artistry of athletes, and admiring the intricate strategy of coaches and players that make spectator sports so appealing. As Zirin explains: ?. . . the very passion we invest in sports can transform it from a kind of mindless escape into a site of resistance. It can become an arena where the ideas of our society are not only presented but also challenged. Just as sports can reflect the dominant ideas of our society, they can also reflect struggle. The story of the women?s movement is incomplete without mention of Billie Jean King?s match against Bobby Riggs. The struggle for gay rights has to include a chapter on Martina Navratilova. When we think about the Black freedom struggle, we picture Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali in addition to Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. And, of course, when remembering the movement for Black Power, we can?t help but visualize one of the most stirring sights of our sports century: Tommie Smith and John Carlos?s black-gloved medal stand salute at the 1968 Olympics.? The detailed recounting of past events in ?What?s My Name, Fool?? is a living history serving as a backdrop for frustratingly comparable issues today, with an eye toward inducing future change on and off the playing field. Readers will not soon forget Zirin?s wake-up call, and they will often refer to it when sports policies and behaviors upset them. We will look back on this book when fans, activists and athletes develop the determination to challenge the injustices of the sports industry and the avaricious world it embodies. As David Meggysey, former NFL linebacker and author of ?Out of Their League,? concludes in the foreword to ?What?s My Name, Fool??: ?How we do sport, how we play our games, is a window to see and a format through which to express that vision of a better world. It takes someone like Dave Zirin to make those connections and critiques, and to make it clear that sport can be a powerful carrier of the best within us, which is respect for each other?s humanity and life itself, human relationship and connection, and the joy of play with our fellow humans.? Dave Zirin?s new book ?What?s My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States? is now in stores. Request his weekly column ?Edge of Sports,? by e-mailing edgeofsports-subscribe@zirin.com, or contact Zirin at dave@edgeofsports.com. -------------------- ### -------------------- Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and author. He is founder of the sports reform project League of Fans, an effort to increase awareness of the relationships between sports and society, identify and offer citizen action solutions to a broad range of issues in sports at all levels, and encourage the cooperative capacities that make the sports community capable of helping, rather than dominating, our society and culture. www.leagueoffans.org From info at leagueoffans.org Wed Sep 14 14:28:41 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Wed Sep 14 14:31:08 2005 Subject: [Alerts] John Roberts v. Title IX Message-ID: <43286BD9.50201@leagueoffans.org> John Roberts v. Title IX September 14, 2005 As the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr. continue, League of Fans would like to note Roberts' record on Title IX (a law League of Fans supports and has fought to protect) and consider the possible implications if he were confirmed to a lifetime seat. ----- Background: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, one of the most important and successful civil rights laws in U.S. history, bars sex discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal funding, including athletics. The law gave women access to classes, facilities and opportunities that had historically been male-only. Prior to Title IX, if a woman wanted to pursue a professional degree in college, she could be passed over for a law school or medical school program simply because she was a woman. Since then, the 33-year-old law has proven itself integral to women's rights. From the class rooms and playing fields to the executive suites, Title IX has been a vital tool in advancing equal opportunities for women and girls. But the current Bush Administration has worked, through a variety of maneuvers, to weaken Title IX and the educational equality it guarantees. In 2003, League of Fans and Ralph Nader joined with many organizations and individuals in the fight to preserve Title IX from a Bush Administration attempt to undermine the law. President Bush?s appointment of a Blue Ribbon panel, called the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, made recommendations to change Title IX policies that would have diminished three decades of progress in athletics for women. This energized millions of supporters who exposed baseless arguments from opponents of Title IX and finally led to the Department of Education upholding the Title IX standards of compliance. The most recent Bush Administration assault on Title IX came in March 2005 when the Department of Education quietly cut the legs out from under the anti-discrimination law, inviting no public comment on the new guidelines before posting them on the Department?s website. Shifting the burden of proof from institutions to female