Report: A-Rod banned through 2014?

[Average Reds]

Yeah, not so much. Ortiz and Manny are just reminders for those Sox fans who have been indulging in a bit of sanctimony. That's all. Thankfully, there isn't a ton of them.

 
The only thing more pathetic than the "Ortiz did it too!!!!!" knee jerk reaction of Yankee fans/announcers to the A-Rod fiasco is the myopia of any fan who doesn't recognize that no team is "clean" with regards to PEDs.
 
There should be no sanctimony regarding A-Rod.  Lots of schadenfreude, but no sanctimony.
 
Edit:  or what Sprowl said ...

 

[InsideTheParker]

The Biogenesis incident just reminds us that there is no good testing for up-to-date PEDS. They can't seem to catch all these guys using, so their relationship with this business is the next best thing. I think that this failure to detect is an embarrassment for MLB underneath all the other hoopla.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Whom do we root for here? A meteorite to hit the commish's office?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/sports/baseball/in-fight-for-legacy-yankees-rodriguez-fields-costly-team-of-all-stars.html?hp&_r=0

 

[Rovin Romine]

Eh.  This is kind of a simplistic way of looking at it but names are just names.  What's more important is how much in the way of resources your money can buy you. 
 
I know zip about sports law.  If you gave me a team of 5 competent attorneys (plus 10 associates) who are conversant in basic trial/arb skills and the underlying area of law, I (and team) could probably capture 99% of the relevant arguments in an given case, provided I wasn't so moronic as to arrogantly ignore what those 15 legal minds were telling me as we batted ideas back and forth.  If you gave me an unlimited budget to hire investigators, hire experts, prepare exhibits, crunch data, and get a real nice haircut before the event, I (and team) could probably smoothly present (via defense) 99% of those arguments before the factfinder. 
 
I'd suspect a vast number of trial attorneys could do the same (caveat - actual trial attorneys, not guys who've thought about the process but haven't yet done consistently.)  At some point, with those kind of resources it's like putting together a presentation, or a lecture, or a pitch.  It's not all that complicated (caveat, again - if you're marshaling experience).
 
I've never worked with that big a group, but I expect it'll do very well, provided everyone agrees on a strategy.  Add a name, drop a name, change two or three, sway another, heck, even throw in a promising young-un with no experience - it's pretty much all the same if you've got a team of 10 associates combing the law and the evidence.  I'm not saying attorneys are fungible, but when you get a small herd of them together and focused on one issue, it's quite possible to build a correct consensus pretty quickly.
 
MLB will have the same in it's corner. 
 
Thus, the arb case probably come down to the facts themselves, *unless* there's some kind of maverick vision controlling the ultimate strategy of one side or another.  Which can happen. 
 
IMO, the two places where you could get a real variance in terms of hiring "a name" are: investigators and expert witnesses. 

 

[Average Reds]

The fact that A-Rod is wasting spending a lot of his money to fill the room with egos as large as his own is hilarious.  Especially considering that his only real argument is a technical one about the length of his suspension and not whether there is a question of his guilt.  Mostly I'm just sad that we are running out of time so that A-Rod won't be able to reach the next HR milestone in his contract and use the $6 million bonus to pay for the entire case. 
 
On the flip side, I am very happy that the circus seems to be gearing up for a return engagement.  These last 5 or 6 weeks where everyone behaved like adults has been boring as hell.
 
For the record, I think he has a strong argument to get his suspension reduced and I'm guessing he ends up with a 50 or 100 game suspension. I can't see any other (legitimate) argument he can make unless there's a whole closet full of evidence that hasn't already been leaked to the press.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Maybe I'm giving MLB too much credit, but I'd assume that they predicted that ARod would appeal his suspension and it would go to an arbitrator who would be aware of the other suspensions that were given.  And if they didn't have additional evidence against ARod the chances of the suspension being upheld would be close to zero.  Therefore I would have to think that they do have evidence against ARod that is more damning than what they had against Braun, Peralta, Cruz, etc.
 
Or am I being too optimistic?

 

[Average Reds]

Maybe I'm giving MLB too much credit, but I'd assume that they predicted that ARod would appeal his suspension and it would go to an arbitrator who would be aware of the other suspensions that were given.  And if they didn't have additional evidence against ARod the chances of the suspension being upheld would be close to zero.  Therefore I would have to think that they do have evidence against ARod that is more damning than what they had against Braun, Peralta, Cruz, etc.
 
