1/9/2019 11:34 AM 19CV01516 1 2 3 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH 6 DOUGLAS BRENNER, ) Case No.: 7 ) Plaintiff, ) 8 ) COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE v. ) 9 ) (NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY WILLIE TAGGART, an individual; ) ARBITRATION) 10 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ) ASSOCIATION, a foreign entity; IRELE ) PRAYER: $11,500,000 11 ODERINDE, an individual; and ) ORS 21.160(1)(e) - $1,111 UNIVERISTY OF OREGON, a public ) 12 body of the State of Oregon, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 15 1. 16 Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) is and at all 17 times material has been an organization (unincorporated association) made up 18 of college and university members and holds itself out as the governing body to 19 ensure student athlete safety in college sports, including college football, and 20 has engaged in regular and sustained business activity in Multnomah County. 21 2. 22 Defendant University of Oregon (“University”) is and at all times material 23 has been the flagship university of the State of Oregon and a member KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 institution of defendant NCAA. Defendant University is a public body of the 2 State of Oregon, and has engaged in regular and sustained business activity in 3 Multnomah County. 4 3. 5 At all material times, defendant Willie Taggart (“Taggart”) was the head 6 coach of defendant University’s college football team. 7 4. 8 At all material times, defendant Irele Oderinde (“Oderinde”) was the 9 strength and conditioning coach of defendant University’s college football team. 10 5. 11 At all times material, defendant NCAA acted through its employees, 12 agents, and apparent agents. 13 6. 14 At all times material, defendant University acted through its employees, 15 agents, and apparent agents, including the individual defendants Taggart and 16 Oderinde, and in concert with defendant NCAA. 17 7. 18 At all times material, defendant Taggart acted personally or in concert 19 with defendant Oderinde or through defendant Oderinde, who was acting on 20 behalf of, under the authority of, and pursuant to the control of defendant 21 Taggart. 22 // 23 KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 2 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 8. 2 In the latter half of the 19th century, college football quickly grew in 3 popularity. Serious injuries were common, and it was not unheard of for 4 college student athletes to be killed in furtherance of the game. Reasonably, 5 gratuitous injuries to players prompted many universities and colleges to 6 discontinue the sport. By 1905, the excessive injuries to student athletes had 7 threatened the existence of college football, and President Theodore Roosevelt, 8 in an effort to preserve the game, convened a conference of colleges and 9 universities at the White House to determine if the excessive injuries of student 10 athletes in college football could be curtailed. Later that year, the presidents of 11 62 colleges and universities founded the Intercollegiate Athletic Association to 12 create uniform rules for college football to protect the student athletes from 13 needless injuries. In 1910, the IAA changed its name to the National Collegiate 14 Athletic Association (NCAA), defendant, and it has kept that name to this day. 15 9. 16 Over the next century up until the present, defendant NCAA, through its 17 role as the rule-making steward of player safety positioned itself at the center 18 of college sports revenue. Defendant NCAA now spearheads and organizes a 19 multi-billion-dollar business, with the profits enjoyed by its own multi-million- 20 dollar executives and member universities and colleges. 21 10. 22 A primary engine for the above revenue is the ever-increasing competitive 23 nature of college football, in which NCAA member institutions place greater KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 3 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 and greater pressure on the coaches and student athletes to win and 2 outperform opposing teams from other institutions. 3 11. 4 To further the above model, many NCAA member institutions provide 5 lucrative multi-million-dollar college football coaching contracts, with the 6 understanding that if the head coaches and/or assistant coaches fail to 7 promptly field highly competitive teams, then they will be fired. 8 12. 9 Many college football coaches respond to that ever-present pressure to 10 win and win now by imposing extraordinary strength and conditioning 11 practices in hopes of making the student athletes bigger, more disciplined, and 12 stronger than the student athletes on opposing teams. These training regimens 13 often are designed to meet the coach’s and university’s immediate goal to win 14 games without adequate regard for known risks to the short-term or long-term 15 health of the student athletes. 16 13. 