CNN/SI: Gibbons received shipments of steriods

[RShack]

The only way this gets rid of Gibbons is if he's so humiliated by it that he gives up and retires.

Or unless they can turn his season-ending injury into something that nixes him for next year too. I'm hoping they can figure out how to do this, effectively trading him to the insurance company.

[Mackus]

Or unless they can turn his season-ending injury into something that nixes him for next year too. I'm hoping they can figure out how to do this, effectively trading him to the insurance company.

I'd be incredibly surprised if Gibbons' contract is insured. I can't imagine the premiums for someone as oft-injured as he is being reasonable enough to get the insurance, although thats just a guess as I have no real understanding of the complexities of insuring athletes contracts.

[PoorMike]

Angelos is smart enough to read the contract carefully and figure out whether he has any chance at all. Obviously I don't have access to the contract, but I highly doubt he has any reasonable ground to stand on. There's already a precedent of numerous players testing positive or being implicated in receiving PEDs and not having their contracts terminated. It would be pretty obvious that their desire to get rid of Gibbons had more to do with his performance than his morals.

When you talk about precedent, you have to consider the finer details of the situation. When has a player gotten popped that was well underperforming his contract? When has a player gotten popped that signed an extension or FA deal that was based on numbers acquired during a time when he may have been using PED's? The only one I can think of is Giambi and supposedly the Yankess 'removed' steroid references from the contract. That deal was signed in 2001, but steroids were even more of an issue in 2006 when JG signed his deal.

Most guys that have been implicated were guys that didn't make much, guys were barely in the majors service time wise, or were guys that were at the end of their deals anyway (Raffy, Grimsley).

[blueberryale77]

When you talk about precedent, you have to consider the finer details of the situation. When has a player gotten popped that was well underperforming his contract? When has a player gotten popped that signed an extension or FA deal that was based on numbers acquired during a time when he may have been using PED's? The only one I can think of is Giambi and supposedly the Yankess 'removed' steroid references from the contract. That deal was signed in 2001, but steroids were even more of an issue in 2006 when JG signed his deal.

Most guys that have been implicated were guys that didn't make much, guys were barely in the majors service time wise, or were guys that were at the end of their deals anyway (Raffy, Grimsley).

Like Mackus said, there would pretty much have to be some very specific language about him not being allowed to receive or posess HGH or testosterone. Remember, he hasn't tested positive and he hasn't been convicted or even charged with a crime. Testing positive wouldn't really matter anyway since that's already dealt with in the collective bargaining agreement through the system of suspensions. Doctor shopping to get a drug unethically is not going to be enough to get him on the general morals clause. Guys have committed much more serious criminal acts without teams being able to enforce that. The only way they'd have him in the contract language would be if he agreed to a statement that he had never received or possessed the drugs he received.

[RShack]

I'd be incredibly surprised if Gibbons' contract is insured. I can't imagine the premiums for someone as oft-injured as he is being reasonable enough to get the insurance, although thats just a guess as I have no real understanding of the complexities of insuring athletes contracts.

Maybe. I have no idea either. The counter-argument is that his injury hx would elevate the importance of insurance, especially in the mind of a certain lawyer who shall remain nameless. I asked a couple times about how insurance typically works, but nobody seems to know. The only real answer I got said that there is no standard way it works, it's all v. case-by-case (can't recall who said that).

[nadecir]

Likely Angelos will pursue voiding his contract. He fought Ponson. He is a champion of taking it to court and delaying and delaying and wearing out the other side. He might take Gibbons to court just because he feels personally betrayed. Never underestimate Angelos's ego. He could take Gibbons to court as a WARNING to other Orioles.

He might even use intern lawyers. Freebees. LOL.

There's no way Angelos tries to even void Gibbon's contract. He has no grounds to do it, unless Gibbons did something illegal. The collective bargaining agreement specifically deals with penalties for steroid use, and Angelos can't ignore the collective bargaining agreement by voiding Gibbon's contract.

The major league baseball player association even included language in the collective bargaining agreement that says players can be awarded triple damages if a team voids a contract without sufficient grounds. If Angelos voids Gibbons contract and loses, Angelos can be forced to pay Gibbon's three times his contract value.

The player's association did this just so teams don't try to void a contract instead of just cutting a player. There's a real downside to teams unilaterally voiding contracts. The player's association has some smart folks doing its negotiating.

[Dr. FLK]

Or unless they can turn his season-ending injury into something that nixes him for next year too. I'm hoping they can figure out how to do this, effectively trading him to the insurance company.

Can we get that annoying little lizard with the funny accent in return?

[PoorMike]

Like Mackus said, there would pretty much have to be some very specific language about him not being allowed to receive or posess HGH or testosterone. Remember, he hasn't tested positive and he hasn't been convicted or even charged with a crime. Testing positive wouldn't really matter anyway since that's already dealt with in the collective bargaining agreement through the system of suspensions. Doctor shopping to get a drug unethically is not going to be enough to get him on the general morals clause. Guys have committed much more serious criminal acts without teams being able to enforce that. The only way they'd have him in the contract language would be if he agreed to a statement that he had never received or possessed the drugs he received.

Well, count me as someone who would not be suprised if there is indeed PED language ("possesing, purchasing or using" for example) in the contract. If the Yankess thought of it in 2001 but removed it before it was signed, I'm sure the O's did 5 years later after all of the Raffy stuff.

The only way they wouldn't is if that were told not to do it because of the CBA guidelines.

[PoorMike]

There's no way Angelos tries to even void Gibbon's contract. He has no grounds to do it, unless Gibbons did something illegal. The collective bargaining agreement specifically deals with penalties for steroid use, and Angelos can't ignore the collective bargaining agreement by voiding Gibbon's contract.

The major league baseball player association even included language in the collective bargaining agreement that says players can be awarded triple damages if a team voids a contract without sufficient grounds. If Angelos voids Gibbons contract and loses, Angelos can be forced to pay Gibbon's three times his contract value.

The player's association did this just so teams don't try to void a contract instead of just cutting a player. There's a real downside to teams unilaterally voiding contracts. The player's association has some smart folks doing its negotiating.

It did not seem to scare him in the Sid case.

[geschinger]

I'd like to see the Orioles (or any other team w/a player in a similar situation) go after Gibbons even if they know they have no chance of winning. Expose the Players Association as the biggest roadblock to cleaning up the game and maybe shame them into making more concessions regarding drug testing.

There was considerable dissension among the MLBPA membership leading up to the CBA without which we wouldn't even have current system (weak as it is). Maybe if some teams were willing to air the dirty laundry they could do some good.

[66-70-83-??]

I'd like to see the Orioles (or any other team w/a player in a similar situation) go after Gibbons even if they know they have no chance of winning. Expose the Players Association as the biggest roadblock to cleaning up the game and maybe shame them into making more concessions regarding drug testing.

There was considerable dissension among the MLBPA membership leading up to the CBA without which we wouldn't even have current system (weak as it is). Maybe if some teams were willing to air the dirty laundry they could do some good.

I agree.

It is amazing that the "good guys" and the old-timers haven't been leading the charge DEMANDING much more stringent testing and harsher penalties.

Isn't the integrity of the sport more important than protecting a few bad apples ?

Makes you wonder just how rampant the problems are.

[PoorMike]

I agree.

It is amazing that the "good guys" and the old-timers haven't been leading the charge DEMANDING much more stringent testing and harsher penalties.

Isn't the integrity of the sport more important than protecting a few bad apples ?

Makes you wonder just how rampant the problems are.

Old timers aren't disinterested parties. You might think that they want their records to be meaningful but at the same time, doesn't the MLBPA control the pension? I don't know that they would be too vehement in badmouthing them.

[Gurgi]

Yeah and I have nightmares about some guys who we all think are good guys getting called out. Friends of Brady. Best Friends of Brady.

I was very disappointed in several Great Oriole responces to the whole steriod thing.

I guess its like the police. They can beat up minorites and steal from drug dealers all they want but even the good cops won't tell on the bad ones. Really doesn't that make them all bad?

[PoorMike]

Yeah and I have nightmares about some guys who we all think are good guys getting called out. Friends of Brady. Best Friends of Brady.

I was very disappointed in several Great Oriole responces to the whole steriod thing.

I guess its like the police. They can beat up minorites and steal from drug dealers all they want but even the good cops won't tell on the bad ones. Really doesn't that make them all bad?

What did they say? Not doubting it...I just don't remember.

The only thing I can recall is JP saying that Brady's 50 HR season is the type of thing that raises questions. He didn't come out an accuse him of taking PEDs but he basically said that a season like that fuels speculation.

[blueberryale77]

Yeah and I have nightmares about some guys who we all think are good guys getting called out. Friends of Brady. Best Friends of Brady.

I was very disappointed in several Great Oriole responces to the whole steriod thing.

I guess its like the police. They can beat up minorites and steal from drug dealers all they want but even the good cops won't tell on the bad ones. Really doesn't that make them all bad?

A lot of people want to see it as black and white, good guys vs. bad guys, but problems of this magnitude just aren't that simple. Great players, nice guys, fine upstanding citizens... if they were baseball players during this era, they probably either used PEDs or participated in covering up the use of PEDs. It doesn't make them bad people. It just demonstrates the magnitude of human frailty and what social pressures can cause a person to do. To some degree it's the same way with the "thin blue line" among police officers although in a case where some of one's colleagues are physically harming others with malice of foresight there's a much higher moral obligation to report it. With both cases there are all kinds of gradations too. Do you tell on the guy who just used HGH once while recovering from major surgery? Do you report a respected and generally ethical colleague who gets just a little too rough one time while arresting a suspect? All these questions are a lot harder to answer when you're on the inside of a situation.