June 10, 2026 • 11 mins
Attorney Stuart W. Penrose of Minnillo Law Group joins us every week to discuss sports and the law. This week we discussed the Brendan Sorsby injunction ruling that's allowing him to continue his college football career.
Podcasts of The Mo Egger Radio Show are a service of Longnecks Sports Grill.
Listen to the show live weekday afternoons 3:00 - 6:00 on ESPN1530.
Listen Live: ESPN1530.com/listen
Get more: https://linktr.ee/MoEgger
Follow on X: @MoEgger
Instagram too: @MoEgger
And YouTube: youtube.com/@TheMoEggerShow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We can't talk about Brendan Soresby without bringing in our
sports legal analyst, attorney Stewart W.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Penrose from the Manila Law Group.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
He has I think over the last month and a half,
this has become the Brendan Soresby segment, but always provides
expert analysis from a legal perspective, and kind of not
to join us as always.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Because it's Tuesday. How are we doing?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I'm doing good, MO? How about you?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I'm doing well.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We were texting yesterday morning as this was unfolding, and
I was surprised, and most observers were surprised that the
ruling went the way that it did.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
I gather that you were surprised as well. Well.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Dive into the nuts and bolts of it, But what
was your initial reaction when we saw yesterday's news.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
MO, I had to double before test. I had to
double check my eyes to make sure that what I
was reading wasn't coming from the satire website. I mean,
this was a completely shocking ruling, you know, for dambling
has always been the cardinal centem sports. When we live
in Cincinnati, I say more. You know, we've seen what
the effects of gambling can have on an athlete, and
(01:05):
here you have, you know, seeingly everybody on the same
side except for sores being as lawyers and one judge
in Texas.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
So we've we've talked about some of these cases involving
student athletes who have sued for an extra year of eligibility,
but it did feel like there were a few basic
rules that the nc double A was still going to
have the legal power to enforce.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
What does this do for that, I assumingly is the.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Final nail in the cost and it seemingly cuts the
n CUBA off at the waistmo you know is you
have little to no consequence for gambling and you can
step back out in the field. What's to say that
you could be stopped from doing anything that the NCUBA
can prevent you from playing for anything. You've got a
clear pathway that you can go find a judge, and
(01:56):
I know that they got a judge from Fort Worth
that have necessarily a local judge. But you can get
a home court there and you know, seemingly get it,
get a ruin in your favor and get back out
in the field, and get back out and make your
nil money. It's hard to argue that you can't right now.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Is there anything the NCAA can do from a legal perspective.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, they're filing an appeal and they're asking for for
for a decision to be accelerated. I mean, let's be
honest here, mean, appeals take time even if it's accelerated.
You know, how can they get that in before the season.
And you know, not trying to say a judge is
biased here, but you know this would go to the
Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo, Texas, in West Texas.
(02:42):
There are four justices on that panel. I'll give you
one guess where every single one of them went to
law school?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Went to Texas Tech.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Exactly do we really think that that that this that
this decision is going to get changed by that court
exactly Exactly. Soursby doesn't need to win this case. He
just needs to run off the clock, and it seems
like that's what's going to happen here.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Is there a scenario where whereby he plays the season,
the appeal is still heard, the court rules in favor
of the nc double A, and then Texas Tech is
role to have retroactively used an athlete who should have
been ineligible and then have to suffer the consequences of that.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Well, you can't. I get you're you're talking about in
terms of vacating wins and vacating things that happen while
they have soores me. Yeah, it's possible. I suppose that said,
if they're using a player that you know a court
has deemed eligible at the time, and under this order,
(03:54):
the n C, double A and the conferences are powerless
to stop him from playing. I don't see how they
could strip everything if they were powerless to keep them
off the field at the time. But you know, we
keep being surprised with every ruling and everything that comes
out every day, so who knows. But I would certainly
be surprised if what happens in the field is later stripped,
(04:17):
given that you know, this judge is allowing him to play,
and they have they have to abide by the order
barring baring the injunction being shot down. They they truly
seem powerless.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Here there was the Charles Bettiaco story, the guy who
sued for eligibility in Alabama. He ended up getting eligibility,
he played in a handful of games, and then he
was later declared ineligible. So that whole process went down
pretty quickly. Could something like that happen here?
Speaker 3 (04:48):
It's possible. If the NCAA wins their appeal, they're asking
for it to be accelerated, but there still has to
be appell at briefs made by both sides, like the
oral arguments as well. I mean, the courts, you know,
they understand the time mean of this here and if
he takes the field and this is all a moot issue.
