Saltzer's Shots: Ban A-Rod for Life

[AngelsWin.com]

 

By David Saltzer AngelsWin.com Senior Writer

 

Baseball is the national pastime because it is a microcosm of life in America. In all ways, baseball represents what is best and worst about our country. Whether it be Jackie Robinson integrating the game as a prelude to the Civil Rights movement, or Ted Williams going off to serve in two wars for the military, baseball has been there to show the world what the American values are.

 

That has never been more true than now with the ongoing PED scandal. In particular, it has never been more true than with one player in particular, A-Rod. While he was not the only player caught up in the Biogenesis scandal, he stands apart for several reasons.

 

The Biogenesis scandal is not A-Rod’s first alleged use of PEDs. Rumors swirled for years that he was juicing, and for the longest time, A-Rod denied them. He went so far as to go on “60 Minutes” to publicly declare on national TV that he never used them, and in fact, never felt “overmatched” on the playing field. As the reports and allegations continued to surface, including his failed drug test in 2003, which he had been warned about, A-Rod finally held a press conference to admit to having used PEDs for a limited time back in 2003. 

 

In his press conference, rather than show remorse, A-Rod tried to soften the blow by saying he only cheated so that he could perform up to the level of the gargantuan contract that he signed. He claimed it was the pressure of living up to the contract that drove him to cheat. What he failed to mention, though, was that he was the one who opted out of his existing contract to as to extract more money from the Yankees or that he had been asking for more money than he received. He did not take accountability for his actions, and if anything, was just sorry that he had been caught, not that he had cheated.

 

When A-Rod’s name first appeared in the Biogenesis scandal, he again denied any culpability. As the evidence mounted, he protested his innocence. He gave the same song and dance, while at the same time, assembling a massive legal team to defend himself. Up until two weeks ago, he continued to proclaim innocence in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.

 

Now, when it is clear that baseball has more than compelling evidence against him, A-Rod wants to negotiate a “deal” with Major League baseball that will let him keep a portion of the $100 million remaining on his contract. Under no circumstances should baseball negotiate with A-Rod for a lesser punishment. Major League Baseball should ban A-Rod for life. 

 

We are living in a precarious time in American history. One of my biggest concerns is that America today has replaced doing what’s right with doing what’s expedient. Think about it: How often do you see a business or person settle a bogus lawsuit because it is cheaper to settle than it is to defend doing what’s right? How many soldiers and people have died fighting terrorism just to have their families see America negotiate with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan even though we have a stated policy to not negotiate with terrorists? How much more do we pay in taxes to cleanup graffiti and trash rather than hold people accountable for their actions by making them clean it up?

 

Over the past 5 years, we watched nearly 20% of our national wealth (about $13 trillion dollars) disappear, mostly by banks that were too big to fail. And, after we bailed them out, we were shocked to learn that those running the banks were engaged in criminal acts, such as manipulating the LIBOR and insider deals. Yet, have any of them gone to jail? Sadly, none. Sure, the government negotiated some penalties against some investment banks, but by and large, banks that were too big to fail were run by bankers who were too big to jail.

 

I am a father. I do not want my sons growing up in a society in which people think that what is expedient is right. In my mind, my sons should do what’s right, even if it isn’t expedient. We all know that the right answer is usually the hard one, but, I would rather my sons struggle to do what’s right than compromise with doing what’s wrong.

 

If Major League Baseball negotiates a punishment with A-Rod, what example does that set for my sons? Will they then try to negotiate punishments with me when I need to discipline them?

 

I understand that there is a lot of money involved in this situation. And, I understand that the Yankees may benefit from giving A-Rod a lifetime banishment (although I will address that in a separate article). And, I understand the risk that an arbitrator could revise the punishment.

 

 

But, I would rather see baseball continue to be a compass for all by showing us what are true values are rather than seeing the game soil itself by doing what’s expedient rather than what’s right. America may be a bit lost on its values right now, but baseball can once again show us what is right.

 

If A-Rod is allowed to “negotiate” a punishment, it would only further encourage PED use rather than discourage it. Think about it: a marginal player who would be helped by PEDs would have every reason to take them and sign a lucrative deal as quickly as possible because he would know that he could negotiate to preserve a chunk of that money. So, negotiating with A-Rod will only make the problem worse, not better. And, over time, as more and more players negotiate punishments, the punishments will become less and less severe, not more and more severe. It’s just like how America’s treatment of North Korea has given Iran every incentive to build a nuclear device—it sees how America treats North Korea differently, and knows that it can get away with a lot more once it has gone nuclear.

