|
Post by RJPinstripes on Aug 2, 2009 9:38:02 GMT -5
Some of you" legal eagles" out there... It seems to me that some of these guys who have come up with huge player contracts based on their "super" production have (because of known and admitted roid use etc.) have achieved these big contracts based on fraudulent premises. Basically, they produced by cheating and this cheating "earned" them big bucks! How come no team (as of now) hasn't sued to dissolve this "bogus" contract? Why? or Why not?
|
|
|
Post by DavidL on Aug 2, 2009 10:18:55 GMT -5
Unless there was language in the contract somehow explicitly tying the pay to the player's performance (which I believe is actually not allowed by the CBA) and his not using illegal or controlled substances, the team has NO basis on which to get out of the contract. Even with such language in the contract, they'd also need to have a positive drug test since the contract was signed. And particularly for contracts signed before MLB banned steroids, there's no basis for saying that, within the rules of MLB, the player was cheating, i.e., breaking the rules to gain an advantage.
And how many players have signed big contracts, whether or not they were using PEDs, and not performed as expected? MLB player contracts are guaranteed, with no requirement that the player perform to a certain level.
|
|
|
Post by RJPinstripes on Aug 2, 2009 10:43:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. So there won't be any frivolous law suit coming from some whacky owner regarding this question. Personally, I'd like to see someone try it even though it would get thrown out.
|
|