Arbitrator reduces A-Rod's suspension to 162 games

Discussion in 'Sports' started by thisnumbersdisconnected, Jan 11, 2014.

  1. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rodriquez threatened to take his fight to federal court, claiiming "the deck has been stacked against me from day one" and "his is one man's decision, that was not put before a fair and impartial jury, does not involve me having failed a single drug test" and claims the facts don't support his guilt or suspension.

    The man is a liar, just like Roger Clemens. His ego won't let him accept the fact that, if he takes this to court, he will lose, and probably be out of baseball. T.J. Quinn of ESPN wrote last summer that “MLB confronted Braun with volumes of evidence provided by Tony Bosch, including texts.” What evidence MLB has against Rodriguez isn’t exactly clear, but there was enough there to prevent Braun in his efforts to make a deal.

    It also hurt the possibility of a successful appeal, as Braun’s actions gave Bosch credibility, which is something that has been in question since the BioGenesis investigation began. For what it’s worth, CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman reported last summer that MLB received “receipts, checks, the whole nine yards” during their investigation, which would certainly sink Rodriguez. Fine with me. His hubris throughout this whole thing has been disgusting.
     
  2. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The evidence against A-Rod isn't clear, but that's Ok because you don't like him. The MLBPA apparently doesn't like him either, because they're sitting on their hands while one of their players gets railroaded.

    I don't really care for the narcissist either, but I do like the rule of law (the CBA in this case) to be applied and be applied fairly, but isn't not happening here. A-Rod lost in the court of public opinion long ago and that's apparently the only one that matters in his case.
     
  3. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CBA does not require evidence solely based on dirty testing. It also allows for expert and third-part testimony, and that is apparently what MLB has. I like the rule of law also, but I doubt A-Rod will when he loses in federal court -- I would assume that is going to become a habit, given he has said he will "exhaust" all court options. And he'll still be out of baseball.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ok, so he gets back on the roster - just let be on second string --be a bench warmer then he would demand to be traded - do you think any other team would want him?
     
  5. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean the "evidence" that MLB couldn't obtain in any other way but to buy it? Which is the same "evidence" that MLB and Tony Bosch is using to condemn A-Rod in the court of public opinion. The way that MLB obtained the "evidence" is dirty, sleazy and underhanded, and calls into question how truthful it is. But that's not stopping them from going full steam ahead on the railroading.

    I'm not sure what A-Rod thinks he's going to get out of pursuing this. He's already as sleazy as they come and MLB isn't looking much better, for that matter. If I didn't know any better, I'd say going after A-Rod like this is nothing more than Bud Selig desperately trying to save himself from being remembered as the Commissioner who profited while turning a blind-eye to the use of PEDs.
     
  6. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The evidence which you state MLB "bought" is no in the court of public opinion, but in the court of public record in U.S. v BioGenesis against other major league players, and the only "purchase" that might have been made was to buy a copy of the transcript.
     
  7. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    When Rob Manfred, the chief operating officer of MLB says they paid $125,000 for BioGenesis documents, what does that mean to you? To me, it means they bought the evidence. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you may want to start going to other sources.

    MLB paid $125,000 for the documents. They bought their evidence.

    MLB did not buy a copy of a transcript. They bought actual documents, not copies.

    Don't take my word for it. See for yourself.
     
  8. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The source for that is The New York Post, quoting A-Rod's attorney. Manfred denies the story. I'll believe Manfred before I'd believe anything A-Rod or his attorney said. Maybe that's wrong, but so be it.
     
  9. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    I'm no friend of A-Rod but it does seem he's being railroaded. As to the purchased document it could be that MLB bought it so that A-Rod couldn't buy it first and destroy it.
     
  10. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you follow the link I posted? Here's the first line from it.


    If you're going to believe Manfred over A-Rod, then you believe that MLB paid for the Biogenesis documents. Right?

    In the article you linked to, would you please show me where Manfred denied paying for the Biogenesis documents?


    Nope, they bought the documents because they had no other way of getting them. MLB had no power to compel Bosch to turn them over, so he didn't. They waited for months for some government body to get involved and it wasn't going to happen, so MLB found another way.
     
