Skip to content

The Yankees would be crazy to sue A-Rod in an attempt to void his deal

Jan 29, 2013, 11:44 AM EDT

I offer this from Pete Abraham’s Twitter feed, but I’m not trying to single Pete out. Many people have made such comments this morning, so I use his as mere example:

 

The downsides:

  • The could lose the suit because anyone can lose any suit;
  • They could lose the suit in such a way that actually creates legal precedent that makes it harder to go after drug users or otherwise misbehaving players;
  • Win or lose they will cost themselves millions if not tens of millions in legal fees;
  • If they lose they have a player under contract who is alienated from the team to the nth degree, making life much harder;
  • Win or lose their employees will miss tons of work for depositions, preparation and the like;
  • Win or lose a lawsuit may cause potential free agents to avoid the Yankees because they believe, rationally or not, that the team is just waiting to pounce on its players in the event they make any missteps.
  • Mostly, though, because lawsuits are awful;

As for winning or losing: there is a means for a PED-user to have his contract voided: being disciplined three times, which leads to a lifetime ban.  For the Yankees to attempt to void the deal now is the equivalent of that, financially speaking, and I’d have a hard time seeing a court or an arbitrator agree that they can simply leapfrog over two suspensions like that to cost A-Rod the $114 million left on his deal.

If there is discipline, it will be a 50-game suspension. And it may not happen at all.  Let’s not jump the gun here.

  1. Pierre Cruzatte - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    Craig, I hear NBC is getting a Robin to your Batman.

    • schlom - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      As much as Craig likes Batman I would think that with Posnanski aboard Craig would be playing the Robin role.

    • mrfloydpink - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM

      Wow. I have a few friends at SI, who tell me it was (is?) an open secret that Posnanski did not “leave for other opportunities” so much as he was…well, fired. Management was not thrilled about his handling of the Paterno situation, which they felt reflected badly on their publication (as well as Posnanski himself). One wonders if his departure from SportsOnEarth is of a similar character. Seems kind of odd that he’d abandon such a supposedly great opportunity after six months. Whatever the real story is, I’d say it reflects badly on Posnanski.

      For my part, I really hope he doesn’t become some sort of NBCSports “superblogger,” with posts across all of the various “Talk” blogs. I used to be a fan, but I lost all respect for him and for his integrity thanks to his essentially apologetic take on Paterno. It was a tough situation for him, and a tough test, to be sure, but he pretty clearly failed it. I’d rather not have him polluting this blog. Obviously, if (when?) he does, I’ll just have to skip over those items. Which means, thankfully, that I’ll still have plenty of time to read Calcaterra BSOHL articles, as well as Gleeman pieces that cyberstalk Mila Kunis.

      • ezthinking - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM

        Poz announced leaving SI long before the Paterno deal. So your ‘source’ probably you, is full of shit.

      • mrfloydpink - Jan 29, 2013 at 1:07 PM

        Hm.

        November 11, 2011: Posnanski appears before a Penn State class the day after the scandal broke, and calls Paterno a “scapegoat”

        http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/11/10/joe-posnanski-thinks-that-joe-paterno-is-being-made-a-scapegoat-did-you-know-posnanski-was-writing-a-book-on-paterno/

        March 30, 2012 (aka five months LATER): Posnanski announces he is leaving SI:

        http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/03/30/joe-posnanski-is-leaving-sports-illustrated/

        Feel free to totally make things up, though. Certainly it doesn’t make it look like you are, you know, full of shit.

      • mrfloydpink - Jan 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM

        It really is remarkable, by the way, the things that Posnanski can say and do without criticism from most of his fanbase.

        I mean, his handling of the Paterno situation was shameful. He was roundly lambasted in the various media for his actions in the weeks following the scandal, and his book–cynically rushed into print to capitalize on interest in the scandal–was universally judged to be an apology for Paterno. You know, the same Paterno that looked the other way for more than a decade while children were molested.

        Now, he’s on his third job in less than a year. I mean, whether you believe he was fired from SI or not, there’s simply no explanation for that which does not reflect badly on Posnanski. Either he is a lousy employee, or he doesn’t honor his commitments, or he is prioritizing money over all else, or something. I suppose Posnanski’s continued popularity speaks to the appeal/power of his “aw shucks” toe-in-the sand schtick.

        Anyhow, please commence the thumbs down. I am hoping to collect even more downs than the time that I suggested that Albert Pujols’ contract with the Angels wasn’t as bad as it seems.