students, the alteration allows schools to comply with Title IX by making female students justify that they are deserving of equal opportunities in athletics by responding to e-mail surveys. If these surveys do not show enough interest in, or ability to play, sports, or if there is a lack of response to the survey, then a school can avoid offering sports opportunities to women and be in compliance with Title IX. As Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women?s Law Center questioned in a press release, ?How many people open, let alone respond to e-mail surveys? This is simply an underhanded way to weaken Title IX and make it easy for schools that aren?t interested in providing equal opportunity for women to skirt the law.? Julie Foudy, captain of the gold medal-winning U.S. Olympic women?s soccer team who defended Title IX as part of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, told USA Today, ?I can hear it now. ?We lost a women?s team because the e-mail survey got stuck in my spam folder for six months.?? ----- The Title IX Record of John Roberts: Dating back to the 1980's, John Roberts has taken positions in several key cases that have either weakened Title IX?s protections or could have, had his positions prevailed. The following synopsis is from the Women?s Sports Foundation (www.womenssportsfoundation.org): A) Roberts Took Positions that Would Have Resulted in Eliminating Title IX Coverage of Athletics During his tenure as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Roberts argued that Title IX coverage should not extend institution-wide. He argued that Title IX covered only those programs that specifically receive federal funds. (1) These arguments were accepted by the Department of Justice in Grove City v. Bell (1984), where it successfully argued for the Supreme Court to adopt a program-specific approach to Title IX (i.e., only the specific program that receives federal funds would be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex, not the entire educational institution). (2) Because virtually no athletic program receives direct financial aid, this ruling essentially stripped the OCR of the power to eradicate sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletics and the growth of women?s sports was significantly slowed for a period of almost four years. Grove City marked a major setback in the progress Title IX had made for women and girls. Roberts continued to support the program-specific approach, and even opposed the Civil Rights Restoration Act (CRRA), which restored Title IX to its pre-Grove City (institution-wide) status and was eventually passed in 1988. The law has since been pivotal in the successful enforcement of civil rights laws like Title IX. B) Roberts Advocated Limits on Title IX?s Application to Athletics Governance Organizations (NCAA) While in private practice, Roberts brought a case to the Supreme Court on behalf of the NCAA, arguing that it was not covered at all by Title IX. (3) The court agreed with Roberts, in part, ruling that the receipt of dues from member institutions that were subject to Title IX was alone insufficient to subject the NCAA to Title IX. (4) However, according to a report by the National Women?s Law Center, the court did not rule on Robert?s more ?far-reaching? claim, that the NCAA be exempt from Title IX coverage altogether. ?Because the NCAA effectively controls intercollegiate athletics, if this argument were to prevail there would be no recourse for any practices or policies of the NCAA that discriminate on the basis of sex, [race, national origin, disability, or age].? (5) C) Roberts Urged the Denial of Full Remedies for Intentional Discrimination Prohibited by Title IX (Franklin) As a Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus brief in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools that argued that victims of intentional discrimination should not receive any damages for the injuries suffered under Title IX. (6) The Supreme Court rejected Robert?s arguments and found that victims could recover monetary damages in Title IX cases. (7) Franklin was a case regarding sexual harassment of an athlete by her coach. This position is particularly disturbing because monetary damages are sometimes the only form of relief available to the victims, who may have graduated by the time their cases reach a decision. References: (1) Memorandum to the Attorney General from John Roberts, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, re ?University of Richmond v. Bell? at 1-2 (Aug. 31, 1982). (2) Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 564 (1984). (3) Brief of Petitioner at 26-28, NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999) (No. 98-84), 1998 WL 784591 (Nov. 10, 1998). (4) NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999). (5) National Women?s Law Center. Judge John Roberts? Record on Protection From Sex Discrimination Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Aug., 2005. (6) Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992). (7) Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75-76. ----- Scheduled on Thursday, September 15 for the hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts before the Senate Judiciary Committee are