PDA

View Full Version : ESPN: Selig may invoke "best interests" clause



BoSoxGirl75
03-17-04, 01:27 AM
I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong area.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761449

Soriambi
03-17-04, 01:35 AM
Wow..Bud actually might do something that's right for the game, for once. And you've got the right forum. :D

elston32
03-17-04, 08:35 AM
It seems as if Selig has finally figured out who and what the Commissioner of MLB should be.

First, he and the Selig family are finally divesting themselves of ownership in MLB, and of any question of "conflict of interest," by attempting to sell the Milwaukee Brewers.

And, now, finally, Selig is standing up for a real "Major League" substance abuse policy that fairly sanctions the abuse of both "recreational" and "performance enhancing drugs" (i.e., steroid precursors, anabolic steroids, "designer" steroids and human growth hormone).

Good for you Bud!!!!!

GO :NY:!!!

ring403
03-17-04, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Soriambi
Wow..Bud actually might do something that's right for the game, for once

Hopefully he follows through. The only way this issue goes away is with a much tougher policy. Baseball has gotten yet another black eye from the whole steroid scandal, and the sooner the focus is back on the field, the better it is for the game. If there was ever a time to invoke the clause, this is it.
I'm not sure how it will hold up legally, because there is a CBA in place, but Selig must push hard for this.

Yankee Bulldawg
03-17-04, 10:40 AM
it's about time our lame a** commish did something about this issue, let's hope he pushes hard for it so that we can get cheating out of baseball for good.

Bluesexy's daddy
03-17-04, 11:15 AM
Thank you for posting this Bsoxgirl. Good article. I hope that Selig follws through with his intentions. It's long overdue. If the union balks then it will put them in the position of defending criminal activity. The union might be at much risk of trouble from boared congressmen as MLB is.

YankeePride1967
03-17-04, 11:52 AM
Michael Kay thinks that if Bud does this, the players will go on strike immediately, citing violation of the CBA. I think it's the right move however.

YankeeFan1
03-17-04, 11:58 AM
I'm wondering if Bud is serious or just using the media leak to push the union because there is no way he could win in arbitration.

SuperMario66
03-17-04, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by GoRocket
Michael Kay thinks that if Bud does this, the players will go on strike immediately, citing violation of the CBA. I think it's the right move however.

If the players strike because of this - I seriously doubt if I will ever watch another game. This is about PROTECTING them. I know it isn't everyone, but something has to be done to make the general public believe it isn't happening. That means stricter testing and harsher penalties.

DkNNy79
03-17-04, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by SuperMario66


If the players strike because of this - I seriously doubt if I will ever watch another game. This is about PROTECTING them. I know it isn't everyone, but something has to be done to make the general public believe it isn't happening. That means stricter testing and harsher penalties.

Yep, I will lose respect for them. Bud needs to put his foot down and knock the Player's union down a couple notches.

YankeePride1967
03-17-04, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by SuperMario66


If the players strike because of this - I seriously doubt if I will ever watch another game. This is about PROTECTING them. I know it isn't everyone, but something has to be done to make the general public believe it isn't happening. That means stricter testing and harsher penalties.

Especially when most players are supposedly in favor of testing.

YankeePride1967
03-17-04, 12:39 PM
I highly doubt this will be a forced situation and further doubt that there will be a strike. Kay is an alarmist.

Sandman
03-17-04, 12:44 PM
I'm 100 percent against the union on the steroid issue, but I don't see how Selig uses the "best interests" clause to usurp the CBA.

What if he tried to use the "best interests" clause to raise the luxury tax, or lower the rookie minimum wage?

If he ever tries it, guarantee it will end up in the courts. An unfair labor practice strike would also be a strong possibility.

SuperMario66
03-17-04, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm 100 percent against the union on the steroid issue, but I don't see how Selig uses the "best interests" clause to usurp the CBA.

What if he tried to use the "best interests" clause to raise the luxury tax, or lower the rookie minimum wage?

If he ever tries it, guarantee it will end up in the courts. An unfair labor practice strike would also be a strong possibility.

You are exactly right. It WILL end up in the courts. However, him wanting to use this clause for something like steroid testing is much more likely to pass through the system than raising the luxury tax or lowering rookie minimum wage. I truly believe that the country is concerned about this enough that it has a good chance of getting approved.

Yanks1976
03-17-04, 01:07 PM
Wouldn't the players have to vote to strike? If that is the case, and Bud does invoke this "best interests" clause it would be very interesting to see how the players vote. Would the ones who aren't using these substances vote to strike (and be willing to sacrifice their $$$) to protect cheaters?

YankeeFan1
03-17-04, 01:33 PM
I don't think the players will strike over this issue anyway. Strikes are valuable tools to be only used in cases of real danger to the union. The union will simply file a greivance and win the case in arbitration. The players may lose in the court of public opinion, but they would not lose in a real court of law.


