HOLD THE BACK PAGE:IT'S ONE of the more unkind tags in sport. 'Mr Irrelevant' – the title given to the last player picked in the annual American National Football League draft, a bit like those forlorn kids left standing on their own because no one wants to pick them for the team. And if they are called up, they're always stuck in goal.

Well, that's the wretched experience David Vobora endured in 2008 when the University of Idaho linebacker was the 252nd and last pick of that year's draft.

He did, though, get a trophy for his troubles, the 'Lowsman' – a skit on the Heisman Trophy which is awarded to the outstanding college player in America every year. While the Heisman, modelled on Ed Smith, a leading player from the 1930s, shows a footballer in a rather glorious action pose, the Lowsman shows him fumbling the ball.

Still, despite the humiliation of it all, Vobora was offered a three-year, $1.24 million contract with the St Louis Rams. (To put that deal in context, though, the overall first pick that year, Jake Long, agreed a five-year deal with the Miami Dolphins – worth $57.75 million).

In November of 2008 Vobora became the first 'Mr Irrelevant' since 1994 to start an NFL game in his rookie season, impressing sufficiently to be named the Rams' starting strongside linebacker for the following campaign.

But just when his football career was becoming relevant, Vobora was suspended for four games for testing positive for methyltestosterone, a banned substance that showed up in an NFL drug test.

While the Rams stood by Vobora, the player returning to the team after he served his suspension, he had, he said, been branded a 'drugs cheat' and received more than a few unpleasant letters containing both threats and wishes that his career go down the pan.

Not unlike most sports people who fail drugs tests, Vobora insisted he was innocent, claiming that he had good cause to believe he was using a safe product after checking the ingredients of 'Ultimate Sports Spray', manufactured by Anti-Steroid Program LLC (also known as Sports With Alternatives to Steroids – SWATS) on the NFL's hotline for players with questions about supplements.

Convinced that the labelling on the product was inaccurate – or incomplete – Vobora began an effort to clear his name, having the spray tested at an independent laboratory in Nashville.

Mitch Ross, owner of SWATS, had insisted that the spray contained no banned substances, but Vobora's lawyer Daniel Fleck revealed that "the amount of steroid that was found in the bottle matched what was found in David's bloodstream". The company, he said, had advertised itself as "anti-steroid, right down to its name", but that "couldn't be further from the truth."

Last year, then, Vobora (25) launched legal proceedings against SWATS, accusing the company of intentionally misleading him, damaging his image and being responsible for loss of earnings. On Monday, he prevailed, the judge in the case awarding him €3.8 million in damages.

The judge's order against the Florida company included $2.1 million for lost "future income", €1.4 million for damaging Vobora's reputation and for the "emotional toll" of the experience, €63,933 for lost appearance payments, €120,000 for lost performance bonuses and €70,000 for lost marketing endorsements.

Collecting the money won't be easy, though, the company having gone out of business – although Ross is still selling the product over the internet. "They can't get money I don't have," he said, claiming he'd lost endorsements from "over 50 NFL players and coaches" because of Vobora's suit.

Oakland Raiders coach Hue Jackson was one of those who endorsed SWATS but, earlier this year, was ordered by the NFL to end his association. Ross is now threatening to sue the NFL for loss of business.

Brian McCarthy, NFL director of corporate communications, welcomed Vobora's victory, but warned that players are still responsible "for what is in their bodies" and that the verdict did not alter the NFL's strict 'liability standard'.

"We caution players that supplements are not regulated and what's on the label may not be accurate," he said. "Players are accountable for any banned substances that may have been taken by mistake. But we support the player's effort and hope that judgements like this will help to curb the activities of supplement manufacturers who would seek to mislead consumers."

For his part, Vobora, while not holding out any great hope of getting his compensation, is just content with having cleared his name. "Vindication, that's the single word I'll continue to use. Compensation was secondary. The number one thing was to right the ship and restore my reputation."

SWATS, you'd imagine, now regard Vobora as anything but irrelevant. He should send them his Lowsman Trophy.

Oakley predict a riot reaction

SO ANGRY were many Canadians about the riots that took place in Vancouver after the Canucks lost the final game in the Stanley Cup to the Boston Bruins last week, a ‘name and shame’ website, VancouverRiots.com, was set up, with visitors asked to identify the culprits from photos and videos posted on the site.

