|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, May 14, 2012
NEW YORK (AP) Major League Baseball management has fired Shyam Das, the arbitrator who overturned Ryan Braun’s drug suspension in February.
MLB informed Das and the players’ association of its decision last week. Das had been baseball’s permanent arbitrator since 1999, part of what technically is a three-man panel that also includes a representation of management and labor.
‘‘Shyam is the longest-tenured panel chair in our bargaining relationship,’’ union head Michael Weiner said. ‘‘For 13 years, from the beginning to the end of his tenure, he served the parties with professionalism and distinction.’‘
Baseball’s collective bargaining agreement says the arbitrator can be removed by the players’ association or management at any time with written notice.
The sides will now try to select a successor. If they cannot agree, baseball’s collective bargaining agreement calls for them to ask the American Arbitration Association for a list of ‘‘prominent, professional arbitrators.’’ The sides would then alternate striking names from the list until one remains.
Das, a graduate of Harvard and Yale University Law School, also has been an arbitrator for the NFL since 2004 and is scheduled to hear a grievance in the New Orleans Saints bounty case on Wednesday.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: JM Catellier: Is Pedro Martinez a First Ballot Hall of Famer? (61 - 12:19pm, May 21)Last: BooeyNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-21-2013 (12 - 12:19pm, May 21)Last: chemdocNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3626 - 12:19pm, May 21)Last: The Id of SugarBear BlanksNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1014 - 12:18pm, May 21)Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)Newsblog: Living up to expectorations: The Alex Sanabia spitball clip (4 - 12:17pm, May 21)Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)Newsblog: Anatomy of the Red Sox batting order - WEEI | Rob Bradford (5 - 12:16pm, May 21)Last: villageidiomNewsblog: Washington Post: Tom Boswell: Yankees Are Monuments To Baseball Success (9 - 12:16pm, May 21)Last: JE (Jason Epstein)Newsblog: Posnanski: Albert Pujols doesn't matter anymore (36 - 12:14pm, May 21)Last: Shooty is in the Trust TreeNewsblog: Slate: The Dreaded C-Word (9 - 12:02pm, May 21)Last: botemanNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 21, 2013 (1 - 12:00pm, May 21)Last: JJ1986Newsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (26 - 11:57am, May 21)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag AirlinesNewsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (358 - 11:55am, May 21)Last: JDLkNewsblog: Barry Bonds: Detroit Tigers' Miguel Cabrera 'the best' ... but not better than me (31 - 11:51am, May 21)Last: BooeyNewsblog: Sherman: Mets' roster of rubbish makes it impossible to evaluate Collins (42 - 11:48am, May 21)Last: Misirlou is bad, he's nationwideNewsblog: Hal Steinbrenner calls tickets 'affordable' (35 - 11:30am, May 21)Last: McCoy Wilfong for Money
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: May 14, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4131245)Surprised it took this long.
Both sides asked him not to write anything down yet, you ####### #######.
OK, the decision was just a hypertechnical abuse of power then, if you insist.
Sadly, insubordination like this is why Honest Bud prefers to deal with his cronies on important matters. Rest assured Carl Pohlad or George Mitchell would have come to the correct conclusions.
I do think the risk of chilling independent decision making is something to worry about generally, but Das' decision was so preposterous on balance that everyone is better off with him being removed from future decisions.
Also, pretty sure MLBPA and MLB have exactly equal and coextensive ability to remove the arbiter. So while I'm generally all for Bud-bashing this does not appear an appropriate situation to do so.
From the AP story as posted on ESPN:
MLB just dropped the Elizer Alfonzo suspension because the same procedural things happened in that case as well. Note, this was not part of an appeal. MLB just decided to drop the suspension. Seems like a curious move if they truly believe it to be a "poorly considered hypertechnical abuse of power."
His decision was based on the rules.
That said, MLB was within their rights to fire him, per the CBA. I'm not seeing how this "chills independent decisionmaking." The players had the right to remove him also, for any reason.
That was Peter Seitz. They also fired Tom Roberts after he ruled against them in Collusion I. George Nicolau managed to make it through Collusion II, but once he ruled for Steve Howe on the drug suspension, he was gone. Every time there is a notable decision, the arbitrator is removed.
