Alex Rodriguez Reuters

The Arbitrator’s Decision: Creatively Counting to 150


I’ve received a copy of the complaint Alex Rodriguez has filed in federal court seeking to overturn the arbitration decision against him and naming the MLBPA as a defendant as a result of their alleged failure to advance and aid in his defense. A full copy of the documents can be read here.

I have skimmed past the initial complaint allegations — many of them are repeats from his previous lawsuit against Major League Baseball and we’ll get to those in due time — and have gone down to the arbitrator’s decision in order to try to understand the basis for Rodiguez’s 162-game suspension. The breakdown: 150 games for violating the Joint Drug Agreement and 12 games for obstructing Major League Baseball’s investigation.

Following a lengthy recitation of the facts, the overview from the arbitrator is short and sweet:



The fact of a violation is laid out fairly painstakingly via the arbitrator’s review of the facts, as provided by Anthony Bosch and his records. Multiple contacts between Bosch and Rodriguez over a period of three years, during which Bosch provided multiple banned substances to him. How many? Three distinct ones, which becomes important to the penalty:


Why is three important? Because each side and the arbitrator agreed that the standard 50 game/100 game/lifetime ban penalties only apply when there is a SINGLE violation, as evidenced by an actual positive drug test. When there is a pattern of use — say, of three substances across three years, the Commissioner can use “just cause” penalties and use his discretion:


This is where I take issue with the arbitrator. Section 7(A) is not purely limited to a single positive test. It says this:

A player who tests positive for a Performance Enhancing Substance, or otherwise violates the Program through the possession or use of a Performance Enhancing Substance, will be subject to the discipline set forth below. (emphasis mine) 1. First violation: 50-game suspension; 2. Second violation: 100-game suspension; 3. Third violation: Permanent suspension from Major League and Minor League Baseball.

I would think that A-Rod is in the “or otherwise violates” camp and that 7(A) is still in play. 7(G), the just cause provision he moved under, is not invoked unless the violation is “not referenced” in section 7(A). I’d argue that “otherwise violates” is referenced there, but the MLBPA and A-Rod appear to have conceded the matter, so there we are.

But even the arbitrator seems uncomfortable with giving Selig a blank slate. He tries to look at the “guideposts” of the 50/100/life matrix in section 7(A) and sort of retrofit A-Rod’s drug use on to it. It’s a long passage, but it’s AMAZING. He says 7(A) doesn’t apply, so we go elsewhere, but if 7(A) DID apply, we’d be able to stack up 50-game penalties against A-Rod because he used three things:


Never mind that the Neifi Perez case did not involve HGH or testosterone, it involved stimulants, which are treated quite differently. Never mind that other Biogenesis players — specifically Bartolo Colon and Melky Cabrera — were not given multiple levels of discipline because, according to baseball, they already did their time, as it were.  This seems remarkably shaky to me. It is a new way of approaching drug discipline that just so happens to achieve Major League Baseball’s desired result of a lengthy suspension.

Major League Baseball actually argued for a lifetime ban here, saying that if A-Rod had three distinct offenses he’d get a 50, a 100 and a lifetime stacked on top of each other. That actually makes more sense to me. After all, if a player who got a 50 game test suspension last year tested positive for a different substance tomorrow, he’d get 100 games. There would not a be a 50 game suspension because it is a different substance, which is what the arbitrator is basically doing here. In essence, the arbitrator is going lighter on A-Rod than the logic he actually subscribes to would have him do. It would at least be intellectually consistent for him to ban Rodriguez for life.  The arbitrator was obviously loathe to do that. But if the logic train he followed drove him off a cliff, maybe he shouldn’t have followed that logic train in the first place. Maybe he shouldn’t have tried to invent his own standard.


As for A-Rod’s attacks on Bosch’s credibility, the arbitrator was not impressed. He took notice of the fact that Bosch was a scumbag who sold drugs, lied about his credentials and contradicted his own story multiple times in the runup to the hearing. But, even with that in mind, Bosch’s testimony was corroborated and was not contradicted:


Much of the corroboration came via text messages between Rodriguez and Bosch. Blackberry text messages. The richest player in the history of baseball uses a Blackberry. Think about that for a bit.


