So Giambi came out with another version of his little “I’m really sorry for doing that thing I really can’t tell you about, even though you all know what it is I’m talking about anwyay” act. This time he added new material about how it was big bad Major League Baseball’s fault that he was forced to plunge a hypodermic needle, over and over again, into his own ass, and they should really apologize for that. The horror.
The Yankees front office, in the true spirit of Renault, announced that it was going to investigate the question [heh-heh] of whether Giambi ever took steroids, [hee-hee], and if so, would assess whether to void his contract [hahahaha].
I’m really left puzzling as to the why the Yankees would choose to address this issue again in this fashion. This entire saga came up in 2004 (shortly after the arrival of Giambi to the Yanks), when his testifimony in the BALCO case, reportedly admitting his steroid use, was leaked. At the same time he dropped a ton of weight and went from being the power hitter the Yankees had shelled out big bucks for to an overpaid slap-hitter. It would seem that if there had been a time for the Yankees to investigate and exercise the morals clause in the contract, it would have been then. Although Giambi was sucking at the time, though, the Yanks were winning, so perhaps they thought it less trouble to just avoid the controversy and look too hard.Â
Either that or the Yankee’s front-office investigator was this guy:
As it stands, Giambi managed to gain back some of his former power (although now it appears that may have been due to Captain Speed as opposed to Ranger Roid) and actually ended up as one of the “good guys” of the steroid era for a time, a troubling and dodgy category that includes the likes of Jose Canseco. He’s currently mired in a slump, but I seem to recall at the time his testimony was first revealed he wasn’t exactly burning down the house, so again it seems odd that the Yankees now are taking this seriously. Maybe because the Yankees were winning back then even if Giambi was sucking, it wasn’t as big a deal.
In any event, based on this entire history I would believe there may be some real grounds for Giambi to contest any attempt to void his contract. Some background employment law: most of us are employed “at will,” meaning we can get kicked for any reason, so long as it’s not one of a few legally barred ones (i.e. race, gender, disability, etc.) Baseball players, however, get individually negotiated contracts (with certain restrictions from the union based on terms collectively bargained), which lay out specfically when they may be dismissed and the contract voided. Included therein is typically a “morals clause,” where the club is allowed to void for bad behavior, like violating the league’s drug policy .Â
It’s true that the law generally favors enforcing the language found in contracts. However, as with all things legal, there are always plenty of principles and exceptions which may serve to confuse what may otherwise seem like a straightforward application of the contract language. While the language of the contract itself may provide for dismissals based on bad behavior, there are several arguments from equity (lawyer talk for “that’s not fair!”) which would seem to favor Giambi.Â
In 2004, grounds existed to believe that Giambi had ‘roided up. The Yanks did nothing. Estoppel may therefore apply - if Giambi could show that the Yanks through their actions led him to believe that they would not exercise the morals clause for his conduct. they can’t rely on the violation of the steroid band to dismiss. Â
Laches may also apply - basically if it was shown that the Yankees took so long to exercise the clause after they had grounds to do so that they in effect waived that contract right. And there are others which I’m sure Giambi’s sharks are well-versed in. Â
Rather than get into this legal thicket, however, the Yanks and Giambi would likely go the trade route first - that way the Yankees don’t have to defend not having known Giambi took steroids in 2004 and Giambi doesn’t have to admit that his steroid use should have been obvious to the team. This is a nice advantage pro sports teams have over your average Fortune 500 company - you can’t send Larry the Weasel in marketing over to GE for a couple of junior accountants and a mailboy to be named later.
Giambi’s new amphetamine test results are a wrinkle - that wouldn’t be subject to the equitable arguments. However, that infraction occured under the new testing regime the union and owners hammered out, and would presumably be covered by those procedures and not grounds for voiding the contract.  It’s worth noting that the test result here, for a first offense, was supposed to be confidential.
Even more laughable than the Yanks’ indignation at this point, however, is the fact that MLB and Bud Selig are apparently going to do some principal’s office meeting with Giambi. At this point, Selig must feel like the driver in that old Twilight Zone episode “The Hitchhiker,” driving faster and faster away from the menacing steroid man only to see him pop up again the next few miles. He may drive away from Giambi today, but there’s a certain former Mets clubhouse guy waiting just over the horizon.
Yes, I know, different hitcher, but Rutger Hauer is freaking badass
Entries (RSS)
May 25th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
1. Jason Giambi signed with the Yankees in the December 2001, not “right before 2004″ Get your facts right. 2 1/2 years = right before? Nice job.
