The Captain's Blog

One of the most prominent figures in all of sports, whose controversial tenure with the Yankees kept the tabloids in business, was given an unprecedented suspension from an overzealous commissioner who grossly overstepped his authority in handing down the ban. Although that neatly sums up the ongoing Alex Rodriguez saga, it could just as easily be a time capsule for events that took place 23 years ago.

Steinbrenner and Winfield didn’t have many tender moments during their years together in the Bronx.

On July 30, 1990, Yankees principal owner George M. Steinbrenner III accepted a lifetime ban (he actually proposed it as an alternative to a two-year suspension) from baseball commissioner Fay Vincent. His crime was paying $40,000 to “known gambler” Howie Spira in exchange for “dirt” on Dave Winfield.

The Yankees signed Dave Winfield to a then-record 10-year contract after the 1980 season, but before the ink dried, Steinbrenner and his new outfielder seemed destined for a decade of confrontation. One of the main points of contention was a $3 million pledge Steinbrenner made to the Dave Winfield Foundation. Throughout the 1980s, the promised contribution was a major source of friction between Steinbrenner and Winfield as the two parties squabbled over the timing of payments and the foundation’s use of funds. The disagreement culminated in dueling lawsuits before the 1989 season, but the two sides eventually struck a deal before arguments were put before an arbitrator. However, despite the resolution, the events leading up to it would eventually come back to haunt Steinbrenner.

During the 1986 season, Steinbrenner and Winfield’s feud had become well publicized, and Spira, who had his own axe to grind against the All Star, decided to take advantage. The gambler, who was also a disgruntled former employee of Winfield, offered to provide Steinbrenner with damaging information about his one-time boss in exchange for financial assistance. Because of the eventual arbitration settlement, Steinbrenner never needed to use the dirt Spira had provided, but the gambler still insisted on his payoff. After angling for a job with Steinbrenner, Spira eventually accepted a $40,000 check, but then, not long after, demanded more. Those demands would become the basis of Spira’s extortion conviction, but much to the dismay of Steinbrenner, they would also lead to his banishment from the game.

Steinbrenner’s decision to pay Spira for dirt on Winfield is probably the worst stain on his record as Yankees’ owner. However, it’s worth noting that much of the information Spira provided was accurate, and many of the allegations Steinbrenner made against the Winfield Foundation were substantiated by the settlement. Nonetheless, the means Steinbrenner used to achieve his end were unethical, and, more importantly, deemed by Commissioner Vincent to be not in the best interest of baseball.

The central question appears to be this: Did an owner of a baseball team violate the ‘best interests’ standard by pursuing, accepting and apparently paying for information from another party and then using that information against one of his own players?” – New York Times’ columnist Murray Chass, March 25, 1990

Steinbrenner had Spira…

When Steinbrenner was banned for life, Vincent’s decision was heralded by the media. Even though many believed the punishment didn’t fit the crime and that Steinbrenner was denied due process, the Yankees owner had become a villain around baseball, so not too many people bothered to sweat the details. It was another case of the end justifying the means, even if that same defense was denied Steinbrenner. Apparently, two wrongs did make a right in the eyes of those who despised the Boss.

Two decades later, the same logic has been used to justify the excessive 211-game suspension given to Alex Rodriguez. Like Steinbrenner before him, Arod has become a pinstriped pariah whom many in baseball would like to exile at all cost, including the integrity of game they seek to protect. However, the similarity doesn’t stop there. In fact, the most striking parallel is actually quite perpendicular. Although the suspension of Arod is akin to Steinbrenner’s banishment, the tactics used by the Boss against Winfield are actually very similar to the ones Commissioner Bud Selig employed against the Biogenesis-linked players. Not only did baseball agree to dismiss a frivolous lawsuit against clinic founder Anthony Bosch in exchange for his cooperation, but it also reportedly paid other Biogenesis employees for information. What’s more, while the civil lawsuit against Bosch was pending, major league baseball investigators used subpoena power to obtain private records. Good investigating? Sure, but the same could be said about Steinbrenner’s payment to Spira.

…and Selig had Bosch.

To paraphrase Chass’ question above, “Did the commissioner of baseball violate the ‘best interests’ standard’ by pursuing, accepting and apparently paying for information from another party and then using that information against several of its players”? After everyone finishes celebrating Selig’s grand stroke to clean up the game and lays their pitchforks on the ground, that’s a question worth contemplating. Twenty-three years ago, George Steinbrenner was suspended for doing exactly what Bud Selig authorized in his pursuit of players involved in Biogenesis. At the time, most agreed Steinbrenner’s actions were not in the best interests of the game. So, why are so many comfortable with them now? Have the times jaded our sense of justice? Hopefully not, because the end didn’t justify the means then, nor should it now.

One final footnote worth mentioning is Commissioner Vincent’s heavy handed pursuit of Steinbrenner eventually fermented mistrust among ownership. Even though several team owners, including some who despised Steinbrenner, supported a sanction, most believed the commissioner overstepped his bounds. So, when Vincent tried a similar approach on an unrelated matter, the Executive Council, headed by Bud Selig interestingly enough, was ready to jump him.

Is similar mistrust developing between the MLB players association and Selig? Even though most players seem to support the stiff penalties handed down in the Biogenesis case, there have been some rumblings about the unfairness of Arod’s penalty as well as a few eyebrows raised over the tactics baseball used to compile evidence. The popular support for the Biogenesis investigation is easily substantial enough to overcome minor dissension, but what about the next time baseball’s owners and players need to compromise on an issue? In that sense, the final chapter of the Biogenesis scandal has yet to be written.