NCAA: THE PROBLEM IS TITLE IX-THAT'S NOT WHAT WALTER BYERS SAYS

One of the arguments made is that Title IX is the cause of the financial problems of many college programs.  Walter Byers addressed that argument in his book Unsportsmanlike Conduct in 1995.  For those who don't know Byers, he served as executive director of the NCAA from 1951 to 1987. Among other things, he started the NCAA enforcement program, pioneered a national academic rule for athletes and negotiated more than 50 television contracts.

In his book he says the following about Title IX:

     The costs of Title IX and the entry of women into the big time should not be blamed for today's      highly publicized financial problems for college sports.  Two-platoon football was the culprit in the 1960s, and Title IX was held responsible in the 1980s.  As we enter the 1990s, the complaints of insolvency are louder than ever.  The most frequently proposed cures are a national football playoff and conference realignments to gain more TV dollars.  AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM IS AN ADDICTION TO LAVISH SPENDING. (emphasis added).


He goes on to say that Presidents and Athletic Directors like the power, status, prestige and attention from prominent boosters that big time college programs bestow on them.

 Chris Hellums is the managing shareholder of Pittman Dutton & Hellums. He currently represents former Alabama wide receiver Tyrone Prothro in In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-1967-CW.

NCAA: Cars for Players-NO-Cars for NCAA staffers-YES

Image via Wikipedia

One of the most, well, I guess I should say more because there are so many, unbelievable stories told by Walter Byers in his book involves Wilt Chamberlain.  Wilt was recruited out of Philadelphia to the University of Kansas in 1955.  His recruitment was as high as his height.  As the story goes, Wilt chose Lawrence to alleviate his asthma problems.  He arrived driving a 1950 Buick, later replaced with a 1953 Oldsmobile  that came from the Greenlease-O'Neill Oldsmobile dealership in Kansas City. The ledgers showed that he was paying for the car at a rate of $25 per month, cash.  Unfortunately some of the cash payments were made when Wilt was out of town.   By 1957, Wilt was driving a 1956 Oldsmobile convertible obtained from a dealership in Lawrence, Kansas.

The NCAA concluded that the 1956 Oldsmobile transaction had been provided to Wilt at no cost.  This, along with other violations, landed Kansas on probation for two years.

All this sounds familiar, right.  Eric Dickerson, Reggie Bush, Terrelle Pryor, etc. etc.

Well, here is the ironic, and some might say, hypocritical "rest of the story"  as told by Byers in his book:

"In recent years, O'Neill Oldsmobile has been one of two dealers that have provided free Oldsmobiles for some 30 top-echelon NCAA staffers, ."  "In 1989-90, Steve Morgan and David Berst, the top NCAA enforcement officials at the time, were among those who rode comfortably in new Olds 98s furnished without charge by the automobile agency that took care of Wilt Chamberlain more than 30 years before."


I guess what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.  I guess that is why Mark Emmert looks like a man trying to defend the indefensible in the Frontline interview.  Watch it here:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/frontline-money-and-march-madness-ncaas-in-the-money--but-athletes-arent/2011/03/28/AF20beqB_story.html

Chris Hellums is the managing shareholder of Pittman Dutton & Hellums. He currently represents former Alabama wide receiver Tyrone Prothro in In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-1967-CW.

NCAA: WHO IS WALTER BYERS AND WHAT HAS HE SAID ABOUT THE COMMERCIALISM OF AMATEUR NCAA ATHLETES?

  

"Today, the NCAA Presidents Commission is preoccupied with tightening a few loose bolts in a worn machine, firmly committed to the neoplantation belief that the enormous proceeds from college games belongs to the overseers (the administrators) and supervisors (coaches). The plantation workers performing in the arena may receive only those benefits authorized by the overseers. The system is so biased against human nature and simple fairness in light of today's high dollar, commercialized college marketplace that the ever increasing number of primary and secondary NCAA infractions cases of the 1990s emerge in the current environment as mostly an indictment of the system itself."

Walter Byers, Unsportmanlike Conduct, 1995

For many of us who live in the south, terms like "plantation" and "overseer" invoke strong images and thoughts. So, when I read these words (and others I will detail) in Walter Byers book, written in 1995, I immediately took notice.

