I just dont see why contracts cant be voided when player do something agianst league rules like steroids.  Maybe not the first time they get caught.  Everyone makes mistakes but if they are a repeat offender or get banned.  What if the cardinals signed pujole to his 250million contract and then he got banned?  Do u expected the cardinals to have to pay him.  I wouldnt.  

APIAD wrote:

I just dont see why contracts cant be voided when player do something agianst league rules like steroids.  Maybe not the first time they get caught.  Everyone makes mistakes but if they are a repeat offender or get banned.  What if the cardinals signed pujole to his 250million contract and then he got banned?  Do u expected the cardinals to have to pay him.  I wouldnt.  

What is or is not a rule is established in the CBA.  The CBA also establishes the consequences for violations of those rules.  By agreement, MLB and MLBPA have come up with a progressive discipline structure: 50 games for a 1st violation, 100 for a 2nd and a lifetime ban for a 3rd.  Teams are not permitted to deviate from those agreed-upon rules.

MLB certainly has the right to go to the players' association and say they want a lifetime ban for a 1st violation, but the union is never going to agree to something like that.  MLB is also allowed to ask that a team be permitted to void a player's contract for testing positive.  Again, the union is never going to agree to that.  So the issue comes down to whetheror not MLB is willing to disrupt 20 years of labor peace and run the risk of a strike over the issue.  To this point, MLB clearly isn't willing to go that far.

To your point about "what if a player gets banned," a team wouldn't have to pay a player during a lifetime ban, just like they don't have to pay during a suspension.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

I just dont see why contracts cant be voided when player do something agianst league rules like steroids.  Maybe not the first time they get caught.  Everyone makes mistakes but if they are a repeat offender or get banned.  What if the cardinals signed pujole to his 250million contract and then he got banned?  Do u expected the cardinals to have to pay him.  I wouldnt.  

See, your mistake is you're thinking rationally and the way 98 percent of the people in the world think. The other 2 percent is involved in labor law.

And a small subset within that 2 percent is left handed.  It's amazing that group is smart enough to wipe their own asses.

That's mostly because you fascist right-handed people insist on putting the toilet paper dispenser on the wrong side of the stall.
 

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

I just dont see why contracts cant be voided when player do something agianst league rules like steroids.  Maybe not the first time they get caught.  Everyone makes mistakes but if they are a repeat offender or get banned.  What if the cardinals signed pujole to his 250million contract and then he got banned?  Do u expected the cardinals to have to pay him.  I wouldnt.  

What is or is not a rule is established in the CBA.  The CBA also establishes the consequences for violations of those rules.  By agreement, MLB and MLBPA have come up with a progressive discipline structure: 50 games for a 1st violation, 100 for a 2nd and a lifetime ban for a 3rd.  Teams are not permitted to deviate from those agreed-upon rules.

MLB certainly has the right to go to the players' association and say they want a lifetime ban for a 1st violation, but the union is never going to agree to something like that.  MLB is also allowed to ask that a team be permitted to void a player's contract for testing positive.  Again, the union is never going to agree to that.  So the issue comes down to whetheror not MLB is willing to disrupt 20 years of labor peace and run the risk of a strike over the issue.  To this point, MLB clearly isn't willing to go that far.

To your point about "what if a player gets banned," a team wouldn't have to pay a player during a lifetime ban, just like they don't have to pay during a suspension.

so braun is only due 8.5 million in 2013.  A 100 game ban is 2/3 the season.  It would cost him 5.6  million and another suspension could cost him his career or 127million.

Assuming everything sticks, that's correct.

APIAD wrote:

I think it is a reach to count this as two violations.  We will see tho.

I agree.  I think MLB is swinging for a home run and really hoping for a single (that 50 games will stick).
 

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Not without the union's agreement. 

i assume a lifetime ban woukd void the contract?

Also, why cant team request in the players comtract that a provision be put in about voiding the comtract if the player test positive?  If the player agrees to it then so what.  If the player doesnt agree he probable is a user.
 

No player would ever agree to that. Or, more specifically, no agent would let his client sign a contract with a provision like that. It's sort of like the baseball version of asking someone when he stopped beating his wife.
 

Depends upon who has the strength, and a good union always helps.  I have signed a contract that said I could get fired if I broke the law.  My comment during negotiation was that nobody can break the law, but I signed anyway because I had no intent to break any laws.  What I should have done was require that the clause be mutual, that I could terminate and demand full compensation if they broke the law . . . which of course they did.  

Supposedly the suspensions will be announced after the All-Star Break (or sometime around then).

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9464246/ryan-braun-refused-answer-mlb-questions-biogenesis-clinic-sources-say