Nice of them to show Manny in a Sox uni while talking about 2008-2009.
Not that I assume he was clean ever.
Not that I assume he was clean ever.
Arb Ruling 162 Games for ARod
- Thread starter 67WasBest
- Start date
Yeah, he's a grifter. Hard to believe 60 Minutes is presenting him as truthful.
Doesn't change the fact that A-Rod is a cheating douche.
Doesn't change the fact that A-Rod is a cheating douche.
60 Minutes won't be on here for a while, so a couple of questions for anyone watching:
1) Is Bosch saying anything tangible (that could be independently verified) or is it all he said/he said type stuff?
2) How believable is he in general?
3) Even if tangible proof is thin, how bad are the perceptions of it all for ARod?
Thanks
Edit: I thought this was all with Bosch; questions also apply to anyone else interviewed.
1) Is Bosch saying anything tangible (that could be independently verified) or is it all he said/he said type stuff?
2) How believable is he in general?
3) Even if tangible proof is thin, how bad are the perceptions of it all for ARod?
Thanks
Edit: I thought this was all with Bosch; questions also apply to anyone else interviewed.
The threats made to Bosch by a known associate of A-Rods were believed to be very credible by the feds involved.
SemperFidelisSox said:
Yeah, but can Arod be held accountable for the actions of associates, and if they were so credible, were there any charges?
Gash Prex said:
But unless the text messages specifically refer to banned substances, it is only Bosch word that they are referring to something that's not. I am not so naive to believe this, but if you are going to suspend someone for a year, you should have something better than the paid testimony of a criminal like Bosch.
Average Reds said:
Since when has 60 minutes had any credibility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwXE52e9JFg
Average Reds said:
I think the later part where they interviewed Manfred and basically cross-examined him evened things out a bit. I actually thought it was fairly balanced.
Manfred and MLB really lost a lot of credibility with the way they, to put it lightly, strong-armed Bosch. Everyone looks bad is right. Tacopino is actually pretty good for a TV lawyer, though. He used to have his face plastered all over Court TV in the day. He's just stuck with a horrible case and client.
Quick question to any docs who can speak to this issue:
Bosch discussed how he instructed A-Rod to provide urine samples drawn from the middle portion of his stream, rather than the beginning or end of urination. He said this because the impurities left by the banned substances would be more concentrated in the beginning and ending portions. Any truth whatsoever to this statement?
Frankly it sounds ridiculous, but obviously I'm Sergeant Schultz on this subject despite being a prodigious pisser.
Bosch discussed how he instructed A-Rod to provide urine samples drawn from the middle portion of his stream, rather than the beginning or end of urination. He said this because the impurities left by the banned substances would be more concentrated in the beginning and ending portions. Any truth whatsoever to this statement?
Frankly it sounds ridiculous, but obviously I'm Sergeant Schultz on this subject despite being a prodigious pisser.
mabrowndog said:
Not a doc, but this is the advice people seem to be getting. It makes a bit of sense to me
http://www.ureasample.com/pass_a_drug_test_tutorial/pass_a_drug_test_4-6b.shtml
Montana Fan said:
I know that you couldn't resist the shot, but my point was not about 60 Minutes credibility, it was about their self-interest.
Granted - they put this together at light-speed, but the lack of preparation in their questioning of Bosch (to the point where a lot of obvious nonsense went unquestioned) was ridiculous. It's one thing to ask a politician their response to a scandal. It's quite another to put on a grifter and toss uninformed softballs at him. Pelley was like an articulate version of Francesa interviewing A-Rod; just taking his word for everything.
For better or worse, that's not how 60 Minutes made their reputation. They got in front of people like Bosch and asked direct questions that made the interviewee squirm. And if they couldn't put that together quickly enough after the arbitrator's decision was handed down, well they did a shit job.
But unless the text messages specifically refer to banned substances, it is only Bosch word that they are referring to something that's not. I am not so naive to believe this, but if you are going to suspend someone for a year, you should have something better than the paid testimony of a criminal like Bosch.
People get sent to prison every day on the testimony of worse people than Bosch. Assuming you believe the allegations are essentially true (and it sounds like you do), I don't understand your concern.
People get sent to prison every day on the testimony of worse people than Bosch. Assuming you believe the allegations are essentially true (and it sounds like you do), I don't understand your concern.
glennhoffmania said:
Then it hardly seems fair to suspend him for it first (assuming this was the justification for the 162 games).
maufman said:
Don't like the fact that bought testimony can send you to jail or get you suspended unless it simply supports other credible evidence. On Arods side, you have a dozen clean tests and a pretty standard age related decline curve since he was alleged to have begun using Bosch in 2010.
snowmanny said:
Well, the definition of evidence seems pretty loose here, but isn't the point of PED's for older players in part to halt a decline in performance, and perhaps enhance performance like Bonds and Clemens?