2. The Yankees were winning when the BALCO testimony was revealed, huh? That’s why they didn’t try to void his contract, huh? Ummmm……BALCO leaked in December 2004, and, unless I’m mistaken…………baseball isn’t played in December. At least not in the major leagues.
Here’s your proof (PS….lawyer advice 1: Proof in a case/argument……it’s a good thing):
“In December 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle reported it had seen Giambi’s 2003 grand jury testimony in the BALCO investigation. The newspaper said that in his testimony, Giambi admitted to using several different steroids during the off-seasons from 2001 to 2003, and injecting himself with human growth hormone during the 2003 season.”
source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/02/MNG80A523H1.DTL
3. The Yankees tried to void his contract right afte BALCO. Once again, here is some proof:
The Yankees also considered terminating Giambi’s deal after the leaked BALCO testimony. If the team does try to end Giambi’s deal, the move likely will be appealed by the players’ union.
source: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2876608
While it never materialized (thanks Donald Fehr and co.), it was discussed. To your point, though, when the Yankees were considering this, they were not playing well as they were in a 5th way tie for last place in the AL East at 0-0.
Instead of trying to simply do as 99.9% of Yankee haters like to do, have some basis for the bull$hit you write instead of trying to make it obvious that the only reason you point such midless drivel is to prove that you hate the Yankees.
For a guy trying to come of all “lawyery” with his “let’s interpret the law”, you sure do a piss poor job of revealing the facts. Might I suggest that you probably shouldn’t post garbage in an attempt to sound intelligent without knowing the audience to whom you present. Because, when someone knows the true facts and calls you out on them, it makes you look like the ignorant fool.
Consider that your second lesson in Lawyer 101.
I’m not condoning Giambi or his actions. Steroids have tainted baseball almost beyond repair. What I am doing is defending my team from getting blasted by some idiot who fails to consider facts and is trying to sound a lot smarter than he obviously is. Next thing we know, he’ll be posting about how the Astros felt obligated to throw the 2005 World Series to offset the Black Sox scandal of 1919, or that Steve Bartman was a MLB plant sent from Bud Selig to ensure the Cubs make it 100 years because it’s good for business and it creates a ’sympathy’ story.
Anxiously awaiting your predictable, yet stale, “Yankees buy championships” BS reply.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
rfm2-
I admire an impassioned hair-trigger response from a devoted fanatic. Unfortunately, you made a basic assumption which is simply incorrect - I don’t hate the Yankees. I’m a Cub/NL fan, so if there’s a team in New York I have a problem with, it’s the one in Queens. I have no stake in Yankee hating, and in fact have a lot of respect for a team that has such a rich history and tradition. So your vitriol is, shall we say, misplaced.
As to your substantive points, I’ll freely accept that “shortly after” was a mischaracterization. BALCO leaked in December, but “winning at the time” was meant generally, not to a specific season. And yes, I was aware that the Yankees looked into his contract at the time - perhaps I could have made that clearer in the post. The fact remains, however, that nothing came of it.
None of your corrections, however, are relevant to my central point, which is that the Yankees had a chance in 2004 to void the contract, looked at the time, and did nothing. Now in 2007, they’re looking into the issue again, but failing to act in 2004 has weakened their legal position to void based on the equitable principles I describe. The Yankee’s actions, and Selig’s, are puzzling in light of the fact that there is little difference between the grounds to investigate and void the contract in 2004 and today. None of what you post indicates any disagreement with that central point, which was all I was trying to do.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
can we all at least agree that Derek Jeter is better than Clint Barmes?
May 29th, 2007 at 11:27 am
The Yankees, should they attempt to void his contract now, would be in the exact same position as 2004. I understand your point, but it was my understanding from your original post that the Yanks simply did nothing due to the fact they were playing well.
Should they go forward now, they face the same legal battles from the players association as it relates to the verbage within Giambi’s contract. I concede that it is somewhat mind boggling that they would act now (even though I truly believe they will not), but I do not think any of it has to do with the way the (this hurts to type) last place Yankees are currently playing. However, as of now, they have done the exact same thing they did in 2004; that is, look into it, but not act upon in (as of now)
Maybe I rushed in my assumptions, but it goes with being a fan I suppose. I apologize if I came off as an a$$hole (which I have the tendancy to do).
Three random thoughts, as well:
1. Yes, it is quite evident that Jeter is better than Clint Barmes. I mean, at least if BW picked Jose Reyes, this argument would be more, well, argumentative.
2. I knew picking my team name as I did, and then NOT selecting Justin Morneau, would come back and bite me. Karma is a b1tch.
3. My team is falling harder than the Yanks in the standings, and I blame Vernon Wells. Much like David Wright is to Nick, VW is dead to me.