Link: Texas Tech QB Sorsby Entering Treatment for Gambling Addiction

[davefrat]

I am not a legal expert by any stretch, but I was thinking about this issue more and what the injunction means. The judge who granted the injunction isn't necessarily saying that Sorsby didn't do anything wrong and should be able to play, he's just saying he should be allowed to play until a court upholds the NCAA ruling. From a common sense perspective, I don't think anyone agrees with that outside of Texas Tech. Unfortunately, for this judge, the road has been paved over the last several years to allow the legal system to uphold or overturn the NCAA's rulings.

To me, the biggest issue in all of this is the how weak the NCAA has become, to the point that I don't know what their purpose is. I'm not sure I can really blame the NCAA completely for becoming such a useless governing body, but I don't think they have done themselves any favors either. What I don't understand, is how are the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. able to never have their authority questioned or litigated. Is it the presence of a collective bargaining agreement? Does collective bargaining exist in FIFA or the IOC? I don't think it does, yet their decisions always seem final.

The usual standard when a court issues an injunction involves two main points...first, the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, but also that the party seeking the injunction is more likely than not to succeed when the matter goes to trial.

To the first point, there is no doubt that Sorsby would likely suffer irreparable harm if he's not allowed to play college football anymore because of the impact that would have on his draft status. That however, is his own fault (sorry, but I'm not buying his addiction excuse and the idea that he was so out of control that he couldn't keep from gambling, but I suppose it's possible).

To the second point, I think it is highly doubtful that he is more likely than not to prevail at trial.

But who knows? What a mess.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Heard a lawyer on one of the Sirius sports talk shows. He said that these sorts of cases, where there’s an immovable deadline (like a football season) looming, can be heard quickly. Like inside of 60 days, maybe inside of 30. Also said that Sorsby would be unlikely to prevail.

So said a lawyer on a sports talk show. TIFWIW.

 

[Power Eye]

The usual standard when a court issues an injunction involves two main points...first, the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, but also that the party seeking the injunction is more likely than not to succeed when the matter goes to trial.

To the first point, there is no doubt that Sorsby would likely suffer irreparable harm if he's not allowed to play college football anymore because of the impact that would have on his draft status. That however, is his own fault (sorry, but I'm not buying his addiction excuse and the idea that he was so out of control that he couldn't keep from gambling, but I suppose it's possible).

To the second point, I think it is highly doubtful that he is more likely than not to prevail at trial.

But who knows? What a mess.

That's interesting. I did not know that there had to be a more likely than not chance of success. That does change my view of how the judge ruled. What I also don't understand is how this is a state court matter. Given that it's a NCAA violation, how is the Federal court system not who should be determining this?

 

[CB4]

Heard a lawyer on one of the Sirius sports talk shows. He said that these sorts of cases, where there’s an immovable deadline (like a football season) looming, can be heard quickly. Like inside of 60 days, maybe inside of 30. Also said that Sorsby would be unlikely to prevail.

So said a lawyer on a sports talk show. TIFWIW.

I think the NCAA as part of appealing the decision requested an accelerated or expedited appeal by the Texas 7th District Court.

 

[CB4]

I think there is little question that Sorsby is a problem gambler. The question is one of “what was his motive to seek treatment?” Was it one of “I’m fully accepting that have a gambling problem, my life is a wreck and I need to change?” Or was it “I’ve got millions on the line and I have to play this year?” In terms of treatment, you look at “pain points”. Is Sorsby’s pain point internal-a fully recognition of his problem, genuinely accepting it and willing to do the difficult work of true recovery? Or is his pain point external- his pain is coming from getting caught by the NCAA with his hand in the cookie jar?” Time and time again you see it in addiction treatment. They are there because something is “on the line”- their marriage, their family, their job, prison time, etc.. They seek temporary relief from this “external pain” (let’s get them off my back) by playing the treatment game. And once that external pain is relieved temporarily, the addict goes right back to doing what they have always done. And that usually means, for a compulsive gambler, betting heavier and more frequently than before. Failure is inevitable.

Here is the hypothetical exit question for you. If the NCAA had never gotten wind of Sorsby’s gambling history, would he of his own accord came to the same conclusion about his compulsive gambling problem? Did he go to get help because compulsive gambling is certain to destroy him at some point if he didn’t change or was it popping a few aspirin to attempt to get rid of his “NCAA headache”?

