Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Passan: Alex Rodriguez flails in his final, desperate swing

Guys, I’m serious, Neifi Perez is going to have a legacy.

When Neifi Perez tested positive three times in a short period for the same drug, it counted as three positive tests, even if it was for the same substance. Shyam Das, the arbitrator at the time, held that each positive test was a violation subject to separate discipline. This, union sources said, infuriated the MLBPA to the point that in the next round of collective bargaining, the joint drug agreement included a provision that a player could not be penalized more than once for the same PED but could be subject to multiple penalties if one test showed testosterone and another two weeks later human chorionic gonadotropin.

From the start, MLB argued that the Neifi Perez precedent allowed the league to pursue what amounted to three separate cases against Rodriguez. Moreover, rather than the standard punishment based on rule 7(A) of the JDA, which outlines the standard 50/100/lifetime punishment, Rodriguez would be subject to rule 7(G), a catch-all standard that dealt with violations of the program outside of the typical positive test.

It’s an important distinction. While much post-decision curiosity focused on the league’s seeming rewriting of the JDA, the union agreed 7(G) was the proper rule to mete out discipline, lest Rodriguez be punished under 7(A) and get 50 games for HGH, 100 for testosterone and be banned for life because of IGF-1.

The broadness of 7(G)‘s “just cause” standard allowed MLB to pursue the awkward 211-game penalty and for Horowitz to hand out the largest non-lifetime ban of any kind in baseball history due to “the most egregious violations of the JDA reported to date.”

Even without a single positive test, MLB used 7(G) to argue Rodriguez’s continuous use of PEDs more than covered the threshold of a non-analytical positive, a position Horowitz agreed with thanks to the testimony of Bosch and the messages that corroborated his testimony. It was far from a safe case. Whereas with positive drug tests and 7(A) discipline the league almost always wins, sources from both sides of the case believe enough burden and risk exist with 7(G) to prevent the league from taking the Rodriguez precedent and turning it into a new standard meant to abuse the JDA.

Not only would it ruin the begrudgingly respectful labor relationship that has kept baseball work stoppage-free going on two decades, it would apply to every case the sort of comportment – not just using PEDs and lying about it but obstructing the case – that simply has not existed before.

The District Attorney Posted: January 14, 2014 at 01:24 PM | 47 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: alex rodriguez, legal, ped, yankees

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. Chris Needham Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4638746)
Here's the thing that gets me. ARod, very likely is guilty as sin. We can have disagreements about the standards MLB used to collect the evidence, but at the end of the day, we all know he likely took what he believed were PEDs.

While he's certainly within his legal rights to run through the process, the utter selfishness of his actions are crazy. The players association went along with a lot of the other punishments, in part, because the settlements were basically conducted in a way that didn't really establish precedent and settle unsettled policies. But because ARod was unwilling to settle in any meaningful way, he's created new precedent that may harm other players -- all while clearly being guilty. So he's screwed over the other players not just in his usage essentially helping to take money out of their pockets, but in by locking in decisions and procedures that could harm future players -- or may have been decided in different directions had a more reasonable and sympathetic test case come forward.

Yes, MLB has done some shady crap. But I don't see enough true scorn or thought about how much ARod has screwed over his own coworkers. If MLB has run roughshod over the players, it's not because Bud is evil or the PA ineffectual, it's because of this guy's actions. There are 100 villains in this whole damn story, but he's certainly the biggest.
   2. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4638755)
he's created new precedent that may harm other players


How has he created new precedent? Either the CBA/JDA is binding or it isn't. Don't A-Rod's actions and the ensuing punishment effectively create punishments for this series of offenses?

A-Rod is a dirtbag, I don't dispute that and I'm enjoying seeing him go down. For my money the MLBPA is the organization I have a problem with here. I'm not a lawyer but it sure doesn't look like they have defended their member in the appropriate fashion.
   3. Chris Needham Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4638763)
Because by running through the entirety of the process (something, yes, he's entitled to do) he's formalized answers to all kinds of questions and unsettled policies. If he had settled like Braun did, those unsettled answers would be available to other players in the future -- and, perhaps (yes, a weasel word), with someone else, there may have been a different determination.
   4. vivaelpujols Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4638775)
ARod Think Factory.
   5. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4638779)
What kind of history is there on players suing the MLBPA? Is A-Rod the first?
   6. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4638786)
Because by running through the entirety of the process (something, yes, he's entitled to do) he's formalized answers to all kinds of questions and unsettled policies. If he had settled like Braun did, those unsettled answers would be available to other players in the future -- and, perhaps (yes, a weasel word), with someone else, there may have been a different determination.


