You will conduct an approx. 30-minute interview with an experienced sports coach or college/professional athlete or sports management professional or high-school/college athletic administrator of your choice focusing on specific ethical issues and dilemmas referenced in the “Sports Ethics for Sports Management Professionals” required text.
You will present your chosen individual with selected CASE STUDIES from the textbook that resonated with you and would be of interest to them and their specific professional context.
FOUR DIFFERENT CASE STUDIES MUST BE SHARED WITH YOUR CHOSEN INDIVIDUAL FOR DISCUSSION
(can choose case studies from chapters 2-12; no more than one case study from a specific chapter; can use no more than two of the case studies previously discussed as part of the discussion boards for this course, if you choose to do so)
Essentially, you are trying to get the individual’s perspectives, beliefs and ultimately their proposed thoughts/actions on each of your chosen CASE STUDIES.
The rationale/WHY behind their decisions is particularly important, as is HOWthey would go about resolving the issues presented to them.
You are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED (with the individual’s permission) to use an electronic device (cell phone, voice recorder, video recorder etc.) to record the entire interview; however, the interview does not have to be fully transcribed or uploaded to D2L, although listening to the interview multiple times is highly recommended to elicit quotes that can enhance the write-up and content of the paper.
Minimum of 4-page paper (not including required title page and appendix)
Title page needed. Size 12-font (Arial or Times New Roman font). Double-spaced.
Appendix needed (list/identify case studies utilized and specific questions/prompts associated with each chosen case study- can use questions from textbook- if you choose).
1st case study:CASE 4-4 Welch v. Dunsmuir Joint Union High School District 326 P.2d 633 (Cal. App. 1958) Prior to the opening of school on August 29, Welch was given a physical examination by a Doctor Reynolds and found to be physically fit. The coaches were on the field directing or supervising the play and there were no “game officials” there. The teams alternated in carrying the ball, and after each sequence of plays the coaches stopped the activity and instructed the players. Welch took the ball on a “quarterback sneak” and was tackled shortly after he went through the line. As he was falling forward another player was coming in to make the tackle and fell on top of him. After this play Welch was lying on his back on the field and unable to get to this feet. [Welch] was moved by eight boys, four on each side; with no one directing the moving … [Welch] is [now] a permanent quadriplegic caused by damage to the spinal cord at the level of the fifth cervical vertebra. … The removal of Welch from the field without the use of a stretcher was an improper medical practice in view of the symptoms.
2nd case study : Vendrell v. School District No. 26C, Malheur County 376 P.2d 406 (Cal. 1962) August 24, 1953, a week before classes assembled in the high school, Louis Vendrell registered for football practice and play. He shortly enrolled in the school as a freshman. October 9, about six weeks after he had turned out for football and while playing as a member of the Nyssa High School team against the Vale High School team, he was injured. At the time of his injury [Vendrell claimed] (1) he was “an inexperienced football player”; (2) … weighed 140 pounds; (3) … was “not physically coordinated”; (4) his injury befell him when he was “tackled hard by two Vale boys”; (5) … had not received “proper or sufficient instructions”; and (6) … had not been furnished with “the necessary and proper protective equipment” for his person. [A] coach or physical education instructor is required to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the students under his supervision. Before entering Nyssa High School Vendrell had completed the course of study offered by Nyssa Junior High School. The latter maintains a football team, two coaches and scheduled games. While a student in that school Vendrell had constantly been a member of its football team. He played the position of left half-back, the same position that he was playing at the time of his injury. Nyssa High School has about 300 students, two football coaches and a manager for the team. It played scheduled games with other high schools. Vendrell was 15 years of age when he entered the high school—one year older than most pupils. He sustained his injury during the close of the fourth quarter of a game in which Nyssa’s opponent was the Vale High School team. He was injured when he was tackled by two Vale players while he was carrying the ball. As a witness Vendrell described as follows what happened: “And I saw the Vale players in front of me and I knew I couldn’t go any further so I put my head down and just ran into em and that is when I heard my neck snap.” At that moment he suffered the injury for which he seeks redress in damages. It consists of a fracture of the fifth cervical vertebra of the neck. Thomas D. Winbigler, football coach of the Bend High School, saw the Nyssa-Vale game and the play in which Vendrell sustained his injury. Referring to that play and Vendrell’s handling of it, he testified: “It was a well-executed play. I will say that. Any play that will go for that much yardage is a well-executed play.” Before Vendrell had turned out on August 24, 1953, for football practice he had played for two years as a member of the football team of Nyssa Junior High School. Evidently, the training given to the football squad in the junior high school is substantial, for Vendrell mentioned that the squad was taught how to tackle, block, stiff-arm, carry the ball and keep the ball from the opponent. While a member of the junior high school football team Vendrell played in games against Adrian, Vale, Payette, and Parma. Before any student was accepted as a member of the Nyssa High School football squad it was necessary for him to be pronounced physically fit by a physician and for his parents to give their written consent. Vendrell met both requirements. He had worked in the preceding summer upon farms and deemed himself in good condition. More than one of the witnesses spoke of him as a promising football player, and none referred to him in any other way. He concedes that he was generally the