Seven fans died at the FonteNova Stadium in Brazil on Sunday when a section of the stand collapsed. The victims fell 49 feet through a 10 foot hole in an upper deck section. The stadium was built in 1951 and was recently voted as the worst stadium in the country by a group of architects and engineers. The next day the Brazilian government announced it would tear down the stadium in anticipation of the 2014 World Cup that will be held there.
Gil-
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Quick Exit
Tom Chieppo
Ricky Williams made his latest comeback in nearly two years
against the Pittsburgh Steelers; After serving his 1/2 year suspension for
violating the NFL drug policy. Williams gained 15 yards on six carries;
However, Williams suffered a torn chest muscle injury that will impact
the rest of the 2007 season for Miami. The Dolphins running back
will have his arm in a sling for four to six weeks, and the rehab will
take five to six months. When rehab is over, Ricky Williams will
begin preparing for the 2008 season.
I'm stunned that Roger Goodell let Ricky Williams back in
the National Football League. I understand that everyone in life deserves
a second chance, and Williams received that opportunity from Mr. Goodell.
Cam Cameron, the head coach of the Miami Dolphins needed a
miracle, and he thought that letting Ricky Williams come back
would help this team win a football game. Cameron should not have rushed Ricky
Williams unless he was healthy enough to play. Williams also probably was not in
strong enough shape to play on such a poor field.
The Dolphins are desperate to win a game, but Ricky
Williams isn't the answer. I believe that Miami will be picking first next
year in the NFL draft, and Miami will
need to pick an outstanding number one quarterback to help this team
win. I would fire coach Cam Cameron and get someone else in
there to make Miami a serious contender next year.
Ricky Williams made his latest comeback in nearly two years
against the Pittsburgh Steelers; After serving his 1/2 year suspension for
violating the NFL drug policy. Williams gained 15 yards on six carries;
However, Williams suffered a torn chest muscle injury that will impact
the rest of the 2007 season for Miami. The Dolphins running back
will have his arm in a sling for four to six weeks, and the rehab will
take five to six months. When rehab is over, Ricky Williams will
begin preparing for the 2008 season.
I'm stunned that Roger Goodell let Ricky Williams back in
the National Football League. I understand that everyone in life deserves
a second chance, and Williams received that opportunity from Mr. Goodell.
Cam Cameron, the head coach of the Miami Dolphins needed a
miracle, and he thought that letting Ricky Williams come back
would help this team win a football game. Cameron should not have rushed Ricky
Williams unless he was healthy enough to play. Williams also probably was not in
strong enough shape to play on such a poor field.
The Dolphins are desperate to win a game, but Ricky
Williams isn't the answer. I believe that Miami will be picking first next
year in the NFL draft, and Miami will
need to pick an outstanding number one quarterback to help this team
win. I would fire coach Cam Cameron and get someone else in
there to make Miami a serious contender next year.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Aramark Case
Alcohol Management Post Verni
(Author's note...This article comes from a different perspective as I was the expert witness for Aramark in this case.)
The stunning verdict in the Verni case against Aramark and other defendants has shook the entire concession and facility management industry. The case involved a drunk driver (with three prior drunk driving convictions) who caused a serious injury to a passenger in another car in an accident almost three hours after leaving the Meadowlands. Before the accident, the driver stopped by a liquor store, a fast food restaurant, and two bars. During the trial, the Plaintiffs’ lawyer painted the Meadowland’s and it concessionaire as a proverbial “den of inequity” full of drunks and fostering a “drunken environment.” This portrayal helped convince a jury to award the largest Dram Shop verdict in United States history, $109 million verdict against Aramark.
Aramark appealed the decision and an appellate court overturned the lower courts’ decision in 2006. The appellate court concluded that the Plaintiffs produced no evidence that the driver purchased beer or that he was served when he was visibly intoxicated. The court stated, “[E]vidence of drunken attendees is inadmissible. It does not account for the possibility that patrons may have consumed the alcohol off premises, before the game at a tailgate event, or that the alcohol was purchased by a sober patron who supplied it to an intoxicated patron.” The parties settled the case in 2007, and the final amount was not disclosed. The fact that the case was successfully appealed limits how useful the case can serve as a precedent because neither side can claim that the court has clearly indicated the “industry standard” that should be applied when examining dram shop cases involving sport facilities.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer skillfully isolated Aramark as the “big bad guys” to increase jury sympathy and paint the case as a large greedy corporation against a poor, disabled child. However, his arguments also attacked the entire industry and painted the concession industry as a group of greedy businesses interested in maximizing profits while showing absolutely no regard for patrons. Some of his claims could be interpreted by the jury to mean:
Not every server was recertified by TIPS and some servers had served beers prior to receiving TIPS training (but servers could have had other training or prior beer service experience without formal training).
Every server should have been TIPS certified even those who only accepted cash in a food service line where beer was also sold.
TIPS maintained lists of employees needing recertification rather than Aramark.
Any difference from strategy encouraged by TIPS was an alleged violation of industry standards.
Every stand that served alcohol should have had more supervision.
Every time someone was denied service, the denial should have been documented.
There should have been more alcohol compliance inspectors (possibly one supervisor for every two or three stands).
Aramark should be liable for anyone intoxicated in the facility even if the patron did not purchase a single beverage from Aramark.
Aramark alcohol compliance personnel should have documented every instance where they observed a beer server selling more than two beers, selling to someone who might have appeared intoxicated, or who might have been underage.
Compliance personnel should have been TIPS trained and he eluded that police alcohol training was not equivalent to TIPS training.
Aramark and/or its beer servers could have taken patron keys if they appeared intoxicated.
Stand supervisors and/or alcohol compliance personnel should have followed patrons who might appear intoxicated to make sure they do not purchase any alcohol at another stand or obtain alcohol from other sources-such as someone giving a friend a beer.
Beer servers did not spend enough time with purchasers to adequately evaluate if they showed signs of intoxication.
Designated driver programs should have been available not just at the start of the game, but also when the game ended.
A stadium was not really any different than a bar and that even though a stadium might serve 60,000 beers in a game, they should be held to the same standard as a bar that sold only 40 beers during the same time period.
Some problems with the claims raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel include:
It would almost be impossible to both sell beer and process all the paperwork that might be required to monitor thousands of transactions and customers.
The extra personnel required to implement some of the suggested tactics would probably drive the cost of beer to $15.00 or more a cup and could lead to increased violence and people sneaking alcohol into the facility (even with searches).
There is no mention of the other parties to the game/event experience which includes the facility owners/management, police, facility tenants, and security companies.
He painted the beer servers as heartless people interested in maximizing their revenue versus the testimony which showed the servers were dedicated employees who were not interested in taking any bribes or violating any policies for fear of losing their jobs.
The beer servers who testified indicated what were some signs of intoxication they looked for and that such knowledge can exist regardless of whether or not someone is TIPS (or TEAM) trained (this does not mean that training is not important, but training should not be the only criteria for establishing a concessionaires guilt or innocence).