Major League Baseball has spent a lot of time and energy trying to establish that A-Rod obstructed the investigation, sought to buy or destroy evidence and, if you believe Bosch himself on “60 Minutes” last night, tried to threaten and intimidate him or, at the very least, tried to shoo him out of the country for a while.  The arbitrator did not buy most of this, it seems. He focused instead on A-Rod denying he knew Tony Bosch and trying to get Bosch to lie:


I think it’s safe to say that Major League Baseball’s claims of A-Rod’s awful obstruction were greatly overstated. And, in light of what MLB did to obtain evidence, it acted in a far more shady manner than A-Rod did.


There was a brief discussion of the confidentiality violations of the parties. Leaks to the media and press conferences and things during a process that is supposed to have everyone quiet and respectful of what is, by design, a secret proceeding.  The arbitrator basically threw up his hands here, noted that both sides did it all the time, that he couldn’t do anything to hunt down the leaks in anything approaching a timely manner and that, ultimately, it didn’t matter because the leaks and things did not affect his decision.

That actually seems pretty smart. No one did well in this department.


So that’s the first pass here. It’s hard to disagree with the arbitrator’s finding of some violation. It’s clear that the obstruction evidence presented by Major League Baseball was not terribly persuasive to him, as it amounted to only 12 games on top of the 150-game suspension. Finally, it’s clear to me that the 150-game suspension was based on, at the very least, a unique interpretation of the Joint Drug Agreement.

I believe, ultimately, that Major League Baseball will win the lawsuit A-Rod filed today as his best arguments are one of interpretation of the Joint Drug Agreement, and that is not enough to cause a court to overturn an arbitration. But I do believe that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the JDA was unsound and that the result — suspending Alex Rodriguez for a long time — was the tail that wagged the dog of his legal interpretation.  That’s what Major League Baseball wanted. It’s what the arbitrator felt he should get.  And he found a way to make it happen.

A way I do not believe anyone else ever considered before. Or, for that matter, should have.

Kudos to Fox for not going crazy with the curses

Getty Images

I turned on last night’s Fox broadcast fully expecting them to spend too much time on history and curses and billy goats and black cats and Steve Bartman and 1908 and 1948 and all of that jive while spending too little time on the game and the players at hand. I will admit now that I was pleasantly surprised that that was not, in fact, the case.

To be clear, the pregame show was a friggin’ train wreck in this department. There the narrative framing was basically wall-to-wall. In the first segment, Fox studio host Kevin Burkhardt used the phrase “reverse the curse” within his first thirty seconds of speaking. Then, before much if any actual game stuff was referred to, Burkhardt mentioned all of the following things in the space of a, maybe, 45 second span:

When the montage ended, Alex Rodriguez said that “every player wants to break that curse.” Then they threw it to the first commercial at 7:38 or so. In the second segment they ran a prerecorded thing about championship droughts, making liberal mention of 108 years for the Cubs and 68 years for the Indians, but then got down to some actual game breakdown.

In the third segment, Burkhardt threw it to the P.A. announcer at Progressive Field for player introductions, once again mentioning 108/68 years as he did so. After that, they ran a montage, set to Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers’ “The Waiting,” in which centenarians and other older folks talked about how long they’ve been — wait for it — waiting for an Indians or a Cubs championship. Lots of them mentioned billy goats and curses and stuff.

When that was over Fox finally threw it to Joe Buck and John Smoltz up in the booth. Buck added a punctuative “the waiting is the hardest part,” and soon after they ran a Buck-narrated pre-produced montage about what was going on in 1908 and 1948, saying who was president, noting when Model-Ts were invented and all of that, all set to “Time has come today” by the Chambers Brothers. So, yes, that was a lot to take in in the space of a half hour.

