Friday, April 27, 2012

The Luongo Contract: Is He A Bargain at $5.3 Million?

It looks like Vancouver Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo is on his way out of Vancouver. According to TSN, he will soon submit a list of teams that he would accept being traded to. Is Luongo tradeable? What of his contract that takes us to 2022 (when robots will feed us and Twitter will be President)?

When Luongo signed his massive deal in 2009, it seemed at that time he might be untradeable.

That, however, is not the case. Let’s take a look.

The Deal

In 2009, Luongo signed a 12 year/$64 million dollar deal. He was 31 years old when he signed the deal, which means by contract’s end he will be 43.

The distribution of pay across the 12 years is as follows:
2010-11: $10 million
2011-12: $6.716 million
2012-13: $6.714 million
2013- 14: $6.714 million
2014-15: $6.714 million
2015-16: $6.714 million
2016-17: $6.714 million
2017-18: $6.714 million
2018-19: $3.382 million
2019-20: $1.618 million
2020-21: $1.0 million
2021-22: $1.0 million

That means his cap hit is $5.333 million. Remember the cap hit is the average yearly salary over the life of the contract and not what a player makes in a specific year.

So it comes down to his cap hit. Back in 2009, the length of the deal (taking Luongo into his early 40s) together with the cap hit made it seem like he wasn’t tradeable. Of course, times – and the salary cap – have changed.

Here are some of the reasons he is now tradeable.

The Rise of the Salary Cap

Yes a cap hit of $5.333 is not chump change in a cap world. However, since the inception of the cap in 2005, the cap has gone up dramatically:
2011-12: $64.3 million.
2010-11: $59.4 million
2009-10: $56.8 million
2008-09: $56.7 million
2007-08: $50.3 million
2006-07: $44 million
2005-06: $39 million

When the adjustment to the players’ share of revenue is made from 57% to about 51.5% (in my estimation) the cap will stay relatively flat or go up or down by about $2 million or so. So this year, there won’t be a big change in the salary cap. However, in coming years, expect it to continue to rise. The NHL continues to grow revenue under the capable watch of NHL COO John Collins. Since he took over in 2006, the NHL’s revenue has grown over a billion dollars. The NHL is enjoying upward momentum and will continue to leverage its Comcast TV deal to grow the game. All signs point to up – for revenue and the cap.

When Luongo signed in 2009, the cap was $56.7 million. Now it’s $64.3 million. So that’s a gain of almost $8 million. There’s a lot more place under the cap to make room for Luongo.

Also ask yourself this: in 2015, what will the cap hit be? Assuming it;s higher, Luongo's deal will look a lot better from a cap standpoint.


Luongo’s $5.3 million cap hit is starting to compare pretty favourably to other goaltenders in the league:

Lundqvist - $6,875,000
Ward - $6,300,000
Miller - $6,250,000
Backstrom - $6,000,000
Kiprusoff - $5,833,333
Bryzgalov - $5,666,667
Luongo - $5,333,333
Brodeur - $5,200,000
Thomas - $5,000,000
Fleury - $5,000,000
DiPietro - $4,500,000
Hiller - $4,500,000
Niemi - $3,800,000
Khabibulin - $3,750,000
Halak - $3,750,000
Lehtonen - $3,550,000
Roloson - $3,500,000
Rinne - $3,400,000 ($7M next season)

Luongo’s deal falls somewhere in the middle of the top tenders this season. Next season, Pekka Rinne’s cap hit on his new deal with be $7 million. He hasn’t yet been to a Cup final.

High Five to the Circumvention of Cap

When the Kovalchuk decision came out, the arbitrator Richard Bloch mentioned in a footnote to his decision that there were other contracts that constituted circumventions of the salary cap given that throwaway years were added to contracts to artificially lower the cap hit. One of those contracts was Luongo’s – and for good reason. When Luongo turns 40 years old, his salary goes from $3 plus million to $1.618, and in the last two years his salary is $1 million. These years lowered the cap it from about $6.7 million to $5.3. Big difference for a team looking to acquire him.

As well, the last 4 years of his deal amount to about $7 million. That means that a team would happily buy him out before he turns 40 years old in 2018. There would be a cap hit on the buyout, but it would be manageable.

Or rather than buy him out, before the 2018 season a team could trade him to a cap hungry team looking to make the floor. Why? By then his salary cap hit will be more than his actual salary. So the team that acquires him will enjoy a net gain on his cap hit. People love net gains.