Especially when most players are supposedly in favor of testing. "Supposedly" is the key word. Just because the media and a few prominent players speak out, it doesn't mean that the majority of the players favor a more stringent testing procedure.

Edited: Just saw on ESPN that MLB and the Player's Union agreed to ban THG. Guess the union is playing the PR game also.

The ending part of the article is pertinent to this discussion:

"Selig is powerless to act unilaterally because drug testing is covered by collective bargaining. While the major league baseball constitution gives Selig broad power to act in the "best interests of baseball," in the labor contract he agreed the commissioner will take no action to "negate rights of players."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761755

Edited again: Schilling doesn't trust the owners with testing. Hudson say the drug testing in the CBA is enough

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761707

YankeePride1967
03-17-04, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by YankeeFan1
I don't think the players will strike over this issue anyway. Strikes are valuable tools to be only used in cases of real danger to the union. The union will simply file a greivance and win the case in arbitration. The players may lose in the court of public opinion, but they would not lose in a real court of law.

"Supposedly" is the key word. Just because the media and a few prominent players speak out, it doesn't mean that the majority of the players favor a more stringent testing procedure.

Edited: Just saw on ESPN that MLB and the Player's Union agreed to ban THG. Guess the union is playing the PR game also.

The ending part of the article is pertinent to this discussion:

"Selig is powerless to act unilaterally because drug testing is covered by collective bargaining. While the major league baseball constitution gives Selig broad power to act in the "best interests of baseball," in the labor contract he agreed the commissioner will take no action to "negate rights of players."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761755

Edited again: Schilling doesn't trust the owners with testing. Hudson say the drug testing in the CBA is enough

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761707

Which is why I doubt this will be the end result.

As for Schilling's point. Since the owner's interest is to keep the players ON the field, what interest is it of them to fudge a test to suspend someone?

And Hudson -- the point isn't the testing being the problem, it's the punishment. Treatment? What does someone taking steroids need "treatment" for? It's not addictive like drugs or alcohol. Do they need therapy because instead of doing 100 squats, they can only do 90 in the same period?

silverdsl
03-17-04, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm 100 percent against the union on the steroid issue, but I don't see how Selig uses the "best interests" clause to usurp the CBA.Agreed. And the legal battle that will ensue could last for years and by that point the current CBA will be expiring. Unfortunately I suspect there isn't much that can be done immediately to make the policy against steroids any stronger. The time for Selig to put his foot down on this issue has come and gone.

Personally, I'm not ready to hand out any compliments towards Selig. It appears to have taken the President discussing steroids in his speech, being called before Congress and the huge public outcry about Balco to get him to make noise about taking further action regarding steroids. He should have pushed for a stronger stance much sooner and without outside pressure as this is far from a new problem.

-Deborah

YankeeFan1
03-17-04, 08:24 PM
As for Schilling's point. Since the owner's interest is to keep the players ON the field, what interest is it of them to fudge a test to suspend someone?

And Hudson -- the point isn't the testing being the problem, it's the punishment. Treatment? What does someone taking steroids need "treatment" for? It's not addictive like drugs or alcohol. Do they need therapy because instead of doing 100 squats, they can only do 90 in the same period? These comments are why I stated before: "Just because the media and a few prominent players speak out, it doesn't mean that the majority of the players favor a more stringent testing procedure."

As much as the media and fans target Fehr as being an obstructionist not looking out for the best interests of the players, the man is not incompetent. He is clearly representing the wishes of his employers in this matter. It is clear that positions of Hudson, Schilling, and Garciaparra who made similar comments like Schilling are the overwhelming voices that Fehr is hearing. There is no groundswell of support among the players for more stringent testing. Consequently Fehr will not willingingly give up the players' 4th Ammendment rights, especially as there no way that the owners can win this case in arbitration or in a court of law.

After the current CBA expires, Fehr will probably do another count of heads and there may be more stringent testing, but I wouldn't bet on anything as tough as MLB's current minor league steriod policy.

ring403
03-17-04, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by GoRocket




As for Schilling's point. Since the owner's interest is to keep the players ON the field, what interest is it of them to fudge a test to suspend someone?



I don't think that was his point. He's concerned that the owners will violate the players' confidentiality, or that they already have. I know MLB was under some political pressure to turn over the test results, but I never heard that they actually did:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761707

"We had a drug test last year that we were told was absolutely confidential," Schilling told the Courant. "Come to find out a year later it isn't. That's the ownership in a nutshell. I don't trust them to do any of that stuff."

