Won't be suspended.
Complete joke. I wouldn't mind if it was reduced but dropped?
So it is acceptable to have 4 times the normal amount of testosterone because you have an STD.
apparently they won on a technicality. They didn't dispute the result of the test, just that the process is flawed in some way. BS.
A dangerous precedent has been set.
Will not be suspended 50-games
+1000000
MLB released a statement where they "strongly disagree" with the third party's decision to overturn it.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 23, 2012, 04:21:01 PM
A dangerous precedent has been set.
No such thing as precedent in arbitration cases.
Manny Ramirez is now rushing to MLB offices to appeal his suspension.
Don't put that in teal. Why wouldn't he appeal? I'm sure he could find a technicality as well.
Have they said what the technicality is?
Quote from: Abode4life on February 23, 2012, 05:07:08 PM
Have they said what the technicality is?
According to national writers on twitter, the defense centered around the chain of custody being broken for 2 days and left unprotected. With the rumor that there were two other Brewers who had very high levels, but were thrown out, it could be fairly reasonable to assume someone tampered with it.
Now ESPN is saying that the courier was supposed to take it to FedEx on Saturday, but was not sure it was open, so took it home and sent it out Monday.
It's BS he isn't suspended because MLB didn't know where his test sample was for 2 whole days? Give me a break. MLB and ESPN are the idiots right now, not Braun. He passed 3 other tests during the year, and failed one, which was "missing" for 2 days.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 23, 2012, 04:17:08 PM
Won't be suspended.
Complete joke. I wouldn't mind if it was reduced but dropped?
So it is acceptable to have 4 times the normal amount of testosterone because you have an STD.
If the testosterone trigger was the result of a prescription medication he is on, Braun would probably be happy with any STD rather than what he actually may have.
There are certain illnesses you don't make fun of or take joy when your enemy is stricken with it... cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, etc. I would highly suggest anyone wanting to toss the "herpes" thing around wait to see what it is they actually may be reveling about --- unless you don't believe in karma.
Brewers fans will see it as vindication.
Cubs fans will see it as a miscarriage of justice.
Well I'm a happy man today at least. Come see me at the bar tonight Cubs fans, we can both get drunk for opposite reasons
Quote from: cheebs09 on February 23, 2012, 05:11:24 PM
According to national writers on twitter, the defense centered around the chain of custody being broken for 2 days and left unprotected. With the rumor that there were two other Brewers who had very high levels, but were thrown out, it could be fairly reasonable to assume someone tampered with it.
Now ESPN is saying that the courier was supposed to take it to FedEx on Saturday, but was not sure it was open, so took it home and sent it out Monday.
If I'm Braun I sue ESPN. If they don't leak the report on the test and everything happens normally, no one knows about this. The difficult part would be proving how much earning power he has lost as a result for the damages part. How this isn't a HIPPA violation to report it is a mystery to me, but then again I've never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express
Quote from: mu03eng on February 23, 2012, 05:31:59 PM
If I'm Braun I sue ESPN. If they don't leak the report on the test and everything happens normally, no one knows about this. The difficult part would be proving how much earning power he has lost as a result for the damages part. How this isn't a HIPPA violation to report it is a mystery to me, but then again I've never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express
They didn't report anything that wasnt true. What would you sue for?
Quote from: mu03eng on February 23, 2012, 05:31:59 PM
If I'm Braun I sue ESPN. If they don't leak the report on the test and everything happens normally, no one knows about this. The difficult part would be proving how much earning power he has lost as a result for the damages part. How this isn't a HIPPA violation to report it is a mystery to me, but then again I've never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express
+1
Why sue? because his rights were violated per the collective bargaining agreement with MLB and the union. In addition this has got to be a HIPPA violation
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 23, 2012, 05:35:20 PM
They didn't report anything that wasnt true. What would you sue for?
The HIPPA violation because those are protected medical tests....again thats what as a loyal Law and Order viewer knowledge says. I could be wildly wrong. Additionally, they reported no one had appealed successfully a test, which is also not true.
Jeff Passan twitter:
QuoteSources: Braun sample sat over the weekend in FedEx shop. Wasn't delivered until Monday. Chain-of-custody argument from lawyers won case.
Actually that is true. No mlber has successfully appealed before braun. See the JS article.
Quote from: SacWarrior on February 23, 2012, 05:28:39 PM
Brewers fans will see it as vindication.
Cubs fans will see it as a miscarriage of justice.
Well I'm a happy man today at least. Come see me at the bar tonight Cubs fans, we can both get drunk for opposite reasons
Vindication for what? He didn't win the case because he is clean. He won because the sample sat at FedEx and wasn't shipped until Monday.