(05:10):
So yeah, I'm sure they probably will get a decision
in before the season, but it's up to whether the
NCAA wins that decision or not. And you know, you're
going to be going into a court in West Texas
with with for Texas tech long long justices, and you know,
we'll see what those odds are at the end of
the day and and what plays out. But I think
(05:30):
I think our sensibilities are in the right place there.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Yes, yeah, no, no question. Attorney's store Tubedy Penrose from
the Manila Law Group. So precedent is a term that's
always used when when we talk about, you know, significant
legal cases.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
So what precedent has been said here?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
If I'm a student athlete and I decide, you know
what I'm going to make some wagers that prior to
this ruling I would have assumed would make me ineligible
if I'm caught. Now, can I go ahead and do
them and use Brendan Sorosby's argument that, hey, for my
mental health, I should be allowed to continue playing what
President has been said here?
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Legally, how can you say that President isn't said I mean,
it certainly is here. Who's to say that anything doesn't
go at this point? Yes, absolutely, you could for see
other athletes doing the same thing. And you know, using.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Mental health is.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
As a weapon to evade, to evade any form of
responsibility or any form of punishment for your actions. And
that from everything I saw on everything that I read,
seemed to be the defense here that, hey, you know
I have a mental health condition, and you know, therefore
I seem to be responsible for my actions. And it
(06:48):
seems that that's what the court went along with with this.
And you know, how can we possibly say that that
President isn't set for others to do the same thing? Absolutely?
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I mean you know, for me, I read his attorney's
case that, well, this would have caused irreparable harm, and
I believe that. But isn't that the point behind a punishment,
whether it's in a court or even at your workplace.
Isn't that the point of punishment to provide some harm
to the person who's being punished.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Absolutely. I mean, we talk about the NC double A
in some some way, shape or form every week on
here because it's always interesting different things that come out
to challenge the NC Double A and their rapid downfall
is interesting. And there are a lot of legitimate reasons
to dislike the NC double A and want to root
against the NC double A, you name him, there's a
(07:39):
million reasons for it, but not this one, not this one,
and everybody's everybody's minds are exploding. You know what we're
hearing about schools and saying that we will not play
Texas Tech in any sport, the big fault and meetings
with your marking all the ads today and he's not
publicly divulging what's being said, but you know, schools and
(08:02):
administrations are lived over this. If you can't even a
full punishments for gambling, what's left at the end of
the day. You know, the sports college sports are being
run by a by district judges that are making, you know,
rulings that that hamp down anything the NCAA wants to do.
(08:22):
And you know, it's one thing when you're talking about, Okay,
there's a Trinidad shambles, an old miss in an extra
year for a medical red shirt, okay, whatever. Honestly, even
talking about the NBA G League players coming back and
getting color of jelibility seems innocuous compared to this, well
(08:43):
said mine just keeps getting moved and moved. And you know,
yesterday it just showed that there is no line. It's
hard to say that there.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Is there's no line, and an organization that can't enforce
its own rules is not a legitimate organization. And so
I guess the basic take away that so many of
us had is we've seen the INCIDAA take so many
losses in court, and so it's legitimacy has already been
brought into question.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
This kills it, as far as I'm concerned, O.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
It kills it. I mean a couple of things here.
I mean, for your first and foremost, the integrity of it.
How can we watch a game right now, a college game,
and trust that we're watching legitimate competition. You have players
that are that are placing bets, that are allowed to
go back and play as if nothing ever happened. How
can we trust that that's going to be in the
(09:34):
back of your mind anytime you lost. Brendan Sewersy throw
a pass. And let's be honest here, I am sure
he is not the only college athlete that has been
betting or will be betting. How do we how do
fans trust the integrity of what they're watching? But on
the flip side mode, you know, people are living over
this right now and you either have to fight or
(09:56):
die sometimes, and it really feels like one of those moments,
and you know, maybe this will be a watershed moment
that can help get Congress to act, to act on this,
to get something to help TEW Sports survive in some
real meaningful way. You know, if not this, then what
could bring this forward? And you know, hopefully something good
(10:19):
can come out of this long term. As ridiculous as
that sounds, looking at the last thy four hours.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
I hope so attorney's store tell me they Penrose from
the Manilo Law Group. Uh, I know I can trust you.
If someone of my audience needs an attorney, needs your help,
how do they get a hold of you?
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Well, we want you to call us at a Vanila
Law Group at five one three seven two three sixteen
hundred Auto Accidents, Ovis Bankruptcy. We want you to give
us a call, Manila Laws. It's their fault, it's our fight.