Wanted: Goalies

It is getting a lot tougher to find quality goaltending. Just look at the playoffs this season so far. A lot of goalies have struggled. When Luongo is at his best, he is one of the best goalies in the league. Yes he has had some issues in key games and in key situations (shaky glove syndrome). However, there aren’t a lot of good goalies to go around.

Look at the Flyers – Bryzgalov’s cap hit over the next 9 years is $5.6 million. Early on, Bryzgalov has been shaky and has emerged as a renaissance man or eccentric – you take your pick.

Whatever you may think of Luongo in the clutch, he will immediately make a team better (like Tampa).

Playoff Revenue

Teams make their money in the playoffs. When revenue is added up – gate, media, merchandising – teams make about $4 million per playoff game on average. Some of that is shared with the league and other teams. Still, teams pocket decent money with home playoff games.

As well, many execs will say that the playoffs are a springboard for marketing and ticket sales for the next season. In fact, for many teams making the playoffs is critical to the long term viability of their franchises.

Luongo helps your team get into the playoffs – there is no doubt about that. Once you’re in, you start to generate that key revenue and position yourself favourably in the marketplace. This will matter to teams, as they will look at his contract as an investment with a possibly strong return.

So there are lots of reasons why Luongo’s contract is moveable. The comparables are good, the salary cap hit is manageable, he’s a really good goalie, and the potential return on his contract is promising.

Frankly, at this point, isn't his $5.3 million cap hit looking like a bit of a bargain?

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Interview: ESPN's John Barr on Loomis Eavesdropping Story

Yesterday on Offside, we interviewed ESPN investigative reporter John Barr.

John broke the story earlier this week of Saints GM Mickey Loomis' alleged ability to eavesdrop on opposing coaches. It is important to note that Barr did not allege that Loomis did in fact eavesdrop. Rather, he takes the position that Loomis had that ability to do so by way of a device installed in his Superdome suite.

John confirmed that ESPN continues to investigate this case with a view to trying to collect evidence supporting position that Loomis did indeed eavesdrop.

It is alleged that Loomis did this between 2002 and 2004. Interestingly, starting in 2008, the NFL engaged retired FBI agents to conduct electronic audits of coaching booths, locker rooms, etc.. They would sweep these areas looking for bugs and the like.  However, these sweeps were not conducted during the material time, namely, 2002 to 2004.

If the NFL was conducting these sweeps, it seems logical to conclude that there was a need for them. Where that need came from remains an open question.

Offside Interview On Roger Clemens Trial

Last night on Offside, we interviewed Ann Marimow, Washington Post reporter. Ann has been in the courtroom  during the Roger Clemens trial so she has a good feel for how things are unfolding. She spoke to that, as well as other topics such as Judge Walton, Roger Clemens' demeanour, the prosecution's slightly toned down approach and whether the Defence team's opening resonated with the jury.

Listen to the interview here.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Legal Overview: The Clemens Trial

With the Roger Clemens trial starting, here's an overview.

Trial: Self-Inflicted Wound

Here's the thing about this whole mess Clemens got himself into: it's self-inflicted.

Clemens was never forced to testify before Congress. He wanted to testify. He was never subpoenaed. Clemens wasn't happy when the 2007 Mitchell Report came out, which was a report summarizing an investigation into the use of PEDs and steroids by MLB players. The report mentioned Clemens 82 times, only third to Canseco (105 times) and Bonds (103).

So he thought he would go to Congress and proclaim his innocence. Problem is that he denied to Congress what others have insisted is true - Clemens used banned substances.

So rather than clear his name, he is now on trial for lying about taking PEDs and steroids.

The Allegations

The underlying allegation is tied to him lying about using performance enhancing drugs (steroids and HGH).

Clemens contradicted testimony given by his former trainer Brian McNamee, who testified that he had injected Clemens with both steroids and HGH.

Clemens denied that McNamee had ever injected him with these substances and said that he injected him with B12 vitamin shots.

Here is the key: to win a conviction, the prosecution will have to prove that Clemens was injected with HGH and steroids, he knew he was being injected, and he knew he was lying when he said he wasn’t injected.

The Charge of Perjury Is Not Just Lying

For the offence of perjury (the most serious offence charged), the prosecution must prove not only that Clemens lied, but that he knowingly lied under oath. This means that Clemens could wiggle out if he can convince the jury that he misunderstood a question or didn’t know exactly what he was taking.

