big - Bad Sporters

20 Big Questions About MLB

admin — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:16:39 +0000

The fallout of the MLB electronic sign-stealing scandal seems to widen each day.

Last Monday, commissioner Rob Manfred and league investigators found the Houston Astros guilty of orchestrating a cheating scheme in 2017. The scheme involved players and staff using a centerfield camera in Minute Maid Park to illicitly record opposing teams’ catchers signaling signs.

Meanwhile, the Boston Red Sox are under MLB investigation for their own possible electronic sign stealing plot. The club parted ways with manager Alex Cora last Tuesday after Cora was found to have played an instrumental role in the Astros cheating scandal while he served as the team’s bench coach.

The latest twist is a series of accusations and suspicions that Astros players wore electronic buzzers under their uniforms during the World Series. The buzzers would have warned of upcoming pitch types and pitch locations.

I’ve received a number of questions about the controversy. Below I answer 20 of them.

1) Could Manfred vacate a World Series championship and other records?

Yes. The commissioner has that authority. Article II of the league’s constitution empowers the commissioner to both investigate any activity that is “suspected to be not in the best interests of baseball” and determine whether the activity is, in fact, in violation of the best interests.

Article II also establishes that the commissioner can impose any “preventive, remedial or punitive action.”

A sensible reading of this sweeping language would permit Manfred to strike records that were generated through cheating or fraud.

2) Will Manfred vacate records?

I don’t think so. I say that for several reasons.

First, removal of completed MLB games from past seasons would be unprecedented. Despite the Chicago White Sox deliberately throwing the 1919 World Series, MLB declined to set aside or qualify the result of the Cincinnati Reds winning it. It’s true that MLB can replay games if they don’t last at least 4.5 innings, but the Astros games (and the Red Sox games) in question from past seasons were completed and entered into the record books. It’s also true that teams have protested games and have sometimes succeeded in having games resume at the point of protest. However, those protests occurred within a season, not years later. Also, no protests have been filed in this controversy.

Second, it’s always risky to invent a new precedent in order to address one specific controversy. Doing so invites uncertainty over whether that the same response would be appropriate for other controversies.

For instance, if other past clubs engaged in similar cheating activities, should their records be stripped, too?

To that point, on Friday retired pitcher Jack McDowell claimed that Tony La Russa designed an electronic sign stealing scheme involving a Gatorade sign in the centerfield area in the old Comiskey Park. La Russa, McDowell asserts, invented this scheme while managing the Chicago White Sox in the 1980s. In response to the accusation, La Russa stressed that McDowell joined the White Sox after La Russa was no longer with the club. Assuming for a moment that McDowell’s allegation is true, should White Sox records from the 1980s be redacted?

Orlando Ramirez-USA TODAY Sports

Or how about players who used performance-enhancing drugs and steroids? And what about players who used pine tar? Once the door to record vacating is opened, it can be difficult to shut.

Third, since it’s unknown what would have happened had the cheating not occurred. The Astros, for example, might have still defeated the Dodgers in the 2017 World Series. Stripping records also has an Orwellian feel to it. The Astros winning is a historical fact. To claim it didn’t happen is to deny what we know happened.

Fourth, stripping records could invite other legal issues. For instance, if a team’s World Series win is vacated, would players’ stats from the World Series also be erased? If that happens, could a team that paid a bonus to a player based on World Series stats demand he return the money?

Beware of unintended consequences and complexities.

3) Could Manfred suspend or ban players who used cameras, buzzers and other electronic devices?

Yes. Under Article XII of the collective bargaining agreement, Manfred has the authority to take appropriate disciplinary measures against players for conduct that is “materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of Baseball.” Cheating is unquestionably damaging to the best interest of Baseball. It undermines the integrity of games and could cost the league substantial revenue if fans are turned off.

Also, no one has a legal “right” to play in a private sports league, just as no one has a right to a job at a private employer. Being kicked out of a pro league is not, in and of itself, an unlawful act by that league.

Lastly, MLB has a long history of suspending and even banning players. Bowie Kuhn banned Ferguson Jenkins after he was found with cocaine and other drugs (Jenkins was later reinstated). Bud Selig banned Steve Howe after a drug offense (Howe was also reinstated).

