Well, using HGH illegally definatly breaks the training rules, does not conform to even a middling standard of personal conduct, and quite obviously goes against any principles of fair play or good sportsmanship. How is this even a close call?

 Adam -- 6/10/2006 7:19 PM  

..."a team escape from its contractual obligations if a player tests positive?"

Wouldn't it be great if that were the case. I mean what a deterrent. If you test positive, you are docked pay. The problem is a five letter word: MLBPA. The cure is a 7 letter word: Congress. (read like Stallone talking in Rambo)

 Anonymous -- 6/10/2006 7:20 PM  

NFL: Look at the quote at the end of this one....http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2478299

 Anonymous -- 6/10/2006 7:43 PM  

Geoffrey:

It depends what is in each individuals contract regarding use of "whatever".

Admissions can be re-tracted. The actual test results should prevail.

Being a "target" does not "prove" guilt.

It is not possible to make a decision in this case until Mr. Grimsley"s contract has been read.

 Richard Mock -- 6/11/2006 1:16 PM  

Geoff, I agree with you that the loyalty clause has not been breached by Grimsley. Although MLB contracts are guaranteed, if Grimsley retired, then he's not entitled to the remainder of his salary under his contract. However, if a team unconditionally releases a veteran player during the term of a guaranteed contract, then the player is entitled to the remainder of his salary (offset by any salary paid by another team in the event the player is subsequently picked up after being released). Here D-backs are saying that he chose to retire and asked for his unconditional release. If true, I would say he doesn't get the remainder.

 Rick Karcher -- 6/11/2006 2:30 PM  

Also I've heard from a reputable source that there were 21 names on the affidavit and that another player already had a copy of the affidavit to see if his name was on it or not. What are the odds this leaks, about 50-75%?

 Ryguy -- 6/12/2006 11:45 AM  

It's somewhat moot now, since Grimsley's been suspended for 50 games by MLB. Of course, he can challenge that suspension.

 Brian Moore -- 6/13/2006 1:29 PM  

I agree with the first poster that the following contract language is a problem for Grimsley:

"...pledges himself to the American public and to the Club to conform to high standards of personal conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship."

I don't know what the Club's standards are -- they are likely unpublished. Maybe they permit players to act in a way that prompts an FBI raid. Maybe they don't mind players cheating to enhance performance of the club, as long as they don't get caught.

But I'm pretty sure the American public's standards of personal conduct and fair play do not include FBI raids and the use of steroids, HGH and amphetamines. If they did, Congress wouldn't bother with hearings about such things, and drugs in sports would not be such a frequent topic in all forms of media.

I suppose it is possible to read the clause to say that the personal conduct, fair play and sportsmanship are standards established by some source other than the American public and the Club. In that case, the player is pledging to the American public he will abide by those standards, whatever they may be. To me, that would be a strained reading of the clause: if the Club/MLB and the American public's standards are not the reference point, what is?

Inclusion of the "American public" in the contract language indicates that MLB's intent is clearly to maintain at least an appearance of integrity vis-a-vis the public, probably to protect the game's historical reputation as the national passtime.

That's not entirely different than an executive's employment agreement and the corporation's concern about its own reputation with the American consumer. Arguably, this would qualify as an act of "moral turpitude" that would result in termination for cause under an executive employment agreement in corporate America. Of course, in corporate America he'd get a huge severance package from his/her pals on the board. :)

 ChapelHeel -- 6/13/2006 4:25 PM  

...er, that was supposed to be pasttime.

 ChapelHeel -- 6/13/2006 5:27 PM  

Post a Comment