      • mrfloydpink - Jan 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM

        One final thing, as regards your assertion that I am “full of shit.” This from Jeff Pearlman:

        “One of the things that really irks me, RE: Posnanski and Paterno, is that, late last year, after the initial Sandusky news hit, the author addressed a class at Penn State titled, “Joe Paterno: Communications and the Media.” As an employee of Sports Illustrated at the time, defending Paterno before a room of students was, to be polite, unprofessional (When I was coming up at SI, the editors would have considered firing a writer for such an action).”

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM

        I mean, his handling of the Paterno situation was shameful.

        Asking for people to hold off on judgment the day a scandal breaks is shameful how? I haven’t read the book, so I can’t speak for what’s in it, but what did you want Posnanski to do, quit the project altogether?

        “One of the things that really irks me, RE: Posnanski and Paterno, is that, late last year, after the initial Sandusky news hit, the author addressed a class at Penn State titled, “Joe Paterno: Communications and the Media.” As an employee of Sports Illustrated at the time, defending Paterno before a room of students was, to be polite, unprofessional (When I was coming up at SI, the editors would have considered firing a writer for such an action).

        Not sure of the timeline, but here’s what happened. 11/4/11 Sandusky is indicted on multiple accounts of sex crimes against young boys. On or around 11/10/11, Joe Posnanski is quoted by one person in a class where he mentions such incendiary things as:

        “The rush to judgment here has been extraordinarily. The lesson to learn might be that we screwed this thing up.”

        With the benefit of hindsight, we can see things like “Paterno is a scapegoat” is both right and wrong. Paterno should have done plenty of things when hearing about the news, but oftentimes reading some articles seemed to place more blame on Paterno than Sandusky himself.

        Pos also said:
        “The only thing people remember about Woody Hayes is that he hit a player. I don’t want that to happen to Joe. He didn’t hit a player.”

        Which sounds really bad, but lots of people are also forgetting about the good Paterno did. Again, he wasn’t the one who abused this kids.

        Also, give me a break with the moralizing from Pearlman. He’s the same guy who made some predictions about how the baseball season was going to turn out, and when it blew up in his face he edited his predictions with no comment. Then when called out on it, he said “they were a joke” Ha ha…

      • mrfloydpink - Jan 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM

        @ church:

        “Asking for people to hold off on judgment the day a scandal breaks is shameful how?”

        That is not shameful. What is shameful is to make such a statement, and then to go to a Penn State class the NEXT DAY (the timeline you describe is wrong) and pass all sorts of judgments. Like, asserting that Joe Paterno was being scapegoated, and calling out the media for its coverage of the situation. That makes Posnanski a Paterno apologist and also a 100% iron-clad true blue hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do, it would seem.

        “What did you want Posnanski to do, quit the project altogether?”

        Yes, exactly. While it would have been hard to walk away, it would also have been the right thing to do. Joe Posnanski planned to write a tribute to the great Joe Paterno. That book became impossible, and Posnanski simply isn’t the correct writer for the type of book that was now apropos. If he could not abandon the project, then the next best thing would have been to step back and give it some time–a couple of years, at least.
        The question I ask myself is, if Joe Posnanski’s own daughters had been the victims, would have have written the book still? I assume the answer is ‘no.’ And if that is the case, how does it all of a sudden become ok because it’s someone else’s kids who were molested? None of Posnanski’s defenders has ever been able to answer that question.

        “give me a break with the moralizing from Pearlman.”

        I’m not interested in his “moralizing.” I reference him because he is presumably familiar with journalistic standards in general, and with SI policies in particular (even if he chooses to violate those standards on his personal website). I could quote my own expertise–having once served as managing editor of a medium-sized newspaper–but while my sense of the ethics is the same as Pearlman’s, I’ve already been called “full of shit” and have been accused of making things up.

        Again, I remain amazed at the ability of Posnanski fans to look the other way, in the face of all evidence that he’s got some pretty serious shortcomings (again: THREE jobs in one year?). Look above, where ezthinking presents evidence in support of Posnanski that is DEMONSTRABLY not true. 10 thumbs up! Is this not the same kind of myopia that the fans of this blog bemoan in the Murray Chasses and the Jon Heymans of the world?

