That is not a precedent setting case. No mention of what court nor any language from a higher court's judicial opinion. It was a "jury" case which doesn't decide issues of "law". Jury's decided issues of fact. Regardless that the article you cited is devoid of any real legal language, there was enough verbiage to deduce that the reason the jury found 'no contract' was that the parties did not reach a mutual understanding of the agreement. If you read my previous post you'll note that a "mutual agreement" is a contract requirement. There was no language that the contract was void on its face or that it violated any public policy or law. The jury merely found that "the parties did not agree on the interpretation of ‘training.’" [emphasis added]. So, these contracts are still enforceable.