This doesn't make any sense to me. Basically what you are saying (or accusing) is that A-Rod was not treated fairly by MLB/Horowitz/MLBPA. If that's the case the fault does not lay with A-Rod it lays with those entities who did not treat him fairly. As you note regardless of what he has done A-Rod has a due process right and deserves to be treated just like anyone else.

(none of which is meant to be a defense of A-Rod who certainly has been juiced like an overripe orange)
   7. Swedish Chef Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4638787)
What kind of history is there on players suing the MLBPA? Is A-Rod the first?

In some other A-Rod thread someone wrote about Garvey's long-running suit against them for a cut of the collusion proceeds.
   8. Chris Needham Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4638794)
[6] I'm loaded up with cold medicine, so excuse my usual incoherence. No, ARod was treated fairly by the process, but I'm saying that he just should've sucked it up and taken a settlement as punishment like the other players did. Sure, he's well within his rights to go through all this, but it's also a terribly selfish act for someone who is guilty and has to know he's guilty, as he's establishing all kinds of precedents that are working against the players. Whereas maybe someone down the road who's less obviously guilty may have had some of those precedents be established in favor of the players.
   9. GregD Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4638795)
[6] I'm loaded up with cold medicine, so excuse my usual incoherence. No, ARod was treated fairly by the process, but I'm saying that he just should've sucked it up and taken a settlement as punishment like the other players did. Sure, he's well within his rights to go through all this, but it's also a terribly selfish act for someone who is guilty and has to know he's guilty, as he's establishing all kinds of precedents that are working against the players. Whereas maybe someone down the road who's less obviously guilty may have had some of those precedents be established in favor of the players.
Wouldn't his punishment establish those precedents? Aren't those precedents now a given? And so the only thing his court appeal can do is 1) affirm that they are a given, in which case nothing is worse or 2) establish that they aren't a given?

Or--I am being sincere here--is there a different level power given precedents that have been adjudicated than ones that have simply been accepted and implemented by both sides?
   10. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 14, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4638796)
I won't keep going on this because it's not worth it but these two statements cannot possibly be true.

ARod was treated fairly by the process



Whereas maybe someone down the road who's less obviously guilty may have had some of those precedents be established in favor of the players


If he was treated fairly then the outcome is the same if this had been Derek Jeter accused of the same things. If the outcome would have been different with someone other than A-Rod then A-Rod was not treated fairly (assuming the same facts would have existed for the other fictional player);

   11. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4638797)
ARod Think Factory.


Do you think Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame?
   12. Chris Needham Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4638803)
[9] I'm not so much referring to the Federal court issue. I'm not a lawyer, but almost nobody's giving that a snowball's chance of moving anywhere.... But I'm talking about the arbitration process. Just like the Neifi Perez case was used as precedent for establish punishments in this case, the ARod decision can and will be used in future JDA decisions -- likely giving MLB more power than the Players' Association had really imagined they could wield.

My understanding (and I'm willing to be corrected on this) is that Braun's settlement of 50+12 is not precedent-establishing for these purposes. Had ARod settled, then some of the questions about which section of the JDA are applicable and how much power MLB can wield would still essentially be open questions. Instead, all those avenues are shut off with one guy that clearly was guilty and clearly has zero real support from the rank and file members of the PA. Yes, again, not excusing MLB's lust for power... but ARod did nobody (including himself) any favors with any of his actions.
   13. madvillain Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4638804)

Do you think Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame?


Better yet, will Spurs make Europe?
   14. Chris Needham Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4638806)
[10] I don't think that's true. Not everything is black and white, and not every case has the same pattern of facts or the same lingering questions. I mean, yeah, we'd like to think that justice is blind, but... well.... that's not really the way it works.
   15. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4638807)
This doesn't make any sense to me. Basically what you are saying (or accusing) is that A-Rod was not treated fairly by MLB/Horowitz/MLBPA. If that's the case the fault does not lay with A-Rod it lays with those entities who did not treat him fairly. As you note regardless of what he has done A-Rod has a due process right and deserves to be treated just like anyone else.


