Jan 14, 2014, 8:23 AM EDT
This, pointed out to me by Scott Lemieux of Lawyers Guns and Money, is most curious.
The big issue I have with the arbitrator’s ruling was his odd tap dance between section 7(A) of the Joint Drug Agreement — which provides for progressive, 50/100/lifetime discipline, and section 7(G) which gives Bud Selig “just cause” power to discipline players. As I argued last night, I think the arbitrator botched this and should have considered it all a first offense for A-Rod under 7(A).
But, in many ways, the issue is moot. Because, as Horowitz stated in his opinion, the MLBPA and A-Rod conceded the point, agreeing that section 7(G) and “just cause” apply:
But check this out, from A-Rod’s complaint filed in federal court yesterday:
See that? There A-Rod’s lawyers are saying they did not concede this. They think 7(A)’s 50/100/lifetime matrix applies.
So who’s wrong here? Did the arbitrator simply dismiss A-Rod’s objections to which discipline provision applies and state that everyone agrees, or are A-Rod’s lawyers misrepresenting the record and conveniently forget the fact that they conceded the point?
- Hank Aaron is getting vile racist hate mail in retaliation for pointing out that racism still exists (232)
- The Red Sox are still steamed that a PED guy played against them in the playoffs last year (130)
- Doug Glanville’s story about being racially profiled at his own home (125)
- There is still a racial divide in baseball (105)
- Must-Click Link: Yasiel Puig’s harrowing journey to the United States (95)