Prosecution Versus Clemens: The Arguments

Clemens has money and will assemble a top notch legal team. This makes a big difference. Expect his lawyers to really dig in and attack the prosecution’s case from every angle. Think OJ – they will be relentless.

Clemens offered up his testimony 2.5 years ago so that means that the prosecution has very likely taken great care in developing its case. They may also have new evidence.

Prosecution’s Arguments

Here are some of the prosecution’s possible arguments:

1) McNamee testified that he injected Clemens with steroids and HGH over 40 times between 1998 and 2001.

2) McNamee has syringes, pads and gauze that have Clemens’ DNA on it.

3) Clemens’ good friend Andy Pettite testified under oath that Clemens told him he used HGH. This corroborated the evidence provided by McNamee.

4) McNamee has testified he injected Clemens, Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch with HGH. Both Pettite and Knoblauch have confirmed this. So the prosecution will argue it is unlikely that McNamee would tell the truth about Pettite and Knoblauch, but lie about Clemens.

5) In 1998, Clemens developed an abscess on his buttocks that he claimed was the result of B12 injections. However, McNamee stated that it was the result of steroid injections and numerous medical experts have said that the mass was unlikely to have been the result of B12 injections and was more consistent with steroid injections.

Clemens Arguments

Clemens is not left without arguments. Here are some of his possible arguments:

1) He will attack McNamee’s credibility and truthfulness. McNamee reached a deal with federal authorities to avoid prosecution for steroid distribution, and Clemens will argue that was his incentive to lie.

2) Clemens will challenge the admissibility and reliability of the syringes, pads and gauze arguing that while in McNamee’s possession for years, they may not have been handled with care.

3) He didn’t know what was in the syringes, so when he said he didn’t take steroids or HGH, he didn't knowingly lying. In addressing Pettite testimony, he could say that Pettite just got it wrong (he misremembered).

4) Important Person Act: Well this isn’t an argument (or a statute) so much as some jurors may be influenced by his fame.

Length of Trial?

It should last about 4 to 6 weeks. That could change though.

Will Clemens Testify?

Clemens can't be forced to testify. Will he testify? Clemens had a tough time before Congress and he may have difficulty the second time around. If Clemens were to testify then he runs risk that jurors will find him guilty simply because they were not convinced. However, it is the prosecution that has the burden of convincing jurors of the defendant’s guilt. So make the prosecution work for it, Clemens’ lawyers will tell him. 

If the case goes off the rails for Clemens, then perhaps you may see Clemens on the stand. Given his defiant, determined and brazen attitude, he may relish the opportunity. However, on balance, don't expect to see Clemens take the stand. 

Jail Time

As far as prison time, each of the six counts he is charged with could result in a sentence of up to 5 years in prison. However, under U.S. sentencing guidelines, if he’s convicted of at least one of the counts of perjury he may receive a sentence of 15 to 21 months in prison, and could be out for good behaviour in 13 to 18 months. However, all this is up to the Judge.

This will be a tough case for Clemens. Remember though – it only takes 1 juror to side with Clemens for him to walk.

Quick Hit: Suspended NHL Players, Their Salaries and The Cap

In light of the Raffi Torres 25 game suspension, the question has been raised as to whether his salary will count against the salary cap while he's suspended for an on-ice violation.

The answer is yes - the salaries of players suspended for on-ice violations do count against the salary cap. 

Remember that players are not paid during the NHL playoffs so there are no cap concerns. Come the regular season, however, Torres' salary will count against the cap.

If you want more information, here is a good link on the topic.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Offside Radio Show - Dodgers Sale; Business & Legal Side of Hockey Violence

Last night on my radio show Offside: The Business & Law of Sports, guest co-host Steve Lloyd and I interviewed Eric Fisher from the Sports Business Journal on the Dodgers sale. He wrote a great article on the sale of the team.

Frank McCourt sold the team, the parking lots and 250 acres of land surrounding the stadium (and 3 miles from downtown LA) for a record $2.15 billion to a group led by Stan Kasten and Magic Johnson (of the Magic Hour).

The previous record sale was the Miami Dolphins, which Stephen Ross bought for $1.1 billion in 2011. The other top deals are as follows:

Cubs (2009) at $845 million to Ricketts family (3times)
Redskins (1999) - $800M – Snyder
Red Sox (2002) - $700M – John Henry
Jets (2000) - $635M 

Your top baseball deals:

Cubs - $845M
Astros (2011) - $615M to Jim Crane
Rangers (2010) - $593M
Nationals (2006) - $450M
Braves (2007) - $461M

The $2.15B price tag was big. New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch said that much according to Fisher's article.