I thought the very end with Manfred was rather telling. Whatever one thinks of Bosch's credibility, nobody in the hearing ever denied what Bosch claimed. Arod is the only player ever to not take the stand in his own defense in these arbitration hearings. He continues to only use the press for his denials.
A clean drug test is evidence. Testimony by a third party is evidence.
Getting worse is not evidence of being clean. Some players might get worse despite or because of steroids. Some young players use steroids.
Some young players use steroids and suck. Some old players play well despite not being on steroids, like Ted Williams when he was 38 led the league in OPS.
For all we know ARod would have been even worse without steroids. I do not get the notion that baseball should convict or acquit players based even a little bit on performance.
Getting worse is not evidence of being clean. Some players might get worse despite or because of steroids. Some young players use steroids.
Some young players use steroids and suck. Some old players play well despite not being on steroids, like Ted Williams when he was 38 led the league in OPS.
For all we know ARod would have been even worse without steroids. I do not get the notion that baseball should convict or acquit players based even a little bit on performance.
King of All Sawdust said:
And, you know, all the other players on the list admitted that Bosch was telling the truth, and accepted their suspensions.
So... Bosch told the truth about all the other players, and just chose to lie about Rodriguez?...
Reverend said:
Yeah, I get that player development isn't the same kind of focus for the Yankees as it is for other clubs, but I don't see them actively trying to fuck it up with a stunt like that.
Andrew Marchand @AndrewMarchand18m
Joe Tacopina has a statement that is longer than many books. I will post to the blog in a bit.
Andrew Marchand @AndrewMarchand14m
Tacopina's statement is a mere 448 words
Joe Tacopina has a statement that is longer than many books. I will post to the blog in a bit.
Andrew Marchand @AndrewMarchand14m
Tacopina's statement is a mere 448 words
Daniel Barbarisi @DanBarbarisi8m
Tacopina statement on 60 mins piece really incredible. Highlights: "Salem Witch Trials; "unparalleled display of hubris and vindictiveness"
Tacopina statement on 60 mins piece really incredible. Highlights: "Salem Witch Trials; "unparalleled display of hubris and vindictiveness"
soxhop411 said:
soxhop411 said:
That's some book right there...
Although, I suppose what it lacks in length, it makes up for in comedy.
Pretty good piece but one huge point Pelly didn't bring up regarding Bosch's credibility is that A-Rod was only one of 14 players caught in the investigation of Biogenesis by MLB, and he is also the only one still fighting his punishment (Braun did for a bit, but eventually came clean). IOW A-Rod's case is not only that Bosch is lying, but that he was telling the truth about 13 other players and lied about him and him only.
And, you know, all the other players on the list admitted that Bosch was telling the truth, and accepted their suspensions.
So... Bosch told the truth about all the other players, and just chose to lie about Rodriguez?...
That's where I'm at.
Also, if you pause the 60 Minutes piece when the pages of text messages are shown (and assume they are legit) why would ARod want a "nutritionist" to avoid all the "eyes" and take the service elevator to his hotel room?
Man, there are no good guys in this story, are there? Bosch, Rodriguez, Selig, Tacopina, Manfred. Weasels all.
Here's another guy who, sadly, comes out looking bad: the dad of a kid who killed himself using PEDs who has set up a foundation in his name.
Asked how comfortable he was with such an arrangement, given his expressed priority of keeping illegal PEDs away from teenagers, Hooton said, “Some has been written about those allegations. I’m not certain that those have been established as fact. I want to stay away from that one until we know what the facts are.” Hooton’s foundation receives donations from MLB and the Yankees.
http://nypost.com/2014/01/12/a-rod-lectured-kids-on-evil-peds-while-working-with-biogenesis/
So depressing
Here's another guy who, sadly, comes out looking bad: the dad of a kid who killed himself using PEDs who has set up a foundation in his name.
Asked how comfortable he was with such an arrangement, given his expressed priority of keeping illegal PEDs away from teenagers, Hooton said, “Some has been written about those allegations. I’m not certain that those have been established as fact. I want to stay away from that one until we know what the facts are.” Hooton’s foundation receives donations from MLB and the Yankees.
http://nypost.com/2014/01/12/a-rod-lectured-kids-on-evil-peds-while-working-with-biogenesis/
So depressing
BigMike said:
To do that, they'd need, you know, a capable 3b. If they try to say that what they had there in 2013 or will have there in 2014 was an "improvement" on Arod, that would become the single most outrageous, silly thing in this circus of outrageous silliness.
But if they're gonna try this, Kelly Johnson is the most important player on their roster.
Instead of the speculation about how strong the evidence was against A-Rod (beyond noting that it seems pretty strong), let's consider what the 162 means. Future implications for other players, etc.
