[ad_1]
A San Diego Superior Court judge has barred county officials from preventing young athletes – including high school students – from participating in youth sports that operate under the same or similar COVID protocols, enforced by professional teams and academics.
Justice Earl H. Maas III issued the interim restraining order at 4:42 pm Friday afternoon.
reDownload our NBC 7 mobile app for iOS or Android to get the latest San Diego weather alerts and breaking news.
Maas rejected the defense arguments that “because there are fewer professional and collegiate teams, the risks to the community are lower by allowing them to play sports” and that older players are more mature. .
Instead, Maas said the evidence provided by Dr Monica Gandhi, a Harvard-trained physician and professor of medicine at UC San Francisco, was compelling. She testified that “the rate of transmission of the virus in high school sports is equal to or less than that seen in studies of Major League Baseball and National Football League,” the ruling says.
Regarding the irreparable damage to young athletes, Maas ruled that “continued
the ban on competitive sports will cause irreparable harm to the petitioners. “
The move comes after two local high school athletes sued California and San Diego County, seeking an order requiring the government to allow high school athletic competitions.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nicholas Gardinera of Scripps Ranch High School in the San Diego Unified School District and Cameron Woolsey of Mission Hills High School in the San Marcos Unified School District.
Nicholas’ father, Marlon Gardinera, is a football coach at Scripps Ranch High. He said in January that the lawsuit was about equal treatment, that is, if professional and varsity athletes play, why can’t high school athletes play?
The defendants include Governor Gavin Newsom, the San Diego County State Department of Public Health and its public health official, Dr. Wilma Wooten.
THE STATE HAD ALREADY RELEASED RESTRICTIONS
Earlier today, the state had already taken steps to ease restrictions on youth sports statewide.
California officials announced Friday morning that youth athletic competitions could resume next week in parts of California and the vast majority of the state by the end of March, paving the way for spring versions. abstracts of football, field hockey, gymnastics and water polo in high school. . Now, however, the TRO released in San Diego on Friday allows young San Diego County athletes to start playing immediately.
Almost all interschool, club and community league sports in California have been on hold since the pandemic began in March, as well as adult recreational sports which are also covered by the new rules. The California Interscholastic Federation, the state’s high school sports governing body, has moved most fall sports to spring in the hopes that students could save some of their season.
But state rules only allowed football, baseball, soccer, and almost all other team sports to resume once a county exits the four most restrictive levels of anti-virus regulations in the country. State, a slow process that threatened to scuttle every spring season.
Under the new rules, the general level designation of a county does not matter. The only measure used for sports competitions will be the per capita case. All outdoor sports will be allowed – with safety protocols – once a county hits a level of 14 cases or less per 100,000 population.
There are 27 counties that meet this standard and were already going to be able to resume competitions on February 26. They are virtually all found in northern California and include three of the four largest counties in the San Francisco Bay Area – Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Francisco – as well as several of the state’s more rural counties.
16 more counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange and Fresno, are expected to meet the standard within weeks.
Legal proceedings continue in March
Parties to Friday’s decision are due to return to court on March 5 for a hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should not be issued on the same grounds.
[ad_2]
Source link