WHO IS WALTER BYERS? Walter Byers served as executive director of the NCAA from 1951 to 1987. Among other things, he started the NCAA enforcement program, pioneered a national academic rule for athletes and negotiated more than 50 television contracts. I think this qualifies him to opine on the subject of amateurism and compensating players.

As the NCAA entered the 90s, they had just disposed of the Jerry Tarkanian matter. For those of us old enough to remember, Tark the Shark was a successful basketball coach at UNLV. The NCAA went to war with Shark the Tark and the shark bit back. Who won depends on who you ask.

The case had all of the usual story lines. Money, cars, admissions issues, suspect grades, all in the backdrop of sin city. Throw in an upstart program (not Kentucky or UCLA) and you have a made for television movie. If there had only been sports talk radio and the internet back then.

As it always does, the NCAA considered itself victorious. Good had defeated evil. The case would serve notice to potential violators. And, it proved the NCAAs essential point, that being if you allowed money into amateur athletics, the conduct would be worse than what occurred at UNLV.

Against this backdrop, the NCAA dug in on its position on amateurism, emphasized its public relations campaign (that sound familiar--"where does the money go" ads we see on TV now), expanded it's enforcement and compliance departments, and enlarged its bureaucracy.

Was the NCAA right? By 1995, Walter Byers, who some say created the NCAA in its current form, didn't think so.  Fast forward 16 years. Have we finally reached the tipping point?


More coming in Part II


Chris Hellums is the managing shareholder of Pittman Dutton & Hellums. He currently represents former Alabama wide receiver Tyrone Prothro in In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-1967-CW.

Just Saying: 'Tort reform' harms us all

Image via Wikipedia

Josh Moon with the Montgomery Advertiser wrote the attached article on Tort reform.  For anyone who saw the HBO documentary film Hot Coffee (http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/index.html), which I would personally recommend to anyone interested in this issue,  I think you will find this article thought provoking and and worth reading.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011107030329

FDA Warning: Atypical Femur Fractures Seen In Fosamax Recipients

As a result of ongoing investigations regarding Fosamax and the use of bisphosphonates (BPs) to treat osteoporosis, the FDA has announced that the risk of atypical fractures of the thigh will be added to the Warnings and Precautions section of all labels of BP drugs. Specifically, these atypical fractures are known as subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femur fractures. Recent studies strongly suggest there is a causal link between people who take BPs and the increased risk of these atypical fractures. Furthermore, not only are people who take BPs put in greater risk of fracture, these particular types of fracture are especially more dangerous than the more common femur fractures. Additionally, the use of BPs results in longer and more complicated healing of the bone.

What is a subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femur fracture?

Aytpical subtrochanteric femur fracture is a fracture occurring on the shaft of the femur immediately below the lesser trochanter. That is, right below the hip joint. These fractures are not common, rather they account for only 7% to 10% of all “hip/femoral diaphyseal fractures.”Furthermore, given the unique nature of this fracture, special implants are required in order for the fracture to heal, and they are also more susceptible to malunion or nonunion. Additionally, those affected are liable to suffer long term effects. One study indicated that after 2 years, about 50% of persons who suffered a subtrochanteric fracture did not recuperate their pre-fracture walking abilities and faced difficulties performing routine activities. A total of 71% could not live in the same conditions as they lived previously. 

A diaphyseal fracture on the other hand, is a fracture that occurs on the main or midsection of the femur. These of course are one of the more common fractures. What is significant however is that these fractures are more typically associated with high trauma incidents, whereas people taking BPs have incurred these fractures as a result of little to no trauma.

In general there are also other features seen in people taking BPs that make these particular subtrochanteric and diaphyseal fractures atypical. First, the fractures are transverse, that is a straight break perpendicular to the shaft of the femur, or it is a straight angled break.  Second, the breaks are clean, in that the bones are not crushed or splintered as you would expect from high trauma breaks. Third, incomplete fractures tend to occur on the lateral side of the femur. Finally, more minor features include fractures in patients whose bones show evidence of an increase in the thickness of the femurs wall, delayed healing, and patients also report that weeks prior to the fracture they experienced symptoms such as dullness and aching in their groin or thigh.  

What’s the cause?

