1/29/2013 8:18 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Third positive results in a lifetime ban. Teams don't have cause to void contracts for anything less than that. (Assuming, of course, that there isn't specific language in Arods contract allowing it, but it would make no sense for Arod to agree to that knowing that he was using PEDs)

Wikipedia...so you know it has to be true:

Positive steroid test results

  • First positive test result: 50 game suspension
  • Second positive test result: 100 game suspension
  • Third positive test result: lifetime ban from MLB

All suspensions are without pay. In addition, a suspended player can be replaced on the active roster by another player. If a player is on the disabled list, the suspension is served while on the disabled list.

Incorrect.

Standard MLB player's contract, section 7(b)1:

"7.(b)  The club may terminate this contract upon written notice to the Player (but only after requesting and obtaining waivers of this contract from all other Major League Clubs) if the player shall at any time:

     (1) fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the Club's training rules; or

     yada, yada, yada"


Granted, this has never successfully been challenged, but there can always be a first time with the right argument to the right arbitrator.
1/29/2013 11:51 PM
The Joint Drug Agreement is what governs discipline in PED situations. The JDA doesn't allow for contract termination.
1/30/2013 6:01 AM
Voiding a contract is not discipline of the player by MLB.  It's a legal action between the employer and the employee.  Two very different things.
1/30/2013 8:25 AM
Posted by Jtpsops on 1/29/2013 7:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Gambling is much more serious offense.
How so? A manager/player who gambles can unfairly influence a game and compromise the integrity of the sport.

A roider can unfairly influence a game and compromise the integrity of the sport.

One unfairly hurts his team - the other unfairly helps his team. Either way, it damages baseball's integrity.
Since everyone is doing steroids or HGH, it balances the playing field.

Now excuse me, I have to put on my deer antler spray. 

1/30/2013 8:31 AM
But everyone's not doing it. Way to paint everyone with the same tainted brush.
1/30/2013 8:32 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/30/2013 6:01:00 AM (view original):
Voiding a contract is not discipline of the player by MLB.  It's a legal action between the employer and the employee.  Two very different things.
Right, but as you've pointed out, this has never successfully been done, and good luck trying to do it over something that MLB has a clearly defined discipline procedure for.

They can try, but it's the ultimate hail mary.
1/30/2013 8:37 AM
It won't happen.   They can try, they will fail. 

There was some yabbering over it with Giambi.   They recognized that they had no case and it went away.
1/30/2013 8:50 AM
It only took 20 years, but the Yanks frivolous spending could finally bite them in the ***. That's a lot of cash to swallow, especially if ARoid ends up retiring.
1/30/2013 8:56 AM
Uh, if he retires, he voids the deal.
1/30/2013 9:06 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):
It won't happen.   They can try, they will fail. 

There was some yabbering over it with Giambi.   They recognized that they had no case and it went away.
Most likely, this is correct.

Still . . . at some point in the future, for some player, for some incident, there will be a successful case.  It would take the perfect storm of incident, well constructed argument, and arbitrator.

Any argument that tries to say "there is no precident" should be implicitly interpreted as "there is no precident yet".
1/30/2013 9:20 AM

Sure, but that incident will not be something for which MLB has a clear policy for player discipline.  That's a precedent that no one is going to want to set.

1/30/2013 9:42 AM
In most cases, the teams are willing to deal with the discipline and continue on with the player after he returns from suspension, or they are just willing to eat the remainder of the contract because it's easier than trying to void it.

A-Rod's case could be a little different because he's a guy who's clearly in a late-career decline and is still owed $114m.  Granted, that contract is ENTIRELY the Yankees fault.  But the circumstances are far enough beyond the ordinary that I could see them at least seriously considering their alternatives.
1/30/2013 9:51 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/30/2013 9:42:00 AM (view original):
In most cases, the teams are willing to deal with the discipline and continue on with the player after he returns from suspension, or they are just willing to eat the remainder of the contract because it's easier than trying to void it.

A-Rod's case could be a little different because he's a guy who's clearly in a late-career decline and is still owed $114m.  Granted, that contract is ENTIRELY the Yankees fault.  But the circumstances are far enough beyond the ordinary that I could see them at least seriously considering their alternatives.

Keep praying, tec.

1/30/2013 9:55 AM

They'll look at their options, but they won't have any.  It doesn't help their case that they've already been through this with A-Rod once, making it clear what any attempt to void the contract this time is REALLY about.

1/30/2013 10:05 AM
I'm not saying it's going to happen.  I'm just saying that the Yankees, internally, will be seriously considering the pros and cons af attempting it.
of 5

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.