John Snyder's Errant Thoughts

Superdelegate Game Theory

Why haven't a critical mass of the remaining superdelegates yet swung to Senator Obama and ended this destructive internecine battle?

Ice Cream

Last weekend I bought a half gallon of ice cream, bananas, and chocolate fudge.
I forgot how much I like banana splits.
They are delicious.
And good for you.

Roger Goodell's Blunder

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is the custodian of a multi-billion dollar sports league, whose only long-term asset is its ability to coax eyeballs into watching beer ads on Sundays.  The willingness of those eyeballs is directly related to the perception that the game that occurs between the commercials is legitimate.

And by all accounts, it is legitimate.

So why on Earth would Goodell go out of his way to create the mis-impression that something is seriously awry?  Because he has forgotten his role and indulged in a Clint Eastwood fantasy.

When the Patriots were caught videotaping the Jets defensive signals a week ago, Goodell had to decide how to respond.  Here are the facts that were before him:

• the infraction had no effect on the outcome of the game;
• it is a common and legal practice for teams to observe the other team's defensive signals;
• while the NFL had recently circulated a memo reminding teams that utilizing videotaping equipment on the sideline was against the rules, the "no-taping-on-the-sidelines" rule had been in place for some time but had never been seriously enforced;
• had the Patriots videotaped from the stands instead of the sidelines, the practice would have been equally effective (or ineffective), and perfectly legal;
• because teams know that their signals are routinely observed, it has become Coaching 101 to implement measures to make signals difficult to decode, and in light of this, no one can articulate a cogent explanation for how videotaping signals could ever have a material effect on the outcome of a game;
• NFL teams routinely undertake myriad activities, from reviewing videotape, reviewing broadcast footage, talking with players who used to play for other teams, sending scouts to games, talking with other teams' opponents, rummaging through trash bins -- all of which are legal -- for the purpose of gaining an insight into what an opposing team is likely to do in a given game situation;
• the Patriots claimed, after the Jets game, that they believed in good faith that their conduct was within the rule, and this claim is strongly supported by the fact that the Patriots' taping was conducted openly, with no effort to conceal it, against a former Patriots assistant coach who had every reason to be aware that the taping was occuring.

I will concede, as I believe fair-minded people must, that the Patriots' belief in the legality of their conduct was probably wrong.  The fact remains that, on the Monday following the Jets-Patriots game, when the public learned of the taping, they didn't know what to make of it.  Likely, 95 percent of fans didn't know that there was a rule against videotaping from the sidelines (most had probably never even contemplated whether or not it was legal).

Public opinion was therefore quite malleable in the beginning.  Was this a nit-picking infraction?  Was it the end of the world?  Everyone looked to Goodell for guidance.

Goodell responded by playing into the hysterical notion that the Patriots' conduct was an epic affront to the integrity of pro football, imposing unprecedented sanctions against Belichick and the Patriots.  Then, almost as an afterthought, Goodell demanded that the Patriots turn over all previously recorded tapes and notes made from such tapes.  Now, Goodell has painted himself into a corner.  He is likely to learn that the Patriots have taped in the past (based on the same incorrect interpretation of the relevant rule). 

If this turns out to be the case, Goodell faces the following set of bad choices:  (1) declare that he will not further sanction the Patriots for past misconduct (and suffer the accusation from 31 other teams that he is being soft on the Patriots), or (2) further punish the Patriots (and face the valid accusation that it is acting unfairly by not also rummaging through the other 31 teams' archives for contraband).

If we go back in time, this could have been handled much more deftly.  In the first place, the guiding principle should have been that the Patriots' sanction must be measured in proportion to the unfair advantage that they were proved to have obtained, perhaps augmented by an additional sanction to account for the willfulness of the violation.

In this instance, the NFL has conceded that the videotaping had no effect on the outcome of the Jets-Patriots game -- in effect, a concession that there was no advantage.  Moreover, the fact that the videotaping was conducted in the open suggests that there was no willful disobedience.

Instead of focusing on the "unfair advantage" and "willfulness" factors, Roger Goodell seems to have panicked and rendered a premature, excessive, and reactionary decision.  The decision seems to be informed by the following unprincipled and macho reasoning:  (1) the Patriots broke a rule; (2) my name is Roger Goodell, the new sheriff in town, and I'm a tough guy; (3) I'm going to hammer the Patriots so that everyone knows not to mess with me.  The Clint Eastwood theory of jurisprudence.

The problem is that Goodell's hands are now tied.  Even though people are now pretending that the videotaping was the worst thing that has ever happened, in a few weeks, when everyone has cooled off, all that will be remembered was that the Patriots and Belichick got fined $750,000 and lost a first round pick for a technical rule violation that accomplished nothing that could not have been accomplished legally, and that resulted in no unfair advantage.