But that’s on me, right? Who in the heck needs to watch a pregame show? No one, really. Alex Rodriguez and Pete Rose are proving to be a nice combination for Fox — getting rid of C.J. Nitkowski has cleared the congestion a bit and both A-Rod and Rose are proving to be naturals after a 2015 in which they were somewhat clunky — but a pregame show is pretty superfluous. The actual baseball breakdown those guys provide can be accomplished in less than ten minutes. The rest of it practically begs for those narrative-servicing montages, and frankly, no one needs ’em.

Most notably, though: the curse and weight of history talk basically ended once the game got going. Indeed, Buck and Smoltz were shockingly and refreshingly narrative-free for most if not all of the contest. They talked about Jon Lester and his issues holding runners. Corey Kluber‘s slider. Andrew Miller being Andrew Miller. Kyle Schwarber being there at all. They did a really nice job of handling all of the Xs and Os the way you want your broadcast booth to handle it.

Smoltz in particular was outstanding, showing that Fox’s decision to make him their number one color guy while reassigning Harold Reynolds and Tom Verducci to be a fantastic one. A two-man booth is superior to a three-man booth in almost every instance, but the second man in Fox’s booth now mixes his insight and his regular conversation seamlessly. You never feel like Smoltz is talking down to you or speaking from his obviously superior place of baseball authority. His tone is as if he’s letting you in on stuff he thinks and hopes you’ll really appreciate knowing and he never plays the “I USED TO PLAY BASEBALL” card in the obnoxious ways some ex-player commentators do. And he’s right: we do appreciate what he tells us.

Beating up on Fox’s baseball broadcasts has been its own sport for many of us for several years, but there was nothing to really beat them up about last night. Sure, we could do without in-game interviews, but after the pregame show Fox showed remarkable restraint with respect to pushing history and narrative and curses and all of that baloney that has little if anything to do with the 2016 Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians. They kept it focused on the baseball game that was going on before us in ways they haven’t always done in the past. It was refreshing and, dare I say, downright enjoyable.

More of this please.

Republicans accuse Hillary Clinton of being a bandwagon Cubs fan

CHICAGO - APRIL 4:  Hillary Rodham Clinton throws out the first pitch before the Chicago Cubs Opening Day game against the New York Mets at Wrigley Field on April 4, 1994 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
Getty Images

This was inevitable: The Republican National Committee published a ridiculously detailed and self-serious opposition-research report accusing Hillary Clinton of being a “bandwagon” Cubs fan.

If you’re of a certain age you’ll recall that Clinton, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, spoke about being a Cubs fan as a kid. You’ll also recall that when she was running for her senate seat in New York, she gave shoutouts to a heretofore unheard of Yankees fandom. A lot of people have had fun with this at various times — we’ve mentioned it here on multiple occasions — but I wasn’t aware that anyone considered it an actually substantive political issue as opposed to an amusing “politicians, man” kind of thing.

The Republicans think it’s serious, though. Indeed, there’s more detail to this oppo-hit than there is any of the party’s candidate’s position papers. And while someone could, theoretically, have a lot of fun with this kind of material, the opposition report is not even remotely tongue-in-cheek. It reads like a poisition paper on nuclear proliferation. If the GOP had been this serious about vetting its own candidate, I suspect they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in today.

As for the substance: eh, who cares? Sports is entertainment and cultural glue. As a kid in Chicago, being a Cubs fan is both fun and makes some sense. As a senator from New York in the early 2000s, you’re gonna get to go to some Yankees games and sit in some good seats and that’s fun too. And, of course, politicians are going to say opportunistic things in order to attempt to connect with their constituents. Think of that what you will, but if you think of that as something which reveals something deep and dark within their soul about what kind of person they are, you probably need to step away from the cable news for a while and get some fresh air. Or you probably need to admit that you already believed the worse about her and that this is just an exercise in confirmation bias.

Heck, at this point I almost hope she finds a third or fourth team to root for. Indeed, I hope she makes a comic heel turn, puts on a Chief Wahoo hat for tonight’s game and claims that, deep, deep down, she had always rooted for the Indians. Then even I could get on her case about it. And we could all talk about how, in her own way, Hillary was really bringing the nation together.