A-Roid offered a deal to avoid a lifetime ban

[Migrant Redbird]

I think that some of you are confused about what the real issue is here. This is not a criminal justice issue, even though some of the players and/or their suppliers could end up in criminal court over their actions.

If I'm one of those few individuals with the incredible talent to play this sport at the highest level, I am voluntarily allowing MLB to collect my urine and my blood for testing to ensure my fellow players aren't cheating. I don't care if MLB pays their suppliers for evidence or not AS LONG AS THE EVIDENCE IS TRUE. It's not like I'm executing these cheaters or throwing them in jail; I'm just not going to let them play with me anymore.

Now if you as a fan want to watch these players, you're free to stop paying to see my games or even to set up your own league for cheaters, but I'm not going to let these proven cheaters play with me. I've told MLB -- through the Players Association -- to get these cheaters off the field.

If investigators working for MLB have violated the law, then they're subject to criminal prosecution and should be fired, but that in and of itself doesn't invalidate the evidence or protect the cheaters from expulsion.

And remember, we're not even talking about permanent banishment from the game, even though it might be effectively a permanent banishment for players as old as A-rod. If we'd caught them betting on baseball games, it would have been a permanent ban.

I use the case of Pete Rose to illustrate how this issue is very different from a simply criminal matter. Pete didn't get in trouble with the law because he gambled; it was his tax avoidance that got him in trouble with the law, not his gambling. Nor does MLB care about Pete's tax problems, just his gambling.

[Can_of_corn]

I know it won't change any minds, because a lot of you frankly don't care what MLB does as long as it punishes Arod.

But give this a read:

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/5-reasons-you-should-be-rooting-for-a-rod/

[Il BuonO]

I know it won't change any minds, because a lot of you frankly don't care what MLB does as long as it punishes Arod.

But give this a read:

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/5-reasons-you-should-be-rooting-for-a-rod/

Well, yeah but to Hell with the facts, right?

[SeaBird]

I know it won't change any minds, because a lot of you frankly don't care what MLB does as long as it punishes Arod.

But give this a read:

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/5-reasons-you-should-be-rooting-for-a-rod/

I read it and I'm not swayed. Rodriguez is no martyr. I am confident that MLB decided to go for a harsher punishment because the evidence, which none of us have see or heard, is so damning that it warrants more than just a 50 game suspension. He and his legal team have turned the appeals hearing into a 3-ring circus.

[Can_of_corn]

I read it and I'm not swayed. Rodriguez is no martyr. I am confident that MLB decided to go for a harsher punishment because the evidence, which none of us have see or heard, is so damning that it warrants more than just a 50 game suspension. He and his legal team have turned the appeals hearing into a 3-ring circus.

Like I said, some of you just want your pound of flesh and to hell with the rules.

[weams]

I know it won't change any minds, because a lot of you frankly don't care what MLB does as long as it punishes Arod.

But give this a read:

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/5-reasons-you-should-be-rooting-for-a-rod/

Pretty good article. I like the anti Yankee portion of it.

[Can_of_corn]

Pretty good article. I like the anti Yankee portion of it.

I give Gammons credit for running it.

[weams]

Pretty good article. I like the anti Yankee portion of it.

http://www.bds.org/staff/BenjaminZeman.aspx

This is the author. I bet he does ok. I would like to have some of our legal minds poke around in his opening argument.

[weams]

I give Gammons credit for running it.

He would publish your article if you sent it to him. He has a plea for content at the bottom of the page.

[SeaBird]

Like I said, some of you just want your pound of flesh and to hell with the rules.

If it is proven that he is guilty of what MLB has accused him of I most certainly do want a pound of flesh. Here's a good laugh for you:

“He really is someone who strikes us as a special guy. He has dignity and grace stapled across his forehead. He is an impressive guy. He probably does a lot to keep us cool. It’s not easy. There’s a lot going on.” Attorney Joseph Tacopina - discussing his client, Alex Rodriguez.

[Can_of_corn]

If it is proven that he is guilty of what MLB has accused him of I most certainly do want a pound of flesh. Here's a good laugh for you:

“He really is someone who strikes us as a special guy. He has dignity and grace stapled across his forehead. He is an impressive guy. He probably does a lot to keep us cool. It’s not easy. There’s a lot going on.” Attorney Joseph Tacopina - discussing his client, Alex Rodriguez.

"Proven guilty" I am not sure what you even mean by that. I don't think an arbitrator's ruling counts as "proven guilty". What if he gets 50 games? Or 100 or 162? In all those cases it will have been shown that the arbiter felt that MLB oversteped their bounds.

[SeaBird]

"Proven guilty" I am not sure what you even mean by that. I don't think an arbitrator's ruling counts as "proven guilty". What if he gets 50 games? Or 100 or 162? In all those cases it will have been shown that the arbiter felt that MLB oversteped their bounds.

And I don't know if you are being condescending or just obtuse? What is so hard to understand? An arbiter serves as judge and jury. He or she is unbiased and will issue a judgment or opinion that is considered authoritative after being presented and evaluating testimony and evidence relative to the appeal. Both parties agree to the process and that they will abide by and accept the decision of the arbiter.

