Miller swings, misses

While I admire Marvin Miller, I respectfully disagree with his column on the Steve Garvey case ["Latest rulings love sports more than law," June 5].

To equate the "folly" of the Supreme Court's trilogy of mistakes in granting and perpetuating an antitrust exemption for baseball with the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Garvey case is an unfair comparison. Even the dissenting judge in the Garvey case wrote that he understood why the two-judge majority believed that the arbitrator's decision denying Garvey's collusion damages claim was wrong and should be vacated. The dissenting judge also acknowledged that the evidence presented by Garvey at the arbitration supporting his claim that a contract extension was offered to him and then withdrawn due to baseball owners' collusion was "persuasive."

The fact that two federal appellate judges ruled against the Major League Baseball Players Association does not make their decision "foolish" as Miller tells readers, who should read the 9th Circuit's opinion and draw their own conclusions.

Kevin Caton
San Francisco