Quote:
Originally Posted by shilala
I don't think that's the case. I forget what the distinction between an appealable offense and one that can't be appealed.
The list I saw had (no appeal) after the first half of the names, and no such thing after the second half of the names.
I wish I wasn't brain dead and could remember the distinction for you, Joel. I read so many stories I can't think of where to look.
Ahh, I got it. The players were suspended for non-analytical positives, meaning they didn't get caught by testing, so they can't appeal. The CBA says they can appeal tests, but not non-analytical offenses.
A few of the guys also failed a test, Colon, Cabrera, and Grandal all had positive tests in the past year, plus they were damned by the Biogenesis records. Being that the test and records overlapped, it'd be double jeopardy if they charged them for failing the test and being caught in the paperwork. So they charged them with the non-analytical evidence and just dropped the positive tests, avoiding appeals.
I'm not exactly sure why Aroid can appeal. Maybe because of the punishment or because it's his second charged violation?
I'll see if I can figure that one out.
|
Huh...I hadn't heard that before. Not saying it's inaccurate, but ESPN said this in their article
here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ESPN
The 12 other players agreed to deals for their suspensions in which they gave up the right to appeal.
|
Which I inferred that if they didn't agree to the deals they could have appealed. I don't know for sure though...