two witnesses expected to testify on Title IX. From the witness list released by the Office of Senator Leahy: Marcia Greenberger, President, National Women's Law Center Marcia Greenberger is the founder and Co-President of the National Women?s Law Center (www.nwlc.org). The creation of the Center 30 years ago established her as the first full-time women?s rights legal advocate in Washington, DC. A recognized expert on gender discrimination and the law, Greenberger has participated in the development of key legislative initiatives and litigation protecting women?s rights. Coach Roderick Jackson, Birmingham, Ala. Roderick Jackson is a teacher and the Acting Head Coach of the girls? basketball team at Ensley High School in Birmingham, Ala. After complaining to school officials about the tremendous disparity in resources and treatment between the girls? and boys? basketball teams, Coach Jackson was fired. Coach Jackson went to court to get his job back, and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. In March, 2005, the Supreme Court decided the case in Coach Jackson?s favor. In a 5-4 decision in which Justice O?Connor wrote the majority opinion, the Court ruled that an individual can sue under Title IX to challenge retaliation against him or her for protesting sex discrimination. In its decision, the Court recognized that prohibiting retaliation is essential if Title IX -- or any broad anti-discrimination law -- is to provide effective protection against discrimination, and stated that the Title IX enforcement scheme would ?unravel? if Jackson were not allowed to proceed. ----- Take Action: Interested readers concerned with John Roberts? record on Title IX should contact their Senators (www.senate.gov). -------------------- ### -------------------- League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to increase awareness of relationships between sports and society, and to challenge social, economic, political and consumer injustices in sports. www.leagueoffans.org From info at leagueoffans.org Mon Oct 24 13:51:23 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Mon Oct 24 13:57:45 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Nader Calls for DC Council Oversight on Stadium Project Message-ID: <435D1F1B.6020100@leagueoffans.org> Nader Calls for DC Council Oversight on Stadium Project Today, Ralph Nader sent the following letter to all members of the DC Council illustrating problems with the publicly-subsidized baseball stadium project and its location, and outlining oversight points and questions that must be addressed publicly by the Council in the interest of the taxpaying residents of the District of Columbia. ----- October 24, 2005 The Honorable Linda W. Cropp Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 504 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Ms. Cropp: Where is the DC Council oversight on this runaway stadium gravy train? The recent maneuver to introduce as ?technical? three amendments to last year?s rush-job stadium bill, and to block all other amendments, is the latest example of a Council which has fallen to its knees. As reported by the Washington Post on October 18, 2005 regarding the utilities tax amendment, ?Wall Street wants a guarantee in the legislation that the utilities tax will bring in at least $12 million a year, enough to cover the ballpark debt service.? This amendment is a substantive change and anything but technical. This latest obstruction aside, other aspects of the stadium project and its costs must be publicly addressed to ensure accountability if the DC Council has any desire to hold to the commitments and promises made when the deal was approved last December. From the beginning of this boondoggle, Major League Baseball has dictated terms for the stadium and the DC Council has failed to provide adequate oversight. Consequently, it?s no surprise that the deal is changing to further maximize the profits of Major League Baseball, at the added expense to the District and its residents. Too few questions were asked and too few specific answers were provided during Council hearings on the stadium proposal last year. And under pressure from the salesmen -- in this case Major League Baseball, the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission (DCSEC) and Mayor Anthony Williams -- to immediately sign on the dotted line, the DC Council agreed to a bad deal for DC taxpayers. The stadium bill was hastily shoved through (passing with a slim 7-6 vote) as if the District had no elected city legislature to look out for its residents (69 percent of whom opposed public subsidies for a stadium). Like infomercial scams, stadium deals around the country are a great way for rip-off artists to prey on the powerless. The Council?s reluctance in representing the peoples? best interests through project oversight, after subordinating DC resident?s life necessities to the avarice of a private, for-profit, monopoly entertainment corporation is indefensible. Without ensuring accountability to the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Council is allowing the incompetent DCSEC and city planners who are in charge of the stadium project to do even more damage behind closed doors. This situation invites Major League