Or am I being too optimistic?

 
It isn't a question of optimism, it's a question of what the issues are going to be in the arbitration hearing.
 
Putting aside the bluster that A-Rod's legal team put out in August, I think the only issue is the length of the suspension.  And honestly, if what we have heard about the MLB policy for non-analytic positives is true, all MLB had to do was not tie the other non-analytic positives to the punishments for regular positive tests and they would have had a fairly airtight case to present to the arbitrator.
 
The problem for MLB is that they went ahead and tied these offenses to the punishments for positive tests by decreeing that a significant number of the players who were found to be guilty of a Biogenesis-related non-analytic positive were given punishments of "time served" based on the presumption that the positive tests were related to the non-analytic positive result.
 
If I'm A-Rod's lawyer, I'm going to argue that you can't have it both ways and pick and choose which non-analytic positive you'll punish under the JDA and which you will go outside of the JDA for. And I think an Arbitrator will agree and give A-Rod 50 games unless MLB can show that there is evidence of two distinct offenses, in which case I think he'll get 100 games.
 
Of course he could agree with MLB and uphold the punishment as is. (Arbitrators are notoriously unpredictable that way.)  And if A-Rod's egotistical lawyers overplay their hand and turn the arbitration proceeding into a mud-fest, they may bury their client. But if I were a bettering man, I'd say the arbitrator will split the baby in half and give A-Rod 100 games.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I agree with all that, but what I was thinking about was a punishment for a non-analytic positive plus something else, such as obstruction.  Despite how inept Bud may appear at times, I find it hard to believe that the evidence against ARod is no worse than the evidence against the other guys.  So hypothetically you have a player who has admitted to PED use in the past, was clearly linked to Biogenesis, and tried to destroy the evidence that he was a Biogenesis client.  If that's all true, I'd be shocked if the suspension is only 50 games.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I agree with all that, but what I was thinking about was a punishment for a non-analytic positive plus something else, such as obstruction.  Despite how inept Bud may appear at times, I find it hard to believe that the evidence against ARod is no worse than the evidence against the other guys.  So hypothetically you have a player who has admitted to PED use in the past, was clearly linked to Biogenesis, and tried to destroy the evidence that he was a Biogenesis client.  If that's all true, I'd be shocked if the suspension is only 50 games.

 
Quasi-Semantic clarification.  Evidence by itself only establishes guilt or innocence - so if the issue was PED use, the weight of the evidence goes to how "proveable" the PED use is.  If you've got one player looking at a suspension for PED use due to hearsay, it's less proveable (i.e., a weaker case in arb) than a player looking at a suspension for PED use based on hearsay, photographs, texts, emails, a financial trail, DNA evidence, etc. 
 
So, whether or not A-Rod used PEDs is going to be proven (or not) by the weight of the evidence against him.  And a simple PED use finding would, like AR suggested, put A-Rod in the same box with all the other PED use punishments.
 
However, the suspension was actually given out for multiple violations and obstruction:
 

 
Rodriguez's discipline under the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program is based on his use and possession of numerous forms of prohibited performance-enhancing substances, including Testosterone and human Growth Hormone, over the course of multiple years. Rodriguez's discipline under the Basic Agreement is for attempting to cover-up his violations of the Program by engaging in a course of conduct intended to obstruct and frustrate the Office of the Commissioner's investigation.

 
So Arod can appeal:
a) whether or not he factually used PEDs
b) whether or not he factually obstructed and frustrated the Commissioner's investigations
c) how much he should be suspended for due to using PEDs
d) how much he should be suspended for due to frustrating the Commissioner's investigations
 
Those are all separate issues.  We don't know the weight of the evidence against A-Rod for the first two, or (though it would be easier to find out) the legal/factual scenarios which govern suspensions for the violation of the first two issues. 
 
I can imagine vigorous prosecutions and defenses for each of those four.  If we had a better idea as to the facts involved, especially for the obstruction issue, we'd have a better base to guess what will happen in arb.  For example, if there's a true smoking gun that ARod knowingly bought incriminating documents to cover up his and other's involvement, the suspension will be upheld.  On the other hand if MLBs case for obstruction is that one of ARod's friends did sketchy stuff, it might be harder to show ARod knew or should have known about it.  We'll see what happens. 
 
