Examining MLB’s New Domestic Violence Policy
During the height of the furor over the National Football League’s mishandling of the Ray Rice case last fall, both Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association agreed to work together to formulate a new domestic violence policy for the league. On Friday, the two sides announced that they had finally reached an agreement on a new comprehensive policy covering not only incidents of domestic violence, but cases of sexual assault and child abuse as well:
MLB and the MLBPA have announced an agreement on a Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy. pic.twitter.com/C1eTGljC6r
— MLB Communications (@MLB_PR) August 21, 2015
In addition to establishing new player treatment and education protocols, the policy gives the Commissioner’s Office the authority to investigate any allegation of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse involving a major-league player. Commissioner Manfred has also been given the power to place a player under investigation on paid Administrative Leave for up to seven days, a placement that the player can immediately appeal to panel of arbitrators.
Following the completion of MLB’s investigation, the new policy gives the commissioner the power to impose whatever punishment “he believes is appropriate in light of the severity of the conduct.” In other words, the agreement does not establish any minimum or maximum penalties for domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse cases. In fact, the policy explicitly states that a player does not even need to be criminally convicted of a crime in order to be punished by the commissioner. Once again, however, the player will have the right to appeal his punishment to a panel of arbitrators.
So how does MLB’s new policy compare with the league’s prior treatment of domestic violence? And what types of penalties might players realistically face if the commissioner determines they have violated the new agreement?
Previously, because MLB had no specific policy in place governing cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse, Commissioner Manfred would have had to rely on his authority under either the “Just Cause” or “Conduct Detrimental or Prejudicial to Baseball” provisions of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to impose punishment on players in these cases. These two catch-all provisions – located in Articles XII (A) and (B) of the CBA, respectively – permit the commissioner to impose whatever punishment he believes is necessary after a player commits an act injurious to the game (subject to a potential appeal to an arbitration panel, of course).
In this respect, then, MLB’s new domestic violence agreement does not represent a significant change in policy. Prior to Friday’s announcement, the commissioner had the authority to potentially impose limitless punishment for acts of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse, with the player having the right to appeal any discipline to an arbitration panel. The new agreement maintains this same framework, even noting that any appeal filed by a player under the new policy will be decided under a “just cause” standard of review. This means that, as before, under the new policy an arbitration panel will have to determine whether the commissioner’s discipline was warranted under the circumstances.
Of course, even though the commissioner previously had the power to impose punishment on players in these cases, MLB has rarely exercised that authority in the past. As many fans are aware, for example, there have been numerous examples of players accused or convicted of domestic violence who nevertheless faced little to no punishment from the league.
So Friday’s announcement undoubtedly signals a new era of discipline for these sorts of offenses. Along those lines, the new policy explicitly states that Commissioner Manfred will not be bound by the levels of discipline – or lack thereof – previously meted out for acts of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse when issuing sanctions in future cases. So players disciplined for domestic violence in the future will not be able to argue that their punishment is too severe in light of the fact that previous players faced little to no discipline for similar acts.
As a result, because the new agreement does not specify any minimum or maximum penalties to be assessed in these cases, the first few players to be found to have violated the new policy will be facing an uncertain level of punishment for their misdeeds.
That having been said, the new policy does specify that although prior punishment for acts covered by the agreement will not serve as precedent in future cases, “all other disciplinary past practice and precedent will remain relevant.” This means that in order to determine what level of punishment is appropriate in future cases, Commissioner Manfred – and, ultimately, an arbitration panel – will have to compare the facts of a player’s alleged domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse to cases in which players were previously suspended on other grounds.
It is by no means clear exactly how that comparison should be made, however. For instance, under MLB’s Joint Drug Agreement, a player’s first positive test for an unauthorized performance enhancing drug results in an immediate 80-game suspension. While PED use certainly more directly impacts the integrity of on-the-field competition than does an off-the-field act of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse, one could credibly contend that the latter are much more serious offenses given the physical and emotional injuries they inflict on an actual victim. So from that perspective, Commissioner Manfred would arguably be justified in suspending a player involved in a domestic violence incident 80 or more games under the new policy.
