Thoughts on incentives here:
The MLBPA seems to want obvious cheaters to be punished, perhaps because it's bad for the game and thus the membership if there's proof out there that players have used and they are not punished. It remains to be seen if they want to stamp out steroid use; there have been quotes from anonymous players that they want a level playing field. I'll believe that when rigorous testing is agreed on in collective bargaining.
The MLBPA cannot want to see contracts voided, for any reason including steroid use. It is definitively bad for their membership if contracts can be substantially reduced for PED use. I would be shocked if the MLBPA does not fight a lifetime ban that effectively cancels one of the biggest contracts in the game. Perhaps they might negotiate with Selig to have the money paid out in the face of a lifetime ban. But voiding a contract is a line crossing I'd be surprised if they failed to contest. I realize that the MLBPA seemed to acquiesce to Selig having wide powers, but the actual quotes don't say that.
Selig is a virtual owner and works largely at the pleasure of the owners. The Yankees would love to see the contract voided. I don't have a good guess where the other owners fall: one factor may be if they want to see NY paying luxury tax or not. On the one hand some teams get money in their pocket if NY is over the threshold. On the other hand, teams may feel a sense of solidarity that (1) any reduced player salary is good for the owners collectively or (2) setting a precedent of reducing contracts could be good for the owners. I think we can agree that Selig will do little against the will of the owners.
The MLBPA seems to want obvious cheaters to be punished, perhaps because it's bad for the game and thus the membership if there's proof out there that players have used and they are not punished. It remains to be seen if they want to stamp out steroid use; there have been quotes from anonymous players that they want a level playing field. I'll believe that when rigorous testing is agreed on in collective bargaining.
The MLBPA cannot want to see contracts voided, for any reason including steroid use. It is definitively bad for their membership if contracts can be substantially reduced for PED use. I would be shocked if the MLBPA does not fight a lifetime ban that effectively cancels one of the biggest contracts in the game. Perhaps they might negotiate with Selig to have the money paid out in the face of a lifetime ban. But voiding a contract is a line crossing I'd be surprised if they failed to contest. I realize that the MLBPA seemed to acquiesce to Selig having wide powers, but the actual quotes don't say that.
They do say the union is expected to mount a challenge. The above quote could be read as saying "Don't expect suspension lengths to be fixed at 50 or 100 games"."In theory, [the players] could be suspended for five games or 500 games, and we could then choose to challenge that," Weiner said. "The commissioner's office is not bound by the scale we have in the basic agreement."
A provision in the drug-testing agreement gives the commissioner's office the latitude to announce suspensions before they are appealed if the cases are already public knowledge, but the union is expected to mount a challenge in the Biogenesis case.
Selig is a virtual owner and works largely at the pleasure of the owners. The Yankees would love to see the contract voided. I don't have a good guess where the other owners fall: one factor may be if they want to see NY paying luxury tax or not. On the one hand some teams get money in their pocket if NY is over the threshold. On the other hand, teams may feel a sense of solidarity that (1) any reduced player salary is good for the owners collectively or (2) setting a precedent of reducing contracts could be good for the owners. I think we can agree that Selig will do little against the will of the owners.