For this Personal Research Assignment, the student will be asked to describe how he/she will integrate what was learned in this course into his/her life. The student w

My name is Micheaux Hollingsworth. I live in Raeford, North Carolina, where I was born and raised. I am a husband, father of 4, and a sports fanatic!! I am a former college football player. My favorite teams are the Clemson Tigers and the Kansas City Chiefs. I have returned to continue my education to enhance my knowledge and abilities within my educational journey. I currently own a level 5 Psychiatric Treatment Facility located in Hoke County, North Carolina. Taking ownership within all fundamentals and responsibilities for myself, my family, and staff is priority.

During my free time, I love to travel with my family, give back as often as possible, and help throughout my community. I am a very active and busy person, however this is a milestone I am ready to conquer and complete in my life. It's been years since I've been in school and I'm only a few classes short of graduating. I have future plans to pursue a graduate degree. This is defiantly a new journey and a new start being active online!

I looked forward to learning better aspects within this course to return to my business and future endeavors throughout my life and career.

,

Case 7-2 Barron vs. PGA Tour, Inc.

670 F.Supp.2d 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2009)

Doug Barron is a professional golfer who joined the PGA Tour in January of 1995. In 1987, when he was eighteen years old, he was diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse and was prescribed a beta blocker, Propranolol, to treat the condition. Without Propranolol, Barron experiences a racing heartbeat and chest pains. In 2005, Barron was found to have low testosterone levels and was prescribed monthly doses of exogenous testosterone in order to maintain his testosterone level within the normal range. Side effects of low testosterone can include fatigue, lethargy, loss of sex drive, and a compromised immune system, resulting in an increased incidence of infection.

The PGA Tour establishes rules and policies that govern the conduct of golfers who participate in PGA and Nationwide Tour events. Golfers must pay dues to the PGA Tour and agree to abide by the rules and policies established by the PGA Tour in order to participate in PGA Tour events.

In 2008, the PGA Tour promulgated its Anti-Doping Program (“the Program”), and on July 3, 2008, the Program went into effect. The Program was developed in conjunction with the major golf tours and governing bodies around the world and incorporated input from leading experts in the field of anti-doping. The Program was modeled on the standards of the World Anti-Doping Agency and its Anti-Doping Code.

The Program contains a list of “Prohibited Substances and Methods,” and included on this list of banned substances are Propranolol and exogenous testosterone. The Program allows players to apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”). If granted, the TUE allows the player to use the substance despite its status on the list of banned substances. In order to obtain a TUE, the player must submit an application and supporting medical information. This information is submitted to a TUE Committee comprised of an independent medical advisor and one or more independent specialists of the medical advisor’s choosing with experience in the area relevant to the player’s illness or condition. The TUE Committee reviews the medical information and recommends to the PGA Tour whether to grant a TUE. Under the Program, a player may obtain a TUE if four criteria are met:

The player would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition (the use of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to increase “low-normal” levels of any Endogenous hormone is not considered an acceptable therapeutic intervention); and

The therapeutic use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health following the treatment of a legitimate medical condition; and

There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method; and

The necessity for the use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a consequence, wholly or in part, of a prior non-therapeutic use of any substance on the PGA Tour Prohibited List.

Prior to the effective date of the Program, on June 23, 2008, Barron submitted two TUE applications to the PGA Tour. The first application sought an exemption for the use of the beta blocker Propranolol. This application was reviewed by a TUE Committee consisting of a panel of doctors, including cardiologists. The application to use Propranolol was denied by the TUE Committee on October 10, 2008. Barron appealed the decision in accordance with the Program and the appeal was denied by the PGA Tour on October 22, 2008. Barron was instructed by the PGA Tour to begin weaning himself off of Propranolol. After his application was denied, Barron began reducing his dosage of Propranolol under a course of treatment prescribed by his medical doctor. He initially started the treatment with 160 milligrams of Propranolol, and by June of 2009, he had reduced his dosage to 40 milligrams.

The second application for a TUE sought an exemption for the use of testosterone. This application was reviewed by a TUE Committee consisting of a panel of doctors, including endocrinologists. At the request of the TUE Committee, Barron was reexamined by an independent endocrinologist. At the request of the independent endocrinologist, Barron stopped receiving monthly testosterone injections in October of 2008. The independent endocrinologist then took Barron’s blood samples in November and December of 2008. The November test indicated Barron’s Testosterone level was 325, while the December test indicated that it was 296. Both of these levels were within the normal range. The TUE Committee denied his application to use testosterone on January 21, 2009. Barron did not appeal the TUE Committee’s decision.