Thus far things are shaping up beautifully though - Yanks on the hook for salary, Yanks season lost (but late in the season so no great draft picks), Yanks must field A-Rod, A-Rods ultimate suspension could taint 2014, 2015 and 2016 (depending on how long the appeals process takes, and the Yanks, not knowing that, might make bad choices when it comes to getting or not getting coverage at 3B. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

ARod will accept a suspension during the 9th inning of the deciding game of the WS and text Ken Rosenthal

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

 
Being under the tax threshold perpetually isn't on the table. The idea is to get under in 2014, then go over again in 2015. If they get out of most of their 2014 commitment to A*Rod and give Cano a 10-year deal to lower the AAV, I see no reason they can't be competitive in 2014 with a $189mm payroll. If A*Rod's suspension is trimmed to 50 games, that's a different story.

The above is from the Cano thread but relevant here. 
 
The A-Rod suspension/appeal situation has worked out well from our perspective so far in that there were some distractions but the Yankees had to keep paying him without meaningful ROI (i.e. he did not get them over the hump into the playoffs).  But I am torn over which way I want things to go now.  On the one hand, he deserves a suspension.  On the other hand, it's a pretty big deal if he drains their payroll capacity and especially if he forces them to exceed the luxury cap threshold in 2014.  And it also matters whether he would be a more productive player than whatever the alternative would be, which is relatively unclear. 
 
So what is the current sense of Sosh as to what outcome to root for wrt the A-Rod appeal?

 

[NYCSox]

They are going to suck with or without him next season. If he plays 2/3 of the season, maybe they win 80 or so games. Which is fine, since it keeps them away from the top of the draft pool.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Best case Anti-Yanks scenario is one which keeps the team just out of contention, but does not allow for draft picks.
 
So, I'm rooting for an appeals process that drags into 2014 where the Yanks have to field a totally distracted A-Rod.  Then, a suspension that goes from 2014 into 2016, forcing the Yanks to look for a one year rental for 2015, or proactively picking up a 3 contract year ARod replacement, forcing them to spend big bucks on a Youks type. 
 
Best Yankee case is an appeals process done in time to let them plan for the suspension dates. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

The above is from the Cano thread but relevant here. 
 
The A-Rod suspension/appeal situation has worked out well from our perspective so far in that there were some distractions but the Yankees had to keep paying him without meaningful ROI (i.e. he did not get them over the hump into the playoffs).  But I am torn over which way I want things to go now.  On the one hand, he deserves a suspension.  On the other hand, it's a pretty big deal if he drains their payroll capacity and especially if he forces them to exceed the luxury cap threshold in 2014.  And it also matters whether he would be a more productive player than whatever the alternative would be, which is relatively unclear. 
 
So what is the current sense of Sosh as to what outcome to root for wrt the A-Rod appeal?

Cash will never be a problem for them.  They may want to get under the cap for 2014 but not because they would otherwise be unable to keep spending a shitload on payroll.  So whether they have to pay him, get under the cap, lose the revenue sharing rebate, or whatever I don't think it'll matter.  I want him suspended for as long as possible.  If I thought his presence on the roster may have an effect on their ability to spend on other players I'd possibly reconsider.

 

[NYCSox]

Please don't let this circus ever end.
 
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/9753522/supporters-greet-alex-rodriguez-mlb-headquarters

 

[PAB1353]

A-Rod is the victim here....
 
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/10/2/4794242/alex-rodriguez-yankees-biogenesis-steroids

 

[Rovin Romine]

According to the link through, A-Rods defense is, in part, "I didn't know I was taking steroids."
 
I'd love for the arb hearings or part of them to be made public.  Alas.

 

[Average Reds]

Unless they have some pretty solid, reasonable evidence to back up their contention that A-Rod didn't know he was taking steroids - and I have no idea what that would be - this is an incredibly stupid defense.
 
The reasons are numerous, but they begin with the fact that (1) not knowing you are taking steroids is not a defense against a positive test, and it's an almost incoherent defense against a non-analytic positive, because the nature of the case is that MLB has to have solid proof that the player was taking PEDs to suspend them; (2) other players linked to Biogenesis have acknowledged that they knowingly took steroids; and (3) any evidence that A-Rod tried to cover up his association with Bosch directly contradicts his claim of not knowing he was doing anything wrong.  (Covering up your activities is evidence of consciousness of guilt.)
 
This hearing is not a trial; it's an arbitration hearing.  What is most important here is not a legal standard of proof, but for each party to make the most logical, reasonable case within the confines of the issues in play.  If A-Rod really thinks that a weak denial that he did not knowingly use is the way out, he's looking at the full 211 games being enforced.
 
Of course this could just be a small part of his defense, so perhaps I'm overreacting.  But what is being leaked here makes no sense to me as a strategy.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

I wonder how big of a donation Arod had to make to Hispanics Across America to get 50 people to come out and "show support" for him like that. Plus he had the expense of making all those signs for them to hold. :buddy:

 

[glennhoffmania]

Unless they have some pretty solid, reasonable evidence to back up their contention that A-Rod didn't know he was taking steroids - and I have no idea what that would be - this is an incredibly stupid defense.
 
The reasons are numerous, but they begin with the fact that (1) not knowing you are taking steroids is not a defense against a positive test, and it's an almost incoherent defense against a non-analytic positive, because the nature of the case is that MLB has to have solid proof that the player was taking PEDs to suspend them; (2) other players linked to Biogenesis have acknowledged that they knowingly took steroids; and (3) any evidence that A-Rod tried to cover up his association with Bosch directly contradicts his claim of not knowing he was doing anything wrong.  (Covering up your activities is evidence of consciousness of guilt.)
 
This hearing is not a trial; it's an arbitration hearing.  What is most important here is not a legal standard of proof, but for each party to make the most logical, reasonable case within the confines of the issues in play.  If A-Rod really thinks that a weak denial that he did not knowingly use is the way out, he's looking at the full 211 games being enforced.
 
Of course this could just be a small part of his defense, so perhaps I'm overreacting.  But what is being leaked here makes no sense to me as a strategy.

Yup.  The only possible reason for this defense I can think of is that he knows that they have a ton of evidence that he did take PEDs, so that flat our denying he ever used would be pointless.  Regardless, I can't imagine he ends up with no suspension if this is his defense. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

I have to think that ARod's attorneys will be going hard after Bosch.  Sure they can show he deals in illegal drugs, etc., but the more they dirty up Bosch, the more difficult it becomes to distance their client from him.  They must have determined that the links between Bosch and ARod are too strong to break, so they're falling back on the argument that while ARod did go to Bosch, he thought he was getting super vitamins, not illegal drugs. 
 
It's a pretty weak defense for all the reasons Average Reds outlined.  Additionally, ARod's already used PEDs, and apologized, and said that he'd never do them again, regretted it horribly, etc.  If I'm on the MLB team, I play that tape and then cross ARod on just what steps he took to insure that the 25 mystery substances he was taking didn't violate the MLB drug policy.
 
Plus, since part of the suspension is for interfering with the MLB investigation, a "didn't know what I was taking" defense to PED use pretty much locks ARod into a "didn't factually interfere with an investigation" defense, due to the aforementioned "consciousness of guilt"* issue.   That might not work at all, depending on the evidence - which we still don't know all that much about. 
 
It's hard to come up with informed guesses on the basis of what's been reported so far. 
 
 
*C.o.G. means you can argue someone is guilty based on what they did to cover up a crime/bad act.  The counter argument is usually something like "I didn't do it, and was scared people thought I would."  The counter works in some situations (usually an innocent person avoiding the police for collateral reasons) but not others. 
In ARod's case the counter argument would be "I committed a crime/violation to cover up the original crime/violation because I thought people might think I committed the original crime/violation - even though I had no idea what would make them think so (because, you know, I didn't commit the original crime/violation and have no knowledge of it)."  And that just don't fly absent odd and particular facts.

 

[Dan Murfman]

Francesca is saying that the ARod camp is denying that they are using the ignorance defense.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Please don't let this circus ever end.
 
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/9753522/supporters-greet-alex-rodriguez-mlb-headquarters

 
"Mateo was unable to appear as expected at a sidewalk news conference as a result of a bizarre early-morning incident in which he was burned by hot coffee that was spilled on him by a security guard...Mateo later told ESPN NewYork.com he is suffering from back pain, neck pain and high blood pressure as a result of the incident, and plans to press charges against the woman"

 

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

 
"Mateo was unable to appear as expected at a sidewalk news conference as a result of a bizarre early-morning incident in which he was burned by hot coffee that was spilled on him by a security guard...Mateo later told ESPN NewYork.com he is suffering from back pain, neck pain and high blood pressure as a result of the incident, and plans to press charges against the woman"

 
I certainly hope he consults with Jackie Chiles before proceeding!

