Okay, here's what he'll say in the meeting. "No comment." End of story. "Doing that stuff" is not anywhere near specific enough to stick, and even if it were, it's not enough to prove he did it during his Yankee contract.

Right now, Giambi has an OPS of .814... which is in the more or less upper tier of AL 1B/DHs...

Last year he had one of .971, which was fourth among AL 1B/DHs....

He may be a cheatin', roidin', galloot... and he's for certain overpaid, but it'd cost more to replace that production at this point.

From an on-field perspective, they almost have to keep him.

Let's pretend - just for fun, because as Darren says, I can't imagine this amounting to anything - that the Yankees can void his contract after this year.

Last time they tried this was after 2004.

In both 2005 and 2006 he was in the teens as far as MVP votes. Losing that kind of bat on the field with no compensation other than money would probably not have been a good baseball move. They'd have probably just spent the Giambi money on one more Pavano year or given Tony Womack a bonus or something.

As for today, on the field only I think it makes more sense. As he ages and gets even less useful with a glove, I would expect him to go from "overpaid" to "monsterously overpaid" in the next few years.

they can't boot somebody without a positive test can they?

Speaking of which, if you're Pavano's agent, do you begin contract extension talks with the Yankees now or very soon?

As he ages and gets even less useful with a glove, I would expect him to go from "overpaid" to "monsterously overpaid" in the next few years.

Possibly, but that's not the Yankees' problem. 2008 is his last year under contract (they have an option for 2009).

Part of the reason to void his contract, though, might be the fact that like so many of the big Yankee contracts it's highly backloaded. He's making $21m this year and next, plus either a $22m option or a $5m buyout for 2009.

I don't think it makes much sense to even try and void it though. You'll raise a huge stink with the MLBPA, be involved in a long and expensive arbitration, and likely anger a lot of the clubhouse. And for what? Small savings if any.

Doesn't it seem weird that MLB supposedly wants people to be forthcoming about this kind of thing, and then when someone is, they start talking about suspensions and voiding contracts and stuff. It hardly seems to be the right way to get players to cooperate with their investigation.

They're not going to pick up his option unless he has an unprecedented run of greatness right about then. So voiding his contract (if this were possible) at the end of 2007 would save the Yanks about $26 million over two years, plus luxury tax implications.

By comparison, a $13 million a year player would probably outproduce Jason in 2008/2009, depending upon the exact player.

That's not "small savings" in my opinion, but I agree that the process that must lead to this is probably long and difficult, and the anger in the clubhouse (and around baseball) may be more expensive than the money.

By comparison, a $13 million a year player would probably outproduce Jason in 2008/2009, depending upon the exact player.

Sure, but will he out-produce Giambi's 2008-2009 in 2011 and 2012, because they're not going to get an elite hitter for 2/26, but more like 5/75.

When this first came up everyone figured the Yanks would void the contract but some research made it seem hard(er) to do than thought. Am I recalling correctly that Giambi's agent actually got all references to steroid removed from the contract language?

I understand losing Giambi's contract would help the Yankees cap numbers but do they really want the protracted fight in the papers, pick a fight with the union and MORE clubhouse bad feelings?

Erik - I'm sure Pavano's agent has been working on a great wrap up the the last few years. "Benches my client has been riding." "Top Ten Celebs Carl Will Bring To The Ballpark For Ratings." Heck, if I was the Red Sox I might offer him a one year deal just to see if he'll fire it up in revenge... MIGHT and amount of tequila I've been drinking being very important factors.

I understand losing Giambi's contract would help the Yankees cap numbers but do they really want the protracted fight in the papers, pick a fight with the union and MORE clubhouse bad feelings?

They'd be saving $50+ million. That's worth a lot of headaches with the papers and the PA. Spend 1% of that on strippers or whatever, and the clubhouse will be just fine.

Am I recalling correctly that Giambi's agent actually got all references to steroid removed from the contract language?

This has long been a contention of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this claim yet.

But even if this was true, I would think from the reading of this thing that they would go after him for pursuing illegal activity, not steroids specifically.

That's not "small savings" in my opinion,

It is small in the context of the Yankee payroll and demonstrated ability to spend, though.

I actually wanted Jason to come to Oakland after 2008, but now I want Jack Cust signed to a multi-year deal.

pursuing illegal activity

Can't he just say "doing that stuff" referred to andro or some other previously legal substance?

But even if this was true, I would think from the reading of this thing that they would go after him for pursuing illegal activity, not steroids specifically.

As Ivan notes in #14, hasn't the lack of illegality been a cause of a lot of the semantics? Example: "The illegal substances weren't banned from baseball, the substances banned weren't illegal." (Note: that's not my position, just the posturing I've seen put forward which has muddied the issue.)

Without delving too much into that, the illegal activity clause hasn't seen a lot of action lately, has it? Has there been a good precedent of a club using that against any player in the last few years? Between the arrests for DUI (no disrespect meant,) the domestic violence and the like, this seems like a weak(er) way to pursue the case.

I'm always interested in the test cases of CBAs and when the steroid controversy came to light I expected MLB to find a lower-profile case to test it out rather than go after one of the bigger (disrespect intended) figures. The CBA has had holes poked in it before when agents or clubs detected a weakness. The fact nothing has been done yet leads me to think it's not a slam-dunk either way.

Didn't the Rockies either threaten or actually use it in the Neagle/hummer case a few years ago?

Joe's #7 shouldn't be forgotten here. The Mitchell people have to be rooting against the Yankees successfully killing Giambi's contract; what better motivation for non-cooperation is the realistic threat of losing one's livelihood?

Your OPS is over .900? You're a true yankee, the "Giambino", in fact.
Your OPS is in the low .800's? Start legal proceedings.
Class. Pure distilled class.

My lady love was reaching for "Giambino" because she knows that pisses me off. And she said, "Giambini".

Which sounds to me like the last name in a death-defying trapeze artist troupe.

The way that things tend to work out for the Yankees, they'll probably succeed in voiding his deal, after which Giambi will agree to a cut-rate contract with them.

... and proceeds to pitch three no-hitters, going 12-1 the balance of the season.

Your OPS is over .900? You're a true yankee, the "Giambino", in fact.
Your OPS is in the low .800's? Start legal proceedings.
Class. Pure distilled class.

Bingo.

Am I recalling correctly that Giambi's agent actually got all references to steroid removed from the contract language?

This has long been a contention of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd,

You misplet "Kevin."

but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this claim yet.

It was reported in the NYT in February 2005, but what was actually reported was that his agent went through and deleted dozens of termination provisions from the contract. The word "steroids" was removed, but the contract still explicitly listed use of illegal substances.

You misplet "Kevin."

You misspelled "Murray Chass".

You also misspelled "misspelled".

Maybe they'll just take him "out back" and shoot him. Heh heh.

Let's correct Nieporent's ongoing and relentless misinformation campaign (OTOH, is there any other kind of campaign for Nieporent?) and go right back to the source, the original Chass piece that appeared in the times in early 2005:

The Yankees were not innocents in this matter. They didn't say to themselves: Delete references to steroid use? Well, all right if you insist, but why would you want us to do that?

They wanted Giambi badly enough that they relinquished the right to suspend him or stop payment on the contract or terminate the contract or convert it into a nonguaranteed contract if he was found to use steroids. No other words were deleted from that paragraph of the contract, the person said.


Way to go, Dave. You would do the Iraqi information minister proud.

Four days later, by Chass again:

But then, steroids were only one of about 20 issues that Tellem asked to be stricken. Neither he nor the Yankees will say what the others were, so we don't know if any of them were on the same level as steroids.

But did Tellem ask that a whole bunch of things be thrown out just to obfuscate the issue, to cloud the Yankees' minds so he could sneak steroids through without their noticing? If that was his strategy, he should have been named agent of the year and the Yankees the easiest mark of the year.

Hey--I'm as anti-Giambi as anybody on this board kevin, can't stand the lyin' cheatin douche, but remember, this the the Times and Chase. Huge grain o' salt aspect for me. If your only verification is Murry "Drool on the Bib" Chase, don't overplay that hand.

That said, I really think the easist resolution for all involved is for Cashman to simply have him quietly eliminated, a month and a half after putting him on the 60 day DL. Take care of his family,if he has one.

It was reported in the NYT in February 2005, but what was actually reported was that his agent went through and deleted dozens of termination provisions from the contract. The word "steroids" was removed, but the contract still explicitly listed use of illegal substances.


It was 20 references of excluded activities that would change the contract from guaranteed to non-guaranteed. The other 19 references? The Yanks wouldn't fax over the contract to Chass so we don't know for sure. However, Lonn Trost started to read the list, he got to "herbal dietary supplements" and Brian Cashman cut him off. (Dial could be happy because I can only guess that we were about to hear hGH, amphetamines, etc.) Link

Let's correct Nieporent's ongoing and relentless misinformation campaign

In this case, it was Erik who started the campaign with.