Barron admits that, in early June of 2009, he received a single dose of exogenous testosterone from his medical doctor. Barron then played in the St. Jude Classic golf tournament in Memphis, Tennessee, which began on June 8, 2009. In conjunction with the tournament, he signed a tournament application form, confirming his understanding that he was required to abide by the Program. On June 11, 2009, Barron was tested in connection with his play in the tournament. His sample was found to contain evidence of Propranolol and testosterone. Barron did not dispute the test results and admitted to continued use of both Propranolol and testosterone. Following the positive tests, Barron provided additional medical information to the PGA Tour on July 23, 2009, and August 12, 2009. The TUE Committees reviewed the additional information provided by Barron and found it insufficient to justify TUEs for the use of Propranolol and testosterone.

On October 20, 2009, the Commissioner of the PGA Tour, Timothy W. Finchem, provided Barron with a written decision suspending him for one year from participating in PGA Tour or Nationwide Tour competitions and any related activities (“PGA Tour events”), from September 20, 2009, to September 20, 2010. In that letter, Commissioner Finchem wrote as follows:

On June 23, 2008, you submitted a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) application under the Program requesting that you be allowed to continue to use exogenous Testosterone and Propranolol. At that time, you were given full opportunity to medically justify your use of both substances. Your Therapeutic Use Exemption Application for Propranolol was denied by the PGA TOUR TUE Committee on October 10, 2008. You appealed that decision and your appeal was denied by Commissioner Finchem on October 22, 2008. Your application to use exogenous Testosterone was denied by the PGA TOUR TUE Committee on January 20, 2009. You did not choose to appeal that decision. As of October 23, 2008, you should have begun weaning off of Propranolol. As of January 21, 2009, you should have totally stopped using exogenous Testosterone. The PGA TOUR heard nothing further from you in 2009 concerning your use of Propranolol and exogenous Testosterone. We assumed, consistent with the denials of your Therapeutic Use Exemption applications, that your use of these Prohibited Substances had been discontinued.

On June 11, 2009, you provided a doping control sample. That sample was found to contain evidence of both Propranolol and exogenous testosterone. That laboratory finding is not contested, since you have subsequently admitted continuing to use both substances. We invited you to submit any new medical information that might mitigate your continued use of these substances in total disregard of the denial of your TUE applications. You submitted additional information on July 23, 2009, and August 12, 2009. The information that you provided was reviewed by the PGA TOUR TUE Committee and again, no justification for your use of Propranolol or exogenous testosterone was found.

Pursuant to Section H(5) of the Program, Barron could have appealed the PGA Tour’s ruling within seven days of receiving the notice of sanction. According to the PGA Tour, Commissioner Finchem told Barron during a telephone call that Barron “was unlikely to prevail in his appeal” and that “the third-party hearing officer would not be bound by the sanction imposed and…could impose a more significant sanction as a result of Mr. Barron’s use of two banned substances and as a result of aggravated circumstances.” According to Barron, the Commissioner said “in no uncertain terms that he would be wasting his time to appeal and that his punishment could be doubled if he appealed and lost.” Barron did not appeal the suspension.

Pursuant to Section 2(M) of the Program, the PGA Tour notified Barron that it would issue a press release regarding his one-year suspension, and invited Barron to participate in the press release by proposing a statement to be read in conjunction with the PGA Tour’s statement. On October 30, 2009, counsel for Barron sent a letter to Andrew B. Levinson, Executive Director of the Program, stating that Barron wanted the PGA Tour’s press release to include the following statement: “Doug Barron disagrees with the PGA Tour’s conclusion that he violated their Anti-Doping policy and the resulting sanction. All of the medications that were taken by Doug Barron were prescribed by his Medical Doctors for diagnosed medical conditions.” The PGA Tour declined to release Barron’s proposed statement, and instead, the following statement was released: “I would like to apologize for any negative perception of the TOUR or its players resulting from my suspension. I want my fellow TOUR members and the fans to know that I did not intend to gain an unfair competitive advantage or enhance my performance while on TOUR.”

As a result of the one-year suspension, Barron alleges that the PGA Tour has violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because he suffers from abnormally low testosterone, which causes him to have a reduced sex drive, experience fatigue, and have a compromised immune system, and that by refusing to allow him to take exogenous testosterone and suspending him for using it, the PGA Tour has discriminated against him based on his disability. Barron also alleges in his complaint that the Program is an unconscionable contract and therefore is void; that the PGA Tour has breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by applying the TUE provisions and imposing the sanction against him in an arbitrary and capricious manner; that by issuing a press release that was misleading, the PGA Tour defamed him and placed him in a false light; and that the PGA Tour tortiously interfered with his prospective business endorsement opportunities.

Barron argues that he qualifies as being “disabled” under the ADA because he has a physical impairment (abnormally low Testosterone) that substantially limits a major life activity (engaging in sexual relations). The Sixth Circuit has not yet found that engaging in sexual activities is “a major life activity.”

In addition to sexual relations, Barron also claims that his low testosterone causes fatigue and compromises his immune system. “Since fatigue in and of itself does not constitute an ‘activity,’ suffering from fatigue cannot qualify as a major life activity.” A major bodily function, on the other hand, including functions of the immune system, is considered a major life activity. According to Barron’s complaint, “low testosterone can prevent the body from healing at a normal rate and can further compromise a man’s immune system, placing him at a higher risk of infection and illness,” and Barron “experienced all of these symptoms.”

The court held that the PGA Tour did not violate the ADA because Barron’s requested accommodation—use of exogenous testosterone and propranolol—was not “necessary” in order for him to continue playing golf.

What is the rationale for the PGA to drug test their members?

PGA golfers do not have union representation. Should that be a consideration in the implementation of a drug testing program?

Under what circumstances should an individual’s medical condition excuse him or her from drug testing procedures?

If you were the PGA commissioner, how would you make an ethical decision concerning a player’s disability and still maintain integrity for the drug testing program?

Do you agree with the press release issued by the PGA in this case?

Barron v. PGA Tour, Inc., U.S. Supreme Court.

,

1

Case Study 5-2 “There’s no religion in baseball”

Micheaux Hollingsworth

SMGT 503

Liberty University

July 21, 2024

Introduction

Religion in youth sports has been a big concern, as illustrated in the case of Little League in Medford, Oregon. A parent removed his son from Coach Chris Palmer's team due to Palmer's religious influence, which involved praying with the players and citing the Bible. This state of affairs gives rise to profound ethical and moral dilemmas as to the role of religion in youth sports. As with many issues related to freedom of speech and religion, the rights of individuals and the rights of the community at large, especially children participating in youth sports leagues, have to be protected and upheld. While some people consider prayer as a benevolent force that only has a unifying and protective function, others regard it as an imposition that may offend and/or exclude participants with other beliefs (Harvey & Light, 2012). It is, therefore, important to understand this balance to ensure that youth sports are not a place where people of one faith feel they have the license to disrespect people of other faiths or no faith at all. The purpose of this paper is to identify the ethical issues and recommend feasible strategies to address religious diversity in a youth sports context.

Issues

The team prayed before games with the team's coach, Chris Palmer, citing verses from the Bible, which was regarded as an attempt to force his religion on the players. A parent, Mike, complained that the rights of parents who want to raise their children as they see fit were violated. The factual questions pertain to the scope and character of Coach Palmer's religious observances and whether the parents were apprised of such practices and their children's participation therein. Mike said that he was never told about the religious activities and never agreed to his child to be involved.

The case then raises the question of what it means to have religious freedom in a public sphere such as youth sports (Scharenberg, 2002). It includes knowing whether the religious gestures made by Coach Palmer were violating the rights of the individual religious liberty of players. This issue will include the rights of an individual to practice their religion and the rights of other individuals or groups to have a secular organization that does not impose religious views in a public sporting organization. The major stakeholders are the young athletes, their parents, the head coach, Palmer, and the Little League. In turn, the young athletes are the ones who are directly affected by religious activities. The parents have different beliefs and expectations regarding their children's interaction with religious activities in a public sports context. The coach practices what he preaches with regard to integrating his religion into his coaching. The organization that oversees the management of the sport and sets the rules and guidelines for its practice to be as impartial as possible for all parties involved.

Options

This case raises several conceptual issues, and there are different views on the case. The rationale of people who support religious freedoms might be to say that such things as prayers for safety are not wrong and should be encouraged (Walseth, 2016). On the other hand, critics argue that any type of religious practice in a public sporting environment is wrong and discriminatory. The main alternative actions are to permit generic prayers that do not refer to a specific religion, to prohibit all religious practices in order to be all-inclusive, to demand the parents' permission for any religious observance, or to replace prayers with a moment of silent reflection. There are a number of facts that remain unknown, or their authenticity might be questioned, which would affect the decision made in this case. It is not clear exactly what prayers were said by Coach Palmer and the manner in which they were delivered based on the information given. Knowing the exact words said by the players and if the prayers did endorse one religion over the other could help identify when the latter had been breached. It is also not clear if the children of other religions on the team were able to decline the prayers and, if so, if they were able to do so without being stigmatized.

Ethical and Moral Arguments

Examining this case from different ethical perspectives highlights the ethical issues involved. Egoism may vindicate the coach's actions if they are perceived as having a positive impact on his values and behaviors. This means that natural law could justify the actions of the coach if they correspond to the moral norms of the coach. According to the principle of utilitarianism, which determines the greatest good for the largest number of people, it can be recommended to ban religious practices to minimize exclusion. Respect for persons focuses on the dignity and rights of all people, which may be used to argue against certain religious practices or for the implementation of secular ones. Respect for autonomy, non-malice, and justice serve as the moral parameters of the decision-making process and the rights of the individuals, and they should not be harmed as there may be people who feel forced to participate in religious activities. Ethical and moral values usually produce similar conclusions concerning what ought to be done in a given situation. Both respect for persons and utilitarianism emphasize equal regard for all individuals and their values, which means that religious practices should not be introduced to a public youth sports setting.

Conclusion

Based on the various arguments of the case and the ethical analysis, the best course of action is to prohibit any religious activities during youth sports events. This way, everyone is accommodated, and the rights of free speech and the thoughts of all individuals are observed. However, a moment of silence can be provided so that one can think or pray in his/her own way and in his/her own words. An argument against the proposed ban could be that restricting religious practices violates the freedom of speech. However, in a setting that is open and involves young people, as is the case with youth sports, it is important that none of the actions taken are in any way construed as forceful or discriminative. Maintaining neutrality to avoid violation of any person's rights and to encourage equal acceptance of the other. Supporting this decision, Romans 14:19 (NIV) states, "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification," and Galatians 5:14 (NIV) emphasizes, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "You shall not commit murder," "Do not defraud," "Love your neighbor as yourself." Such scriptures emphasize the need to promote peace, respect people, and even love them, which are part of the ethical decisions that should be made to ensure that youth sports are inclusive.

References

Harvey, S., & Light, R. L. (Eds.). (2012). Ethics in Youth Sport. Routledge.

Scharenberg, S. (2002). Religion and sport. In The international politics of sport in the twentieth century (pp. 100-114). Routledge.

Walseth, K. (2016). Sport, youth and religion. In Routledge handbook of youth sport (pp. 297-307). Routledge.

,

1

8

1

Ethical and Legal Issues in Murphy v. NCAA

Micheaux Hollingsworth

Liberty University

SMGT 503

July 7, 2024

Introduction: The five cases connected with Murphy v. NCAA are crucial in the sphere of federalism, state sovereignty, and ethical standards. They both answer the fundamental inquiry of just how much the federal government is capable of controlling state legislation, using such a sensitive subject as sports betting. These cases illustrate the struggle between the federal government and states’ rights, which is a unique analysis of the anti-commandeering doctrine. While the findings parried directly with the problem of sporting betting, they serve not only the field of law but also any future battles of state and federal supremacy. From such cases, the US citizens understand the special precautions that need to be adopted to observe the tenets of the doctrine of dual sovereignty in the US constitution. These outcomes reveal the ethical concerns of governing personalities namely; fair, autonomy, and justice (Mordekhai, 2023). These cases help in unveiling the various legal and ethical principles when states aim to struggle for their rights against federal overbearing laws and regulations. The given judgments are a vivid example of the fact that the sovereignty of the states remains an acute question within the framework of the federal system; the specifics of the case and their implications for the legal analysis and the formation of federal relations at the present stage grabs the reader’s attention.

