Jul 16, 2013, 4:32 PM EDT
We were really thrown a curveball earlier today when MLBPA head Michael Weiner, addressing the media, said that the penalties facing Biogenesis-implicated players are not ruled by the Joint Drug Agreement’s 50-game, 100-game, lifetime ban specifications. When asked about why that was, Weiner pointed to the Commissioner’s “just cause” powers under the JDA.
Which seems odd to me because, as Wendy Thurm pointed out earlier today, the JDA says this about discipline:
A player who tests positive for a Performance Enhancing Substance, or otherwise violates the Program through the possession or use of a Performance Enhancing Substance, will be subject to the discipline set forth below. (emphasis mine) 1. First violation: 50-game suspension; 2. Second violation: 100-game suspension; 3. Third violation: Permanent suspension from Major League and Minor League Baseball.
That italicized language seems to say that the discipline regime applies whether it’s a testing positive or, as will be the case with Biogenesis, non-analytical positives, circumstantial evidence-based violations, etc. There’s nowhere else in the agreement which speaks to Commissioner discretion with respect to discipline beyond the mere words “just cause,” which again, seems to speak to the violation, not the discipline.
Could this be a negotiated thing? The union and the league having an understanding, either now or having had it always, about what might happen if they’re dealing with a non-testing-based violation? And no matter when it was decided that any amount of discipline could apply for such violations, could it not mean that some guys get less than 50 games? Some way more.
As an example: say a Biogenesis Player — let’s call him Theo Blonzalez — has very weak evidence against him in the documents and testimony, but that the league wants to discipline him anyway. Might they take this discretion and give him, say, a five game suspension? That might be a nice break for someone like Blonzalez who, otherwise, might be subject to an automatic 50, which would seem overly harsh. At the same time, might another player with stronger evidence against him — say Schmalex Rodriguez — be slapped with unlimited discipline even if it’s a first offense?
I don’t know what it means, frankly. But I find it fascinating. And it further underscores my suspicion that a lot more conversations are happening between the union and the league than we know about. And that, just maybe, it’s nowhere near as adversarial as we might think.
- Report: Cubs calling up prospect infielder Addison Russell 0
- Jonathan Lucroy headed to disabled list with broken toe 5
- Reds manager Bryan Price goes on profanity-laden tirade against media 44
- And That Happened: Sunday’s scores and highlights 75
- Report: Marlins manager Mike Redmond is on the hot seat 40
- Five Royals ejected in Sunday’s series finale against the Athletics 88
- White Sox will promote Carlos Rodon on Monday 14
- Another one bites the dust: Mets lose young catcher Travis d’Arnaud to fractured right hand 14
- The Commissioner’s Office thinks that the Angels could indeed go after Josh Hamilton under his contract (153)
- “We no longer need the terrorists. We’re now so good at terrorizing ourselves.” (143)
- Another argument in favor of making the DH universal (129)
- When it comes to Josh Hamilton, Arte Moreno is a craven opportunist, not a “smart businessman” (116)
- Joe Buck has a truly awful suggestion about how to improve MLB broadcasts (109)