Aug 7, 2013, 5:03 PM EDT
Jon Heyman takes issue with those who thinks Alex Rodriguez‘s 211-game suspension was too harsh. He thinks it’s too light! And he demonstrates this by calculating the punishment with reference to the Joint Drug Agreement and Collective Bargaining Agreements.
Hahaha, just kidding. He pulls it out of his rear end:
A-Rod got 50 games for violating MLB’s Joint Drug Agreement.
And 161 more for chutzpah.
His column — a pretty darn long one by his usual standards — basically argues that all punishment is justified in Alex Rodriguez’s case because he made tons of money, is unlikeable and lied. That’s not necessarily surprising. As is evidenced by his Hall of Fame columns over the years Heyman is quite comfortable with changing standards when it suits him, so I’m sure he has no problems whatsoever with retroactively applying a high income/jerk multiplier to discipline as set forth in the JDA.
But Heyman’s repeated references to Evreth Cabrera are kinda weird, though:
Padres young shortstop Everth Cabrera told a tearful story of taking one drug for a short time in one spring training at the suggestion of his former representative, Juan Carlos Nunez, the ex-ACES agent. Cabrera signed up for 50 games and took responsibility. Rodriguez, word is, obtained steroids and HGH for part of 2010, and all of 2011 and ’12. The evidence suggests he basically lived on the stuff.
Does he really deserve the same penalty as little, teary-eyed Everth Cabrera? … And if poor little Everth Cabrera signs up for 50 for one spring indiscretion, 211 seems light for Rodriguez.
The infantilzation of Cabrera is kinda creepy, no? And how is it even consistent? I thought the lesson we were to take from the past several years of PED stuff is that you can’t take the ballplayers at their word and that they’re all liars? Why does Cabrera get a pass and/or Rodriguez get such harsher treatment? I thought these guys were all responsible for their actions. Guess that doesn’t apply to “little, teary-eyed Cabrera.”
Maybe what’s most galling about the column is Heyman’s certainty regarding how damning the evidence against Rodriguez is. And maybe it is. I’m just not sure what makes Heyman so sure of that given that no one is privy to it but Major League Baseball and A-Rod’s people at the moment. If Heyman does know, you’d think he’d report on it rather than spend a few thousand words trashing A-Rod. If he doesn’t know, what makes him so sure?
Oh, I forgot. It’s the chutzpah.
- Vin Scully will return in 2016 for his 67th season of broadcasting 6
- 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 22
- 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” (259)
- 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” (123)