This has long been a contention of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this claim yet.

An admission from Cashman and Trost is not convincing evidence?

Goodness.

That said, I really think the easist resolution for all involved is for Cashman to simply have him quietly eliminated, a month and a half after putting him on the 60 day DL. Take care of his family,if he has one.

GIAMBI: Those were the great old days you know. The Yankees were like the Roman Empire.

CASHMAN: It was once. When a plot against the Boss failed -- the planners were always given a chance to let their families keep their fortunes.

GIAMBI: Yeah -- but only the rich guys, Brian. The little guys -- they got knocked off and all their estates went to the Boss. Unless they went home and uh, killed themselves -- then nothing happened. And their families -- their families were taken care of, Brian.

CASHMAN: That was a good break -- nice funeral.

GIAMBI: Yeah -- they went home -- and sat in a hot bath -- opened up their veins -- and bled to death. And sometimes had a little party before they did it.

CASHMAN: Don't worry about anything, Giambino.

GIAMBI: Thanks, Brian. Thanks.

[CASHMAN walks off.]

Huge grain o' salt aspect for me. If your only verification is Murry "Drool on the Bib" Chase, don't overplay that hand.

Lonn Trost endorsed Chass' version, teddy.

Lonn Trost endorsed Chass' version, teddy.

OK then, set the wheels in motion . Take care of his loved ones.

If your only verification is Murry "Drool on the Bib" Chase, don't overplay that hand.


Do you think he lied about what Cashman and Trost said in the interview they requested. There were three principal stories.

The matter was broke with unnamed sources on February 11, 2005.

The Yankees responded, and a new story was written on February 12, 2005.

A follow up was written on February 15, 2005.

I linked the middle story that has the Cashman and Trost quotes. Kevin has provided you excerpts from the first and third story.

The Yanks presumedly still have the UPC clause 7(b)(1) that allow them to terminate for personal conduct. As discussed at the relevant time, that may be tough to enforce without specific language defining such conduct found elsewhere in the contract. I defer to the previous discussions. The Yankees allege they still have termination rights pursuant to an illegal substances clause. The Yankees refuse to disclose the contract so we cannot examine that contention.

Giambi's non-specific apology would have given them shaky grounds to terminate the contract. . The newspaper hearsay of Giambi's GJ testimony would not likely be admissable, and the GJ testimony would not be available. (see earlier discussions for more information) Giambi's long screed to the US News is more specific. It still does not list any times of use. It has some ambiguity on the substances used, but Giambi defines this pretty well in the conversation. The article implies he was asked about Performance Enhancing Drugs when he made the comment.

That is certainly grounds to investigate, and it looks like MLB has summoned him to ask questions. As the article states, his answers will influence what happens next. His GJ testimony does have him using "cream" and "clear" during the 2003 season, so if he answers at all, he has to be careful about not committing perjury.

The problem with the "steroids" reference is that THG would likely be defined as a steroid according to the common use of the word. It may not be defined as "illegal" because THG had not been legislated against at that time. Thus, the "broad language" the Yankees claim may not cover the cream and clear, but the specific reference of steroids (as well as what one supposes is a laundry list of other substances guaranteed to bring everything into the umbrella) in the prohibited activities list would likely cover the conduct.

At the end of the day, Arn Tellum did a masterful negotiation, the Yanks got caught with their pants around their ankles, and they also failed to show any suspicion regarding the specific activies that were part of negotiation requests (as discussed by Chass. He broke that story.)

Do you think he lied about what Cashman and Trost said in the interview they requested. There were three principal stories.

I was under the mistaken impression that there was only one story, with one, un-named source. I wasn't defending Giambi.

Giambi makes me sick.

Will they void Rocket's contract when he starts 0-5?

I'm sure they'll try, bunyon.

During any time Giambi is going to make a public statement, Selig should show up with Jeremy Giambi (who will have a look of shame on his face) a la Michael Corleone and Vincenzo Pentangeli when Frank Pentangeli is going to testify in front of the congressional hearing. Jason, like Frankie, will recant anything he previously stated against MLB.

Good idea, winnipegwhip. Wish I'd thought of it first. :-)

During any time Giambi is going to make a public statement, Selig should show up with Jeremy Giambi (who will have a look of shame on his face) a la Michael Corleone and Vincenzo Pentangeli when Frank Pentangeli is going to testify in front of the congressional hearing. Jason, like Frankie, will recant anything he previously stated against MLB.

Isn't Jeremy more like the Fredo of the Giambi baseball family. I'm surprised Jason hasn't taken him fishing.

Fredo's lone usefull function in the Godfather I and II was ordering hookers out of the room.

"C'mon girls! Let's go! Beat it! Scram!"

His GJ testimony does have him using "cream" and "clear" during the 2003 season, so if he answers at all, he has to be careful about not committing perjury.

Would he be at risk of committing "perjury" in an interview with Selig? You suggest above that "newspaper hearsay of Giambi's GJ testimony would not likely be admissable, and the GJ testimony would not be available," so if he just tells Selig that he didn't use anything illegal during the 2003 season, even ignoring the possible truth of that statement depending on THG's legal status vis-a-vis federal law and baseball rules, is the potential inconsistency of that with his Grand Jury testimony of any legal consequence, either in terms of baseball (which wouldn't be at liberty to compare that statement to his GJ tesimony) or in terms of the Feds (if Selig lacks the authority to put Giambi under oath)?

Didn't the Rockies either threaten or actually use it in the Neagle/hummer case a few years ago?

Did the details ever come out on this? That is how it was reported--that the Rockies voided his contracted citing a breach of contract. It went to arbitration but the sides settled...I think the Rockies bought him out for something like 75-80% of the remainder of the deal.

Would he be at risk of committing "perjury" in an interview with Selig? You suggest above that "newspaper hearsay of Giambi's GJ testimony would not likely be admissable, and the GJ testimony would not be available," so if he just tells Selig that he didn't use anything illegal during the 2003 season, even ignoring the possible truth of that statement depending on THG's legal status vis-a-vis federal law and baseball rules, is the potential inconsistency of that with his Grand Jury testimony of any legal consequence, either in terms of baseball (which wouldn't be at liberty to compare that statement to his GJ tesimony) or in terms of the Feds (if Selig lacks the authority to put Giambi under oath)?


If his testimony contradicts his GJ testimony, then you have two inconsistent statements. He cannot commit the federal crime of perjury in an interview with Selig, but he can make a statement that could be used as evidence to show he perjured himself to the federal grand jury. You are correct where your assessment reads on these situations.

Nevertheless, although Bud himself is unlikely authorized to administer any oath, he most assuredly is going to have an authorized notary public issue said oath to Giambi. If he signs a written version of that statement, he is still subject to misdemeanor laws of the state where the authorized notary swear him of making false statements. If its in NY, its probably a Class A misdemeanor. Should any governmental agency decide to prosecute, they are likely going to have cooperation and subpoena power to get the previous testimony.

His making a lesser inclusive statement to Selig would be unlikely something that the DOJ would use to indict perjury, but if he makes a statement that contradicts a non-use of a substance during any period, it could be something the feds would use to indict. We don't know the entirety of his testimony, we just have what seem to be the juicy portions. Likewise, I'm not sure that the NY DAs are going to care too much to prosecute Giambi for making false statements under oath. Nevertheless, this is public enough to wear that might be the case.

Thanks, BL.

I do not believe this story for a second. Giambi is well liked by other players, it would not make sense for the Yanks to treat him this way.

According to baseball sources familiar with the situation who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter,

baseball sources could be anyone, if it was a Yankee source it would have been attributed as such.

I would be shocked if anything becomes of this.

Nevertheless, although Bud himself is unlikely authorized to administer any oath, he most assuredly is going to have an authorized notary public issue said oath to Giambi.

By what authority can the Commissioner require a player to make a statement under oath? As the article noted, his attorney -- and possibly his Union Rep -- are going to question this very closely, and may advise him not to respond.

well sounds to me like dragging a player to make signed oaths to seligula and trying to nail his ass to the wall for perjury as well as voiding his contract is an EXCELLENT way to get ballplayers to cooperate with anyone trying to find out about roids

you GO seligula/yankees

make REAL sure everyone keeps mouth SHUT from now on

As the article noted, his attorney -- and possibly his Union Rep -- are going to question this very closely, and may advise him not to respond.


They may very well do that. That is why in my first post, I specifically state, "His GJ testimony does have him using 'cream' and 'clear' during the 2003 season, so if he answers at all , he has to be careful about not committing perjury."

By what authority can the Commissioner require a player to make a statement under oath?

The commissioner can request it. If he has noticed such intention pursuant to Article XII, Section E, then his authority to impose discipline pursuant to the Just Cause Provision of Article XII, Section A could be tested.

The commissioner may also declare a hearing in the best interests of baseball. Then pursuant to Article XI, Section B as it incorporates Appendix A, section 9, all testimony must be given under oath, and any subscribed statement must also be under oath.

