Posted by burnsy483 on 1/17/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Horowitz didn't mention the bribe in his decision, so it's sort of irrelevant.

True, but Manfred did in his 60 minutes PR piece interview.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):
One could argue that the "odd" number was sent to cover-up the bribe attempt if rejected.   Or it could have been a mistake.   Either way, you just have to decide which liar you want to believe. 

An odd number that matched the actual attorney's bill exactly?

Wouldn't that be the absolute best out?

"OMG!!!  We sent the payment to the wrong place!!!!"

Doesn't work if it isn't the exact amount.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2014 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Wouldn't that be the absolute best out?

"OMG!!!  We sent the payment to the wrong place!!!!"

Doesn't work if it isn't the exact amount.  

So...
Arod's attorney sends Arod's financial people a bill and a request for wire transfer
Arod's financial people send the exact amount via wire transfer to Bosch's attorney instead (Arod had previously wired Bosch's attorney $25,000 to cover Bosch's legal fees)
Bosch's attorney returns the money to Arod's people and they pay the correct attorney

Theory one:

It was an elaborate bribery set up. Arod's attorney conspired by sending a fake bill. Arod's financial people paid the "wrong" person that exact amount in an attempt to bribe Bosch. Bosch refused, his attorney returned the money. The money gets sent the "right" attorney. Arod's attorney comes up with an extra $49,000+ that never get's returned to Arod.

Theory two:

It was a simple mistake. Arod's financial people put the most recent wire transfer info in instead of the correct attorney wire transfer info. Then they sorted it out a day or two later.



Occam's razor.

Who said it was a fake bill? 

Nonetheless, we're talking about 85m dollars in future salary.    Would you not put a little thought into a scheme if that was at stake?

Do you think A-Rod is a "stand-up guy"?

BTW, if we're just accepting "simple is better", Glavine is better than Mussina because he has more wins.    Simple as hell.

Does this fully exonerate ARod of all wrong-doing?

As a side note: does anybody else see the irony in ARod suing the MLBPA?  If it weren't for the MLBPA, he wouldn't have had $85m dollars of future salary to be fighting for.

Least self-aware individual in sports.    A close second if Jerry Jones.

By suing the MLBPA, he makes his case stronger.  He's trying to prove that the entire arbitration process was against him, which is the only way he gets his case heard.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Who said it was a fake bill? 

Nonetheless, we're talking about 85m dollars in future salary.    Would you not put a little thought into a scheme if that was at stake?

Do you think A-Rod is a "stand-up guy"?

I think if it really had been a bribe, Bosch would have accepted it and then testified for MLB anyway. Arod wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/17/2014 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Who said it was a fake bill? 

Nonetheless, we're talking about 85m dollars in future salary.    Would you not put a little thought into a scheme if that was at stake?

Do you think A-Rod is a "stand-up guy"?

I think if it really had been a bribe, Bosch would have accepted it and then testified for MLB anyway. Arod wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.

Why do you think that?

I'll put it another way.   You seem perfectly willing to accept that poor A-Rod is getting railroaded by mean ol' MLB and their paid snitch.   Yet you find it impossible to believe that a sneaky, known liar would concoct a well-devised scheme to bribe the paid snitch.

I will say this - A-Rod is not going to successfully sue the MLBPA.  But he has a point.  After any decision against a player in arbitration in the past, the MLBPA has condemned the ruling.  In this case they basically supported it in their statement.  They are absolutely not treating A-Rod the same way they have treated other players in the past in terms of their defense of him.  You can't sue based on that.  But he certainly has a right to be upset about it.   I definitely get that...

Sounds like he can sue his union for not 100% supporting him.  It's their duty to do that against MLB when ARod appeals a decision.  I think his biggest complaint was that Weiner said publicly that ARod should settle on a number of games rather than fight for no games.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/17/2014 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I will say this - A-Rod is not going to successfully sue the MLBPA.  But he has a point.  After any decision against a player in arbitration in the past, the MLBPA has condemned the ruling.  In this case they basically supported it in their statement.  They are absolutely not treating A-Rod the same way they have treated other players in the past in terms of their defense of him.  You can't sue based on that.  But he certainly has a right to be upset about it.   I definitely get that...

As outlined in the Basic Agreement, arbitration is binding.  Once an arb decision is rendered, it cannot be further appealed.

The MLBPA went on record as saying that they did not agree with the ruling.  So what, exactly, are you expecting the MLBPA to do?  Use stronger language in their disagreement?  Throw in a few expletives?  What would be gained by that?