I've got a nicer watch.

Like his tie better though.

I agree...Joe has better tie...can't distinguish the watches. Jeff has a lot less hair product as well.

You would.

Round two, or three, or whatever it is. Good luck with overturning an arbitrator's ruling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/sp...ef=sports&_r=0

And a better haircut.

I'm sure his lawyers will embrace reality once (if) the money runs out.

A narcissist like ARod doesn't want to hear anything like a realistic assessment of his case. If one told him, he would just fire them and find someone else. And there will always be a lawyer to tell him what he wants to hear.

In his ruling, the arbitrator ruled that because he apparently used three banned substances, each of those constituted a "distinct" offense against the JDA. He therefore handed ARod 50 games apiece for each one and then 12 games for obstructing things. To me, this shows yet another example of MLB treating the ARod case different from all others. If a guy got busted for coke AND pot do you really think they'd count that as two different offenses? Of course not. But because it's ARod, they do.

Give the guy his 50 game first-time-offender suspension and the dozen for being a pain and move on.

Yes, because they count that as two different offenses.

The arbiter wrote that ARod used three different substances on three different occasions. So they were three distinctly separate offenses, using either legal or layman's logic. If you're caught double parking on three different days, you know you'll get three tickets not one. If evidence proves you burglarized three homes over a year, prosecutors won't charge them as one burglary, and the average person on the street would also consider them three separate crimes.

Fear the day someone can repeat a crime 99 times for free, because the law counts them only a single offense.

It's a conspiracy.
The whole world has ganged up on ARod.
Now the criminal justice system is involved.

Maybe he can call Katie Couric and go on TV and set the record straight.

In addition, the application of the rules by the arbitrator was collectively bargained by the players union. So basically ARod got what he bargained for.

This man says otherwise. Another nice tie btw.

I'm not saying this in defense of A-Rod, but anyone other than a defense lawyer who thinks that binding arbitration is a good thing is out of his/her mind. The way that the Supreme Court has embraced it is nothing short of incredibly disturbing. I will leave it at that.

Kenny, it's one thing to foist in on consumers in fine print, it's another thing for millionaire athletes and their union to agree to it.

Peter,

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been unable to recognize that fairly evident distinction, so it is just a fuc-ing all the way around right now.

Baseball looked the other way for years. Performance enhancing drugs were basically endorsed by MLB, especially when McGwire and Sosa battled it out in 1998. The homers brought fans back to the park after their disillusionment over the horrible strike years of '94 and '95. How many players used PEDs during these years? How many never got caught? How many are still using and getting away with it? Who knows? A Rod, with his huge salary, has become the focal point for that reason alone. Sure, all players make too much and all owners charge too much. People will do whatever it takes to get an advantage and make more money. That's the American way. A Rod is past his prime and owed lots of $$$. Who wouldn't want to get off the hook paying all those millions? There's just too much hypocrisy in this saga for me to take any of this seriously. It's a great big joke.

"People will do whatever it takes to get an advantage and make more money. "

Some people, but not everyone. There are many people who aren't interested in cheating to make more money. I know many ethical people. I know a woman who mailed $2.25 to the City of Seattle, because she felt got an undue free ride on a city bus when visiting the city. She mailed it from her home in Wisconsin! "Everyone does it" is both untrue and a bad excuse.

I don't think people should feel sorry for A-rod or cut him any slack. He admitted his prior steroid use in the past and was given a clean slate. He then decided to continue his associations with people like Bosch and his cousin, who was promptly banned by the Yankees from team events. Even after his banning A-rod still thought it was a good idea to bring him to his hotel while traveling with the team.

There are no logical excuses or reasonings for his behavior other than he thinks he should be able to do whatever he wants.

I think star athletes are given special privileges, given the red carpet treatment and allowed to get away with a lot since they were young, and they don't know how to handle it when suddenly everyone turns on them for doing something wrong. It's foreign territory compared to their previous privileged life experiences.

Realize that we're talking here about a guy who was paid tens of millions of dollars annually to play baseball and dated Cameron Diaz and Madonna, yet is claiming life is treating him unfairly. One might say his perspective is a bit askew.

Pertaining to his PED use, law breaking, rule breaking, lying to fans and other offenses, there are also the ideas of karma and the double edged sword. "Karma's a bitch, isn't it?," as I think Confucius said. Or maybe it was Wile E. Coyote.

Anyone not drinking flavor aid knew him as a transparent liar since at least 13 years ago when he insisted his signing with the Texas Rangers had nothing to do with the world's record contract. I happen to live in Seattle, so knew he was a phony before then.

* Those who know their history will appreciate my use of flavor aid instead of kool aid. Despite common misperception, the Jamestown Cult members committed suicide by drinking cyanide laced flavor aid not kook aid.

Clear rules avoid those tricky slippery slopes I guess.

Bud Selig in the 60 Minutes Interview
 

One thing that I thought that was interesting was the interview with Bud Selig on 60 Minutes regarding A-Fraud. Here's the excerpt of particular interest:


Bud Selig: In my judgment his [A-Fraud] actions were beyond comprehension. And I'm somebody who's now been in the game over 50 years.

Scott Pelley: Never seen anything like it?

Bud Selig: I hadn't, no.

Here's the video and full transcript:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-case-of-alex-rodriguez/

OK, if this was the most extreme case Selig has ever seen, then why not give A-Fraud a lifetime suspension since that's Selig's continued stance against Pete Rose?

Yeah, like that tricky slippery slope right to trial by jury.

Which can be waived, no?
But I digress, I am not a proponent of altering rights via fine print. My only point is it gets hard to draw lines sometimes between situations involving genuine consent and those not.

Ahhhh... I totally agree! But as you point out, he IS being treated unfairly. Just not in the usual negative connotation of being "unfair". :D

And, if they truly were treating each of his different PEDs as a distinct violation, why wasn't he given a lifetime ban? The penalty for a third violation is a lifetime ban under the JDA.

My guess is today they would still treat gambling tougher than steroids.
The utter stupidity of what Rose did is mind boggling and also they were able to get him to agree to sign it as well.

+211

Peter,

Absolutely can be waived. But, as you previously noted, there is a rather distinct difference between being a member of a collective bargaining unit, which has voted to agree to arbitration as a way to resolve claims, and doing it, mostly unknowingly, because the alleged "waiver" is buried six pages deep in the fine print of the adhesion contract that you entered into because you have absolutely no bargaining power but needed a credit card -- the actual terms of which generally show up in the mail about six weeks later.

There is a reason why businesses like arbitration and don't like jury trials. One does not need to be a member of Mensa to figure out that arbitration is heavily leveraged toward the business (or employer) and is not a good deal for the consumer or employee. I could go on for ever about that, but you and I both know that, at least in the commercial and employment contexts, the complaining party is almost always going to take it in the ass. And the fact that the Supreme Court has recently been complicit in screwing the little man and eliminating the Constitutional right to trial by jury is nothing short of sickening IMO. 'Nuff said.

The Supreme Court is also complicit in upholding unconstitutional Obamacare. :D:D:D