YankeePride1967
03-17-04, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by ring403


I don't think that was his point. He's concerned that the owners will violate the players' confidentiality, or that they already have. I know MLB was under some political pressure to turn over the test results, but I never heard that they actually did:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761707

"We had a drug test last year that we were told was absolutely confidential," Schilling told the Courant. "Come to find out a year later it isn't. That's the ownership in a nutshell. I don't trust them to do any of that stuff."

Well if a player tests positive and is all of a sudden "missing" for two weeks I think people might wonder why. If they test positive, under the minor league rules that Bud wants to impose, first offense is a two week suspension.

SuperMario66
03-18-04, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by GoRocket


Well if a player tests positive and is all of a sudden "missing" for two weeks I think people might wonder why. If they test positive, under the minor league rules that Bud wants to impose, first offense is a two week suspension.

Yeah - "out for personal problems" might become a little questionable.

mroctober
03-18-04, 03:41 PM
I seriously doubt Bud will do ANYTHING that's good for the game. He's only interested in stuffing his own pockets. When he actually sells the Brewers, I'll start taking him seriously as the commissioner. Right now he's just another freakin' crook with no guts to take on the union.

YankeePride1967
03-18-04, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by mroctober
I seriously doubt Bud will do ANYTHING that's good for the game. He's only interested in stuffing his own pockets. When he actually sells the Brewers, I'll start taking him seriously as the commissioner. Right now he's just another freakin' crook with no guts to take on the union.

Fay Vincent was on 1050 this morning and said that Bud sees an opportunity to "beat" Don Fehr and after last week's Congressional whacking, he sees this as an opportunity. Now it has to be kept in mind Fay can't stand Bud.

Rich
03-18-04, 04:17 PM
The Players' Association would never let such an action stand because they would fear that Selig could later invoke that power to impose a salary cap. The issue is whether Selig can use the threat of doing it to force a negotiated settlement.

YankeePride1967
03-18-04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Rich
The Players' Association would never let such an action stand because they would fear that Selig could later invoke that power to impose a salary cap. The issue is whether Selig can use the threat of doing it to force a negotiated settlement.

I agree, they won't let that precedent be set. I think the owners may throw the players a carrot in another area for some movement on the steroid issue.

DaPip1998
03-18-04, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by GoRocket


I agree, they won't let that precedent be set. I think the owners may throw the players a carrot in another area for some movement on the steroid issue.

I just hope the owners aren't delusional enough to think they can implement something unilaterally, just bec. a few politicians who like to feel self-important come down tough on Don Fehr. (Not for nothing, Sen McCain-shouldn't Congress be a little more worried with terrorism and Iraq than a bunch of ball-players juicing up?)

Like you said before, the owners would love to win just 1 battle vs. the union, and they may try to do anything to get it.

YankeePride1967
03-18-04, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by DaPip1998


I just hope the owners aren't delusional enough to think they can implement something unilaterally, just bec. a few politicians who like to feel self-important come down tough on Don Fehr. (Not for nothing, Sen McCain-shouldn't Congress be a little more worried with terrorism and Iraq than a bunch of ball-players juicing up?)

Like you said before, the owners would love to win just 1 battle vs. the union, and they may try to do anything to get it.

When it comes to the owners and Bud specifically, I never underestimate the level of their stupidity.

SuperMario66
03-18-04, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by GoRocket


When it comes to the owners and Bud specifically, I never underestimate the level of their stupidity.

I think that can be proven over and over again. :)

ring403
03-18-04, 10:40 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-BBO-Jim-Litke.html

Sportview: Selig May Not Have MLB at Heart
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 18, 2004
Filed at 10:25 p.m. ET

Reports that Bud Selig stays up late rereading the ``best interests of baseball'' clause in the commissioner's handbook must have the lawyers at the players' union rolling on the floor.
For one thing, after almost 15 years on the job, what are the odds Selig would even recognize baseball's best interests if one walked into his office and smacked him upside the head?

SuperMario66
03-18-04, 10:41 PM
That is awesome Ring! Thanks for posting. :D

DaPip1998
03-19-04, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by GoRocket


When it comes to the owners and Bud specifically, I never underestimate the level of their stupidity.

:)

Soriambi
03-19-04, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by ring403
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-BBO-Jim-Litke.html

Sportview: Selig May Not Have MLB at Heart
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 18, 2004
Filed at 10:25 p.m. ET

Reports that Bud Selig stays up late rereading the ``best interests of baseball'' clause in the commissioner's handbook must have the lawyers at the players' union rolling on the floor.
For one thing, after almost 15 years on the job, what are the odds Selig would even recognize baseball's best interests if one walked into his office and smacked him upside the head?

:lol: :lol:

Why does this guy even bother to stay in his posistion? It seems that EVERYONE hates him. I think you would be hard pressed to find 10 fans who like the guy.

SuperMario66
03-19-04, 10:09 AM
What reason do we have to like him? What good has he done for our game?