first member of the squad present for football practice and the last to leave the training field. Football practice was conducted every afternoon, Monday through Thursday, for about two hours. No practice was maintained on Fridays because that was the day upon which the team played its games. The training for football play which [Vendrell], as a member of the Nyssa High School football squad, underwent was, of course, dependent somewhat upon the competency of the school’s coach. All other coaches who mentioned the subject described Nyssa’s head coach, Howard Lovelace, as competent and well regarded. Thomas D. Winbigler, aforementioned, was the football coach of Weiser High School in 1953 but at the time of the trial was the football coach of Bend High School. He testified: “I have a high regard for Howard in his ability to coach and his teams were well coached.” The training of the squad consisted of a program of calisthenics, classes on physical conditioning and training rules. The calisthenics were intended to strengthen the body. One of them was called bull-neck exercise. It was engaged in for several minutes each day and was designed to strengthen the neck. Vendrell described it as hard. The training program was also intended, Vendrell said, to enable the players to learn the plays and the fundamentals of football such as tackling, running, blocking and the proper position of the head and body while in play. We observe that the players engaged in scrimmage, line play, dummy tackling, and backfield movements. Vendrell conceded that the coaches stressed the necessity for each player to learn “the fundamentals of football” and told them that otherwise they could not enjoy the game or play it successfully. The coaches stated that calisthenics, training and hard work were essential for self-protection. The players were instructed in the manner of gaining protection from blows and taking them on their protective equipment. Mr. Winbigler testified that the school’s program of drills, practice and exercises was proper and adequate. He also expressed the belief that the Nyssa High School team was well coached. Vendrell practiced, so he testified, “most of the time” with what he termed the “varsity” team. He attended every practice session. Since in junior high school he played the position of left half-back, the same as in the senior high school, he conceded that when he was injured he was playing that position for the third year. His testimony upon that subject was: Question: “So this was your third year in that particular position?” Answer: “Yes.” Before Vendrell played in the game against Vale he had played (1) in the preceding two year period in several games as a member of the football team of Nyssa Junior High School, (2) as a member of the Nyssa High School’s “A” team for a few plays against the John Day High School team, and (3) as a member of Nyssa High School’s “B” team in games against Ontario, Parma, and Vale. Vendrell claims that the Vale team was powerful and that it contained many players of outstanding skill. Before Vendrell entered the game in the fourth quarter the score was 48 to 0 in Vale’s favor. The Vale team believed that with that score it could not lose the game, and, accordingly replaced virtually all of its best players with substitutes. One of its players, Kay Smith, who was a sophomore and left half-back, testified that at the time of Vendrell’s injury, “we had most of our freshmen and sophomore players in the ballgame.” He added, “They were pretty close evenly matched,” that is, the two teams that were then in the field. Smith was one of the players who tackled him. Vendrell weighed 140 pounds. Smith, Vale’s half-back who tackled him, weighed 130 to 135 pounds. Don Savage was a junior in Nyssa High School and, like Vendrell, was a left half-back upon its team. He played in the Vale-Nyssa game. When he was taken out of the game Vendrell replaced him. He weighed, so he swore, “125 to 130 pounds” at that time. Dirk Rhinehart, another backfield player upon the Nyssa team, weighed 120 pounds. Mr. Winbigler testified: Question: “And I believe you said that on a man-to-man basis, the Vale and Nyssa teams were pretty much equal—about the same?” Answer: “That’s right.” The following was given by Don Savage who was a member of the Nyssa football team at the time of Vendrell’s injury. Question: “Will you describe his physical co-ordination and how he handled himself, generally?” Answer: “Well, he was a pretty fast boy. He was—ah—not too awkward, but he certainly wasn’t as well co-ordinated as some of the other members of the team—the older ones.” Question: “What do you mean in ‘co-ordinating’? Will you describe it?” Answer: “Well, I mean the way that he would run with the ball and things of that nature.” Vendrell made the outstanding gain of the game for Nyssa and Mr. Winbigler swore that the run in which he made the gain was a well executed play. Vendrell saw the tacklers charging upon him and realized that he could not escape them. One of the tacklers (Smith) was to the side and rear of him. The other tackler (Carl Gustafson) came from the front. He came into contact with Vendrell before Smith did. A day after August 24 when Vendrell enlisted for football practice, the protective equipment was distributed to the players. The manager supervised its allotment and the coaches were present. The equipment consisted of helmets, shoulder pads, rib pads, and hip pads together with the uniforms. The quantity was larger in amount than the number of players. The gear was placed upon tables and the lettermen were given first choice. Next came the seniors and finally the freshmen. Vendrell testified that after he had chosen the equipment he wanted, “I just took it to my locker and put it on.” He added, “Whatever didn’t fit, I’d bring it back and try—until I’d get the right deals and the right equipment.” Although the coaches in some other schools helped their players fit their equipment, Nyssa’s coaches did not. The Nyssa coaches were present, however, when the players made their selections and tried on their equipment. Vendrell did not testify that he needed help in order to determine whether the gear which he chose fitted him. The helmet which he selected in August was discarded several weeks later when he split it in a game by running head-on into an opposing player. He then returned to the equipment room and selected another helmet. Concerning it he said, “It was just a little bit loose.” He