See ya in 2015 Topic

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/17/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Let me put it this way.

I think the union has an ethical responsibility to do what they feel is in the best interests of their members, as a whole in general and on a case by case basis for specific cases.

"Fight this to the bitter end" did not seem like if would be in the best interests of the MLBPA for this particular case, because there was a 0.0% chance that an independent arbitrator was going to completely toss the suspension, or even reduce it to something lower than what a negotiated settlement would have resulted in.

Trying to fight the battle the way ARod seems to have insisted it be fought would have undermined the credibility of the MLBPA which, as you know, has traditionally been the strongest union in professional sports since Marvin Miller became it's Executive Director in 1966.

From what I understand, the MLBPA has a responsibility to defend all of their players in any appeals process to the best of their ability.  ARod is arguing they did not do that, and he seems to have a point.  And what's the worst case scenario in not fighting for ARod as best as they could?  They're just doing what a union is supposed to do.

That said, it doesn't seem to be enough to overthrow the entire suspension.  
I think the union's responsibility is to work towards the best outcome for their client, not to go all in on a battle that has near zero chance of winning.

A negotiated 100 game (or whatever) suspension would have been in their client's best interests, as opposed to a 162 game suspension that just about everyvody saw coming.

ARod was his own worst enemy here, not the MLBPA or anything Weiner may have said in the media.  He should be suing himself for massive stupidity.  That's a legal battle that he would at least have a chance to win.
1/21/2014 9:54 AM
If Arod wants his suit to have any chance, he has to sue the union too. It's written into law. If he didn't, the suit would have been tossed immediately.
1/21/2014 10:01 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2014 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2014 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2014 5:55:00 AM (view original):
Exactly what did MLB do that was unethical or illegal?
Working with/paying off criminals is probably unethical.  I don't know how you collect good evidence about how someone worked with drug dealers though, without working with the drug dealers yourself.
Would it had been better if they had just let ARod's people purchase the documents themselves so that they could be destroyed?
No. I don't disagree with their tactics. I like that MLB is doing everything they can to clean up the game.
1/21/2014 10:10 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2014 9:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/17/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Let me put it this way.

I think the union has an ethical responsibility to do what they feel is in the best interests of their members, as a whole in general and on a case by case basis for specific cases.

"Fight this to the bitter end" did not seem like if would be in the best interests of the MLBPA for this particular case, because there was a 0.0% chance that an independent arbitrator was going to completely toss the suspension, or even reduce it to something lower than what a negotiated settlement would have resulted in.

Trying to fight the battle the way ARod seems to have insisted it be fought would have undermined the credibility of the MLBPA which, as you know, has traditionally been the strongest union in professional sports since Marvin Miller became it's Executive Director in 1966.

From what I understand, the MLBPA has a responsibility to defend all of their players in any appeals process to the best of their ability.  ARod is arguing they did not do that, and he seems to have a point.  And what's the worst case scenario in not fighting for ARod as best as they could?  They're just doing what a union is supposed to do.

That said, it doesn't seem to be enough to overthrow the entire suspension.  
I think the union's responsibility is to work towards the best outcome for their client, not to go all in on a battle that has near zero chance of winning.

A negotiated 100 game (or whatever) suspension would have been in their client's best interests, as opposed to a 162 game suspension that just about everyvody saw coming.

ARod was his own worst enemy here, not the MLBPA or anything Weiner may have said in the media.  He should be suing himself for massive stupidity.  That's a legal battle that he would at least have a chance to win.
I suppose that's fair.  But I don't see how Weiner publicly dissing A-Rod was in anyone's best interests.  Unless you want to argue that by doing that, he's helping A-Rod in trying to convince him to take a smaller suspension.

There's also other stuff in there about the actual arbitration process.  His guy wasn't defending him well enough, he asked for a new rep and the union declined, etc.  It isn't going to work, but again, as BL says, he needs to show how the whole process was against him in order to get the case heard.  I'm not sure that the law demands him to sue his union, but if he doesn't claim that his union is also not defending him as well as a union should, he's that much more unlikely to get the case heard.
1/21/2014 10:15 AM

A-Rod’s suit comes pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or the “LMRA.” Here is what the law has to say about suing your union in such cases:

When union members sue their employer for breach of contract under section 301 of the LMRA, they must also state a prerequisite claim of breach of their union’s duty of fair representation. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186-87 (1967); Thomas v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 890 F.2d 909, 914-16 (7th Cir. 1989). This is because ordinarily, union members must first use the grievance procedures specified in the CBA rather than directly sue the employer; only when the union has breached its duty to fairly represent the union members in that grievance process may the union members bring a claim against their employer. See, e.g., DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 163-64 (1983).

