Bledsoe’s lawsuit vs. NCAA nears its end
NORMAN — The case involving Oklahoma defensive end Amani Bledsoe and his lawsuit against the NCAA either will be resolved by the end of the week by a Cleveland County district judge, or the judge will send the case to trial.
In a 40-minute oral argument Monday morning before Judge Jeff Virgin, attorneys representing Bledsoe and the NCAA made their motions for a summary judgment, which occurs when there are no facts in the case to dispute.
“Today you had both sides arguing that it
should be over,” said Geoffrey Tabor, Bledsoe’s attorney. “Each side had its respective arguments as to why it was right.
“Although you can’t always make everything in law down to a simple crude analogy, if you defeat summary judgment, it’s kind of like forcing overtime in a game. We now go to trial.”
Bledsoe filed a lawsuit in August 2017 to contest a one-year suspension he was dealt for testing positive to clomiphene, a substance banned by the NCAA. Bledsoe’s side argued that he unknowingly took the substance in contaminated protein powder and that the NCAA didn’t follow its own review policies when it denied Bledsoe’s appeal.
The NCAA does not dispute that Bledsoe might have unknowingly consumed the substance. But it argued that Bledsoe’s subsequent actions didn’t meet grounds for appeal.
Bledsoe tested positive on Oct. 5, 2016. The label of the protein powder in question didn’t list clomiphene as an ingredient. Tabor argued Monday that Bledsoe should’ve been granted an appeal due to the NCAA’s “knowledge exception,” stating that Bledsoe wasn’t aware he had been administered clomiphene.
The NCAA’s attorney argued that Bledsoe didn’t follow the correct procedure for a successful appeal.
After being “shocked” when notified of his positive test, Bledsoe brought the powder and vitamins he had consumed to OU athletic trainer Scott Anderson for review. Anderson approved the powder because no banned substances were listed. The clomiphene was later detected in a lab test.
Had Bledsoe brought the powder to Anderson for review before consuming it, then he would’ve had grounds for appeal, the NCAA’s attorney argued.
Whether the NCAA is a state actor is also at the heart of the case. The NCAA argues it is not, and that playing college football isn’t a constitutionally protected liberty. Tabor, citing precedent in past cases, argued that the NCAA is a state actor.
After hearing the oral arguments Monday, Judge Virgin took the case under advisement and said he will, by the end of the week, issue his ruling on the summary judgment or send the case to trial.
Bledsoe’s future eligibility with the Sooners is dependent on the outcome of the case.
The positive drug test came with a one-year suspension and a lost year of eligibility — effectively a two-year loss of eligibility for Bledsoe, who’s listed as a junior but participated in OU’s Senior Day because of the uncertainty surrounding his status.
Bledsoe has started all 13 games this season for OU after missing parts of his freshman and sophomore seasons because of the suspension. Oklahoma’s College Football Playoff game against Alabama on Dec. 29 could be his last in a Sooner uniform.
“Even if the court doesn’t dispose of the case in our favor at summary judgment, I feel confident in trial,” Tabor said. “I think as our briefs lay out quite clear, the NCAA has some very clear exceptions that apply here, and they breached those in Amani’s appeal.”
A win for Bledsoe would mean restoring what was lost: a year of eligibility. Though it’s not certain Bledsoe will return to OU even if he defeats the NCAA in court.
“His decisions in the future are his,” Tabor said. “We’re just here trying to fight to give him another year.”