      • moogro - Jan 29, 2013 at 5:18 PM

        I’m glad you at least got the conversation started here, even if it’s shoehorned. It’s absence is glaring. My guess is that it is a combination of Pos fan-dom, and that hardly anyone read the book that makes people on this site not want to go there. Pos didn’t need to quit writing the book, he just needed to make the adjustments when the story changed. He didn’t, and that’s strange.

    • badintent - Jan 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM

      Criag, Yankees spend $10 million in legal fees , save $114 million in salary contract. What math did you take last ? 2 nd grade ? Please get off the bathsalts pronto, amigo

  2. Ben - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    Meh, none of those are decisive, except perhaps precedent. If the cost of the suit is 113 million dollars, it’s still cheaper than 114 million dollars.

    • megary - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:28 PM

      Unless they lose. In which case, in your hypothetical, the cost would now be 227 million.

      • Ben - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM

        Sure, but if they win, I wonder if the Yankees could try to recoup salary paid? Not quite sure how that works. I wonder if the best solution is for the Yankees and ARod to simply come to some sort of settlement. The Yankees pay ARod 50 million dollars to void the remainder of his contract, and in exchange both sides agree not to file expensive and cumbersome lawsuits. They save 64 million, ARod has the surety of not losing all of it.

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:02 PM

        If they “win” the MLBPA would sue both them and MLB for violation of the CBA, possibly resulting in a players strike or any number of MLBPA actions in response to MLB deciding not to honor it’s side of the agreement.

  3. 18thstreet - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM

    The Yankees have millions of dollars, and A-Rod (assuming he has even passing familiarity with Joe Torre’s “The Yankee Years”) is already alienated from the franchise.

    They could also win. I think it’s plausible that A-Rod has been in violation of his contract.

    Speaking as a non-lawyer and a long-time Yankee hate: Where the Yankees would have problems is that they acquiesced to his violations for years. I think (Yankee hater alert!) they wouldn’t want to go to court because a trial would show, unequivocally, that the Yankees condone steroid use. It was already shown when they amended Giambi’s contract to allow him to use steroids: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1991608

    And THAT is why they would not want to sue.

    • Ben - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      This. That’s what rankles me so much about the HoF debate–MLB and the teams are responsible for condoning steroid use for years, and profiting from it. Yet it’s the players who are punished. I’d imagine the Yankees wouldn’t want to go through a discovery period on this one.

    • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:26 PM

      Probably true. And that is part of the risk, a part of the risk Craig didn’t mention. Your own dirty laundry comes out. The defense will blame the “victim.” (LOL, the Yankees as victim). But it has to stop some time, somewhere. If Team Y sues Player AR, even if they lose, they will make a statement. It should be done.

      • bsbiz - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM

        Is your hypothetical Team Y in the running with Heyman’s “Mystery Team”?

  4. natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:56 AM

    Craig, I understand you are a lawyer, and I’m not. But if Player A defrauded Team Y, then Team Y should sue Player A. Otherwise, why bother having civil courts? To say it costs too much, is too much bother, sets a bad precedent, etc. is B.S. I’m sorry you are so cynical about using the courts for the purpose for which they are intended. Very sad.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

      How did Arod defraud the Yanks?

    • manifunk - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

      IANAL but how exactly did A-Rod “defraud” the Yankees, unless there is an explicit line in his contract about the contract being voided by illegal steroid usage. A-Rod played well for the Yankees, especially in their WS championship of 2009. There was no “defrauding” of the sort.

      • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

        Very simple. Player AR said he had not used PEDs since 2003. If it can be proved that he did, then that is fraud. He obtained his results–and possibly, Team Y obtained its results–fraudulently.

        Even if Team Y loses the lawsuit, it’s worth it. Let Team Y show that they want to provide a good, clean product to its city, to its fans.

      • manifunk - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM

        Uh that’s simple “lying,” not “fraud.” It’s not like A-Rod didn’t earn his paycheck or anything. You’re pretty clearly showing your lack of lawyer expertise here, which makes your criticizing of Craig’s legal analysis that much more hilarious

      • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM

        Even if Player AR doesn’t have a PED clause in his contract, he OBTAINED the contract by fraudulent means, by stating he had not used PEDs since 2003. (This assuming it can be proved he did use them after 2003).