 

[soxhop411]

I wonder how big of a donation Arod had to make to Hispanics Across America to get 50 people to come out and "show support" for him like that. Plus he had the expense of making all those signs for them to hold. :buddy:

it really wouldn't shock me if A-rods camp paid these people to "support him"... Like you said

 

[HillysLastWalk]

It doesn't take innuendo to link Ortiz with PEDs. He tested positive in 2003. I'm sure you know this.

 
I'm not so sure about Ortiz.  Can you cite one source that shows that Ortiz tested positive for PEDs?

 

[cannonball 1729]

it really wouldn't shock me if A-rods camp paid these people to "support him"... Like you said

 
Is it just me or are all of those signs written in the same handwriting?

 

[soxhop411]

 
Is it just me or are all of those signs written in the same handwriting?

Thats why I said it would not shock me if A-rod (or his camp) paid them to do this. 

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I have zero doubt that Team ARod paid them to be there and provided the signs. Zero.

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

The best one is the teenager with the Randy Levine sign.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Not just that theyre the same handwriting, they were all done the same "way," no color, different sized signs, etc

Definitely plants.

 

[rundugrun]

 
I'm not so sure about Ortiz.  Can you cite one source that shows that Ortiz tested positive for PEDs?


Ortiz was one of the 100 plus who tested positive in 2003 which resulted in the formalized testing program being implemented in 2004.

 

[Jaylach]

I wonder how big of a donation Arod had to make to Hispanics Across America to get 50 people to come out and "show support" for him like that. Plus he had the expense of making all those signs for them to hold. :buddy:

 
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/10/2/4794600/alex-rodriguez-supporters-biogenesis-mlb-suspension

 

[Oil Can Dan]

Ortiz was one of the 100 plus who tested positive in 2003 which resulted in the formalized testing program being implemented in 2004.

Tested positive for what drug, specifically?

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Ortiz was one of the 100 plus who tested positive in 2003 which resulted in the formalized testing program being implemented in 2004.

Ok, then cite the source.

To give a clue: Im being coy. Ortiz did not test positive. He had an inconclusive result.

 

[Sprowl]

Francesca is saying that the ARod camp is denying that they are using the ignorance defense.

 
Wouldn't it be truer to say that they don't know if they are using the ignorance defense?

 

[EvilEmpire]

Ok, then cite the source.

To give a clue: Im being coy. Ortiz did not test positive. He had an inconclusive result.

 
 
I'm not sure what was inconclusive.  He say's he doesn't know why he test positive, or for what, but in 2009 he admitted that he tested positive in 2003:
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/07/31/ortiz_confirms_he_tested_positive_in_2003/
 
 

Ortiz said the Major League Baseball Players Association later confirmed to him that the report of his positive test was accurate.
 

 
 
And then this past August he said that he still didn't know why or what, and didn't make any claims that I could find saying that he didn't test positive and that the result was inconclusive. 
 
 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/08/07/david-ortiz-nobody-has-offered-clarification-regarding-2003-list/
 
 

“No. Nobody. Not MLB. Not the Players Association. Nobody,” said Ortiz when asked if anyone had revealed what he had reportedly tested positive for. “They just threw it out there that I tested positive on this one list and that was it. Nothing. So I have to deal with that, and your mind is all over the place. And I’ve lived with it.”

 
Maybe something changed since then and I haven't seen it.  If you have something, please post it.
 
I don't think claims of not knowing 'why' or 'what' is the same thing as an 'inconclusive test'.  All we know is that he tested positive for PEDs at least once, and that he was on the list. 

 

[Average Reds]

I believe that what the other poster(s) are driving at is that at the time it was leaked that Ortiz was on the list of those who tested positive in 2003, it was also noted that the 2003 survey was less than rigorous in terms of defining what a "positive" result would be, and there were several players who ended up with inconclusive results that were categorized as positive based on a very broad set of criteria used. Ortiz was reportedly one of these.
 
The larger point is that to take the leaked results of an anonymous test which did not have tightly defined criteria for determining the difference between legal supplements and PED, no appeals process and no information given to the players about their test results and on the basis of that to declare/infer that Papi is a steroid cheat like A-Rod is pretty thin gruel.
 
Of course, he very well may be. But from what we know, his situation is not directly analogous to A-Rod's and it's somewhat unproductive to go down that road.

 

[Plantiers Wart]

The TNT pregame show had Verducci saying that MLB has a "back door" at the Park Ave offices so ARod could have entered without press or supporters seeing him - but he elected to walk through the "throng" on his way into the hearings. 