It is not illegal for someone to be intoxicated in the facility, it is only illegal when they operate a vehicle or engage in other illegal activity.
Patrons might act intoxicated through engaging in activities such as yelling, but they might not have had anything to drink and are just excited.
Thus, plaintiffs’ attorney painted a wholly unrealistic image of the concession industry, but one that a jury could buy and conclude that Aramark was evil and needs to be punished.
Based on the arguments or lack-thereof, several potential strategies could be developed that could help prevent similar claims. It should be noted that these are not industry standards and are only risk management strategies suggested by one individual.
Have digital cameras monitor the exit ways when people are leaving the facility. The driver in the Verni case supposedly left the facility before the game ended and there were only two exits open before the game ends. If these areas were monitored (they were manned) it could have been beneficial to have video showing if someone was leaving and could barely stand as plaintiffs’ attorney claimed.
Have cameras as well as police monitor those leaving the parking lot to spot erratic behavior from poor driving to people yelling incoherently (which might be hard to distinguish from people yelling in delight or grief). A drunk driving check point could also be placed outside the facility and shift some of the responsibility to the police.
Have all alcohol compliance inspectors or supervisors document where they have visited so they can have a running log (i.e. 10 minutes at stand A, watched 40 transaction, everyone appearing under 30 carded and two patrons denied) to demonstrate that they were actively monitoring what was occurring.
Utilize a hand stamp on a patron’s hand indicating that they are showing signs of intoxication and a subsequent server can ask to see the person’s hand for a stamp before serving them.
Petition state representatives to change the dram shop laws so that stadiums, arenas, and other large public assembly facilities are treated differently compared with a bar.
Have the teams/events, facility management, security, concessionaires, and others meet to create a seamless division of responsibility and overlapping safeguards in place so that if any patron can fool one group there is a backup group that can serve as a second line of defense.
Beer is an integral component of sporting/concert events and helps countless fans enjoy the game/event. Will patrons get drunk at events/facilities? The answer is of course yes! Everyday people get drunk all over the world, since it is not illegal to drink in most countries. One study indicated that 5-7 percent of fans at one stadium in Canada were intoxicated enough to demonstrate signs of intoxication. However, patrons can be intoxicated without ever purchasing alcohol from a concession stand or vendor. Under the potential Verni precedent (if the case had not been overturned on appeal) everyone affiliated with the event would be liable for any unlawful act undertaken by a patron (whether inside or outside the facility) even if the patron never purchased a drink and snuck their drinks in or were intoxicated before arriving at the facility. This would force facilities to check patrons before entering the facility and not allow fans with erratic behavior into the facility (as well as expel and take the keys from anyone who acts overly exuberant during and after the event). This could raise countless legal issues such as discrimination, violation of the American’s with Disability Act, and liability for excluding someone from the facility if that person then gets into an accident upon leaving the facility. This is not what the law is designed to accomplish and will lead to countless frivolous claims that would destroy the industry.
(Author's note...This article comes from a different perspective as I was the expert witness for Aramark in this case.)
The stunning verdict in the Verni case against Aramark and other defendants has shook the entire concession and facility management industry. The case involved a drunk driver (with three prior drunk driving convictions) who caused a serious injury to a passenger in another car in an accident almost three hours after leaving the Meadowlands. Before the accident, the driver stopped by a liquor store, a fast food restaurant, and two bars. During the trial, the Plaintiffs’ lawyer painted the Meadowland’s and it concessionaire as a proverbial “den of inequity” full of drunks and fostering a “drunken environment.” This portrayal helped convince a jury to award the largest Dram Shop verdict in United States history, $109 million verdict against Aramark.
Aramark appealed the decision and an appellate court overturned the lower courts’ decision in 2006. The appellate court concluded that the Plaintiffs produced no evidence that the driver purchased beer or that he was served when he was visibly intoxicated. The court stated, “[E]vidence of drunken attendees is inadmissible. It does not account for the possibility that patrons may have consumed the alcohol off premises, before the game at a tailgate event, or that the alcohol was purchased by a sober patron who supplied it to an intoxicated patron.” The parties settled the case in 2007, and the final amount was not disclosed. The fact that the case was successfully appealed limits how useful the case can serve as a precedent because neither side can claim that the court has clearly indicated the “industry standard” that should be applied when examining dram shop cases involving sport facilities.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer skillfully isolated Aramark as the “big bad guys” to increase jury sympathy and paint the case as a large greedy corporation against a poor, disabled child. However, his arguments also attacked the entire industry and painted the concession industry as a group of greedy businesses interested in maximizing profits while showing absolutely no regard for patrons. Some of his claims could be interpreted by the jury to mean:
Not every server was recertified by TIPS and some servers had served beers prior to receiving TIPS training (but servers could have had other training or prior beer service experience without formal training).
Every server should have been TIPS certified even those who only accepted cash in a food service line where beer was also sold.
TIPS maintained lists of employees needing recertification rather than Aramark.
Any difference from strategy encouraged by TIPS was an alleged violation of industry standards.
Every stand that served alcohol should have had more supervision.
Every time someone was denied service, the denial should have been documented.
There should have been more alcohol compliance inspectors (possibly one supervisor for every two or three stands).
Aramark should be liable for anyone intoxicated in the facility even if the patron did not purchase a single beverage from Aramark.
Aramark alcohol compliance personnel should have documented every instance where they observed a beer server selling more than two beers, selling to someone who might have appeared intoxicated, or who might have been underage.
Compliance personnel should have been TIPS trained and he eluded that police alcohol training was not equivalent to TIPS training.
Aramark and/or its beer servers could have taken patron keys if they appeared intoxicated.
Stand supervisors and/or alcohol compliance personnel should have followed patrons who might appear intoxicated to make sure they do not purchase any alcohol at another stand or obtain alcohol from other sources-such as someone giving a friend a beer.
Beer servers did not spend enough time with purchasers to adequately evaluate if they showed signs of intoxication.
Designated driver programs should have been available not just at the start of the game, but also when the game ended.
A stadium was not really any different than a bar and that even though a stadium might serve 60,000 beers in a game, they should be held to the same standard as a bar that sold only 40 beers during the same time period.
Some problems with the claims raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel include:
It would almost be impossible to both sell beer and process all the paperwork that might be required to monitor thousands of transactions and customers.
The extra personnel required to implement some of the suggested tactics would probably drive the cost of beer to $15.00 or more a cup and could lead to increased violence and people sneaking alcohol into the facility (even with searches).
There is no mention of the other parties to the game/event experience which includes the facility owners/management, police, facility tenants, and security companies.
He painted the beer servers as heartless people interested in maximizing their revenue versus the testimony which showed the servers were dedicated employees who were not interested in taking any bribes or violating any policies for fear of losing their jobs.
The beer servers who testified indicated what were some signs of intoxication they looked for and that such knowledge can exist regardless of whether or not someone is TIPS (or TEAM) trained (this does not mean that training is not important, but training should not be the only criteria for establishing a concessionaires guilt or innocence).