Only Sorsby knows his true motive. And maybe because of my years of recovery and sponsorship I’ve become more cynical. I’ve been lied to and deceived more times than I can count by those I’ve tried to help. It comes with territory. I hope Sorsby proves me wrong. But based on my experiences, I am highly doubtful that will happen.

 

[Padreruf]

Talked to a lawyer friend in Texas...this ruling was from a 75yr old judge who was appointed specifically to handle this case. Several problems including some procedural ones with the judges ruling. Also, my friend believes that the Big 12 commissioner is getting everything lined up for an action coming either from the presidents zoom call or from his own action on their behalf. I

f a player cannot be suspended for gambling then all the guardrails are broken...

See this excellent summary of the steps being taken...Big !2 AD's

 

[Bamabuzzard]

The usual standard when a court issues an injunction involves two main points...first, the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, but also that the party seeking the injunction is more likely than not to succeed when the matter goes to trial.

To the first point, there is no doubt that Sorsby would likely suffer irreparable harm if he's not allowed to play college football anymore because of the impact that would have on his draft status. That however, is his own fault (sorry, but I'm not buying his addiction excuse and the idea that he was so out of control that he couldn't keep from gambling, but I suppose it's possible).

To the second point, I think it is highly doubtful that he is more likely than not to prevail at trial.

But who knows? What a mess.

His actions have already caused irreparable harm to his draft status anyway. There have been GM's that have already said they'd not draft him because of the gambling addiction. It's not like the guy is a generational talent and no NFL team is going to take that kind of risk on a kid who probably would have been a second round draft pick at best. I would think that considering his gambling addiction, letting him play would do irreparable harm because it would put him in the very environment that got him addicted.

This entire thing is a joke.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Apple News blurb from yahoo I believe that said Tech would threaten legal action against the conference if the conference imposed sanctions. A super majority of presidents (12/15) could impose forfeits if Tech plays Sorsby, with the premise that the action of that player university would cause damage to the conference as a whole.

Tech has maintained they are not funding his appeal or eligibility claim, and has threatened legal action against specific universities that may take matters into their own hands.

WHO HAD TEXAS TECH DESTROYING COLLEGE ATHLETICS ON THEIR BINGO CARD?

 

[CrimsonTitles]

Jay Bilas (who actually is a lawyer) says he thinks the appeal will be granted and be overturned before the season. too high of a burden for them to actually prove what the temporary injunction argues. the appeal goes before three judges, not just one

The issue is that every single judge on that panel has a Texas Tech law degree, so I don't have high hopes for the appeal

 

[davefrat]

His actions have already caused irreparable harm to his draft status anyway. There have been GM's that have already said they'd not draft him because of the gambling addiction. It's not like the guy is a generational talent and no NFL team is going to take that kind of risk on a kid who probably would have been a second round draft pick at best. I would think that considering his gambling addiction, letting him play would do irreparable harm because it would put him in the very environment that got him addicted.

This entire thing is a joke.

I don't disagree. I referred to Art Schlichter in a previous post.

The NFL is willing to look past a lot of things, but gambling has never been one.

You can beat your wife, kill some people drunk driving, be a drug addict, etc., and someone in the NFL will take a chance on you, but not on a gambling addict.

 

[TNBama]

I was suspicious about if he entered treatment before or after he was caught. I know it can be wrong, but I had ChatGPT look into the timing. I STRONGLY feel he went into treatment just to head off the repercussions, which would mean he did not do it due to realizing he had a problem.
Here is the timeline ChatGPT came up with:
March 11, 2026: NCAA received a tip from an online sportsbook, reportedly after law-enforcement contact.
April 14: Texas Tech was notified the NCAA was investigating Sorsby.
April 27: ESPN reported/Texas Tech announced Sorsby was “checking into” residential treatment for gambling addiction. ESPN specifically said the decision came “in the wake of the discovery” of thousands of bets.
Later court/reporting says he completed a 35-day inpatient program and Texas Tech announced on May 26 that he had completed inpatient treatment “last week.”

 

[JDCrimson]

Was this a TRO or preliminary injunction? With a preliminary injunction the opposing party, NCAA, must be present and allowed to argue the case on the merits. Maybe they did, but The NCAA should have argued that Sorsby has Unclean Hands and should not be allowed to prevail on his conduct.

 

[Padreruf]

Was this a TRO or preliminary injunction? With a preliminary injunction the opposing party, NCAA, must be present and allowed to argue the case on the merits. Maybe they did, but The NCAA should have argued that Sorsby has Unclean Hands and should not be allowed to prevail on his conduct.