4) Okay, Manfred could issue suspensions and bans, but should he?

In his report, Manfred declined to sanction Astros players. He reasoned that because many players appear to have been involved, and because the evidence didn’t clearly distinguish which players were more blameworthy than others, it wasn’t possible to determine “relative degree of culpability.”

There is a flaw in Manfred’s logic. He acknowledges that players were guilty of partaking in a cheating scheme. So, if they are guilty, why weren’t they punished?

Think of it this way. If a teacher discovers many students in her class conspired to cheat on a test, would the teacher decline to punish any student because there were a lot of cheaters and it’s not clear which ones were more involved in the plot? Of course not. That wouldn’t be fair to the non-cheaters in the class and it wouldn’t make sense to incentivize cheaters to join hands in a conspiracy as a way of escaping culpability. The teacher would punish all of the cheating students.

Also, the magnitude of the electronic sign stealing harm in baseball is substantial. Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Alex Wood captured this point in a tweet that has gone viral:

Wood’s insight highlights that a batter who knows the pitch type and its intended location in advance of the pitch being thrown is bestowed a substantial advantage. Batters rely heavily on timing. Consider José Altuve. Per columnist Dieter Kurtenbach, Altuve had a home OPS of 1.541 during the 2017 playoffs, but a road OPS of just 0.497. Continuing with the classroom analogy, knowing the pitch in advance is like a student knowing the exam question in advance.

Manfred could logically reason that if a first-time offense for use of a performance-enhancing drug calls for an 80-game suspension under the MLB-MLBPA joint drug prevention and treatment program, an offense for wearing a buzzer and other electronic violations should be no less than 80 games.

5) So, you’re saying Manfred should punish these players?

Not necessarily. There are important counterpoints to consider.

First, MLB might not be sufficiently confident in the quality and scope of its evidence to justify suspending players. Bear in mind, the league has limited powers to obtain documentation and witness statements. MLB, after all, is a private entity without subpoena powers. Witnesses who speak with MLB investigators aren’t under oath. They might be inclined to lie, exaggerate or omit information—and direct blame onto others to protect themselves. There’s an inherent risk in relying on witness statements that aren’t under oath. If MLB accuses players, it better be certain about its claims otherwise those players could sue for defamation.

Second, there’s the problem of timing: evidence tends to go stale after a while and peoples’ recollections tend to diminish, too. If Altuve and Josh Reddick were wearing buzzers in 2017, there’s a good chance those buzzers are long gone. To that point, according to Tom Verducci, MLB investigators looked into electronic buzzer theories and turned up no evidence.

Third, once Manfred punishes certain players, he open’s “Pandora’s box” to punish other players. If electronic sign stealing is more widespread than only Astros and possibly Red Sox players, Manfred might need to suspend numerous players across the league. MLB losing many skilled players over half a season or longer would diminish the league product and potentially hurt TV ratings and attendance.

6) You didn’t mention the role of the MLBPA—wouldn’t it contest player suspensions?

Yes, the MLBPA would contest player suspensions. However, just because the MLPBA would raise a fight doesn’t mean their objections would succeed in altering the outcome. A prosecutor doesn’t decline to seek charges against someone who is believed to have committed a crime merely because that person will hire a defense attorney. Likewise, an employer doesn’t refrain from punishing unionized employees for workplace misconduct because the employees are represented by a union. The prospect of resistance isn’t, by itself, a reason to not try to hold wrongdoers accountable.

Also, Manfred might believe it is worth taking on the MLPBA in order to communicate to fans and media that he takes the controversy seriously. In fact, Manfred not punishing guilty players could make him seem weak and ineffectual.

But the calculus isn’t so straightforward. The calendar serves an important contextual factor. Manfred and his counterpart, MLBPA executive director Tony Clark, will engage in labor negotiations over the next year on a new CBA. The current CBA will expire on Dec. 1, 2021. A side battle with Clark over sign stealing consequences could disrupt negotiations on a new CBA.

