Arb Ruling 162 Games for ARod

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,573
South Boston
Average Reds said:
I'm not sure that's right.  Or at least the context needs to be clear.
 
Arbitrators have the power to compel testimony, but I believe that power only extends to the parties who have the dispute.  And there are no criminal penalties for ignoring the subpoena - there's just an incredibly high probability that you will be on the losing end of the decision if you ignore the arbitrator.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator can compel the attendance of non-parties to act as witnesses and produce evidence. 9 U.S.C. s. 7. There's a circuit split as to whether that compulsion extends to depositions and pre-hearing discovery or is limited to the hearing itself, but as far as I know, there is no disagreement about compelling non-parties generally.

The process by which this is enforced is this: arbitrator issues subpoena, witness refuses to comply, party seeking the testimony petitions the local U.S. district court which then either compels the attendance or punishes the witness in the same manner as provided for compelling witnesses to testify in federal court.

The FAA has consistently been interpreted as the codification of a "strong federal policy in favor of arbitration" and courts usually will not fuck around when trying to make sure that arbitration functions smoothly. You still have privileges and everything, but it's very much the sort of blending that Rev was talking about.

State statutes vary.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,626
Maui
Boston Brawler said:
ARod has dropped his lawsuits against MLB, MLBPA, and Selig according to ESPN
The graffiti on the wall was screaming at him.  Someone with a voice of reason got to him finally.  Unfortunately we won't have A-Rod to kick around now.  Looking forward to more pics of Fat A-Rod though!
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
How could A-Rod sell Francesa out like this? Not to mention the legal wizards who called Mike opining that the chances of an injunction were good?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Maybe this has already been asked and answered.  ARod is suspended for 2014.  No games, no pay.  Ok, fine.  The Yankees don't need to pay him for this year.  But because he was suspended, it's not like he's hurt and on the DL or anything.  If the Yankees don't need to pay him, it's like he's not even a major leaguer this year.  Does this "count" as a year off his contract?  Or does his contract just kind of get pushed back a year?  I assume the former, but why?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
mauidano said:
The graffiti on the wall was screaming at him.  Someone with a voice of reason got to him finally.  Unfortunately we won't have A-Rod to kick around now.  Looking forward to more pics of Fat A-Rod though!
 
Are we sure he changed his mind?
 
Assuming their goal was to persuade a federal judge, the brief filed by A-Rod's lawyers was poor, even taking into account the weakness of his position (i.e., getting a court to vacate an arbitrator's decision is a seriously uphill battle). One wonders if the primary objective all along was to tell A-Rod's side of the story in a way that would attract intense press coverage, without having to answer questions, and without opening the door for a libel or slander suit.
 
I'm not saying they filed the brief with the intent of withdrawing it, but once the storytelling part was accomplished, it probably didn't take much to persuade A-Rod to drop a lawsuit he was almost certain to lose (but not before racking up some legal bills and further pissing off other players, many of whom presumably had no beef with him before now).
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
maufman said:
 
Are we sure he changed his mind?
 
Assuming their goal was to persuade a federal judge, the brief filed by A-Rod's lawyers was poor, even taking into account the weakness of his position (i.e., getting a court to vacate an arbitrator's decision is a seriously uphill battle). One wonders if the primary objective all along was to tell A-Rod's side of the story in a way that would attract intense press coverage, without having to answer questions, and without opening the door for a libel or slander suit.
 
I'm not saying they filed the brief with the intent of withdrawing it, but once the storytelling part was accomplished, it probably didn't take much to persuade A-Rod to drop a lawsuit he was almost certain to lose (but not before racking up some legal bills and further pissing off other players, many of whom presumably had no beef with him before now).
 
I can see why you'd wonder this.  I wonder about it myself.  
 
As far as using the lawsuit as a shadow-PR campaign, though, it's not like there's a huge pool of potential ARod defenders out there.  (Which says a lot, when you consider guys like Pete Rose and Lance Armstrong.)  This seems like a client insisting on a losing course of action - in fact the whole strategy has a kind of echo chamber feel to it.  If so, I'd guess it was probably bolstered by A-Rod's mistaken belief on two key points:
   a) A-Rod's "cultural value" - i.e., that A-Rod has fans/people who deeply care/is an important icon in the game,
   b) MLB's "cultural value" - i.e., that "the public" despises Selig/MLB to the extent that they're willing to overlook or excuse prolonged steroid use by a player. 
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
maufman said:
 
Are we sure he changed his mind?
 
Assuming their goal was to persuade a federal judge, the brief filed by A-Rod's lawyers was poor, even taking into account the weakness of his position (i.e., getting a court to vacate an arbitrator's decision is a seriously uphill battle). One wonders if the primary objective all along was to tell A-Rod's side of the story in a way that would attract intense press coverage, without having to answer questions, and without opening the door for a libel or slander suit.
 
I'm not saying they filed the brief with the intent of withdrawing it, but once the storytelling part was accomplished, it probably didn't take much to persuade A-Rod to drop a lawsuit he was almost certain to lose (but not before racking up some legal bills and further pissing off other players, many of whom presumably had no beef with him before now).
 
There may be something to this, but I think the truth is far simpler.  A-Rod thought he had a lot of leverage, and only after he filed the suit and things did not unfold that way he thought did the reality of his situation hit him.
 
