The union could -- and would -- contest the clause in Barry Bonds's contract that would allow the Giants to void the deal if he's indicted in the BALCO case.
Haven't seen the written clause, but the notion that a team could get out of a deal simply because a player is charged with a crime -- and not convicted -- seems pretty thin. I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard to imagine that this clause would have any real teeth, if Bonds was indicted and the Giants actually tried to void the contract.
A lot of teams attempt to insert their own standard contractual language into deals while knowing that the language probably wouldn't hold up, if contested. A couple of years ago, an executive explained his theory for doing this.
To continue reading this article you must be an Insider