I guess the point is that Arod knew he would be treated unfairly, so he should have given up his right to appeal so that the precedent would be set by a ruling on some other player who would not be treated unfairly.

In which case all the other suspended players seem kind of cowardly too. How about all-american boy Ryan Braun? He should have been the one to go through the whole process and get the arbitrary punishment.
   16. Chris Needham Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4638808)
Yep. That's exactly it. Nailed it.
   17. Nasty Nate Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4638815)
ARod Think Factory.


Do you think Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame?


Or more precisely, what do you think of Scoops MaGoots of the Nowheresville Herald and his opinion on whether Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame?
   18. Manny Coon Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4638817)
Is there any indication MLB was actually willing to settle with AROD for a reasonable amount of games? The rumors from the very start of the scandal were always that MLB was pushing for a lifetime ban or least a very long suspension.
   19. The District Attorney Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4638824)
Is there any indication MLB was actually willing to settle with AROD for a reasonable amount of games? The rumors from the very start of the scandal were always that MLB was pushing for a lifetime ban or least a very long suspension.
Olney reported and Calcaterra confirmed that before MLB flipped Bosch, "A-Rod could have made a deal for a substantially shorter suspension than he ultimately received. Possibly as low as 50 games."

I think it's hard to deny that the union wouldn't have exactly picked out A-Rod to be the test case to determine what all this ambiguous language meant¹. And I do think that it affected the ultimate decision that A-Rod was "unsympathetic" for several reasons -- attempting to buy witnesses (which Horowitz basically said cancelled out MLB's attempts to do the same); constant leaks during the hearing (again, cancelling out the same bad behavior by MLB according to Horowitz); actually storming out of the hearing in anger, which I'm sure Horowitz loved; and just generally being a great player who could serve as more of a "symbol". Now, future targets can still say that they didn't engage in a coverup and generally act like asshats, so they shouldn't be treated like A-Rod. But, now they have to prove a distinction that they didn't necessarily have to prove before.

¹ And as we know, Weiner advised him to settle.
   20. AROM Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4638827)
One thing I'd like to see is no relief for the teams in a suspension situation. If your 25 million dollar slugger is suspended, player gets nothing, team is on the hook for the whole salary to be paid to league approved charity (Sorry, the Steinbrenners donating to The Human Fund doesn't work). Luxury tax calculations still apply to all of this money.

That would help to further curb roid use by players, as teams would be more thorough in investigating whether or not a player is using, and discounting salary offers for high risk players.
   21. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4638830)

I guess the point is that Arod knew he would be treated unfairly, so he should have given up his right to appeal so that the precedent would be set by a ruling on some other player who would not be treated unfairly.


If that's the case then personally I have a much bigger problem with the "system" being unfair than with A-Rod availing himself of his rights. If MLBPA wanted to make sure future members are treated fairly they should have gone to bat for the centaur.
   22. dlf Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4638834)
Or--I am being sincere here--is there a different level power given precedents that have been adjudicated than ones that have simply been accepted and implemented by both sides?


Most settlements -- and according to Horowitz, all of the Biogenesis settlements -- contain a 'non-precedential' provision saying that neither union nor management can use the terms of the particular settlement to support or rebut proposed discipline in a subsequent case. By going to arbitration, Rodriguez's case now serves as pursuasive authority in future cases between MLB and MLBPA.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4638839)
One thing I'd like to see is no relief for the teams in a suspension situation. If your 25 million dollar slugger is suspended, player gets nothing, team is on the hook for the whole salary to be paid to league approved charity (Sorry, the Steinbrenners donating to The Human Fund doesn't work). Luxury tax calculations still apply to all of this money.

Concur 100%.
   24. Chris Needham Posted: January 14, 2014 at 03:52 PM (#4638841)
Charity is a nice stroke, but why not send it back to the players? Figure out some sort of share system to give it back to them, since the money's essentially coming from them. Let ARod buy a bunch of steak dinners for the players.
   25. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 14, 2014 at 04:01 PM (#4638855)
Charity is a nice stroke, but why not send it back to the players?


