PDA

View Full Version : Giambi reportedly failed drug test (amphetamines)


The Immigrant
05-23-2007, 08:04 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2879878

I didn't see this posted yet.

EDIT: the cynic in me suspects that MLB leaked this report in response to Giambi's recent comments.

IndianWhiteSox
05-23-2007, 08:07 AM
Just like Bonds, Giambi fails test and still gets no suspension or MVP taken away..

:angry:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2879878

EDIT: Mods please merge

itsnotrequired
05-23-2007, 08:13 AM
More ammo for the Yankees to move forward in voiding his contract.

soxfanatlanta
05-23-2007, 08:22 AM
More ammo for the Yankees to move forward in voiding his contract.

What do you think the chances are for that happening? I'd love to see what the MLBPA's response would be <grabs popcorn, and sits>

chaerulez
05-23-2007, 08:40 AM
I think by the time any legal decision would be made about his contract after all the appeals and crap, his contract would be up by then.

CLR01
05-23-2007, 08:45 AM
What do you think the chances are for that happening? I'd love to see what the MLBPA's response would be <grabs popcorn, and sits>

Is it written into his contract that they can void it due to steroids? If so what leg would the MLBPA have to stand on?

D. TODD
05-23-2007, 08:48 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2879878

I didn't see this posted yet.

EDIT: the cynic in me suspects that MLB leaked this report in response to Giambi's recent comments. This is the drug of choice for most of the "cheaters" and by far the one that is getting the most failed tests so far. If it is not suppose to be disclosed on the first offense, and they continue to leak information, then the whole drug policy is in jeopardy. Quit leaking info that you are not allowed to, live by the rules you have set up and then you can expect the players to do the same.

IndianWhiteSox
05-23-2007, 08:55 AM
This is the drug of choice for most of the "cheaters" and by far the one that is getting the most failed tests so far. If it is not suppose to be disclosed on the first offense, and they continue to leak information, then the whole drug policy is in jeopardy. Quit leaking info that you are not allowed to, live by the rules you have set up and then you can expect the players to do the same.

How the hell does Guillermo Mota and Ricardo Rincon get suspended, but yet Barroid and Giambalco get to play everyday?

:?::angry:

voodoochile
05-23-2007, 08:57 AM
How the hell does Guillermo Mota and Ricardo Rincon get suspended, but yet Barroid and Giambalco get to play everyday?

:?::angry:

Chicks did the long ball...

TDog
05-23-2007, 09:28 AM
Just like Bonds, Giambi fails test and still gets no suspension or MVP taken away..

:angry: ...

Even if Giambi gave it back, the award wouldn't retroactively go to Frank Thomas.

itsnotrequired
05-23-2007, 10:04 AM
Is it written into his contract that they can void it due to steroids? If so what leg would the MLBPA have to stand on?

That is where the stink lies. "Sources close to the situation" say there is verbiage in his contract which would allow the Yankees to void it. They considered voiding it in 2004 over the BALCO flap but really didn't have the ammo at the time. Either way, MLBPA would fight it. Their claim is that clauses in the CBA supercede any contract clauses.

This is getting interesting...

D. TODD
05-23-2007, 10:16 AM
[quote=IndianWhiteSox;1582883]How the hell does Guillermo Mota and Ricardo Rincon get suspended, but yet Barroid and Giambalco get to play everyday?
I believe that is because Mota and Rincon tested for roids and Giambi for
amphetamines. Bonds has been clean, I think, on all tests. I agree the amphetamine punishment is too light, but the agreement is no suspension and no public outing on your first positive for amphetamines. I'm not sure if it's the 2nd or 3rd amphetamine offense that carries a suspension

CLR01
05-23-2007, 10:21 AM
That is where the stink lies. "Sources close to the situation" say there is verbiage in his contract which would allow the Yankees to void it. They considered voiding it in 2004 over the BALCO flap but really didn't have the ammo at the time. Either way, MLBPA would fight it. Their claim is that clauses in the CBA supercede any contract clauses.

This is getting interesting...

How hard would they fight it though? I could see them putting up the token battle but I don't see them going all in. They would take a bath if they went hard defending a 'roider. Not even their boys in congress would touch that one.

soxfan13
05-23-2007, 10:22 AM
How the hell does Guillermo Mota and Ricardo Rincon get suspended, but yet Barroid and Giambalco get to play everyday?

:?::angry:

Because they were caught after testing and suspensions for steroids went in effect

RockyMtnSoxFan
05-23-2007, 10:55 AM
If Bonds and Giambi are still willing to take drugs that they know they will be tested for, don't you think they might also be willing to take drugs that don't have any chance of being detected? HGH can only be detected with blood samples, which the MLBPA would thow a hissy fit about.

Oblong
05-23-2007, 11:00 AM
How the hell does Guillermo Mota and Ricardo Rincon get suspended, but yet Barroid and Giambalco get to play everyday?

:?::angry:

Have they failed a drug test that calls for a suspension?

Attempting to do things outside of the agreed upon process and laws (based on collectively negotiatied agreements and existing labor laws) is what leads to lawsuits.

IndianWhiteSox
05-23-2007, 12:35 PM
Have they failed a drug test that calls for a suspension?

Attempting to do things outside of the agreed upon process and laws (based on collectively negotiatied agreements and existing labor laws) is what leads to lawsuits.

I thought that amphetamines comes under that ruling. But even then, Donald Fehr has no leg to stand on after the congressional hearings. Congress could technically have that guy thrown in jail for obstruction of justice at this rate.

ewokpelts
05-23-2007, 12:51 PM
More ammo for the Yankees to move forward in voiding his contract.he forced the yanks to change thier standard moral clause/drug clause to prevent his contract from gettign voided if he gets caught with controlled substances.

ewokpelts
05-23-2007, 12:55 PM
Even if Giambi gave it back, the award wouldn't retroactively go to Frank Thomas.frank had the 2nd highest number of 1st place votes.
why wouldnt they?

itsnotrequired
05-23-2007, 12:56 PM
he forced the yanks to change thier standard moral clause/drug clause to prevent his contract from gettign voided if he gets caught with controlled substances.

Are you sure about that? Source?

If he was able to get the Yankees to change the clause, why would they even be talking about voiding his contract?

Mickster
05-23-2007, 01:06 PM
Is it written into his contract that they can void it due to steroids? If so what leg would the MLBPA have to stand on?

It's worse. There was a "steroids" clause in Giambi's contract that was removed by the Yankees (at Giambi's request) prior to him signing the contract. They can not possibly try to void the contract based on steroid use when they knew - or reasonably should have known - that this might be an issue.

I guess that the Anaheim rumors are the result of the Yankees not attempting to void the contract. They will just eat 1/2 of the $40M due to him, pick up a few prospects and call it a day.

ewokpelts
05-23-2007, 01:06 PM
Are you sure about that? Source?

If he was able to get the Yankees to change the clause, why would they even be talking about voiding his contract?it was brought up when he last apologized.

Oblong
05-23-2007, 01:09 PM
I thought that amphetamines comes under that ruling. But even then, Donald Fehr has no leg to stand on after the congressional hearings. Congress could technically have that guy thrown in jail for obstruction of justice at this rate.

What does Donald Fehr have to do with Giambi and Bonds? Donald Fehr wouldn't be the one suing on their behalf. They can go to any private labor attorney. Testimony before congress doesn't negate written labor contracts. Baseball and the Players have a written agreement that is considered the law. Those procedures have to be folllowed, regardless of what someone said before Congress. You can't suspend people just because you think they did something wrong.

If Giambi failed a drug test after the latest agreement then the process should be followed. That means he should get the punishment for whatever he failed. It also means baseball has to follow it's own rules regarding disclosure and if they leaked it to get back at him then they are only hurting whatever campaign they are sending Mitchell out on. There's rules and procedures in place. It's disingenuous to play high and might on players for not following the rules when they can't follow them either. Leaking something that's supposed to be confidential is wrong just as taking an illegal substance is wrong.

Mickster
05-23-2007, 01:15 PM
Are you sure about that? Source?

If he was able to get the Yankees to change the clause, why would they even be talking about voiding his contract?


My understanding of the situation was that he had removed the "steroid" clause but the Yankees would try to void the contract based on the "moral" clause. I'll try to find the source, though it was just mentioned this morning again on XM175.


EDIT: The only "reliable" thing that I could find (on ESPN.com, if you consider them reliable) is linked HERE (http://media.espn.com/ESPNToday/2005/Feb_05/giambi.htm) where Cashman disputes a New York Time article that the clause was removed. I am still trying to find the New York Times article.

EDIT 2: Murray Chass article of February 11, 2005 HERE (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/sports/baseball/11chass.html?ei=5070&en=69fd6368746814b8&ex=1180065600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1179945264-KzUBeG4/pdgvjleA9VrLbw).

HawkDJ
05-23-2007, 02:05 PM
Question: Are amphetamines really that bad? I really do not know too much about them, that is why I'm asking. All that I do know is that they have been around baseball for decades and seem to be as much of a performance enhancer as a Red Bull.

RockyMtnSoxFan
05-23-2007, 02:16 PM
My understanding of the situation was that he had removed the "steroid" clause but the Yankees would try to void the contract based on the "moral" clause. I'll try to find the source, though it was just mentioned this morning again on XM175.


EDIT: The only "reliable" thing that I could find (on ESPN.com, if you consider them reliable) is linked HERE (http://media.espn.com/ESPNToday/2005/Feb_05/giambi.htm) where Cashman disputes a New York Time article that the clause was removed. I am still trying to find the New York Times article.

EDIT 2: Murray Chass article of February 11, 2005 HERE (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/sports/baseball/11chass.html?ei=5070&en=69fd6368746814b8&ex=1180065600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1179945264-KzUBeG4/pdgvjleA9VrLbw).

In the second article it said that steroids were not illegal in baseball when Giambi used them. I've heard this defense used for McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. before, but there was a memo issued by the commissioner in 1991 I believe, which said that any illegal drugs were against the rules, including steroids. What's the deal?

The Immigrant
05-23-2007, 02:27 PM
Question: Are amphetamines really that bad? I really do not know too much about them, that is why I'm asking. All that I do know is that they have been around baseball for decades and seem to be as much of a performance enhancer as a Red Bull.

Yeah, there's a big difference between caffeine and speed. Red Bull contains as much caffeine as a cup of coffee, plus sugar and some amino acids. It should have as much of a performance-enhancing effect as a Starbucks frappucino.

Oblong
05-23-2007, 02:52 PM
In the second article it said that steroids were not illegal in baseball when Giambi used them. I've heard this defense used for McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. before, but there was a memo issued by the commissioner in 1991 I believe, which said that any illegal drugs were against the rules, including steroids. What's the deal?

Whatever's against the rules relating to punishment has to be negotiated between the players and the league in the collective bargaining agreement. Trying to punish someone prior to what was in the CBA wouldn't hold up in court.

Mickster
05-23-2007, 04:07 PM
Giambi apparently had a meeting (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Aty.gF312p8SUSo933twTisRvLYF?slug=ap-yankees-giambi&prov=ap&type=lgns) with the Commissioner's office this afternoon.

TDog
05-23-2007, 05:34 PM
frank had the 2nd highest number of 1st place votes.
why wouldnt they?

I would have loved to have seen Frank Thomas win the MVP after the 2000 season, but as long as you ask ...

The MVP is a postseason award. If someone rejects a postseason award years later, and is permitted, in effect, to give it back (which isn't a given), my guess is there would be no MVP award for that year. This has never happened before, but I have seen awards turned down or taken back in other entertainment industries and can venture a guess. What would probably happen is that there would be an asterisk next to Jason Giambi's name or "none" to refer the reader to the fact that he had repudiated the award.