admitted that he did not try on all of the available helmets before he took the one that “was just a little bit loose,” but described as “old” the helmets which he did not try on. He also testified that one of his shoulder pads was loose because the string which was intended to draw it into a snug position was broken and therefore too short. Other strings were readily available. The two complaints just mentioned are the only ones that [Vendrell] voiced concerning his equipment. He made no claim that his equipment was defective nor did he find any fault with his uniform. All of the equipment was regularly inspected; defective parts were discarded and replaced with new. Vendrell conceded that he did not mention to the manager, the coaches, or any other school representative the fault that he found with his gear. He also conceded that he had the privilege of returning any of his equipment and of selecting a substitute. He testified that when he played in a game, such as the Nyssa-Vale game, he wore a jersey and that since it fitted tight it held the shoulder pad well in place … the complaint did not aver any shortcoming in the protective equipment. If it was in any way unsuitable to [Ventrell’s] needs he was intimately familiar with that fact and voluntarily decided to proceed. The playing of football is a body-contact sport. The game demands that the players come into physical contact with each other constantly, frequently with great force. The linemen charge the opposing line vigorously, shoulder to shoulder. The tackler faces the risk of leaping at the swiftly moving legs of the ball-carrier and the latter must be prepared to strike the ground violently. Body contacts, bruises, and clashes are inherent in the game. There is no other way to play it. No prospective player need be told that a participant in the game of football may sustain injury. It draws to the game the manly; they accept its risks, blows, clashes and injuries without whimper. No one expects a football coach to extract from the game the body clashes that cause bruises, jolts and hard falls. To remove them would end the sport. The coach’s function is to minimize the possibility that the body contacts may result in something more than slight injury. The extensive calisthenics, running and other forms of muscular exercise to which the coaches subjected the squad [to] were intended to place the players in sound physical condition so that they could withstand the shocks, blows and other rough treatment with which they would meet in actual play. As a further safeguard for the players’ protection the [school district] provided all of the players with protective equipment. Each player was taught and shown how to handle himself while in play so that a blow would fall upon his protective equipment and not directly upon his body. We have also noticed the fact that every player was instructed in the manner of (1) running while carrying the ball, (2) tackling an opposing player, and (3) handling himself properly when about to be tackled. For example, Vendrell testified: Question: “Now, if you would stiff-arm properly, or run properly, with your tail down and your legs underneath you, with your head up and your back straight, wouldn’t the coach point this out to you? Wouldn’t he work with you and discuss these matters with the various backs?” Answer: “Yes, he did.” Question: “At any time, in your coaching by Mr. Lovejoy or Mr. McGinley, were you ever told that you should either strike a dummy or an opposing player with your head?” Answer: “No, but, see I had done it in practice. In actual scrimmage. I had done that very same thing in practice-in scrimmage and nobody had ever told me any different.” The purpose of the extensive instructions and arduous practice was to enable the player not only to make for his team the maximum yardage but also to reduce to the minimum the possibility that an injury would befall him. All of the football coaches who testified upon the subject swore that the instructions and practice which were given to the school’s football squad were adequate and were similar to that which they gave to their own players. No criticism was offered of the instructions and practice. Had Vendrell followed the instructions that were given to him about holding his head up, his injury would not have occurred, assuming, of course, that the failure to hold up his head was the cause of his injury. But Vendrell says that the school’s coaches had not told him that if he used his head as a battering ram an injury might befall him. One of the first lessons that an infant learns when he begins to toddle about on his feet is not to permit his head to collide with anything. Not only do his parents, playmates and teachers unite in teaching him that lesson, but every door, chair and other protruding object that is in the child’s presence becomes a harsh but effective teacher that injury occurs if he bumps his head upon something. Less than two weeks before his lamentable injury befell him, Vendrell was taught the lesson again that he had learned in his infancy. This time it was taught to him when he ran head-on into a player in the Parma game and split his head gear. When he discarded his ruined helmet and borrowed one from a teammate he saw from the split helmet in his own hands what could have happened to his head. No coach could have spoken to him more effectively. The school’s coaches were Vendrell’s teachers. He had the right—in fact, the duty—to ask the coaches questions concerning any matter which was not clear. In turn, the coaches had the right to assume that he possessed the intelligence and stock of information of a normal young man. Thus, they had the right to assume that he knew of the possibility of injury that comes to an individual who uses his head as a battering ram. Vendrell swore that he lowered his head when he saw that he was about to be tackled. Vendrell assumed the risk attendant upon being tackled. The risk of injury that was inherent in being tackled was obvious. He was thoroughly familiar with it. He had been tackled scores of times and had been the tackler many many times. The tackle in question was made fairly and according to the rules. The school’s coaches gave to the football squad adequate, standard instruction and practice. The school’s coaches did not negligently omit any detail; certainly the school’s coaches did not omit to perform any expected duty. Vendrell assumed all of the obvious risks of which tackling was one.