Baseball freeloaders and wealthy, opportunistic developers to manipulate terms and further profit at the expense of the under-represented District taxpayers. The Council?s committees generally responsible for oversight of the stadium project are chaired by members who unforgivably prioritized this corporate welfare development, against the will of the people, over investments in public education, public health, literacy, affordable housing and other long-suffering social services. Still, to sidestep accountability and avoid verifying costs for this continuously altered debacle is negligence and an insult to taxpaying residents. Members of the Council who are skeptical of -- or opposed to -- the stadium project must not wait for the submissive committee chairs to raise the stadium issue and get answers. That day may never come, or purposely come at a time too late to protect the city from further pillaging. In addition to answers regarding the stadium lease, the DC Council is responsible for oversight ensuring: (a) an extensive, accurate and accountable environmental analysis of the stadium site; (b) that promises regarding the stadium project are kept, including those involving the financing and lease, community benefits and fan amenities, public transportation, parking and other infrastructure, and that all contracts and documents -- including those for the lease -- are made public; (c) that land valuations for the preferred stadium site do not tie the value entirely to the existence of the stadium but to the entire massive redevelopment of the area; and (d) that the RFK Stadium site be seriously considered in the interest of obtaining the cost certainty that the current stadium site cannot provide. Following, are just a few of the oversight points and questions that must be addressed publicly by the DC Council in the interest of the taxpaying residents of the District of Columbia: 1) When the Washington Redskins were attempting to site their new stadium next to RFK Stadium in 1993, the team?s owner Jack Kent Cooke sought to handle the matter privately, hiring private entities that deemed the site to be environmentally sound. As part of this procedure, the District along with the National Park Service (NPS) initially agreed to conduct a brief environmental assessment of the proposed site. However, community concern prompted both parties to undertake a more in-depth analysis by the NPS and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the form of an environmental impact statement. The new study yielded a finding of lead contamination at the site, apparently placed in the ground by the Army Corps of Engineers during dredging of the Anacostia River. Remediation of the contamination was estimated at $8 million to $12 million. The current stadium process has even more need for extensive environmental analysis given its proximity to the waterfront and the varied uses of the land - including industrial uses - in its history, yet no such thorough analysis has been completed despite the precedent established during the Redskins? stadium process. The people in charge of getting the stadium built may not be giving proper weight to the need to adequately examine the Anacostia waterfront site for environmental issues, especially since each remediation impacts the cost cap associated with the site. The question isn?t if an in-depth and, most importantly, independent environmental impact study needs to be conducted as it was in 1993; the evidence is overwhelming that it must occur with all speed. The question is: Will the Council put the well-being of the citizens and the environment above the wishes of those who are continuing to fast-track the stadium in order to meet arbitrary time-lines and avoid cost caps and other overruns? 2) The DC Council needs to use its powers of oversight on the stadium to ensure that proposals that are completely contrary to the promises made by proponents of a subsidized stadium are disallowed. As reported by WTOP on September 29, 2005 the DCSEC is attempting to circumvent DC Council oversight on terms for the stadium lease. The Washington Examiner reported on October 14, 2005 that Major League Baseball is actually refusing to guarantee its stadium rent payments (an average of $6 million per year), the one and only revenue source promised that the team would have to provide every year they used the taxpayer-funded stadium. DCSEC Chairman Mark Touhey?s attempt to keep private some contracts and documents pertaining to the stadium must be confronted head-on to ensure accountability on the final lease and stadium legislation. Questions must also be answered regarding the planned 60 percent cutback of the promised Navy Yard Metro expansion, under pressure to cut corners to secure a qualifying estimate for stadium project costs from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). This would eliminate the Metro expansion needed to ensure adequate service to baseball fans and would lead to a transportation nightmare before and after games. On October 6, 2005 the Washington Times reported that the DCSEC is now demanding above-ground parking for the stadium because below-ground parking would threaten the cost and time-line of the project and thereby threaten the