Seems worth noting that the Players Union has never invoked their power to remove the arbitrator while MLB has done it several times.
I don't think it is. Contractual rights exist to permit the beneficiary of such rights to gain advantage. It's not laudable to refrain from exercising contractual rights any more so than it is lamentable to exercise such rights. It's MLB and the MLBPA didn't want the other to have the ability to remove the arbitrator, they shouldn't have put it in the contract.
That was Peter Seitz. They also fired Tom Roberts after he ruled against them in Collusion I. George Nicolau managed to make it through Collusion II, but once he ruled for Steve Howe on the drug suspension, he was gone. Every time there is a notable decision, the arbitrator is removed.
If only we could do that to about five Supreme Court justices. (smile)
That's what Democrats use the confirmation hearings for.
If only we could do that to about five Supreme Court justices. (smile)
If only we could do that about BBTF ######## who try to turn every thread into a political thread.
Well, more accurately, it's his interpretation of the rules. That is not the same thing (a reality I assume you realize). Stated more accurately, it is pretty obvious that there is something contributing to the decision that is beyond the written rules themselves, and that 'something' else is why people feel makes this decision quite understandable.
If you think the rules themselves mandate the decision, you have a version of the rules with a lot more clarity than has been published elsewhere.
I'm not seeing how this "chills independent decisionmaking." The players had the right to remove him also, for any reason.
The comment made was that this chilling is a valid concern whenever you fire an arbitrator, but on these facts and given this contractual clause, it is not really one here. Seems like you agree with that, in the end.
MLB just dropped the Elizer Alfonzo suspension because the same procedural things happened in that case as well. Note, this was not part of an appeal. MLB just decided to drop the suspension. Seems like a curious move if they truly believe it to be a "poorly considered hypertechnical abuse of power."
I think it emphasizes the point made above about the danger of bad decisions being precedents, actually. It does not mean the decision itself was correct. Since they have reportedly amended the rules since the Braun decision, it seems a lot more likely that Alfonzo's 50 games served was determined to be sufficient as part of the amended rules.
Braun's positive test was leaked by someone his legal team had given the information to.
Yeah, that would do wonders for the rule of law. <not laughing>
I can't remember which Justice said something like 'we're not final because we are correct; we are correct because we are final' but I think it applies here too.
We will never know the basis of Das' decision. As an arbitrator myself who has seen newspaper articles absolutely butcher the actual rationale used in my own awards, I take with a huge grain of salt anyone who thinks any award that they haven't read is poorly considered or a hypertechnical reading of a CBA. That is even more true when the second and third hand information being provided is filtered not through a journalist specializing in court proceedings, but rather a sports reporter who quotes cliches and tells of hits, runs, and errors rather than just cause in their day-to-day life. Heaping even more salt onto it is my personal knowledge that Shyam Das is one of the most respected labor arbitrators in the country and whose decisions are often cited by arbitration scholars.
What is the source of this statement?
Also, I think you would acknowledge that even the strongest thinkers make mistakes sometimes, for various reasons.
Those two things being true, we in the public have a choice of making our best assessment based on what is reported and what we can intuit from it, or throwing our hands up and shrugging. I do generally agree with you that there are a lot of risks about making our own assessments in these cases (and didn't make the characterization above about the decision, though I did include it in a response and do believe it is hard to justify based on what has been reported).
Especially when one of the parties both speaks and acts as if the decision is not a reasonable one (as MLB has here), I think it becomes somewhat more understandable to try and interpret what happened.
Might there be different language or facts than has been reported? Sure. Might they make the decision seem consistent with what we know about the intent of the agreement and the interests it is supposed to protect? Sure. I'm just not sure that is the more likely scenario here, other than faith in Das....which is not unreasonable, just farther than I would care to go.
Here, in a widely linked article during/after the #### storm:
But hey, why not blame MLB for the leak? They are the evil boogeymen after all.
I just had a longer response eaten by the new 'login' bug, but I'll try again.
