Arbitrator reduces A-Rod's suspension to 162 games

Fox Sports: A-Rod suspension reduced to 162 games; Will take fight to court​

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

Sports Illustrated: Report: MLB executive testified to paying $125k for Biogenesis documents​

CBS Sports: Report: MLB paid for drug evidence in case against A-Rod​

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.