Measured against this standard, where does Goodell go when a team violates a rule that actually does have a material competitive benefit to a team?  All of a team's draft picks?  For five years?  Disband the club?

Worse, Goodell's rash decision has succeeded in persuading an ambivalent public that something is seriously amiss with the NFL, that the infraction has a serious moral dimension, and that a top-to-bottom review of the entire league is required here.  By playing the tough guy, Goodell has actually called into question the legitimacy of the product that he is charged with ensuring remains above question.

Video-Gate

In the wake of the Patriots' dominating 38-14 win over the San Diego Chargers, it seems that the furor over Bill Belichick's video-taping of the New York Jets' defensive signals last week is continuing and growing.  Just when it seemed that the affair was running its course -- culminating in an unprecedented fine and loss of the Patriots' first round draft pick -- the media is looking for new ways to rehash and expand the story.

Now we hear reports of three additional bits of information. 

• First, the Jets apparently complained about the same sort of videotaping last year.  Apparently, nothing was done about it.
• Second, we learn that the Jets are urging a continuation of the investigation into the Patriots use of technology for picking up the audio from the game.
• Third, it seems that the NFL is demanding that the Patriots produce all videotapes and notes contained in the Patriots' "library" of information that they supposedly maintain.

In an interview before last night's San Diego game, Roger Goodell disclosed that he would consider further sanctions in the event he learned of additional sanctions.  He did not say whether the current sanctions (e.g., the fines and draft pick) are meant to cover all past misconduct (so long as the Patriots voluntarily disclose it), or whether it only covers the videotaping during the Jets game.

Until last week, it seems that the league rule against videotaping on the sideline was most honored in the breach.  The effect of the league's memo to teams was to put everyone on notice that, effective this year, the league will be serious about enforcing these rules.  Gone are the days of the league turning a blind eye.

Having given specific notice that the league will be rigidly enforcing the rules against videotaping, it is perfectly fair for the league to impose stiff sanctions on teams that violate the rules from this point forward.  However, notwithstanding the fact that videotaping may have violated the letter of the rules even in 2001-2006, as a practical matter it seems that it tacitly accepted (as evidenced by the fact that a similar complaint by the Jets last year was not acted upon).

It would not be fair for the league to apply the new, strict standards to conduct that occurred before teams were put on notice that videotaping would not be tolerated.  It would be equally unfair for the Patriots to be selectively singled out for punishment for pre-2007 violations when other teams may have committed the same historical violations.

In this spirit, it is interesting to note that while Belichick was punished for the taping that occurred during the Jets game, no other coaches were similarly punished.  I would like to know if Goodell determined whether other coaches knew about, and acquiesced in, the videotaping, and if they were, why the assistant coaches were not also punished.

Lest we forget, Eric Mangini was the defensive coordinator for the Patriots a couple years ago, and if the Patriots were videotaping during this time period, Mangini likely knew about it, condoned it, and acquiesced in it.

Perhaps it's too much to hope for, but it would be poetic justice if the investigation into the Patriots' prior misconduct ended up revealing that Mangini himself had engaged in the very same misconduct.

When one approaches the league commissioner seeking a remedy from big brother, he should make sure he comes with clean hands.

Another Article on Securities Law

Here's another article that I helped write. This one deals with an odd case in Chicago. Download NYLJ_08082007.pdf

Hating on Nikolai Bonds

There is always the debate over what a fan should do when he catches a historic home run. Should he sell it? Should he hand it back to the player? Should he give it to the Hall of Fame? Padres pitcher Trevor Hoffman said that he hoped the ball would land in the bullpen so that he could sell the ball and give the money to his bullpen catcher, who is apparently battling cancer.

Well, so Barry Bonds hit his 755th career home run, tying Hank Aaron. Commissioner Bud Selig was on hand, did not applaud, and when the ball sailed out, the TV cut to Bud, who looked like he had just witnessed an execution.

So after the home run, which was caught by a fan, ESPN was in the stands. They reported that Barry's son Nikolai, who is 17 years old and apparently Russian, approached the ESPN reporter and asked what ESPN knew about the guy who caught the ball. The reporter knew nothing.

"Because," Nikolai said, "we hope the guy who caught it just gives it to us, so we can sell it and give the money to Trevor Hoffman's bullpen catcher."

I'm sure the guy who actually caught the ball is having a great laugh at that one.

First of all, yuck that Barry sent Nikolai to make that request. Barry has a history of hiding behind his kid. Second, if Barry wants to help the bullpen catcher, he should just open his wallet and give some of the $100 million that he already has. What does he need to sell a baseball for? Third, do you believe for a minute that he wouldn't actually take the ball, sell it to himself for like $50,000, give that to the bullpen catcher, and in true Bonds fashion screw not only a loyal baseball fan but also a cancer patient?

