The union has to walk a tightrope on the Biogenesis stuff

9 Comments

A good story by Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com about how the Biogenesis thing is a tricky thing for the player’s union. The issue: unlike years ago the players these days want PEDs gone and offenders punished. But part of the union’s job, obviously, is to defend players. This quote from union head Michael Weiner is interesting for the exact language used:

“There’s no question, we have two things we’re trying to accomplish here. On the one hand, we’re defending players who have a defense. On the other hand, we have an obligation to enforce the joint drug program. If we have evidence that a player violated the program, then we have to do something about it. Is that a conflict? I could imagine circumstances where it could be a conflict. But that’s what a union does all the time, and that’s what we’re doing here. It’s not much different than what we’ve done in the past. It’s just higher-profile, I guess.”

I like the “players who have a defense” line. Which suggests, contrary to what many who are critical of the union suggest, that there are limits to what the union can and will do for a player. Weiner goes on to talk about the Ryan Braun appeal last year and notes that, while many hated that outcome and considered it to be some exercise in legal technicalities, no person in Braun’s position would eschew mounting such a defense. But the key takeaway, I think, is that there was a defense available there.

Other fun stuff in the story: Jerry Hairston, Jr. is quoted at length about the drug testing program and how, while it isn’t perfect, it is working.  The same Jerry Hairston, Jr. who was named in the Mitchell Report.