workability of the current site. To do this, the DCSEC is attempting to change existing zoning laws against the wishes of the Anacostia Waterfront Corp. (AWC). In addition, unnamed ?city officials? who insist on below-ground parking, ?are considering removing parking entirely from the cost of the stadium and paying for it separately, using tax-increment financing or other revenue streams.? These issues demand scrutiny by the DC Council. All along, stadium project costs were all-inclusive, and parking was specifically designated as part of the project in every estimate. Likewise, questions must be answered as to why, after years of promises as to superior fan-amenities in a new stadium, as opposed to those at RFK, plans now are to appease only the wealthiest few fans while most fans would likely have no better, if not worse, fan amenities at the new stadium than at the present RFK stadium. As the Washington City Paper revealed in its October 7, 2005 cover story, Major League Baseball has prevailed over the DCSEC?s objections for a double-decked layer of luxury suites that will boost construction costs. An extra level can be built, explained DCSEC CEO Allen Lew, because of ?certain changes that they made that reduce certain costs.? In addition, the DCSEC is now indulging Major League Baseball with a 7,500 square-foot conference center and a 10,000 square-foot lounge for ?Diamond Club? members, both of which were -- among other perks -- rejected in a February 28, 2005 memo from the DCSEC explaining that it ?cannot agree to changes that would result in an increase in the project budget.? Though the DCSEC again objected to the changes in a June 7 letter to the Nationals, months after final costs for the ballpark had been estimated by District Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi, the changes have been implemented nonetheless with no proof that the budget would not change accordingly. Such major changes warrant scrutiny over rising costs and what cuts (or additional changes) are being made to offset them. Thanks to the double-decked layer of luxury suites, fans are likely to have worse seats in the upper deck of the new stadium which would be 21 feet higher than those at RFK Stadium. And due to a reduction in the planned upper-deck seat widths for the new stadium, fans would be wedged into their 19-inch-wide seats as opposed to the seats at RFK which are 20-21 inches wide. ?Planning documents,? according to the City Paper, even call for non-refrigerated drinking fountains in the new stadium?s public concourses, with only suite and club-seat fans enjoying cold drinking fountain water. Why are the taxpayers of DC paying the bills for all of this fan discomfort in a new stadium that would accommodate 5,000 fewer of them than RFK? These consumer-related changes are completely contrary to years of fan-amenity promises made by proponents of a subsidized stadium. 3) According to the September 25, 2005 Washington Post, the District?s Director of Development Stephen Green said that ?in making assessments, contractors hired by the District considered property values in other areas in the city because sale prices for the land around the stadium site had skyrocketed after the plans were unveiled. ?We looked at other locations where there was not as much speculation,? he said.? Were this stadium being placed in an area that had no prospects for massive redevelopment without the stadium and would likely not see such development without the stadium, then the city's valuation approach would have been more legally justifiable and the results more legitimate. However, the values of the properties in question would continue rising even without the stadium being placed there. Abandoned warehouses and industrial facilities near the current site are being replaced by massive office, retail, and residential projects in development speculation sparked by factors other than the stadium, the site of which was in question [as was the chance of getting a team in DC] and wasn't even announced until late last year. The size and scope of the SE Federal Center project combined with the Navy Yard and the new Department of Transportation (DOT) headquarters have been the driving force for the extensive redevelopment that has been occurring and growing at the area surrounding the current stadium site before the stadium plan was announced. Contrary to the notion that the stadium can be held solely responsible for land valuation are the statements of officials from DC?s Office of Planning that accompanied the site evaluation studies conducted in 2002. Andy Altman, former director of the Office of Planning, said in these presentations that the area would be redeveloped and economically transformed ?whether a ballpark is there or not,? and excerpts from the site evaluation study confirm this opinion. In light of Director Green?s recent comments, the Council must secure new valuations that do not tie the value entirely to the existence of the stadium but to the entire massive redevelopment and transformation of the area surrounding the current stadium site. 4) District CFO Natwar Gandhi developed an estimate for land acquisition, environmental remediation and infrastructure costs for the planned stadium site at the