The commissioner is in the same position as his delegate Mitchell, but he can raise the ante any time he wants. As I mentioned in the first thread on this matter, this would be an excellent time for MLB to offer limited amnesty and get some cooperation with their investigation.

well sounds to me like dragging a player to make signed oaths to seligula and trying to nail his ass to the wall for perjury as well as voiding his contract is an EXCELLENT way to get ballplayers to cooperate with anyone trying to find out about roids

I don't think anyone wants to create a perjury trap. And there is one great way to avoid perjury, don't perjure yourself. If I'm Bud Selig, and presuming I really care about the issue, what I want is for Giambi to make a full statement under oath to George Mitchell. In fact, I want everyone to do that. If they do, I am going to trust Mitchell to make a full report and I will act on the report.

If people aren't going to do that, and sit back and say "Nanny, nanny boo boo you can't make me" then I might have to use some of the office's power. I don't want a hearing, it will take to damn long, and I still have to issue some type of summons which might get the same result.

But I might have to test my Just Cause and Best Interest powers, and let the grievance take place. Its too expensive and risky to do that with everyone that ignores a subpoena, so you have to choose one. The circumstances around Giambi might be your best test case.

If nothing else, Mitchell should be reporting taht the commissioner needs express, delegatory power to require a Statement Under Oath for matters regarding the Best Intersts of baseball. Management should be pursuing that in the next round of negotations. Of course, people will scream witch hunt, and to be honest, it scares me too. But you are now seeing why he needs that mechanism.

The ability to posit law and sanction is worthless without the power to police. The players expressly gave up their piss, but nothing else. MLB needs more to understand and address the issues that affect MLB. If the libs want to whine about that, they have created the cheesey situation that prompted the whine.

JoeHova Posted: May 20, 2007 at 08:34 AM (#2371143)
Doesn't it seem weird that MLB supposedly wants people to be forthcoming about this kind of thing, and then when someone is, they start talking about suspensions and voiding contracts and stuff. It hardly seems to be the right way to get players to cooperate with their investigation.

Its the most amazing thing, isn't it ...

The commissioner may also declare a hearing in the best interests of baseball. Then pursuant to Article XI, Section B as it incorporates Appendix A, section 9, all testimony must be given under oath, and any subscribed statement must also be under oath.

But looking at the CBA, it doesn't say anything about the commish being able to compel testimony, only that testimony that is given has to be under oath. Section 7 clearly states that a failure to appear isn't default and the other side would still have to present its evidence. That creates a problem when Giambi would be the main source of the evidence against him. I think Selig would clearly have to develop some real evidence against Giambi that has a source other than Giambi before any kind of hearing hsa any chance of doing anything.

As I mentioned in the first thread on this matter, this would be an excellent time for MLB to offer limited amnesty and get some cooperation with their investigation.

I doubt it would do anything as MLB has no power to offer any kind of amnesty in the court of public opinion. If Roger Clemens came out under amnesty and admitted steroid use under amnesty, he might not be punished, but the public would still treat him as if he were whether or not he gave up Biggio and Bagwell or whoever.

If Roger Clemens came out under amnesty and admitted steroid use under amnesty, he might not be punished,

the Media and Fans would give him a pass.
One only needs to look no farther than the Grimsley story for evidence of this.
When Rogers named was attached, the media killed that story outside of 24 hours.
It was headline news for 1, maybe 2 days tops. Then you heard nothing about it again.

Nobody cared.

I doubt it would do anything as MLB has no power to offer any kind of amnesty in the court of public opinion. If Roger Clemens came out under amnesty and admitted steroid use under amnesty, he might not be punished, but the public would still treat him as if he were whether or not he gave up Biggio and Bagwell or whoever.

Indeed. There's no reason why any player would want to talk to Mitchell. There's no upside. Baseball players don't need "amnesty" from Selig. (Unless, I suppose, we're talking about someone who tests positive now, under the new regime, a la Rafael Palmeiro.)

At the end of the day, Arn Tellum did a masterful negotiation, the Yanks got caught with their pants around their ankles, and they also failed to show any suspicion regarding the specific activies that were part of negotiation requests (as discussed by Chass. He broke that story.)

Except that steroids simply weren't an issue then, so there wasn't any reason for them to care, so there are no pants, no ankles. Note that the purpose of these provisions of the contract is not to be punitive, the way MLB's steroid policy is. The purpose of these provisions is to define the situations in which the team can save money if a player can't perform. The Yankees had no particular reason to believe that Giambi would be unable to perform because of steroid use, so this provision was presumably just boilerplate that they had no particular stake in.

But looking at the CBA, it doesn't say anything about the commish being able to compel testimony

Addressed in three previous posts. I stand on the earlier statements.


Except that steroids simply weren't an issue then, so there wasn't any reason for them to care

Sounds like it was for the Yanks and they did care, unless it was Jason Giambi, then they might not care.

I can only imagine how funny the Chass interview went.

Chass: "My source tells me that the only thing you removed was steroids."

Cashman: "That's not true. We removed 20 items."

Chass: "Can you fax it over so we can see."

Cashman: "I'm afraid that's confidential."

Chass: "Can you read them to me."

Trost: "Herbal Supplements; h----. [slap] Damn, that hurt Brian."

Cashman: "I'm sorry that's confidential. That's all we have to say." [click]



there are no pants, no ankles

Good point, they were totally naked in that deal.

Note that the purpose of these provisions of the contract is not to be punitive, the way MLB's steroid policy is. The purpose of these provisions is to define the situations in which the team can save money if a player can't perform. The Yankees had no particular reason to believe that Giambi would be unable to perform because of steroid use,

Then 2003 happened, and they were searching for their bathrobe.

Indeed. There's no reason why any player would want to talk to Mitchell. There's no upside. Baseball players don't need "amnesty" from Selig. (Unless, I suppose, we're talking about someone who tests positive now, under the new regime, a la Rafael Palmeiro.)


Yep, except: those that are so dumb, they are going to spout off to any reporter; those that might actually have some conscious; those that realize the investigation teams are on their heels closing down fast on their supply channel; or just about anybody who would normally have reason to talk with any amnesty provision.

Besides, it would serve them all real nicely in the court of public opinion, IF THEY COME FORWARD. They get a chance to clear the record, and remove the pox on the sport. If they still want to cling to their clandestine and illegal ways, they will have even more he11 to pay in the public eye once the long arm of justice grabs them by the seat of their cheating ass.

If this steroid use was open and notorious as is often claimed, then let's talk about it. Don't hide behind the skirts of your lawyers. Man up, like Giambi. Show some testicular fortitude. Brother Bud can promise he won't punish you.

BL

Indeed. There's no reason why any player would want to talk to Mitchell. There's no upside. Baseball players don't need "amnesty" from Selig. (Unless, I suppose, we're talking about someone who tests positive now, under the new regime, a la Rafael Palmeiro.)


Yep, except: those that are so dumb, they are going to spout off to any reporter; those that might actually have some conscious; those that realize the investigation teams are on their heels closing down fast on their supply channel; or just about anybody who would normally have reason to talk with any amnesty provision.

- well, thing is that giambi does not NEED no "amnesty" unless he has used in the past 3 years. i mean criminal that is. or unless he is afraid that someone will rat him out because he has used since it was officially against baseball rules with the CBA. actually i think it makes a LOT more sense to spout off to some reporter than it does to selig/mitchell. i wouldn't trust no selig or politician as far as i could throw a car.

Besides, it would serve them all real nicely in the court of public opinion, IF THEY COME FORWARD. They get a chance to clear the record, and remove the pox on the sport. If they still want to cling to their clandestine and illegal ways, they will have even more he11 to pay in the public eye once the long arm of justice grabs them by the seat of their cheating ass.

- well that depends whether they confess JUST about their own self or whether or not they rat out their friends. the long arm of justice got nothing to do with nothing.

If this steroid use was open and notorious as is often claimed, then let's talk about it. Don't hide behind the skirts of your lawyers. Man up, like Giambi. Show some testicular fortitude. Brother Bud can promise he won't punish you.

- BUD he might not punish you (and i wouldn't believe that for ONE minnit) and maybe the TEAM they wouldn't punish you but that don't mean the FEDS won;t grab you and torture you until you promise to swear that you personally injected barry lamar Himself.

- besides the team might could try to tear up your contract - i mean using steroids is a lot more serious than beating up your wife and look how far they get with THAT

- if giambi wanted to confess if i was him i would wait until i retired, tell the media what i used when i used the good and the bad BUT i would not squeal on my friends.

Then 2003 happened, and they were searching for their bathrobe.

