Lifetime Ban for A-Rod?

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Blueface

I am confused. I just don't get the "we need proof" audience.

If an employer (MLB in this case), suspects and feels they have evidence an employee (A-Rod in this case and a bunch of other employees) have been involved in what they deem inappropriate and unacceptable for the work environment and said employer decides to fire some, punish others with suspensions and perhaps even excuse a few, that is wrong how? They have to prove it to who?

Question, where is their player's union? Why aren't they asking for the evidence? Or filing suit? If and when that happens, then and only then will the employer need to show said proof. Until then, they obviously feel they have the goods to support their decision.

My only gripe is how short that suspension list is and I know the reason why as there would otherwise be no players left to play the game. That is the truly sad part.

The MLB isn't the employer, the Yankees are (i'm assuming it still works that way). It would be a different story if the Yankees handed out punishment b/c he's signed with them. If I were a team owner, I would be highly upset if the league tried to ban one of my players without evidence.
I'm probably wrong here though in regards to the business side of the game and how it works nowadays.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by Starscream

The MLB isn't the employer, the Yankees are (i'm assuming it still works that way). It would be a different story if the Yankees handed out punishment b/c he's signed with them. If I were a team owner, I would be highly upset if the league tried to ban one of my players without evidence.
I'm probably wrong here though in regards to the business side of the game and how it works nowadays.

Of course his employer is the Yankees but I see them as Cadillac, where baseball is GM as it relates to control of rules for the league.
Interesting point you raise as we haven't heard a word from the Yankees but I am sure the savings in pay justifies that for them.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Of course his employer is the Yankees but I see them as Cadillac, where baseball is GM as it relates to control of rules for the league.
Interesting point you raise as we haven't heard a word from the Yankees but I am sure the savings in pay justifies that for them.

I'd bet the Yankees are hoping for the suspension. It'd save them a ton of money and headache.

[AdamJoshua]

Originally Posted by Starscream

The MLB isn't the employer, the Yankees are (i'm assuming it still works that way). It would be a different story if the Yankees handed out punishment b/c he's signed with them. If I were a team owner, I would be highly upset if the league tried to ban one of my players without evidence.
I'm probably wrong here though in regards to the business side of the game and how it works nowadays.

You sign a contract that says you will uphold the values set by MLB, I'm sure there is the same for each individual team, but up on top of the ladder is MLB.

Supposedly there are 100s of names in the files, the person that gave the names was pissed off how MLB has handled it and hasn't been cooperating as of late, so they say.

I have a feeling the yankees aren't as ticked off as they are pretending to be, unless it's the fact they wanted him banned for life so they could get out from under his huge contract, same reason he was fighting for a shorter ban.

Oh well he'll hit just as good without playing as he has when he was playing, the problem is they need to bring up / get a full time 3rd baseman for next year, then go back to arod after that, sucks to be them.... haha