Despite the upcoming confirmation hearing for Samuel Alito and the stalled hearings on other Bush nominees – not to mention the delay in sending a constitutional amendment to the states banning gay marriage – Arlen Specter still has too much time on his hands. Now he wants to tell the Eagles how to deal with Terrell Owens.

Sen. Arlen Specter accused the National Football League and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly and said he might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.

Specter said at a news conference Monday in Harrisburg it was "vindictive and inappropriate" for the league and the Eagles to forbid the all-pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him.

"It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws," Specter said, though some other legal experts disagreed.

The Eagles suspended Owens on Nov. 5 for four games without pay for "conduct detrimental to the team, and deactivated him with pay on Sunday after the suspension ended.

Arbitrator Richard Bloch said last week the team's actions were supported by the labor agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association.

How did the Pennsylvania RINO and expert in arcane Scottish law come to this conclusion?

Specter emphasized that he was "not a supporter of Terrell Owens."

"I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles' season," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages."

But Specter said, "I do not believe, personally, that it is appropriate to punish him (by forcing him to sit out the rest of the season). He's not committed a crime, he's committed a breach of contract. And what they're doing against him is vindictive."

Uh, Arlen, you are right – it is vindictive. But the Eagles are fulfilling the terms of T.O.’s contract – paying him every penny they legally owe him. They are simply not using the services they are paying for. That is simply a business decision. If they want to spend that money and keep him benched, they are within their rights to do so. It is no different than what goes on in radio and television – stations buy the rights to syndicated shows but to keep them out of the hands of rival stations, but do not broadcast them.

And Senator, therea re some folks who are much more versed in sports and labor law than you are who have a very different view on the matter.

"The arbitrator's decision is consistent with our collective bargaining agreement, and it simply enforced the terms of the player's contract," Greg Aiello, an NFL spokesman, said Monday.

"To have an antitrust violation, you have to have a contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade," said Robert McCormick, a law professor at Michigan State University.

Matthew J. Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University, said, "We're in the labor arena, not antitrust."

And quite simply, Specter, there is no federal issue here – so shut up and let the Eagles take the course of action that is best for the NFL.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.