I know everyone loves Magic Johnson, but does he have an impeccable reputation in this regard? The guy who contracted HIV when he committed adultery? There's certainly something to be said for him owning up to it, so maybe that's where the reputation has been built. It just seems like impeccable is an odd word to use there. And while I don't know all the sordid details, there's a very popular HBO show that seems to revolve around the exuberant lifestyle Johnson's Lakers lived. Those Lakers were popular in spite of (maybe even because of) their carousing.

It's not quite the same as Bauer's situation, but it's in the same ballpark, pardon the pun. At least it will be if we accept the premise posed by this article that Bauer wins his appeal, which I would assume means that there's not enough evidence he violated the abuse policy to uphold his suspension.

I don't disagree at all with their prospective decision-making on this, but the inclusion of Magic in that context seems a little odd.

I think Magic is seen as pure and decent by the vast majority of fans. Like so many others the reality and the reputation are two very different things but like they say, print the legend.

AFAIK Magic's sex life was much more like Wilt Chamberlain's than Trevor Bauer's. "Carousing" isn't what Trevor Bauer has been credibly accused of. A better comparison to Bauer would be Kobe Bryant.

Credibly accused? That seems like an open question unless you’re privy to the contents of the DA’s investigation and the reasons that caused him not to file any charges.

It's not quite the same as Bauer's situation, but it's in the same ballpark, pardon the pun

"Ain't .. no ballpark. Ain't the same league. It ain't the same ######' sport."

Seriously, wtf? These things are in zero ways analogous.

Excellent Pulp Fiction nod

I wonder how this plays out. It will clearly be reduced, maybe thrown out.

A reduction to anything that amounts to suspension with lost pay is a 'win' for MLB. On the other hand, an answer that is "time served" and/or zero penalty is a 'win' for Bauer but he'll be waived and out of Baseball

If the second happens Would he then be able to go a real court and claim lost wages for future earnings as no one will sign him and he hasn't been shown to have done anything that violates the policy.

#7 No chance. Well I mean he can sue -- anybody can sue. But he has precisely zero chance of prevailing in a lawsuit and any ethical lawyer would tell him that.

If the second happens Would he then be able to go a real court and claim lost wages for future earnings as no one will sign him and he hasn't been shown to have done anything that violates the policy.

Maybe the lawyers who helped Barry Bonds with his collusion suit would be glad to give Trevor a shot. But probably not on a contingency basis. (smile)

#7 No chance. Well I mean he can sue -- anybody can sue. But he has precisely zero chance of prevailing in a lawsuit and any ethical lawyer would tell him that.

Post Bostock? No way. If he’s getting discriminated against because he likes rough sex, he’s got a punchers chance. I’d like to think I’m an ethical lawyer and i think that would be a fun one so long as client understood it was a Hail Mary.

Not a chance. Any team can say (because it's true) that they didn't want to employ him because of the PR hit.

If the commissioner's office was stupid enough to communicate a policy on the matter then sure, he could (would) win. But you're not entitled to a particular job because you're well qualified for it.

As long as any individual team makes it clear they're choosing not to employ him any lawsuit is dead in the water.

Disagree. What if a team in the South didn’t want to employ an openly gay player for the “PR hit”. That’s now prohibited. This would be no different, IMO.

You can’t decline to employ a qualified person on the basis of sex, which is now construed super duper broadly.

Post Bostock? No way. If he’s getting discriminated against because he likes rough sex, he’s got a punchers chance. I’d like to think I’m an ethical lawyer and i think that would be a fun one so long as client understood it was a Hail Mary.

I've no doubt that you're an ethical lawyer, but unless you were taking Bauer's case for the publicity value, wouldn't you demand his Hail Mary money up front?

Post Bostock? No way.

Not being a Supreme Court junkie, I was genuinely wondering how the murder of Lyman Bostock was related to Bauer's issues.

I too, am wondering what Bostock has to do with it. The legal ramifications of that had to do with insanity plea and how states all across the board reacted to that.

Sex discrimination might apply to certain sexual practices, but no chance they protect rough sex.

I know you're a lawyer and I'm not.

But this is one of the very few times I'm absolutely confident that you're wrong.

If he’s getting discriminated against because he likes rough sex, he’s got a punchers chance.

But does he have a choker’s chance?

You can’t decline to employ a qualified person on the basis of sex, which is now construed super duper broadly.

There’s absolutely no way a court would find that people who like to choke women until they’re unconscious and then anally rape them are a protected class.

18. If they are true rumors/allegations

If they are even remotely able to substantiate this then he won't win the arbitration

My question is, if the allegations dont have any facts behind them and they throw out the suspension and then everyone still refuses to employ him, that seems like he has argument for something - I'm no lawyer.

Again, I'm amazed the union isn't fighting this or even talking about it. I can't imagine why they would want MLB to blackball a member without any tangible proof (which I'm all likelihood doesn't exist). Once MLB establishes this standard, it's open season on anyone they don't want in the game. Jim Bouton, curt flood, anyone who they want to eliminate. Just come up with a trumped up DV allegation and run them off with two year suspension.

My question is, if the allegations dont have any facts behind them and they throw out the suspension and then everyone still refuses to employ him, that seems like he has argument for something - I'm no lawyer.

I know you’ve developed some strange “Bauer is the innocent victim!!” fanboy thing, but the law is that employers can refuse to employ anyone for any reason that isn’t based on a specific “protected class” characteristic: race, religion, sex, age, etc. As I said above, being (even “allegedly”) into sexual violence isn’t one of them.

Again, I'm amazed the union isn't fighting this or even talking about it.

This is because you've not read the Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy. There are prohibitions on disclosure, and that's why no one is saying anything.

