Knicks · The A-Rod Ban (page 1)
Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, we actually agree!why are you shocked we agree? there are no advanced stats on this situation so you have to use your eyes, brain and even a little heart. Did you hear the pop? (Thats your head coming out of your ass) now go watch last nights game and tell me what you REALLY see.
Undoubtedly, A-Rod is being targeted and the punishment is arbitrary and excessive. But when you're the most hated player on a hated team (and A-Rod certainly did a lot to earn that hate over the years), that happens. Even if you're on the Yankees but you're a nice, modest guy, people will treat you better.
But Selig is the bigger jerk, like you said.
cheers dude
Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this was a relevant enough topic that it could go in this forum but mods can move it if they want. I think this is a great article.
It will be interesting to see what happens. My thoughts are that there's no point in bringing A-Rod back for his 21st season at age 40, and they should just waive him. He won't accept a buyout, and the $61 mil are a sunk cost. You can pay him $61 mil to stay away from the team or to be a distraction on the team for the next 3 years.
All involved parties look bad, though. This article doesn't paint a good picture of anyone.http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/yankees...
A-Rod: Six Unanswered Questions1. Why 162 games?
This is the key question yet to be answered. The Joint Drug Agreement collectively bargained among the league and its players specifically stipulates a 50-game suspension for a first-time drug offender, a 100-game suspension for a second offense, and a lifetime ban for a third. Technically, Alex Rodriguez is a first-time offender under the current JDA, and Major League Baseball doesn't even have a positive drug test on him. So why is he being hit with a suspension more than twice as long as Ryan Braun's, a known two-time offender, and more than three times as long as stipulated in its own JDA? This question was never asked of Manfred or Selig and probably can only be answered by releasing Horowitz's decision, or if it is introduced into evidence as part of A-Rod's attempt to obtain an injunction in federal court. In any event, we shouldn't have to guess about why the sentence is so stiff.
2. If MLB's anti-drug program is so tough, why are there no positive tests against A-Rod or any of the other 13 players suspended in the Biogenesis scandal?
The obvious answer, of course, is the drug program is not nearly as tough as MLB says it is. Clearly, without the Miami New Times story, A-Rod, Braun and the other 12 players who accepted 50-game suspensions probably would not have been caught. Selig and/or Manfred should have been asked to explain that discrepancy.
3. If Anthony Bosch is so truthful, how does MLB feel about his assertions that passing its drug tests is easy, and that "everyone" in the game is doing illegal PEDs?
This is a tough one for MLB to rationalize away, which is probably why neither Selig nor Manfred was asked about it. Are they saying he's selectively truthful, and that he lied when he said the test is easy to beat? If so, he's an unreliable witness whose word should not be taken as gospel on anything. And if he's as truthful as MLB says he is, then MLB still has a very, very serious drug problem and no clue how to stop it.
4. How could MLB not know that the documents it bought from someone calling himself "Bobby" were stolen?
Of course they knew, it would appear. At first they were negotiating with Porter Fischer, the disgruntled Biogenesis employee who originally leaked the documents to the New Times. And then, suddenly, Fischer dropped out and was replaced by the sketchy "Bobby," whom Manfred asserted MLB bought the documents from, for cash, with virtually no questions asked. I could be wrong, but it certainly seems as if they did not want to know the answers. Especially because it is known that before the purchase, an MLB investigator called the Boca Raton police department inquiring about a robbery involving items taken from the trunk of Fischer's car. It may not be germane to the issue of whether A-Rod did or did not use PEDs supplied by Bosch, but it could shed some meaningful light on MLB's methods in conducting its investigation.
5. Why is it evidence of A-Rod's guilt that he allegedly paid Bosch $12,000 a month in cash, but there are no repercussions for MLB paying "Bobby" -- actually an ex-con named Gary Jones -- $125,000 in $10,000 bricks of $100 bills in a parking lot?
Again, this goes more to MLB's methods than Alex Rodriguez's guilt or innocence, but the question should have been asked. Why is one an instance of criminal behavior and the other an acceptable means of obtaining evidence?
6. Why was Selig so willing to answer questions on camera from Scott Pelley, but not under oath from Joe Tacopina?
An admittedly obvious question, the answer being that Selig could be sure Pelley would not ask any of the preceding five questions -- and Tacopina, of course, would have asked them, and more. While there may be a precedent in the history of MLBPA appeals for Selig's failure to testify, it remains among the most unsatisfying aspects of the entire affair. We should have heard from Selig and from A-Rod under oath on the stand, not before TV cameras or radio microphones in front of friendly interviewers.
