OT: Vijay Singh to sue PGA Tour (Deer Antler Spray)
So, I do not know the ins and outs of the law, but it seems to me he really has no case here. How I understand it:
He admitted to using Deer Antler spray (not knowing it contained any illegal substances, which seems very reckless on his part).
The Tour thus put disciplinary action in place.
Word Anti Doping Agency then says the illegal substance in the spray is no longer illegal/prohibited.
Vijay appeals the inital ruling.
The Tour retracks the punishment.
Now Vijay is sueing (ruining his reputation, Tour being careless and also singling him out, etc.
Those who know the law, is this even a case? What exactly did they do wrong? The only potential thing I can think of is maybe they went off his admission instead of an actual test (not sure).
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-singh-pga-20130509,0,7075346.story
there might be some behind the scenes stuff that we don't know about
Not a legal guy but wouldn't it be some sort of defamation suit? They linked him to doping in the public mind when in fact he took nothing illegal. Also they kind of jumped the gun by disciplining him before actually looking into the spray. Pretty standard governing body behavior but that's neither here nor there.
I don't think that is accurate. At the time of their decision the substance was illegal and in the spray he took, and also tested positive. No specific levels are stated, just that if the substance is there, it would be a violation. Then the substance was taken of the banned list and the course of action changed and ultimately the case against Vijay was dropped.
There is more to be known, I hope. Otherwise, I think this case is bullshit. I don't even see a defamation suit as it stands right now.
Wasn't it illegal when he was disciplined? As the OP stated, they removed the penalties after the rule was changed. A huge mess if you ask me.
Even if his repuation was damaged I don't think that he could collect any monetary damage unless he can prove the PGA acted with intentional malice...not completely sure, but I think that's how libel cases work.
on a substance that was not fully (or likely partially) understood by regulators.
Happens all of the time. Those who can't teach, become regulators!
Vijay is washed up anyways, and an all around dick.
Agree, which is why I would like the Tour to win this thing quickly and with ease
...calling Vijay "an all around dick."
Vijay Singh is one of the best-liked of all the players on Tour, by younger players, by the caddies, by lots of (but not all) officials and administrators, etc.
Vijay is by all accounts one of the hardest-working players in the game.
So who besides you really thinks of Singh as "an all around dick"? Does it spring from that 30 year old story from the scoring tent at the '85 Indonesian Open? Really? Was it his comments about Annika Sorenstam's stunt appearance at the Colonial where she missed the cut? (About which Singh was right, and curiously singled out since a lot of other players agreed with him.)
What particular, personal, peculiar story do you have, that gives you license to call the guy "an all around dick"?
And "washed up"? Name me a better 50 year-old player. (Vijay turned 50 last February.) He'll be a force on the Champions Tour as soon as he is a regular player there; but he's too good to leave the regular tour right now.
As for the lawsuit; I'm a lawyer, and I have followed the story pretty closely, and yet I don't understand the claim. I'd have to see a .pdf of the complaint, which I have not been able to find online. It's a very confusing story.
Edit 1: Here is a link to the .pdf of the Complaint
http://images.thegolfchannel.com/downloads/SinghvPGATourSummonsandComplaint5813.pdf
Edit 2: I am a friend and follower of Geoff Shackelford, golf's leading blogger. Geoff (not surprising) is very tough on Vijay. Tougher than I would be. The PGA Tour is staffed with a lot of overpaid fools (Geoff would agree with me on that much). I know Geoff does not care for Vijay; for my part I stand by what I wrote above, and I would challenge Geoff or anyone to dispute it. The sportswriters might not like Vijay, and consequently their readers might not like Vijay. I know for a fact that younger tour players and caddies have a lot of respect for Vijay.
followed him around Cog Hill. 2 hour warmup on the range, 3 hours bashing balls session after his round
Still, no matter how one feels about Vijay, deserved or not, he has found a way to cheese off a lot of people....
http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2007/03/21/vijay-singh-hard-working-and-hated/
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/040916
http://www.worldgolf.com/blogs/spencer.hux/2006/02/15/title_13
At the very least, he needs to get better at PR.
this certainly won't help in that regard.
Dude just turned 50, hopefully he heads off to the Champions Tour soon and disappears.
iirc his personal trainer was busted in the past.
he was kicked off asian tour in the begining of his career for some malfeasance.
What's "sueing?" Is he recruiting a bunch of boys named Sue to play in the PGA? Or is that his pig call?
Here is what I think happened, I am not a golf person but have read a few articles on this
a. He took deer atler spray, which was on a list of prohibited items
b. He admitted it to a journalist who printed it. PGA rules state that admission to a journalist is the same as failing a blood test (or something like that).
c. Aknowledged that he didn't know it was prohibited
d. Underwent disclipinary actions by the PGA for breaking a rule. Ignorance of a violation is no defense. During this time he was suspended from playing.
e. During such time the PGA determined that deer atler shouldn't be against the rules.
f. Reinstated Vijay
Did I get anything wrong in this timeline? What speaks to me is that he broke a rule that was a rule at the time and was discovered. If this was a law that was broken, it seems akin to a court case where the judgement is thrown out because the law is unconstitutional (like flag burning). The defendants have won the case, but I don't know of any circumstances where have been able to successfully go after the government for 'ruining their reputation' for being charged with a law/crime/rule infraction that later become allowed.