 

There is only one way to preserve the game of baseball and to prevent PEDs in the future. It’s simple, and it’s the right thing to do. Ban A-Rod for life.

[Troll Daddy]

I strongly disagree ... carry on

[Chuck]

I strongly disagree ... carry on

 

Nice contribution. Why do you disagree?

[Guest]

I strongly disagree ... carry on

Same. Also, this article is more about the author's political views and opinion on society in America rather than why A-Rod should be banned for life.

[HaloCory22]

Yeah, I disagree as well. I don't think its going to get worse. If anything, the testing and punishment will get tougher. More players are starting to voice their opinions on the matter (McCarthy, Shoemaker, CJ, etc.) Those who do PEDs are starting to be shunned by the other players.

 

Do I think A-Rod has handled the situation the right way? No. A-Rod is in no way the pioneer of steroids. They were around way before him. I do believe less and less players are on the juice now since the Mitchell Report and the new testing rules came into play. Also, A-Rod "negotiating his penalty" won't be the case with someone who actually tests positive on a test. A positive test result equals an automatic suspension, no negotiating.

[Chimi]

Didn't Braun negotiate a deal as well?  Where is the hate for him?  This reads "I don't like A-Rod, so just ban him for life."  All the political stuff probably could have been left out as well.

[mp170.6]

I get the feeling that Dave doesn't understand the arbitration process at all.   I don't think he would have written this article if he did...

 

The appeal would go to MLB's new arbitrator, and it's entirely possible that A-Rod's lifetime ban would be completely overturned on procedural grounds and/or lack of precedent.  That means A-Rod would get every dime he is owed in back wages and have to be reinstated as if the Biogenesis scandal never took place.  There is no Court of Appeals for arbitrator decisions and judges almost never set aside the findings of an arbitrator.  This is why Ryan Braun got away with his failed drug test -- MLB was powerless to overturn the decision by former arbitrator Shyam Das.  The best they could do was fire him afterwards. 

 

So all this talk about "doing the right thing" by banning A-Rod for life is wishful thinking at best.  Dropping the hammer especially hard on A-Rod could blow up in their face by letting it go to arbitration. 

[Dave Saltzer]

I get the feeling that Dave doesn't understand the arbitration process at all.   I don't think he would have written this article if he did...

 

The appeal would go to MLB's new arbitrator, and it's entirely possible that A-Rod's lifetime ban would be completely overturned on procedural grounds and/or lack of precedent.  That means A-Rod would get every dime he is owed in back wages and have to be reinstated as if the Biogenesis scandal never took place.  There is no Court of Appeals for arbitrator decisions and judges almost never set aside the findings of an arbitrator.  This is why Ryan Braun got away with his failed drug test -- MLB was powerless to overturn the decision by former arbitrator Shyam Das.  The best they could do was fire him afterwards. 

 

So all this talk about "doing the right thing" by banning A-Rod for life is wishful thinking at best.  Dropping the hammer especially hard on A-Rod could blow up in their face by letting it go to arbitration. 

 

Actually MP, I really do understand the arbitration process very well. An arbitrator COULD completely overturn it, but I really do not see that as likely at all. With all the public pressure, as well as the pressure from the owners and the players (sentiment from the players has clearly shifted on this issue), an arbitrator might overturn the lifetime ban, but at most, would knock it down to a 150 game suspension or so. Or, in other words, about the same as what A-Rod is trying to negotiate with MLB. The difference is, by going for the ban, MLB looks like it is trying to do the right thing, and the public would be more forgiving of the sport if an arbitrator knocks it down. If baseball negotiates the same deal with A-Rod, though, it appears as though once again the high and mighty get away with whatever they want, and baseball will suffer. 

 

Let's take the worst case from an arbitrator: the case is entirely overturned and A-Rod is reinstated. That would give MLB the upper hand in the next CBA. As noted, the players sentiment has shifted on the issue. The owners could use this gross miscarriage of the arbitration process to their advantage to get a morality clause written as a standard part of every future contract or a much stiffer set of penalties in the next negotiations. The players union would have a very tough time publicly trying to defend against that after an arbitrator reinstated A-Rod. All the evidence would come out against him (which may include criminal charges as the fed is finally looking into the issue), and by extension, all the players, and they would have to cave quickly on a much more stringent system as a result. So, going back to the first premise (that an arbitrator would not completely overturn the ban), there would be a lot of pressure from the players union to oppose a complete overturn of a lifetime ban, meaning A-Rod ends up with about 150 game ban.