Well, yes, but it's rather silly to say that Tellum outnegotiated Cashman just because Cashman agreed with him to delete boilerplate language that had never come into play in the history of baseball, failing to predict that a few years later, Congress and some rogue IRS agent would start a crusade. And anyway (to reiterate) this was not a punitive clause, but a failure-to-perform clause. Even if the word "steroids" were still in the contract, it wouldn't have applied to the situation. (Even Delusional Kevin doesn't claim steroids caused Giambi's off-year -- the opposite; he thinks lack of steroids did.) To the extent Giambi was using steroids to improve his performance, he and the Yankees shared a common interest, so there was nothing brilliant that Tellum did.

Yep, are those that are so dumb, they are going to spout off to any reporter; those that might actually have some conscious; those that realize the investigation teams are on their heels closing down fast on their supply channel; or just about anybody who would normally have reason to talk with any amnesty provision.

If they're "spouting off" about stuff from the pre-steroids policy era, they don't need amnesty. If they have a conscience, they wouldn't want amnesty. (Ratting out other people in exchange for escaping punishment is hardly the sign of a conscience.)

People "normally have reason to talk with any amnesty provision" when they would otherwise face punishment. Nobody faces punishment from baseball except the narrow class of people I identified: the Palmeiro class of test-failers.

Moreover, Selig can't offer amnesty from the law.

Besides, it would serve them all real nicely in the court of public opinion, IF THEY COME FORWARD.

The only people particularly suffering in the court of public opinion are Bonds, McGwire, and Palmeiro. I already addressed Palmeiro. There's about as much likelihood of Bonds taking your amnesty deal as there is of Bonds winning the Miss America pageant. And McGwire doesn't need amnesty from Selig, since there's nothing Selig can do to him.

and i forgot - actually the people who have REALLY used steroids - i mean the ones who have ben CAUGHT- they have suffered like ZERO in the court of public opinion.

find me ONE person who really truly cares one eeensy beeensy bit that ryan franklin or mike morse used roids

besides you BL, i mean

find me ONE person who really truly cares one eeensy beeensy bit that ryan franklin or mike morse used roids

Right after I find you one non-family member of each who even cares that they exist.

DMN: When you say it's boilerplate, does that mean that you believe that kind of contractual amendment was common? I have to say, I'm inclined to agree with your analysis, but I'm not clear about this point.

JC in DC Posted: May 20, 2007 at 11:45 PM (#2372529)

find me ONE person who really truly cares one eeensy beeensy bit that ryan franklin or mike morse used roids


Right after I find you one non-family member of each who even cares that they exist.

EXACTLY!!!!!

thank you sir for the backup

so the court of public opinion is only in session for barry lamar, giambi, mcgwire and palmeiro.

exactly WHY would anyone not facing prison rat people out?

You know, if I were Giambi, I think I could see the light at the end of the tunnel at this point. It would take some balls, but the plan would be to go in front of Mitchell, testify truthfully, then hold a press conference admitting the use and saying that you came clean, you learned your lesson, etc.

Out of all the stars that have been exposed, Giambi has actually apologized (albeit nonspecifically), played badly for a while, then come back to be a quality player, albeit not as good as when he was on the juice. If he could ride out a 15 game suspension and a few bad news cycles, he'd probably get forgiven pretty quickly.

exactly WHY would anyone not facing prison rat people out?

MICE

Or for those that aren't familiar with the acronym, Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego.

zach,

mitchell he already KNOW giambi used. why on earth should giambi go and talk to him? i mean, seriously, what is in it for him? getting suspended? getting a well deserved rep as a rat??? you don't think mitchell is gonna want him to rat out other guys, especially one BLB???!!!

the PUBLIC might could forgive him but he wouldn't have no friends left. and he don't seem to me to be the kind of guy who don't cae if his teammates all hate him.

now i don't think his teammates they would care real too much if HE confessed his OWN use. but you best believe they gonna be real uncomfortable around him - wondering - like what DID you say to the cops sort of thing. who would trust the guy?

In fact, for anybody except Barry, and provided that they've been clean since the start of testing, coming clean before the Mitchell report comes out would be an unconventional but smart move.

JC in DC Posted: May 20, 2007 at 11:45 PM (#2372529)

find me ONE person who really truly cares one eeensy beeensy bit that ryan franklin or mike morse used roids


Right after I find you one non-family member of each who even cares that they exist.

EXACTLY!!!!!

thank you sir for the backup

so the court of public opinion is only in session for barry lamar, giambi, mcgwire and palmeiro.

exactly WHY would anyone not facing prison rat people out?

solid BC ... Solid

Well, yes, but it's rather silly to say that Tellum outnegotiated Cashman just because Cashman agreed with him to delete boilerplate language that had never come into play in the history of baseball, failing to predict that a few years later, Congress and some rogue IRS agent would start a crusade.

And this is wear you lose me. You keep referring to it as boilerplate language. I agree. There are a long list of things that give the Yanks the right to exercise the normal termination options pursuant to the UPC. If its any other conduct, the contract is guaranteed and not subject to standard UPC termination with prorated payout pursuant to the CBA.

So, you have a long list of things:

Fishing
Motorcycling
Steroids
Sky Diving
VD from hookers
hGH
Amphetamines
Marijuana
Golfing
Bowling
Animal sacrifice in druid ceremonies
Hunting
Duels
Hot Dog Eating contests
Herbal Supplements
LSD
Running marathons
...

If you have, Turk Wendell as a client, you call up and say, "We can do the deal if you take out hunting and fishing. Turk is an outdoorsman. He can get guaranteed money from the Sox and continue to hunt."

So you have Giambi as a client, his agent takes out, Amphetamines, LSD, herbal supplments, and animal sacrifices. You aren't going to ask why?

Their attorney is certainly going to say, "You know if he can't perform b/c of an injury with 'roids its still guaranteed money." You aren't going to question the list of removed items.

You keep coming back to:

"And anyway (to reiterate) this was not a punitive clause, but a failure-to-perform clause. Even if the word "steroids" were still in the contract, it wouldn't have applied to the situation. (Even Delusional Kevin doesn't claim steroids caused Giambi's off-year -- the opposite; he thinks lack of steroids did.)"

Which is pretty immaterial, because:

To the extent Giambi was using steroids to improve his performance, he and the Yankees shared a common interest, so there was nothing brilliant that Tellum did.

Yes, until the steroids aren't improving performance. They don't have to prove a nexus between that conduct. They only need to prove that the conduct existed (if it was drafted anywhere near decently, because if it were not, then you have all the "prove it" problems you see people bantering know).

You say boilerplate, like it was put in without forethought, and picked up off a forms library. It was boilerplate because there existed a risk of diminished performance, and somebody, somewhere recognized it.

Its pretty simple, if the Yanks had kept the steroid clause in, they would have had strong ground to declare the contract non-guaranteed pursuant to that clause. If its non-guaranteed, they could release Giambi and pay only his prorated salary. Tellum negotiated to have the clause removed.

Now, the Yanks have no recourse pursuant to that clause. They have to fish for another clause. Well they presumedly have a clause that allows them to void the contract pursuant to the use of illegal substances. That presents another timing problem.

They expressly state that they thought they were covered. They thought steroids would be a subset of illegal substances. That is not the case. Tellum created a space for Giambi to live in by removing that condition. That is pretty shrewd.

It would be like having Ricky Henderson during his rookie year and putting in a performance bonus of ten million dollars for stealing 100 bases. By your analysis, it would be ok for management to do that, because only a couple of players have ever managed to steal 100 bases. But if his agent knew of his unique talent for base stealing and was able to read the change in the baseball culture and put in that clause, he would have been shrewd and management would have made a mistake.

If Tellum knows his client is mixing with a crew that specializes in making undectable and quasi-illegal substances, knows that is where baseball is headed (and god knows there was as much notice as there was for run-and-gun baseball), he has made a smart move.

If they're "spouting off" about stuff from the pre-steroids policy era, they don't need amnesty.

They do if their agent didn't manage to delete boilerplate language that "never in the history of baseball has had to be enforced." Moreover, I didn't in the original post or in the subsequent post limit amnesty to the "pre-steroids policy era." For that matter, neither has Giambi. Who knows what good stuff he has to say.

Ratting out other people in exchange for escaping punishment is hardly the sign of a conscience.)

Again, who said anything about 'ratting out.' We went to know when players did them, how much they did, and what nefarious people are supplying the distribution. Besides, i thought you were a proponent of "test the survivors." Had you rather that everything remain under a cloud of mystery so that you can do the "you haven't proved."

You are filling in my statements with a lot of details that aren't present.

Moreover, Selig can't offer amnesty from the law.


I'd be willing to bet that with a telephone call, he could arrange amnesty for information on suppliers. The DOJ should jump at that chance. I doubt they would give amnesty for prior perjury though.

The only people particularly suffering in the court of public opinion are Bonds, McGwire, and Palmeiro. I already addressed Palmeiro.

They are the only ones caught with needles in their ass. MLB has plenty of stars. If the usage rate is at Dial prediction levels, many of them may have lots of 'splaining to do. You figure at least some are going to get caught.