***
Baseball has a three strike rule in terms of PED violations: 50, 100, Lifetime Ban. It also has a "fuzzy" power to ban players for conduct detrimental to the game.
A-Rod's original 211 ban, fits into either a 50 or 100 ban Plus an interference with the investigation/spreading PEDs ban. It's unusual because this is technically the first time A-Rod was caught. So a lot of people equated "the first time being caught" with "a first positive test result" ban of 50 games. That perception was reinforced when the other players banned in the Biogenesis scandal were given 50 day suspensions, with the exception of Braun (who got 65).
The arbitrators final reduction wasn't to 50 or 100 games. So we know the arbitrator did not believe there was only a "first" or second violation on A-Rod's part. Clearly part of this ruling has to be based on the fuzzy "best interest of the game" power. It remains to be seen whether this is for interfering with an investigation or a sort of "enhancement" based on long and sustained PED use instead of a simple "first time positive" (which could logically include anything from catching a chronic cheater the first time he gets sloppy to randomly catching someone who unknowingly ingested a banned substance).
Also, the ban includes the post-seaon (which I'm glad for) and seems to set a precedent that under certain circumstances a team can't have a banned player come back to help them in the post season. Perhaps it's for 162 games, perhaps it's for anyone who ends the season on the banned list - we'll see.
So I think the walkaway is that future arbitrators are not bound by the 50, 100, Life testing penalty structure IF we're dealing with anything that includes a) a player coverup, or b) evidence of extended usage of PEDs (whether this is initially brought to light by a positive test or not). In other words, the bare positive test nets you 50 or 100, but the window can be open for a greater ban, depending on how you handle it and what other evidence of cheating/PED use turns up.
I think this is a good thing given the "Peralta Situation," which really wasn't an incentive *not* to do PEDs. (i.e., you do PEDs early in your free agency year, and, if you get caught, do your 50, play in the post season, then sign a multi-million, multi-year contract.
***
Baseball has a three strike rule in terms of PED violations: 50, 100, Lifetime Ban. It also has a "fuzzy" power to ban players for conduct detrimental to the game.
A-Rod's original 211 ban, fits into either a 50 or 100 ban Plus an interference with the investigation/spreading PEDs ban. It's unusual because this is technically the first time A-Rod was caught. So a lot of people equated "the first time being caught" with "a first positive test result" ban of 50 games. That perception was reinforced when the other players banned in the Biogenesis scandal were given 50 day suspensions, with the exception of Braun (who got 65).
The arbitrators final reduction wasn't to 50 or 100 games. So we know the arbitrator did not believe there was only a "first" or second violation on A-Rod's part. Clearly part of this ruling has to be based on the fuzzy "best interest of the game" power. It remains to be seen whether this is for interfering with an investigation or a sort of "enhancement" based on long and sustained PED use instead of a simple "first time positive" (which could logically include anything from catching a chronic cheater the first time he gets sloppy to randomly catching someone who unknowingly ingested a banned substance).
Also, the ban includes the post-seaon (which I'm glad for) and seems to set a precedent that under certain circumstances a team can't have a banned player come back to help them in the post season. Perhaps it's for 162 games, perhaps it's for anyone who ends the season on the banned list - we'll see.
So I think the walkaway is that future arbitrators are not bound by the 50, 100, Life testing penalty structure IF we're dealing with anything that includes a) a player coverup, or b) evidence of extended usage of PEDs (whether this is initially brought to light by a positive test or not). In other words, the bare positive test nets you 50 or 100, but the window can be open for a greater ban, depending on how you handle it and what other evidence of cheating/PED use turns up.
I think this is a good thing given the "Peralta Situation," which really wasn't an incentive *not* to do PEDs. (i.e., you do PEDs early in your free agency year, and, if you get caught, do your 50, play in the post season, then sign a multi-million, multi-year contract.
A guy with his own chef, access to doctors and trainers the Yankees employ, with means to hire the best doctors and nutritionists money can buy instead uses a street doctor without a license operating out of a FL strip mall for nutrition advice? Or the guy was the flavor of the day expert and guys in the know we're bragging about clean urine while juicing the same day. Take your pick.
PaulinMyrBch said:
Uh. . .can I pick "But Bud Selig Didn't Testify!" as I wrap myself in the flag?
The whole affair has developed a pretty bad reek with neither side looking particularly good. But Arod is still the big loser - 27.5 really big ones, a career in jeopardy and a reputation completely shattered beyond repair.
Not that I feel sorry for him. IMO, he's probably been juicing since high school.It's quite possible that he's never played a clean inning in his entire professional life.
Not that I feel sorry for him. IMO, he's probably been juicing since high school.It's quite possible that he's never played a clean inning in his entire professional life.