It is not illegal for someone to be intoxicated in the facility, it is only illegal when they operate a vehicle or engage in other illegal activity.
Patrons might act intoxicated through engaging in activities such as yelling, but they might not have had anything to drink and are just excited.
Thus, plaintiffs’ attorney painted a wholly unrealistic image of the concession industry, but one that a jury could buy and conclude that Aramark was evil and needs to be punished.
Based on the arguments or lack-thereof, several potential strategies could be developed that could help prevent similar claims. It should be noted that these are not industry standards and are only risk management strategies suggested by one individual.
Have digital cameras monitor the exit ways when people are leaving the facility. The driver in the Verni case supposedly left the facility before the game ended and there were only two exits open before the game ends. If these areas were monitored (they were manned) it could have been beneficial to have video showing if someone was leaving and could barely stand as plaintiffs’ attorney claimed.
Have cameras as well as police monitor those leaving the parking lot to spot erratic behavior from poor driving to people yelling incoherently (which might be hard to distinguish from people yelling in delight or grief). A drunk driving check point could also be placed outside the facility and shift some of the responsibility to the police.
Have all alcohol compliance inspectors or supervisors document where they have visited so they can have a running log (i.e. 10 minutes at stand A, watched 40 transaction, everyone appearing under 30 carded and two patrons denied) to demonstrate that they were actively monitoring what was occurring.
Utilize a hand stamp on a patron’s hand indicating that they are showing signs of intoxication and a subsequent server can ask to see the person’s hand for a stamp before serving them.
Petition state representatives to change the dram shop laws so that stadiums, arenas, and other large public assembly facilities are treated differently compared with a bar.
Have the teams/events, facility management, security, concessionaires, and others meet to create a seamless division of responsibility and overlapping safeguards in place so that if any patron can fool one group there is a backup group that can serve as a second line of defense.
Beer is an integral component of sporting/concert events and helps countless fans enjoy the game/event. Will patrons get drunk at events/facilities? The answer is of course yes! Everyday people get drunk all over the world, since it is not illegal to drink in most countries. One study indicated that 5-7 percent of fans at one stadium in Canada were intoxicated enough to demonstrate signs of intoxication. However, patrons can be intoxicated without ever purchasing alcohol from a concession stand or vendor. Under the potential Verni precedent (if the case had not been overturned on appeal) everyone affiliated with the event would be liable for any unlawful act undertaken by a patron (whether inside or outside the facility) even if the patron never purchased a drink and snuck their drinks in or were intoxicated before arriving at the facility. This would force facilities to check patrons before entering the facility and not allow fans with erratic behavior into the facility (as well as expel and take the keys from anyone who acts overly exuberant during and after the event). This could raise countless legal issues such as discrimination, violation of the American’s with Disability Act, and liability for excluding someone from the facility if that person then gets into an accident upon leaving the facility. This is not what the law is designed to accomplish and will lead to countless frivolous claims that would destroy the industry.
MRSA concerns
MRSA around the facility and locker room
Gil Fried, Professor, University of New Haven
Special Consultant, Widerman Insurance
Gil Fried, Professor, University of New Haven
Special Consultant, Widerman Insurance
It is all over the media. Schools, hospitals, government agencies, and other entities are now scrambling to deal with an issue that for years was a concern, but was on the back burners. Staph infections have been around for years and were looked at primarily as a concern around hospitals. A specific type of Staph infection has generated significant media coverage and it is called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. MRSA infections are usually manifested as skin infections, such as pimples and/or boils, and can occur in otherwise health individuals.
A government report last month found that more than 94,000 Americans get potentially deadly Staph infections each year. Of these victims, nearly 19,000 died as MRSA is resistant to many antibiotics. It should be noted that 85% of these cases are connected to health care related facilities. The virus is so dangerous because it can live on all types of environments from towels to lockers and everything in between.
Having an MRSA outbreak does not mean you have a poor facility. Over the past ten years there have been outbreaks in elementary school gyms to NFL locker rooms. In 2003 a Lycoming College football player died from a bloodstream infection linked to MRSA bacteria. In 2004 newspapers reported that some members of the Denver Broncos came down with the virus and future hall-of-fame player Junior Seau allegedly caught it while playing for the Miami Dolphins.
In 2007, a former college football player sued Iona College over an antibiotic-resistant staph infection that nearly cost him his leg. The player, Nick Zaffarese, accused team trainers of initially brushing off his burgeoning MRSA, infection in September 2005. He claims that the team's locker room was an unsanitary environment in which players shared towels and equipment. While the College disputes the allegations, it recently disinfected a weight room and went over hygiene advice after 10 members of an athletic team (including a coach) were diagnosed with MRSA in September. The lawsuit seeks more than $250,000 in damages.
Other cases have sprung up around the country including:
Three students in Detroit were diagnosed with MRSA,
School officials disinfected a locker room in Indiana after a student was diagnosed,
At least six football players at a North Carolina high school were diagnosed and the school sanitized the locker room and equipment,
Five fencers at a club in Denver were infected,
Two football players diagnosed with the disease at a college in Los Angeles,
Two wrestlers at a high school in Indiana came down with MRSA, and
Numerous outbreaks all across the country affecting from 1-40 students have been reported.
MRSA is not something that can be caught only from close physical contact. In fact, three of the biggest concerns have involved minimal human-to-human contact. Shaving is one of the big concerns. Many swimmers and cyclists shave their bodies and each time someone shaves they are creating micro-abrasions that can quickly become infected. Body shaving according to one study increases the chance of MRSA infection by 43%. A similar concern exists with body piercing. With the growth of body piercing, more and more athletes have open wounds that can easily become infected. Lastly, surfaces from diving boards to fake grass (whether on a playing field or on walking areas) can help spread the disease. One study highlighted that those who suffered from turf burns from products such as AstroTurf are seven times more likely to catch the disease. In early 2006, GeneralSports Venue (GSV), the exclusive U.S. licensee of the AstroTurf brand, offered TurfAide™ from SportCoatings (a state-of-the-art antimicrobial protection), as an optional component for AstroTurf fields. As of October 2007, it became standard on all new AstroTurf systems.
How can you minimize the chance of having MRSA spread or develop in your facility? The answers are common sense cleanliness, but it should be pointed out that viruses live on all surfaces and we are exposed to them on a regular basis.
Potential solutions for combating MRSA include:
Rubberized flooring that is specifically treated to deal with infectious diseases,
Sanitizing/disinfecting surfaces on a regular basis to kill various viruses from MRSA to Hepatitis strains,
Encouraging facility users to wash their hands frequently with soap or hand sanitizers,
Use air blowers rather than paper towels for drying hands,
Discourage facility users from sharing personal items such as shavers, soap, combs, clippers, etc…, and
Thoroughly wash towels at a hot enough temperature (over 160 degrees) to make sure they are clean.