Erik Williams-USA TODAY Sports

The MLBPA would also have a number of sensible arguments in an appeal (arbitration hearing). The MLBPA might insist that players felt compelled or pressured to participate because their general manager, manager, bench coach and possibly other management types supported the practice. Did Astros players have a meaningful opportunity to “opt out” of participating in the scheme? Would they have been stigmatized and possibly suffer adverse career consequences if they had protested in the name of ethics and good sportsmanship?

The MLBPA can also stress that Manfred basing any player suspensions on the length of PED suspensions would be inappropriate and potentially a violation of labor law. Lengths of PED suspensions were collectively bargained between MLB and MLPBA. In contrast, there is no collectively bargained policy specific to electronic sign stealing. Comparing the two transgressions is like comparing apples and oranges.

In response, MLB could assert that Manfred has wide discretion under Article XII of the CBA to punish players for “conduct detrimental or prejudicial to baseball.” A conspiracy to cheat is clearly detrimental to the interests of baseball. It undermines notions of fair play and has led to substantial, and potentially lasting, backlash against baseball.

7) Can MLB be sure that only the Astros and possibly the Red Sox stole signs?

No, for several reasons.

First, McDowell’s claim against the White Sox included, illicit sign stealing has long been a part of the game. Don’t be surprised if other retired players raise similar claims against teams.

Second, even assuming the unlikely—that electronic sign stealing in baseball really began with the 2017 Astros club—that Astros club wasn’t a self-contained entity. Some of the players and coaches went on to jobs with other teams in 2018 and 2019. Some of those same players and coaches would later join third and fourth teams. They took with them what they learned from their time with the Astros. They may have shared knowledge to benefit their new employers.

Think of the Astros as the proverbial “patient zero.” Except here, instead of spreading a contagious illness, knowledge about cheating strategies is spread.

Much attention has been paid to the suspicion that after the Red Sox hired Cora in October 2017, the team could have used his knowledge of electronic cheating to help the Sox win the 2018 World Series. There’s also been talk about Carlos Beltran, who stepped down as New York Mets manager on Thursday. He was with the Yankees during the 2019 season as special adviser to general manager Brian Cashman. During a press conference in June 2019, Cora weirdly winked while unexpectedly referencing Beltran. Cora then uttered a non-sequitur about “devices.” In hindsight, Cora may have been implying the Yankees were engaging in electronic sign-stealing.

Who knows how many teams in 2018 and 2019 learned about the Astros electronic sign stealing strategies and then crafted their own techniques? Just like when looking under the hood of a car, the more you look, the more problems you’ll find.

8) Could MLB or clubs stop managers, coaches and players from tweeting about the controversy?

Probably not and doing so would be a bad idea.

MLB does have a social media policy for managers, coaches, executives and other club and league employees and one for players. These policies prohibit the transmission of strategic information, including insights related to processes and systems used by teams.

One could argue that information pertaining to electronic sign stealing is a “trade secret.” Such a term that refers to strategies, formulas and other inside knowledge that help businesses gain competitive advantages over rivals. Here, though, the inside knowledge involves prohibited conduct. For that reason, it likely falls outside the scope of protected knowledge.

Regardless, MLB would be opening up a can of worms if tried to stop tweets about the sign-stealing controversy. MLB would seem overzealous and defensive, two traits that would only exacerbate the controversy. Baseball might be portrayed as trying to coverup the wrongdoing by silencing whistleblowers (more on that below).

There are also practical considerations. Would Manfred really suspend players for tweeting? Would he claim that doing so in the best interests of baseball? It is hard to see the commissioner reaching that conclusion since it would defy how people communicate in contemporary America. It would also seem misguided given that it would illicit negative reactions. In addition, the MLBPA could challenge such efforts as unauthorized.

9) Could a player who lost statistical achievements and contract bonuses due to others cheating successfully sue for damages?

No. Players agree to arbitration as the dispute-resolution method for salary, pay and other grievances that relate to the law. They do so as part of their membership in the MLPBA, a union which collectively bargains arbitration policies with MLB. In addition, Paragraph 9 of the uniform player contract explicitly states, “the club and the player agree to accept, abide by and comply with all provisions of the Major League Constitution, and the Major League Rules, or other rules.”