      • manifunk - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:14 PM

        …no, he obtained his contract in 2003 by being one of the best players in the game

      • joshtown81 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:21 PM

        Defraud is defined as: “To take away money or withhold rights from someone by fraud, cheat, or swindle.” I would argue that if ARod is indeed guilty, he is defrauding his employer by stating A, he hasn’t used substances since 2003, and B, enhancing his performance to qualify for bonuses in his contract by ill-gotten or illegal means. That, by definition, is defrauding someone.

        I’m not saying they SHOULD sue him, but to outright dismiss it as “anyone can lose a suit, it will cost millions of dollars, their employees will lose work time because of it, etc” all seem like straw man arguments to me.

      • bsbiz - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        If he signed the contract in 2007, and we only have records (that may or may not be him) that indicated he started again in 2009, then there is no fraud at the signing of the contract.

      • ltzep75 - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:14 PM

        The definition of fraud is, as follows:

        Misrepresentation of a material fact (either by words or conduct, or intentional lack of disclosure) made with the intent to deceive a third party so said third party will rely upon said misrepresentation, with actual reliance upon the misrepresentation.

        Thus, a team would have to legally prove five elements:

        (1) The Misrepresentation;
        (2) Defendant’s knowledge that the statement is untrue;
        (3) Intent to deceive (a/k/a scienter);
        (4) Justifiable reliance on said misrepresenation; and
        (5) Injury to the party who relied upon such misrepresentation.

        The reason Craig, in his (former) professional opinion mentioned the cost and difficulty (it’s not simple at all), is that it is nearly impossible to demonstrate element three (3) above. Moreover, one would have to prove that the organization relied upon statements made by the player under contract, and that the reliance was justified. If, for example, the party making the misrepresenation has dubious or questionable credibility, then there is an issue as to whether the party relying on a statement made by (for lack of a better term) a known liar did so justifiably.

        As a final matter, what are the putative damages the team in question has suffered. Did the player’s signing result in increased revenue, performance, meat in the seats, etc.? If so, what is that value? What is the value remaining on the deal?

        It’s for reasons like these that a lay person, regardless of skill, intellect, etc., cannot make statements that a legal action sounding in fraud is “very simple” or the difficulties of any lawsuit are “strawman arguments.” Multi-trillion dollar corporations (as far as asset value, etc.) settle lawsuits all the time based on said “simplicities” or “strawmen arguments.” In fact, teams of accountants and other bean-counter types have determined that the cash value of settlements saves money as opposed to throwing money at defense costs.

        Also, I suspect that some posting as to the simplicities, etc., also were among those who did not support the government’s case(s) against the likes of Bonds, Clemens, et al.

        No one likes throwing good money after bad, especially when considering something a bad investment. Business types (i.e.: not me) tend to simply cut losses at that point and move on. In fact, this type of behavior (cutting losses) tends to be why teams will eat large portions of a bad contract in order to unload a player.

        Please bear in mind that the foregoing does not constitute any advice, etc., nor is it intended to attack or villify any opinion. It is designed to inform and possibly educate members of what tends to be an over litigious population.

        Your bill will be forthcoming…

    • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM

      The more I reflect on this, the more I think you are wrong on every point, Craig.

      Yes, it could cost millions but, Team Y is one of the few organizations with the resources to support such a lawsuit. If “clean” players in the game REALLY feel they want cheaters out of the game, then not only will their morale NOT be destroyed by such a lawsuit, they will testify in favor of Team Y. Maybe MLB can’t clean this up, but if Player AR loses $144 million and the rest of his career, other players will take notice. Fans are disgusted with Player AR, so Team Y would have its city’s support. If they lose and have a player on the team who is alienated to the “nth degree,” hello, that is what the bench is for, or, better still DFA the guy. Not only has Player AR defrauded Team Y, but he has encouraged young players (e.g., Manny Machado) to “hang out” with him in Florida and emulate his, er, example.

      What Player AR did is not a “misstep.” There is a LONG history here.

      Lawsuits are not “awful.” Lawsuits are a form of resolving disputes, a good way–MUCH better than the alternative. Shooting people to resolve disputes is what is awful.

      And stop using phrases like “jumping the gun.”

      • ezthinking - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM

        Than Gio is toast as well.

        Leave the law to the lawyers. Your bias is showing and its not flattering.

      • greghandle - Jan 29, 2013 at 3:24 PM

        Do you even know what the phrase, “jumping the gun” means? Because it does not mean what you think it means, and there is no reason for him to stop using it. The phrase is entirely pertinent to the point he is making, which from your statements, clearly are lost on you.