Another major solution is properly training the staff. If staff members understand why they are cleaning surfaces, they might be more inclined to give their best effort. In 2005 staff members at the Dollan Aqua Centre (Scotland) were faced with a crisis. Traces of MRSA were found on a cafeteria table, a toilet handle, and a female locker after a secret investigation by a Sunday newspaper. Unacceptable high risk levels of MRSA are deemed to be anything above 0.5 colonies per square centimeter - the amount found in the female locker at the Dollan was 2.2. Management’s challenge was to get the staff to make sure strict cleaning procedures were adhered to on a regular basis.
Improper Conduct
The NonProfit Tomes highlighted today another embarrassing episode of executive misconduct. This time it was the President/CEO of the American Red Cross. While no one is immune from such conduct, the higher someone is located on the organizational chart the bigger their fall. Sport is not immune from such conduct and such cases have appeared every year.
The president and CEO of The American Red Cross (ARC) is out after less than a year --involved in an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate. The ARC Board of Governors has appointed Mary S. Elcano, general counsel, as interim president and CEO.
The board of governors, convened in an emergency conference call, asked for and today received the resignation of Mark W. Everson.
"Although this is difficult and disappointing news for the Red Cross community, the organization remains strong and the life-saving mission and work of the American Red Cross will go forward," said Chairman Bonnie McElveen-Hunter,, in a statement.
Everson, the former commissioner of the IRS, had been in the position for less than six months. He is the ARC's eighth CEO or interim CEO in 12 years.
"I am resigning my position for personal and family reasons, and deeply regret it is impossible for me to continue in a job so recently undertaken," said Everson, in a statement. "I leave with extraordinary admiration for the Red Cross." He could not immediately be reached for additional comment
"Everyone here is shocked," said one ARC official who declined to be identified. "Everyone had so much invested in this guy and he does this," the official said.
The ARC board met via conference call today during which Everson immediately resigned, according to another insider.
The resignation comes just as the ARC's image was being restored with legislators in Washington, D.C. "He was the IRS commissioner and we wasted a lot of time and political on him," said another insider.
NPT Publishing Group 201 Littleton Road 2nd Floor Morris Plains, NJ 07950
The president and CEO of The American Red Cross (ARC) is out after less than a year --involved in an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate. The ARC Board of Governors has appointed Mary S. Elcano, general counsel, as interim president and CEO.
The board of governors, convened in an emergency conference call, asked for and today received the resignation of Mark W. Everson.
"Although this is difficult and disappointing news for the Red Cross community, the organization remains strong and the life-saving mission and work of the American Red Cross will go forward," said Chairman Bonnie McElveen-Hunter,, in a statement.
Everson, the former commissioner of the IRS, had been in the position for less than six months. He is the ARC's eighth CEO or interim CEO in 12 years.
"I am resigning my position for personal and family reasons, and deeply regret it is impossible for me to continue in a job so recently undertaken," said Everson, in a statement. "I leave with extraordinary admiration for the Red Cross." He could not immediately be reached for additional comment
"Everyone here is shocked," said one ARC official who declined to be identified. "Everyone had so much invested in this guy and he does this," the official said.
The ARC board met via conference call today during which Everson immediately resigned, according to another insider.
The resignation comes just as the ARC's image was being restored with legislators in Washington, D.C. "He was the IRS commissioner and we wasted a lot of time and political on him," said another insider.
NPT Publishing Group 201 Littleton Road 2nd Floor Morris Plains, NJ 07950
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
How Good/Bad are the New York Giants
Too Cocky by Tom Chieppo (Graduate Student at UNH)
When I look at The New York Giants, I see a team that needs to be
disciplined. Why? Well, because they talk more instead of accomplishing more.
I don't like when a team talks a lot and can't back up what they're saying,
and I find it disgraceful. Stop trying to break the opposing teams by trash talking
because its not working. When trash talking happens, the Giants commit too
many stupid penalties such as penalties and the Giants lead the league in penalties.
I understand that getting inside your opponents head can become
motivation for your team; however, they give up against winning football teams
like The Dallas Cowboys and The Green Bay Packers because they get bullied by
them. The Giants feel that they're the kings of the playground, but they're not
proving it on the field.
Tom Coughlin, the coach of The N.Y. Giants needs to be the angry
coach that he was before. Coughlin has to shake up this team and tell them to
stop being big shots and start focusing on the game of football. If I were the
head coach of the Giants, I would tell my team that their attitudes
are unacceptable. I would also tell them, "when we play hard as a team, we don't win football
games, but playing smart football will win more games." This organization needs to get on
a role because New England will be here before the Giants know it and the
Pats will tear the heads off the Giants. The player's need to get serious if they
want to keep Tom Coughlin's job past this season.
When I look at The New York Giants, I see a team that needs to be
disciplined. Why? Well, because they talk more instead of accomplishing more.
I don't like when a team talks a lot and can't back up what they're saying,
and I find it disgraceful. Stop trying to break the opposing teams by trash talking
because its not working. When trash talking happens, the Giants commit too
many stupid penalties such as penalties and the Giants lead the league in penalties.
I understand that getting inside your opponents head can become
motivation for your team; however, they give up against winning football teams
like The Dallas Cowboys and The Green Bay Packers because they get bullied by
them. The Giants feel that they're the kings of the playground, but they're not
proving it on the field.
Tom Coughlin, the coach of The N.Y. Giants needs to be the angry
coach that he was before. Coughlin has to shake up this team and tell them to
stop being big shots and start focusing on the game of football. If I were the
head coach of the Giants, I would tell my team that their attitudes
are unacceptable. I would also tell them, "when we play hard as a team, we don't win football
games, but playing smart football will win more games." This organization needs to get on
a role because New England will be here before the Giants know it and the
Pats will tear the heads off the Giants. The player's need to get serious if they
want to keep Tom Coughlin's job past this season.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Good Sports?
In Tampa, Florida the Florida High School Athletic Association fined Jefferson and Alonso High Schools for a fight that broke out after a junior varsity football game on October 4, 2007.
The FHSAA sent letters to the schools last week.
Jefferson was fined $1,500:
• 4 counts of gross unsporting conduct ($250 each)
• failure to comply with FHSAA sportsmanship policies ($500)
Alonso was fined $1,100:
• 2 counts of gross unsporting conduct ($250 each)
• 1 count of regular unsporting conduct ($100)
• failure to comply with FHSAA sportsmanship policies ($500)
The fight started when both teams lined up for their post game handshakes. The item that I like about this decision is that the students have to pay. According to Jefferson athletic director Bob Morgan, Hillsborough County School District policy dictates:
“If a student athlete is fined from FHSAA for general or gross unsportsmanlike conduct, then the student is responsible for the fines.” Lets make it hurt. You throw a punch, it is $500 per punch and it goes to a designated charity. The athletic director should be forced to sign an affidavit that the money came from the student and not their parents or others. This way, if you throw a punch and do not have the money to pay the fine, then you have to leave the team, bet a job, and work it off. Such a system would punish the offenders where it hurts and discourage others from doing the same in the future.
Gil-
The FHSAA sent letters to the schools last week.