In addition to the hurdle of arbitration, the idea of a player suing over lost stats and bonuses would be inherently speculative and frowned up by most judges. A court would be wary of reimagining what might have happened in a game had there been no cheating. At every moment in every game there are numerous variables impacting player performance.

10) Could ticket-holders and viewers who are upset their team lost successfully sue MLB?

Almost certainly not. Fans who attend MLB games are entitled to a narrowly defined set of rights as listed on their ticket. They mainly include the ability to sit in a particular seat to watch a particular game. The ticket doesn’t guarantee that teams will refrain from breaking rules. Again, sign stealing (of the human eye kind) has been around since the sport was invented in the 19th century. Fans are on notice that this type of activity can happen.

Also, being upset that one’s favorite team may have been cheated out of a World Series is understandable but it’s not a harm the law ought to remedy. Neither MLB nor its clubs have a legal duty to make us happy.

It’s possible that some fans and attorneys might offer quixotically constructed claims related to consumer protection and fraud, but those lawsuits would face long odds and likely fail.

Robert Hanashiro-USA TODAY Sports

11) Could someone who lost a bet on a game successfully sue?

I’ve received a number of emails from readers who are curious about whether bettors could sue over the controversy. Some clearly lost a bet because a team that cheated won.

These bettors are justifiably annoyed. I would be annoyed, too. But justifiable annoyance doesn’t, by itself, create a viable legal claim.

Indeed, there’s an inherent problem with the fact-pattern in terms of suing: bettors aren’t in contract with MLB or any clubs. Their bet is made with a sportsbook or other gaming entity.

Bettors, like other participants in the gambling industry, essentially free ride off of leagues and players. Leagues and players take on the expense and risk of producing sports. Bettors and sportsbooks are merely spectators from the sidelines. They create a secondary market tied to outcomes in games, but that market isn’t in contract with the games themselves. It’s like watching a reality TV show, or following a political election, and betting on who will win. You don’t have a case against the TV show or a candidate who may have broken rules.

The “free ride” issue is one rationale offered by leagues when demanding “sports betting right and integrity fees” as part of state laws to legalize sports betting. These fees, which no state has yet to recognize, would compel betting operators and sports books to pay a percentage of earnings to leagues.

Back to bettors being upset about the Astros and possibly other clubs cheating. Without a contractual nexus to the games, the bettors probably lack standing—a legitimate legal interest in a dispute—to raise a viable claim in court. A court would also note that sports bettors assume all sorts of risk in terms of games themselves. If one doesn’t want those risks, they probably shouldn’t bet.

12) But aren’t leagues increasingly trying to capture the wagering community?

Yes, and that question sparks a couple of nuances to the analysis.

First, a bettor could review his or her contract with the sportsbook to see if there are any remedies against the sportsbook. Perhaps the sportsbook offered guarantees as to the integrity of the games. Is that likely? No. In fact, the sportsbook probably disclaimed any liability related to the games.

Second, MLB and other leagues should be mindful of the electronic sign-stealing controversy. They have, to varying degrees, embraced sports betting after losing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA in 2018. The more that leagues embrace sports betting and enter into contracts with casinos and other sports betting entities, the greater the chance that bettors obtain a sufficient contractual nexus to sue.

13) Could a network in contract with MLB terminate a TV deal over the controversy?

Every broadcasting contract features terms that allow a party to exit the deal or reduce or suspend payments. If MLB players went on strike, networks and regional sports networks that pay to broadcast MLB games would likely have certain remedies.

It’s possible that broadcasting contracts could be construed to justify a network reducing its financial obligation to pay MLB and clubs due to a team or multiple teams cheating.

14) Would a network actually do that?

No.

First, MLB television ratings have generally been on the rise. MLB’s three national TV partners–Fox, ESPN and TBS–all enjoyed increased viewership in the 2019 season.

Second, any network that tries to exit a contract with a major league would face litigation (or arbitration or mediation) with that league over the attempted exit. There would be no clean break, unless it were negotiated by all parties.

Third, leagues would be wary of doing business with such network in the future. A network that drops or takes other measures against a league may not be a network with whom MLB, NBA, NHL and NFL wish to do business.

