Matt Harvey Suspended

[nymr83]

60 Games for distributing drugs (prescription pain killers). He testified to this on the stand (for immunity) in the trial surrounding the death of teammate Tyler Skaggs. He gets immunity from the Feds but not from MLB.

[Gwreck]

=nymr83 post_id=92551 time=1652821445 user_id=54]He testified to this on the stand (for immunity) in the trial surrounding the death of teammate Tyler Skaggs.

[kcmets]

From TWiB Notes - May 16-22:

[bLOCKQUOTE]Matt Harvey gets 60 days in the can....

https://www.nj.com/sports/2022/05/ex-mets-ace-matt-harvey-slapped-with-lengthy-suspension-for-violating-mlbs-drug-policy.htmlhttps://www.nj.com/sports/2022/05/ex-mets-ace-matt-harvey-slapped-with-lengthy-suspension-for-violating-mlbs-drug-policy.html

[/bLOCKQUOTE]

[Fman99]

He probably bangs a lot less supermodel arse than he did in the mid 2010s

[vtmet7]

=Fman99 post_id=92593 time=1652832111 user_id=86]
He probably bangs a lot less supermodel arse than he did in the mid 2010s

[Edgy MD]

He's been in extended spring training thus far in 2022, so I'm not clear on whether the suspension begins immediately or the Orioles have to assign him to a roster first.

[Fman99]

=vtmet7 post_id=92602 time=1652835406 user_id=80]
=Fman99 post_id=92593 time=1652832111 user_id=86]
He probably bangs a lot less supermodel arse than he did in the mid 2010s

[Frayed Knot]

He was in the papers with some local talent recently, so he's not been totally out of the game despite his fall from stardom.

[nymr83]

He testified to this on the stand (for immunity) in the trial surrounding the death of teammate Tyler Skaggs. To be clear, it is much more likely that he was forced to testify about it because he was granted immunity (and therefore could not assert the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination). It is misleading (and likely inaccurate) to suggest that he was willing to testify and/or did so in order to get a grant of immunity.

we are both guessing at his motivations here. i'll stick with "sung like a canary in order to get immunity"

[Gwreck]

Your post belies a lack of understanding of how these things work. Think about it for a second using common sense: aside from admitting it under oath, what are the chances Harvey could have realistically faced charges about his drug use from years ago? It's somewhere on the continuum between minimal to infinitesimal. There's positively no need for him to willingly cooperate and expose himself to public shame, loss of career prospects, and of course collateral consequences (e.g. this suspension).



And you're also wrong. A perfunctory Google search would have given you the answer:

[bLOCKQUOTE]After saying he was subpoenaed and would have used his Fifth Amendment right not to testify without immunity, Harvey acknowledged being a cocaine user before and during his season with the Angels in 2019.[/bLOCKQUOTE]

https://newjersey.news12.com/matt-harvey-testifies-about-drug-use-at-tyler-skaggs-trialhttps://newjersey.news12.com/matt-harvey-testifies-about-drug-use-at-tyler-skaggs-trial

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'll post this here even though it could, just the same, appear in the Trevor Bauer douchebag thdead.



Bauer complains about his two year suspension for engaging in lawful and consensual activities while Harvey only gets 60 days for committing at least one felony and supplying illegal substances to a teammate that then died from using those substances.



Lotsa truth spoken here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I think MLB's gonna get crushed in a lawsuit against it by Bauer. I think MLB, internally, probably recognizes the probability of this outcome but is willing to accept the financial hit. MLB doesn't care. Anything to get rid of Bauer.

[nymr83]

The only way that Bauer's punishment makes sense is if MLB has damning non-public information from Bauer's OTHER accusers. Because remember, others have come out, they just haven't been as public (some might say, attention-seeking or media-whoring) as the one we all read about the most that at least to me seems more likely than not to have been a consensual encounter.

[Edgy MD]

There's another way it makes sense. If he goes to court and collects every penny on his contract, MLB and the Dodgers don't particularly care, because he won't be embarrassing them by wearing their clothes and representing their brand before the world.



He wins that money in court, he's claiming funds that I'm sure MLB will claim (true or not) were earmarked for charities devoted to the safety of women. Additionally, he may be forced to testify about the nature and details of his proclivities. Both of these could likely make him even more unemployable when that contract is done. And that contract expires after this season, along with a $15 million buyout for next.

[Gwreck]

This is an odd turn away from the Harvey discussion.



Anyway, Bauer isn't suing MLB (yet, at least) because the collective bargaining agreement requires arbitration. This article from the LA times is a good explainer:



https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2022-04-29/trevor-bauer-mlb-suspension-appeal-legal-case-dodgers?_amp=truehttps://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2022-04-29/trevor-bauer-mlb-suspension-appeal-legal-case-dodgers?_amp=true



—-

If he goes to court and collects every penny on his contract, MLB and the Dodgers don't particularly care, because he won't be embarrassing them by wearing their clothes and representing their brand before the world.

Sort of.



If Bauer were to lose the appeal (meaning the 2 year suspension was upheld), and then sue, and then win that suit — he'd get some money damages. He's never be able to win some sort of “reinstatement to an MLB active roster.”



MLB would probably defend that suit vigorously, because of the bad precedent that could be set if those unhappy with the collectively bargained arbitration process could run off to court. They probably wouldn't be happy paying anything out, but should it come to that, yes, they'd prefer paying money to having him around.

He wins that money in court, he's claiming funds that I'm sure MLB will claim (true or not) were earmarked for charities devoted to the safety of women.

I find it hard to believe someone would make that claim, and that seems pretty farfetched.

Additionally, he may be forced to testify about the nature and details of his proclivities. Both of these could likely make him even more unemployable when that contract is done. And that contract expires after this season, along with a $15 million buyout for next.

It seems quite possible he could never again be employed by a major league team. In that case, he may be most incentivized to take a case to trial, given the sums at issue. It is arguable his reputation is already so poor that having to testify under oath would not do significant more damage.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

I'm going to suspect MLB's domestic abuse policy recognizes that choking women until they are unconscious and punching them in the face and elsewhere is inappropriate behavior. Whether or not one of the parties claims the actions were consensual doesn't make a difference.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: [bauer] wins that money in court, he's claiming funds that I'm sure MLB will claim (true or not) were earmarked for charities devoted to the safety of women.

I find it hard to believe someone would make that claim, and that seems pretty farfetched.

Farfetched? For sure. And that testimony would never see the light of day in a courtroom, anyways. It's irrelevant, and thus inadmissible. And if it is relevant to anything, (which it isn't -- I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate here), it's only microscopically relevant and would be outweighed enormously by its prejudicial nature. It's plainly a sympathy ploy.

I'm going to suspect MLB's domestic abuse policy recognizes that choking women until they are unconscious and punching them in the face and elsewhere is inappropriate behavior. Whether or not one of the parties claims the actions were consensual doesn't make a difference.

I doubt that consent wouldn't make a difference. I also doubt that MLB even anticipated this kind of incident when drafting its CBA, as nutty and unique as this all is. And if its in there, I think its vulnerable to a legal challenge insofar as the clause would be grossly inconsistent with state laws and to the extreme and outrageous detriment of Bauer.



Bauer wasn't even indicted, and you know how the saying goes --- "]
He'll never play again. I'm very OK with that.

[nymr83]

The boxing analogy is pretty apt, if you only buy his side of the story.



Would it be fair if he never played again? Yes, as long as each team independently decided that they had no wish to employ a person who boxes with women's throats in the bedroom. MLB, though, shouldn't he suspending him if his version of events is true.



I still think they likely know things we don't about the OTHER accusers.

[Ceetar]

Bauer's a rapist and was already a serial harasser. No need to waste time thinking about that scumbag.



Harvey seems to be taking the fall here for a lot of people here, not least of which is the current Mets GM. I'd imagine MLB considers this issue "over" despite the very clear rampant issue across the sport. Seems like Harvey might've been a little too candid, though granted he was under oath. Maybe it's true none of the other guys ever handed skaggs a pill, but it still feels like Harvey is far from the villain (well, second villain) of the story.



But apparently his minor league games will count towards his suspension, and it's not like post-injury he's a good major league pitcher anymore anyway, so he'll take his time and be back and this will be behind him.



Unless Terry Collins wants to air some more dirty laundry of his anyway.

[nymr83]

is Bauer a rapist? I tend to lean towards his side of the story as far more believable with the woman in California. I haven't seen any details on the other accusers other than that they exist.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

=nymr83 post_id=93100 time=1653187486 user_id=54]
is Bauer a rapist? I tend to lean towards his side of the story as far more believable with the woman in California. I haven't seen any details on the other accusers other than that they exist.

[batmagadanleadoff]

One of the key provisions of MLB's own policy on domestic violence is to protect the legal rights of players. I dunno where Ceets is getting that Bauer's a serial rapist, let alone a one-time rapist, but if he's a rapist, I'll surely re-assess what I've written so far.



I doubt that the union would forfeit what is a complete and legally exonerating defense to such charges. Bauer's accuser wasnt pressured to claim consent and in fact, never ever alleged that she consented. Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that she fabricated all of the criminal charges. Bauer's accuser is a scamming bullshit artist and this was all obvious to anyone who bothered to read the initial in depth and deep.dive coverage.



Also, the punishment should be proportional not only to the bad conduct but to other punishments for other bad conducts. Bauer makes an excellent point comparing his situation to that of Harvey's. Bauer's punishment comes off as random and arbitrary.



Its disgusting that one poster here could totally dismiss the consensual nature of the Bauer incident without any logical explanation, just because consent gets in the way of his predetermined and hoped for outcome. But this is where we are now as a nation - two or three days away from his beloved fascist political party burning books and if they take back power, they're so fucking out of control that they might go all Khmer Rouge and disappear all the doctors, scientists and Intellectuals. People who think it's ok to overthrow the US government by violence aren't credible.



Oh my! Consent doesnt matter. And he invents a straw man scrnario that she was forced to consent to justify this loopy idea that consent shouldn't matter. But how is this any different from boxing if she really did consent? It isnt any different.

[batmagadanleadoff]

One of the key provisions of MLB's own policy on domestic violence is to protect the legal rights of players. I dunno where Ceets is getting that Bauer's a serial rapist, let alone a one-time rapist, but if he's a rapist, I'll surely re-assess what I've written so far. I doubt that the union would forfeit what is a complete and legally exonerating defense to such charges. Bauer's accuser wasnt pressured to claim consent and in fact, never ever alleged that she consented. Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that she fabricated all of the criminal charges. Bauer's accuser is a scamming bullshit artist and this was all obvious to anyone who bothered to read the initial in depth and deep.dive coverage. Also, the punishment should be proportional not only to the bad conduct but to other punishments for other bad conducts. Bauer makes an excellent point comparing his situation to that of Harvey's. Bauer's punishment comes off as random and arbitrary. Its disgusting that one poster here could totally dismiss the consensual nature of the Bauer incident without any logical explanation, just because consent gets in the way of his predetermined and hoped for outcome. But this is where we are now as a nation - two or three days away from his beloved fascist political party burning books and if they take back power, they're so fucking out of control that they might go all Khmer Rouge and disappear all the doctors, scientists and Intellectuals. People who think it's ok to overthrow the US government by violence aren't credible. Oh my! Consent doesnt matter. And he invents a straw man scrnario that she was forced to consent to justify this loopy idea that consent shouldn't matter. But how is this any different from boxing if she really did consent? It isnt any different.

Here's the actual, in the flesh, MLB policy on Domestic Violence and Abuse, word for word for word.



http://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdfhttp://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdf



Here's the second line:

protects the legal and procedural rights of Players;

Nowhere in the document does it say that consent is immaterial or that consent may not be used as a defense. In fact, the policy specifically states that "sexual assault" occurs, among other instances, when the victim is "legally incapable of consent." This clause unquestionably proves that consent is relevant and would constitute a defense to any accusation.





He's fucking nuts. Yeah, right, the union's gonna agree to waive consent. Consent is the difference between going to jail and not going to jail. What a vile nut.

[batmagadanleadoff]

This idea that a baseball player wouldn't be allowed to claim "consent" as a defense to an accusation of sexual assault under MLB's domestic violence policy is, come to think of it, off the walls looney tunes territory. Besides the fact that the union would never agree to waive what would usually be a player's strongest defense in such an action, and that the policy would be legally vulnerable for denying a player that right so that MLB wouldn't even want that in the first place ...



such a policy would expose players to accusations for any kind of sexual contact, even regular old missionary position straight sex without any striking or hitting, etc. All the accuser would have to say is that she never gave sexual consent and so therefore, she was raped. And then she'd be off to the races to collect her money jackpot. How the fuck is a player supposed to defend himself under that scenario when he can't claim consent? Even if he can prove that his accuser is lying, MLB would deem his defense irrelevant insofar as consent isn't a recognized defense. According to one poster here, anyways.



He'd need to get a written release from his sexual partner before they have sex. And even then, it wouldn't count for anything since MLB doesn't recognize consent here, at least according to one poster here. Either that or hope to prove that they never had sex in the first place, even though they did have sex. He'd have to lie to win his case.

[MFS62]

I didn't realize he was still alive, but his picture linked in another thread reminded me that the only ex-Met allowed to give out pills is Dr. Ron Taylor.

Bauer may be a despicable person, but in Harvey's case, someone later died.

Later

[Gwreck]

Again I am puzzled by the references to Trevor Bauer here. It's a completely different situation.



As for Harvey, it is inappropriate to suggest that he is responsible for Skaggs' death. Harvey did testify that he had provided Percocet to Skaggs in the past (not on the day in question). Also, Percocet was not the primary cause of Skaggs death (that was Fentanyl).

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, that was a meaningful note I thought worth adding, but things had lost their center. Thanks for clarifying.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Matt Harvey swore in court under oath that he provided oxycodone to Tyler Skaggs, who died when he choked on his own vomit. Fentanyl, oxycodone and alcohol were found in Skaggs's system after an autopsy was conducted.



Harvey committed a felony. Bauer engaged in consensual and legal conduct, as distasteful and repulsive as that conduct was. Nothing should outweigh the fact that what Bauer did was legal. It doesn't matter that you dont "approve " of what Bauer did. I don't approve, either. But that's not how these matters should be decided.



Harvey committed a felony. Bauer didn't.



And how did this thread "lose its center"?

[Ceetar]

because no one cares about that asshole rapist (I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt, given his history. I don't know why anyone would. Believe women.) and serial harasser. We're talking about Harvey.



Harvey was given immunity to testify. Hence, no felony. He's hardly the only one guilty, and he's hardly the one person to provide drugs to someone else in MLB. By strict rule, they had cause to suspend him, but just like the courts, it wouldn't have been out of the question for MLB to let Harvey skate on that one for helping to find the 'real culprit' of the incident. But by suspending a player they get to act tough, and pretend they're addressing a rampant issue that they're actually ignoring.



It's not like Harvey was some sort of drug dealing crime lord here, he was a fellow junkie.

[batmagadanleadoff]

That Harvey was granted immunity doesnt mean that he didnt commit a felony. It means that the State won't prosecute him for whatever he was given immunity for. Harvey was drug-dealing. And to a fellow teammate, no less.



But still, let's do this your way. OK. Harvey didn't commit a felony (sez you). And Bauer didnt commit any crime at all either. Bauer wasnt even indicted. So Bauer didnt even need a grant of immunity or an acquittal from a jury. Bauer's accuser was so obviously full of shit that the State vacated the order of protection that it initially issued in her favor when it gave her the benefit of the doubt to err on the side of caution.