Jefferson was fined $1,500:
• 4 counts of gross unsporting conduct ($250 each)
• failure to comply with FHSAA sportsmanship policies ($500)
Alonso was fined $1,100:
• 2 counts of gross unsporting conduct ($250 each)
• 1 count of regular unsporting conduct ($100)
• failure to comply with FHSAA sportsmanship policies ($500)
The fight started when both teams lined up for their post game handshakes. The item that I like about this decision is that the students have to pay. According to Jefferson athletic director Bob Morgan, Hillsborough County School District policy dictates:
“If a student athlete is fined from FHSAA for general or gross unsportsmanlike conduct, then the student is responsible for the fines.” Lets make it hurt. You throw a punch, it is $500 per punch and it goes to a designated charity. The athletic director should be forced to sign an affidavit that the money came from the student and not their parents or others. This way, if you throw a punch and do not have the money to pay the fine, then you have to leave the team, bet a job, and work it off. Such a system would punish the offenders where it hurts and discourage others from doing the same in the future.
Gil-
Boys playing with Girls
The following story highlights one of the tricky issues associated with gender equity and the problems that can arise when someone tries to rock the boat--the others in the boat fight back.
Times Herald-Record November 07, 2007
Pine Bush — Before the first serve sails over the net today at SUNY New Paltz, before the first spike hits the floor, controversy will overshadow the start of Pine Bush's quest for a state volleyball title. The six-time Section 9 champs will file a protest with the match officials before taking the court against Section 4 (Binghamton area) champ Horseheads in a Class AA opening-round match at 5:45 p.m.
The reason?
His name is Kyle Ray.
He's a 5-foot-8, 140 pound junior, and the starting setter for Horseheads' volleyball team.
And even though state regulations allow him to take the court, Pine Bush is crying foul.
"It's just not fair," said senior setter Kourtney Clark.
"I don't think that boys should be playing girls' volleyball," said coach Lori Kachelmeyer. "They're stronger, they're faster, they can jump higher and they're just physically more advanced than women are. That's just the way it is, and I'm a woman."
Horseheads insists it is merely abiding by state rules, as well as the precedent set by Title IX, which requires equal athletic opportunities for both genders.
"We followed every step that the state required," said athletic director Mike Johnston. "We hid nothing. I don't know what else we're supposed to do."
Horseheads coach Patti Perone said it's a no-win situation.
"If you don't (let a boy play), you're going to get sued. If you do, you're going to be ridiculed," Perone said.
Since Horseheads doesn't have a boys' volleyball team, Ray has the right to play on the girls' team, according to the rules on mixed competition set by the state Education Department.
The regulations also mandate that Ray had to take a fitness test before trying out to prove that he wouldn't have an unfair physical advantage. The test was administered by a panel that included Horseheads High principal Jim Abrams, Johnston, a school physician and a physical education teacher. They cleared him to play.
The story went on from there. I am of the opinion that if we let women play in men's sports then we should allow men to play in women's sport as long as we cap the number for both gender. That means that we can have two or three women on men's team and the same number of men on women's teams. If you do not put a limit, what is there to prevent the women's volleyball team from being an all male team?
Gil-
Times Herald-Record November 07, 2007
Pine Bush — Before the first serve sails over the net today at SUNY New Paltz, before the first spike hits the floor, controversy will overshadow the start of Pine Bush's quest for a state volleyball title. The six-time Section 9 champs will file a protest with the match officials before taking the court against Section 4 (Binghamton area) champ Horseheads in a Class AA opening-round match at 5:45 p.m.
The reason?
His name is Kyle Ray.
He's a 5-foot-8, 140 pound junior, and the starting setter for Horseheads' volleyball team.
And even though state regulations allow him to take the court, Pine Bush is crying foul.
"It's just not fair," said senior setter Kourtney Clark.
"I don't think that boys should be playing girls' volleyball," said coach Lori Kachelmeyer. "They're stronger, they're faster, they can jump higher and they're just physically more advanced than women are. That's just the way it is, and I'm a woman."
Horseheads insists it is merely abiding by state rules, as well as the precedent set by Title IX, which requires equal athletic opportunities for both genders.
"We followed every step that the state required," said athletic director Mike Johnston. "We hid nothing. I don't know what else we're supposed to do."
Horseheads coach Patti Perone said it's a no-win situation.
"If you don't (let a boy play), you're going to get sued. If you do, you're going to be ridiculed," Perone said.
Since Horseheads doesn't have a boys' volleyball team, Ray has the right to play on the girls' team, according to the rules on mixed competition set by the state Education Department.
The regulations also mandate that Ray had to take a fitness test before trying out to prove that he wouldn't have an unfair physical advantage. The test was administered by a panel that included Horseheads High principal Jim Abrams, Johnston, a school physician and a physical education teacher. They cleared him to play.
The story went on from there. I am of the opinion that if we let women play in men's sports then we should allow men to play in women's sport as long as we cap the number for both gender. That means that we can have two or three women on men's team and the same number of men on women's teams. If you do not put a limit, what is there to prevent the women's volleyball team from being an all male team?
Gil-
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Get out Safely
A fans’ guide to safety in public assembly facilities
We all want to be safe and there are many safe places to go in life. However, we all know that many injuries occur in our own home, even though we know or think we know it is safe. The safety factor is magnified when we are in an unfamiliar environment and might get disoriented based on light (or lack thereof), noise, people, smoke, and/or drugs/alcohol. The tragic fire at The Station night club highlights this fact.
The following quick guide is designed to highlight some safety strategies that can make going to your next event safer for you and those around you. These strategies are based on actual cases or incidents that have been handled by the author or uncovered while doing research on several books.
Go in groups and try to wear distinctive clothing that help everyone stand out. Group members should identify where they should meet if they have to leave the facility in a rush.
Before arriving at the facility remember where you parked and if there are multiple vehicle exit ways in case there is a traffic related concern. Parking close to an exit might make your walk longer to the facility, but your exiting will take less time.
Check facility before hand to examine where it is located, physical shape, sloped floors, mushy environment (grass or mud) due to rain, etc.. All such conditions can cause harm. Never undertake any activity without knowing the risks. One case I handled involved a kid who was mud sliding at a concert and he did not know that at the bottom of the hill there was a drainage pipe he did not see. He was seriously injured when he slid head first into the pipe.
When you enter a facility locate all the nearby exits as the place where you entered might not be the closest or easiest exit.
If you are in a ball park examine where you are seated to determine if you are at risk of being hit by a foul ball. While the area behind home plate is usually screened, the most dangerous area is down the first and third base line. If you are seating in those areas pay close attention to the game to avoid serious injury from flying bats and balls.
If you are at a rock concert that has general admission (festival) seating, make sure you are not standing by the railing in front of the stage. A patron can be trapped with little room to move by the barriers and can likely face other patrons bumping into them when they are dancing. If you feel unsafe tell the security person at the railing that you want to be lifted out. Make sure you have plenty of fluids to drink or ask security for water as people are often dehydrated in the pit area. If you want to be near “the action” try staying by the sides rather than the middle (in front of the stage) to avoid being hit when mosh pits form or people start pushing forward to the stage area.