I appreciate the tone of your nuanced response and agree with much of it. But in looking at MLBs response, my view is colored by their similar past actions. As noted above, Seitz was fired in the middle of Messersmith, Roberts immediately after Collusion I, and Nicolau immediately after Howe. Richard Bloch was fired after the Royals cocaine case. Ray Goetz was fired after Fergie Jenkins'. These are some of the most notable members of the small community of labor arbitrators and includes several Past Presidents of the National Academy of Arbitrators. Like the boy who cried 'wolf,' if the League speaks and acts as if every decision that goes against them is unreasonable, doing so is less compelling with each repeat.
What is this something? We know the written rules regarding the chain of custody (see here). NYT reported some of the basic facts of the case (e.g., the urine sample was collected at 5 pm, there were a number of FedEx offices until 9 pm although the last FedEx flight out of MIL left at 5 pm) needed to interpret it against the established rules. It seems like an open question of whether Das interpreted these procedures fairly and whether the collector followed the chain of custody procedures regarding temporary storage.
And Bonds' GJ stuff was leaked by one of his lawyers.
Maybe MLB could ask Harriet Miers to be the new arbitrator. I hear she has some time on her hands...
Agreed---and that is why we need to do more than simply say he based his decision on the rules, because there isn't a rule that clearly and explicitly covers the situation with Braun. What led him to his conclusion is the 'something else' and it's fine for someone to agree with where he went, but too simplistic to say 'the rules say so'
makes more sense than anything else
I hear you; I think the great majority of the time MLB behaves poorly and have little faith in them. I also, based on what we've heard thus far, think the 'bad actor' may this time have encountered an arbitrator who made a poor decision.
No; it was leaked by Troy Ellerman, who was a lawyer for Conte and Valente - but not for Bonds.
And Ellerman's conduct was particularly egregious because, while he was leaking the transcripts (of Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, and Montgomery), he was complaining to a federal judge about the leaks -- and he even filed a motion to dismiss the charges... on the basis that the disclosures compromised a fair trial for his client.
Suffice to say he is no longer licensed to practice law.
Sounds like a reasonable solution for a league that couldn't be bothered to maintain a chain of custody.
Welcome to the zany land of Moursundia, where every moment not spent stealing movies is spent as a political operative trying to hijack threads.
20. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 14, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4131356)
21. Liver of blaspheming 'zop Posted: May 14, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4131357)
25. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 14, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4131365)
40. Moneyball can't buy you love (The Inimitable Joey B.) Posted: May 15, 2012 at 08:35 AM (#4131669)
Nothing like having three of four literalminded Primates always ready to pounce. At least Ray apparently saw the (smile) part.
It was a bad joke, too.
You and snapper are responsible for somewhere between 50 and 75% of the political hijacks. Wait for the inevitable Repoz pinata thread.
Wow. That's...bold
Hey, lookit that! Justice!
Coming up next on Eyeclueless News, Prince Fielder advises the fatties out there to eat a salad once in a while.
Coming up next on Eyeclueless News, Prince Fielder advises the fatties out there to eat a salad once in a while.
And in Prince Joey's case, he's lecturing fatties who are 6' tall and 160 lbs.
I find this awesome btw. It's like a reverse draft. The world needs more drafts, they are fun.
Probably because he didn't have even a fig leaf in those cases.
Because the idea that something actually went actionably wrong in one out of 37 cases is simply too insane to consider.
Unless you're being drafted into the army, then not so much.
What's a Repoz pinata thread? Is that the one where we try to guess the 50 most likely things to fall out of a Repoz Pinata?
It's an article or column posted by Repoz that's all but guaranteed to elicit either unanimous snark or an off-topic "hijack", which in turn affords certain brown diaper babies a chance to get all indignant about the "hijack" instead of just ignoring it.
Surely half of them are the only 25 flexidiscs ever pressed of the Judys' "Guyana Punch."
I certainly consider it possible.
What I haven't heard are any facts suggesting it actually happened in Braun's case.
The thing is, Shyam Das disagrees with you, and has been precluded from telling us why. So how could you have heard these facts you wish for? My point was that I haven't heard any facts supporting the suggestion that the arbitrator is some power-tripping loon who's been looking for any pretext to stick it to MLB since he took the job thirteen years ago. (And I know that you're not the one who suggested that.)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main