The uniform contract is the uniform contract - you can't add additional void stipulations, basically the only thing that gets negotiated is compensation and length.  And even if you could somehow add a stipulation, the JDA would expressly forbid from exercising it for a PED violation, unless you don't think voiding a contract is "adverse action."   The JDA actually expressly forbids the team from taking ANY disciplinary action against a player for a PED violation.  Now, players aren't shielded if say, they got busted for a PED related offense criminally and wound up in jail.

But back to the original topic, I totally agree that it's worth the risk for a lot of players, but even voiding contracts isn't going to do that much about it.  I mean, again, look at Melky - so he gets busted again and his current contract gets voided now - what did he really lose?

MLB already has easily the toughest program of the major sports, but if they want it to actually stick, they are either going to need to go one strike and you're out (which makes the contract voiding moot), or go 2 strikes and make the first offense a multi-year suspension and allow voiding contracts.

Another way of phrasing my question is the following.

The JDA says teams can't do **** for peds, as the JDA completely covers that scenario.

But, does that mean,

(a) That's only true when a specific contract has no language concerning peds, or
(b) The JDA itself automatically trumps any language in a contract concerning PED use, effectively banning a void clause from entering a specific contract.

Your posts suggests (b) is true, which I guess I am surprised at. I wonder if they'll look at that down the road.

I'm ultimately saying your question is moot because you can't put a special void clause in a contract.  It's called the "uniform contract" for a reason.

Then I'm going on to say that even if your question wasn't moot, the JDA expressly forbids a club from taking any action against a player, including "adverse action pursuant to a player's Uniform Contract."   Voiding would seem to qualify.

All of this is why, in that Olney article you referenced in the other thread, Olney suggested Selig include voiding contracts in the things he should bring up with the players.  It's not something that the teams/owners could decide to do on their own.

I see; I was not even aware of a "uniform contract."

Seems like roiding is a good idea, imo.

Hell yeah it is.  Chicks dig the long ball.

Posted by AlCheez on 8/1/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Well, of course it's worth the risk, if it wasn't, it would either be completely out of the game or exceedingly rare.  I said as much when Melky Cabrera got caught last year - there was literally no reason for him not to try, he was going nowhere.

And I'm pretty sure voiding contracts for PEDs will either have to become the norm or it won't happen it all - I don't think teams can negotiate special terms for voiding contracts that go beyond what's in the uniform contract.

why couldn't they? don't players negotiate special terms like bonds having to have a recliner in the locker room. i've heard of players demanding and getting their own rooms in hotels, etc.
the only thing that would stop a contract voiding ped clause is the union fighting it. which, from what i read, is something drastic, but if they can work out the kinks so false positives or accidental failed tests don't count against, most players want ped's out of baseball.

They can't because they can't.   Perks like you describe are compensation, not the actual terms of employment.  The uniform contract is collectively bargained - teams can't add special conditions to it that would void an otherwise guaranteed contract.

An option to void a contract under certain PED scenarios could certainly come up for addition to the uniform contract going forward, but no, it can't be negotiated into an individual player's deal.

Definite risk to bullpen phones.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a lockout over this in the coming offseason(s).  There's blood in the water, after the union agreed to Braun's suspension without a positive test.  Whatever else the owners want, all they have to do is run out the "if the players want a clean game like the (majority of) fans do, why won't they agree to voiding contracts for PED use" argument.  The players can't win that fight in the public eye and the owners know it.

That would be a horribly bad idea on the part of MLB.

Relations between MLB and the MLBPA right now is the best they have ever been.  The past couple of CBAs have been negotiated uneventfully with not even a remote threat of strike/lockout; the MLBPA agreed to the JDA without much public resistance; and, as the Braun case seems to indicate, the MLBPA is willing to work with MLB to clean up the game.

Seeing that the MLBPA has traditionally had the upper hand in labor relations over MLB, it would be a HUGE mistake on the part of MLB to think that the tables have turned to the point where they can now swing the big hammer to beat the MLBPA into submission over this.  That would send labor relations back around 15 years.

Both sides may conceivably agree to it. As someone else said, they are on good terms & have shown, publicly, a desire to clean up the game.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/2/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
That would be a horribly bad idea on the part of MLB.

Relations between MLB and the MLBPA right now is the best they have ever been.  The past couple of CBAs have been negotiated uneventfully with not even a remote threat of strike/lockout; the MLBPA agreed to the JDA without much public resistance; and, as the Braun case seems to indicate, the MLBPA is willing to work with MLB to clean up the game.

Seeing that the MLBPA has traditionally had the upper hand in labor relations over MLB, it would be a HUGE mistake on the part of MLB to think that the tables have turned to the point where they can now swing the big hammer to beat the MLBPA into submission over this.  That would send labor relations back around 15 years.

Would it be a horrible idea?  Look at it from their side (not that I'm advocating a lockout in any way):

In every labor negotiation, you have to deal with the strongest union in professional sports.  Labor relations are good only because you have accepted that you lose everytime you fight.   Now you have a hammer issue that could, in some measure, weaken the union - why not use it?  In addition, the ability to void contracts for PED use could be seen as the first step toward gradually getting rid of guaranteed contracts - something you and every other owner would love to do.  And you've already learned from the NFL and NHL that you can have a lockout today and bounce back from it just fine.

Again, I'm not saying they should do it.  I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did.