@heitner In 2027 a judge will say: the rule banning pro athletes from returning to college is arbitrary. TRO: drafted kid can return.
2028: a judge will say, you have five years, and it doesn't matter if you spent a year in the NFL. TRO: former NFL player can return for one more year.
@heitner next year, if a 4th year player enters the draft and drops to the third or fourth round, what's to stop that player from leaving his NFL team in August, to join a college roster?
Won't the same logic apply to that player as it does to players in this current lawsuit?
A woman one month into a new job at the FDA was handed an application to approve a sleeping pill. It looked routine. They gave it to her because she was new and it seemed like an easy one to start on.
She read the file and something was missing. No evidence at all that the drug was safe in pregnancy, and it was being sold as a remedy for morning sickness. The drug was thalidomide, and West Germany was getting through a million doses a day.
Frances Kelsey asked for more data. The company sent representatives to her office, then telephoned her at all hours, then went over her head to her supervisors. Between them they contacted her and her boss around fifty separate times. She later said most of what they called her could not be printed. Ten million tablets were already sitting in warehouses waiting for her signature.
She said no six times. And while she held the line, doctors in Germany and Australia were piecing together what was happening to babies whose mothers had taken it. Limbs that had never formed, hands and feet attached directly at the shoulder and hip, in at least 4,000 children across Europe. The company withdrew its American application in 1962.
Seventeen cases turned up in the United States, all from free samples doctors had handed out before any approval. Without her it would have been thousands.
Congress passed a new law that same year requiring companies to prove a drug is both safe and effective, and requiring informed consent from anyone in a trial. Those rules are now used worldwide. Kennedy gave her the highest civilian award in the country and she was the second woman ever to receive it. She stayed at the FDA another 45 years and died in 2015 at 101.
Every American woman handed a pill in pregnancy is downstream of one woman refusing to sign a form six times while men shouted at her.
https://t.co/Xx4rbkh2gH
@heitner My question is whether any of the ncaa eligibility requirements are enforceable at the court level. What distinguishes an enforceable rule from one that is unenforceable?
I foresee players entering the draft, getting drafted later than expected and then returning to college.
@heitner I get that, but my question is what legal reason prohibits Diego or a class of 2020 or 2021 player from coming back now? Has any player ever tried that? Also, Is the 5 for 5 rule enforceable if a 2023 kid sues to play a 6th year in 2027?
@AndyStaples@ralphDrussoATH But... if you're just watching the game you won't know what you don't know.
Besides,
Most of the time the ticker says the same news every 30 seconds for hours at are time.
"Chiefs release Travis Kelce"
"Cowboys sign [player] to five year deal for $300,000.00"
@StadiumShadow It's $800 million over 2.5 years. So about 2.3% of the County's budget.
Honestly, the County and City have made incredible progress on the flooding and road quality over the past two years. Maybe they can afford to keep the Rays around for the next 35 years.
@StadiumShadow But just saying "it's your money" makes people roll their eyes. The CIT is a $.005 tax that already exists. What better use in their mind than a new Rays' Stadium.
@StadiumShadow Honestly, you should tell people what they might lose as a result of the Rays' stadium deal. What will they cut? Support for Boys & Girls club? High school football funds? Admittedly, There's only so much room in the budget. So the funds have to come from somewhere.
@StadiumShadow 🤔 - I think the phrase you're looking for is "corporate welfare"
In the US, "socialism" is just any kind of public spending you disagree with. Particularly an overgenerous type of public spending that goes to "undeserving" people. You don't like this priority but others do. 🤷♂️