Jup, you shoulda bolded the "covered act" 'cuz that's what MLB and the MLBPA have agreed to as the basis for discipline. Iow, they don't need no stinkin' crime'.
Probably correct on the bolded
@DJJOE, was just a short hand way of making a point. That being, the point of the policy :
just cause by the Commissioner for a violation of this Policy
in the absence of a conviction or a plea of guilty to a crime involving
is/was directed towards a transgression that would be commensurate or within the bounds of what is bolded above. It is not directed towards a consensual act made public. So "the intent" of the policy not just the letter of it will be in play.
Player goes out with girl and they have some S,M,B & D fun. She posts something about it. Consensual act made public. No crime no charges. In this case, the accuser alledges so it becomes public, claims more than consensual occurred. However, legal authorities weigh in and say - nope, consensual - no crime no charges - consensual act made public. Slippery slope adjudicating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
The policy is not written to control consensual behavior, so the intent and the design of the policy becomes a factor. Does it even cover the scope of the activity? And if it does, how do you weigh the fact that only the accuser, who has already been found to have misrepresented the facts to the court, is the only person (besides the media) saying that it is/was not a consensual act. So he said she said becomes the basis for your determination of a career ending type suspension. Not sure that flies with an arbitrator.
I am sure MLB will be mining every single interaction TB has had with any female, to try and show a pattern of behavior, which gets them beyond this single case, because that may be their best bet to try and overcome the obvious problems with having to take this case to arbitration as a stand alone.
