I'm sick of Alex Rodriguez.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

By the way, does anybody else consider A-Rod's suing his own union to be rather a dumb move? Suing MLB is a no-brainer, of course. I guess he didn't have grounds to sue the Yankees, other than the medical staff on some another matter.

But suing the Players Association? Isn't that like biting the hand that feeds him? How can that possibly add to his credibility or to public and judicial sympathy for his case? It looks like he's lashing out on all sides.

The suit says the union did not do enough to protect his interests but in the end, they provided for the binding arbitration that went against him and that's all they could do. I guess A-Rod wanted a strike on his behalf.

Did you read the complaint filed? It's a no brainer to sue the union. It'd be odd to only sue the league.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

By the way, does anybody else consider A-Rod's suing his own union to be rather a dumb move? Suing MLB is a no-brainer, of course. I guess he didn't have grounds to sue the Yankees, other than the medical staff on some another matter.

But suing the Players Association? Isn't that like biting the hand that feeds him? How can that possibly add to his credibility or to public and judicial sympathy for his case? It looks like he's lashing out on all sides.

The suit says the union did not do enough to protect his interests but in the end, they provided for the binding arbitration that went against him and that's all they could do. I guess A-Rod wanted a strike on his behalf.

I'm thinking his high paid Lawyers are influencing this. I mean they win either way!

I would to hear Arod be humble just maybe once and take his punishment and then retire. Leave the 61 million on the table and show some type of class. He could then go to an independant league and play there.

[Westheim]

$61,000,000.

Who'd leave that on the table? I'd probably sell blind orphans to North Korea to get my hands on that money.

And now we're talking about Mr. Rodriguez, whose ten times more shabby and twenty times less honorable than me. Go figure.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by Westheim

$61,000,000.

Who'd leave that on the table? I'd probably sell blind orphans to North Korea to get my hands on that money.

And now we're talking about Mr. Rodriguez, whose ten times more shabby and twenty times less honorable than me. Go figure.

While that is a definite lofty sum, other players have left money on the table when their skills erode. I also think it is different coming from a person that made upwards of 300+ million in his playing time. Players retire all the time when they can't play at the same level.

I'm not expecting him to retire. I'm hoping he will gain some honor/remorse and leave the game. By the very step of leaving a large amount (should be settled for life) of money on the table it might help his soul alittle. As a Christian I wish this for anyone.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

There is no major sports as phony as pro wrestling, and that didn't impact its popularity. The difference is in what's considered acceptable by the audiences.

Bad analogy, that. Only the extremely weak-minded think of and accept pro wrestling as real.

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Did you read the complaint filed? It's a no brainer to sue the union. It'd be odd to only sue the league.

I will. But, care to expand a bit on your statement at this time?

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

But, care to expand a bit on your statement at this time?

Jack Ford (the legal analyst) was on my local radio on the way home and explained why. Basically he has zero recourse to appeal the arbitrator's decision on the suspension. The only thing he can do is try to show that the union did such a sucky job representing him that the arbitration hearing was invalid and needs to instead be heard in a federal court. This is the longest of long shots apparently.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Bad analogy, that. Only the extremely weak-minded think of and accept pro wrestling as real.

It's not about accepting pro wrestling as real. It's about accepting scripts as part of the experience. Same as many people accepting many forms of cheating like sign-stealing as part of the MLB experience.

How does that have anything to do with weak or strong mind?

If you want to be intentionally judgmental, I think those who complain about the performance enhancement drugs are the weak-minded. In this world it's the norm for people to try to take advantages of situations, especially with the emphasis of free market, which encourages people to come up with all kind of different ways to compete. We have rules to limit many behaviors really just to protect the weak and the poor.

But yeah, anybody can write that kind of reasoning to justify any line of thinking. In the end, what's accepted and what's not have not been consistent over time. We will always try to come up with excuses to convince ourselves that our judgments are smarter than what they really are.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

Jack Ford (the legal analyst) was on my local radio on the way home and explained why. Basically he has zero recourse to appeal the arbitrator's decision on the suspension. The only thing he can do is try to show that the union did such a sucky job representing him that the arbitration hearing was invalid and needs to instead be heard in a federal court. This is the longest of long shots apparently.

Yes, this is the only way. He basically has to argue that the union had thrown him under the bus to appease the league. The union has already accepted the arbitration results.


Also this should not surprise anybody that unions do not always present the best interest of a worker. Unions present the best interest of workers collectively, and that's not always in line with the best interest of an individual. The commonly accepted behavior is for individuals to sometimes sacrifice a little bit for the union here and there but still be better off overall. In Rodriguez's case, he's too extreme that his interest simply isn't in line with others anymore.

[Jason Moyer]

I still find it hard to believe the union collectively bargained an agreement that allows management to unilaterally determine guilt and subsequent penalties for drug offenders. I couldn't imagine working at a job where I could be fired without failing a drug test, simply because someone told my boss they saw me smoking a joint or something over the weekend. Or a policy where first-time drug offenders are say, required to take a week off of work to attend some sort of rehabilitation program, but at the same time allows your boss to fire you at their own discretion. That stuff would never fly at a normal job.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I still find it hard to believe the union collectively bargained an agreement that allows management to unilaterally determine guilt and subsequent penalties for drug offenders. I couldn't imagine working at a job where I could be fired without failing a drug test, simply because someone told my boss they saw me smoking a joint or something over the weekend. Or a policy where first-time drug offenders are say, required to take a week off of work to attend some sort of rehabilitation program, but at the same time allows your boss to fire you at their own discretion. That stuff would never fly at a normal job.