“It’s a unique situation and a very iconic brand…but it’s a big number."

So that was the big question we asked Fisher - did Kasten pay too much for the Dodgers. The TV deal is a big part of the deal, with the expected price tag to be around $4 billion. Right now Fox and Time Warner are likely bidders, but more can emerge.

We also hit on Magic Johnson and his ability to repair or undo what McCourt did since he bought the team in 2004 (when he bought it for $430 million). Just last year, attendance for Dodger games dropped 18% over the earlier year. This was big for the Dodgers - a team that routinely found itself topping attendance in baseball.

This deal was also different in that MLB had little control over the sale. In the past, the league had an active role in the sale of teams. This time, however, that was not the case. That's what prompted super agent Scott Boras to say this: "Scott Boras was quoted as saying that we are now seeing “true free agency in the pursuit of a franchise”.

We also hit on the legal and business side of hockey violence.

Enjoy the show.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Legal Glimpse: The Petrino Firing & Moral Clauses

Arkansas has fired Bobby Petrino, saying he "knowingly misled" and engaged in reckless behavior in a relationship with a female employee.

The 51-year-old Petrino was injured in an April 1 motorcycle accident. He was put on paid leave last week after admitting he lied about the presence of the 25-year-old employee, Jessica Dorrell, who had been riding with him.

Dorrell was hired by Petrino as the student-athlete development coordinator weeks ago.

"He made the decision to mislead the public, (and it) adversely affected the university and the football program," athletic director Jeff Long said at an evening news conference. There was a "pattern of misleading and manipulative behavior to deceive me."

He was 34-17 since he was hired in 2008 and was 21-5 in the past two seasons.

Petrino’s Employment Agreement

Petrino’s employment agreement issummarized in an engagement letter. At Section 9 of that letter, the University is granted broad powers to terminate Petrino for conduct or behavior that it does not agree with or approve of. In particular, it provides that the University reserves the right to terminate Petrino if he has engaged “in conduct, as solely determined by the University, which is clearly contrary to the character and responsibilities of a person occupying the position of Head Football Coach or which negatively or adversely affects the reputation of the University…in any way”. Here’s the actual clause:
This is broad since it allows the University to determine on its own the type of behaviour it doesn’t like. It needs to act reasonably – but nevertheless it still makes that assessment of right versus wrong.

By firing Petrino on the basis of his conduct, the University does so with cause. That means they don’t have to pay him out or offer him severance. That’s also significant.

Petrino will forfeit his salary, which averages about $3.5 million a year over the next 6 years. Here are the details:
Petrino could challenge the firing by arguing his behavior did not constitute just cause and that he is entitled to money. There is a lot of money at stake (about $21 million), so it would not be surprising to see some type of challenged materialize.

Moral Clauses

The University's clause in its contract is a moral clause. These moral clauses are usually pretty broad to give a company the option of cutting an employee if they engage in questionable behaviour. Don’t forget – employers are generally risk adverse as they don't want to associate themselves with a negative image.

Morals are shaped by the beliefs of a society, and so by implication, interpreting what’s moral can be a subjective exercise, at times elusive and constantly in flux.

The history behind moral clauses reveal their vagueness and how they are tied to the beliefs of a society. In the 1920s, the clauses became notorious during the McCarthyist era when they were used to terminate contracts of many writers, directors and producers who were accused of having communist leanings.

More recently, morals clauses have been used to terminate sponsor deals with Rashard Mendenhall (Twitter incident), Tiger Woods (adultery), Michael Vick (dog fighting), Kobe Bryant (sexual assault) and Randy Moss (photographed with cocaine).

This isn’t the first time Petrino has demonstrated peculiar judgement. On December 10, 2007, with the Falcons languishing in the NFC South cellar with a 3-10 record, Petrino resigned his position in Atlanta the day after pledging his commitment to owner Arthur Blank. Petrino informed his players of his decision with a short laminated note left at the locker of each player.

Now we wait and see if lawyers get involved.

NHL Playoff Teams: Lots of Wildcards

Effectively, with divisional seating, NHL playoff picture in each conference is comprised of 3 division leaders and 5 wildcards.

That's a lot of wildcards.

Someone get a wrench - this needs fixings.

Your Real NHL Standings & Their Impact on the Playoffs and Draft

You play to win the game – not to not lose the game. This is fundamental to pro sports. Herm Edwards would agree I’m sure.