Consider special issues such as children or those with disabilities since it might take longer to get them out of a facility. Some facilities have special alcoves for disabled patrons to wait for evacuation. When you enter a facility make sure you ask an employee what strategies or issues you should know if there is an emergency.
Consider the time of the year as in winter we usually wear coats which gives us more weight and increases our size-which impacts our movement. It should be noted that an average stairway used to be 44 inches wide so that two people can walk up together. However, when we walk down we take more that 22 inches of space with our hip movement. This phenomenon was seen during 9/11 when it was hard for people to go down the stairs and people had to move to the side to allow firefighters to go up the stairs.
Know the facility’s rules such as any code of conduct so you know all the rules you need to follow to have a good time and to avoid being expelled from the facility. Also remember that the security personnel and ushers are trying to do a job and protect people. Thus, treat them with respect and listen to their instructions.
Always watch for crowded aisleways and report such conditions to an usher or security personnel. Similarly you should report any suspicious behavior, drunken fans that are bothering others, those using excessive vulgarity/swearing, and criminal activity. People go to public assembly facilities to have fun and you are one of the key links that can help make sure everyone is having fun.
Since your goal is fun, remember to keep your cool. Do not get stressed out by lines or delays. Do not push others or try to wiggle your way in. Just remember, is it worth the possible loss of life (yours or someone else’s) just so you get to your seat one minute earlier?
We cannot make a facility 100% safe. However, we can take steps to understand and appreciate our environment which will help us maintain our own sense of safety and allow us to quickly respond to hazards.
We all want to be safe and there are many safe places to go in life. However, we all know that many injuries occur in our own home, even though we know or think we know it is safe. The safety factor is magnified when we are in an unfamiliar environment and might get disoriented based on light (or lack thereof), noise, people, smoke, and/or drugs/alcohol. The tragic fire at The Station night club highlights this fact.
The following quick guide is designed to highlight some safety strategies that can make going to your next event safer for you and those around you. These strategies are based on actual cases or incidents that have been handled by the author or uncovered while doing research on several books.
Go in groups and try to wear distinctive clothing that help everyone stand out. Group members should identify where they should meet if they have to leave the facility in a rush.
Before arriving at the facility remember where you parked and if there are multiple vehicle exit ways in case there is a traffic related concern. Parking close to an exit might make your walk longer to the facility, but your exiting will take less time.
Check facility before hand to examine where it is located, physical shape, sloped floors, mushy environment (grass or mud) due to rain, etc.. All such conditions can cause harm. Never undertake any activity without knowing the risks. One case I handled involved a kid who was mud sliding at a concert and he did not know that at the bottom of the hill there was a drainage pipe he did not see. He was seriously injured when he slid head first into the pipe.
When you enter a facility locate all the nearby exits as the place where you entered might not be the closest or easiest exit.
If you are in a ball park examine where you are seated to determine if you are at risk of being hit by a foul ball. While the area behind home plate is usually screened, the most dangerous area is down the first and third base line. If you are seating in those areas pay close attention to the game to avoid serious injury from flying bats and balls.
If you are at a rock concert that has general admission (festival) seating, make sure you are not standing by the railing in front of the stage. A patron can be trapped with little room to move by the barriers and can likely face other patrons bumping into them when they are dancing. If you feel unsafe tell the security person at the railing that you want to be lifted out. Make sure you have plenty of fluids to drink or ask security for water as people are often dehydrated in the pit area. If you want to be near “the action” try staying by the sides rather than the middle (in front of the stage) to avoid being hit when mosh pits form or people start pushing forward to the stage area.
Consider special issues such as children or those with disabilities since it might take longer to get them out of a facility. Some facilities have special alcoves for disabled patrons to wait for evacuation. When you enter a facility make sure you ask an employee what strategies or issues you should know if there is an emergency.
Consider the time of the year as in winter we usually wear coats which gives us more weight and increases our size-which impacts our movement. It should be noted that an average stairway used to be 44 inches wide so that two people can walk up together. However, when we walk down we take more that 22 inches of space with our hip movement. This phenomenon was seen during 9/11 when it was hard for people to go down the stairs and people had to move to the side to allow firefighters to go up the stairs.
Know the facility’s rules such as any code of conduct so you know all the rules you need to follow to have a good time and to avoid being expelled from the facility. Also remember that the security personnel and ushers are trying to do a job and protect people. Thus, treat them with respect and listen to their instructions.
Always watch for crowded aisleways and report such conditions to an usher or security personnel. Similarly you should report any suspicious behavior, drunken fans that are bothering others, those using excessive vulgarity/swearing, and criminal activity. People go to public assembly facilities to have fun and you are one of the key links that can help make sure everyone is having fun.
Since your goal is fun, remember to keep your cool. Do not get stressed out by lines or delays. Do not push others or try to wiggle your way in. Just remember, is it worth the possible loss of life (yours or someone else’s) just so you get to your seat one minute earlier?
We cannot make a facility 100% safe. However, we can take steps to understand and appreciate our environment which will help us maintain our own sense of safety and allow us to quickly respond to hazards.
The Problem with Sport Industry Standards
This article will be published shortly in a defense attorney publication, but I felt it was important to convey the concern associated with sport industry standards.
One of the most annoying issues faced by many defense attorneys are expert witnesses who highlight an alleged industry standard-that does not exist. This article will focus on some key steps to verify if alleged standards exists in the sport, recreational, and athletic fields. The article is based on serving as an expert in numerous cases and listening to or reading testimony from alleged experts who claim that a standard exists and are proud to highlight which organization produced the alleged standard. They possibly thought that if it is published, it is a standard. The problem with such an approach is that numerous alleged standards in the industry are inaccurate or not followed.
One of the problems is that there are not a significant number of government regulations in the sport industry. Some government standards exists for certain industries such as boxing commission rules or licensing requirements for a given industry. Pools are one of the most regulated facilities and states/municipalities typically have significant rules relating to everything from the number of lifeguards needed to water chemical and clarity requirements. Furthermore, some physical education regulations require testing or even indicate how student testing should be conducted. Outside of these easier to find and prove standards, the industry is like the Wild West. For example, there are numerous testing organizations offering licensure or certification for personal trainers. Without critically reviewing the actual education and certification validity, an expert could claim that a personal trainer could meet the industry standard of being certified. However, under scrutiny it could be proven that the trainer should not have been working with any clients since they did not have the fundamental skills that a majority of personal trainers possess. That has been the hallmark of an industry standard-what do a majority of similar facilities, entities, or individuals follow?
A majority of cases I handle deal with facility related concerns. This is an area fraught with inappropriate standards. I am on record at numerous trials and depositions that something is not a standard unless around seven out of ten facilities in a give area engage in that conduct. This “standard” would invalidate many published standards. The following represent just a sample of alleged standards that are not really standards.