Anacostia waterfront well before accurate answers to those questions could be gathered. Because of the existing businesses and residences on the site in question, it was impossible to gauge if and when the city would be able to secure the properties -- and at what cost -- due to litigation concerning land values. It was also impossible to develop an accurate cost estimate for environmental remediation due to the extensive amount of analysis that would have to have been completed for this site with its proximity to the waterfront and its varied history of uses including industrial uses. The point of having a stadium estimate was to gauge if a stadium could be built at the site in time for the 2008 season at an acceptable cost level in keeping with the revenue projections for the stadium. However, recent reports make it clear that almost every phase of the stadium planning is still incomplete, including the design of the stadium. In addition, reports such as those in the July 17, 2005 Washington Times suggest that ?land acquisition issues, environmental remediation issues, political issues, [and] design issues? could cause the new stadium to not open until 2009 or even 2010. Most troubling is the report in the October 22, 2005 Washington Post stating that ?the city is facing myriad issues with the remaining properties? and that ?once the District begins eminent domain proceedings, the legal battles could drag on for months, even years, to determine how much the city will ultimately pay for the land.? Given the promises of further lawsuits from landowners at the proposed site [Washington Post, September 25 and October 22, 2005] and the uncertainty that additional design issues and potential environmental issues present, no city official from the CFO to the head of the DCSEC [especially with its history of overspending and overruns] can verify the current cost estimate for the stadium, making the CFO?s estimate meaningless as a gauge for assessing the workability of the site. In the interest of obtaining the cost certainty that the current site cannot provide, the DC Council must seriously consider the RFK Stadium site, where most of the challenges facing the current site have been addressed or do not exist and the temptation to cater to cost and time constraints is greatly alleviated. As reported in the Washington Post on October 15, 2005: ?The bidding groups have been informally polled by baseball officials about their willingness to buy the team if a stadium is built near RFK Stadium, rather than near South Capitol Street and the Navy Yard along the Anacostia River, according to sources familiar with the process who asked not to be named because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations.? Two (unnamed) potential ownership groups contacted by the Post ?said they would still offer to pay $450 million for the team if the ballpark is constructed on another site.? The significance of Major League Baseball treating the Council?s possible selection of the RFK site as a potential reality cannot be overemphasized. Despite the tough front put up by Baseball officials, this indication that the sale price for the Nationals would be unaffected if the RFK site is chosen should put to rest any worries that a change in the stadium site would be a deal-breaker for Major League Baseball. This evidence, added to the growing problems and costs at the current site, should make a site relocation the only viable option. Furthermore, any concerns by the Council that a change in site for the stadium would adversely affect developers in the area near the current site should be eased. On October 16, 2005 the Washington Post reported that ?Rockville-based developer Ron Cohen, who recently paid $51 million for a city block at Half and K streets SE, a few blocks north of the stadium site, said he didn't think developers would be harmed if the site changed. ?The area has come into its own,? he said. ?Baseball gives it some identity, but with the Navy Yard down there, the [U.S. Department of Transportation], all the other office buildings along M Street and the waterfront redevelopment, they?re not feeding off of the stadium. They?re feeding off of commerce.?? Instead, the Council should be concerned for the existing property owners of the current stadium site who stand to have their land taken from them by eminent domain. Such careless and needless disregard for the welfare of these people by the District government could be prevented by choosing the RFK site. It is an alternative that would also reduce costs to taxpayers, improve the timeline of the stadium project, offer public transit capable of handling game crowds, include known remediation cost, and even provide development opportunities. If the DC Council cannot now find the motivation to publicly address the stadium project and its costs through oversight to ensure accountability, then shame on its members. The District can not benefit while its residents are taken advantage of in favor of autocratic corporate welfarists. This issue is not going to go away. I look forward to your considered response, and to thorough DC Council oversight hearings on the stadium issue which are long overdue. You have always said you want the facts. Sincerely, Ralph