That said, networks will no doubt monitor whether the cheating controversy impacts TV ratings in the 2020 season. A decline in ratings could influence future TV contracts. Along those lines, if MLB players on social media question the legitimacy of their games, fans will surely do the same.

Source link

The post 20 Big Questions About MLB first appeared on Bad Sporters.

Former NBA player Glen “Big Baby” Davis arrested on drug charges

admin — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:14:11 +0000

Glen “Big Baby” Davis — a key bench player in the Celtics 2008 title run, but who has been out of the NBA for a couple of years now — was arrested last month at a hotel in a suburb of Baltimore with 126 grams of marijuana and more than $96,000 in cash, according to a report.

reports ABC 2 WMAR in Baltimore." data-reactid="19">Davis was arrested in Aberdeen, Maryland, with the signs what he had on him was for sale, not just personal use, reports ABC 2 WMAR in Baltimore.

According to court records, the hotel owner smelled marijuana coming from Davis’ room on February 7^th. When the owner knocked on room 208, someone inside the room told him to “F*** off!”

Aberdeen police then responded to the hotel and Davis gave signed consent to search his room

“They recovered 126 grams of marijuana,” said Aberdeen Police Lieutenant William Reiber, “In addition to that there was a briefcase that contained 92,164 dollars of U.S. currency along with a ledger that contained language which is consistent with someone involved in the sale and distribution of narcotics.”

Davis has since been indicted on seven counts of drug possession and intended distribution. Davis’ attorney has said his client is not guilty of the charged crimes.

Davis has been out of the NBA since 2015 when as a free agent he needed ankle surgery that sidelined him.

Orlando Magic, and Los Angeles Clippers. In his second season out of LSU, he played a role off the bench for the Celtics during their run to the title, then his bench role expanded the next couple of seasons when Boston made runs (remember Nate Robinson referred to Davis and himself as “Donkey and Shrek” during the 2010 NBA Finals). Davis earned $36.4 million in salary during his NBA career." data-reactid="24">Davis played eight NBA seasons between the Boston Celtics, Orlando Magic, and Los Angeles Clippers. In his second season out of LSU, he played a role off the bench for the Celtics during their run to the title, then his bench role expanded the next couple of seasons when Boston made runs (remember Nate Robinson referred to Davis and himself as “Donkey and Shrek” during the 2010 NBA Finals). Davis earned $36.4 million in salary during his NBA career.

Source link

The post Former NBA player Glen “Big Baby” Davis arrested on drug charges first appeared on Bad Sporters.

College hoops’ big scandal now has way more names attached

admin — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:59 +0000

A Yahoo Sports report out Friday offers some of the most specific detail yet into the FBI’s college basketball corruption probe, which has unfolded quietly for months.

This report names names.

Reporters Pete Thamel and Pat Forde “viewed hundreds of pages of documents” they say detail payments from people at the center of the scandal. Those parties are former NBA agent Andy Miller, his former business associate Christian Dawkins, and Miller’s agency, ASM Sports. (Miller hasn’t been arrested or charged in the case, but the NBA’s players union took away his agent certification in December, removing him from that business.)

Many of the alleged payments went to players now gone from college.

Many of them took the form of loans, to be recouped by agents once a player became a professional:

Up to $73,500 to former NC State guard and current Dallas Maverick Dennis Smith, along with “notes about ‘options to recoup the money’” when the agency didn’t land Smith. (It did not. Smith went with another agency.)
Up to $36,500 in loans to former Kentucky and current Heat center Bam Adebayo. (Adebayo didn’t sign with the agency, and the documents call this a “bad loan”.)
$26,136 to Isaiah Whitehead, a former Seton Hall guard and current Brooklyn Net. Whitehead also got nearly $40,000 in loans, per the documents. Whitehead signed with and then left the agency.
At least $16,000 to former LSU guard and current Clippers G-Leaguer Tim Quarterman, who didn’t sign with ASM.
$14,303 to former Maryland center and current G-Leaguer Diamond Stone, who signed with another agency out of college.
$10,000 to former Washington guard and 76ers No. 1 overall draft pick Markelle Fultz, who also didn’t sign with ASM.