The evidence of BP causing unusual femur fractures, has certainly convinced the FDA to prompt these new warning label requirements. Studies are showing that BPs do increase bone density and strength, that is after all exactly what they prescribed to do. That increased strength and density however is achieved by reducing bone turnover. This means essentially instead of “out with the old, in with the new,” as is the case for normal bone “remodeling,” it is more like, “keeping the old, and piling on the new.” The problem however is that bones naturally incur cracks and micro-damage, which is in turn naturally repaired by the body through the process of remodeling. Absent remodeling which is suppressed by the BPs, micro-damage begins to accumulate. Over time, the end result is a thicker, much denser bone, albeit one that is less structurally sound, thus the increased risk of these atypical fractures.

In the short run, it may be that using BPs to combat osteoporosis is an effective treatment. However, for those patients unaware of the risks associated with BPs, like those who have been affected by Fosamax, evidence indicates that whether a person should undergo long term treatment requires a careful assessment of the risks versus its benefits. For this reason the FDA specifically recommends that health care professionals reevaluate a patients need to continue BP therapy, especially for those who have been treated with BPs over five years. c

Chris Hellums can be contacted at Chrish@PittmanDutton.com

References:

---

[1] US Food and Drug Admin. FDA Drug Safety Commc’n: Safety Update for Osteoporosis Drugs, Bisphosphonates, and Atypical Fractures (2010).

[2] Shane E, Burr D. Ebeling PR, et al. Atypical Subtrochanteric and Diaphyseal Femoral Fractures: Report of a Task Force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. 25 J. Bone Miner. Res. 2267 (2010).

DePuy Pinnacle MDL Update

Our firm has four of the first Pinnacle cases filed in the DePuy Pinnacle MDL and anticipates filing more in the coming months. We are seeing rapid failures of the device due to high cobalt levels in blood tests. Excessive levels of cobalt in the blood stream is a sign of metallosis, which can cause rashes, soft-tissue damage, peripheral neuropathy and pseudo-tumors.

The DePuy Pinnacle cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge James E. Kinkeade. Judge Kinkeade is currently presiding over at least one of the cases, and the Panel determined his current caseload will accommodate the litigation. There are approximately 57 DePuy Pinnacle hip lawsuits currently pending in federal courts nationwide and that number is expected to rise over the next few months.

DePuy is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, one of the largest corporations in the world. DePuy recalled the ASR XL Acetabular hip system last August, after researchers found 13 percent of patients needed a repeat operation to fix problems with the implant. The company took a $280 million charge in the fourth quarter to pay for the recall. The company faces more than 500 lawsuits by patients who had the hip implants, most of which are consolidated in a separate MDL dealing only with ASR hips. There has been no recall of the DePuy Pinnacle hip.

Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics division, a maker of artificial prosthetics such as hips and knees, has struggled with product recalls and lawsuits over faulty implants lately. It was announced earlier this year that the worldwide president would leave the company in March. The executive, David Floyd, has been president of the unit since 2007. He is leaving to pursue interests outside the company, a spokesman on behalf of the company, Lorie Gawreluk, said, declining to be more specific.

Our firm is currently investigating claims for those people who have been implanted with the DePuy hip replacement devices, both ASR and Pinnacles. If you would like a free case evaluation, please contact Chris Hellums at toll free 1-866-515-8880 or at chrish@pittmandutton.com.

FDA Orders Makers of Hip Systems to Conduct Post Market Studies

Image via Wikipedia

      On the front of its Business Day section, the New York Times (5/11, B1, Meier, Subscription Publication) reported on the "unusual move" by the FDA to direct some 20 makers of "metal-on-metal" artificial hips to do postmarket studies because of "high early failure rates and severe health effects in some patients." The companies are being told to find out if the devices "are shedding high levels of metallic debris" that account for cases of disabling "soft tissue damage." Dr. William H. Maisel, deputy director for science at the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said the FDA wants to know "about the entire category of implants, not any single manufacturer's device." He added, "Our concern is the product, not about a manufacturer."

        Bloomberg News (5/11, Farrell, Nussbaum) said the FDA order, dated May 6, went to Johnson & Johnson, "which is already facing more than 1,000 lawsuits over hip replacements," as well as companies such as Biomet Inc., Zimmer Holdings, and Stryker Corp., which said it didn't make a metal-on-metal product. Bloomberg News added, "The request comes nine months after DePuy Orthopaedics, a unit of New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J, recalled a hip-replacement system that had been implanted in 93,000 patients worldwide.