 

Thank you, though, for helping to make another one of my points about why they should give him the lifetime ban. As you pointed out, there's a potential lack of precedence that A-Rod's lawyers could argue. I am well aware of this, which is why I said if baseball negotiates a deal with A-Rod, the next player will negotiate a deal for less time than A-Rod. Any subsequent player will argue that he did not lie as much, obstruct the investigation as much, or interfere as much as A-Rod is alleged to have done. So, that player will argue that his punishment should be less than A-Rod's, and will in fact get less. Over time, as the punishments become less and less severe, the punishment will no longer deter players, and in fact, the allure of the big money that will come with steroids will make them more common. The only way to overcome this is to drop the hammer on someone. And, in that regard, A-Rod is the ideal person since he has blatantly lied about taking the PEDs and has allegedly interfered or obstructed the investigation. If they can't punish him severely, who can they?

 

Given the choice between doing what's right and doing what's expedient, baseball should do what's right, especially since the down side is that it will result in about the same punishment for A-Rod. If baseball continues to do the expedient thing instead of the right thing, it will have trouble remaining relevant over time.

[mp170.6]

Actually MP, I really do understand the arbitration process very well. An arbitrator COULD completely overturn it, but I really do not see that as likely at all. With all the public pressure, as well as the pressure from the owners and the players (sentiment from the players has clearly shifted on this issue), an arbitrator might overturn the lifetime ban, but at most, would knock it down to a 150 game suspension or so. Or, in other words, about the same as what A-Rod is trying to negotiate with MLB. The difference is, by going for the ban, MLB looks like it is trying to do the right thing, and the public would be more forgiving of the sport if an arbitrator knocks it down. If baseball negotiates the same deal with A-Rod, though, it appears as though once again the high and mighty get away with whatever they want, and baseball will suffer.

 

Again, I don't think you understand arbitration very well at all.  Public or internal pressure is completely irrelevant and MLB's arbitrator should NOT be watching the news or reading the newspapers right now.  In a perfect world, he has no idea how MLB and the public feel about A-Rod right now. 

 

There's no telling what the arbitrator is going to do, and they have much more latitude than a judge does in a courtroom.  Lack of precedent might not even be a problem because, again, this isn't a courtroom.  It's a waste of time to predict best case scenarios for either side. 

 

 

Let's take the worst case from an arbitrator: the case is entirely overturned and A-Rod is reinstated. That would give MLB the upper hand in the next CBA. As noted, the players sentiment has shifted on the issue. The owners could use this gross miscarriage of the arbitration process to their advantage to get a morality clause written as a standard part of every future contract or a much stiffer set of penalties in the next negotiations. The players union would have a very tough time publicly trying to defend against that after an arbitrator reinstated A-Rod. All the evidence would come out against him (which may include criminal charges as the fed is finally looking into the issue), and by extension, all the players, and they would have to cave quickly on a much more stringent system as a result. So, going back to the first premise (that an arbitrator would not completely overturn the ban), there would be a lot of pressure from the players union to oppose a complete overturn of a lifetime ban, meaning A-Rod ends up with about 150 game ban.

 

Gross miscarriage of the arbitration process? 

 

There hasn't been a hearing yet and you've already assumed that if the arbitrator doesn't rule in favor of MLB, it's a "gross miscarriage" of the process.  We don't know what evidence MLB has yet, so it's a bit premature to throw the arbitrator under the bus. 

 

As for the next CBA, the MLBPA is too powerful to roll over and give MLB the upperhand in anything.  This is especially true if the evidence later proves an overzealous attack on A-Rod. 

 

 

Thank you, though, for helping to make another one of my points about why they should give him the lifetime ban. As you pointed out, there's a potential lack of precedence that A-Rod's lawyers could argue. I am well aware of this, which is why I said if baseball negotiates a deal with A-Rod, the next player will negotiate a deal for less time than A-Rod. Any subsequent player will argue that he did not lie as much, obstruct the investigation as much, or interfere as much as A-Rod is alleged to have done. So, that player will argue that his punishment should be less than A-Rod's, and will in fact get less. Over time, as the punishments become less and less severe, the punishment will no longer deter players, and in fact, the allure of the big money that will come with steroids will make them more common. The only way to overcome this is to drop the hammer on someone. And, in that regard, A-Rod is the ideal person since he has blatantly lied about taking the PEDs and has allegedly interfered or obstructed the investigation. If they can't punish him severely, who can they?

