Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
Not sure if it says so any longer, but I do know that at one point arbitrators were bound to consider past rulings (and I'd expect that to remain the case whether it's specifically spelled out or not)
My god, you spelled it correctly ("co-mingling" is all too common, at least in my experience). Well done, sir.
if you want to leave salary and salary-influenced expectations out of the discussion
The overall question I have is whether a "first offense" and "second offense," or a "first violation" and "second violation," means that MLB can bundle separate offenses/violations (say, from 2009 and 2011) together and therefore add the suspensions together (50 games + 100 games = 150 games) or go straight to a lifetime suspension, even though the players have never been disciplined before.
It seems to me that the determinative issue is not whether MLB has charged a prior act, but rather whether there is factual evidence supporting separate actions by the player.
@65 -- I'd argue that the language is "violation" and "offense" but not "charge," "adjudication" or "suspension" and, as such, there can be multiple violations within one notice of intent to discipline.
In any event, here is the referenced section 3G:
"Notification. The IPA [Independent Program Administrator] shall notify the parties upon receipt of a positive test result. The Players Association shall notify the Player of a positive test result as promptly as possible, but in no event later than 72 hours from the IPA's notification to the Parties of the positive test result, or, in the case of a non-analytical positive, the Commissioner's Office's notification of the Association."
...there really isn't enough popcorn in the world for this.
It occurs to me that there's a simpler way of saying my #72:
Anything that mentions "positives" is referencing 3.F. Violations that don't involve 3.F are not "positives"; they're merely "violations". Any rules that are applicable to "positives" are applicable to violations involving 3.F, and not to other violations.
looks like Seligula/A-Roid are stuck on "C"
As I said yesterday, if ARod still wants to play -- and it looks for all the world like he does -- then I don't see that accepting Selig's rumored "deal" is at all a viable option.
ARod would lose tens of millions now and then try to return at age 39 after a 2.5 year layoff and with absolutely zero guarantee that the Yankees wouldn't still try to dick around with him in order to prevent him from earning the remaining $60 million -- to say nothing of the difficulty of him trying to return to a competitive level after that kind of layoff even if healthy and even presuming that the Yankees were willing to be honest in their further dealings with him.
It truly is an offer to be met with a middle finger.
He has almost nothing to lose by challenging a lengthy suspension on the basis of the strength of the evidence and various interpretations of the CBA/JDA. Which is not to say that he will have a good chance of success, necessarily, but it's better than the purported "deal" that is on the table.
People are painting this as "Oh, but at least he would get $60 million if he takes the deal." No. The $60 million is very far from guaranteed, for a number of reasons.
I'm having dinner with someone who used to be on the MLB-MLPAA salary panel; I'll see if I can get him to opine tonight even if there is a distinction between the grievance panels and the ones for salary cases.
Isn't that the deal, though? Suspension for the remainder of 2013 and 2014 leaves him with 3 years, 60 or so million left. So long as he doesn't test positive and attempts to play, the Yankees would be on the hook for it.
I suppose, though I don't see how the Yankees could get out of it if he isn't banned.
? He's not banned _now_ and they're claiming he's not healthy to play even though he and a doctor say that he is.
Either the deal will be for less than that, or he'll accept the discipline and challenge it.
I wouldnt take any bets on Arod challenging any of this.
I don't mean to nag, but the whole centaur joke is getting long in the tooth, gelding it of its power.
Imagine if he instead played for Philly...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.7022 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed