The Weekly Rant: A-Rod and Arbitrators

 

 

We learned late last week that Alex Rodriguez's suspension had been cut to 162 games. Commissioner Bud Selig had originally banned the former star for 211 games, but arbitrator Frederic Horowitz decided on a reduced sentence, although not as reduced as A-Rod and his team would have liked. The decision generated a great deal of buzz because Rodriguez is still baseball's most famous active player, and because many people are interested in the Yankees. 

 

Critics of Major League Baseball immediately pointed out how much more severe this punishment was than suspensions for other players who violated the Joint Drug Agreement, including those who attempted to mislead investigators.  The JDA levies penalties of 50 games for a first-time, 100 games for a second-time, and a lifetime ban for a third-time violation. Ryan Braun accepted a 65-game ban after repeatedly lying about and concealing his use of PED's. Besides Braun, all violators had received penalties in accordance with the JDA.

 

But baseball obviously decided that A-Rod's actions constituted more than just using banned substances.  Selig used his powers as commissioner to dole out punishments for actions detrimental to the good of baseball.  While this power has traditionally been used for lifetime bans, MLB officials saw no reason it couldn't be used for lesser suspensions as well. The MLBPA filed a grievance on Rodriguez's behalf, and he went to an arbitration hearing armed with his private legal team, after pushing away his own union.

 

Much of the writing about baseball out there is done by, you know, baseball writers.  But there are some people who weigh in on baseball's legal and economic aspects that know what they are talking about.  Wendy Thurm at Fangraphs is one of these people. Thurm's well-researched and well-written pieces are truly must-reads.  That's why I was a little disappointed in her last post, Arbitrator’s Decision On Rodriguez Suspension Leaves Bad Taste.

 

The writing had an almost accusatory tone to it.  While it was factually correct, Thurm didn't really clarify who she was criticizing for the decision.  Her biggest criticism concerned the lack of precedent for the length of the suspension, and the specific violations A-Rod was being punished for. Since the JDA only accounts for 50 games (or possibly 100 if MLB successfully argued multiple violations), then the suspension must also have considered additional language in the CBA. And to go from 65 games (Braun) to 162 games (Rodriguez) is quite a big gap. So while I agree with Thurm that the arbitrator's decision was kind of dramatic and somewhat surprising, I still have faith that Horowitz made a good decision.

 

Horowitz had access to evidence and testimony that we may never see or hear, and ruled that most of the suspension would remain intact.  To argue that his decision leaves a bad taste would imply that he is either incompetent or lacked impartiality.  I don't think it would be fair to say he was incompetent, especially since he had more information than us.  To say that he was not impartial would ignore the realities of arbitration.  Arbitrators must be impartial or else they do not get hired again. 

 

The one possible critique of baseball arbitrators that may have some credence is a tendency to split the decisions between labor and management.  While I have never seen data to support this theory, anecdotally it could be true that after a big win for the employees (the case where the drug tester improperly handled Braun's urine sample), then arbitrators may lean more towards employers in the next decision. 

 

But if we assume Horowitz is impartial, than who could be blamed for the bad taste of the decision?  If the MLBPA was heading A-Rod's case, then it may have been plausible that they didn't deliver a just defense.  But it was Rodriguez's lawyers that defended him, so I assume they were putting in a good effort.

 

Could Selig and MLB be at fault for the bad taste of this decision? They of course went all out to make this suspension stick, and they must have done a pretty good job. If they did anything in poor taste, it would have been up to A-Rod's lawyers to exploit it, and up to the arbitrator to ultimately decide. 

 

I guess I just have more faith in binding arbitration than Thurm does. In all fairness, her writing may have been just pointing out that it's not good to have your most famous player suspended for a whole season.  Nor is it good for the next potential commissioner (Rob Manfred) to be paying drug dealers for evidence against a player.  Nor is it good that we are still talking about performance enhancing drugs so many years into the "new" Joint Drug Agreement.  I think all of those statements are more fair than criticizing an arbitration decision. 

 

Most people agree that Rodriguez will not be able to win a favorable decision in federal courts.  He may receive an injunction if there is a sympathetic judge out there.  But that will just allow him to be a side show for a little longer.  Much like Bonds, Rodriguez has been turned into a great villain.  Whether you think he did it all to himself, or if you think baseball, the union, or even an arbitrator were out to get him, it's a very sad baseball story. Thurm was certainly right that something leaves a bad taste.