Or maybe your right, maybe no one takes the deal. That would be fine too. As I said, if they get caught, they have had a chance for confession and absolution. They have had it when there would not be any penalty. If they later get caught, there will not be much of a rock to hide under.

Again the broad grant of any amnesty is exactly for those reasons. To be honest, I don't care that much about fileting players. The HoF votes are in the BBWAA's hands. But getting to the truth is of interest. Removing distribution and supply is of huge interest.

BBC,

If Mitchell knows giambi used, and can prove it, Giambi should definitely volunteer to testify. He's got a public image to maintain, and a few years of declining productivity where a repentant sinner might get a contract but an exposed fraud never would. He might have an outside shot at the Hall of Fame if he were seen as a good guy who made mistakes. He has his own conscience to live with -- remember, this all came from his apparent need to speak out against the steroid era.

The ratting out issue is very thorny. For one thing, refusing to rat out assosciates is what criminals do. *Subordinate* criminals. If you think of yourself as basically a good guy, it's a big step to start acting like a hood. Second, he likely doesn't have any information on teammates -- Barry signed him up for Balco on a tour of Japan, when he was away from the team.

The big prize here is absolution, and it's only available if he comes clean before the report comes out. Have a big press conference, cry a little, emphasize that you've been clean for X years, take a suspension, and it's over. Wait for the report to come out, and you're just another fraud who got caught.

If he could ride out a 15 game suspension and a few bad news cycles, he'd probably get forgiven pretty quickly.


Yes, he also styles himself a tough guy. He talks about beating people who run on the field's ass; how he isn't afraid to fight anyone (except he named a couple of people he thought could kick ass); etc. It must kill him to hide behind the skirts of his lawyers.

He's got a real good shot now to break the long blue line, and talk about what he did. (I think he even has immunity in the GJ testimony, but I don't remember). If he is now clean, he can confine that testimony to the GJ. He can explain it. He can show his remorse. He can talk about it lead to his parasites, and how it fukked up Fredo Giambi's career worse than not sliding.

He can be another in the long line of great Yankee heros. He can be the anti-Canseco and denounce the drugs even further. He can do speeches at high schools telling them how dangerous the substances are. He can give the Yankees the best PR they can possibly have, and his buddy Arn can negotiate the deal.

This is his chance, his moment, his opportunity to be more than just an obscure power hitting first basemen. He can do a face turn and join Dale Murphy. He can be a beacon.

remember, this all came from his apparent need to speak out against the steroid era.

I can almost promise you, this came from a microphone shoved in his face everyday for three plus years.
this was not contrition.

or unless he is afraid that someone will rat him out because he has used since it was officially against baseball rules with the CBA. actually i think it makes a LOT more sense to spout off to some reporter than it does to selig/mitchell. i wouldn't trust no selig or politician as far as i could throw a car.


That depends on how pervasive you think the situation has become. If it is not prevelant, you can shrink in the shadows. If its just Mets locker room dude, the Albany Triad, and BALCO, then it will die. If its just a minority of players, the silence to Mitchell will end it. There will be a single steroids era where a few players will tarnish the accomplishments of all.

If its at Dial levels, there is no way the conspiracy can hold. Sooner or later there will be cracks. Some people are just scared. Some people have a conscience, some people need redemption.

If its somewhere in between, you have to read the tea leaves. Will the blue wall hold, or do you face embarrasing questions in the future. Will it end slowly, where you live beside Eddie Ciccotte in the history books, or do you have a chance to grab the situation.

Canseco saw his PR moment, but he read it wrong. He thought he could get a resounding chorus of rebels in the "steroids are good for you," march. Even he had to recant. The first to deal gets the best deal. Cams is dead. Raffy is still trying to get the "I wuz framed" sympathy. Bonds is fukked no matter how he moves. As you mentioned, very few people are going to give a damn about Ryan Franklin. Giambi has already shown remorse. He has shown more remorse. He is in the best PR position of the lot. Moreover, he can ride his pinstripes to take it HNL. And you know he wants to do that. He loves the camera, its why he's in NY to begin with.

Well, I can hope it's contrition.

I'm convinced that there's a window where players will be able to own up, take their licks, and come out fresh on the other side. Eventually, a few of the stars from the steroid era are going to be rehabilitated. If you want to be one of those stars, you *want* to be punished, especially if it's just a 15 game suspension. You *want* to have a period of poor play when you're adjusting to unenhanced performance, and a lower level of clean performance. You *want* to break ranks. That's why you *want* to testify.

And the worst situation you can be in is McGwire's. McGwire doesn't have the opportunity to show that he would be good without the drugs. He can't take a symbolic punishment. He missed his chance to testify. Everybody knows he did it, most people know he's sorry, but it's too late to make amends.

I'm convinced that there's a window where players will be able to own up, take their licks, and come out fresh on the other side. Eventually, a few of the stars from the steroid era are going to be rehabilitated. If you want to be one of those stars, you *want* to be punished, especially if it's just a 15 game suspension. You *want* to have a period of poor play when you're adjusting to unenhanced performance, and a lower level of clean performance. You *want* to break ranks. That's why you *want* to testify.

I don't see where players should say a thing.
If I was them I would say nothing.

Don't forget, MLB trainers put this stuff on the tables.
Teams, Owners all they way down to the apprentice groundskeepers, knew what was going on. MLB scouts recommended kids "Bulk up" one way or another, probably daily.

and the only Fall guy is .. Well Barry Bonds, but thats a different agruement ..

But this is nuts.
Giambi spoke out again (Idiot), and they are talking about voiding his contract and dragging him in front of Mitchell to ratt people out!!

My god.

I wouldn't say chit.

Not saying anything means you *are* the fall guy.

Not in my America.


Contrition gets you kicked out of work.
possibly for ever.

Broadcast work? Gone
Endorsements? Gone.

Hello Suburbs.
Public Schools for your grandchildren.

Hot Dog Eating contests


racists

He talks about beating people who run on the field's ass; how he isn't afraid to fight anyone (except he named a couple of people he thought could kick ass)

HI KEVIN!!!

When you say it's boilerplate, does that mean that you believe that kind of contractual amendment was common? I have to say, I'm inclined to agree with your analysis, but I'm not clear about this point.


I can grant and affirm that I believe changing specific language on conditions would be a common occurence. As I mentioned, I am pretty sure that even non-stars like Wendell did look and did succeed to remove portions of such clauses based on their recreational activities.

Likewise, some guys may try to have clauses removed but not meet with success. Jeff Kent and Ron Gant obviously like motorcycles. Yet their teams may have held the line about removing motorcycle injuries from the guaranteed conditions of the contract.

The reasons is that you should always ask why you are going to remove those clauses. Once you have an answer, you search for language that allows the risk transfer to be suitable for the deal you are seeking.

Nieporent opines that in 2001, the Yanks would have no reason to suspect that a player coming from the Oakland A's with high power numbers in an era of inflated power numbers would have significant risk of being unable to perform because of his misuse of steroids, herbal supplements, or eighteen other conditions. Therefore, there would be no reason to fear changing that clause. Arn Tellum wanted the Yanks to take that risk. He got them to take that risk. The Yanks apparently later, and continuing through today, either have a financial or public relations reason to want to be able to activate that clause. They are unable to do it.

They apparently thought they could cancel the contract if he was caught with needles in his ass. They left a nice escape hatch in that clause. So they gave up Plan B, and it bit them. To me, that is going naked. You have multiple theories and multiple ways to achieve a result in case a technicality bars you from using one mechanism. The Yanks gave up Plan B, they don't have a Plan C, and Plan A doesn't give them much recourse. More likely than not, Giambi must admit to doing an illegal drug during the term of the contract for the Yankees to exercise a right.

If you look at his testimony, he pretty much circumnavigates this issue. He admits to doing an illegal drug prior to the contract. He admits to helping his brother with illegal drugs after the contract. He admits to using a drug for which there are no illegal use penalties after the contract, and he admits to using two drugs that the DOJ thinks are problematic for prosecution under the old statute. He says he stops after statutes have been amended to make those drugs illegal.

So, he is either:

(a) A genius in his drug use;
(b) He had counsel to know exactly what he could do with the drugs (and maybe help negotiate a contract that would allow it);
(c) He lied to the GJ (which, if true, is why he has to be careful with Selig); or
(d) dare I saw, he is LUCKY.

First time suspension is 15 games, if I remember correctly. That's with a positive test under the new CBA. You're admitting to use before the CBA, and you're coming forth willingly (-ish). Your contract has had the steroid clauses removed. Heck, you've already "admitted" to steroid use in the past. On the flip side, Mitchell has you dead to rights if he follows up on newspaper investigations. Like I said, it takes balls, but it's actually the smart move at this point.

Like I said, it takes balls, but it's actually the smart move at this point.


It took a certain mix of balls and idiocy to do that USA interview in the first place. I agree with you. I'm pulling for Giambi. I hope he has the testicular fortitude. A true Yankee would. I hope Derek Jeter talks to him and convinces him to do the right thing. Its Jetes time to be the Captain.