Similarly, MLB suspended Roberto Hernandez (or the artist formerly known as Fausto Carmona) for 20 games in 2012 for engaging in age and identify fraud, undoubtedly a much lesser offense in the grand scheme of things than the sorts of crimes covered under MLB’s new policy. This would suggest that a player accused of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse should be subjected to a punishment substantially more severe in nature.
On the other hand, a player might argue that his violation of MLB’s new policy should instead be compared to incidents in which players were suspended for other sorts of hateful acts. Back in 2012, for instance, Delmon Young was suspended for seven games following his arrest in New York City on a hate crime harassment charge, after he was accused of yelling anti-Semitic epithets during a fight outside his hotel. Similarly, Yunel Escobar was suspended for three games that same year for displaying a homophobic slur written in Spanish on his eye black.
And perhaps most famously, MLB suspended John Rocker for all of spring training plus the first 28 games of the regular season back in 2000 after a highly publicized incident in which he disparaged immigrants, persons of color, and homosexuals in an interview with Sports Illustrated. Notably, however, an arbitrator ultimately reduced that suspension to a mere 14 regular-season games after Rocker appealed his punishment.
Even if one were to view domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse as being categorically worse than the behavior of Young, Escobar, or Rocker, a player could nevertheless argue that these precedents suggest that any punishment under the new policy should at most fall somewhere in the 25-30 game range in most cases, rather than the suspensions of 80 or more games authorized under the JDA, especially since offenses under the new policy involve strictly off-the-field conduct.
All in all, then, despite Friday’s announcement it remains uncertain just how severely MLB will be able to penalize players under the new domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse policy. Indeed, even if Commissioner Manfred initially imposes a severe punishment on a player accused of violating the policy, it is entirely possible that that discipline will be substantially reduced by an arbitrator. What does appear certain, however, is that the days of MLB players avoiding any punishment at all for acts of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse are now behind us.
Nathaniel Grow is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics and the Yormark Family Director of the Sports Industry Workshop at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Baseball on Trial: The Origin of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, as well as a number of sports-related law review articles. You can follow him on Twitter @NathanielGrow. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not express the views or opinions of Indiana University.
I’m still annoyed they let Josh Lueke in the league
Still beating that drum. Dude’s pitching in the Mexican league, despite an impressive minor league career and being only 30. You don’t think that has something to do with his conviction, which BTW, was on a lesser charge than rape or sexual assault? I’m not defending Lueke, but that drum is worn out. Find a new one.
He pleaded down with prosecutors to avoid trial and the bigger charges. Whoop-te-doo.
When defending someone convicted of abusing a female, it is not best practice to then say “I’m not defending ____”
Also, I am guessing that his pitching in a Mexican League has more to do with his 30yr age and incredibly unimpressive MLB results (negative WAR) than his legal issues — I mean, before he racked up -0.5 WAR, a 5.47 FIP and a woeful K/9 of 5.64 in 2014 the Rays were willing to trot him out there.
Lastly — as a father of a beautiful young girl, I feel compelled to tell you this: fuck you.
hurr i hate rapists more than you hate rapists
I’m amazed that making fun of being against rape is actually a standpoint.
I doubt Roberto Hernandez would have been suspended nearly so long if MLB didn’t view his crime as having an impact on the game. So while that is a “lesser offense in the grand scheme of things” it may not be a lesser crime in the smaller scheme, i.e., MLB.
Agreed. “Age and identity fraud” is about as bad as baseball crimes get. The violent crimes are legally and morally serious but they’re baseball-irrelevant. Let the Bears pay the Bear tax.
No matter how convenient it is, you can’t simply separate MLB players from what they do off the field. You’re going to one day find yourself cheering for someone who has inflicted serious emotional and physical damage on a vulnerable person because he can throw a ball well.
You do know many MLB players went to college, right?
What does going to college have to do with anything?
I never knew baseball had such a bad history with domestic violence. It’s kind of embarrassing that it takes something to happen in the NFL before MLB decides to actually do something about it.
Each case is different, but I think it would be beneficial to everybody if the first time something happens under this new rule, they establish a precedent, preferably 80+ games. Hopefully it’s a while before that happens though.
There have been thousands of MLB baseball players over the last few decades, and a certain number of them were domestic abusers. The cited article does not in any way show convincing evidence that MLB is worse than NFL, nor does it even show that MLB is worse than society at large.
But that’s the narrative now. Just like campus rape (which ignores that fact that non-college young women are more likely to be raped), the data don’t matter.
None of this is to say that any of this is okay and MLB should just turn a blind eye. But if the rates of offense are not disproportionate then it calls into question what efforts to curb offenses could possibly accomplish? My guess is they won’t. Guys will get in trouble. They will face a suspension that seems socially acceptable, and that will be it. It won’t go away because it is not something MLB is in the position to make go away.
Well that’s kind of what bothers me sometimes. It’s obviously not in any sports league’s power to actually STOP violence or stupidity or whatever from its players, but that should certainly not stop them from punishing it. I think it’s stilly to suggest that MLB just throw it’s hands up and give the “boys will be boys” line. Not saying you’re doing that, but that’s kind of the undertone of the argument that punishment doesn’t stop the crime.
One of the issues with sports and any profession really is that if you’re excellent at it, then management and decision-makers will be more likely to hire you despite possible character flaws or issues. With pro sports, the talent pool is much smaller than say…insurance sales, so a guy that can be an MLB starter is gonna play. There is no reasonable way to stop any person from being violent, but you just have to show that it’s not going to be looked over or treated as an inevitable event and therefore, punish it.
I agree. I just think there are some people who want to make a sports league and its members out to be awful, for one reason or another, and I don’t agree with that, especially absent some proof. Whether it is because these guys are rich or because they are supposedly scary looking minorities or maybe just because it possibly helps to push a worthy cause (in some unknown way), facts are shown the door. I’ve heard some depressing statistics on DV, and it seems to me this is more of a “men” problem than a MLB or NFL problem. A list of guys (the first of which was not even in MLB anymore) that have gotten in trouble for DV doesn’t prove anything. But yes, punish them how you see fit (and again, my gut tells me punishment is more about PR than a sense of right and wrong).
Absolutely agree with the PR point, because these guys continue to get hired and most of the time, it just becomes part of the past. There’s an argument to be made that the league doesn’t really care as long as guys still hit home runs. Which is why this piece of news is important.
I think that today people are so much more sensitive to these issues, which I think is a good thing. That’s why it gets brought up so much more. Not sure it’s trying to make people look awful. I think a lot of people, like me, get turned off by all of the over the top outrage on every small event that happens. Every time someone says something that could be construed as racist, sexist, etc, they’re crucified. However, I don’t think that violence is something that we should put in the “over reaction” category.
I don’t suspect the punishments will be as great as under the JDA or that of Roberto Hernandez, as the crimes do not directly influence the game.
There are courts to punish people with respect to the wider world and MLB’s responsibility is to protect the game and the league.
I totally see what you mean, but I feel like “protecting the league” should involve punishing the players for these and other types of off the field offenses. To show that MLB takes these things seriously and wants to be a positive force.
I think “protecting the league” really means, as it does in the NFL, “protecting the league’s business interests.” So I would suspect that punishments will be designed to be harsh enough to prevent bad PR but not so harsh as to be overturned on appeal.
As TKDC said above, MLB can’t really stop these offenses. What it can do is cover its own ass to prevent the blowback from hurting the league’s perception among fans. Maybe.
I would think most first-time domestic violence offenses would receive in the neighborhood of 15 games, with particularly egregious ones (the Greg Hardy, Ray Rice type) getting as many as 30-40. But I also suspect a second offense could easily be 80 or more.
The league wants to make sure it doesn’t get seen as coddling abusers and other criminals.
FWIW, the baseball example of the Ray Rice/Greg hardy type would be Brett Myers.
