Thought of the Day 11/3/21: Did the legality of leagues rigging their games actually come from an oversight by Mr. Meyer??

Anyone who knows the truth about American sports knows that it is, sadly, completely legal for a sports league to, by whatever means necessary or possible, construct a result by rigging the game.

And I often use 2010's Mayer vs. Belichick, New England Patriots, and National Football League -- the Jets-fan lawyer who sued everybody once the extent of Spygate was known -- as the means.

That's a simplistic way to look at it.  To get to the meat and potatoes of the matter, however, you have to go back to 2006, and a class-action lawsuit filed of ten separate lawsuits from attendees of the 2005 Indianapolis Grand Prix.

What happened on that day was supposed to be a Formula 1 race on the oval at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.  However, the teams -- all save six -- were so concerned about the tire situation and the possibility of a safety hazard, that the teams took to the grid, and then left the entire race to be left to farce.

And Autosport, in reporting the 2006 dismissal, said the judge's opinion was thus:

"Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled there was no basis for the lawsuit, saying sports fans ought to have a reasonable expectations that participants in a sporting event could suddenly find themselves sidelined, for example suspensions in football games, or benching in basketball.

"The power to make those decisions is the implicit - perhaps even explicit - risk that sports fans assume when they buy a ticket of admission to a sporting event," Barker wrote.

"It's to be assumed that the Michelin teams made the decision they believed to be in their best competitive and professional interests, and in doing so, they owed no legal duty to let the preferences of the spectators trump their own good judgment.""

That, in fact, as the judge throwing out Mayer noted, you were only entitled to a seat and to a result, whatever that result might be.

Given that precedent, the judge throwing out Mayer's lawsuit (and all subsequent attempts to sue the NFL for open-faced game-rigging -- I'm looking at you, New Orleans...) is actually a legal tautology.

But what if the entire basis on this legality was based on an oversight?  One that, given Mayer being a lawyer, he had no real business not knowing about...

I point you in the general direction of a law that I tend to like to quote and to reference, and have a number of times.  It is the game-show rigging law, 47 USC 509, Prohibited Practices in Contests of Skill or Chance:

"(a)Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcome

It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public—

(1)To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.

(2)By means of persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or otherwise, to induce or cause any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill to refrain in any manner from using or displaying his knowledge or skill in such contest, whereby the outcome thereof will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.

(3)To engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance.

(4)To produce or participate in the production for broadcasting of, to broadcast or participate in the broadcasting of, to offer to a licensee for broadcasting, or to sponsor, any radio program, knowing or having reasonable ground for believing that, in connection with a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance constituting any part of such program, any person has done or is going to do any act or thing referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection.

(5)To conspire with any other person or persons to do any act or thing prohibited by paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of such conspiracy.

(b)“Contest” and “the listening or viewing public” defined

For the purposes of this section—

(1)The term “contest” means any contest broadcast by a radio station in connection with which any money or any other thing of value is offered as a prize or prizes to be paid or presented by the program sponsor or by any other person or persons, as announced in the course of the broadcast.

(2)The term “the listening or viewing public” means those members of the public who, with the aid of radio receiving sets, listen to or view programs broadcast by radio stations."

So you have only one real defense against this:  To state that a sporting event is a PURELY PHYSICAL event, with ABSOLUTELY NO INTELLIGENCE REQUIRED.

If ANY degree of intellectual skill is involved in the contest, would this not apply???

I'll leave that as an exercise to the readers....