And in Arod news

[AngelsLakersFan]

Contractually binding but is not a legal hearing in which guilt or innocence is determined. It is a negotiation where both sides can come to an agreement but if neither sides reach that the arbitration process falls apart.

 

A-Rod had every legal right to walk away and take his case to a real court of law since the parameters that he was working with he never had the opportunity to depose his accuser but was expected to testify. Sitting across from him was Selig's legal team but not the commissioner himself that created and promoted to the media the parameters of the suspension.

 

Taking into account the testimony at the arbitration hearing could be used against A-Rod in later legal proceedings, he was also within his rights to not testify against himself when facing an accuser. No defense lawyer would have agreed to that taking place.

 

This is not about how petulant or arrogant A-Rod is. This is about a person insuring his legal rights are protected even in an arbitration hearing and MLB knew that he was not going to participate and roll over for them.

 

Ultimately though, ARod will never get his day in a real court. The rules of the collective bargaining agreement and US law in relation to them essentially dictate that Selig can do whatever he wants. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

You're wrong. Arod does not have the right to walk away. He is obligated contractually to the arbitration process and the agreed upon rules. Deciding during the process that he didn't like the process or the rules is not "well within his rights". He has no "right to face his accuser" in arbitration. There is no legal right to depose his accuser, not to mention, this isn't a deposition. Arbitration is a legally binding process. Not all legal hearings involve trial procedures or guidelines and a determination of guilt or innocence. This is a legal proceeding. Again, the only way he gets a federal trial for this is if he can establish that the arbitrator acted improperly or with undue bias in his decision. 

 

Arbitration is not a negotiation. You clearly do not understand arbitration. 

 

Arod does have the right to walk out, but his attorneys staid, and a ruling has to come down.

[Troll Daddy]

"We're going to open up everything," said Ron Berkowitz, a spokesman for Rodriguez. "We're going to show everything we have to the press so they can show it to the American public."

Eason.com

[Lifetime]

Well, obviously you are wrong, he walked out and the commissioner's office can't have an arrest warrant issued. They also do not win their complaint by proxy, the hearing never completed it's course. They only can bitch and complain A-Rod won't play the game and roll over for the commissioner. A-Rod has the right to take his complaint about the suspension to an actual court of law and bypass Selig's kangaroo court.

uh wow. There is so much ignorance in your rebuttal. Arbitration cases are not criminal proceedings, they are civil proceedings. They are however legal proceedings with legally binding decisions. Of course the commissioner's office can't have an arrest warrant issued - what an incredibly naive thing to say. Arod doesn't have to be present in the arbitration (just as Selig does not) and he doesn't have to testify. His attorneys do have to be able to present his case however. They can't just walk out and opt for a court of law hearing. 

 

The hearing did complete his course. Arod's attorneys went back to complete their case without him. Arod does not have the right to take his complaint about the suspension to a court of law because he agreed by contract to participate in arbitration and abide by the arbiter's ruling. Again, the only way he gets this into a court of law would be if he can show the arbiter acted with bias against him, violated the agreed upon rules, or acted improperly. 

[Lifetime]

Arod does have the right to walk out, but his attorneys staid, and a ruling has to come down.

I understand that, that's what I was referring to. The implication by mud was that Arod walked out and would instead opt for a court trial to decide the case. My point was, it doesn't work that way.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

He can still file a civil suit against MLB.

[Lifetime]

Sure he can try. There are thousands of frivolous lawsuits on the docket every day. Even if he was able to get his suit in front of a judge, it would not likely happen for a long time. In the meantime, his suspension decision levied by the arbiter would stand.

 

I have no question Arod will try to take this to federal court. I doubt he has a leg to stand on.

[Lifetime]

I do like that ARod had a roid rage like incident during the hearing before he stormed out though.

[gotbeer]

Alex Rodriguez: 'We crushed it'

[gotbeer]

He can still file a civil suit against MLB.

 

Would AntiTrust Exemption come into play?

[Lifetime]

Would AntiTrust Exemption come into play?

what does this have to do with anti-trust?