Gym air quality
In one case in the south, a basketball player dove for a basketball and hit his head against another player’s knee. The injury spawned a significant paraplegia claim. The opposing expert claimed the gym violated the standards set fourth by the American College of Sport Medicine (ACSM). The ACSM has published a standards/guideline book since the mid 1990s and it is in its third edition. The standards are not developed through testing or comprehensive industry surveys, but by what some people working on the publication think is appropriate. Of course this is not a legal defensible manner of developing anything that can be claimed as a standard. The alleged standard that was violated was the facility’s humidity level and temperature were too high. Since I have written a textbook on sport facility management I knew that I had never seen any studies on this topic. I asked the book’s editor where the numbers came from and it turns out they were from a book on office buildings, which have a completely different engineering, ventilation system, heat load, and other significant differences. Upon examination, the opposing expert was not able to prove that there was a specific industry standard for gymnasiums that was violated.
Crowd Management
In several defense cases I have handled involving crowd misbehavior at stadiums and concert venues, opposing experts have claimed that the facilities had violate the standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The NFPA does significant good for the facility industry and some of their standards for fire suppression systems are widely adopted by various public agencies/officials. However, not all their standards are universally accepted. The NFPA requires large facilities to undergo a Life Safety Audit if they utilize general admission seating. I thoroughly support having a detailed safety audit conducted for every facility. However, the requirements of the Life Safety Audit, if mandated by a local government official, is a daunting and comprehensive document that could take weeks to prepare. Through all my research into these audits, many facility managers have never heard of them, but also I have not been able to find a completed example-even after asking for one from the NFPA. Thus, can it be an industry standard when there are few if any practioners in the industry who even know how to comply with the alleged standard?
The NFPA standards, in my perspective, lost a significant amount of their perceived teeth when they were significantly changed after The Station fire in Rhode Island back in 2003. Prior to the fire some of the key safety standards applied to public assembly facilities with an occupancy load of over 1,000 people. However, after the fire the same standards were changed to apply to facilities with occupancy loads of 250. Does that mean that the initial “standards” were wrong and needed to be downgraded? If the “standard” was reduced 75 percent after one incident, does that cast doubt on all the associated standards?
Stadium Screening/Fencing
In my earlier years I had believed in some of the industry standards that were out there. One such standard was that there should be an eight foot high fence surrounding a baseball field. That standard was developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
6.5.1 [T]he top of the fence shall be a minimum of 8 ft, 0 in. (2.44m) above grade or a greater dimension that ensures protection of spectators from a fouled line drive or related trajectory.
6.7.4 [T]he backstop height and width may vary depending on the type of ball being played, the size and height of the spectator area around it….The minimum width of the panels is dependent upon the structural design supporting the chain-link or net fabric.
7.3 [T]he spectator fence shall be located where spectators will congregate to
watch the game or in front of bleachers of an 8 ft height or of a sufficient height to
protect spectators at the highest point of the bleachers. Standard Guide for Fences
for Ballfields and Other Sports Facilities, AMERCIAN SOCIETY FOR
TESTING AND MATERIALS. F-2000-00a (2000).
My faith in the standard was significantly diminished when I discovered that the standard was not developed by experts in the baseball security area-such as facility managers, but rather by individuals in the manufacturing industry. Thus, people who have a potential bias to sell more fencing would be trying to require others to buy additional fencing to meet the standard. That is not why standards are developed. Standards are developed to protect an industry by showing what is done in an industry not what an external entity or group (except government entities) would like them to do. Needless to say, in all my years in the sport facility industry I have not seen a single field that has met this standard.
These are just a sampling of some standards that do not really exist. When exploring retaining an expert or challenging an opposing expert, focus on what proof they have that there actually is a standard. Can they prove that seven out of ten facilities, coaches, programs, etc… act in a given manner? If they cannot prove with tangible evidence that an industry acts in a given manner, then that standard is probably worthless. Similarly, when noticing an expert’s deposition it is beneficial to ask for production of any research that supports their opinions. If the expert is from an academic institution and they have conducted any research, you should also ask for any approval they might have received from their institutional review board. Many universities have such boards to approve research instruments/procedures to make sure they do not harm people/animals and that all questions/procedures are appropriate.
As highlighted in this brief article, there are a number of problems with some alleged industry standards. The problem also extends to uninformed or unscrupulous expert witnesses who will prey on attorney and jury ignorance to promote a “non-standard.” However, through aggressive discovery procedures and retaining an honest expert you can rebuff some of these “non-standards.”
Gil Fried is a Professor at the University of New Haven focused on sport and entertainment risk management. His consulting company, Gil Fried & Associates, LLC has been involved in some of the biggest sport cases over the past twenty years. He can be reached through his web page www.gilfried.com.
One of the most annoying issues faced by many defense attorneys are expert witnesses who highlight an alleged industry standard-that does not exist. This article will focus on some key steps to verify if alleged standards exists in the sport, recreational, and athletic fields. The article is based on serving as an expert in numerous cases and listening to or reading testimony from alleged experts who claim that a standard exists and are proud to highlight which organization produced the alleged standard. They possibly thought that if it is published, it is a standard. The problem with such an approach is that numerous alleged standards in the industry are inaccurate or not followed.
One of the problems is that there are not a significant number of government regulations in the sport industry. Some government standards exists for certain industries such as boxing commission rules or licensing requirements for a given industry. Pools are one of the most regulated facilities and states/municipalities typically have significant rules relating to everything from the number of lifeguards needed to water chemical and clarity requirements. Furthermore, some physical education regulations require testing or even indicate how student testing should be conducted. Outside of these easier to find and prove standards, the industry is like the Wild West. For example, there are numerous testing organizations offering licensure or certification for personal trainers. Without critically reviewing the actual education and certification validity, an expert could claim that a personal trainer could meet the industry standard of being certified. However, under scrutiny it could be proven that the trainer should not have been working with any clients since they did not have the fundamental skills that a majority of personal trainers possess. That has been the hallmark of an industry standard-what do a majority of similar facilities, entities, or individuals follow?
A majority of cases I handle deal with facility related concerns. This is an area fraught with inappropriate standards. I am on record at numerous trials and depositions that something is not a standard unless around seven out of ten facilities in a give area engage in that conduct. This “standard” would invalidate many published standards. The following represent just a sample of alleged standards that are not really standards.
Gym air quality
In one case in the south, a basketball player dove for a basketball and hit his head against another player’s knee. The injury spawned a significant paraplegia claim. The opposing expert claimed the gym violated the standards set fourth by the American College of Sport Medicine (ACSM). The ACSM has published a standards/guideline book since the mid 1990s and it is in its third edition. The standards are not developed through testing or comprehensive industry surveys, but by what some people working on the publication think is appropriate. Of course this is not a legal defensible manner of developing anything that can be claimed as a standard. The alleged standard that was violated was the facility’s humidity level and temperature were too high. Since I have written a textbook on sport facility management I knew that I had never seen any studies on this topic. I asked the book’s editor where the numbers came from and it turns out they were from a book on office buildings, which have a completely different engineering, ventilation system, heat load, and other significant differences. Upon examination, the opposing expert was not able to prove that there was a specific industry standard for gymnasiums that was violated.
