Certified check. You can get them at any branch office.

"While I usually enjoy Mr. Francesa’s show, I submit he may be drinking too much of the A-Rod Kool-Aid lately. People with experience in criminal law understand that when dealing with criminals or even just the average guy in the street, cash is king."

Right.

When dealing with criminals.

Which is precisely why MLB should not be conducting its legitimate business in secret, in cash.


"In other words, In God We Trust, but all others pay cash."

For real?

When you wrote this column for the Daily News, did they pay you in cash?


"Thus, assuming that MLB investigators made a legal deal to purchase documents, I suspect the seller of the same would insist on cash. Why? People in these types of situations always think a check could be canceled. The person usually thinks taking cash somehow gives them anonymity."

Exactly.

Which is why MLB should not conduct their legit business in cash. Unless they are trying to hide something. Something they may be trying to hide, for example, is the purchase of stolen documents.


"Mr. Francesa also railed about IRS violations the MLB investigators may have committed by paying 'cash cash' for the document, as if it was the crime of the century that would diminish the evidentiary value of the document(s). The reality is that the finder of fact typically will not be swayed by such issues, unless perhaps the allegation is that the documents were forged or altered."

Not the crime of the century.

Just a regular run-of-the-mill shady tax evasion.


"The fact that Mike Francesa is even talking about MLB’s possible malfeasance shows the Yankee third baseman’s attorneys have been at least somewhat successful in clouding and obfuscating the real issues: did A-Rod take PEDs and thereafter impede MLB’s investigation? It seems Mr. Francesa thinks this circus hurts the sanctity of baseball, and for MLB to participate in this circus by using hardball tactics damages the institutions of baseball itself. Point taken."

"Point taken," he says.

So you're doing a tremendous job agreeing with Francesa.

Which is weird since you started this whole thing out by suggesting you were disagreeing with Francesa.


"Lost in this mess is the legal issue of whether Alex Rodriguez deserves his 211-game ban or something less. If the former All-Star did not use PEDs, there is no issue, and he should not agree to even a one-day suspension."

We're so far past this, for crying out loud. Fifty games, like everyone else.


"There certainly seems to be a colorable legal argument that since A-Rod was never officially 'caught,' that under the MLB Drug Agreement, his suspension, if he did use PEDs, should be 50 games. Many attorneys would argue that using multiple drugs over a period of time cannot result in more than a 50-game ban under the MLB agreement if the player wasn’t officially suspended for each violation separately."

FIFTY GAMES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Of course it's the number of times you're caught. Nobody who takes steroids takes one steroid.


"If A-Rod did take PEDs, after the circus he has created, it sure seems hard to think he doesn’t deserve the entire 211-game suspension, if not more. Indeed, it seems to match the number of lawyers he has working on this matter."

Weird conclusion that is not aligned with the rest of your analysis.