Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Beerleaguer for breakfast: Three up, three down | Main | Game chat: Phils host Nats seeking fourth straight »

Monday, April 27, 2009

Comments

repost:

Rollins, for whatever reason, is in a bad place right now. Conventional wisdom would be that he needs ABs to get out of the funk, but maybe sitting him underneath the run producers in the lineup would be best.

That would allow him to get his ABs and try to get out of the funk while not handcuffing the offense from the leadoff spot. Obviously what he is giving us right now isn't valuable at any spot in the lineup, but it would be much less hurtful from the 6-7 spot than the 1.

vs RHP

Vic
Werth
Utley
Howard
Ibanez
Rollins
Dobbs
Catcher

vs LHP
Vic
Utley
Werth
Howard
Ibanez
Rollins
Feliz
Catcher

Has the 3 lefties vs RHP, but couldn't think of a way to break it up with Rollins not in the top half.

Jimmy Rollins is such a huge part of this team. His personality and actions set so many story lines. The guy is real and he is a great player. I can't imagine rooting for them and not liking the guy. It must be sad.

Team to beat.

Wow. Haven't looked at Rollins PECOTA card til now: .293/.360/.464 - 16 HR. Rollins OBP has never been over .350.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4105353


Good luck proving that it was the supplement that caused the positive test. Will be difficult.

On second thought, I guess it probably wouldn't be too difficult. If the test result shows the precise substance which is in the supplement, and Romero can prove that he bought the supplement, I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to infer that the supplement was the cause.

Will be interesting to see how this turns out.

At least Romero's sticking to his story; I feel like this lawsuit is just a PR move. I don't see how he could win the case.

Of course, if you go the websites that sell "6-Oxo Extreme," it says right in black and white that it's a testosterone booster. The ingredients on the bottle may not list testosterone, but they presumably list the chemicals which comprise testosterone (though a lay person couldn't be expected to know what those chemicals are). I would guess that somewhere in the packaging, there was some kind of information that told Romero what he was buying. If there wasn't, then he might have a case.

And it can't be merely a PR move. Romero was out a $1M about for the suspension. And he's asking for punitive damages. What's more, I've heard Romero on the radio. He's a very devout man. Wouldn't surprise me if he's upset about the threat this company's alleged negligence posed to the public at large.

Huh. I thought I posted something else before that. In any case, I wonder if this even goes to trial. Would be interesting to see this from the consumer's standpoint (I know nothing about supplements). But I imagine a manufacturer and supplier who allegedly mislabel a product, causing harm (allegedly) to one of their consumers, isn't doing so well in the marketplace. Don't high school athletes take this stuff? Can't be good for business.

I don't know too much about the legal aspects of Romero's case (I'll leave that to the lawyers that frequent BL), but the case seems cut and dry to me. If there is an itemized list of ingredients in the supplement, an itemized list of banned substances, and a positive test for something that was not listed in the supplement, then I don't see how it would be too difficult. If he testifies that he was only taking this supplement, and he relied on the advice of professionals selling a product within their area of expertise, it should be a winner. In the lawsuit, he is not disputing the fact that he tested positive, only that he did not knowingly take a banned substance, right? If there is no evidence that he knew or should have known that the supplement contained androstenedione, then the defense has to prove that he did know or should have known. Am I way off base here?

Sophist: You'd be surprised how many products are available OTC that young kids can buy. I like what Romero's doing, to tell you the truth, but what needs to happen is that the FDA needs to oversee ALL supplements and vitamins; I don't understand why it isn't feasible now.

I thought that's what that organization was created to do, but it seems all these suspicious supplements--esp weight loss drugs--don't get me started on those--pop up every few minutes, promising miracles.

Here's one lesson that I hope can be learned by the Romero case: Every MLB team ought to have a list of approved supplements (I'm sure they do) and players should be mandated to purchase the supplements through the team trainer. Only. That way the team knows what the players are consuming and there is no risk that the product can be illicit. Any player who is found to have bought products OTC and not through the team trainer should be fined heavily for risking consuming an illegal substance. It is simple, really.

HH - Blame Congress if you'd like. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 94, under which FDA treats dietary supplements as foods rather than drugs (not subject to safety tests or efficacy tests; not subject to government action until injury occurs. OTC drugs are not included in this category. It may or may not be about feasibility. At the time, it was about a government lobby.