I think they should make Jose Canseco the next commissioner and require every MLB player to take steroids.

I thought the first suspension was 50 games.

Backlasher Posted: May 21, 2007 at 12:51 AM (#2372561)

or unless he is afraid that someone will rat him out because he has used since it was officially against baseball rules with the CBA. actually i think it makes a LOT more sense to spout off to some reporter than it does to selig/mitchell. i wouldn't trust no selig or politician as far as i could throw a car.


If its at Dial levels, there is no way the conspiracy can hold. Sooner or later there will be cracks. Some people are just scared. Some people have a conscience, some people need redemption.

- look, they ALL got lawyers/agents etc. IF they been clean since testing started, it make a LOT more sense to keep mouth SHUT. opening mouth is not JUST gonna be about your own self.

- and remember these guys they are all friends and real close. the ballplayers closest friends are other ballplayers. seriously, are YOU gonna piss all over YOUR closest friends for something like this? and since you can be pretty darn sure your friends won't be your friends no more if you start doing something SERIOUSLY terrible in the clubhouse world like ratting out your teammates, are you SURE it would be worth the "world's" forgiveness for one second?

- and we ARE remembering that most people feel like jc does about almost every single player who did roids. they truly do NOT give a rat's ass. they only care if they did roids AND THEY WERE GREAT PLAYERS


If its somewhere in between, you have to read the tea leaves. Will the blue wall hold, or do you face embarrasing questions in the future. Will it end slowly, where you live beside Eddie Ciccotte in the history books, or do you have a chance to grab the situation.

- no boy that won't cut no ice with me. eddie cicotte THREW GAMES. all of the roid usere were trying to be better ballplayers.



Canseco saw his PR moment, but he read it wrong. He thought he could get a resounding chorus of rebels in the "steroids are good for you," march. Even he had to recant. The first to deal gets the best deal.

- but BL, like WHAT deal are you talking about? let's suppose (for the argument) that tony gwynn used roids and it destroyed his knees. exactly WHAT good would it do him to go to mitchell? how would it make things better for him? he is a coach now, you think his players would EVER trust a rat?

- deals are no good unless you committed some kind of crime and you got something to lose
guys who been OOB for over 3 years, anyhow, they can't get prosecuted and unless it is all about the hall of fame, NOBODY (except you) cares if they shot up with roids for years and years.

- suppose charles nagy used. or lenny harris used roids to break the all time pinch hits record. seriously. so what? how does talking to mitchell do ANYthing good or bad, except label him as a rat for the rest of his life and lose all his baseball friends?


Cams is dead. Raffy is still trying to get the "I wuz framed" sympathy.

- wouldn't it be something if he actually told the truth and tejada DID give him dirty stuff? i'm not real too sure why but i am starting to believe him



Bonds is fukked no matter how he moves.

- correctamundo. unless, of course, he has piss saved from every day since October 98 and can PROVE it is clean


As you mentioned, very few people are going to give a damn about Ryan Franklin. Giambi has already shown remorse. He has shown more remorse. He is in the best PR position of the lot. Moreover, he can ride his pinstripes to take it HNL. And you know he wants to do that. He loves the camera, its why he's in NY to begin with.

- and WHY are you so sure he would trade all his baseball friends for the 10 second LUUUVVV of the fans? and of course i am talkin bout ratting, not confessing HIS OWN use

- and in the end, i am STILL convinced the anti-roid stuff from the media/public is ALL about barry lamar and the "sacred" home run record. Which is why jc, your buddy, cares exactly zero about ryan franklin and matt lawton.

Minors are 15, majors are 50 (as of November 2005. Players suspended in 2005 were for 10 games on a first offense). Link showing steroid test penalties of various sports.

- but BL, like WHAT deal are you talking about? let's suppose (for the argument) that tony gwynn used roids and it destroyed his knees. exactly WHAT good would it do him to go to mitchell? how would it make things better for him? he is a coach now, you think his players would EVER trust a rat?


Gwynn is someone who has been talking. He has been talking about how both speed and 'roids are bad for you. Again, you can talk without ratting someone out. Its even more honorable to do that. There is no "contempt of Mitchell investigation"; you can make whatever kind of deal you want for your testimony.

- look, the ALL got lawyers/agents etc. IF they been clean since testing stated, it make a LOT more sense to keep mouth SHUT. opening mouth is not JUST gonna be about your own self.


Until an investigation catches them. Grimsley did a whole lot of singing when he got caught. Now he later did a "I didn't say that."

Which is why jc, your buddy, cares exactly zero about ryan franklin and matt lawton.


I'm listening to what Ryan Franklin has to say. I'll listen to Matt Lawton too. Heck, I'll listen to anybody. If you bring Bennie Distefano out of retirement, I'll hear what he's got to say. And I'm not the only one.

Maybe they will tell me what so many out here are preaching. Maybe they will show that Bud had contracted with distribution agents and was skimming a profit on sales, and laundering the money with his used car business. Maybe Carl Pohlad was loaning BALCO money. Whatever weird thing is out there, let's find out if its get some meat. Let's find out where the supply was coming from; let's see what types of access problems MLB has to organized crime. Let's find out how many people were using, and when they were using. Let's compare that to performance outputs and injury charts. Let's get all the information we can. Now, who is going to brave enough to give it to us. We know that Dale Murphy is Brave enough to take stand. There has to be some true Yankees out there. Let's see if Giambi is one of them.

"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker." -- Rounders

BBC, I think your logic all applies best to Backlasher's first conditional: where a couple of people used, the league takes a dive on the investigation, the players all act like stonefaced hoods and a couple of poor saps take the fall.

But I don't think the league is going to take a dive on the investigation. They're trying to get ahead of the news cycle, and a whitewashed report puts Selig on the spot. The owners have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, and they're not going to risk it for the sake of Bonds and McGwire.

As a strategy, not testifying relies too much on the investigators not getting anything on you. But Giambi is guilty as sin, and any investigation is going to have him dead to rights. He should operate on the assumption that Mitchell is going to have as much evidence as he needs whether or not Giambi comes forward.

As Backlasher says, the most valuable information Giambi has is how the setup worked and who the suppliers were. He's already testified about all of this stuff before a grand jury.

Backlasher Posted: May 21, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2372586)

- but BL, like WHAT deal are you talking about? let's suppose (for the argument) that tony gwynn used roids and it destroyed his knees. exactly WHAT good would it do him to go to mitchell? how would it make things better for him? he is a coach now, you think his players would EVER trust a rat?


Gwynn is someone who has been talking. He has been talking about how both speed and 'roids are bad for you. Again, you can talk without ratting someone out. Its even more honorable to do that. There is no "contempt of Mitchell investigation"; you can make whatever kind of deal you want for your testimony.

- BL, i STILL do not get what kind of "deal" you talking about. ESPECIALLY if you never did no drugs, let alone illegal drugs.
- i got a LOT of respect for any player to stand up and talk about his OWN use. i got NO respect for any player who wouldstand up and talk about someone ELSE'S use.



- look, the ALL got lawyers/agents etc. IF they been clean since testing stated, it make a LOT more sense to keep mouth SHUT. opening mouth is not JUST gonna be about your own self.


Until an investigation catches them. Grimsley did a whole lot of singing when he got caught. Now he later did a "I didn't say that."

- yes but grimsley really DID do drugs after testing started. if a guy only did drugs BEFORE testing started he be a fool to open up his mouth, especially since he sen what happened to grimsley



Which is why jc, your buddy, cares exactly zero about ryan franklin and matt lawton.


I'm listening to what Ryan Franklin has to say. I'll listen to Matt Lawton too. Heck, I'll listen to anybody. If you bring Bennie Distefano out of retirement, I'll hear what he's got to say. And I'm not the only one.

- big smile
the few, the proud, the listeners


Maybe they will tell me what so many out here are preaching. Maybe they will show that Bud had contracted with distribution agents and was skimming a profit on sales, and laundering the money with his used car business.

- oh dude, wouldn't THAT be freaking great???!!! i've been hoping some guy would confess to the media, telling them how he talked to bud about his own roid use back in 98 and bud told him he didn't want to talk about it right now


Maybe Carl Pohlad was loaning BALCO money.

- even better
or financed the drug labs


Whatever weird thing is out there, let's find out if its get some meat. Let's find out where the supply was coming from; let's see what types of access problems MLB has to organized crime.

- actually the organized crime is an interesting point. although i don't think guys wanna be ratting out drug cartels and organized crime


Let's find out how many people were using, and when they were using. Let's compare that to performance outputs and injury charts. Let's get all the information we can. Now, who is going to brave enough to give it to us.