 

Plea bargaining happens THOUSANDS of times a day in courtrooms all over the country.  I don't think it has any effect on deterring others...short or long sentence -- it doesn't matter -- people are still going to make the same mistakes.

 

I realize this isn't a criminal case but the process MLB is using is quite similar.  What makes you think the next player is going to get off with a lesser punishment? 

[shellback]

i am no lawyer.

mlb has for as long as its been in existence strived to maintain the purity of the game. there's many examples- black sox, pete rose etc.

only recently has mlb appearently decided to go with the present economic norm of " if money can be made off of it it's o.k."

if mlb continues to condone cheating, thier greed will bury the greatest game in the world.

a-roid needs to be put out to pasture like the centaur he thinks he is.

[arch stanton]

I dislike Rodriguez as much as anyone. Always have. That said, this seems to me to be a lot more about ganging up on him than it does about trying to clean up the sport. If I was him I would just tell them to do what they gotta do and be prepared for me to do the same. If I'm going down I'm taking a whole lot of you with me.

[sneaky_flute]

i said this in the other thread, but i think selig is conspiring with the yankees to rid them of that contract.

[GoodTimesGoneBad]

Legalize everything.

[red321]

What I gathered from an interview with Fay Vincent on MLB Radio yesterday, if Selig uses the "best interest of baseball clause" it falls outside of the arbitration process and would end up in court.

 

I think it will be interesting to see what evidence they have against Rodriguez, not just for PED use, but rumors are they have evidence showing he tried to cover up and obstruct the investigation with payoffs and that is what is leading baseball to throw the book at him.

 

 

As for the baseball is a microcosm of life, that ship sailed a long time ago. I'd rather folks realize it's nothing more than entertainment and the last person(s) who should be considered role models are multi million dollar athletes or billionaire owners.

[mrwicked]

i would take arod on this team to play 3B if we didnt have to pay that contract.

[Dave Saltzer]

Again, I don't think you understand arbitration very well at all.  Public or internal pressure is completely irrelevant and MLB's arbitrator should NOT be watching the news or reading the newspapers right now.  In a perfect world, he has no idea how MLB and the public feel about A-Rod right now. 

 

There's no telling what the arbitrator is going to do, and they have much more latitude than a judge does in a courtroom.  Lack of precedent might not even be a problem because, again, this isn't a courtroom.  It's a waste of time to predict best case scenarios for either side. 

 

 

 

Gross miscarriage of the arbitration process? 

 

There hasn't been a hearing yet and you've already assumed that if the arbitrator doesn't rule in favor of MLB, it's a "gross miscarriage" of the process.  We don't know what evidence MLB has yet, so it's a bit premature to throw the arbitrator under the bus. 

 

As for the next CBA, the MLBPA is too powerful to roll over and give MLB the upperhand in anything.  This is especially true if the evidence later proves an overzealous attack on A-Rod. 

 

 

 

Plea bargaining happens THOUSANDS of times a day in courtrooms all over the country.  I don't think it has any effect on deterring others...short or long sentence -- it doesn't matter -- people are still going to make the same mistakes.

 

I realize this isn't a criminal case but the process MLB is using is quite similar.  What makes you think the next player is going to get off with a lesser punishment? 

 

Actually, I understand it very well. Sure, in an ideal world, an arbitrator should live in a bubble. But they don't. I don't think you really believe that they do, which is why you said in an "ideal world". So, my point still stands. But, even assuming that they did drag some arbitrator out of a bubble, that arbitrator will consider the effect of the precedent that s/he establishes. This isn't like the old salary arbitration where the arbitrator has to rule for one side or the other. S/he would have some latitude on the ruling. So, it would, as I say, most likely end up where back where they negotiated with A-Rod. The difference is, under that scenario, baseball could still maintain its integrity.

 

As for trying to predict what will happen in an arbitration, I guess you aren't too familiar with the legal process. That's what lawyers do all the time. You can't make an informed decision about seeing without measuring the risk of potential outcomes. Doctors do it all the time too (there's an 80% chance that this medicine will cure this disease so you should take it . . .). It's hardly a waste of time.

