OT: AROD gets 162 game ban

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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.

Clear rules avoid those tricky slippery slopes I guess.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

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?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

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?

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.

[HRBAKER]

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.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Clear rules avoid those tricky slippery slopes I guess.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The Supreme Court is also complicit in upholding unconstitutional Obamacare.