NCAA Sanctions: Assigning Blame Where it Belongs

Success in a major intercollegiate athletic program, particularly a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I national championship, can translate into millions of dollars and immense pride for the players, coaches, alumni, fans, and university. It can also be a determinative factor in a highly recruited high school student-athlete’s program selection decision. In this intensely competitive environment, temptations to cheat, exploit, or circumvent the rules lurk, not only for agents, but also for institutional personnel, certain student-athletes, boosters, and even parents. Acting on behalf of over 1200 member institutions, the NCAA regulates and enforces rules of amateurism in college. In recent cases involving high-profile student-athletes and programs found to have engaged in cheating and major infractions of NCAA rules on amateurism, agents, and extra-benefits to players, the NCAA imposed stringent sanctions, including bans on postseason competition, against member institutions and the offending athletic programs. This Article analyzes the effectiveness of these sanctions on the offending programs, actual wrongdoers, and student-athletes most impacted by sanctions. The Article asserts that the sanctions’ reach is both overly limited and overly broad. NCAA sanction powers are narrow in that they extend only to member institutions, not to individual coaches, players, agents, boosters, or other involved individuals. The sanctions are broad in that they negatively impact current student-athletes, who are restricted in their ability to transfer without penalty. The Article makes proposals for holding coaches and institutions financially accountable for infractions, while protecting uninvolved student-athletes

Doping Control, Mandatory Arbitration, and Process Dangers for Accused Athletes in International Sports

Athletes in a professional sports league in the United States are members of players unions, which assist their athletes in obtaining representation when they are involved in dispute resolution proceedings associated with disciplinary actions. However, individual athletes who participate in international competitions do not enjoy the same benefits. When these athletes are required to submit to mandatory drug testing, with attendant potential criminal liability, and to mandatory arbitration, they should be provided meaningful access to competent legal representation when their athletic careers are in jeopardy. This article considers the legal framework, process, and recourse for athletes in international competition to address sporting eligibility and disciplinary actions. Particular attention is paid to the perspective of the accused athlete facing ineligiblity sanction from sporting competition. The article describes the rules and governing bodies in Olympic and international sporting competition pursuant to the Olympic Charter, which provides the regulatory framework for international sports, mandating subjection of the athletes’ eligibility and disciplinary cases to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland, and charging the World Anti-Doping Program (WADP) with administering mandatory drug testing of athletes. The article also examines the interplay between the doping arbitration rules and an athlete’s right to a fair hearing, identifying the signficant procedural barriers in the designated arbitral process. In addition, it considers options for providing athletes with improved access to justice through procedural changes and access to legal advice and representation, including expert scientific evaluation, as well as other forms of legal assistance and insurance programs when contesting liability and jeopardy

A Teacher, Mentor, Scholar, Christian, and Friend: Professor James M. McGoldrick

Tribute to Pepperdine Caruso School of Law Professor James M. McGoldrick, Jr

Symposium Introduction: The New Normal in College Sports: Realigned and Reckoning

On Friday, April 5, 2013, Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California convened the Pepperdine Law Review Symposium on The New Normal in College Sports: Realigned and Reckoning. Highlights included a conversation with institutional leaders of major intercollegiate athletic programs; a consideration of the possibility of an antitrust exemption for the NCAA; the impact of conference realignment, digital media, broadcasting, and commercialization; and other emerging hot topics in college sports