Philadelphia, PA – The lawyer was one of the first characters to die in Jurassic Park.
He abandoned John Hammond's grandkids and was chomped in half by a T-Rex while hiding in an outhouse.
Pretty subtle symbolism, huh?
I don't really prescribe to the whole "Lawyers are heartless, bloodsucking scum of the earth" notion. I mean, I get it, and while I generally agree with the sentiment, I still believe each person, attorney or not, should be judged on an individual basis.
But after reading Vijay Singh's lawsuit against the PGA Tour, I have to say, bring on the T-Rex.
First, let me admit that Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC makes a few compelling points.
The suit argues the IGF-1 contained in the deer antler spray that Singh provided the tour was biologically inactive (it would need to be active to have a physiological effect) and that the protein could only be introduced to the body through injection as opposed to Singh's method of oral application.
Furthermore, the suit contends it was the PGA Tour's responsibility to thoroughly test the spray and become accustomed with these facts before initially suspending Singh for 90 days on Feb. 19.
This is just one side of the argument, and the tour is afforded a right to defend itself, but Singh's attorneys raise an interesting point. The PGA Tour is far too reliant on the World Anti-Doping Agency, taking its list of prohibited substances and methods almost exclusively from WADA.
The circuit's anti-doping program is relatively new (in existence since 2008), and has resulted in just one suspension (Doug Barron, fittingly represented by the same attorneys as Singh).
The perception is that the tour doesn't want to suspend its players for PED use. The reality is that the tour needs to take a more active role in setting and enforcing its anti-doping policy. Maybe this lawsuit will facilitate that action.
So far, so good for Ginsberg & Co., but they lose favor when they focus on "Singh's Public Humiliation."
Here are a few excerpts from the lawsuit:
"Because of the PGA TOUR's actions, media and fans focused on Singh's alleged violation of the Anti-Doping Program rather than on Singh's play."
To retort, media and fans focused on Singh's alleged violation of the Anti- Doping Program when he told Sports Illustrated that he used deer antler spray "every couple of hours ... every day." The spray was widely reported to contain IGF-1 long before the tour got involved. It was linked to Ray Lewis and his improbable recovery from a dislocated elbow, and was sold by dubious snake oil salesman, according to the article. Singh brought the negative public attention upon himself.
"Golf is undeniably a mental game. Faced with an unjust blemish on his personal and professional record, Singh struggled to keep his focus and play at the level that has made him one of the game's all-time greats."
Singh hasn't won a PGA Tour event since 2008. He hasn't won a major since the 2004 PGA Championship. Do they mean to say this mental abuse administered by the tour had a retroactive effect? Besides, the blemish appeared when Singh spoke to SI, not when the tour suspended him.
And here are a few excerpts from the section titled "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress":
"As described herein, the PGA TOUR acted in an outrageous and extreme manner."
By giving the guy a 90-day suspension? Ridiculous.
"As a direct and proximate result of the PGA TOUR's actions, Singh has been humiliated, ashamed, ridiculed, scorned and emotionally distraught. The conduct of the PGA TOUR demonstrated the intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, Singh severe emotional distress."
Ah, now Singh sounds like the guy who sues you when he trips and falls on your sidewalk.
And, of course, it always comes down to money ...
"As a result of Singh's severe emotional distress, Singh has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial."
I'm sick of writing about Vijay's naive, misguided use of deer antler spray. When the SI story broke, I said Singh came across more as a victim of a hoax than a calculated drug cheat.
When the PGA Tour dropped its case last week, I said the tour got it wrong and should have suspended Singh. I argued the suspension was in the best interest of Singh's reputation, that he could have disappeared from the public eye while the story was promptly replaced by the next scandal.
According to the lawsuit, the tour had no grounds for suspension, but Singh isn't acting in his best interest by suing over "Public Humiliation" and "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress."
As far as I'm concerned, Singh and his band of lawyers can go the way of Donald Gennaro, chomped in half by a T-Rex while cowering on the john.