UPDATE: Comment and the reply
I talked about voiding Jason Giambi's contract in December 2004, and outside of the ill-fated hope that Tino Martinez had life left in his bat, I stand by it. It's part of my old adage that if not caught, there is no crime, and kudos to getting away with it, but if caught, there's no escaping responsibility and consequences. Giambi admitted his usage. It's as simple as that. The Yankees missed a chance to at least attempt the voiding process, and no amount of home runs is going to redeem that.
However, the report of Giambi, assuming it's true, using amphetamines is unfair and vindictive, and here's why: A first positive test has no penalty other than increased testing. Furthermore, it's confidential. The Yankees might not have known about it -- honestly.
To leak it shows that somebody, even if not an MLB clout-wielder, was sticking it to Giambi for his recent comments that included calling on baseball to apologize for the steroid era. Now, I may have been happy when a similar leak occurred regarding Barry Bonds, but if I was, it's hypocritical.
These leaks don't deserve to be protected by anonymity. The silence was negotiated, and is not a punitive action against the user, but rather one to give the warning and second chance it's intended to do. The leaker has no obligation to provide proof and nothing to answer to if the rumor has holes in it. By providing anonymity, the only one being protected is the leaker against penalty for possibly false information and/or a vendetta. This isn't the Pentagon Papers or Deep Throat, folks.
Back to the point. I'd love to void Giambi's deal. He's almost literally a deadweight. But with this testing agreement, it would seem a void would fall outside punishment already agreed upon by the union and owners. Furthermore, if the Yankees couldn't or wouldn't void for the blatant use years earlier, they're unlikely to get sympathy for a violation that carries no loss of playing time.
It seems the checks have been cashed, as it were. Just another missed opportunity, I'm afraid.
I don't see why the Yankees can't void his contract based on his testimony in the Balco case. Court cases are a matter of public record and the testimony he submitted before the committee should be used against him.
That simple.
Now, Carl Pavano...