Aug 5, 2013|
Our Sports Illustrated legal analyst Michael McCann joined the show to discuss the upcoming suspension of Alex Rodriguez and the appeal process that will likely follow. He said that Bud Selig is not using the best interest of baseball clause because that is questionable in a court of law.
Transcript - will not be 100% accurate
He's a friend for SI SI dot com and you and hates law school -- those everything. About the law and the legalese stuff place where dale -- absolute agreement is Mike McCann joins us on the AT&T hotline good morning Mike how -- you. Good morning John. Just fine take questions for theory and by all accounts and -- all -- gonna come down this way but everybody is reporting. That -- Bud Selig is going to suspend him he rod for whatever length of time to order and fourteen games. Based on the drug violation of rules that allow A-Rod to play and maybe even played a night in Chicago. While he appeals as opposed to the best interest of baseball powers that he has which would have A-Rod -- immediately doesn't. But dread the thought of him putting on a Yankee uniform and go out on the field in Chicago tonight. He does jump but I think that -- even more the possibility that A-Rod would attack. The use of the best interest of the game cause in a way that could jeopardize the penalty if Selig you -- the best interest of the game cause. He would be done in a fairly unprecedented way in the sense that we haven't seen a suspension used by. Are -- imposed by Selig under this caused it also allows the players association to reopen the CPA to renegotiate that -- -- he uses that. I can think though the legal justification for using it. Is is questionable and as a result it probably is the safest path even though like you said it does allow -- right to appeal in place pending an appeal. So A-Rod thinks it would be and his people probably could be more winnable more -- overturn a -- -- could invent a stupid word if he did on the best interest of baseball and so but is gonna hold his nose. Do under the drug rules and just watch him play baseball for a couple weeks. Yeah that's right job because it is it he would use the CPA. Iran is gonna say where are you getting this yeah yeah right yeah this doesn't mean that penalty out of thin air. It gives his lawyers ground to really attack it whereas with the joint drug testing agreement. We know that there's language in terms of being involved with the sale or distribution of steroids and I suspect suitable term of that language. Mike we've had a number of people on the facts and -- time text machine and callers as well ask this question. Why did Ryan Brian gets 65 games but a -- gonna get 214. Games why this significantly larger punishment for A-Rod. I think it reflects -- the fact that that -- pro for one -- agreed to a settlement sort of like pleading guilty to a crime. You get a lesser penalty by accepting responsibility. And acknowledging he made a mistake and that's LeBron did although it was apologetic was protected to say the least he didn't exactly make up for everything he did wrong including. The drug testers who he arguably defamed -- That's part of that the fact that he essentially pleaded guilty the other is that I think the evidence against Rodriguez. Is broader that it involves not just. Using steroids but also from what we know a lying about it today's policy issues and doing it for a longer period of time. And I have -- feeling that that is in baseball mind is the those distinctions are enough to warrant a change of of that -- provoke. You're you're you're the people texting and or make a good point could. -- of the lawyers are gonna say how you go from 65 to 214. That is -- I asked a simple question of -- -- earlier and I'm gonna ask you the exact same question I don't know the answer. What is -- gonna use as a basis for appeal. I think you'll say -- and that there's no mention of the 214. Games suspension -- any legal document. That that seems to be made out although that should be drug testing agreement does site. The possibility of an eighty year ninety game suspension. Where's it going from eighty year 92 to fourteen and this and Rodriguez the first time offender -- a second time offender. I think there's also -- what he's a multiple time offender. -- come up with repeated instances -- usually the use of first or second or third time offender means someone sort of been convicted of something. And I think you'll argue that the language baseball -- doesn't match up with other applying the rules and I think also attacked the evidence -- gonna say look. If baseball is relying on the director of -- Genesis Tony botched from much of -- evidence. Isn't that the same guys we suit back in March and we. Portrayed him as a drug dealer in the lawsuit. And now because he's cooperating with baseball. He's suddenly credible source of information this guy has an incentive to lie to make himself seem useful he is an incentive to exaggerate. Rodriguez's lawyers will make this about not Rodriguez but about Tony bought. So essentially there will be an element of JW Carney is defense of Whitey Bulger that Flemmi is dishonest and a liar. Kevin Weekes is dishonest and a liar to not be believed. That's right that's right just you know when your when your client is in the wrong. One tactic is to do. -- that -- to someone else and to make the evidence against her clients seem a lot weaker than it actually is. And I have a feeling that would Rodriguez is tactic is going to be. Not veering off the road to -- just for a second here are you surprised he didn't take the stand and what would be the reason he wouldn't because I was convinced he would because I you know I think he understands the most people understand. He's going to be found guilty it seems to me that he would wanna have the last word stand up and say I'm not a rat. Weeks is a liar Flemmi is a liar what would be the legal reason that he was convinced not to testify. Do miss it if you have any shot -- being found not guilty it's by not going on the stand that. Maybe we've raised enough questions about the evidence are we need is one sure to say. I'm not entirely sure work and then we have a hung jury I have a feeling it was his lawyer more than him they came up with that idea. There's another legal question going on it around the sports world and it involves college athletics and the Johnny -- Zell investigation by the NCAA. Actually ties into another case that you've been covering rather extensively. The O'Bannon case. Tied that in for people and how there they're connected in some way. -- -- told CNN is bringing a class class action on behalf of the thousands of former division one men's basketball football players arguing essentially look when you put -- in video games. When you put us on ESPN classic we're not getting paid for that and we deserve to be paid to making money off our image and likeness and Toby -- would like to bring in current players to that suit. A judge in that it will decide sometime later this summer early fall as to whether or not he complained that class action on behalf of all these folks that basic argument that. When you put -- the video game you gotta pay me. Johnny -- and in two cases have come up recently involving electronic art the maker. NCAA football video game where the players have won that courts is that you know what. He can't put people in video games and not hate him. But there's something wrong about using the identity of college athletes and then not paying memory they're getting competition even if you're not putting their name in the actual video games. We know who these people are in the games Johnny -- -- and apparently has been paid for giving -- his autograph. And that's in violation of NCAA rules and if that's the case because the deemed ineligible to play this season and then you'd be ineligible this season prior to being in the NFL draft which would probably hurt. His draft status but. It's document -- say this is ridiculous why can't I make money off my autograph whereas if I was a -- -- I would absolutely be able to. And I think this is really getting at this tension where we're seeing so much money made up of college athletes and the college athletes especially the star players. You can argue they're really disadvantaged that they are only limited to there are a scholarship. Room board tuition books things like that. They're not getting the real value the contribution they may say well. It's a pretty significant contribution. The contribution -- could say they're bringing in students who otherwise wouldn't apply their bringing in alumni donations that wouldn't exist. They're bringing in a TV contracts that are generating a lot of money for the school that they're subsidizing other sports that are revenue generators. That NN did you could argue that that the players who are most disadvantaged by the system are the superstars want to can't turn pro because the age restrictions. And they're playing in college sports when they probably shouldn't be in college. Now if the argument as strong for the third string tight end who is never on television now he's probably getting a lot more bank -- stopped. But I think for the superstar players -- little bit and it is open for that that they deserve more if you will but you know we'll see how this -- But but like I would say this I understand the logic of what O'Bannon is saying they are profiting from their images it that's a large chasm between that. And -- -- dealt knowingly breaking obvious NCAA rules take in cash for his autograph. Would you not agree. -- absolutely and if if you knowingly breaking NCAA rule. You have to build the consequences. I think the argument John Amanda could bring up is that the rule itself -- right attack the rule but no question about it you know we break a rule. You'd agree to abide by NCAA rules and bylaws you can't then say well. I didn't. He did he keep he. -- being kicked out that's fine but I think the rule itself Islamic could be attacked. I said we should also point out that if the NCAA does tell Johnny men's you can't play football this year. He would not be eligible for any form of supplemental draft because he hasn't been out of high school for three years. So he would have to wait until next spring's NFL draft. And he'd have to be drafted next spring based on zero football experience this year. That's right -- Orion Marine Corps that was in that position where. He was he was our first season before the NFL draft. And that hurt his conditioning and I think that's gonna happen with Johnny. Men's owl but I don't think it's plots to be out of football for here. And you're right he's not going to be able to play elsewhere that you can do simulations and they'll run with an agent who'll put him in a position where -- will be working out with former players but. But there's no question that that's a negative for him. I don't know you would know the answer this -- probably just asking for your opinion but do you think the MC AA has had a belly full. Of Johnny train -- by now and I don't know whether that makes a difference or not if if -- a first time offense if we -- have all these other transgressions that probably were violations of NCAA regulations but nevertheless. Put Texas a and M in college football and a bigger picture in a bad light. Are they more likely to come down on somebody who has a reservist in this nature as opposed to a guy who screws up one time. Yeah I think they are shot that he had a series of missteps and judgment is really something that can be. For all the and the question on the other hand if they do this this is going to I think embolden the arguments that. Why is this rule exist and could end up putting me -- -- in a more defensive position and may not be worth the fight. Mike can always a pleasure talking with -- thanks McIntyre reports this morning. Gotta talk I don't know Mike McCann SI SI dot com and you -- HR legal eagle to be sure.