        You have built entire scenarios around things that have yet to have factual proof. You are the living embodiment of a person jumping the gun! Congratulations, JTGlady!

  5. mazblast - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Good article, Craig. I agree with all your points.

    You did miss out on one item about a potential lawsuit that may balance the scales–lawsuits can be high drama. Next to winning, there’s nothing the Yankees, the media hacks, and the fans like more than high drama. They figure that if winning isn’t guaranteed, keeping the team in the headlines by any means possible is the next best thing.

    The timing of this story is convenient. I wonder if this story would have come out this week if the Giants (or Jets, or Patriots) were in the Super Bowl. Just a thought.

  6. skeleteeth - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2013/01/boston-sportswriters-awful/

  7. CliffC - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM

    This is like Christmas morning for Pete Abe. Dude DESPISES Arod.

    • Chris Fiorentino - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      So then it is Christmas morning for about 75% of the league and probably the entire sanctimonious BBWAA

  8. Chris Fiorentino - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM

    So never ever sue anyone? LOL that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. The could lose the suit because anyone can lose any suit;

    This is the only one that makes logical sense They could lose the suit in such a way that actually creates legal precedent that makes it harder to go after drug users or otherwise misbehaving players;

    Not if they win, unless it costs 114 million and 1 Win or lose they will cost themselves millions if not tens of millions in legal fees;

    Nobody likes A-Rod anyway and he is basically finished as a superstar If they lose they have a player under contract who is alienated from the team to the nth degree, making life much harder;

    Which employees are you talking about? Win or lose their employees will miss tons of work for depositions, preparation and the like;

    Yeah, nobody will want to go to the highest bidder LOL Win or lose a lawsuit may cause potential free agents to avoid the Yankees because they believe, rationally or not, that the team is just waiting to pounce on its players in the event they make any missteps.

    There are thousands of lawsuits that are far from awful Craig. Mostly, though, because lawsuits are awful;

  9. randygnyc - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

    A lawsuit only makes sense when you’ve decided that you no longer want the player even if it means eating the entirety of the remaining contract. Legal fees are factored in as the cost of doing business with large companies.

    If the a team ever decides to sue to void a contract over PED’s, this would be the best test case. A prior admission. Debilitating injuries. MASSIVE financial upside in voiding A-Rod’s contract.

    My 2cents, Yankees should sue him. It’s worth a try.

    • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:12 PM

      Can’t believe I’m agreeing with randygnyc on this. Team Y–go for it.

      • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        Definition of Fraud:

        fraud [ frawd ]
        crime of cheating somebody: the crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception
        somebody who deceives: somebody who deliberately deceives somebody else, usually for financial gain
        something intended to deceive: something that is intended to deceive people

        Yeah, fraud is “lying.” I may not be a lawyer, but I’m familiar with the English language.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM

      A lawsuit only makes sense when you’ve decided that you no longer want the player even if it means eating the entirety of the remaining contract.

      If the Yankees don’t want his contract any more, there’s zero reason to sue him. They can cut him at any time and just pay the remainder of his salary. Why add any additional expenses on top of it by bringing it to a court of law?

  10. randygnyc - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM

    It’s ok natslady- I agree with a lot of what you say too ; – )

  11. lawrinson20 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM

    Whatever the costs or perils, it should be done.

    If repercussions arise, they must be considered necessary sacrifices. There should be a matter of principal here, and to allow ARod to continue to skate on this, continue to profit, continue to cheat — that is inconceivable. This is Lance Armstrong. The players know how to beat the system, and until the system truly fights back, there will be no end of it.

    When you go to battle for a noble and just cause, you cannot expect to avoid casualties. Those are the sacrifices. We lose a bit in pursuit of what is right.

    • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM

      +114 Million. 144 million thumbs up for this! Thank you.

    • manifunk - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM

      and then you wake up and are in the real world, where nobility et al all take a back seat to the bottom line

    • mazblast - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

      “principle”, not “principal”.

      While I agree with much of your point, there are also two factors which must be considered. One is the idea of “sunk cost”, that the Yankees are going to pay millions either way, in salary or in legal fees. In the worst case, both (see Craig’s third point). The other is the fact that filing a suit can be a Pandora’s Box–who knows what evils may be revealed, especially if A-Roid’s lawyers go with a “scorched earth” defense, an “If I’m going down, I’m taking the Yankees and lots of players with me” strategy. Does MLB want this, and more specifically do the Sainted Yankees really want this?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM

      When you go to battle for a noble and just cause, you cannot expect to avoid casualties

      What noble cause would the Yanks be pursuing here?