Nader P.O. Box 19312 Washington, DC 20036 cc: Councilmember Carol Schwartz (At Large) Councilmember David A. Catania (At Large) Councilmember Phil Mendelson (At Large) Councilmember Kwame R. Brown (At Large) Councilmember Jim Graham (Ward 1) Councilmember Jack Evans (Chairman Pro-Tempore - Ward 2) Councilmember Kathleen Patterson (Ward 3) Councilmember Adrian Fenty (Ward 4) Councilmember Vincent B. Orange, Sr. (Ward 5) Councilmember Sharon Ambrose (Ward 6) Councilmember Vincent C. Gray (Ward 7) Councilmember Marion Barry (Ward 8) From info at leagueoffans.org Thu Nov 10 16:18:29 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Thu Nov 10 16:19:51 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Nader to Lurie, Tagliabue: Rescind Terrell Owens' Suspension Message-ID: <4373B925.8040302@leagueoffans.org> Nader to Lurie, Tagliabue: Rescind Terrell Owens? Suspension and Inactive Designation Ralph Nader?s letter to Philadelphia Eagles Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Lurie, and NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue follows: ----- November 10, 2005 Jeffrey Lurie Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Philadelphia Eagles Paul Tagliabue Commissioner National Football League Dear Messrs. Lurie and Tagliabue, I am writing to urge you to rescind the misguided suspension and planned inactive designation of Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens. If the Eagles management declines to remedy its mistake, Commissioner Tagliabue, you should intervene to overturn the team's decision, which dishonors this country's traditional respect for free speech and cheats fans of an opportunity to see arguably the best receiver in football. Let him play. There is no question that Terrell Owens' comments have been boorish and unwarranted. However, the comments were just that -- comments. It should be the policy of the Eagles and the National Football League, as well as other sports teams and leagues, that players not be punished merely for what they say. There is a great tradition in this country of respecting free speech, and the Eagles and NFL should express those values in handling even churlish speech. This is not a matter of law: U.S. constitutional speech protections and most state speech protections do not extend into the workplace; and the NFL collective bargaining agreement affords teams the right to suspend players for "conduct detrimental" to their team, a provision that has been interpreted to cover speech and other expressive conduct. No, it is not a matter of law, but of principle. And the principle should be: employees are not penalized for speaking out, even if what they have to say strikes management as ill-informed or offensive. That the Eagles' proposed punishment for Owens -- a four-game suspension followed by an inactive designation for the rest of the season -- is so harsh, and so far in excess of punishments applied to other players who have engaged not in ill-considered speech, but criminal conduct or serious wrongdoing, points to how injudicious the Eagles' approach is. There is, as well, a consumer issue at stake here. Fans have purchased tickets for Eagles' games, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, on the assumption that they will see one of the game's most exciting receivers, so long as he is healthy enough to play. The Eagles' action denies them this opportunity. If the Eagles do not want Terrell Owens on their team, then they should release him. Instead, the Eagles propose not just to suspend him for the term permitted by the collective bargaining agreement, but to make him inactive for the duration of the season. This vengeful approach keeps him as an effective hostage -- kept away from the fans who would like to see him play. I look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further. Sincerely, Ralph Nader Founder, League of Fans From info at leagueoffans.org Tue Nov 29 17:59:17 2005 From: info at leagueoffans.org (League of Fans) Date: Tue Nov 29 18:00:33 2005 Subject: [Alerts] Nader - Testimony on stadium financing before the DC Council Message-ID: <438CDD45.3030302@leagueoffans.org> Testimony of Ralph Nader Before the Committees on Finance and Revenue, and Economic Development District of Columbia City Council November 28, 2005 Members of the Joint Committees, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present testimony. I would ask that my testimony be made part of the official record of this hearing. Last year in the District, a mobilized citizenry emerged to challenge a proposal by Mayor Williams and the DC Council that would have subordinated the life necessities of District residents to a private, for-profit, monopoly entertainment corporation. District residents were heavily opposed, by an over two-to-one margin, to a publicly-subsidized stadium for Major League Baseball. Voters ended the representation on the Council of all three incumbent members up for re-election who supported spending tax dollars on a stadium, and replaced them with three who campaigned against it. The lame-duck DC Council, however, defiantly approved the stadium scheme 7-6. It is now even more apparent that the concerns of its citizenry regarding the stadium deal have since proven