1/21/2014 11:37 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):

A-Rod’s suit comes pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or the “LMRA.” Here is what the law has to say about suing your union in such cases:

When union members sue their employer for breach of contract under section 301 of the LMRA, they must also state a prerequisite claim of breach of their union’s duty of fair representation. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186-87 (1967); Thomas v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 890 F.2d 909, 914-16 (7th Cir. 1989). This is because ordinarily, union members must first use the grievance procedures specified in the CBA rather than directly sue the employer; only when the union has breached its duty to fairly represent the union members in that grievance process may the union members bring a claim against their employer. See, e.g., DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 163-64 (1983).

OK, fine, we get it.  He has to also sue the MLBPA because of a technicality in the law.

Two questions for you:

1)  Do you think he has a legitimate case to bring against MLB (and, by default, the MLBPA)?

2)  Do you think he has any chance at all of getting this resolved to his satisfaction in the courts?
1/21/2014 11:52 AM
1) Yes
2) Any chance? Yes. A good chance? No.
1/21/2014 12:01 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):
1) Yes
2) Any chance? Yes. A good chance? No.
Why "yes" to 1?

Do you feel that MLB has no credible evidence that he tried to impede their investigation?  Or do you feel that whatever he may have done did not warrant punishment beyond a simple drug suspension?
1/21/2014 12:47 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2014 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):
1) Yes
2) Any chance? Yes. A good chance? No.
Why "yes" to 1?

Do you feel that MLB has no credible evidence that he tried to impede their investigation?  Or do you feel that whatever he may have done did not warrant punishment beyond a simple drug suspension?
This lawsuit doesn't have to do with those questions.
1/21/2014 1:05 PM
I think that MLB didn't live up to the terms of the JDA, particularly the confidentiality section. I think that Arod is being screwed by a creative interpretation of the penalty schedule.

I don't like the idea that a player can be suspended without actually testing positive for anything based on the coerced testimony of a criminal. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Bosch was selling Arod a placebo and completely scamming him.

I find it ironic that the case against Arod was somehow strengthened by the 11 drug tests that he passed.

I don't think Arod is innocent in this but I strongly disagree with the "ends justify the means" approach taken by MLB. I think procedure matters.

Regarding the interference with the investigation. I don't think that trying to buy documents is any worse than trying to cheat and/or mask PED use from a drug test. All PED users are, by definition, impeding MLB's drug program.
1/21/2014 1:13 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/21/2014 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2014 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/21/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):
1) Yes
2) Any chance? Yes. A good chance? No.
Why "yes" to 1?

Do you feel that MLB has no credible evidence that he tried to impede their investigation?  Or do you feel that whatever he may have done did not warrant punishment beyond a simple drug suspension?
This lawsuit doesn't have to do with those questions.

Technically it doesn't.  In reality, it does. 

He's challenging the ruling of a  full season suspension by arguing that the entire process was rigged against him. 

In order to prove that, he's going to have to show that a reasonable and truly impartial process would have ruled otherwise.

I don't see that happening.

1/21/2014 1:14 PM
"Anonymous" tough guys in the union now threatening ARod with retribution when he returns to the field if he doesn't leave the union. Such morons. At least Ryan Dempster made his intentions public and obvious last season.

The new commish is going to have to have the umps on guard if/when ARod returns and take swift action if someone throws at him. Douchebag or not, they can't let that go on or all hell will break loose.
1/21/2014 9:27 PM
I believe there are already rules in place about throwing at hitters.
1/22/2014 6:00 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2014 6:00:00 AM (view original):
I believe there are already rules in place about throwing at hitters.
You know what, you're right. I remember now that Ryan Dempster was ejected for blatantly throwing at ARod multiple times in the same AB last season.

Oh wait...no he wasn't.
1/22/2014 8:13 AM
So what are you suggesting . . . do you want all umpires to issue hair-trigger ejections anytime a pitcher buzzes a batter?  Or only when it's ARod?
1/22/2014 9:16 AM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9 Next ▸
See ya in 2015 Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.