- actually i been thinking for a LONG time that if guys who used and it ruined their career had the guts to come forward and say so it might could do a LOT to stop use. because even though almost everyone who has used drugs has been some elsucko crap ballplayer, too many people really think that the drugs turn you from alex sanchez into barry bonds
- i cheer guys who got guts to tell about their OWN experiences
- i spit on rats ratting out they own teammates/friends

We know that Dale Murphy is Brave enough to take stand.

- lets not go anywheres with THAT guy, ok.

There has to be some true Yankees out there. Let's see if Giambi is one of them.

- sigh
you can't ask him to go to prison/lose his job/friends to satisfy our curiosity
until AFTER he retires and the statutes all up

what is a "true yankee?"
you mean like babe ruth, gamble, use illegal drug, cheat on his wives, treat his teammates like shtt?
you mean like joeD, cheap, won't help out his own kid, mean?
you mean like mickey mantle, drunk, cheating on his wife?
you mean like whitey ford, cheating by cutting the baseballs?
you mean like jim bouton, ratting out what his teammates do with their pricvate life

Zach Posted: May 21, 2007 at 02:00 AM (#2372588)

- first i gotta tell you a little somethin - it is about your middle name - IF your mama was 9 months pregnant in the middle of august AND she was sitting in the stands at the baseball stadium, trust me on this, she is a serious, die hard baseball fan. SHE name you. because trust me on this no matter how good your man is - when you 9 months pregnant sittin in the steaming hot august sun on rock hard bleachers seats you too mad at him for gettin you that way to love him real too much. and remember the mother gotta sign the birth certificate so if he drag her there to the ballpark 9 months pregnant in the august heat, and she NOT a fan ain't NO way that name gonna be yours.

grinning

i might could not understand stuff like law and physics, but pregnancy - now THAT i understand

"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker." -- Rounders

BBC, I think your logic all applies best to Backlasher's first conditional: where a couple of people used, the league takes a dive on the investigation, the players all act like stonefaced hoods and a couple of poor saps take the fall.

But I don't think the league is going to take a dive on the investigation. They're trying to get ahead of the news cycle, and a whitewashed report puts Selig on the spot. The owners have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, and they're not going to risk it for the sake of Bonds and McGwire.

- ahhh
actually, we sort of agree.
thing is i am pretty damm sure they do NOT want it to come out that bud, the owners, the GMs, the trainers, pretty much everyone knew about most people doing roids. and that is exactly WHY they want mcgwire and bonds to take the fall if it can be done. or a few dozen grimsleys + palmeiro


As a strategy, not testifying relies too much on the investigators not getting anything on you. But Giambi is guilty as sin, and any investigation is going to have him dead to rights. He should operate on the assumption that Mitchell is going to have as much evidence as he needs whether or not Giambi comes forward.

- mitchell needs for WHAT?
there is not a damm thing he can do about giambi doing drugs in 2001 - not that i know anyhow. or even in 03.
and unless he used AFTER the cba banned rois from baseball, he can give all the evidence in the universe and it don't amount to nothing


As Backlasher says, the most valuable information Giambi has is how the setup worked and who the suppliers were. He's already testified about all of this stuff before a grand jury.

- except for balco stuff i don't really know what he said. the GJ testimony got released, so there isn't nothing they don't have already.
- even if he sez, say - i bought stuff from joe/jane doe in the gym a mile from my house, that won't help nothing. everybody KNOW the gyms full of drugs.

(c) He lied to the GJ (which, if true, is why he has to be careful with Selig);

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but I like it more than most PEDs threads because it is more concrete - it focuses on Giambi and his options, which, to a lesser extent, applies to a few others as well.

However, my question (and if the lawyers would pay particular attention) is this: people are discussing Giambi making a "deal" with Mitchell or Selig. But isn't his need for a deal more with prosecutors? If he makes a deal for a small suspension with MLB and then gives testimony that contradicts his GJ testimony, wouldn't he be in much, much more trouble than if he just lets them suspend him for 50 games? Is the assumption in most of the above discussion that his GJ testimony is more or less truthful? I've been assuming it was the tip of the iceberg.

I guess I agree that from a PR and baseball standpoint, now would be a good time for him to come clean to the Mitchell committee. But if he can't do that without risking jail time, he should keep quiet. Perhaps I don't really understand how his GJ testimony plays into all this.

It was time for my semi-annual check of a steroids thread.

Not too bad...for a steroids thread.

(I can't believe I said that.)

Just call him The Gambino.

- BL, i STILL do not get what kind of "deal" you talking about. ESPECIALLY if you never did no drugs, let alone illegal drugs.
- i got a LOT of respect for any player to stand up and talk about his OWN use. i got NO respect for any player who wouldstand up and talk about someone ELSE'S use.


If they have not done any PEDs at all, then they have nothing to say. If they haven't done any "illegal drugs" using any criteria that makes a PED a legal drug, they have nothing to fear from the government. They only fear is they have a clause that would void their contract, and any public backlash. Give them amnesty on the first, and they have to have the balls to endure the second. If they have done an "illegal drug" then they may have to worry about a misdemeanor use penalty. hGH heads would be a prime example of someone who could benefit from amnesty.

- yes but grimsley really DID do drugs after testing started. if a guy only did drugs BEFORE testing started he be a fool to open up his mouth, especially since he sen what happened to grimsley

Grimsley had possession with intent to distribute. If guys aren't talking because they are possessing large quantities of PEDS that is even a worse problem. If you have guys that are actually pushers, then its worse then we thought, and more in need of cleaning up.


- except for balco stuff i don't really know what he said. the GJ testimony got released, so there isn't nothing they don't have already.
- even if he sez, say - i bought stuff from joe/jane doe in the gym a mile from my house, that won't help nothing. everybody KNOW the gyms full of drugs.


If that is the case, then baseball can do a lot. They can add Gold's Gym to cancellation clauses. They can set up year round work out facilities for their players. A few threads ago, we were talking about Todd Jones being too damn lazy to come downstairs for his cheeseburger. If the gym is where the problem is at, maybe baseball needs to keep them out of the gym, the way they use to try to keep them out of pool halls.

Moreover, even if he just parrots everything he said to the GJ, it is now more plausibly usable by Mitchell. If all Mitchell has to go on is picking up a copy of Game of Shadows, then can you imagine Nieporent (and probably you) having a field day for the hearsay aspect.

That is why motives are questioned sometimes. Whenever we find out about someone's vile conduct, we get 50,000 reasons why not to trust it (even if the veracity is easily judged) and 100,000 excuses about what we don't know. Then, everyone talks about us being a playa hater. I'm suggesting a scheme were players get off mostly free. We can't control what the BBWAA will do, nor can we control whether someone will hear their confession and still judge them immoral. Those are the chances you take when you act inappropriately. We can preserve their millions. Let them keep their millions to help us get drugs out of sport.

- actually the organized crime is an interesting point. although i don't think guys wanna be ratting out drug cartels and organized crime


Most of the available information suggests PEDs are to organized crime, what cocaine would have been to La Cosa Nostra during the days of Don Vito Corlene. The mobs, the columbian cartels, the gangs etc. haven't been dealing the stuff. Its mostly been geeky boys with chemistry degrees and their friends who starting pumping off after spending their youth getting stuffed in lockers. Unfortunately, the union of these people, with the addition of snake oil salesmen like Conte do create networks and organization.

But that would change real quick if something is not done. PEDs are now like cocaine in the 80s. Its the fastest growing drug of abuse. Its filtering down to kids. Its being used by our celebrities and public figures. That is the reason law enforcement is targeting the stuff, not Barry Bonds. Its just when they catch the chemist, it gets a paragraph off the front page at ESPN. When someone has dirt on Bonds, you get his bigass head on the front page. Considering their consumers, that makes economic sense, but everyone, including the hard working law enforcement officials should not be lumped into the greed and gluttony that is ESPN.

But isn't his need for a deal more with prosecutors? If he makes a deal for a small suspension with MLB and then gives testimony that contradicts his GJ testimony, wouldn't he be in much, much more trouble than if he just lets them suspend him for 50 games? Is the assumption in most of the above discussion that his GJ testimony is more or less truthful? I've been assuming it was the tip of the iceberg.


It can be truthful and the tip of the iceberg. He did not have a Congressional subpoena. The GJ was not looking to solve all the PED problems in the world. They were looking to bring indictments against the BALCO principals. Bonds apologists just started using "witch hunt" to describe the proceedings and they said it enough times that people believed it. If he provides more information then what he was questioned on, then there is no perjury. He only has a perjury problem if he lied to the GJ. Moreover, that was a while ago now. There is all his subsequent conduct, if any, that he could talk about.

I am presuming he was largely telling the truth. I think the most plausible scenario is that he had advice on how to skirt the law and the rules of baseball. But he could have been lying. He could have taken a syringe to ass just before testifying. If he did, he should clam up. There is no way he is going to get amnesty for perjury. But if Selig grants him amnesty and he is clean, there really is nothing to lose.