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You didn't fully understand your source. It still remains the second-hand statement of Joseph Tapocina, A-Rod's attorney, after the deposition. One, depositions are supposed to remain secret, because they are potentially the foundation of any evidence that may given in a court trial. One, attorneys are not permitted to reveal the testimony given in a deposition, and two, the Sports Illustrated article quotes the exact same Manfred denial that was included in the linked article to CBS Sports that I provided. All of them source The New York Post. It amounts to "he said/he said" because Manfred denies Tapocina's claim regarding his deposition testimony -- again, testimony that is secret and is not supposed to be revealed by the parties to the deposition. In other words, Tapocina has cause to lie by claiming Manfred made such an admission because it prejudices MLB's defense in A-Rod's case, and it is unlikely Manfred ever made such a statement. SI and CBS Sports did a lousy job -- a biased media? -- of making it clear that the source for the statement was Tapocina, but if you follow the link to the The Post's article, you will see it clearly spelled out.
    Sure, but it's also in your own link. Here they are, yours first:

    Do you see they're the exact same quote? That's because Manfred immediately responded with an MLB news release following Tapocina's ridiculous -- and illegal, even if false -- deposition disclosure.
    Well, you can believe that if you want. If so, I've got title to a bridge in Brooklyn, if you're interested.
     
    #11 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jan 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2014
  12. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right. SI, CBS Sports, ESPN, Fox Sports, and Deadspin are all biased and the Post is not. :rolleyes:

    What's this talk of a bridge?

    If Tapocina made up this fact about MLB buying Biogenesis documents, why didn't Manfred deny it? When asked, here was Manfred's response.


    I don't see a denial in there. Saying that it's inappropriate for A-Rod and his attorney to talk about the deposition is not the same as a denial that MLB bought the documents.

    You say you bought a bridge?


    It's not a question of believing what I want. MLB paid for Biogenesis documents. This is a fact. MLB has been after the Biogenesis documents for months. This is a fact.


    Maybe you'll believe this article.

    That one was in August 2013.


    Here's a primer on Biogenesis.

    That one was in June 2013.

    Tell you what. You paid good money for that bridge. You keep it.
     
  13. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's another one.


    This one is from Yahoo Sports last August.


     
  14. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what, CCR? This is nothing but expanded reporting from the same source, and the fact that Newsday wants to classify the alleged testimony of one MLB official -- who denies the statements by Tapocina, an attorney who knowingly made unlawful statements about secret deposition testimony -- as "Major League Baseball acknowledges" etc., then it is indicative not of this "acknowledgement" being truthful, but of these sports reporters not having a clue about how to report a criminal case. One illegally quoted "witness" who denies he said what the opposition claims he said is not proof of anything, except that the fact it got reported indicates the reporter to be unqualified to report a court trial, and his editor being equally naïve .
    This one says nothing about MLB paying for anything, other than Bosch's legal fees, and at that time, it was a civil case from MLB's aspect, and still is. Therefore there is nothing shady or illegal about it. Perhaps it doesn't show in the best light, but it's been done before.
     
    #14 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jan 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2014
  15. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's yet another article that is in direct contradiction to your assertion that MLB did not buy the Biogenesis documents.

    You say they didn't purchase anything and yet the official confirms that they purchased documents on 2 separate occasions. How can this be?

    We're done here. Your refusal to believe plain truth makes it impossible to discuss anything. Most people, when confronted with information that completely contradicts their belief will reevaluate and conclude that they misunderstood something, misinterpreted, made a bad assumption, or just had bad information. You, on the other hand, double down on your argument.

    Enjoy your bridge.
     
  16. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    What part of "This is A-Rod's attorney's assertion, not evidential fact" do you not grasp here, CCR? Every one of your posts goes back to the illegal disclosure of testimony from a single, solitary deposition, and as the deposition is not available for publication, all we have is Tapocina's claims. That's like O.J. saying through his attorney, "I didn't do it." Would you believe that?
     
  17. JPPT1974

    JPPT1974
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well A-Rod just filed a complaint and looks to get out of his year long suspension! But doubt he will win!
     
  18. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm missing the part where you provide proof of this knowledge. I have provided facts and you have provided conjecture. It's time for you to provide facts, or please remain quiet.
     
  19. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You haven't presented any facts. Every single one of your links which purports to state factually that a Major League Baseball executive admits that MLB bought testimony goes back to the statements made by Tapocina about the deposition. Those are the facts, that there aren't any facts. They're hearsay by the defendant's attorney. That's the fifth time I've said that, and you've ignored it.
     
  20. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    Here's more hearsay, not from A-Rod's attorney:

    As Alex Rodriguez’s appeal hearing against Major League Baseball reached its halftime, The Post has unearthed details from what has transpired in the first eight days.

    According to one source familiar with the proceedings, MLB COO Rob Manfred testified on Thursday, while being cross-examined by A-Rod’s attorney, Joseph Tacopina, that he authorized the payment of $125,000 in cash in return for documents from the shuttered South Florida anti-aging clinic Biogenesis.
    http://nypost.com/2013/10/18/mlb-admits-paying-125k-for-a-rod-documents-source/
     

Share This Page

Loading...