The commissioner's office negated the contract struck between Barry Bonds and the Giants:

The unusual provision could set off a legal test between the rights in an individual player's contract and rights under the union's collective bargaining agreement. The language, included in the deal that was completed Monday night, is designed by the team to protect itself in case Bonds is charged in the federal government's steroids investigation.

Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, is in a California federal prison because he has refused to testify whether Bonds committed perjury when he told a 2003 grand jury he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

Complicating matters, the version of Bonds' contract that was sent to the commissioner's office by the Giants was not approved, Bonds' agent, Jeff Borris, said late Tuesday. Borris said the team was redrafting the agreement to address the provisions in question and sending him a revised version by express mail for Bonds to review and sign. Borris wouldn't specify what was at issue.

The union says the indictment clause is unenforceable. Seems both management and the union are in agreement on this. Is it possible the Giants can't get what they want, and if so, do they go ahead with the contract? Or at this point, do they have to agree to a deal and live with the risk that Bonds may not be available to them?

Update: According to ESPN, the problem the commissioner's office has is with a personal appearance clause.

Complicating matters, Bonds' contract was not approved by the commissioner's office because it contained a personal-appearance provision, a baseball executive said Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity because those details had not been made public.