There are more players listed, including some who have made big names for themselves in the NBA. Raptors guard Kyle Lowry, who went to Villanova, Mavericks center Nerlens Noel (Kentucky), and Knicks forward Kyle O’Quinn (Norfolk State) are among them.

The report and underlying documents included in it don’t make the timetable of all the loans clear. The FBI’s case revolves in large part around agents’ efforts, with the help of other powerful people in the sport, to steer prospects to sign with them upon turning pro.

But a lot of current college players come up, too.

The report says ASM paid at least $2,000 apiece to two USC players, Bennie Boatwright and Chimezie Metu, and their associates.

The highest-profile current player mentioned in the reporter is Michigan State sophomore forward Miles Bridges, a National Player of the Year candidate. The documents cite a $400 advance to Bridges’ mother and a $70 meal for his parents, both in May 2016.

Those payments are disclosed in agency expense reports by Dawkins, Miller’s associate. The documents also list dinners for Dawkins with MSU coach Tom Izzo and “Villanova coaches,” among others. Dawkins is now facing his own bribery and fraud charges.

Current and recent players from Alabama, Duke, North Carolina, Creighton, South Carolina, Utah, Xavier, Clemson, and Kansas, Texas, Notre Dame, Virginia, Iowa State, and Vanderbilt are also mentioned in various capacities. They range from getting ASM’s money to having meetings with Dawkins.

What’s going to happen to the programs named here?

Still unclear, though nothing good.

The NCAA’s enforcement operation can do whatever it wants to schools. But it probably wouldn’t sanction a program unless it had proof the school knew about or was involved in payments to players or recruits.

Thamel reported earlier in February that the scandal would reach a lot of schools, though, and that “NCAA officials are staring at the prospect of a tournament with a winner that will likely be vacating its title.” (Louisville just vacated 2013’s in a separate matter.)

Most of the schools mentioned in the report didn’t respond to Yahoo’s comment requests. Xavier coach Chris Mack denied any connections between his staff and Miller’s agency. Former Musketeer Edmond Sumner and/or his dad are alleged to have gotten at least $7,000 in advance payments while Sumner was at Xavier.

Are these players going to get in any trouble?

It’s an NCAA violation for players to accept money from agents. Any player found to have taken money would be in danger of losing his NCAA eligibility.

The NCAA has declared current players at a couple of programs ineligible. But its jurisdiction over them ends whenever those kids decide to stop playing college hoops, and they’d all have the option of leaving college whenever, anyway. While schools might someday face consequences for playing these players, it’s not clear that the NCAA would suddenly declare any of them ineligible right now.

Payments to players are called “impermissible benefits” by the NCAA. Not all impermissible benefits are created equal. Those with a value under $100 aren’t a big deal, as players can donate that money and retain NCAA eligibility. The dollar figures mentioned in the ASM documents are generally far above that amount.

NCAA president Mark Emmert’s statement on the Yahoo report takes an outraged tone:

These allegations, if true, point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America. Simply put, people who engage in this kind of behavior have no place in college sports. They are an affront to all those who play by the rules. Following the Southern District of New York’s indictments last year, the NCAA Board of Governors and I formed the independent Commission on College Basketball, chaired by Condoleezza Rice, to provide recommendations on how to clean up the sport. With these latest allegations, it’s clear this work is more important now than ever. The Board and I are completely committed to making transformational changes to the game and ensuring all involved in college basketball do so with integrity. We also will continue to cooperate with the efforts of federal prosecutors to identify and punish the unscrupulous parties seeking to exploit the system through criminal acts.”

What else do we know about the case?

The FBI’s investigation is ongoing, but at least four former assistants at big programs are already facing charges connected to it: Chuck Person (Auburn), Book Richardson (Arizona), Tony Bland (USC), and Lamont Evans (Oklahoma State).

All were fired over the span of a few months following the FBI’s announcement of indictments in September. The FBI accuses those coaches of fraud and taking bribes to steer players to agents or businesses later on.

Here’s the entire federal case, visualized broadly:

This report isn’t at odds with what we already knew, but it brings more names to light.

Source link

The post College hoops’ big scandal now has way more names attached first appeared on Bad Sporters.