Law Experts Side With Vincent

George Steinbrenner has virtually no chance of winning an appeal if baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent suspends him, several experts in sports law said.

The experts cited precedents in which the courts have upheld the powers of the commissioner as defined in the Major League Agreement. They also noted that Vincent has been careful to run a fair and reasonable investigation that they said has ensured due process for Steinbrenner.

“I think he can make a lot of noise and he can file an appeal, but the bottom line is he’s going to have to live with whatever the decision is,” said Jan Stiglitz, a professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego.

“As long as the commissioner has acted reasonably and within the framework of the major league rules, Steinbrenner has no recourse,” said Gary Roberts, a professor at Tulane University Law School. “You can find some screwball judge to maybe provide temporary relief, such as a preliminary injunction. But ultimately there is not much of a chance for Steinbrenner to win.”

Said Robert Berry, a professor at Boston College Law School, “I don’t know if Steinbrenner has much of an argument. I think it’s highly unlikely that he could be successful in court. On the face of it, his chances are slim.”

Vincent is expected to rule next week whether Steinbrenner acted against the best interests of baseball in making a $40,000 payment to Howard Spira, a known gambler. The Major League Agreement empowers the commissioner to make such a determination and to decide “what preventive, remedial or punitive action is appropriate.”

The sports-law experts said that Steinbrenner would have a better chance of overturning an order to sell the New York Yankees. “There are some political and legal problems in trying to strip away his franchise,” Stiglitz said. But Vincent has all but completely ruled out such a severe penalty.

A suspension has been the most-mentioned possibility. A player, through rights gained by his union in collective bargaining, can appeal such a penalty by filing a grievance and submitting it to arbitration. As an owner, Steinbrenner has no such right. His only recourse is to bring the matter to a state or federal court.

Steinbrenner, through leaks to the press and testimony before Vincent, has hinted at two possible grounds for appeal: that the investigation was biased against him and that the commissioner’s power is “too broad.” Roberts dismissed both appeals as “feeble” cases.

As Pete Rose argued last year, Steinbrenner could claim that the commissioner prejudged him or was prejudiced against him. But Rose was armed with a letter written by John Dowd, the lawyer who spearheaded the investigation into Rose’s gambling habits, and signed by then-Commissioner Bart Giamatti. The letter was sent to the sentencing judge on behalf of bookmaker Ron Peters. It extolled his honesty and cooperation in the Rose investigation.

“I can’t imagine that the commissioner, with good counsel, would do something stupid after what happened with Giamatti and Dowd and the letter,” Stiglitz said. “He has not come out with anything to suggest prejudgment or prejudice. I think Steinbrenner is in a tough situation in challenging the commissioner.”

“After that letter involved with Giamatti and Rose,” Roberts said, “you can bet that Vincent went out of his way (to ensure fairness).”

Steinbrenner has grumbled that Vincent did not let him present witnesses in person. He was asked to submit their testimony in writing. Roberts said that major league rules allow the defendant “to present witnesses” but added, “It does not say anything about ‘in person.’ If he considers them in writing, that would arguably satisfy the requirement.”

Steinbrenner’s lawyers on several occasions requested more time in submitting those affidavits. Vincent granted those requests and, the experts said, appears to have maintained fairness in a case punctuated by leaks and Steinbrenner’s public defenses.

“Unless there has been some procedural deficiency, it’s very clear that the commissioner has absolute power,” said Jeff Klein, Dave Winfield’s lawyer, who has taught sports law at Cardozo and Fordham law schools. “They may be maneuvering to create a procedural shortcoming. But I’ve got to believe that the commissioner is very cognizant of that possibility.”

If Steinbrenner chooses to challenge the commissioner’s power, he must overcome several precedents as well as the court’s reluctance to intervene in self-governing private organizations. Steinbrenner, when he purchased the Yankees in 1973, agreed in writing to the Major League Agreement, including the power of the commissioner to decide what is not in the best interests of baseball.

The most important precedent to this case occurred in 1976, when Oakland owner Charlie Finley challenged the commissioner’s “best-interests” power after Bowie Kuhn blocked the sale of three of Finley’s players. A federal judge in Chicago upheld Kuhn’s ruling.