Hmm, this looks like a case for Playa2!
smackeddog wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this was a relevant enough topic that it could go in this forum but mods can move it if they want. I think this is a great article.
It will be interesting to see what happens. My thoughts are that there's no point in bringing A-Rod back for his 21st season at age 40, and they should just waive him. He won't accept a buyout, and the $61 mil are a sunk cost. You can pay him $61 mil to stay away from the team or to be a distraction on the team for the next 3 years.
All involved parties look bad, though. This article doesn't paint a good picture of anyone.http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/yankees...
A-Rod: Six Unanswered Questions1. Why 162 games?
This is the key question yet to be answered. The Joint Drug Agreement collectively bargained among the league and its players specifically stipulates a 50-game suspension for a first-time drug offender, a 100-game suspension for a second offense, and a lifetime ban for a third. Technically, Alex Rodriguez is a first-time offender under the current JDA, and Major League Baseball doesn't even have a positive drug test on him. So why is he being hit with a suspension more than twice as long as Ryan Braun's, a known two-time offender, and more than three times as long as stipulated in its own JDA? This question was never asked of Manfred or Selig and probably can only be answered by releasing Horowitz's decision, or if it is introduced into evidence as part of A-Rod's attempt to obtain an injunction in federal court. In any event, we shouldn't have to guess about why the sentence is so stiff.
2. If MLB's anti-drug program is so tough, why are there no positive tests against A-Rod or any of the other 13 players suspended in the Biogenesis scandal?
The obvious answer, of course, is the drug program is not nearly as tough as MLB says it is. Clearly, without the Miami New Times story, A-Rod, Braun and the other 12 players who accepted 50-game suspensions probably would not have been caught. Selig and/or Manfred should have been asked to explain that discrepancy.
3. If Anthony Bosch is so truthful, how does MLB feel about his assertions that passing its drug tests is easy, and that "everyone" in the game is doing illegal PEDs?
This is a tough one for MLB to rationalize away, which is probably why neither Selig nor Manfred was asked about it. Are they saying he's selectively truthful, and that he lied when he said the test is easy to beat? If so, he's an unreliable witness whose word should not be taken as gospel on anything. And if he's as truthful as MLB says he is, then MLB still has a very, very serious drug problem and no clue how to stop it.
4. How could MLB not know that the documents it bought from someone calling himself "Bobby" were stolen?
Of course they knew, it would appear. At first they were negotiating with Porter Fischer, the disgruntled Biogenesis employee who originally leaked the documents to the New Times. And then, suddenly, Fischer dropped out and was replaced by the sketchy "Bobby," whom Manfred asserted MLB bought the documents from, for cash, with virtually no questions asked. I could be wrong, but it certainly seems as if they did not want to know the answers. Especially because it is known that before the purchase, an MLB investigator called the Boca Raton police department inquiring about a robbery involving items taken from the trunk of Fischer's car. It may not be germane to the issue of whether A-Rod did or did not use PEDs supplied by Bosch, but it could shed some meaningful light on MLB's methods in conducting its investigation.
5. Why is it evidence of A-Rod's guilt that he allegedly paid Bosch $12,000 a month in cash, but there are no repercussions for MLB paying "Bobby" -- actually an ex-con named Gary Jones -- $125,000 in $10,000 bricks of $100 bills in a parking lot?
Again, this goes more to MLB's methods than Alex Rodriguez's guilt or innocence, but the question should have been asked. Why is one an instance of criminal behavior and the other an acceptable means of obtaining evidence?
6. Why was Selig so willing to answer questions on camera from Scott Pelley, but not under oath from Joe Tacopina?
An admittedly obvious question, the answer being that Selig could be sure Pelley would not ask any of the preceding five questions -- and Tacopina, of course, would have asked them, and more. While there may be a precedent in the history of MLBPA appeals for Selig's failure to testify, it remains among the most unsatisfying aspects of the entire affair. We should have heard from Selig and from A-Rod under oath on the stand, not before TV cameras or radio microphones in front of friendly interviewers.
Hmm, this looks like a case for Playa2!
Ya know I was in the BX the other day and I swear I thought I saw Isaiah walking south on Jerome Ave near the stadium. I thought, "Nahhh" couldn't be so I didn't even check for telltale cloven hooves. BUT, what if?!? Questions abound!