3rd:CASE 6-10 Haben v. Anderson 597 N.E. 2d 655 (1992) Nicholas E. Haben was an 18-year-old freshman at Western Illinois University in the fall of 1990. On October 18, 1990, Haben was a “rookie” in the Lacrosse Club, a recognized and sanctioned student activity at the University. Club membership was “a valued status.” On October 18, 1990, between 3:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., the defendants participated in the “initiation” of new recruits of the Club known as “rookies,” which included Haben. It was alleged that during the initiation ceremony, the defendants caused or participated in causing various types and quantities of intoxicating beverages to be given and ingested by the rookie initiates of the Club. The rookies, including Haben, were required to engage in various strenuous physical activities, and submit to acts intended to ridicule and degrade them, including smearing their bodies, faces, and hair with various food and other materials. These activities allegedly violated the Hazing Act and University regulations. It was alleged that the hazing and drinking activities had been conducted by the Club members for a number of years and had become a “tradition of, and a de facto requirement for, membership in the Club,” and that the pressure to consume dangerous quantities of alcohol created a hazardous condition threatening the initiate’s physical welfare. Haben became highly intoxicated and lost consciousness. He was carried to defendant Kolovitz’s dorm room, where, in Kolovitz’s presence, he was laid on the floor and then left alone. Kolovitz returned to the room on more than one occasion to check on Haben and heard him “gurgling.” Haben was discovered dead about 9:00 a.m., on October 19, 1990. He died from acute ethanol intoxication, possessing a blood ethanol level in excess of .34.
4th :CASE STUDY 9-4 Barry Rona and Collusion in Major League Baseball, 1985–1989 In Barry Rona and Major League Baseball Players’ Association (Arbitration 1993), the Major League Baseball Players Association rejected Barry Rona’s application under section 2(c) of its regulations, which allowed the union to refuse certification to anyone whose conduct “may adversely affect his credibility [or] integrity … to serve in a representative and/or fiduciary capacity on behalf of players.” The arbitrator stated: [T]he Arbitrator finds that the Players Association acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting Rona’s application. The Players Association’s conclusion that Rona was part of the collusion in the 1985 and 1986 free agent markets because he was a leading figure in the PRC [Player Relations Committee] is fundamentally at odds with the Code’s very clear position that lawyers do not act unethically merely because they represent individuals or institutions that are found to have engaged in wrongful activities. And there is no evidence, nor any finding by Chairman Roberts or Chairman Nicholau that it was or should have been obvious to Rona that his clients were acting “merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.” … On the contrary, he expressed his “concerns” to his clients, asked them directly whether they were involved in collusion to destroy the free agent markets in 1985 and 1986 and, when they replied negatively, allowed them to so testify under oath before the Roberts and Nicholau Panels. Rona acted entirely properly … in allowing his clients to have their day in court to attempt under oath to refute the circumstantial evidence that they were engaged in collusion can hardly be termed taking a “frivolous legal position.” … This Arbitrator believes that these are not even close questions. For the foregoing reasons the Arbitrator concludes that the Players Association’s rejection of Rona’s application because of his alleged involvement in the 1985 and 1986 collusion was arbitrary and capricious. The union rejected the application of Barry Rona, stating he was an integral part of the collusion by baseball owners in the 1980s to keep player salaries down in MLB. Rona was able to convince an arbitrator otherwise. Do you believe the arbitrator was correct in this decision? Could a former general manager of a team become an agent? What about a sports agent who leaves the players’ side to go to the management side of sports? What ethical and legal ramifications does this pose? What issues of confidentiality do these scenarios present?
the file is the person interviewd made up.