I agree. I’m still unclear as to what need the professional leagues 9and any other employer, for that matter) needs to act as some sort of secondary criminal court for whatever flavor-of-the-month issue is upon us. We already have criminal courts.
It’s a public league, these guys are celebrities, and become even bigger names once they’re charged with domestic violence. MLB can’t just say, “we’ll have the courts deal with it” while these guys keep playing, wearing team names and representing the league and the sport. It’s not written down anywhere but as a huge, national organization that caters to a diverse audience, they should feel responsible for creating awareness of violence and make a stand that it’s not okay.
It’s also incredibly offensive and dismissive to consider domestic violence a “flavor of the month” issue.
oh you’re offended? well so fucking what?
You got it son. I totally understand that you can see through all of the “hype”. But DON’T WORRY coz, because soon enough another social issue will arise and we can go back to ignoring rape and you won’t be made uncomfortable by things you don’t understand any more.
Yes, maybe a new flavor of the month like prison rape, where men are allowed to be raped while under government supervision (more men are raped than women each year) and no one says a word, not even anti-rape organizations
Congrats, you’ve found an offense more ignored than violence against women!
However, I haven’t heard of any MLB players past or present that have been involved in prison rape so I’m gonna go ahead and assume that you only posted this to diminish the importance of the discussion revolving around violence against women.
But employers routinely terminate employees who have been caught committing public, embarrassing, and egregious crimes. Even before they are convicted.
They’ll do it to protect their financial interests. If we, the fans, demand some response, a sports league will react in the way that it feels is most beneficial to the sports league, within the confines of the law (hopefully).
In this case, it is basically “how little will we have to punish these guys without facing scrutiny that might cause many fans to turn away from our product?” Before, the amount was essentially zero. Now it is a some amount more than zero. This also is not a secondary criminal court. This is a business and a business decision.
Domestic violence and sexual assault are flavor-of-the-month issues? That’s a horrible thing to say. Give your head a shake.
Moving on from that asinine statement, there is a very good reason why pro sports leagues should be held to a very high morale standard.
Pro sports leagues are essentially “hero factories”. Millions of kids, teens and impressionable adults follow these leagues very closely. When very serious issues such as DV or rape are brushed aside with slap-on-the-wrist punishments, it sends a strong message to a very wide audience that these acts aren’t that big of a deal.
Hell, your use of “flavor-of-the-month” pretty much makes you Exhibit A for this argument.
Pro sports is a business. No shit, we all understand that. All that means is that the public needs to hold them to the standard we expect. Fans need to stop defending rapists and abusers and start calling for stiffer and stiffer penalties.
MLB isn’t going to stop this problem alone of course. As someone said above, this isn’t a MLB problem it’s a “men problem”. Well over 90% of men in the US watch sports, so next to masturbation it’s probably the thing men as a whole have most in common with eachother. Therefore, what better opportunity to make a difference in the world.
Jock culture, bro culture, whatever you want to call it is riddled with misogyny and leads to these crimes. These leagues aren’t the cause of that, but they are as hell are complicit in it.
If the leagues are only going to be swayed by profits and making good “PR movies” then we as fans need to make it a PR DISASTER for the league to hand down any punishment that isn’t incredibly harsh. If they won’t make a statement themselves, they can be forced to make a statement. The effect is the same.
Yes! It’s insane that we get more angry at Tom Brady for deflating footballs than at Greg Hardy for allegedly threatening to kill a women while THROWING HER ON A BED OF GUNS!
Isn’t “allegedly” a pretty key word here? Is mlb really able to investigate cases that are not tried in a court of law?
Tom Brady plays football, Cliff.
“gives the commissioner the power to impose whatever punishment “he believes is appropriate in light of the severity of the conduct.” ”
It seems like they’ve learned nothing from the NFL. The severity of fines and suspensions in the NFL is very much based on what Goodell thinks is best at that time. Instead of setting up the same system and allowing an appeal why not have the checks & balances right up front? Have an agreed to panel decide. Setup guidelines that everyone agrees to. Do SOME work ahead of time so that every time an issue comes up it’s not up to how one guy, who is absolutely no expert on the subject, to decide. It seems like it unnecessarily opens the commissioner, and by extension the league, up to intense scrutiny.