Awarding NHL teams a point for losing in overtime distorts the standings. It misrepresents a team’s won/loss record, awards teams for losing and ultimately results in teams with fewer wins making it into the playoffs over teams with more wins. Divisional seating also distorts things.

How can a team that finished the season 38-44 be allowed to finish 3rd overall in the East?

The Loser Point

Entertainment is at its highest when drama is at its highest. By awarding a consolation point for losing undermines drama and by extension the raw entertainment value of a game. If fans know they will be rewarded even if they lose, the suspense and drama is diminished. Fans don’t feel the same level of elation or agony when their teams win or lose.

The NHL represents the highest and finest level of hockey on the planet played by the best of the best. Why on earth reward losing? It’s unfair, intellectually offensive and not in keeping with the principles that govern the highest levels of competition.

This isn’t summer camp – everyone isn’t a winner. There are winners and losers. To award a loser point suggests the NHL is not fully committed of its overtime format. If you implement it believe it and own it. Don’t waffle. Except for IHOP, no one likes wafflers.

There should be winners and losers, and not winners, losers and sort-of-losers-but-not-really-high-five.

Some Perspective

Let’s put things in perspective - if a team lost all 82 games this season in overtime, it would be in 12th place in each conference.

The NHL Standings

Your Real NHL Standings

The NHL standings have been adjusted to more accurately reflect a team’s success. A few things were done. First, the loss column has been consolidated so that overtime losses are now included in the loss column. That means that won-loss records accurately reflect team success.

The second adjustment relates to the loser point. Each team’s point total has been revised so that a point is not awarded for losing in overtime – be it in the shootout or 4 on 4. A win is a win is a win.

Finally, divisional seating has been eliminated.

Ties in the standings were broken by head-to-head record then goal differential.

Who’s In/Who’s Out

After the adjustments are made, things change dramatically. The clear beneficiaries of the current NHL standings are the Panthers and the Jets.

The Panthers and Kings are out of the playoffs, and the Sabres and Stars are in the post-season. The Panthers record drops to 38-44, one win worse than the Sabres, while the Kings lose two more games than the Stars.

The Panthers drop is most dramatic. With the help of 18 overtime losses and divisional seating, it finished 3rd overall. However, without that help, they drop to 9.

Agreed – the Panthers and Kings deserve to make it under the existing system. However, that is not the point as the criticism is not directed to these teams. Rather, it is directed to a system that allows teams with fewer wins to make the playoffs.

The Playoff Matchups

Here are your current playoff matchups:

East: Rangers/Senators; Bruins/Capitals; Panthers/Devils; Penguins/Flyers
West: Canucks/Kings; Blues/Sharks; Coyotes/Hawks; Wings/Predators

When the adjusted NHL standings are applied, things change dramatically.

East: Penguins/Sabres; Rangers/Senators; Bruins/Capitals; Devils/Flyers
West: Canucks/Stars; Blues/Coyotes; Wings/Sharks; Predators/Hawks

If I’m the Wings and Devils I’m not too happy. Teams generate significant revenue from playoffs games and for that reason they prefer home ice advantage. However, the current NHL standings award home ice advantage to the Panthers (38-44) and Coyotes (42-40) over the Devils (48-34) and the Wings (48-34).

The NHL would have preferred that the Flyers and Penguins both have a chance to advance to the next round. Under the adjusted standings, they do.

NHL Draft

The only clubs with the opportunity to receive the first overall selection in the 2012 draft are the five teams with the lowest regular-season point totals. Those teams are as follows:

(1) Blue Jackets, (2) Oilers, (3) Canadiens, (4) Islanders and (5) Leafs

However, with the NHL standings adjusted, the top five changes to the following:

(1) Blue jackets, (2) Canadiens, (3) Oilers, (4) Carolina and (5) Islanders

So the Leafs (35-47) are out of the top 5, and the Hurricanes (33-49) are in. As well, the Canadiens move up and the Islanders and Oilers slide down in the draft order.

The Adjusted Standings Are Closer

We’ve heard that the loser point keeps the standings close, thereby ensuring that fans stay interested. However, as you will notice, the adjusted standings remain close.

In fact, they are closer where it matters – at the bottom.

Without the adjustments, the Sabres are 3 points out of a playoff spot, and Tampa and Winnipeg are 8 points out. With the adjusted standings, Tampa and Florida are 2 points out, and the Jets are 4 points out.