I can't imagine why they would want MLB to blackball a member without any tangible proof (which I'm all likelihood doesn't exist).

Considering the aforementioned policy states "In any case involving discipline imposed under this Policy, the Commissioner’s Office shall have the burden of proving that the Player committed a Covered Act..." it's a safe bet MLB has evidence. If not, it should only take the arbitration panel a few minutes to overturn the suspension. Instead, it's likely only a matter of whether the length of suspension is upheld.

Is this what you are referring to?

Prohibition on Disclosure. The Commissioner’s Office, the Players Association, the Clubs, the Joint Policy Board and any third parties who are consulted under this Policy are prohibited from disclosing confidential information that they already possess as defined above, except (i) in connection with or in anticipation of a grievance or potential grievance involving discipline or potential discipline under this Policy;

Or this?

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Player, the Players Association or the Player’s representative makes statements challenging the discipline or denying the alleged conduct, the Commissioner’s Office may make a statement in response to such comments.

In the first case it looks like they can discuss the grievance and in the second case it appears MLB contemplates that the Union will actually back its members

20 is mostly correct. There are some other guardrails in place, but most union contracts provide for due process/protection from retaliation more than they say that the employer can't try to get rid of a union member for doing something that the employer doesn't like.

What if a team in the South didn’t want to employ an openly gay player for the “PR hit”. That’s now prohibited. This would be no different, IMO.

It is. Liking rough sex/kinky sex doesn't make a person part of a protected class. If Bauer were gay and liked rough sex with other men and everything else in the case were the same, his lawyers would ofc as a tactical move try to make it about his being gay, even if it really wasn't, but they don't have that card to play here.

Again, I'm amazed the union isn't fighting this or even talking about it.

This is because you've not read the Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy.

Yeah, partly. People who don't understand unions tend to think that the main thing a union does is pound the table with outraged appeals to authority, but that is not really how it works. There is a similar thing with union matters vs. legal matters as was discussed in the previous Bauer thread--sometimes people don't get the differences between the two. So like I said, the union's best shot is to try to get the suspension reduced. Bauer is 31, and being a very good pitcher, I think that he would get signed by another team after a year away (you can never have enough pitching).

Also, with stuff like this, especially in sports, you need to consider PR, as noted, and context, zeitgeist. Bauer plays for a team in California that has probably the best rotation in MLB without him, at a cultural moment that makes the allegations against him especially radioactive, the Dodgers treat their payroll and the luxury tax like it is in rubles, and Bauer is apparently kind of a weirdo and a dick in general even by MLB player standards. So the Dodgers saying "fu*k this guy" makes some sense.

My question is, if the allegations dont have any facts behind them and they throw out the suspension and then everyone still refuses to employ him, that seems like he has argument for something - I'm no lawyer.

There are two distinct issues, but they’re interrelated. Bauer could prevail in the grievance if the evidence tilts his way. We don’t know that it will, but it could. Some continue to suggest that the facts are largely as set out in the initial press accounts, but we don’t actually know that, and the DA’s decision not to bring so much as a misdemeanor charge suggests that there could be serious problems with the facts and/or the accuser’s credibility. Now, we don’t know if Bauer will be able to obtain all the material the DA’s office compiled or if it will clearly support his case, but that seems to remain a possibility based on what we know now.

So, let’s assume the evidence shows that the accuser didn’t tell the truth - that she consented to ‘rough sex’, then lied about how rough it was & the extent of her injuries. To make it even more favorable to Bauer, let’s suppose that there’s also evidence that it was a financially-motivated set-up from the start. Under those circumstances, what discipline should Bauer get for his poor judgment in engaging in consensual, kinky sex with an extortionist he barely knew? Little or none would seem likely, since that seems outside the Domestic Violence Protocol.

If Bauer were to prevail in the disciplinary grievance, teams could still find him too tainted to employ, and I don’t think he’d have much chance of successfully challenging that. However, a favorable grievance decision might make it more likely that a team would take a chance on signing him since they could probably do so at a steep discount from what he’d be worth based on talent alone. If Bauer loses the grievance, I doubt any team would sign him 2 years down the road, even for the MLB minimum.

Bottom line: the best case scenario for Bauer just gets him the remainder of his current contract (or most of it), and teams can still individually decline to sign him based on what they see as his ‘unsavory’ past.

Bauer plays for a team in California that has probably the best rotation in MLB without him...

Not to mention, the Dodgers have grown a clubhouse culture where winning takes priority over all - and anyone getting in the way of that goal won't be around for long.

the law is that employers can refuse to employ anyone for any reason that isn’t based on a specific “protected class” characteristic: race, religion, sex, age, etc.

the zillionaire who owns the Meadowlands Racetrack - the most important harness racing track in the world - started banning owners and trainers he believed were doping their horses once he bought the track a decade ago.

he got sued a couple of times - and the result came out exactly as above.

btw, this same guy bankrolled the private investigation that led to the arrest of dozens of racehorse-doping cheaters a couple of years ago - and then to many subsequent convictions. he said the only thing surprising about the list was not one single person on the list surprised him.

he knew who the cheaters were, and now quite a few are doing time.

Post Bostock? No way. If he’s getting discriminated against because he likes rough sex, he’s got a punchers chance. I’d like to think I’m an ethical lawyer and i think that would be a fun one so long as client understood it was a Hail Mary.

I’d like to think you’re an ethical lawyer, too, but you’re not a competent one if you made that argument in court. Bostock has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

A Bostock argument would have to be that a female MLB player who was accused of the same thing as Bauer would have been treated more leniently. And I hope even the non-lawyers can spot some of the flaws in that argument.