Crowd Management
In several defense cases I have handled involving crowd misbehavior at stadiums and concert venues, opposing experts have claimed that the facilities had violate the standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The NFPA does significant good for the facility industry and some of their standards for fire suppression systems are widely adopted by various public agencies/officials. However, not all their standards are universally accepted. The NFPA requires large facilities to undergo a Life Safety Audit if they utilize general admission seating. I thoroughly support having a detailed safety audit conducted for every facility. However, the requirements of the Life Safety Audit, if mandated by a local government official, is a daunting and comprehensive document that could take weeks to prepare. Through all my research into these audits, many facility managers have never heard of them, but also I have not been able to find a completed example-even after asking for one from the NFPA. Thus, can it be an industry standard when there are few if any practioners in the industry who even know how to comply with the alleged standard?
The NFPA standards, in my perspective, lost a significant amount of their perceived teeth when they were significantly changed after The Station fire in Rhode Island back in 2003. Prior to the fire some of the key safety standards applied to public assembly facilities with an occupancy load of over 1,000 people. However, after the fire the same standards were changed to apply to facilities with occupancy loads of 250. Does that mean that the initial “standards” were wrong and needed to be downgraded? If the “standard” was reduced 75 percent after one incident, does that cast doubt on all the associated standards?
Stadium Screening/Fencing
In my earlier years I had believed in some of the industry standards that were out there. One such standard was that there should be an eight foot high fence surrounding a baseball field. That standard was developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
6.5.1 [T]he top of the fence shall be a minimum of 8 ft, 0 in. (2.44m) above grade or a greater dimension that ensures protection of spectators from a fouled line drive or related trajectory.
6.7.4 [T]he backstop height and width may vary depending on the type of ball being played, the size and height of the spectator area around it….The minimum width of the panels is dependent upon the structural design supporting the chain-link or net fabric.
7.3 [T]he spectator fence shall be located where spectators will congregate to
watch the game or in front of bleachers of an 8 ft height or of a sufficient height to
protect spectators at the highest point of the bleachers. Standard Guide for Fences
for Ballfields and Other Sports Facilities, AMERCIAN SOCIETY FOR
TESTING AND MATERIALS. F-2000-00a (2000).
My faith in the standard was significantly diminished when I discovered that the standard was not developed by experts in the baseball security area-such as facility managers, but rather by individuals in the manufacturing industry. Thus, people who have a potential bias to sell more fencing would be trying to require others to buy additional fencing to meet the standard. That is not why standards are developed. Standards are developed to protect an industry by showing what is done in an industry not what an external entity or group (except government entities) would like them to do. Needless to say, in all my years in the sport facility industry I have not seen a single field that has met this standard.
These are just a sampling of some standards that do not really exist. When exploring retaining an expert or challenging an opposing expert, focus on what proof they have that there actually is a standard. Can they prove that seven out of ten facilities, coaches, programs, etc… act in a given manner? If they cannot prove with tangible evidence that an industry acts in a given manner, then that standard is probably worthless. Similarly, when noticing an expert’s deposition it is beneficial to ask for production of any research that supports their opinions. If the expert is from an academic institution and they have conducted any research, you should also ask for any approval they might have received from their institutional review board. Many universities have such boards to approve research instruments/procedures to make sure they do not harm people/animals and that all questions/procedures are appropriate.
As highlighted in this brief article, there are a number of problems with some alleged industry standards. The problem also extends to uninformed or unscrupulous expert witnesses who will prey on attorney and jury ignorance to promote a “non-standard.” However, through aggressive discovery procedures and retaining an honest expert you can rebuff some of these “non-standards.”
Gil Fried is a Professor at the University of New Haven focused on sport and entertainment risk management. His consulting company, Gil Fried & Associates, LLC has been involved in some of the biggest sport cases over the past twenty years. He can be reached through his web page www.gilfried.com.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Michigan High Rises
A few years ago Michigan’s athletic director, proposed renovating the Big House, where Michigan plays, for $226 million. The facility is 80 years old and has witnessed The Ohio State University coming in on numerous occasions to beat the lowly team that calls it their home (Yes I am a Buckeye). Included in the renovation plans approved by the university’s trustees earlier this year are new features for the largest stadium in the US: skyboxes and expensive “premium seats."
This proposal has set off a fire storm of people opposed to the plan for several reasons:
The boxes would cost a lot and will not be paid off for more than a generation;
By capping future expansion, through adding the boxes, the "Big House" may eventually lose its status as the country’s biggest stadium-possibly to Ohio State; and/or
U of M should not be the kind of school that sells skyboxes to the rich and should keep its focus on its true fans versus high corporate execs and rich alumni.
I have no problem either way, but this debate will come up again and again as schools fight for revenue and try to extract as much as possible from the money machine that is NCAA athletics at some (very few) schools.
Gil-
This proposal has set off a fire storm of people opposed to the plan for several reasons:
The boxes would cost a lot and will not be paid off for more than a generation;
By capping future expansion, through adding the boxes, the "Big House" may eventually lose its status as the country’s biggest stadium-possibly to Ohio State; and/or
U of M should not be the kind of school that sells skyboxes to the rich and should keep its focus on its true fans versus high corporate execs and rich alumni.
I have no problem either way, but this debate will come up again and again as schools fight for revenue and try to extract as much as possible from the money machine that is NCAA athletics at some (very few) schools.
Gil-
Friday, November 2, 2007
Garcia- Div. I's First Hispanic Female AD
On July 1st, Irma Garcia was promoted from "acting" AD to full-time Athletic Director at St. Francis College. While I applaud her advancement and hope that many can follow in her footsteps, I want to point out a different side of the story. her success was not based on what she did on the field, but hard work and determination. I hear time and time again former athletes saying they want to be sport business executives when they retire. However, have they put in the hard work of getting the right degrees, working the menial jobs (how many would want to pull the tarp to cover the infield during a rain storm?), or working concession stand clean-up. Learning these tasks and doing the work can make you a great leader. Avoiding these tasks because they are beneath you shows that you will never gain the trust of others, which means you will have a hard time leading others.
Garcia put in her dues as a player, then worked elsewhere before returning as a coach in 1988. She retired from coaching in 1999 and has undertaken various administrative positions to work her way to the top. She was promoted after a national search to fill the position. Thus, she did not get the job because she was a great athlete at the college, but through hard work and paying her dues.
I encourage everyone interested in a sport management career to follow her lead. If you really want to be a true leader, pay your dues.
Gil-
Garcia put in her dues as a player, then worked elsewhere before returning as a coach in 1988. She retired from coaching in 1999 and has undertaken various administrative positions to work her way to the top. She was promoted after a national search to fill the position. Thus, she did not get the job because she was a great athlete at the college, but through hard work and paying her dues.
I encourage everyone interested in a sport management career to follow her lead. If you really want to be a true leader, pay your dues.
Gil-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)