Kirk - Not sure MLBPA would approve that one in the next CBA.

To augment what sophist said . . . I think this would be clear-cut if the substance involved were actually illegal. But, more likely, it's not illegal; it's just banned by MLB. The manufactuer would argue that it has no duty to tailor its ingredients/warning labels to some sports league's banned substance list. Its only legal obligation is to list all the chemicals in the substance -- which it did. Does it ahve a futher obligation to tell you that those chemicals comprise a substance that is on MLB's banned list? Sounds like dubious logic to me.

>that the FDA needs to oversee ALL supplements
>and vitamins; I don't understand why it isn't
>feasible now.

because then they'd have to admit that some of them actually do work.

Of course, real regulation, like that in Germany, for example, would be much better for everyone.

If you want proof-positive that the last 2 seasons have heightened the Mets' FO sense of anxiety and paranoia just a bit, it would be the idea of pulling Perez from the rotation after just 4 starts.

Not exactly like they have a stud rookie in the wings or another great option coming off the DL.

If the Mets continue to play sub .500 through May, I wonder when the calls for Manuel's head will mount even though they will be utterly ridiculous.

Romero's argument is that the chemical is not a listed ingredient. He could either be filing a products liability suit or a plain old negligence action. If the chemical is listed on their website but not on the bottle, he could lose or have his reward reduced due to his contributory negligence (the court would need to decide if Romero was reasonable in relying on the bottle).
He will have to show that the company breached a duty by not letting consumers know what was contained in the product they manufactured.

Romero ought to be going after the MLBPA; they're the ones who royally screwed him over by listing that stuff on the "Approved" list when it clearly wasn't. Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that J.C. took the typical player/whore route by suing everyone *but* his union pimps. Whatever the outcome (& I predict some sort of settlement), I most certainly hope the proceedings do not interfere w/ Romero's continued preparations for his eventual return. The bullpen has been a'ight so far, but they NEED this guy over the long haul.

"Romero is alleging negligence, breach of implied warranties, strict product liability, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the New Jersey consumer fraud act, punitive damages against all defendants."

BAP - That won't get them out of all these claims. The substance is androstenedione. Possession of Andro is a federal crime under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 04. FDA banned the sale of Andro in 04.

I was under the impression that if the merchant is a seller of goods of the kind in dispute (i.e. supplements sold by a GNC, rather than Wal-Mart) and the product is being sold for a specific purpose (to specifications of the buyer), that they can be held liable if they are negligent and/or the product does not conform to what the buyer is looking for.

If it is true that Romero inquired about the product and the "sales clerks assured him it would not cause a positive test for a banned substance," cannot some fault be shifted to the supplier? It shows some effort on Romero's part to not take a banned substance, which only helps his case, in my opinion. The product did not conform to what the customer was looking for.

If I remember correctly, in addition to asking the "sales clerks," Romero also checked with the MLBPA and the training staff. However, my memory may be a bit hazy. Then again, this speaks more to his suspension than the lawsuit.

Posted too late. The "negligence, breach of implied warranties, strict product liability, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the New Jersey consumer fraud act, punitive damages against all defendants" in Sophist's post addresses my post. Which, on a second read, was basically incoherent babbling

Thank you Sophist.

I was wondering exactly how many different threads of complaining that a simple trade hypothesis would generate. Thank you, Sophist, for making that total one higher than it would have been.

With how this team gives up the longball, I think defense at SS is the least of our concern, but nevermind, because wins are decided by a point value system that you can google for each player. It's amazing that these statisticians don't simply place World Series bets every Spring in Vegas. With such accuracy at our fingertips to gamble with, it's incredible that any of us bother to get jobs.

Rollins may lead with his mouth. He does not lead by example. It doesn't take much to shoot off to the media like a pro wrestler. At best, that qualifies him as a mascot, not a "team leader".

Oh well, I give up. Rollins for Mayor. Kendrick/Happ/Carrasco = back end rotation of the year 2010. God help us.