17 Such regimens often take the form of physically impossible and 18 unreasonably repetitious exercises which the coaches impose as physical 19 punishment on the student athletes and to work the student athlete’s body to 20 its outer limits without regard for known risks to the short-term or long-term 21 health of the student athletes. 22 // 23 KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 4 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 14. 2 Defendants NCAA, University, Taggart, and Oderinde knew or had reason 3 to know for many years that such physical regimens imposed by college 4 coaches on student athletes under the guise of strength and conditioning 5 exercise have resulted in orthopedic injuries, organ failures/injuries, and 6 deaths to student athletes. Defendant NCAA’s guidelines against such 7 practices, which it published for the use of member institutions and coaches, 8 identify numerous injury and death events from such regimens, including but 9 not limited to the following cases of exertional rhabdomyolysis, kidney injury, 10 and associated harms: 11 a) Thirteen student athletes from a college football team were 12 hospitalized for several days for exertional rhabdomyolysis following the team’s 13 first workout after a three-week winter break. The coaches imposed a 14 physically impossible exercise regimen of squats and told the student athletes 15 that the workout “would demonstrate who wanted to be on the team.” 16 b) Five student athletes developed exertional rhabdomyolysis and one 17 had bilateral fasciotomy for thigh compartment syndrome, when coaches after 18 the winter break transition period imposed intense squat drills. 19 c) Twelve student athletes of another football were hospitalized with 20 exertional rhabdomyolysis with three requiring fasciotomies for compartment 21 syndrome, when a new football coach decided to test the players resolve by 22 submitting them to intensive and repetitive push up and upper body drills. 23 KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 5 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 15. 2 Defendants NCAA, University, Taggart, and Oderinde knew or had reason 3 to know for many years that intensive and repetitive workouts used in physical 4 regimens present a much greater risk of causing exertional rhabdomyolysis 5 and other injuries to student athletes when the coaches impose the regimens 6 during team transition periods, e.g. soon after winter or summer break, 7 because the student athletes are not yet acclimated to such intensive 8 repetitions, or when the coach imposes the exercise in the early morning hours 9 when the body is pre-dehydrated from sleep. 10 16. 11 At all times material and despite their knowledge of the serious health 12 injuries and deaths suffered by student athletes from such practices, 13 defendants NCAA and University have declined to prohibit or regulate physical 14 punishment regimens in the strength and conditioning training that college 15 football coaches impose upon players. 16 17. 17 During the 2016 football season, the Oregon Ducks had a losing season 18 for the first time in over a decade. That single losing season was unacceptable 19 to defendant University, and University fired the coach, Mark Helfrich. Winning 20 was so important to defendant University that it was undeterred by his 21 contractual buy-out clause, which would require University to pay him 22 upwards of $15,000,000 to fire him. 23 KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 6 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 18. 2 In December 2016, after firing the above coach, defendant University 3 hired defendant Taggart to be the head football coach of the Oregon Ducks with 4 a $16,000,000 contract. 5 19. 6 Defendant Taggart, within a month of being hired, fired every assistant 7 coach for the Oregon Ducks football team, many of whom had been working 8 with the program for decades. He also removed the football team’s strength 9 and conditioning coach, James Radcliffe, from training football players. Coach 10 Radcliffe was a nationally recognized and certified strength and conditioning 11 coach who followed an evidence-based practice for improving student athletic 12 performance, while ensuring student athlete health and safety. He did not 13 impose such extreme physical regimens. Defendant Taggart fired him in favor 14 of hiring defendant Oderinde to be the strength and conditioning coach for the 15 student athletes. Defendant Oderinde had worked as defendant Taggart’s 16 strength and conditioning coach at the two previous schools where Taggart 17 coached before coming to the University of Oregon. Defendant Oderinde not 18 only was willing to put student athletes through nonevidence-based physical 19 punishment regimens, but also did not carry industry required certification to 20 be a strength and conditioning coach. 21 20. 