Lifetime Ban for A-Rod?

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by Blueface

I am confused. I just don't get the "we need proof" audience.

Guilty, with or without proof?


OK, sounds fair to me.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by The Poet

Guilty, with or without proof?


OK, sounds fair to me.

I think I am misunderstood.

Of course I believe there should be proof.
I just don't believe we are the judges of said proof.
I don't believe we are at liberty to know at this time.

As I mentioned earlier, compare it to a criminal or civil case.
Action is taken such as an indictment.
Eventually, accused accepts a plea or is tried. If the latter, then the evidence will be presented. If accepts a plea, the world will never know.
Unfortunately, this is an employer, with contracts and clauses and can act very differently in a manner as they wish.

If A-arod does not challenge it, rest assured the evidence sufficed.
If he challenges, just like the criminal going to trial, then we will eventually know and be able to still debate it all as opinions will always differ on what each of us considers just punishment.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Blueface

I think I am misunderstood.

Of course I believe there should be proof.
I just don't believe we are the judges of said proof.
I don't believe we are at liberty to know at this time.

As I mentioned earlier, compare it to a criminal or civil case.
Action is taken such as an indictment.
Eventually, accused accepts a plea or is tried. If the latter, then the evidence will be presented. If accepts a plea, the world will never know.
Unfortunately, this is an employer, with contracts and clauses.

If A-arod does not challenge it, rest assured the evidence sufficed.
If he challenges, just like the criminal going to trial, then we will eventually know and be able to still debate it all as opinions will always differ on what each of us considers just punishment.

I agree with that.

[357]

Originally Posted by The Poet

Guilty, with or without proof?


OK, sounds fair to me.

I think most of those who chose not to appeal, did so to prevent the evidence from being made public. Would you accept 1/3 pay reduction at your job without a fight if your accuser had nothing on you?

[yourchoice]

Originally Posted by Dave128

Also, why does it appear that ARod is the only player that will be granted an appeal?

It's my understanding everyone had the right to appeal, but only ARoid is choosing to do so.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

It's my understanding everyone had the right to appeal, but only ARoid is choosing to do so.

I don't think that's the case. I forget what the distinction between an appealable offense and one that can't be appealed.
The list I saw had (no appeal) after the first half of the names, and no such thing after the second half of the names.

I wish I wasn't brain dead and could remember the distinction for you, Joel. I read so many stories I can't think of where to look.

Ahh, I got it. The players were suspended for non-analytical positives, meaning they didn't get caught by testing, so they can't appeal. The CBA says they can appeal tests, but not non-analytical offenses.
A few of the guys also failed a test, Colon, Cabrera, and Grandal all had positive tests in the past year, plus they were damned by the Biogenesis records. Being that the test and records overlapped, it'd be double jeopardy if they charged them for failing the test and being caught in the paperwork. So they charged them with the non-analytical evidence and just dropped the positive tests, avoiding appeals.

I'm not exactly sure why Aroid can appeal. Maybe because of the punishment or because it's his second charged violation?
I'll see if I can figure that one out.

[dave]

Originally Posted by shilala

Ahh, I got it. The players were suspended for non-analytical positives, meaning they didn't get caught by testing,,,,,

Quite obviously MLB's testing is a useless, abject failure. PED's remain rampant and there's not a damn thing MLB can do unless someone snitches or a doc gets careless.

[billybarue]

Originally Posted by dave

Quite obviously MLB's testing is a useless, abject failure. PED's remain rampant and there's not a damn thing MLB can do unless someone snitches or a doc gets careless.

Plenty they can do about it. Weekly MANDATORY random and non-random drug screening. I am subject (Not weekly) to it as an airline pilot and have spent 24 years in the AF/AF Reserves subject to it.

The owners can build monstrous new stadiums, charge $12 for a 16 ounce beer, players make $5 million plus a year, agents and lawyers are raking in the cash, corporations, corporate sponsors (stadiums), and advertising agencies (think about 10 seconds of Super bowl air time) are swimming in money from pro sports, tax revenue base for: stadiums, concessions, parking, etc etc are making politicians powerful and rich too.

In all that money the first priority SHOULD be to keep this game, OUR GAME, clean. There is plenty of money flying around to do that. And therein lies the problem - there's plenty of money flying around and everybody wants their big cut; at the expense of the game. You throw "thirty pieces of silver" on the table and you can get people to do anything - It's human nature.

So I turn my introspection to the fan (Us). ARoid, Bonds, McGuire, all exist not because of their greed and ego (per se), but rather because we continue to fund it. Everybody keeps going to the stadiums and buying the merchandise and worshipping these guys and it will just continue. The purity of the game is gone. But, after 20 years I had to go back and see an MLB game with my 6 year old son. Out in San Diego, great new stadium and location. I don't pay attention anymore. I was just there for the spectacle and the stadium and the show, As well as the desire to take my son to his first game. The players, coaches, managers, and owners are nameless to me. I don't care who is up on that stage or the statistics - it's nothing more than a theatrical production. Good player on third, Chase Headley, I think. He had a good game defensively with a couple of hits. Fun player to watch, but I didn't see him. I just saw the face of Brooks Robinson, my all-time favorite, and I sat back and enjoyed the show and thought about all the great memories of the past. I am going to Wrigley next week (w/ my son) for the first time in my life. Again, just for the show and to see Wrigley - nothing more. We'll talk a lot about guys like Sanberg, Dawson, Santo, and Banks but I don't think I'll even notice who's in the lineup for the day we're there.

I am so jaded on baseball, the game I loved, I can't believe it. "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you ...."

[yourchoice]

Originally Posted by shilala

I don't think that's the case. I forget what the distinction between an appealable offense and one that can't be appealed.
The list I saw had (no appeal) after the first half of the names, and no such thing after the second half of the names.

I wish I wasn't brain dead and could remember the distinction for you, Joel. I read so many stories I can't think of where to look.

Ahh, I got it. The players were suspended for non-analytical positives, meaning they didn't get caught by testing, so they can't appeal. The CBA says they can appeal tests, but not non-analytical offenses.
A few of the guys also failed a test, Colon, Cabrera, and Grandal all had positive tests in the past year, plus they were damned by the Biogenesis records. Being that the test and records overlapped, it'd be double jeopardy if they charged them for failing the test and being caught in the paperwork. So they charged them with the non-analytical evidence and just dropped the positive tests, avoiding appeals.

I'm not exactly sure why Aroid can appeal. Maybe because of the punishment or because it's his second charged violation?
I'll see if I can figure that one out.

Huh...I hadn't heard that before. Not saying it's inaccurate, but ESPN said this in their article here.

Originally Posted by ESPN

The 12 other players agreed to deals for their suspensions in which they gave up the right to appeal.

Which I inferred that if they didn't agree to the deals they could have appealed. I don't know for sure though...