Where's my proof? My proof doesn't matter.

Ok now you really have me interested.

Nellie is going down. Going down for 50 games.

That's not a surprise. He took the 2009-2010 season off when he coached the Warriors.

Where's my proof? My proof doesn't matter. It's Cruz who had better have the proof, and have an air-tight alibi, if he's going to skate on this one.
/quote]

You see, in a disciplinary matter, the burden of proof is on the Employer.

Galloway is tremendously entertaining on the radio. His columns are basically at the level of rigor of a sports-talk program.

His level of proof is a throw-away weekly free rag in Miami. About as solid as ice on the pond on a warm Spring afternoon.

Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

While I agree with #3, I'd be shocked if this isn't headed to an arbitrator and the arbitrator isn't bound by the reasonable doubt. IOW Cruz probably has to come up with a plausible explanation.

Ron ~ I don't follow your comment at all. What do you mean "bound by the reasonable doubt"? If I read the CBA and associated JDA, player discipline must be for 'just cause' for which MLB must prove all elements of its case rather than placing the burden on the player to disprove an element. The player's burden of proof is only on an affirmative defense.

#8 You're reading correctly (or at least as best I can tell). All I was saying is that MLB doesn't have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They simply have to convince a professional cynic (ie arbitrator) that they're correct.

I'll note that past arbitrators have expressed disbelief in the explanations offered by one side (I'm thinking specifically of the collusion hearings. MLB offered an affirmative defense and the arbitrator was clear that he didn't buy their explanations)

Thanks for the clarification Ron. For what its worth, some arbitrators see termination as different than non-discharge discipline, calling the former "industrial death penalty" and require an employer to prove just cause BRD. So if the Yankees try to terminate ARod's contract, that could have a different level of review than if the Commissioner tried to impose a 50 day suspension on Cruz. I haven't read enough of Fred Horowitz's decisions to know if he shares this view.

His level of proof is a throw-away weekly free rag in Miami. About as solid as ice on the pond on a warm Spring afternoon.

Can't speak for its Florida iteration, but at least at one point the New Times, as orginally constituted in Phoenix, was pretty reputable as far as alternative weeklies go. I gather that several takeovers/purchases of other publications & upper-level management/owner changes have occurred since then, though. (I wrote an award-winning paper on the publication's early days -- it started out as just another off-campus sheet back in 1970, created to publicize some sort of rally in response to the Kent State shootings, IIRC -- for a history seminar while I was a grad student at Arizona State some 30 years ago.)



*i.e. it was the only entry for the department's local history prize back in '83, I think

His level of proof is a throw-away weekly free rag in Miami.

Well, that and the images of the notes from the facility that the rag in question helpfully provided as a supplement to their reporting. Those might be a bit harder to dismiss out of hand.

#10 I'm pretty sure that they couldn't terminate ARod's contract based on this. As I've mentioned in other threads, the Padres tried several times and clearly lost in the LaMarr Hoyt case. Even though he was in prison they couldn't terminate his contract.

The one ambiguous case is the Alan Wiggins, where Wiggins opted to settle with the Orioles (for ~90% of the contract) rather than fight it out. The Padres abandoned their attempt to terminate his contract on advice from MLB and shipped him to the Orioles -- and he failed another drug test with the Orioles.

OK, recreational drugs not PEDs. Don't see why this would matter to an arbitrator. There's a drug policy with set penalties and contract termination isn't one of the penalties/

#13 -- I agree that termination is highly unlikely but for what its worth, the Hoyt decision by arbitrator George Nicolau, or any other prior arbitration decision, is only persuasive and not mandatory precedent for the new arbitrator. Even if the facts are absolutely the same, a new arbitrator need not - but usually does - give any credence to the prior decisions in similar cases.

His level of proof is a throw-away weekly free rag in Miami.

Well, that and the images of the notes from the facility that the rag in question helpfully provided as a supplement to their reporting. Those might be a bit harder to dismiss out of hand.

Even in arbitration, neither the article nor notebooks is likely to constitute admissible evidence. You need someone, presumably, Bosch, to authenticate those notebooks. Doesn't seem likely at this point, as noted here.

Pond ice may be safe on a warm spring day if preceded by several weeks of sub freezing temperatures.

re: New Times - I know the Phoenix version is arguably the best investigative news source in Arizona. To justify their various massage ads they make a serious effort to have an in depth investigation in most issues. Don't know about the Miami one for sure, but my understanding is that the editorial policy stays the same in each location.

Many of these alternative free papers are quite good at what they do.

The most likely negative outcome for Cruz is that MLB will use this as justification to put him under more stringent testing ("reasonable cause"). While punishing him for any past use might be the preferred outcome for MLB, it opens a major can of worms (if there's no other evidence) as Ron notes and hardly seems worth the trouble when they could probably legitimately put him under more stringent testing to help ensure he doesn't do it in the future.

But it's early days and more evidence (e.g. cancelled checks, more snitches) might come to light.

As to alternative weeklies -- a lot are good on these longer stories, it's what they specialize in. The documentation and sources here appear to be at least as good as what a "real" newspaper would run with and they seem to have done as much maybe more verification as a "real" newspaper. I do feel some of the writing is colorful or even prejudicial and that gives me some doubt about the rest of the story -- if they've got the goods they say they have, they shouldn't need to ramp it up.

Can't speak for its Florida iteration, but at least at one point the New Times, as orginally constituted in Phoenix, was pretty reputable as far as alternative weeklies go. I gather that several takeovers/purchases of other publications & upper-level management/owner changes have occurred since then, though.

They've done pretty well by the SF Weekly - consistently excellent local investigative journalism, MUCH better than the local daily newspapers.

EDIT: "His level of proof is a throw-away weekly free rag in Miami."
My man Bantam Lyons seems to think you're trying to give him a tip on the Gold Cup. He's an odd fellow, that Lyons.

why would what someone writes in a notebook be considered PROOF without anything at all to support it?

anyone could write absolutely ANYTHING about ANYONE

i see that bike racing suspends riders based only on someone else's say so. but bike riders have no CBA and ballplayers do.

why would what someone writes in a notebook be considered PROOF without anything at all to support it?

But there is stuff to support it according to the paper. They contacted some of the regular people in the notebook and they reportedly confirmed that the information about their treatment (dates, drugs, money) in the notebook was accurate.

It is of course possible that the guy was listing legit stuff about his normal patients and making phony entries about ballplayers (and obscure tennis players and little-known boxers and ARod's cousin and Gio's father). But this doctor was also linked to one of Manny's positive tests and Melky's positive test.

It's not likely gonna be admissible anywhere unless the doc (or was it the son) is willing to testify it's his or at least some eyewitness steps forward to say he saw the guy writing in it but it's one elaborate ruse if it's a fake.

i see that bike racing suspends riders based only on someone else's say so. but bike riders have no CBA and ballplayers do.

I can't remember which thread it was that we were discussing the cyclist who got fired and suspended just for being in the wrong country at the wrong time. Timing is everything as today Michael Rasmussen admitted to doping for 12 years and never testing positive.

It's enough to turn a guy into Ed Meese.

it's one elaborate ruse if it's a fake.

On the other hand, were these the same geniuses that were helping Melky try to set up the phony website?