In the West, the Flames are 5 out, the Stars are 6 out and the Avalanche are 7 points out. With the adjusted standings, the Avalanche are 2 points out, the Kings 4 and the Flames 6.

Overall, the adjusted (or real) NHL standings make good sense. They are intuitive, reward merit and keep the standings close. As a sports fan, that’s all you can ask for.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

The CBA, Tortorella's Fine & Why He's Good For Business

New York Rangers head coach John Tortorella has been fined $20,000 for comments following a game against the Penguins.

Tortorella was slightly upset when Penguins defenceman Brooks Orpik hit Rangers forward Derek Stepan knee-on-knee in the game’s final five minutes.

“It’s a cheap, dirty hit,” Tortorella said to reporters after the game. “I wonder what would happen if we did it to their two whining stars over there. I wonder what would happen. So I’m anxious to see what happens with the league over this. Just no respect among players. None. It’s sickening.”

“It’s one of the most arrogant organizations in the league. They whine about this stuff all the time, and look what happens. It’s ridiculous. But they’ll whine about something else over there, won’t they, starting with their two (expletive) stars.”

The CBA & Fines

The NHL’s authority to fine Torts $20K rests in Rule 33A, which is referenced in the CBA at Exhibit 8.6 (Procedures Relating To Commissioner Discipline). It reads as follows:

Rule 33A. Supplementary Discipline

In addition to the automatic fines and suspensions imposed under these Rules, the Commissioner may, at his discretion, investigate any incident that occurs in connection with any Pre-season, exhibition, League or Playoff game and may assess additional fines and/or suspensions for any offense committed during the course of a game or any aftermath thereof by a player, Trainer, Manager, Coach or club executive, whether or not such offense has been penalized by the Referee.

Does Torts Pay His Fine or Can the Team Pay It?

The fine is deducted from the coach’s salary. So Tortorella pays the fine and not the team.

What’s the NHL Foundation?

The fine money goes to the National Hockey League Foundation (see Article 26.4 of the CBA). The Foundation is the National Hockey League’s charitable and community relations organization, and a major component of the League’s youth hockey programming.

Tortorella: Good For Business

Yes the NHL fined Tortorella for his comments. However, in a marketplace as crowded as New York, Tortorella’s comments get attention. They also help set up the Flyers/Pens matchup as the marquee matchup of Round 1.

There is tension here between competing interests. On the one hand, it is important for the league to do its best to promote sportsmanship and seek discourage disparaging comments about other teams/players/brands. On the other hand, it wants to get attention in what sometimes seems like an NHL needle in a sports haystack.

You may not agree with what he says. Ultimately, though, Tortorella is good for business. 

Interview: Mark-Fainaru Wada - Co-Author of Game of Shadows & ESPN Investigative Reporter

“There are some things I don't understand right now. The balls I used to line off the walls are lining out of the park. I can't tell you why. Call God. Ask him. It's like, wow. I can't understand it”.
- Barry Bonds, Spring, 2001

This week on Offside, we interviewed Mark-Fainaru Wada, co-author of Game of Shadows (along with Lance Williams) and ESPN Investigative reporter for Outside the Lines.

Game of Shadows is one of the most important books of our generation. The New York Times described the book as “devastating and groundbreaking”.

Among the elite athletes linked to PEDs in Game of Shadows were Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Benito Santiago, Armando Rios, NFL players Bill Romanowski, Tyrone Wheatley, Barrett Robbins, Chris Cooper, Olympians Kelli White, Kevin Toth, Dana Stubblefield, Dwain Chambers, Chryste Gaines, Calvin Harrison, Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery (who packed on 28 pounds of muscle under Victor Conte).

Game of Shadows was in part based on leaked grand jury testimony. Mark and Williams were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury about how they obtained leaked testimony. They refused to reveal their sources and were sentenced to 18 months in prison for contempt of court. Carl Bernstein submitted an affidavit to the Court supporting Mark, Lance and their right not to disclose their sources. Ultimately, they avoided jail time when Troy Ellerman pled guilty to leaking the information.

The interview covers it all and Mark provides very compelling comments. Mark hits on Barry Bonds, Ryan Braun, Marion Jones, facing jail time, the state of the game, and newspapers having to cut investigative units for lack of funds.

To listen to the interview, click on the following links:

Monday, April 2, 2012

Radio Clip - TSN Radio Toronto: Saints, Shockey & Sapp

Scott MacArthur from TSN Toronto 1050 and I cover the legal side of Sean Payton's appeal and the many legal layers of Shockey versus Sapp. Here's the clip.