RB - Yes. Those are the implied warrantability claims, the intentional misrepresentation claims, and the negligent misrepresentation claims. He's bringing all these, in addition to the PL claims and others, to see what sticks.

sophist: In that case, I think it's a little more clear-cut. I would think that somewhere in the labels & packaging, it has to tell you that all these chemicals that are listed in the ingredients actually add up to make andro.

Mac - I haven't said much about your trade ideas. Only about your response to a slow start and one night of baseball in which Rollins didn't start. I don't engage much in the hypothetical trade talk. Didn't mean to pick you out there. I just would find it hard to root for a team when a guy you don't like so much personally is the guy who sets the tone. But maybe that is just my perspective. I am a huge Rollins fan. There are enough guys to like I suppose.

I agree the WARP stuff is a bit much. But they're trying. I cannot imagine a Rollins trade anyone. Seems incredibly unlikely.

Wouldn't Halladay's WARP be greatly affected by having Bruntlett or Donald playing SS behind him?

BAP - Perhaps. Even so, apparently the supplier told him it was okay. Negligent misrepresentation. Also, apparently andro is illegal.

ML Baseball was looking for a scapegoat in the Romaro case, in my opinion.
I'm glad to see him fight back, even if it's against the manufacturers and retailers.
I think if he fought against MLB the career ramifications would be huge.
If I remember right, there was a question of when the product labels said what- IE Romaro had one label and MLB another, later version at his hearing.
With all the players still playing w/o any league discipline who have much graver misconduct in their past- it sure seems that Romaro was singled out as a media example of how MLB is suddenly on top of banned substances.

I said "warrantability" earlier. Wow. In any case, BAP, if a nutritional supplement causes you do test positive for andro (there's no way it has andro in it, as andro is illegal) then i'd think you'd have a good case for breach of implied warranty. Do you think the ordinary buyer of supplements expects those supplements to cause him/her to fail a drug test. Again, I don't know a lot about the business, but that seems wrong to me. Maybe others know more about the business.

clout - as far as i know, yes. I don't think BP reveals how they calculate WARP, but I believe it's based off equivalent runs (which includes things like hits.)

Well, for batters equivalent runs includes hits. I think that much. Pitchers may be a different story.

G-Town Dave: My memory may be off but I'm pretty sure the substance Romero took was NOT on the MLB approved list. I also recall that MLB has a hotline which answers questions about supplements. Romero did not call the hotline, but relied upon a sales clerk for advice.

sophist: It just seems to me that a pitcher whose shortstop is Marco Scutaro or John McDonald (bat hit/good field types) is going to yield fewer hits and runs than a pitcher whose shortstop is Eric Bruntlett or Jason Donald.

Thus, you wouldn't get the same value from Halladay as the Blue Jays get.

Wow read the debate on MLB.com on who will win the NL East. It will literally make you dumber.

"Romero said on Monday that he bought a supplement from a GNC store in Cherry Hill, N.J., in July. The Major League Baseball Players Association had told players the supplement was acceptable, but now the Philadelphia Phillies left-hander will receive a suspension and lose $1.25 million.

...

Romero said he does not want to name the supplement in the event young athletes attempt to purchase it.

...

Three months after Romero was tested before a Phillies-Mets game on Aug. 26, the players' association sent a Nov. 21 letter to players that stated, "We have previously told you there is no reason to believe a supplement bought at a U.S. based retail store could cause you to test positive under our Drug Program. That is no longer true. We have recently learned of three substances which can be bought over the counter at stores in the United States that will cause you to test positive. These three supplements were purchased at a GNC and Vitamin Shoppe in the U.S."
In Romero's arbitration hearing that was held in Tampa, Fla., during the first two days of the World Series, it was claimed that, in early July, the National Center for Drug Free Sport had notified MLB of questions about the supplement Romero had purchased. Somehow, MLB and the players' association never got that straight, according to Romero.

...

Rob Manfred, MLB's vice president of labor relations and human resources, who carries the reputation of being extraordinarily fair, did not return a call regarding the case.
So caught in the middle of MLB and the players' association is Romero.

...