If the repudiation had happened during the offseason before 2001, the BBWAA voters may have held another election. It seems likely that Thomas would have been preferred, but there is no way of knowing how the voters would have voted because first-place votes are so heavily weighted. Thomas finished 32 points behind Giambi and 67 points ahead of Alex Rodriguez, the who had six fewer first-place votes than Thomas.

After the 2000 season, the race for the award appeared to be between Giambi and Thomas. If you take Giambi out of the mix, there is no guarantee that Thomas would have gotten his first-place votes. Without Giambi as a candidate, you don't know how the voters would have voted. Lobbying against the reassignment of the award would be baseball owners faced with the precedent of having to pay a possible contractual bonus to a player long after the player is no longer associated with the team. The clause doesn't have a statute of limitations. If we were talking about Giambi committing a bank robbery instead of the stealing of an MVP award, the federal statute of limitations already would have run out.

I could be wrong, but in any case, it wouldn't be automatic that the BBWAA would, six years after its vote, name the second-place finisher in the MVP race the recipient of the award. I think it would be more likely there would be no award for that year.

IndianWhiteSox
05-24-2007, 08:54 AM
I would have loved to have seen Frank Thomas win the MVP after the 2000 season, but as long as you ask ...

The MVP is a postseason award. If someone rejects a postseason award years later, and is permitted, in effect, to give it back (which isn't a given), my guess is there would be no MVP award for that year. This has never happened before, but I have seen awards turned down or taken back in other entertainment industries and can venture a guess. What would probably happen is that there would be an asterisk next to Jason Giambi's name or "none" to refer the reader to the fact that he had repudiated the award.

If the repudiation had happened during the offseason before 2001, the BBWAA voters may have held another election. It seems likely that Thomas would have been preferred, but there is no way of knowing how the voters would have voted because first-place votes are so heavily weighted. Thomas finished 32 points behind Giambi and 67 points ahead of Alex Rodriguez, the who had six fewer first-place votes than Thomas.

After the 2000 season, the race for the award appeared to be between Giambi and Thomas. If you take Giambi out of the mix, there is no guarantee that Thomas would have gotten his first-place votes. Without Giambi as a candidate, you don't know how the voters would have voted. Lobbying against the reassignment of the award would be baseball owners faced with the precedent of having to pay a possible contractual bonus to a player long after the player is no longer associated with the team. The clause doesn't have a statute of limitations. If we were talking about Giambi committing a bank robbery instead of the stealing of an MVP award, the federal statute of limitations already would have run out.

I could be wrong, but in any case, it wouldn't be automatic that the BBWAA would, six years after its vote, name the second-place finisher in the MVP race the recipient of the award. I think it would be more likely there would be no award for that year.

It's MLB, they could technically just give him the damn award if they wanted to.

TDog
05-24-2007, 11:03 AM
It's MLB, they could technically just give him the damn award if they wanted to.


What makes you think MLB would want to? I'm not arguing that Frank Thomas shouldn't have been the 2000 MVP. I'm saying that given an objective analysis of the situation I don't think he will ever be recognized as the BBWAA MVP for 2000.

IndianWhiteSox
05-24-2007, 12:21 PM
What makes you think MLB would want to? I'm not arguing that Frank Thomas shouldn't have been the 2000 MVP. I'm saying that given an objective analysis of the situation I don't think he will ever be recognized as the BBWAA MVP for 2000.

Unfortunately your right, but all I was saying is that it's not a legal issue and that's all I wanted to say.

TDog
05-24-2007, 12:42 PM
Unfortunately your right, but all I was saying is that it's not a legal issue and that's all I wanted to say.

Certainly, the players union would demand Frank Thomas get any MVP bonus from his 2000 contract. I'm not sure if he had one, but because Thomas had won two previous MVP awards, it is likely that he did. The players union fought to get the Yankees to give Carlos May a World Series ring more than a quarter century after New York traded him during the team's 1977 championship season.

That could be a factor against baseball going back and naming a new MVP for the 2000 season.