22 Perhaps unknown to others at defendant University, defendant Taggart 23 and defendant Oderinde had a history of imposing the extreme physical KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 7 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 regimens on student athletes that were contrary to the warnings and guidelines 2 of defendant NCAA, and they intended to bring those practices to the 3 University’s football team. 4 21. 5 When defendant Taggart was hired in December 2016, during the 6 student athletes’ winter break period. Team strength and conditioning 7 workouts would not begin until on or about January 10, 2017. Defendant 8 Taggart informed the student athletes that he and the new coaches were going 9 to focus on discipline in strength and conditioning and that they were “going to 10 find the snakes in the grass and cut their heads off.” He also emphasized to 11 the student athletes that they were free to quit the team, that he welcomed that 12 they quit the team, and that he saw the primary purpose of his job to replace 13 the current players recruited under Helfrich with his own recruits. 14 22. 15 Defendant Taggart also identified a small handful of exceptional student 16 athletes already with the program who were known to work hard, and he 17 named those student athletes to a leadership team. Those members had the 18 special job of setting an example of hard work and determination for the rest of 19 the team during team practices and training. Defendant Taggart named 20 plaintiff Doug Brenner to the leadership team. 21 23. 22 On or about January 10, 2017, defendants Taggart and Oderinde 23 planned to subject the student athletes to an extreme physical regimen on the KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 8 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 first day back from winter break as part of the coaches’ efforts to, in Taggart’s 2 words, “find the snakes in the grass and cut their heads off.” The coaching 3 defendants planned to impose a physically grueling training exercise that they 4 developed over their years working together that would require the student 5 athletes to exceed the outer limits of their will, discipline, strength, and 6 physical health. 7 24. 8 The coaching defendants knew or had reason to know, or knew and did 9 not care that the football players would be at their weakest condition following 10 the winter break transition period. Because the NCAA did not enforce such 11 guidelines, the coaching defendants did not care that the workout violated 12 NCAA guidelines for protecting student athletes from severe over-exertion 13 injuries such as death and rhabdomyolysis. The workouts took place every 14 morning on four consecutive days. Some student athletes, including plaintiff, 15 started their exercise regimen at 6:00 a.m. 16 25. 17 Defendant coaches did not review the training program with University 18 sports medical staff to ensure it was safe for the student athletes, and 19 defendant University failed to require defendant Taggart and Oderinde to do so. 20 26. 21 The student athletes were divided into three workout groups of about 40 22 student athletes each (a 6 a.m. group, an 8 a.m. group, and a 10 a.m. group) 23 with each group being subject to a workout that would last approximately one KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 9 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26 1 to one and a half hours. The coaching defendants had the walls of the workout 2 room of the $100 million Hatfield-Dowlin Complex lined with garbage cans, 3 because they knew or had reason to know from their previous experiences that 4 the regimen that they intended to impose on the student athletes would cause 5 many student athletes to vomit, and the coaches did not want the student 6 athletes to vomit on the floor of the pristine and valuable facility. They also did 7 not make water available in the workout room for at least the first day of the 8 workouts. 9 27. 10 The workout initially required approximately 40 or so student athletes to 11 do 10 perfect push-ups in unison. If even one of the 40 student athletes were 12 out of unison with the others or failed to use perfect technique, then the 13 coaches punished all of the student athletes by having them perform numerous 14 up-downs and begin the push-up drill again. Such unison or perfect technique 15 from 40 players for ten consecutive pushups was not possible. Indeed, 16 defendant Oderinde during the workout made it clear very quickly that the 17 team would never satisfy the “10 perfect push-ups” goal, and that the entire 18 purpose of the work out was to weed out the “snakes” on the team. Defendant 19 Oderinde transitioned the workout to near-unceasing, repetitive up-down 20 punishment drills for the hour to hour and a half session. 21 28. 22 During the workout, if even one student athlete needed to stop 23 performing the punishment drills to catch his breath, to vomit, or otherwise KAFOURY & McDOUGAL 24 PAGE 10 – COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE 411 SW Second Ave., Ste.200 Portland, OR 97204 Fax: 503-224-2673 Phone: 503-224-2647 25 26