I know someone who was fired, without being required to take a drug test, for crashing a forklift. I know he threatened legal action but last I talked to him he had done nothing. He was usually high. His buddy that he smoked weed with at work is the one who snitched on him.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I still find it hard to believe the union collectively bargained an agreement that allows management to unilaterally determine guilt and subsequent penalties for drug offenders. I couldn't imagine working at a job where I could be fired without failing a drug test, simply because someone told my boss they saw me smoking a joint or something over the weekend. Or a policy where first-time drug offenders are say, required to take a week off of work to attend some sort of rehabilitation program, but at the same time allows your boss to fire you at their own discretion. That stuff would never fly at a normal job.

I don't think that is the same thing. It is more like you have been told to stay away from the local drug dealer, and your 12 co-workers get caught and you are seen hanging out with said dealer.

Alot of jobs can fire you for less. Especially states that have "at will employment". This means they can fire you if they don't like the color of your hair.

[rpriske]

Originally Posted by The Game

I know someone who was fired, without being required to take a drug test, for crashing a forklift. I know he threatened legal action but last I talked to him he had done nothing. He was usually high. His buddy that he smoked weed with at work is the one who snitched on him.

It is possible that they listed his reason for dismissal as "crashing a forklit" rather than being stoned.

It is a lot easier to prove.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by rpriske

It is possible that they listed his reason for dismissal as "crashing a forklit" rather than being stoned.

It is a lot easier to prove.

Any work related accident should be followed by a drug test. That is pretty standard in any warehouse job. I crashed a forklift and was not fired for it. I passed my drug test.

[The Game]

Stephen Colbert had a funny segment on A-Roid
Stephen Colbert: Listen to Fox News? ?The Five? Kids ? ?Just Do Drugs? (Video) - Yahoo TV

[jazzrack]

Originally Posted by The Game

Any work related accident should be followed by a drug test. That is pretty standard in any warehouse job. I crashed a forklift and was not fired for it. I passed my drug test.

they don't really work and here is why. I smoke a joint on Sunday evening then get in a work accident on Thursday I would still fail the drug test. yet if some burke was out clubbing last night & comes in all hung over, has an accident he would pass his drug test.

Originally Posted by The Game

Stephen Colbert had a funny segment on A-Roid
Stephen Colbert: Listen to Fox News? ?The Five? Kids ? ?Just Do Drugs? (Video) - Yahoo TV

I am heavily medicated and Stephen Colbert still isn't funny

[Jason Moyer]

Apparently alcohol can be detected in a urine test up to 4 days after heavy consumption depending on the test.

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Apparently alcohol can be detected in a urine test up to 4 days after heavy consumption depending on the test.

And there are heavier drugs that are undetectable before the effects have even worn off, so it's certainly not a catch-all.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Did you read the complaint filed? It's a no brainer to sue the union. It'd be odd to only sue the league.

Well, Skipaway, here is something in support of your position:

Baseball’s pursuit of Rodriguez was aimed as much at exploiting a vacuum of leadership in the union as at targeting a cheat. The most rabid fan and the most casual observer should be troubled by how baseball’s emboldened investigative unit snared its man, employing unsavory tactics to establish Rodriguez’s guilt.
■ Baseball paid for stolen documents that it used against Rodriguez.
■ Baseball threatened to sue an uncooperative witness, Tony Bosch, to persuade him to cooperate with its investigation.
■ Baseball bullied other players to accept their punishment or risk retaliation.

This is from a New York Times column ("Punishing Lords of Baseball Along With Their Fallen Idols") that blasts MLB for not only picking on Rodriguez but because it "alternately encouraged, turned a blind eye to, and profited from the scourge of performance-enhancing drugs."

I still don't excuse A-Rod for what he apparently did. Instead, I would have punished the others more harshly. And yes, MLB should be ashamed of itself.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Well, Skipaway, here is something in support of your position:

This is from a New York Times column ("Punishing Lords of Baseball Along With Their Fallen Idols") that blasts MLB for not only picking on Rodriguez but because it "alternately encouraged, turned a blind eye to, and profited from the scourge of performance-enhancing drugs."

I still don't excuse A-Rod for what he apparently did. Instead, I would have punished the others more harshly. And yes, MLB should be ashamed of itself.

I don't see where all the above is bad at all. I know alot of people talk about how MLB profited from the steroid era and didn't do anything about it. During that time could they really have done much when there was just a strike recently? Also when can we move forward and try to correct past mistakes? The only truth I know about is that MLB is trying to clean up and other leagues are not up to the task. If MLB had to twist a few arms to do it so be it.

Would the NFL go after Peyton Manning if he was found using performance enhancers? Lebron James in NBA? Only MLB has gone after its top stars when they break the rules. For that I applaud them.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

Would the NFL go after Peyton Manning if he was found using performance enhancers? Lebron James in NBA? Only MLB has gone after its top stars when they break the rules. For that I applaud them.

I think the writer's opinion, which is not necessarily mine, is that MLB should have gone after its "top stars" back in the late 90's and early 00's when it was obvious just from looking at freaks like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa that something very unusual and unethical was going on. Instead, they profited by it.