But I think a broad grant needs to be made. Let's figure out where Juan Salas got his juice too. And for bbc, I'll take time off of work and watch any televised statements of Ryan Franklin.

you can't ask him to go to prison/lose his job/friends to satisfy our curiosity
until AFTER he retires and the statutes all up


I can ask anyone to be penitent. Of course, the real scoundels will not be penitent. They will continue to lie, but change the lies to suit the available facts. Until a real investigation is complete, we will just get a storm of flaxseed.

With Giambi, if he is telling the truth, he doesn't face prison. He might face a voiding of one and a half years of his contract, but I'd like to take that off the table. I don't think folks like "Mets Clubhouse Guy" are their friends. That may be true for the most anti-social of them that only have the friends they buy. But, yes if its the clubhouse attendants that are picking up a case of roids to go with a pound of hamburger and some spaghetti, I'd like to put a stop to that.

The players can all have amnesty for a limited window as far as I'm concerned. We can let Giambi slide, all he has to do is prove he can slide better than his brother.

what is a "true yankee?"


Derek Jeter, Lou Gehrig, the face the NY press puts on every Yankee start that comes through the organization.

you mean like babe ruth, gamble, use illegal drug, cheat on his wives, treat his teammates like shtt?


Hmm, sound like anyone else we know.

you mean like joeD, cheap, won't help out his own kid, mean?


Yes, our nation can turn its lonely eyes to Jason Giambi if he is man enough to do the right thing.

you mean like mickey mantle, drunk, cheating on his wife?


The Mick could have apparently alerted us to amphetamine abuse (just going by the posts here). Giambi has a chance to be more noble.

you mean like whitey ford, cheating by cutting the baseballs?

I don't want him to cut anything; I want full dislosure.

you mean like jim bouton, ratting out what his teammates do with their pricvate life


No book. Just testify, brother Jason, testify.

Just testify, brother Jason, testify.

It just occurred to me that if one recalls the root of it, "testify" is an amusingly ironic word to use in this context.

And this is wear you lose me. You keep referring to it as boilerplate language. I agree. There are a long list of things that give the Yanks the right to exercise the normal termination options pursuant to the UPC. If its any other conduct, the contract is guaranteed and not subject to standard UPC termination with prorated payout pursuant to the CBA.

What I refer to as boilerplate is not the fact of a termination clause (although, of course, such a clause is boilerplate in any employment contract), but the specific list of items. I am admittedly speculating on this point, but I assume that the Yankees and/or their counsel compiled a generic list of all activities which a player could conceivably engage in which might be relevant to termination, and steroids was on that list. (As opposed to adding steroids specifically to Giambi's contract.)

So you have Giambi as a client, his agent takes out, Amphetamines, LSD, herbal supplments, and animal sacrifices. You aren't going to ask why?

Think about it from the other perspective, that of the agent. Wouldn't you, if you were representing a player, assuming you had the leverage to do so, delete every provision from that paragraph that you could get away with deleting? Regardless of whether your client planned to engage in animal sacrifice or not?

Yes, until the steroids aren't improving performance. They don't have to prove a nexus between that conduct. They only need to prove that the conduct existed (if it was drafted anywhere near decently, because if it were not, then you have all the "prove it" problems you see people bantering know).

In fact, I strongly disagree with you here. They do have to prove a nexus. I base that on (a) the Chass article, which explicitly quoted the language which said so, (b) common sense -- do you really think that the Yankees could terminate a guaranteed contract based on the naked fact that a player had used herbal supplements?, (c) common sense again -- we know that contracts are virtually never terminated, no matter how badly players do, which would not be the case if teams didn't have to prove a causal relationship, and (d) what I know about player contracts generally, though not Giambi's specifically. (That last one you'll either have to trust me on or not.)

You say boilerplate, like it was put in without forethought, and picked up off a forms library. It was boilerplate because there existed a risk of diminished performance, and somebody, somewhere recognized it.

If I'm the team's attorney, I go through the dictionary and insert every word from aardvark to zymurgy as grounds for terminating a contract. That doesn't mean I expect them all to be relevant; I just want to give maximum flexibility to my client.

I don't think it was "shrewd" for Tellum to do what he did because I don't think there was any reason to believe that there was the slightest chance that Giambi's contract would be voided for steroids. I think Tellum was just being a good lawyer and crossing out as many restrictions on his client as he could.

It would be like having Ricky Henderson during his rookie year and putting in a performance bonus of ten million dollars for stealing 100 bases. By your analysis, it would be ok for management to do that, because only a couple of players have ever managed to steal 100 bases. But if his agent knew of his unique talent for base stealing and was able to read the change in the baseball culture and put in that clause, he would have been shrewd and management would have made a mistake.

Well, I think that the analogy is terrible. By the time of Rickey Henderson's rookie year, two other players (Wills and Brock) had stolen 100 bases, and Rickey had stolen 95 bases in a season in the minors. It was hardly unforeseeable that he'd steal 100 bases in a season. A better analogy would be if, during Rickey Henderson's rookie year, he put in a ten million bonus if the World Trade Centers were destroyed by Saudi Arabians.

If Tellum knows his client is mixing with a crew that specializes in making undectable and quasi-illegal substances, knows that is where baseball is headed (and god knows there was as much notice as there was for run-and-gun baseball), he has made a smart move.

That's where we disagree. There was plenty of notice in 1979 that some people, and Rickey specifically, would be stealing lots of bases; there was no notice in December 2001 that steroids would be an issue.

If they're "spouting off" about stuff from the pre-steroids policy era, they don't need amnesty.

They do if their agent didn't manage to delete boilerplate language that "never in the history of baseball has had to be enforced."

Not at all, for two reasons. First, the boilerplate language doesn't allow the team to terminate the contract. It DOES require the nexus. Second, the amnesty is irrelevant. Selig can't offer amnesty from contract termination. He can only offer amnesty from MLB penalties.

Moreover, I didn't in the original post or in the subsequent post limit amnesty to the "pre-steroids policy era." For that matter, neither has Giambi. Who knows what good stuff he has to say.

I know you didn't limit amnesty to the pre-steroids policy era ("pre-SPE"), but only a handful of players -- the ones who have tested positive -- from the post-SPE need amnesty, and Giambi isn't one of them.

Ratting out other people in exchange for escaping punishment is hardly the sign of a conscience.)

Again, who said anything about 'ratting out.' We went to know when players did them, how much they did, and what nefarious people are supplying the distribution. Besides, i thought you were a proponent of "test the survivors." Had you rather that everything remain under a cloud of mystery so that you can do the "you haven't proved."

You're mistaken; that's your caricature of (IIRC) Treder's position. I'm a proponent of it's-a-personal-matter-and-hence-none-of-anybody's-business.

The only people particularly suffering in the court of public opinion are Bonds, McGwire, and Palmeiro. I already addressed Palmeiro.

They are the only ones caught with needles in their ass. MLB has plenty of stars. If the usage rate is at Dial prediction levels, many of them may have lots of 'splaining to do. You figure at least some are going to get caught.

Actually, Palmeiro was the only one caught. And I can't speak for Chris, but I think he was estimating that the rate was at those levels, back in the pre-SPE, not that it currently is. None of those plenty of stars need amnesty now.

Or maybe your right, maybe no one takes the deal. That would be fine too. As I said, if they get caught, they have had a chance for confession and absolution. They have had it when there would not be any penalty. If they later get caught, there will not be much of a rock to hide under.

Again the broad grant of any amnesty is exactly for those reasons. To be honest, I don't care that much about fileting players. The HoF votes are in the BBWAA's hands. But getting to the truth is of interest. Removing distribution and supply is of huge interest.

Of interest to you. But I'm not questioning why you'd offer amnesty if you were baseball; I'm questioning why any player would take you up on the offer. If a player is currently using steroids, it's presumably both because he doesn't think he's going to be caught and because he thinks he needs them to compete. So why would he admit wrongdoing and give them up, thereby risking at a minimum his reputation? What would he gain out of that?

As a strategy, not testifying relies too much on the investigators not getting anything on you. But Giambi is guilty as sin, and any investigation is going to have him dead to rights. He should operate on the assumption that Mitchell is going to have as much evidence as he needs whether or not Giambi comes forward.

So what? It doesn't matter what investigators "get" on him. Unless there's some evidence that Giambi is still using, nothing Mitchell or anybody else finds out about is relevant to anything. The newspapers already reported several years ago that Giambi testified under oath to using steroids. He took some heat, but since he's not Barry Bonds, he recovered (although he re-opened his mouth and brought some more down on himself temporarily). The Yankees can't void his contract, MLB can't punish him, and he's not getting into the HOF regardless, so the writers can't punish him either.

He gets nothing out of "coming forward." (Again, operating under the assumption that he's not using now.)

I would see the benefits as conscience, reputation, and insurance against future punishment. They're all slightly intangible, but they bear a strong relation to very tangible things.

I would also see the possibility of being a prominent subject of the Mitchell report as more threatening than you would. Ma