On July 22, Romero bought a supplement at the GNC store in Cherry Hill. He had it checked by his personal nutritionist, who said there was nothing in the supplement that was illegal. There was no warning on the label. Romero mentioned it to Phillies strength and conditioning coach Dong Lien.
There seems to have been some confusion in testimony during the October arbitration hearing. According to Romero, Lien told him to get a second opinion; Romero took the supplement to a second nutritionist, who cleared it. In the hearing, Lien testified to that fact, but at another time he said he suggested Romero not take it. Romero in no way blames Lien.

...

Two days later, Romero was informed that MLB would be willing to reduce his suspension to 25 games, starting at the beginning of the 2009 season, on the condition that he admitted guilt. Romero said he couldn't because he did not believe he did anything wrong.
On Oct. 12, the second set of test results came back -- from the Sept. 19 test conducted four days before Romero learned he had tested positive the first time -- and was positive. MLB then changed its offer: The suspension would still be reduced to 25 games, but it had to start immediately and he had to admit guilt. Again, Romero declined, because he did not believe he was in the wrong and because he did not want to miss his first World Series.
The arbitration hearing was held Oct. 22 in Tampa, the first day of the World Series. Curiously, the bottle of the supplement MLB had purchased contained the label warning: "Use of this product may be banned by some athletic or government associations." However, the bottle Romero had purchased and brought to the hearing contained no warning.
In December, the players' association informed Romero that the arbitrator had had a change of heart and was ruling against him. On Sunday, that was confirmed, and Tuesday afternoon, MLB will announce the suspension.
There seems to be little question that the players' association unwittingly misled Romero -- and other players -- about over-the-counter supplements purchased in the United States. Somehow, after MLB was warned in early July, those concerns about three supplements available at every GNC store did not reach the players' association."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3812334

clout: I am referring to the Player's Association (which supposedly represents Romero), as opposed to MLB (which handed down the punishment). The reports I read at the time the suspension was announced indicated that Romero had consulted w/ the MLBPA as to whether that particular supplement was approved, & they indicated to him that it was. In fact, I believe that is the basis upon which Romero & the union originally appealed his suspension, to no avail.

"Only about your response to a slow start and one night of baseball in which Rollins didn't start"

I said very little (if anything) about his slow start, and have repeatedly downplayed any reference to it regarding the benefits of trading Jimmy. The only thing I said about his slow start is that Victorino should lead off until Rollins bat wakes up...nothing more.

As for the one game he didn't start, my post was that without his stellar defense, the team didn't fall apart. In other words, his value to the team as a whole is overstated, and a SS with his defensive abilities is not as valuable to this ballclub at this point in time ('09 - '10) than a 15 - 20 game winner like Halladay.

But enough of this...

Romero should take action against the players union. If they claim that a substance is legal, they should be responsible for any fines or loss of pay resulting in a negative test. Won't happen, but neither will a successful suit against the manufacturer. They don't owe him a clean MLB test.

Romero's case isn't in my field but I can see a few hurdles that will be good for the lawyers' (hope for his sake he found one that works on contingency). There looks like an economic loss bar to the tort claims and a consequential damages problem on the warranty / contract claims (See Hadley v. Baxendale, Ct. of Excheq., 1843).
I would expect to see a count for battery if they put a substance in their that isn't disclosed on the packaging.

At Romero's Hearing he had his bottle that he bought, and MLB had another bottle of the product, presumably after Romero bought his. The one that MLB bought had a warning label on it, the one Romero bought did not.

MacT -
If it's a straight trade hypothesis, then consider a reversed scenario:
Would you trade Hamels to the Mets for Reyes?

Your basically indicating that some team out there would consider doing something similar - sending away their best pitcher for a shortstop.

(And if you're the Mets would you trade Reyes for Hamels?)


Mac T: You enjoy digging the hole deeper and deeper. Are you honestly saying that because the Phils stomped the Marlins yesterday... that that proves J-Roll's presence isn't necessary?

"As for the one game he didn't start, my post was that without his stellar defense, the team didn't fall apart. In other words, his value to the team as a whole is overstated, and a SS with his defensive abilities is not as valuable to this ballclub at this point in time ('09 - '10) than a 15 - 20 game winner like Halladay."

Tell me I'm reading that wrong. It's so utterly ridiculous, I'm going to stop commenting on it starting.... Now.

Dobbs and Marson both starting tonight, according to mlb.com

Yo, newer thread

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG