- In February, two California state Senators proposed a bill that would allow college athletes to obtain an agent and be compensated for the use of their likeness.
- Current NCAA bylaws do not allow for athletes to be compensated or have representation.
- The NCAA responded to the bill and warned that California colleges and universities could risk being banned from NCAA championships.
- The bill has continued to pass through different committees, including the state Senate, reigniting conversations about NCAA rules.
In response to a proposed California bill that would allow college athletes to get compensation for the use of their likeness, NCAA president Mark Emmert has warned that California universities could potentially be banned from participating in NCAA championships, according to USA Today.
The report explains that Emmert wrote a letter to the authors of the bill, state Senators Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) and Steven Bradford (D-Gardena). In it, he writes, “when contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships.”
“As a result, it likely would have a negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist,” he added
Bill 206, also known as the “Fair Pay to Play Act” was first introduced in February 2019. The proposed legislation would allow “compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness” at universities and colleges in California. It would also allow athletes to obtain an agent or representative. Current NCAA bylaws prohibit both compensation and representation for students.
The bill also states that it would be illegal to revoke a “student’s scholarship as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation.” If passed, it would go into effect in 2023.
In May, the NCAA responded to the Fair Pay to Play Act by announcing a new working group within the organization. According to their statement, the group was created to “examine issues highlighted in recently proposed federal and state legislation related to student-athlete name, image and likeness.”
However, a week later the bill passed the California Senate in a 31 to 5 vote.
In his letter, Emmert asked to postpone any decisions until after the working group has a chance to review the current rules. Instead of delaying any hearing, an amendment was approved allowing lawmakers to monitor the working group.
The new text says the bill will “continue to develop policies to ensure appropriate protections are in place to avoid exploitation of student athletes, colleges, and universities.”
On Tuesday, the bill was heard before the house committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media, where it passed in a 5-1 vote. It now advances to the Higher Education Committee, who will have to approve the bill as well. They are scheduled to meet in July.
In response to the bill, many took to social media to speak out against it.
NCAA just trying to keep recruiting as equitable as possible. So where are all top recruits gonna go if they can make more $$ in California? NCAA is for amateur sports— STAND (@FS_UA_GA) June 25, 2019
On the other side, there were many who support compensating student-athletes.
A music student on a scholarship could perform for money off campus without risking anything. Why are athletes treated differently?— Jared Book (@jaredbook) June 25, 2019
Family members of student-athletes have voiced their opinion as well, one former basketball player’s mom even compared the NCAA to “slavery and the prison system.”
The issue of college athletes being compensated for their likeness has been a discussion for almost ten years now.
In 2009, a former college football player and a former college basketball player both sued the NCAA for using their likeness in video games. According to reports, the NCAA ended up awarding them $20 million.
During a 2018 post-game interview, Duke University head basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski said he supports the idea of paying players. He told reporters, “Make sure that the kid and his family are afforded the opportunity to max out like anyone else in our country what talent will give you.”
See what others are saying: (USA Today) (Yahoo Sports) (Forbes)
How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?
America has been hit with a historical opioid crisis. In 2018, more than 31,000 people died from opioid overdoses, which is more than any previous year recorded in American history. Healthcare professionals and public health experts are offering alternatives to the status quo treatments, which leads us to today’s topic: supervised injection facilities (SIF).
Also known as overdose prevention sites and medically supervised injection centers, SIF’s have been proposed as a solution to combat America’s opioid problem. In these centers, no drugs are supplied to the users—they bring their own and are given clean syringes to prevent bloodborne diseases. Advocates or these sites are saying that they would stop countless fatal overdoses because there would be medical staff on site. Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have implemented versions of these facilities and so far there has not been any reported fatal overdoses at a SIF in the world.
While cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia have all proposed plans to make sites, they have been met with heavy opposition. The federal government opposed these sites because they claim it breaks federal laws and some residents in these cities are against them due to concerns over attracting more crime. In this video, we’ll be focusing on Philadelphia, as it might become the first U.S. city to legally open a supervised injection facility, along with the court case between the non-profit who is trying to establish the SIF and the federal government.
Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit
- In court documents, Elon Musk defended a tweet where he called a diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team from a cave a “pedo guy” because it “was a common insult used in South Africa.”
- The diver sued Musk for defamation last year after Musk sent an email to BuzzFeed where he referred to the diver as “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old.”
- The court documents from the suit, which were made public Monday, also revealed that Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to look into the diver.
- Musk also said he gave the statement to BuzzFeed based on information provided by the investigator, and because he was concerned the diver could be the next Jeffrey Epstein.
Court Filings Made Public
Telsa CEO Elon Musk defended calling a rescue diver “pedo guy,” court documents revealed Monday.
Musk originally made the comment in July 2018, after Vernon Unsworth, a British diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team trapped in a cave last year, gave an interview to CNN where he had some choice things to say about Musk.
Notably, Unsworth said the submarine Musk had designed to rescue the soccer team would not work and that it was just a PR stunt.
Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” in a now-deleted tweet.
He also sent an email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, in which he accused Unsworth of being a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”
Musk said he thought the email was off the record, but BuzzFeed said they never agreed to that. In September 2018, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit against Musk in the Central District of California.
Court filings from the defamation suit against Musk were made public on Monday.
Musk Defends “Pedo Guy” Tweet
In those documents, Musk claimed that referring to Unsworth as “pedo guy” was not a direct accusation of pedophilia.
“‘Pedo guy’ was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up,” Musk wrote. “It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of acts of pedophilia.”
“I did not intend to accuse Mr. Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia,” he continued. “In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man.”
The fact that Musk is arguing he was expressing his opinion is important in this context because under the First Amendment, opinions are usually protected speech and not considered defamatory.
The documents also included Musk’s deposition, where he talks more in-depth about the “pedo guy” tweet.
In the deposition, Musk said he sent BuzzFeed the email because he was worried it could turn into a Jeffrey Epstein situation, referring to the wealthy financier who was accused of sexually assaulting dozens of young women, including many underage girls.
“What if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?” he said. “And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from this cave rescue to shield his bad deeds? This would be terrible.”
Musk’s Epstein argument might become problematic. First of all, he made the statements to BuzzFeed before the new allegations surfaced, which some have argued proves he just is using current news to frame Unsworth in a certain way, and that he did not actually consider Epstein at all.
That argument is also furthered by the fact that it has been reported that Musk had attended several events with Epstein, all of which were after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.
Notably, Musk also said in the filings that he paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to investigate Unsworth after receiving an unsolicited email from the PI in August 2018.
In the documents, Musk says that the investigator: “reported that Mr. Unsworth met and began a relationship with his alleged Thai wife when she around twelve years old.”
He also added that the investigator “reported that Mr. Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand,” and that he “learned that Mr. Unsworth frequented Pattaya Beach which is well known for prostitution and sex tourism, and that Mr. Unsworth was unpopular at the rescue site because other rescue workers thought that he was ‘creepy.’”
Musk goes on to say this was the basis for the comments he made in his email to BuzzFeed.
“I did not authorize Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed to publish the contents of the email nor did I intend or expect that they would,” he said. “Especially without first independently verifying and confirming its information.”
He later added that he gave the information to Mac “so that BuzzFeed could conduct its own investigation into Mr. Unsworth and corroborate the information.”
Musk’s lawyers even admitted in the court filings that the private investigator’s findings “lacked solid evidence of Mr. Unsworth’s behavior.”
Following the release of the court documents, Unsworth’s lawyer gave a statement to BuzzFeed condemning the Musk’s defense.
“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” the lawyer said.
“Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”
See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)
Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…
The Repository for Germinal Choice is the most controversial sperm bank in U.S. history. While it was operational some people believed this bank was racist and they even compared the companies goals to Nazi eugenic practices. But even though this sperm bank was highly controversial, it also completely changed the sperm bank industry.
So check out our video for the full story on how this controversial sperm bank would go on to shape an entire industry.