Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
51,478 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
According to a source, the fact that the Yankees continued to honor Rodriguez's 10-year, $275 million contract extension after his public admissions of steroid use in 2009 may further weaken their case to void the contract.

By their failure to act in 2009, the Yankees can be legally found to have "ratified" Rodriguez's behavior, defined as one party "accepting and approving the conduct of the other."

The Yankees, however, are likely to argue that Rodriguez's admission covered only the years from 2001-2003, when he was a member of the Texas Rangers, and they were unaware of any steroid use during his time as a Yankee.

The Yankees refused comment except to release a statement backing the commissioner's office without mentioning Rodriguez.

"We fully support the Commissioner's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program," the Yankees' statement said. "This matter is now in the hands of the Commissioner's Office. We will have no further comment until that investigation has concluded."

After it was reported in 2004 that Jason Giambi admitted using steroids to a San Francisco grand jury in the BALCO case, the Yankees unsuccessfully tried to void his contract. But the language in Giambi's deal would not allow the team to do it. According to the source with knowledge of Rodriguez's contract, his deal contains no such language.

"All contracts have moral clauses," a baseball official who handles contract negotiations said. "It will come down to the language in (Rodriguez's) contract. If it is a normal moral clause, (the Yankees) won't have much of a case. If there are specific clauses that went into steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, then I doubt he would walk away with his money."

Baseball can suspend Rodriguez or any of the other players without a positive test. In what is known as a non-analytic positive, they will need documentary evidence -- a sworn affidavit from Bosch, or a prescription from a doctor for a banned substance -- that would convince an independent arbitrator.

In 2009, after his admission to using PEDs, Rodriguez reiterated to MLB investigators what he had said publicly -- that he only used PEDs from 2001-2003 after he received what was then the largest contract in American sports history, a 10-year, $252 million deal.

Rodriguez was not disciplined by MLB after that admission and never has failed an MLB-administered drug test, which means that under the rules, he would receive a 50-game suspension as a first-time offender.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8894904/alex-rodriguez-contract-attempting-voided-new-york-yankees-according-sources

:gopray:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,057 Posts
Given that pretty much their entire team is on PEDs I can't see how the Yankees expect to impanel a jury that won't start laughing after the opening argument. I pray this goes to trial, though, because A-Rod's natural defense is going to be spilling the beans about everyone on that roster. :bsmile:
My thoughts exactly. The Yankees made more profit off A-Rod's drug use than A-Rod himself. You can't turn a blind eye to PEDs then all of a sudden place all the blame on the players.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top