Issues : The five cases involving Murphy v. NCAA present many imperative moral and ethical questions that demonstrate a complex relationship between the federal and state governments. The first core ethical conflict consists in the fight between federal power and state sovereignty – whether it is appropriate for the federal government to decide on state laws, especially in such fields as those that are usually regulated by state legislation. The main ethical issue in the NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. NCAA is opportunity cost versus legal issues; namely, whether its financialization can justify ignoring restrictions on New Jersey’s industries. Governor Philip D. Murphy’s Appeal brings up an ethical dichotomy of state legislating and federal regulation in which Governor Murphy seeks to ask if state governments should have the power to legislatively erase laws without outside federal interference (Mordekhai, 2023). The case PASPA’s Constitutionality focuses on the issue of federalism or centralization concerning the question of the constitutionality of federal laws that restrain state laws. Moreover, a crucial theme of federalism is reflected in the title of Federalism and State Sovereignty, where the conflict between states’ rights and federal authority is discussed.

In general, across these cases, factual issues can be said to be sharp and material. Thus, one of the factual questions is the definition and implementation of the PASPA. Controversies still persist as to whether removal of the state bans is an act of authorization under PASPA. Another factual question that has dire consequences is the effect on stakeholders’ economies, bodies that deal with sporting activities, and the betting population. These economic aspects are essential in ascertaining the social consequences of legal decisions made on these cases. The cases also historical and conceptual subjects such as federalism, the anti-commandeering doctrine, and sovereignty. Federalism, the relations between federal and state government, is one of the topics (Mordekhai, 2023). The anti-commandeering doctrine which states that the federal government cannot force the states to adopt or implement federal measures is also significant. Also, state sovereignty, or the degree to which the states should be preserved from the federal encroachment, is a basic question, which arises in these cases. Many associations are influenced by these decisions. State governments are the key stakeholders, given the fact that the results have implications on the state legislatures’ home rule authority and state-based economic development. For instance, NCAA which is involved in the organization of sports is bound to have an interest in the legalization and subsequent regulation of sports betting. The legal systems that regulate various activities in relation to sports are Noble in so far as they directly affect the bettors or working people who engage in various forms of bets on the sports events. There, the last stakeholder constituency is the general population since these decisions have implications for the state of the economy and distribution of powers between the branches of government.

Options: The major viewpoints on how to assess the case include:

One perspective argues for the importance of maintaining uniformity across states through federal oversight. This viewpoint holds that federal control helps prevent a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, ensuring fair and equitable treatment across the country. Proponents believe this approach minimizes confusion and maintains national standards. On the other hand, the state autonomy perspective emphasizes the rights of individual states to govern themselves, particularly in matters traditionally within their jurisdiction, such as gambling. The proponents of total state sovereignty claim that local governments are in a better position of perceiving and correcting the values of their society, hence providing them with the needed sovereignty incentivizes effectiveness. Another key political viewpoint is, of course, the relationship between the gains that businesses can get and maintaining or following legal rights. The opponents who focus on the economic advantages emphasize that the legalization of sports betting can serve as a goldmine for the state revenues and an opportunity to create new job positions (Degeratu, 2023). People insist that such economic stimuli can help to increase demand and support local economies, and, as a result, pay for public goods, which in its turn, promotes social well-being. On the other hand, the legal rational model stresses the legal formalism whereby the population adheres to the rule of law so as to realise stability within the authorities. They urge people to refrain from reducing their respect for the law and justice to the level of mere economic interests stating that this kind of approach will most likely lead to such significant long-term problems as the erosion of the public’s trust in law and the weakening of its legal basis.

In addition, to these two options will be looked at for this case. The first strategy is the status quo for continuing the federal protection of PASPA in order to safeguard the homogeneity of sports betting legislation (Degeratu, 2023). It helps inform in a way comparable to the tune of U. S. state compliance with the Seventeenth Amendment that all states are bound by similar rules, possibly preventing disputes over legal precedents and cultivating a harmonized system throughout the country. The second option is repealing PASPA, thereby granting states the freedom to regulate sports betting as they see fit. This alternative aligns with the principles of state autonomy, allowing states to craft regulations that reflect their unique contexts and needs. It empowers local governments to leverage economic opportunities and address gambling issues in a manner most appropriate for their residents, fostering a more localized and potentially more effective governance model.

Ethical Arguments : As alluded, utilitarianism is the ethical theory that assumes

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.