Apr 12, 2013, 9:59 AM EDT
It was up late last night and was sort of overwhelmed by the Dodgers-Padres brawl, but in case you missed it, go read Matthew’s post about the latest in the Biogenesis business. The upshot: Major League Baseball is reportedly paying an ex-Biogenesis employee for documents relating to the case.
Feature how this works: your employer goes to one of you health care providers, buys your medical records from them, reads them, and then uses that information to discipline you at work. You cool with that? If you’re not, please explain to me how what MLB is reportedly doing here is in any way defensible.
Also: if MLB is so convinced that the lawsuit they filed is righteous and justifiable, why are they now circumventing it to get the documents in question?
At some point it would be cool if MLB actually made some sort of statement about what they’re doing here. Because it makes absolutely no sense to me. How on earth do they expect any suspensions they dole out based on this tactic to hold up to an arbitrator’s review?
- Vin Scully will return in 2016 for his 67th season of broadcasting 5
- The Athletics have a travel-heavy 2016 schedule and unsuccessfully tried to have it altered 6
- Mariners fire general manager Jack Zduriencik 63
- Pedro Martinez wonders if bad chemistry is the reason the Tigers and Mariners are out of contention 48
- Vote of non-confidence: Reds owner says manager Bryan Price won’t be fired before the season is over 21
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 86
- Denard Span headed back to DL with hip inflammation, unlikely to return this season 10
- Report: Barry Bonds loses collusion case against MLB 40
- Sarah Palin sticks up for Curt Schilling, tells ESPN to “stick to sports” (250)
- Dan Patrick: When does ESPN cut ties with Curt Schilling? (200)
- Curt Schilling taken off of Little League World Series duty for making a really bad tweet (169)
- Curt Schilling taken off of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball telecast this week (134)
- Phillies announcer calls Mets fans “obnoxious” (122)