Sorry, but there isn't a single person in the world who would be more satisfying to jam for money than Barry Bonds, a truly miserable, dishonest character.

Good luck getting that ball back, Barroid.

RIP Glasgow Bomber

The Glasgow car bomber has died. You remember this guy.

I will have more to say about this, because I just finished reading "Mugged By Reality" by the partially reformed Neo-Con John Agresto, an account of Agresto's experience in Iraq as the senior advisor in charge of re-establishing Iraqi higher education. More on that later. Suffice it to say that Agresto has stopped believing -- if he ever did -- that liberal democratic ideals are easy to establish or can be quickly put into place anywhere in the world. His thesis is that in order for enlightened liberalism to take hold, a lot of complex and unusual social conditions must be present.

Against that background, I was taken by this story. They spent nearly a quarter million dollars in medical care on an essentially hopeless case, an individual whose injuries were self-inflicted and aimed at causing death to others.

I don't want to get into all of the terrible problems the U.S. has with its irrational health care system, or the illiberal and unenlightened and medieval policies of the current horrendous American president. Instead, let's focus on the following.

Kafeel had received extensive treatment at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Surgeons grafted on substitute skin made of shark cartilage and cow tendons. It was a system developed to treat the victims of the 9/11 attacks in New York.

Medical staff dealing with the case privately said that there was little chance of recovery. Ahmed had been in a coma and there were signs of kidney and liver failure. There had also been some criticism of the money spent on the suspected terrorist. The "shark skin" treatment - called Integra Dermal Regeneration Template - alone came to over £20,000, and the total cost of security and medical care is estimated to have been more than £100,000.

Kafeel's parents, Moqbool and Zakia Ahmed, who live in the Indian city of Bangalore, had also pressed for doctors to switch off his life support machine, at one stage saying they would take legal action to enforce this if necessary. Some Muslim groups had claimed that the prisoner was being deliberately kept alive "for medical experiments".

Yesterday a spokesman for the Scottish Executive said: "It was perfectly right that he should have received the appropriate treatment our health service could offer as this reflects the value our society places on human life."

What I find interesting is not that this happened, but that we generally do not find this to be particularly unusual or surprising. Can anyone imagine that sort of treatment being extended by Sunnis to a failed Shiite bomber, or vice versa, in Baghdad? Look at the picture. The guy with the hose is a person that the burning man had moments earlier been trying to kill. In Baghdad, they would have tied the guy's smoldering body to the back of a truck and dragged it through the streets. I know this is going to sound chauvanistic and ethnocentric, but there really is a different core set of values at work here.

SEC Remedies

Here's an article on SEC enforcement remedies that I wrote -- er, assisted in the preparation of -- last fall. It's an absolute page-turner. John Grisham is shaking in his boots! Download sec_remedies.pdf

More U.S. Attorney Firing Emails

The sleazy spectacle of the U.S. Attorney firings continues. Another few pages of emails were released yesterday (Friday, naturally). As noted on White Collar Crime Prof Blog, the most interesting email concerns a statement by Kyle Sampson regarding Carol Lam's replacement. "For obvious reasons, [redacted] would be best."

This email was from January 14. Why wasn't it produced before? Don't tell me that things happen when massive amounts of documents are involved. Right now we're talking about 2,000 pages of documents. That's nothing. I'm actually very surprised that so few documents have been produced about this. Most of the produced documents are forwards of news articles. I'm skeptical that anything approaching full disclosure has been made.

But more to the point, Senator Leahy needs to call Kyle Sampson back and ask him one simple question: what were the "obvious reasons" for wanting a particular person (or kind of person) for Carol Lam's job. This goes to the very heart of the case.

Sexy News

Hot sexy news! Some fila brasileiro mastiffs apparently killed someone at Ving Rhames' house. I know because according to Google Trends, today everyone is searching for "fila brasileiro mastiffs." Down boy! Down!

I also am aware that a faulty cruise control switch caused a "Ford recall," which everyone is searching on Google. What a shame. Things were going so well for Ford.

Kimberly Pressler is big on Google Trends today. Not sure why. Maybe she was arrested or found in a terrorist training camp. I don't really care, except that it would be sad to see her in a burqa.

What I do care about is seeing if referencing these suddenly popular items will make the hits on this site go up. I would be very curious. Not that I'm going to make a habit of this, because it doesn't matter to me. Purely an experiment to see if a single post referencing popular things will lead to an appreciable increase in traffic. So what the hell.

Paris Hilton Nude!!!