I don't think it makes sense for the players to benefit either from an enforcement policy or from a PR standpoint. Although as I think about it this could create a culture where players are encouraged to call out teammates they know to be using. This could arguably be a benefit.

I think from a PR standpoint giving money to an anti-PED charity is a no brainer.
   26. GregD Posted: January 14, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4638868)
Most settlements -- and according to Horowitz, all of the Biogenesis settlements -- contain a 'non-precedential' provision saying that neither union nor management can use the terms of the particular settlement to support or rebut proposed discipline in a subsequent case. By going to arbitration, Rodriguez's case now serves as pursuasive authority in future cases between MLB and MLBPA.
Okay, so if A-Rod had negotiated a settlement then it would presumably not have counted as a precedent? But if he had accepted either the first suspension or the arbitrators' ruling then it would be a precedent? So the criticism on this ground can only be that he did not make a deal, not that he continued to fight once he failed to make a deal? And criticism of his failure to make a deal depends on what deal he had available, something about which we have only deeply imperfect knowledge since any info would be highly unreliable.

So I could sign on to this argument: If A-Rod had a good deal offered to him--which we will never reliably know--then she should have taken it both because it would have been in his self-interest and also have avoided a bad precedent.
   27. Spahn Insane Posted: January 14, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4638892)
One thing I'd like to see is no relief for the teams in a suspension situation. If your 25 million dollar slugger is suspended, player gets nothing, team is on the hook for the whole salary to be paid to league approved charity (Sorry, the Steinbrenners donating to The Human Fund doesn't work). Luxury tax calculations still apply to all of this money.

Hear, hear.
   28. Walt Davis Posted: January 14, 2014 at 08:50 PM (#4639106)
Olney reported and Calcaterra confirmed that before MLB flipped Bosch, "A-Rod could have made a deal for a substantially shorter suspension than he ultimately received. Possibly as low as 50 games."


I hadn't seen those. But other than Braun, did any other players accept a deal before Bosch was flipped? Braun was the only one announced before the "big day".
   29. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 14, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4639114)
Charity is a nice stroke, but why not send it back to the players?


Minor league umpire pension fund.
   30. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 14, 2014 at 09:06 PM (#4639115)
At the very least, the suspended player's salary should still count against the cap, even if the team doesn't actually have to pay it to anyone. That would be enough to remove (much of) the incentive to overly pursue and/or frame players with unwanted contracts.
   31. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 09:57 PM (#4639136)
One thing I'd like to see is no relief for the teams in a suspension situation. If your 25 million dollar slugger is suspended, player gets nothing, team is on the hook for the whole salary to be paid to league approved charity (Sorry, the Steinbrenners donating to The Human Fund doesn't work). Luxury tax calculations still apply to all of this money.


Yes, this is what truly vexes people - the decision doesn't do enough to screw the Yankees.
   32. ptodd Posted: January 15, 2014 at 01:49 AM (#4639230)
But because ARod was unwilling to settle in any meaningful way, he's created new precedent that may harm other players -- all while clearly being guilty.


Arod was unwilling to settle? Maybe if MLB had offered him the same deals as the others he would have. However, they offered him 211 games. When Arod chose arbitration, they dropped it to 162 which coincidentally what the arbitrator ruled.

Unlike a positive test, there is no physical evidence Arod used anything illegal. We have Bosch who was bought by MLB for his testimony (and you can bet he was coached on what to say) and that's it. The records and texts don't stand alone and require Bosch interpretation of what they meant or who they referred to. The records were not even originals and had passed through a dubious chain of custody. Bosch was not required to give up his drug sources so for all we know he was selling Arod and other players beetle juice, and based on Arods performance since 2010, there is no suggestion his performance was enhanced by anything Bosch gave him.
   33. ptodd Posted: January 15, 2014 at 01:54 AM (#4639233)
Olney reported and Calcaterra confirmed that before MLB flipped Bosch, "A-Rod could have made a deal for a substantially shorter suspension than he ultimately received. Possibly as low as 50 games."


I would take that with a grain of salt. I mean, if you read the arbitrators report without Bosch MLB had zip, nada, nothing. The records that were leaked were copies and did not even mention Arod by name. What exactly were they suspending him for at that point?.