The arbitrators in MLB cases are a far, far cry from the ultimate arbitrator is the commissioner model the NFL uses. It is not the same system.
I’m glad the MLB is getting on this. Personally, I’d like the policy to go as follows: a) your salary is reduced to the MLB minimum for 1 – 2 years. b) if you’ve yet to become a free agent, your arb or fa is delayed for 1 – 2 years. c) the teams are still responsible for the salary difference, and that money should be put in escrow for either a civil suit or, at the conclusion, donated to independent organizations that help people coping with this. Alternatively, the mlb should fund a college / latin america program to educate these players. d) you don’t play until criminal charges are sorted out.
Doing all this punishes the players for being assholes and punishes the team for signing assholes. Ideally, you’d end up with a program that educates, and another program that actually helps victims. It’d also cut down on the unreported instances as well, maybe.
I agree with everything but D. Cases could drag on for years, and a ban based on whether one specific court is fast or slow doesn’t make sense. Plus, there will be some (small) number of players arrested for crimes that they are not guilty of. Banning them for an indeterminate time and then having them be found innocent is more bad PR.
I suppose I didn’t think about the possibility of appeals, etc., but the vast, vast majority will end in pleas which, your’e right, could still be a couple seasons.
What i think is ridiculous, is how the Ray McDonald (hand-egg) situation played out last year:
Arrested in August 2014 (for domestic violence against his pregnant wife),
49ers continue to play him, charges not filed (as is all to common in cases of sexual assault / domestic violence)
Released in December after being connected to new sexual assault case (and, after SF was out of contention)
Signed 1.1M contract w/ the Bears
Domestic Abuse / Child Endangerment Charges in August 2015
Released.
——————-
Because McDonald wasn’t Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson, the media didn’t jump all over it (which is effed up) and somehow both of these teams got away with playing a shit-head.
Maybe the MLB can run an independent investigation, but if they decide a player can play, and then criminal charges are filed, it’s going to leave the mlb looking like idiots.
And honestly, with these professional sports leagues, it’s hardly about domestic abuse or rape, it’s about the league and the owners not looking like idiots with regards to domestic abuse and rape.
The media jumped all over it, there was coverage all over the place with McDonald. There was not pubilc video of him punching his wife in the face in an elevator, not to mention he wasn’t nearly as big as a celebrity which of course is going to influence media coverage, rightly or wrongly.
The problem is teams also need evidence of wrongdoing, and there’s always going to be a murky area when there isn’t enough one way or another. Take the false accusation against Marshawn Lynch, there was sufficient evidence to say prove the accuser was making false statements, but what exactly should a team of done if he had didn’t have a reliable alibi? Auto suspend every time to investigate, which when done right could take half a season or more?
It’s best to accept that on occasion teams are going to play a shit head, just like businesses will employ them and they’ll continue to serve in elected capacities.
I assume this has no impact on punishments to other team personnel (managers, coaches)? Didn’t Bobby Cox have a related incident while manager? What was his punishment?
I think he had made a crack about “beating your wife”. Stupid thing to say, but not evidence that he actually has.
In 1995, Cox was arrested on a charge of domestic battery for striking his wife and pulling her hair. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, his wife said that Cox did not, in fact, strike her. Cox did admit pulling her hair in an attempt to restrain her. The charges were later dropped. So far as I know, Cox was not disciplined by the league.
I know this is the direction all sports is heading, but I can’t help feel the investigations and consequences for serious crimes like domestic violence or child abuse are better left to the criminal justice system than a baseball league. MLB and the MLBPA seem much more competent than the NFL in general, but you don’t have to look far to see how cases like these can be easily mishandled or the commissioner’s authority can be misused or abused.
The problem with the justice system handling these cases is that these players make tons of money. Anyone who knows the justice system knows that money basically buys you out of trouble. Even if arrested, wealthy offenders won’t do any jail time and the attorneys they hire can drag the process out for years.