We know that A-Rod spent a lot of time amassing dirt on MLB and their investigators.  (Specifically, he was gathering evidence of improprieties related to how MLB gathered evidence.)  And all through the process he gave clear signals that if MLB didn't negotiate with him and cut his suspension that he would be forced to file suit and everything would come out.  He thought that the suit would force negotiations and he was wrong.
  • MLB didn't negotiate a settlement.  They went through the arbitration process and were largely validated.
  • A-Rod filed his lawsuit, complete with salacious details.  No one really batted an eyelash.
  • Iinstead of trembling in fear and coming to him to negotiate a settlement, MLB doubled down and blasted him right back. 
  • The MLBPA abandoned him, with players trying to kick him out of the union. 
At that moment, A-Rod had to finally realize that he had badly misplayed his hand.  So he folded.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Average Reds said:
 
There may be something to this, but I think the truth is far simpler.  A-Rod thought he had a lot of leverage, and only after he filed the suit and things did not unfold that way he thought did the reality of his situation hit him.
 
We know that A-Rod spent a lot of time amassing dirt on MLB and their investigators.  (Specifically, he was gathering evidence of improprieties related to how MLB gathered evidence.)  And all through the process he gave clear signals that if MLB didn't negotiate with him and cut his suspension that he would be forced to file suit and everything would come out.  He thought that the suit would force negotiations and he was wrong.
  • MLB didn't negotiate a settlement.  They went through the arbitration process and were largely validated.
  • A-Rod filed his lawsuit, complete with salacious details.  No one really batted an eyelash.
  • Iinstead of trembling in fear and coming to him to negotiate a settlement, MLB doubled down and blasted him right back. 
  • The MLBPA abandoned him, with players trying to kick him out of the union. 
At that moment, A-Rod had to finally realize that he had badly misplayed his hand.  So he folded.
 
 
 
This makes some sense.  I wonder though, how it worked in the context of this case.  
 
First, there was a negotiation process that happened prior to the suspension - obviously that went nowhere.  Then after the announced suspension, heading into arb, there were rumors that both sides were still very far apart on any possible settlement.  However at that time the suspension had already been announced and was the maximum possible penalty A-Rod was facing.  
 
I'm guessing the major items on the table would have been: a) suspension length, b) an admission of wrongdoing, c) a non-disclosure agreement for either party covering various issues.
  • I can't see A-Rod acquiescing to any suspension unless he could deny doing anything wrong and have MLB seal the particulars of the accusations.   
  • I can't see MLB acquiescing to any suspension less than Braun's without an admission of wrongdoing or MLB revealing the particulars of A-Rod's transgressions.  
Or to put it another way, A-Rod could have been concerned about: a) money, b) legacy, c) current PR image, d) endorsements.  Obviously some overlap there.  I just don't see how he salvages much out of this situation - maybe some money if the suspension is reduced, maybe some of the others if there's no admission of wrongdoing.  I just don't see him getting away without a suspension of some kind, and certainly not one in which he's allowed to deny any wrongdoing.  
 
So while the idea of "forcing them to the table" makes some sense, I think it was pretty clear that negotiations weren't going to produce anything except a possible reduction in the games he was banned for. 
 
But at this point (just before filing the lawsuit) A-Rod is already in arb.  And, from what I recall, the writing was on the wall pretty early in the arb process.  Whether or not A-Rod gains anything at arb, there's going to be written findings by the arbitrator, and even if the suspension is reduced, he's still going to be branded a cheater.  
 
So for A-Rod to file the "dirty laundry lawsuit" late in the arb process really does not do anything but open the door for MLB to air all of A-Rod's dirty laundry as well.  
 
***
In retrospect the best thing he could have done was save some money and perhaps a little respect - i.e., come clean, make a full confession to MLB, get some kind of agreement in place for the details not to be leaked out, and negotiate his ban down to something like 100 games.  
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Rovin Romine said:
In retrospect the best thing he could have done was save some money and perhaps a little respect - i.e., come clean, make a full confession to MLB, get some kind of agreement in place for the details not to be leaked out, and negotiate his ban down to something like 100 games.  
 
Was 100 games even possible?  MLB started off by leaking the fact they planned to ban him for life.  At some point 214 games was offered. By accepting it he would be acknowledging wrong doing.   At some point MLB just refused to negotiate, despite the MLBPA intervention,  saying they had sufficient evidence.  When they announced the suspension they stayed at 214 games, which was what they supposedly had offered him in a deal, knowing they had little chance of getting the lifetime ban upheld.   After Arod appealed the suspension, and before arbitration, MLB supposedly drop their offer to 162 games.
 
Braun got offered 65 games after denying the charges and  not answering any questions in his hearing with MLB.  Just seems like there was a different standard for Arod.  From the arbitrators report it is clear the obstruction charges are not the answer for the different treatment as most of the penalty was a very creative interpretation of the JDA/CBA for repeated usage of multiple drugs .  The guy who decided on the length, Selig,  was not required to testify and explain how the 214 games (remainder of 2013 and all of 2014) was arrived at, although maybe this was provided in some other way (not mentioned in the arbitrators report though).
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
Sampo Gida said:
 
Was 100 games even possible? 
 
As was said before - by simply admitting to what he did and doing what all of the other players named in the Biogenesis situation did.
Unlike everyone else, he didn't - and that's why he was dealt with differently.
 
Yes, I know in the other thread you had stated he was "never offered that." Sure, true, but that's because he didn't do what all the other players did and just admit to it and move on.
So, yes, it was possible - but he never allowed it to be possible.