And as we know, Weiner advised him to settle


Weiner advised him to settle at a reasonable number, and never agreed that 211 or 162 was reasonable.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2014 at 08:18 AM (#4639269)
Yes, MLB has done some shady crap. But I don't see enough true scorn or thought about how much ARod has screwed over his own coworkers.

So not enough true scorn has been directed at ARod. What a bizarre perspective, that the man hasn't been piled on enough.

He was hit with the biggest non-lifetime suspension ever handed out, which was going to cost him 30+ million and maybe his career, and he decided to challenge it rather than just bending over. So he should be true-scorned.

Also, it's his fault that his union paid so little attention to protecting their members over this that the union leaders drafted a crappy drug agreement that left the players utterly vulnerable.

Thanks for that.
   35. villageidiom Posted: January 15, 2014 at 08:46 AM (#4639276)
If he was treated fairly then the outcome is the same if this had been Derek Jeter accused of the same things. If the outcome would have been different with someone other than A-Rod then A-Rod was not treated fairly (assuming the same facts would have existed for the other fictional player);
Because some aspects of the JDA were more ambiguous than others, there are a host of interpretations that could be considered fair. Now and in the future, those aspects have one interpretation, and it is one of the fair interpretations that works in favor of the player the least.

It should be expected that there will be no player with the exact same evidence, profile, ability, douchiness, and legal strategy as there was in this case. Take away all of that except the evidence, and it's plausible MLB doesn't hand down nearly as harsh a penalty in the first place. Now and in the future, they are handing down 162, and it will be upheld.

Me? I like precedent. I like that the JDA is now less ambiguous than it was. If one of the intents of the JDA is to serve as a deterrent to PED use, the resolution of harsh penalties where players might have thought they had a loophole is a part of the deterrence factor. But regardless of how I feel, I suspect if the MLBPA were to have a case that would establish precedent, they would have wanted a weaker one than the case against A-Rod.
   36. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4639286)
Had ARod settled, then some of the questions about which section of the JDA are applicable and how much power MLB can wield would still essentially be open questions. Instead, all those avenues are shut off with one guy that clearly was guilty and clearly has zero real support from the rank and file members of the PA. Yes, again, not excusing MLB's lust for power... but ARod did nobody (including himself) any favors with any of his actions.


His union signed off on a drug agreement for its membership that was unclear as to the fundamental issue of whether first offenders who were found to have used multiple substances can be disciplined separately for each substance or disciplined just once since they are a first time offender. The essence of PED use is that often you are using more than one substance at once, so only an incompetent union leadership would sign off on an agreement that wasn't clear as to this issue.

The union utterly fell down on the job here. And the response is... Blame ARod.


   37. bobm Posted: January 15, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4639293)
Also, it's his fault that his union paid so little attention to protecting their members over this that the union leaders drafted a crappy drug agreement that left the players utterly vulnerable.

A-Rod beat 12 tests. None of the Biogenesis players but Braun seemingly got caught or suspended but for Porter Fischer stealing documents after getting stiffed out of something small like $4,000. It seems like the players negotiated fairly lax testing and no one anticipated the significance of the non-analytic positive, MLB included.
   38. ThickieDon Posted: January 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4639347)
What real evidence is there against A-Rod?
   39. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4639358)
It seems like the players negotiated fairly lax testing and no one anticipated the significance of the non-analytic positive, MLB included.


I'll bet MLB did. They have run circles around the players on this drug issue.

Probably the negotiation went something like "Oh, and by the way, Michael, this is not a big deal but we might as well throw into the agreement language to cover players who are obviously guilty on the facts but who nevertheless didn't fail a test."

"Sure!"

Kind of like how Billy Beane said, "Oh, he's not available? Eh, just give me whoever. Chad Bradford."
   40. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: January 15, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4639361)
What real evidence is there against A-Rod?