legitimate, with inappropriate -- if not illegal -- changes made along the way. Today the DC Council is dealing with one of the most costly stadiums ever. Adding insult to injury, the proposed stadium is a substandard, cut-rate facility. As the Washington Post put it in its November 22 editorial, ?the publicly financed ballpark is going to cost more and provide fewer of the features necessary to create a vibrant entertainment district around the stadium. The question of the hour is this: Why build a stadium that because of escalating costs will not deliver the enhanced facility and improved infrastructure as promised?? The stadium costs are so out of control, that city planners have just declared that some of the stadium costs no longer count as stadium costs. But as Councilmember David Catania has pointed out, such budget changes violate the law that authorized the stadium financing. As Mr. Catania explained to the Washington Post, infrastructure costs, ?are plainly included. Any effort to place them outside those categories is a violation.? What manner of public policy is the DC Council following that allows such a clear breach of the law? It is only a matter of time before such behavior invites litigation. No matter how the out-of-control stadium costs are sliced -- or sliced-off -- it is not a question anymore of whether stadium costs have broken the $535 million cap. Indeed, the costs have obliterated the cap. And the rising costs didn?t prevent the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission from giving-in to Major League Baseball?s demands for a host of luxury add-on items including an additional level of club seats, extra luxury suites, and a conference center. All of these changes were made after the Chief Financial Officer?s final stadium cost estimate. And, unfortunately, some members of the DC Council have the nerve to try and maneuver themselves out of the responsibility of reviewing and voting on the stadium lease agreement? The lease is being negotiated by the same misguided DC Sports and Entertainment Commission and city planning officials who originally brought the District the stadium deal, with all of its corporate welfare handouts and cost underestimations that are squeezing this city dry. Major League Baseball is actually refusing to guarantee its stadium rent payments, the one and only revenue source promised that the team would have to provide every year they used the taxpayer-funded stadium. The DC Council should be up in arms over this, as well as over the attempt to circumvent DC Council oversight on terms for the stadium lease by the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission and other city officials, as reported by WTOP and the Washington Times. Following the recent legal opinion by DC Attorney General Robert Spagnoletti over the perceived autonomy of quasi-governmental organizations like the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission, the DC Council has no choice but to review and vote on the stadium lease. With this ruling -- which asserts that these organizations are part of DC government and subject to the laws and regulations that govern other government agencies -- the DC Council can no longer allow the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission, and other quasi-governmental organizations, to operate in secrecy and negotiate questionable business deals that would never survive prudent public scrutiny. In addition to addressing the stadium lease, the DC Council must finally take action regarding the poor choice of site for the stadium. Already well beyond the cost cap, the current stadium site cannot provide this city the cost certainty which must be obtained by the DC Council. The insurmountable problems -- and there are surely more to uncover -- facing the current site could be prevented by choosing the RFK Stadium site, where most of the challenges facing the current site have been addressed or do not exist. RFK is an alternative that would reduce costs to taxpayers, improve the timeline of the stadium project, offer public transit capable of handling game crowds, prevent the requirement for eminent domain land takings, and even provide development opportunities. Additionally, an environmental impact statement has already been conducted for the RFK site, unlike the current site where plans are for no such thorough analysis to be completed despite its proximity to the waterfront and the varied uses of the land -- including industrial uses -- in its history. Even better, as the Washington Post suggested in its November 22 editorial, the District and Major League Baseball, ?could reconsider their agreement to leave Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium after the next two seasons and devote their time, talents and treasury into making that ballpark and Washington landmark a permanent home for the Nationals.? It has been reported that the New York bond issuers need certainty enveloping the stadium deal. As the weeks go by, uncertainties will begin to emerge that the sugar-coated contract with the DC government will no longer be able to obscure. I'd like to thank the Joint Committees again for the opportunity to testify today. ----- http://www.leagueoffans.org/4dcstadiumtestimony.html