> > > So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public,
> > > information about injuries that teams currently release could be
> > and
> > > the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is
> > Well, a guy making millions (or not) playing baseball isn't any
> > than a guy working in a factory: he has certain reasonable expectations
> > privacy, among which (in my opinion) is that his medical history is
> > property, not his employers'. Granted, information on your rotator cuff
> > isn't the same thing as a test indicating you're HIV-positive, but it's
> > better to make it *all* private, rather than creating some arbitrary
> > division between "important" and "unimportant" injuries.
> > Of course, the wiseguys in Vegas might have a different opinion.
> > Mark
> Knowing someone that works for the team could be very profitable. I'm
> Vegas will get their lawyers on it if that came to pass.
This would most certainly be addressed in any CBA (if that ever gets
settled) and the outcome would be the status quo. The reason the
information is released now is just what is mentioned above, that insider
status would become extremely profitable and the likelihood of chicanery and
illegitimacy would defiantly increase. I don't believe that either the
players or the owners want the public questioning (all large market vs.
small market questions aside) the legitimacy and inherent fairness of the
games played on the field.