Five one three seven two three sixteen hundred.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
The Manila Law Group. Our guy, our sports legal expert,
Bernie Steward W. Penrose outstanding as always, looking forward to
next week already, Thanks so much, Thank you man
We can't talk about Brendan Soresby without bringing in our
sports legal analyst, attorney Stewart W.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Penrose from the Manila Law Group.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
He has I think over the last month and a half,
this has become the Brendan Soresby segment, but always provides
expert analysis from a legal perspective, and kind of not
to join us as always.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Because it's Tuesday. How are we doing?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I'm doing good, MO? How about you?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I'm doing well.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We were texting yesterday morning as this was unfolding, and
I was surprised, and most observers were surprised that the
ruling went the way that it did.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
I gather that you were surprised as well. Well.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Dive into the nuts and bolts of it, But what
was your initial reaction when we saw yesterday's news.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
MO, I had to double before test. I had to
double check my eyes to make sure that what I
was reading wasn't coming from the satire website. I mean,
this was a completely shocking ruling, you know, for dambling
has always been the cardinal centem sports. When we live
in Cincinnati, I say more. You know, we've seen what
the effects of gambling can have on an athlete, and
(01:05):
here you have, you know, seeingly everybody on the same
side except for sores being as lawyers and one judge
in Texas.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
So we've we've talked about some of these cases involving
student athletes who have sued for an extra year of eligibility,
but it did feel like there were a few basic
rules that the nc double A was still going to
have the legal power to enforce.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
What does this do for that, I assumingly is the.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Final nail in the cost and it seemingly cuts the
n CUBA off at the waistmo you know is you
have little to no consequence for gambling and you can
step back out in the field. What's to say that
you could be stopped from doing anything that the NCUBA
can prevent you from playing for anything. You've got a
clear pathway that you can go find a judge, and
(01:56):
I know that they got a judge from Fort Worth
that have necessarily a local judge. But you can get
a home court there and you know, seemingly get it,
get a ruin in your favor and get back out
in the field, and get back out and make your
nil money. It's hard to argue that you can't right now.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Is there anything the NCAA can do from a legal perspective.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, they're filing an appeal and they're asking for for
for a decision to be accelerated. I mean, let's be
honest here, mean, appeals take time even if it's accelerated.
You know, how can they get that in before the season.
And you know, not trying to say a judge is
biased here, but you know this would go to the
Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo, Texas, in West Texas.
(02:42):
There are four justices on that panel. I'll give you
one guess where every single one of them went to
law school?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Went to Texas Tech.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Exactly do we really think that that that this that
this decision is going to get changed by that court
exactly Exactly. Soursby doesn't need to win this case. He
just needs to run off the clock, and it seems
like that's what's going to happen here.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Is there a scenario where whereby he plays the season,
the appeal is still heard, the court rules in favor
of the nc double A, and then Texas Tech is
role to have retroactively used an athlete who should have
been ineligible and then have to suffer the consequences of that.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Well, you can't. I get you're you're talking about in
terms of vacating wins and vacating things that happen while
they have soores me. Yeah, it's possible. I suppose that said,
if they're using a player that you know a court
has deemed eligible at the time, and under this order,
(03:54):
the n C, double A and the conferences are powerless
to stop him from playing. I don't see how they
could strip everything if they were powerless to keep them
off the field at the time. But you know, we
keep being surprised with every ruling and everything that comes
out every day, so who knows. But I would certainly
be surprised if what happens in the field is later stripped,
(04:17):
given that you know, this judge is allowing him to play,
and they have they have to abide by the order
barring baring the injunction being shot down. They they truly
seem powerless.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Here there was the Charles Bettiaco story, the guy who
sued for eligibility in Alabama. He ended up getting eligibility,
he played in a handful of games, and then he
was later declared ineligible. So that whole process went down
pretty quickly. Could something like that happen here?
Speaker 3 (04:48):
It's possible. If the NCAA wins their appeal, they're asking
for it to be accelerated, but there still has to
be appell at briefs made by both sides, like the
oral arguments as well. I mean, the courts, you know,
they understand the time mean of this here and if
he takes the field and this is all a moot issue.