You sound like you're one of A-Rod's lawyers...
Because I think it's inappopriate for Selig to discuss the case with 60 Minutes? Arod is a scumbag cheater and narcissicist, but that doesn't mean MLB looks good in any of this either.
Because I think it's inappopriate for Selig to discuss the case with 60 Minutes? Arod is a scumbag cheater and narcissicist, but that doesn't mean MLB looks good in any of this either.
I was going to bash the interview, but I did learn a few things.
1. Pissing in midstream can help beat tests
2. Pre-game 'gummies', which is basically a low dosage of testosterone is being used and can help. That was an eye opener, guys popping these an hour before the game in the clubhouse/dugout. Makes me think this stuff is still widespread/prevalent.
3. I'll give Bosch a little credit for being honest and saying he would still be doing it if he didn't get caught.
Some other questions I think Pelley should have asked, and if he did please fill me in:
Who else is doing it, and how did those players find you?
Lets hear about Ryan Braun?
Out of all the players that got caught, rate who were the heaviest and longest users of PEDs?
Who does he suspect is doing it that he didn't treat?
How widespread are these gummies? How hard is it to get your hands on these gummies?
Bosch alluded to "everyone" is doing this and always have been, Pelley pivoted and started digging into Bosch's conscience, who cares about Tony Bosch's conscience???
I wonder if MLB will start making guys piss in a cup before the first pitch? I know the rules say no now, but will they negotiate that with the Players Union next?
1. Pissing in midstream can help beat tests
2. Pre-game 'gummies', which is basically a low dosage of testosterone is being used and can help. That was an eye opener, guys popping these an hour before the game in the clubhouse/dugout. Makes me think this stuff is still widespread/prevalent.
3. I'll give Bosch a little credit for being honest and saying he would still be doing it if he didn't get caught.
Some other questions I think Pelley should have asked, and if he did please fill me in:
Who else is doing it, and how did those players find you?
Lets hear about Ryan Braun?
Out of all the players that got caught, rate who were the heaviest and longest users of PEDs?
Who does he suspect is doing it that he didn't treat?
How widespread are these gummies? How hard is it to get your hands on these gummies?
Bosch alluded to "everyone" is doing this and always have been, Pelley pivoted and started digging into Bosch's conscience, who cares about Tony Bosch's conscience???
I wonder if MLB will start making guys piss in a cup before the first pitch? I know the rules say no now, but will they negotiate that with the Players Union next?
Ed Hillel said:
I agree. MLB did not come away looking any better. Selig is trying to come off as a guy who is simply trying to catch the cheaters, but this ignores a lot of history. And there had to be better options than to become so intertwined with Bosch's personal business and issues. I'm not saying Bosch is a stand up guy by any means, but if MLB started throwing money, advisors, support and promises at him it's tough to blame him for accepting.
Rovin Romine said:
We've covered this ground a lot in other threads, but apparently it bears repeating: Your original premise about the suspension allowed under the JDA is incorrect and you are getting hung up on factors that did not come into play.
In addition to the grounds you have cited, MLB has the power to suspend players for non-analytical positive tests. As Michael Weiner stated at the time, there is not a punishment schedule attached to this sort of violation. MLB has the discretion to define the number of games the player is being suspended for and the player has the option of accepting this or fighting it through arbitration.
Braun's suspension was 65 games even though it was a "first offense" because it was for a non-analytical positive. The amount of games was negotiated between Braun and MLB. Other players were given 50 games and some players were not suspended because they have tested positive before for (presumably) the same offense. There is confusion here, and MLB caused it by conflating the different suspensions. But the fact that MLB chose to suspend some players for only 50 games or that they allowed some players to get off with "time served" for their non-analytical positive result does not mean that MLB was bound by the 50/100/lifetime schedule. They just chose to use it for these players.
A-Rod was not suspended for a positive test. This is why his suspension was not for 50 games. He was suspended under a process that allowed MLB to define the number of games and for A-Rod to appeal. That process has concluded.
The point being that in the future, if a player tests positive the schedule agreed to under the JDA will hold. The window for "enhanced suspensions" is not related to how the player handles the situation - it's related to the nature of the violation. Only where a player is suspended for a non-analytical positive can MLB can pick and choose the number of games depending on what they feel is appropriate.
As a practical matter, most cheaters are caught with testing because MLB is unaware of the activity until the positive test emerges. This is why the JDA will apply. The Biogenesis scandal was unique because it was first reported by the media and MLB followed it up. I can't see MLB going out to find scenarios like this in the future (unless prompted) so absent extraordinary circumstances, future suspensions will fall under the JDA schedule and the behavior of those who test positive will not be a factor.
The Commissioner's power to act in the best interests of the game was never used here and is not part of the discussion.