And giving one person unilateral power to impose punishment without the evidentiary rigors or constitutional protections of defendants in the US legal system is supposed to result in more just outcomes? How’s that?
Because the Constitution doesn’t protect you from being fired for being a problem.
This, this, 1000 times this (in response to L. Ron Hoyabembe, not Blerg). Everyone gets this wrong about everything. Constitutional rights only protect you from governmental abuses, yet everyone invokes them every time a famous person gets in trouble with their job.
First amendment or not, try going into your place of work next week and slinging racial slurs at all your co-workers and see how fast you get fired.
Snowman, you are obviously confused because he explicitly said that there are NOT constitutional protections outside the legal system
Right, which was why I agreed with him by saying “1000 times this.”
doesn’t make the MLB necessarily any better…. Its going to take a lot more evidence to suspend Mike Trout or Clayton Kershaw than a relatively anonymous dominican rookie.
also, jared from subway says hi.
Hi Jared.
I hope Curt Schilling gets you fired.
“Because the Constitution doesn’t protect you from being fired for being a problem.”
Bad example. Baseball is exempt from the Constitution.
The NFL policy domestic violence policy is just a continuing effort to regulate the behavior of 70% of it’s athletes on and off the field in order keep it within the bounds of what the public will buy. Baseball does not have the same massive issues but it is certainly our duty to meddle whenever possible.
This isn’t a comment on Nathaniel’s article (which was excellent, as always) or the topic at hand, but I feel compelled to share, nonetheless…
Typically when reading FG I have a sense of community that I don’t get from other baseball websites. Further, I feel like the FG writers have a greater social sensibility than other websites. When writing about issues baseball and tangentially baseball, some level of compassion and empathy clearly comes through from Dave, Eno, etc. that I don’t get from other writers. This is especially relevant for the chats. I’m not sure if that’s a by-product of explicit hiring decisions at FG, the happy correlation to characteristics that make being a good writer at FG or just mere coincidence… Either way, I enjoy it.
And then I read an actual article about a social issue on FG. And then I read the comments. And the whole thing goes up in smoke. From the multiple articles addressing MiLB player compensation to various articles addressing ownership decisions (and capitalism by extension) to this article, I am forced to reconcile my view of FG with the reality that there seem to be a lot of uncaring assholes who read this site.
I’m not sure what to do about this… Maybe just admit to myself that FG is a website and as such will be trafficked by people of all views — the morally repugnant and ignorant alongside the thoughtful. I doubt I will stop reading social articles on FG. Apologies for the rant…
I know what you mean, but would argue that the soulless assholes still seem far less prevalent here than on most sites, and those arguing against them are a greater proportion as well. You just can’t have humanity totally free of assholes. We’re a very flawed species, and an even more flawed culture. But that discourse is important. There can be little to no progress if everyone who knows better stays silent in the face of those worst elements, because then the assholes will be the only voices being heard.
There is a scientific term for your condition of exaggerated moral superiority, and that term is pathological altruism. Malignant narcissism often masquerades as selfless concern.
Yes, the writers at fangraphs do indeed have an inclusiveness jonesing, expressed at various times for homosexuals, women, and Muslim outreach in baseball. Tranny’s next up. But many commentators do still have more in common with baseball players than social propagandist with a psychological disorder expressed as an overwhelming need for conformity.
The game is baseball, and there are no people with less in common with you than baseball players. But you keep working on that and on everybody else, because you have too.
There’s probably a scientific term for your condition of exaggerated intellectual superiority but I don’t know what it is.
I appreciate the poorly written example of a FG poster being an uncaring asshole.
Also, fwiw… I think you are 100 yrs behind your time if you think that a desire to “include” women, homosexuals and other religions would be described as a “jones.”
Even managed to include the T-slur in there. Very impressive example of the type indeed. John Rocker is somewhere jonesing to have a beer with you.
Maybe you should step back and consider whether YOU are in fact the asshole
To quote durn from above: “Tom Brady plays football, Cliff.”
MLB Unveils Brave New Plan to Combat Sexual Violence By Pretty Much Keeping Things the Same.