 

[HillysLastWalk]

@Evil Empire

I dont know if its this stupid iPad or what, but Im not able to view certain links, and google keeps regurgatating the same links right now, but ...

This link (which cant be read on my iPad):
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-novitzkylist090809

And is referenced here in the comment section (for each link just search on inconclusive):
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/13/david-ortiz-baseball-players-we-pretty-much-might-be-the-dumbest-athletes-of-all-the-sports/

And in various SOSH threads:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/56690-will-ortiz-ever-set-the-record-straight/
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/48170-mlbpa-issues-statement-regarding-2003-steroid-list/

All have this quote:

MLB has contested the list’s accuracy, claiming only 96 positive tests were recorded by the union in 2003, not the widely reported 104 positives. Both the Players Association and MLB have stated that 13 results were inconclusive, including that of Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz(notes), who the New York Times recently asserted had tested positive for steroids in 2003.

In this link: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/careless-david-ortiz-denies-steroid-apologizes-boston-red-sox-fans-teammates-article-1.395676

The Daily News reported Monday that Ortiz could be one of the eight players who are believed to have tested positive for a spiked dietary supplement in 2003, rather than for hard-core injectable steroids.

Again, no matter how poorly it may be worded by writers and Ortiz himself, the facts are that it was an inconclusive result that had Ortiz questioning his use of legal supplements.

 

[Dan Murfman]

It's a witch hunt. And he's suing.
 
In a statement, Rodriguez said: “The entire legal dynamic is very complex, and my legal team is doing what they need to in order to vindicate me and pursue all of my rights. This matter is entirely separate from the ongoing arbitration.  I look forward to the arbitration proceedings continuing, and for the day to come when I can share my story with the public and my supporters.”
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/sports/baseball/rodriguez-sues-mlb-claiming-a-witch-hunt.html?ref=sports&_r=0

 

[Ed Hillel]

This just got amazinger.

 

[Rovin Romine]

It's a witch hunt. And he's suing.
 
In a statement, Rodriguez said: “The entire legal dynamic is very complex, and my legal team is doing what they need to in order to vindicate me and pursue all of my rights. This matter is entirely separate from the ongoing arbitration.  I look forward to the arbitration proceedings continuing, and for the day to come when I can share my story with the public and my supporters.”
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/sports/baseball/rodriguez-sues-mlb-claiming-a-witch-hunt.html?ref=sports&_r=0

 
There's no time like now.

 

[soxhop411]

@SteveEder: Here's a link to the Rodriguez v. MLB lawsuit. http://t.co/Pj0vmnhzsu via @NYTSports”

 

[bankshot1]

I guess this rules out a hallowed spot in Monument Park for #13 

 

[gtg807y]

Oh man, he's putting the whole system on trial. I love when people put the whole system on trial.

 

[soxhop411]

“@PaulD_Anderson: The almighty power of Section 301 Preemption will likely prevent ARod's lawsuit from being anything more than a PR effort. Good luck.”

https://twitter.com/PaulD_Anderson/status/386145848679088129

 

[Rovin Romine]

Here's a non-NYT link to the complaint if anyone wants to read it: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801566/rodriguez-lawsuit.pdf
 
It's interesting - there are some accusations of grave misconduct by MLB in their investigation.  Presumably that will come out in the arb process itself. 
 
I don't see this surviving as an independent lawsuit though.

 

[Dan Murfman]

MLB responds:
 
“For the more than four decades that we have had a collective bargaining relationship with the Major League Baseball Players Association, every player and club dispute has gone through the jointly agreed upon grievance process. This lawsuit is a clear violation of the confidentiality provisions of our drug program, and it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to circumvent the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
“While we vehemently deny the allegations in the complaint, none of those allegations is relevant to the real issue: whether Mr. Rodriguez violated the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program by using and possessing numerous forms of prohibited performance-enhancing substances, including Testosterone and human Growth Hormone, over the course of multiple years and whether he violated the Basic Agreement by attempting to cover-up his violations of the Program by engaging in a course of conduct intended to obstruct and frustrate the Office of the Commissioner’s investigation.”
 
http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2013/10/04/mlb-responds-to-a-rods-lawsuit/

 

[soxhop411]

Ken Davidoff ‏@KenDavidoff6m
Now A-Rod has sued #Yankees team physician Christopher Ahmad & NYP-Columbia Medical Center for misdiagnosing his hip injury in October 2012Ken Davidoff ‏
https://twitter.com/KenDavidoff/status/386244791899815936