In this instance, each side prevents evidence and sworn testimony. Rodriguez' side is trying to convince the arbiter that MLB is out of line by issuing a harsher punishment than the standard 50 games specified for a first time offender. MLB is saying his actions were much more serious and egregious than just being a first time offender in violating the CBA policy and a stronger punishment is warranted.

If the arbiter agrees with MLB and upholds the 211 game suspension or if he even downgrades it to fewer games to your suggested 100 or 150 games, I'd say MLB "proved" it's case against Rodriguez and he is "guilty" of MLB's charges.

Tacopina has now said he wants the hearing made public, something which is in total disagreement with the terms of the agreed upon CBA, and he can't discuss whether Rodriguez, the special guy withdignity and grace stapled across his foreheadwill testify in his own behalf.

They are scared that Rodriguez will be found "guilty".

[Can_of_corn]

And I don't know if you are being condescending or just obtuse? What is so hard to understand? An arbiter serves as judge and jury. He or she is unbiased and will issue a judgment or opinion that is considered authoritative after being presented and evaluating testimony and evidence relative to the appeal. Both parties agree to the process and that they will abide by and accept the decision of the arbiter.

In this instance, each side prevents evidence and sworn testimony. Rodriguez' side is trying to convince the arbiter that MLB is out of line by issuing a harsher punishment than the standard 50 games specified for a first time offender. MLB is saying his actions were much more serious and egregious than just being a first time offender in violating the CBA policy and a stronger punishment is warranted.

If the arbiter agrees with MLB and upholds the 211 game suspension or if he even downgrades it to fewer games to your suggested 100 or 150 games, I'd say MLB "proved" it's case against Rodriguez and he is "guilty" of MLB's charges.

Tacopina has now said he wants the hearing made public, something which is in total disagreement with the terms of the agreed upon CBA, and he can't discuss whether Rodriguez, the special guy withdignity and grace stapled across his foreheadwill testify in his own behalf.

They are scared that Rodriguez will be found "guilty".

Sorry, if Arod ends up with anything less then 211 games then his side "won". Now it might very well be a small victory. Even if he ends up with a 162 game suspension that is still roughly 10 million in recouped salary.

[SeaBird]

Sorry, if Arod ends up with anything less then 211 games then his side "won". Now it might very well be a small victory. Even if he ends up with a 162 game suspension that is still roughly 10 million in recouped salary.

Not so fast. The union leader, Michael Weiner, said the union believed the 211 game suspension was ridiculous. But then he urged Rodriguez to accept a suspension if it wasn't "excessive" and he recommended a number to Rodriguez that he should accept. In a radio interview he said, "I don't want to give a number, but there was a number that I gave A-Rod and we advised him to take it. He was never given that number (by MLB)."

He was then asked if Rodriguez was to accept a suspension would that be an "admission" that Rodriguez did take steroids. Weiner replied, "It's a question of evidence and, you know, each player has to make his own decision as to whether he used or not. Based on the evidence that we saw, we made a recommendation. The commissioner's office didn't meet it. They were much higher. And therefore we're at a hearing."

On the "Today" show, his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, was asked by Matt Lauer if Rodriguez would have agreed to a 50 game ban like the other 12 players who did not appeal. Tacopina said, "I would tell him, 'Don't take one inning, Alex. Forget 50 games. Don't take one inning.'"

So, it can be argued that the Rodriguez defense team is looking for complete vindication with their client serving no suspension whatsoever. Anything else would be a defeat.

A 162 game suspension would be $25 million in recouped salary for 2014. I still believe he'll get suspended for 100 or more games.

[Can_of_corn]

Not so fast. The union leader, Michael Weiner, said the union believed the 211 game suspension was ridiculous. But then he urged Rodriguez to accept a suspension if it wasn't "excessive" and he recommended a number to Rodriguez that he should accept. In a radio interview he said, "I don't want to give a number, but there was a number that I gave A-Rod and we advised him to take it. He was never given that number (by MLB)."

He was then asked if Rodriguez was to accept a suspension would that be an "admission" that Rodriguez did take steroids. Weiner replied, "It's a question of evidence and, you know, each player has to make his own decision as to whether he used or not. Based on the evidence that we saw, we made a recommendation. The commissioner's office didn't meet it. They were much higher. And therefore we're at a hearing."

On the "Today" show, his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, was asked by Matt Lauer if Rodriguez would have agreed to a 50 game ban like the other 12 players who did not appeal. Tacopina said, "I would tell him, 'Don't take one inning, Alex. Forget 50 games. Don't take one inning.'"

So, it can be argued that the Rodriguez defense team is looking for complete vindication with their client serving no suspension whatsoever. Anything else would be a defeat.

A 162 game suspension would be $25 million in recouped salary for 2014. I still believe he'll get suspended for 100 or more games.

Of course, his lawyer, when talking to the press, would say don't accept any suspension.

You might very well be on target will all of this but either way his lawyer isn't going to admit on the Today show that he advised Arod to take a deal if offered.