MLBPA ranking is apparently inversely related to playing time. Carl Pavano is president.

Giambi "I get tested more than most"

Question: Which players get tested most often
Answer: Those who have failed drug tests

Hmmm...

Edit:

Oooh... now I can correct my spelking mistakes!

Whether it came out of MLB, from the drug-testing place

Isn't there another possibility for where the leak came from, Mike?

Giambi was saying he was tested more than most in 2005, too. His involvement in the BALCO trial is probable cause for testing, and that's why he and Bonds are tested so often, not because they failed tests last year.

Isn't there another possibility for where the leak came from, Mike?

Yeah, it's also possible that Joe Wilson was the source of the Plame leak.

I was pretty sure that under the terms of the agreement that was hashed out between the MLBPA and MLB that they could only test more based on failed tests not "probable cause" from a leaked Grand Jury testimony which MLB should never have seen.

It has nothing to do with the leaked testimony. It was the fact that he was called to testify at all.

It's not an arrest, it's a drug test. And if you're being called to testify before a Grand Jury about a steroids distribution ring, that qualifies as a reason to test you.

Re: #5, MLB did win the right to probable cause testing in the Curtis Strong affair. A whole pile of players were subject to random testing for the rest of their careers.

Whether they lost this under the current agreement is not clear to me. I don't think it's explicitly addressed. I'd bet that MLB isn't interested in pushing the issue though.

I don't remember anything in the agreement about "probable cause." This had to be collectively bargained, and I would be shocked in MLBPA let the owners have a fudge clause in the contract that allowed them to increase testing arbitrarily.

From the old one:

1. In the event that any HPAC member has information that gives
him/her reasonable cause to believe that a Player has, in the previous
12-month period, engaged in the use, possession, sale or distribution of
a Prohibited Substance, such member shall immediately request a
meeting (or conference call) to present such information to the other
HPAC members. If HPAC agrees by a majority vote that such reasonable
cause exists, the Player will be subject to immediate testing, to
take place no later than 48 hours after such vote, in accordance with the
Collection Procedures and Testing Protocols set forth in Addendum A
hereto.

Worst pun ever.

all yall that think players should be talking to mitchell etc

IF the players are having VERY good reasons to worry that supposed to be confidential info is/will be leaked

WHY you think the players should/would trust anyone?

ESPECIALLY if all the talk about the yankees trying to get out of giambi's contract is all true

you don't think that damon/myers they saying what all the other players thinking???

Thanks Dan,

This confuses me though. I thought that the clause you're referring to applied to the agreement that Uberroth cancelled. I'm pretty sure the arbitration ruling permitting probable cause testing came down after Uberroth cancelled the agreement.

Matt, the ruling in question came out of Uberroth's attempts to discipline Keith Hernandez et al.

Joaquim Andujar, Dale Berra, Enos Cabell, Keith Hernandez, Jeff Leonard, Dave Parker and Lonnie Smith were (among other things) ordered to donate 10% of their salary to charity or they'd be suspended for a year. (This was supposedly to get around rulings on how much a player could be fined. And any suspensions that came out would have been for failure to comply with the commissioner's orders, not for drug use. Cute concept, but in reading about the arbitrator's rulings, I got the impression that he was not amused with this attempt to evade the spirit of the previous rulings.)

Same for Al Holland, Lee Lacy, Larry Sorenson and Claudell Washington (except it was "only" 5%)

Dusty Baker, Gary Matthews, Tim Raines, Vida Blue, Dickie Noles, Daryl Sconiers, Manny Sarmiento, Derrel Thomas, Alan Wiggins and Rod Scurry were required to agree to random drug testing for the rest of their careers.

All clubs were forbidden from dealing with John Milner and Uberroth deferred judgement against Mike Norris -- who was
facing criminal charges.

The only part of this that the arbitrator didn't strike down was the requirement for testing -- MLB has the right to
require testing of any player whose drug use is a matter of public record.

And when it comes to Giambi, I'm pretty sure that his (admittedly leaked) testimony places his steroid use in the public record.

How all of this plays out I'm not certain unless the current policy explicitly over-rides previous arbitration rulings (and it may well do so -- Devil's in the details and all that)

But as I said upthread, I doubt MLB's interested in pushing the issue. I'm sure Giambi believes he's being tested more than most players. No idea if it's true though.

I find it interesting that right after Giambi calls out MLB on drugs that a positive test for him is leaked. If I was a MLB player I'd be very angry at MLB over this. If no one is fired or new assurances aren't put into place then the next labour agreement could be an ugly one. It would be a shame after all the goodwill both sides have built up over the past few years to have it tossed away in a fit of spite by MLB.

There was goodwill built up?

I find it interesting that right after Giambi calls out MLB on drugs that a positive test for him is leaked.

That was my reaction, too. Seems quite plausible that the powers-that-be in MLB saw Giambi's statements and chose to punish him with the leak. If MLB is looking to create a chilling effect on players who talk to the media about the steroid problem, this would be a great way to do it.

That's the language of the current agreement also, Dan. That's straight out of the CBA's Attachment 18, Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program.

I wouldn't be surprised if the leak came from the Yankees since they are supposedly trying to get out of his contract again. Of course if that is the case it will probably backfire on them and they may have to pay him a penalty (ok, probably not that far)

That would be sweet if the MLBPA decided to play hardball over this.

I wouldn't be surprised if the leak came from the Yankees since they are supposedly trying to get out of his contract again. Of course if that is the case it will probably backfire on them and they may have to pay him a penalty (ok, probably not that far)

But the team isn't informed, so somebody has to leak it to the Yankees first in that case.

The team isn't informed? how does that work?

The team isn't informed? how does that work?

In this case, apparently not very well.