TRO I believe...

 

[JDCrimson]

TRO I believe...

Well that is only good for 10 days unless appealed by the opposing party which the NCAA has appealed. However, it would seem the NCAA can file their own TRO against Sorsby because it too will be irreparably harmed and has a strong likelihood to prevail on the merits. I see no way this can be docketed for a hearing in February 2027. It has to be heard before the season.

 

[Tidewater]

That's interesting. I did not know that there had to be a more likely than not chance of success. That does change my view of how the judge ruled. What I also don't understand is how this is a state court matter. Given that it's a NCAA violation, how is the Federal court system not who should be determining this?

I would think it is not amongst the enumerated federal powers (I mean, what federal law has been broken?), but the most likely reason is that the plaintiff filed his case in a Texas court (probably for good reason, as in he was much more likely to get a favorable ruling in a Texas court).

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I still don't buy that he is an addict. People keep comparing to alcoholics or drug addicts. I think a better comparison is the perks that get caught with multiple women then claim to be a sex addict.

 

[JDCrimson]

I still don't buy that he is an addict. People keep comparing to alcoholics or drug addicts. I think a better comparison is the perks that get caught with multiple women then claim to be a sex addict.

Alcoholics and drug addicts dont usually get to keep their job under comfort of the court...

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Alcoholics and drug addicts dont usually get to keep their job under comfort of the court...

He got caught and then he claim addiction. Wasn't he also placing the bets through someone else's account?

 

[CB4]

think a better comparison is the perks that get caught with multiple women then claim to be a sex addict.

A very valid comparison. What many don’t understand is that you generally break addictions into two categories. One in the chemical addiction associated with alcoholism and a drug abuse. Problem gambling to the point of being pathological falls into the category of process-cognitive addiction, similar those with sexual/porn addiction, compulsive spending, among others.

With alcohol and chemical dependency, the brain chemistry is changed by the use of the substance itself (changes in norepinephrine, dopamine, adrenaline, among others neurotransmitters). With process-cognitive addiction it is the participation in the activity itself that in the long term alters the brain chemistry. Many studies of brain function (PET scans and EEG) have shown the alteration in neurotransmitters in those with process cognitive addictions. In other words, they “jones” for it just like the meth addict.

One of the reasons former athletes or highly competitive personalities are more susceptible to process addiction is really pretty simple. Think about you as a fan watching the “2nd and 26” touchdown pass to win the title. I would imagine if I had you hooked up to a PET scan or measuring your heart rate, your brain was lit up like a Christmas tree and heart rate through the roof. I know mine was. The “jolt of adrenaline” and the euphoria that follows is the high the process cognitive addict lives for. Now imagine the euphoria that Tua and Smitty were experiencing in that moment. For the compulsive gambler, it isn’t the money and the winning they crave. It is the “action”. It is the constant, long term “up and down”’ of that action that wrecks the brain chemistry, the way alcohol and other substances do.

As we say it leads to a “stinking way of thinking”.

Do you people use mental health issues and addiction as “dodge”? Absolutely, all the time. I seen folks get themselves “into treatment” to avoid all kinds of problems, legal and personal. Is Sorsby doing this? Probably to some extent. Does he have a problem? Only Sorsby knows that. The biggest “red flag” is the telltale “risk taking behavior”. Did Sorsby know gambling was against NCAA rules? Without question. Yet he did it anyway knowing full well it could cost him his eligibility. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly. Did Sorsby believe he smarter than everyone else and wouldn’t get caught? I’ll put this way- the addict becomes sociopathic in their behavior. I haven’t met a single addict that didn’t believe they were “the smartest person in the room”. And in the end that is what destroys them.

Edit: I’m not attempting here to make excuses for Sorsby. To the contrary. Part of the recovery process is fully accepting the problems, issues and pain your actions have caused. And Sorsby must be willing to make restitution for those actions (amends). IMO loss of eligibility is a small price to pay for his actions.

And THAT is the reason I’m clearly point my finger at the “adults in the room at Texas Tech”. The actions of the University is absolutely detrimental to Sorsby if he truly has a gambling problem. It isn’t helping develop the humility needed to work a program of recovery.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

He got caught and then he claim addiction. Wasn't he also placing the bets through someone else's account?

In this particular case, with him being a sports figure that actually plays in games that people bet on, he shouldn't be able to keep "his job" just because he's an addict. There's just waaaaay too much risk of him fixing games not only for him but for others he knows so they can make money as well.