      • Sign Ahead - Jan 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        Avoiding the consequences of a foolish decision? That’s a just and noble cause, isn’t it?

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:12 PM

        Yep…..no MLB team has any problem with a player taking PEDs if the player isn’t caught and if the player continues to perform….if they only care when the player is caught or has continued health problems, they don’t have a fraudulent leg to stand on….otherwise teams need to start suing every player that has been caught for fraud, seeking reimbursement, then there could be class action suits seeking reimbursement from MLB to fans….as fans are the ones that pay the bills, MLB makes money….and 100% of players salaries is money paid to MLB by the fans….then there could be class action suits contesting outcomes of games or series that involved known PED users, and just a never ending stream of legal stupidity.

  12. number42is1 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM

    I am missing something. we are talking like its a done deal and Arod has been proven guilty. At least when the Braun news came out there was a FACT that he had a positive drug test. all we have for right now is a newspaper article about a book, that noone has really seen yet, with a name in it, What am I missing?

    • natslady - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM

      Not exactly. We’re saying (I’m saying) is that Team Y should spend the time and money to go to court to try to prove Player AR is guilty.

      • manifunk - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:23 PM

        Guilty of what? Lying about PED usage? So what? He still did what he was contractually obligated to do, which is play baseball, and he did it damn well up until last year. Now, if A-Rod didn’t play at all for non-baseball reasons, then sure they could sue, but A-Rod did exactly what he was expected to do per the contract.

        Again, unless there is an explicit steroid clause in the contract, he’s not legally guilty of anything in re the Yankee contract. Press conference promises and other things simply don’t matter.

  13. DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    “Let’s not jump the gun here.”

    Don’t jump the gun? 92% of us would have to leave the board if that is outlawed.

    I am working on getting A-Rod convicted of being Pete Rose’s bookie

  14. 9foldmuse - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM

    “Mostly, though, because lawsuits are awful;

    While myriad civil suits lack merit and merely serve to encourage our more despicable barristers, often they are the only recourse for the individual [and therefore society, sometimes] to rectify injury or injustice, particularly versus institutional bullies like wealthy corporations, city hall and the federal gov’t; because crappy lawsuits are successful and righteous ones fail is a poor reason to condemn them generally.

  15. echech88 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM

    Better option for both sides might be to get into a serious discussion about a buyout.

    Find a middle ground and agree to release A-Rod and pay him 75% of what is left on his deal instead of letting him rot and get booed into oblivion for 4 more years. Something tells me he’s not secure enough as a person to handle the scrutiny he’ll be getting in New York as he ages.

  16. jwbiii - Jan 29, 2013 at 1:37 PM

    Reading through the Uniform Player Contract, Schedule A on the recent CBA, the relevant clause seems to be this one:

    9.(a) The Club and the Player agree to accept, abide by and comply
    with all provisions of the Major League Constitution, and the Major
    League Rules, or other rules or regulations in effect on the date of this
    Uniform Player’s Contract, which are not inconsistent with the provisions
    of this contract or the provisions of any agreement between the
    Major League Clubs and the Major League Baseball Players Association

    The Joint Drug Agreement specifies that three failed drug tests leads to a permanent suspension. For the Yankees to attempt to void Rodriguez’s contract in this situation is clearly inconsistent with that agreement.

    • ltzep75 - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:23 PM

      That is a lucid, succinct argument. Pour yourself a JWB, or your preferred spirit, light a cigar (or not as your tastes may suit), put your feet upon the desk, and relax for you have won.

  17. frank35sox - Jan 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

    Yeah, don’t sue because if they win in such a way, it may set precedent to make it easier to go after steroid users.

    See how that goes, Craig? Both ways.

  18. mrcamillon - Feb 2, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    i do not care about a base ball player or any sport taking any advantage they can find there are to many things our goverment needs to do like border security or murder ever were let these motley fools alone please

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pujols deal still worth it to Angels?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. I. Davis (4021)
  2. K. Farnsworth (2682)
  3. M. Harrison (2616)
  4. M. Minor (2599)
  5. D. Robertson (2591)
  1. M. Perez (2400)
  2. I. Nova (2397)
  3. C. Gomez (2363)
  4. M. Cuddyer (2361)
  5. J. Mejia (2330)