If you're seriously interested, you can read the entire 77 page report, which has been made public.
   41. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 15, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4639423)
While he's certainly within his legal rights to run through the process, the utter selfishness of his actions are crazy. The players association went along with a lot of the other punishments, in part, because the settlements were basically conducted in a way that didn't really establish precedent and settle unsettled policies. But because ARod was unwilling to settle in any meaningful way, he's created new precedent that may harm other players -- all while clearly being guilty. So he's screwed over the other players not just in his usage essentially helping to take money out of their pockets, but in by locking in decisions and procedures that could harm future players -- or may have been decided in different directions had a more reasonable and sympathetic test case come forward.

Yes, MLB has done some shady crap. But I don't see enough true scorn or thought about how much ARod has screwed over his own coworkers. If MLB has run roughshod over the players, it's not because Bud is evil or the PA ineffectual, it's because of this guy's actions. There are 100 villains in this whole damn story, but he's certainly the biggest.
This whole thread makes zero sense to me.

ARod feels (and many here seem to agree) that he was MLB was trying to screw him via unclear language in the JDA. Why should he fall on the sword - because he's already rich and near the end of his career anyway?

If he really thinks he's being treated in a way that's against either the word or the spirit of his contract, he has not just a right but a duty to fight it, and the union should back him 100%. Kicking the can down the road so the next guy can also get forced to accept a penalty that's outside the agreement isn't what unions are for.

On the contrary, I think he did the union and its membership a favor here. They now know at least one loophole that MLB will try to use, and either work to close or make sure what they agree to is more explicit in the next contract negotiation.
   42. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4639465)
On the contrary, I think he did the union and its membership a favor here. They now know at least one loophole that MLB will try to use, and either work to close or make sure what they agree to is more explicit in the next contract negotiation.


Right, the drug agreement is up in December 2016, so they don't have to live under this interpretation for too long... unless they choose to. They can mitigate much of Horowitz's decision through negotiation.
   43. ThickieDon Posted: January 15, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4639591)
There's no evidence. I could gather 77 pages of similar evidence like that on Derek Jeter if I engaged in a hundred million dollar witch hunt.
   44. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: January 15, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4639602)
There's no evidence.

You're a world class, grade A loony dipsh*t.
   45. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 15, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4639651)
If he had settled like Braun did, those unsettled answers would be available to other players in the future


I forget, did Braun want to get into details or not?
   46. tfbg9 Posted: January 15, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4639664)
Did Braun get tested after an extra-inning playoff game? Anybody remember the particulars?
   47. Sunday silence Posted: January 15, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4639668)
this is some stoopid sh!t reasoning here. It's ARod fault the process is now messed up. Has nothing to do with the arbiter's decision or the questionable framework that was installed n the in the first place.

What if ARod wins his apeal? THen what? Does that make hima hero?
Come to think of it didnt Braun win his first case? Whats your take on Ryan Bruan then?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2464 - 11:08am, Apr 24)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogPelicans' patient Gallo hits three homers | MiLB.com News
(2 - 11:08am, Apr 24)
Last: Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat

NewsblogTwo Brewers, two Pirates suspended for fracas | MLB.com: News
(18 - 11:07am, Apr 24)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(235 - 11:04am, Apr 24)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogMatt Williams: No problem with Harper's two-strike bunting
(10 - 11:04am, Apr 24)
Last: calhounite

NewsblogMichael Pineda ejected from Red Sox game after pine tar discovered on neck
(69 - 11:04am, Apr 24)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(230 - 11:01am, Apr 24)
Last: Langer Monk

NewsblogBU: Take Me Out to the MOOC Game
(3 - 11:01am, Apr 24)
Last: Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings

NewsblogKeri: Slump City: Why Does the 2014 MLB Season Suddenly Feel Like 1968?
(26 - 11:00am, Apr 24)
Last: Tricky Dick

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox to call up right-hander Alex Wilson, option Daniel Nava
(5 - 11:00am, Apr 24)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogMorosi: Diamondbacks' growing gloom might mean doom for manager or GM
(14 - 10:58am, Apr 24)
Last: Shoebo

NewsblogDoyel: How was Gerrit Cole not suspended? He basically started the brawl
(37 - 10:56am, Apr 24)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(1067 - 10:41am, Apr 24)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-24-2014
(2 - 10:36am, Apr 24)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4-24-2014
(8 - 10:34am, Apr 24)
Last: DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta."

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.6939 seconds
52 querie(s) executed