(05:10):
So yeah, I'm sure they probably will get a decision
in before the season, but it's up to whether the
NCAA wins that decision or not. And you know, you're
going to be going into a court in West Texas
with with for Texas tech long long justices, and you know,
we'll see what those odds are at the end of
the day and and what plays out. But I think
(05:30):
I think our sensibilities are in the right place there.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Yes, yeah, no, no question. Attorney's store Tubedy Penrose from
the Manila Law Group. So precedent is a term that's
always used when when we talk about, you know, significant
legal cases.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
So what precedent has been said here?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
If I'm a student athlete and I decide, you know
what I'm going to make some wagers that prior to
this ruling I would have assumed would make me ineligible
if I'm caught. Now, can I go ahead and do
them and use Brendan Sorosby's argument that, hey, for my
mental health, I should be allowed to continue playing what
President has been said here?
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Legally, how can you say that President isn't said I mean,
it certainly is here. Who's to say that anything doesn't
go at this point? Yes, absolutely, you could for see
other athletes doing the same thing. And you know, using.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Mental health is.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
As a weapon to evade, to evade any form of
responsibility or any form of punishment for your actions. And
that from everything I saw on everything that I read,
seemed to be the defense here that, hey, you know
I have a mental health condition, and you know, therefore
I seem to be responsible for my actions. And it
(06:48):
seems that that's what the court went along with with this.
And you know, how can we possibly say that that
President isn't set for others to do the same thing? Absolutely?
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I mean you know, for me, I read his attorney's
case that, well, this would have caused irreparable harm, and
I believe that. But isn't that the point behind a punishment,
whether it's in a court or even at your workplace.
Isn't that the point of punishment to provide some harm
to the person who's being punished.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Absolutely. I mean, we talk about the NC double A
in some some way, shape or form every week on
here because it's always interesting different things that come out
to challenge the NC Double A and their rapid downfall
is interesting. And there are a lot of legitimate reasons
to dislike the NC double A and want to root
against the NC double A, you name him, there's a
(07:39):
million reasons for it, but not this one, not this one,
and everybody's everybody's minds are exploding. You know what we're
hearing about schools and saying that we will not play
Texas Tech in any sport, the big fault and meetings
with your marking all the ads today and he's not
publicly divulging what's being said, but you know, schools and
(08:02):
administrations are lived over this. If you can't even a
full punishments for gambling, what's left at the end of
the day. You know, the sports college sports are being
run by a by district judges that are making, you know,
rulings that that hamp down anything the NCAA wants to do.
(08:22):
And you know, it's one thing when you're talking about, Okay,
there's a Trinidad shambles, an old miss in an extra
year for a medical red shirt, okay, whatever. Honestly, even
talking about the NBA G League players coming back and
getting color of jelibility seems innocuous compared to this, well
(08:43):
said mine just keeps getting moved and moved. And you know,
yesterday it just showed that there is no line. It's
hard to say that there.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Is there's no line, and an organization that can't enforce
its own rules is not a legitimate organization. And so
I guess the basic take away that so many of
us had is we've seen the INCIDAA take so many
losses in court, and so it's legitimacy has already been
brought into question.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
This kills it, as far as I'm concerned, O.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
It kills it. I mean a couple of things here.
I mean, for your first and foremost, the integrity of it.
How can we watch a game right now, a college game,
and trust that we're watching legitimate competition. You have players
that are that are placing bets, that are allowed to
go back and play as if nothing ever happened. How
can we trust that that's going to be in the
(09:34):
back of your mind anytime you lost. Brendan Sewersy throw
a pass. And let's be honest here, I am sure
he is not the only college athlete that has been
betting or will be betting. How do we how do
fans trust the integrity of what they're watching? But on
the flip side mode, you know, people are living over
this right now and you either have to fight or
(09:56):
die sometimes, and it really feels like one of those moments,
and you know, maybe this will be a watershed moment
that can help get Congress to act, to act on this,
to get something to help TEW Sports survive in some
real meaningful way. You know, if not this, then what
could bring this forward? And you know, hopefully something good
(10:19):
can come out of this long term. As ridiculous as
that sounds, looking at the last thy four hours.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
I hope so attorney's store tell me they Penrose from
the Manilo Law Group. Uh, I know I can trust you.
If someone of my audience needs an attorney, needs your help,
how do they get a hold of you?
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Well, we want you to call us at a Vanila
Law Group at five one three seven two three sixteen
hundred Auto Accidents, Ovis Bankruptcy. We want you to give
us a call, Manila Laws. It's their fault, it's our fight.
Five one three seven two three sixteen hundred.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
The Manila Law Group. Our guy, our sports legal expert,
Bernie Steward W. Penrose outstanding as always, looking forward to
next week already, Thanks so much, Thank you man
Mo Egger News
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com