 

As for determining whether or not it will be a gross miscarriage, that happens all the time, regardless of what the facts are or are not in the situation. It's about the perception. The perception is that A-Rod is guilty (and his actions really have not helped his cause). So, even if he proves it, to the vast majority of baseball fans, who won't follow the nuances of the arbitration, it will appear that he got away with it. Since the vast majority of fans don't follow things as closely as many on here do, that will put pressure on baseball, the players union, and others to fix this perceived injustice.

 

The MLBPA is only as strong as its members. On this issue, they have gone from solidly opposing testing to being mostly for testing and punishing. They wouldn't have much strength on this issue and would be best served to get out in front of it rather than having worse imposed on them through federal policy or something. At this point, I truly doubt that the evidence against A-Rod is that weak. And, even if it were, as I said before, it's about the perception of it.

 

Yes, plea bargaining happens all the time. Just more proof that we accept what is expedient far too often over what is right. Our criminal code has lost a lot of its deterrent power because it gives out too many slaps on the wrist instead of more stern punishment.

 

What makes me think that the next set of players would get off with less punishment is history. Using your plea bargaining analogy, have you ever really seen areas of the law where they allowed large amounts of plea bargaining result in stiffer penalties over time? If, and when it does (which is very rare--almost always it results in less punishment over time) it is usually the result of some dramatic case that changes the public's perception of that crime.

 

The case against A-Rod is one such case that really could change the perception of PEDs in the sport. They should do the right thing here.

[Lifetime]

to Dave's point on plea bargaining: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1843&context=mulr

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Nice contribution. Why do you disagree?

 

It speaks volumes that this was a one-line response to a lengthy and well-justified conclusion. The one liner didn't even include anything to back it up. I had rather that he had said nothing. Disagreement is fine, but at least add to the discussion.

[CaliAngel]

It speaks volumes that this was a one-line response to a lengthy and well-justified conclusion. The one liner didn't even include anything to back it up. I had rather that he had said nothing. Disagreement is fine, but at least add to the discussion.

 

I don't think you're putting into consideration the person who made the post.

 

If you did, it'd come off as much less of a surprise.

[mancini79]

I would have to agree with Dave's view that this does set a negative precedence moving forward for PED's. If baseball is claiming to be strict on PEDs and have a player worthy of a lifetime ban, then why accept anything less? Moving forward, what would a player have to do to serve that lifetime ban??

[HaloCory22]

What makes A-Rod worthy of a lifetime ban compared to any other player who has taken PEDs? You're all just ganging up on this guy cus he's the biggest name in the game. Where was all of this for Bonds, or any other player who has taken PEDs and been suspended for it. If A-Rod deserves a lifetime ban then everyone should be banned for life for their 1st offense.

[mancini79]

What makes A-Rod worthy of a lifetime ban compared to any other player who has taken PEDs? You're all just ganging up on this guy cus he's the biggest name in the game. Where was all of this for Bonds, or any other player who has taken PEDs and been suspended for it. If A-Rod deserves a lifetime ban then everyone should be banned for life for their 1st offense.

 

Cory, MLB is insinuating this is a lot more than a 1st offense. Seeing that MLB has just taken the plea offer off the table, this will go to court. More than likely the evidence will go public during trial.

[Lifetime]

The thing is, the lifetime ban can only be used here by relying on the "in the best interest of baseball"  clsuse. It cannot be used as a punishment for steroid use under the current rules. So this really doesn't impact future PED cases unless of course the court invalidates the use of the clause for this purpose. In that case, we would likely see some rule changes in the near future. As it is, if they are invoking the "in the best interest of baseball" clause, it won't be an arbitration hearing or appeal but rather a civil case between Arod and MLB. 

[Lifetime]

What makes A-Rod worthy of a lifetime ban compared to any other player who has taken PEDs? You're all just ganging up on this guy cus he's the biggest name in the game. Where was all of this for Bonds, or any other player who has taken PEDs and been suspended for it. If A-Rod deserves a lifetime ban then everyone should be banned for life for their 1st offense.

From all reports, this is much more than a 1st offense issue. But aside from that, there are a  lot of people that were calling for much stiffer penalties for Bonds et al. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I don't think you're putting into consideration the person who made the post.

 

If you did, it'd come off as much less of a surprise.

 

You're right. It isn't exactly a shock, is it?