One particular chap starred in a number of images, captured helping flip over a truck, throwing a missile at another vehicle and celebrating the good time being had by all by being photographed with his tongue sticking out beside a burning car.

Now, if you’re “a unique figure in the extreme sports world”, as the Vancouver Sun described him – a professional mountain biker in the summer and a professional skier in the winter months – you really should think twice about rioting in front of banks of cameras.

Also not advisable is to wear, while being photographed and filmed rioting, a t-shirt emblazoned with the logo of your main sponsor Oakley. It’s just not the kind of exposure they’d want.

“I didn’t go there for the riot, I went for the hockey game and got caught up in the hysteria of it afterwards,” explained Alex ‘Pro’ Prochazka after being identified, the 20-year-old apologising for his behaviour and promising “to do everything I can to make amends and be the best person I can be”.

Initially, Oakley said that they would “review” their relationship with Prochazka, but after they were inundated with phone calls and messages on their Facebook page demanding that he be dropped, they announced that they had “elected to end our association with Alex Prochazka effective immediately”.

Nathan Kotylak suffered a similarly sorry fate, the 17-year-old suspended from the national junior water polo team after being photographed setting fire to a police car. He could also lose his scholarship to the University of Calgary.

What’s the saying? Not the brightest bulbs in the box . . .

La Liga kick-offs could head for the midnight hour

FOR ARMCHAIR television fans of English and Spanish football, kick-off times for live Premier League and La Liga games are convenient enough, rarely clashing because the PL generally occupies the afternoon slot at weekends with La Liga appearing later in the evening. Well, until now.

ESPN Star Sports has agreed a new three-year rights deal with La Liga to broadcast up to 380 live games across its channels and has promised its viewers that they “can look forward to improved kick-off times”.

Improved for whom? That’d be viewers in ESPN’s Asian markets – China, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, Philippines, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Mongolia, Brunei, Macau, Thailand and Singapore.

Just how “improved” these kick-off times will be ESPN Star Sports hasn’t specified, but in light of the fact that the broadcaster also has the rights to show the PL in Asia it’s hard to figure out how they’re going to work this, without pitching the two leagues against each other.

When it comes to that lucrative Asian market, the PL has the definite advantage, as of now – for example, its Saturday 12.45 games air at prime-time in Hong Kong (7.45pm), the 3pm matches at 10pm Hong Kong time.

Not so convenient for Asia are the times of La Liga games – a 9.0 pm kick-off in Madrid, for example, is 3.0 in the morning in Hong Kong.

“We have every confidence that ESPN Star Sports will provide coverage for La Liga in an exciting and innovative manner,” said Gerard Romy, managing director of La Liga media partner Mediapro.

Armchair fans from Bantry to Buncrana, never mind in Spain, will trust that “innovative” doesn’t mean having to get up in the middle of the night to watch the next instalment of Real Madrid v Barcelona.

Bless, how a national anthem could land you in the clink in Scotland

The Final Straw:SCOTTISH Community Safety minister Roseanna Cunningham raised an eyebrow or two during the week when she discussed the proposed 'Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill', largely designed to tackle sectarianism in the game.

Cunningham was being questioned by the Scottish parliament's justice committee about the new 'anti-bigotry' law that the government is trying to push through in time for the start of the football season on July 23rd.

When questioned by Conservative John Lamont, Cunningham didn't rule out prosecutions over supporters singing 'God Save The Queen' or aggressively making the sign of the cross.

"I've seen hundreds of Celtic fans making the sign of the cross in a manner I can only describe as aggressive," she said. "It's not in itself offensive, but in the circumstances of Celtic and Rangers fans meeting each other on a crowded street, it could be construed as offensive."

While the Catholic Bishop of Motherwell, Joseph Devine, offered support to Cunningham – "In themselves, the sign of the cross and the national anthem are noble and honourable expressions, but they can be manipulated for evil intent" – people commenting on the report on the Daily Record'swebsite were less than convinced.

"I honestly don't know how to do a sign of the cross aggressively," said one. "Do you do it fast with an angry look on your face? Can someone tell me how so I can try it in front of the mirror and see if it's possible to do it without laughing at myself for looking so stupid?"

"So crossing oneself will be a criminal offence," said another. "So when we are up in court, we will be asked to swear on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

And then there was the chap who asked: "What happens if you cross yourself whilst singing the national anthem?"

A double prosecution?