ILNews

Valpo grad lands sports law 'dream job'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Valparaiso University School of Law 2006 graduate who participated in the school's Sports Law Clinic, including the clinic's work in Turin, Italy, during the 2006 Winter Olympics, will begin work with the United States Anti-Doping Agency in Colorado Springs, Colo., March 10.

As director of legal affairs for the USADA, Stephen A. Starks will prosecute doping cases against Olympic athletes as well as handle day-to-day matters in USADA's legal office as the "No. 2 of two" lawyers in the office of general counsel. He said he will also be working diligently to get up to speed before the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

He is one of the first students of the clinic - started during the 2005-06 school year - to accept a full-time job in sports law with a sports agency.

Starks will remain with Bose McKinney & Evans in Indianapolis until Feb. 29. Prior to his work in private practice, Starks fulfilled a one-year clerkship with Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore R. Boehm.

As a law student, Starks wrote the brief and argued the case for the athlete in USADA vs. George Hartman in 2006. He argued before the American Arbitration Association against USADA's then-general counsel and current CEO Travis Tygart and Bill Bock, the current USADA general counsel.

In an April 2007 interview for a May 2-15, 2007, Indiana Lawyer article, "Team assists athletes," Starks expressed an interest in pursuing sports law.

"My dream is to get into sports law, but as a young lawyer you take the opportunities that are presented to you. So you get with a reputable firm and get involved with clients they have who have a sports interest," Starks said.

Recently, Tygart personally called Starks to officially offer him the job in their legal department.

"It's unique to get an opportunity from the CEO who has had your position," Starks said Feb. 22. "The learning curve is going to be so steep ... you can't ask to be in a better position as far as (having a CEO as a mentor). Very few positions are recruited by the head man."

While Starks said the firm has been "tremendously supportive," he will miss his work in Indianapolis. With parents living in Fort Wayne, he plans to keep up with his Indiana connections, including his Indiana law license.

"Unfortunately, (taking this job) means I have to leave what I consider to be the best firm in our state so quickly," he said. "It is a dream job to be involved with sports not just as far as doing legal work but to also work for a sports entity. I think getting a job with USADA epitomizes that dream."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT