Singh For Your Supper

Would you believe that there is actually a website called Golf Dispute Resolution, whose field of expertise is "Tracking the Intersection of Golf and Law."   Talk about specializing... It's run by a gentleman named Rob Harris with a reasonably amusing bio (not to mention a finish that reminds me of our friend John Coupland) and tabs leading to posts related to all the fifty states, plus select foreign jurisdictions.  Scotland, Ireland and even New Zealand of course, but Libya?  Might have to click on that one later, just because...

Shackelford linked to Harris' post on our favorite plaintiff, our dear old friend Vijay.  It's not exactly news, but provides some useful color on where things lie.  According to Harris, it's a foregone conclusion that Vijay will be at least partially successful, as per this:

In arguments before the court last week, Judge Eileen Bransten stated that she wanted the issue of court directed exchange of information “to be tailored to the remaining causes of action that I’m not dismissing. So now you know. You know the answer.” 

Thus, while the court’s formal decision has not issued, it is apparent that at least some of Vijay’s claims will survive the Tour’s motion to dismiss.

To briefly review the videotape, Singh admitted to using a product that contained deer-antler spray, which was then on the World Anti-Doping Agency's ("WADA") list of banned substances.  Singh was issued a suspension of unknown duration by the PGA Tour, but according to Harris it was revoked before it went into effect.  Harris indicates that this was because Singh presented supplemental evidence that there was no banned substance in the spray he used, whereas I thought previous accounts indicated that it was a result of WADA removing deer-antler spray from it's list of banned substances.  

In any event, it appears that Judge Bransten will allow at least a portion of Veej's claims to move forward, and allow him adequate discovery in that regard.  Oh goody, get the popcorn machine fired up, because this should be amusing, if not informative.  The fact that Commissioner Ratched Finchem maintains a policy of Omerta on a par with the Five Families is a complete scandal in the humble opinion of this scribe.  Why, it must be asked, is it a state secret if Tiger gets fined for using profanity on the golf course, and as a secondary issue how is that "punishment" effective if it's a closely guarded secret?

Here's where the fun might lie:

What makes this more interesting is that the information Vijay seeks–and which the Tour claims is confidential–apparently concerns other players who Vijay claims received different treatment from the Tour than he did. As his attorney stated in court proceedings last week, “I can stand here in court today and provide the Court with four or five or six or seven other names of similarly situated golfers who the PGA treated differently. I don’t think the PGA wants that and we don’t want to do it.”

For guys who in theory make their living in the light of day, they seem particularly averse to sunlight.