??

I hadn't realized that bans were ever a consideration.

And, of course, every single writer who ever mentions possible punishment for the people mentioned in the Mitchell Report never bother to read the CBA, which specifically and clearly outlines what a player can be disciplined for.

- Player Fails to Comply with Drug Testing Program
- Player Test Positive for a Prohibited Substance
- Conviction for the Possession or Use of Prohibited Substance
- Participation in the Sale or Distribution of Prohibited Substance

The owners have an amazingly poor record at trying to invoke punishments that aren't allowed by the CBA and willful violations have legal consequences. The only exception, I guess, is for players in the 4th category, that may have helped their teammates obtain the drugs, which is a different matter.

Given Mitchell's position on this (with which I agree), why didn't Selig announce beforehand that no suspensions would result from the Mitchell Report? If he had done so, might Mitchell have gotten more cooperation from current players? And would that have produced a better report?

- Conviction for the Possession or Use of Prohibited Substance

The problem with this is that Selig handed a 50-game suspension to Grimsley when he was arrested (but <u>not</u> yet convicted) and, as far as I know, the MLBPA never protested it. The suspension itself was moot because Grimsley was released and will likely never be employed in MLB again, but I was surprised that the MLBPA didn't raise concerns about the precedent that was being set with that move.

The owners have an amazingly poor record at trying to invoke punishments that aren't allowed by the CBA and willful violations have legal consequences.

I see this posted, but it is not true. The commissioners office has always been able to suspend players under BIOG for drug violations under any CBA, including the present one.

Arbitrators have overturned the lifetime bans or the suspensions that are disproportionate for similar offenses.

It is completely erroneous to say the Commissioner lacks the power (Not that you said it, but some of the zealots have said this before). It is largely untrue that they have had a bad record.

Bans???

gotta love the media. Toughest testing in professional sports, and they are still not happy. They want bans. Why does anybody even read SI anymore. Just horribly biased journalism. They should just stick to porn. course they suck at that too.

It is completely erroneous to say the Commissioner lacks the power (Not that you said it, but some of the zealots have said this before). It is largely untrue that they have had a bad record.

But we're not taking about vague powers, we're taking about disobeying the clearly outlined powers in the CBA. I would think there's a clear difference between the commissioner using his authority to suspend and ban players when there's a gray untested area, as in the 80s, and the commissioner using his authority to suspend and ban players when there's clear, explicit language in a contract between the players and the employers. Then, I'm not a lawyer, that's just my view of it.

I am 100% confident that Selig will choose the most incorrect path to follow.

But we're not taking about vague powers, we're taking about disobeying the clearly outlined powers in the CBA.

As has been mentioned, the Commissioner has issued suspensions pursuant to BIOG under the current CBA. Most of those have gone unchallenged. A few have stated they would appeal. I'm not sure if they did, but I am not aware of any disposition where the BIOG power has not been upheld.

That's that then. There's no reason to mention the Mitchell Report ever again. I'm glad that's over.

The problem with this is that Selig handed a 50-game suspension to Grimsley when he was arrested (but not yet convicted) and, as far as I know, the MLBPA never protested it. The suspension itself was moot because Grimsley was released and will likely never be employed in MLB again, but I was surprised that the MLBPA didn't raise concerns about the precedent that was being set with that move.

Incorrect. The MLBPA did in fact grieve it.

The suspension was moot because Grimsley asked for, and was granted, his release, and no other team tried to sign him. So the only issue was his remaining salary for the year. It was settled, rather than decided, with the team agreeing to pay the money, but to charity rather than to Grimsley.

As has been mentioned, the Commissioner has issued suspensions pursuant to BIOG under the current CBA.

It has? I'm aware of only two, Gibbons and Guillen. Gibbons decided not to appeal; Guillen is doing so.

Incorrect. The MLBPA did in fact grieve it.

Thanks for the correction, David. I somehow missed that.

Commissioner Bud Selig is not believed to be close to making a final determination on penalties,

There's a surprise. A final what? The guy doesn't know the meaning of the word. I mean, why resolve anything when you can let it fester. We should just call the guy Uncle Fester.

But we're not taking about vague powers, we're taking about disobeying the clearly outlined powers in the CBA. I would think there's a clear difference between the commissioner using his authority to suspend and ban players when there's a gray untested area, as in the 80s, and the commissioner using his authority to suspend and ban players when there's clear, explicit language in a contract between the players and the employers. Then, I'm not a lawyer, that's just my view of it.

This is not really the case, interpretively. The Commissioner has always had the ability to act in the 'best interests' and can impose whatever sanction he wants under that power. The specific drug testing policy is an additional basis for punishment, not an exclusive one which obviates other powers.

The MLBPA has claimed it will protest if the Commisioner uses the power this way, but there's no question that he still possesses this ability and the analyses I've read suggest the union knows it can't actually do anything about it.

Shyam Das has managed to remain the "permanent" arbitrator for MLB/MLPAA grievances much longer than most of his predecessors (one of whom, Tom Roberts of Collusion I, just died two weeks ago) in part because he rarely has decided cases. Instead, he has encouraged settlement and held awards until the parties reach their own resolution. But my hunch is that, if pushed, pkb33's interpretation is incorrect. As a basic rule of contractual interpretation, an express but limited provision of a CBA will trump a broad but undefined grant of authority where there is a conflict between the two.

This is not really the case, interpretively. The Commissioner has always had the ability to act in the 'best interests' and can impose whatever sanction he wants under that power. The specific drug testing policy is an additional basis for punishment, not an exclusive one which obviates other powers.

I don't know what your basis for this claim is. I'm pretty sure that in fact it is an exclusive one, and I think the actual language of the CBA makes that abundantly clear. If I were an arbitrator, I'd laugh the claim out of the room if Selig tried to claim he could ignore specifically negotiated provisions and do whatever the hell he wanted. And of course even to the extent he can exercise his BIOB power, he absolutely can't "impose whatever sanction he wants," and there's long, firmly established precedent on that. As Mr. Howe could tell you.

To the extent that he can impose penalties on players in the Mitchell Report which don't match the CBA, it's because whatever actions he's penalizing them for predate the PED provisions of the CBA.

That's that then. There's no reason to mention the Mitchell Report ever again. I'm glad that's over.

And...there's no reason to worry about drugs in baseball ever again!

From Bad Time Charlie Schumer...

"This bill is good for every parent, every coach and every athlete who cares about kicking drugs out of sports for good," he said.

Stink

Shyam Das has managed to remain the "permanent" arbitrator for MLB/MLPAA grievances much longer than most of his predecessors (one of whom, Tom Roberts of Collusion I, just died two weeks ago) in part because he rarely has decided cases. Instead, he has encouraged settlement and held awards until the parties reach their own resolution.

You can say that again. I believe Sidney Ponson's grievance against the Orioles now dates back almost three years.