I don't think HIPAA covers steroid testing by an employee's employeer. If it did MLB wouldn't be able to announce that players were suspended for failing.
The result of the test was that he had twice as much testosterone in his sample than any player in MLB history. You can't change the result in arbitration, it is the result. You can only challenge how the test was done and argue that something must have gone wrong, and point out any flaws in the process, the test, the chain of custody (possibility for mix-up, tampering, or contamination), etc.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 23, 2012, 05:49:24 PM
I don't think HIPAA covers steroid testing by an employee's employeer. If it did MLB wouldn't be able to announce that players were suspended for failing.
Players sign a waiver of HIPAA in those instances, there is an agreement in place is my understanding....different for a new organization to report on it.
Just like O.J.'s trial. When ya got the facts on your side, argue da facts. When ya got the law on your side, argue the law. When you got neither, muddy the waters. That, my friends, is Law 101.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 23, 2012, 05:39:36 PM
Actually that is true. No mlber has successfully appealed before braun. See the JS article.
Can't find the story to link, but players have successfully appealed the results of the first test during internal review. Have no appealed arbitration result....because of the leak, internal review was skipped and sent to arbitration directly. So I guess you could say we are both technically correct.
Quote from: in_lazar_we_trust on February 23, 2012, 05:50:35 PM
The result of the test was that he had twice as much testosterone in his sample than any player in MLB history. You can't change the result in arbitration, it is the result. You can only challenge how the test was done and argue that something must have gone wrong, and point out any flaws in the process, the test, the chain of custody (possibility for mix-up, tampering, or contamination), etc.
This. You either argue that one of the most reputable labs in the world tested the sample incorrectly, or that the guy who held onto your pee for 48 hours shouldn't have. You don't do both - that immediately calls your credibility into question. And as soon as you invalidate one portion of the process, the rest is irrelevant.
Good thoughts:
http://danny-knobler.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/8590096/34964084
Quote from: BlindboyPatSmith on February 23, 2012, 05:37:30 PM
+1
Why sue? because his rights were violated per the collective bargaining agreement with MLB and the union. In addition this has got to be a HIPPA violation
ESPN isn't beholden by HIPPA...nor is it beholden by collective bargaining.
You guys realize that freedom of press is a Constitutional right correct??? Unless they can prove that ESPN
knowingly told a lie and mean to cause harm, Braun would have no case.
Braun's sample did not sit "at Fed-Ex" for 48 hours. The collector "thought that Fed-Ex was closed" and didn't deliver it for two days.
It sat at a random collectors house for two days. He could have tainted it if he wanted to. Did he? who knows. Did Braun cheat? Maybe.
The appeal was ruled correctly. Cubs fans are going to think that it wasn't tainted. Brewers fans will think it was tainted. Braun and his lawyers are speaking tomorrow and maybe we will have explanations.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2012, 06:56:46 PM
ESPN isn't beholden by HIPPA...nor is it beholden by collective bargaining.
You guys realize that freedom of press is a Constitutional right correct??? Unless they can prove that ESPN knowingly told a lie and mean to cause harm, Braun would have no case.
See this is my ignorance showing....how can the press report on any medical records without the person releasing the information? Is this a case of the medical professions are bound by HIPPA but if they spill the beans the press can report away??
Quote from: mu03eng on February 23, 2012, 07:06:28 PM
See this is my ignorance showing....how can the press report on any medical records without the person releasing the information? Is this a case of the medical professions are bound by HIPPA but if they spill the beans the press can report away??
Yes. Medical professionals are only bound by HIPPA and it is only a civil penalty...not a criminal act.
ESPN could only be sued if it knowingly told a lie and meant to cause harm.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2012, 07:09:50 PM
Yes. Medical professionals are only bound by HIPPA and it is only a civil penalty...not a criminal act.
ESPN could only be sued if it knowingly told a lie and meant to cause harm.
Not only medical professionals. It expands to healthcare providers, plans and clearinghouses. You are correct, though, not everyone is bound by HIPPA. That is often misunderstood.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 23, 2012, 07:09:50 PM
Yes. Medical professionals are only bound by HIPPA and it is only a civil penalty...not a criminal act.
ESPN could only be sued if it knowingly told a lie and meant to cause harm.
Is malice the appropriate threshold; I may be wrong, but I don't think negligence is a defense for libel. In other words I think ESPN could be found responsible if they negligently ignored reasonable grounds to suspect that both a) the information they reported was erroneous and b) that if reported it could cause harm.
I don't think that's the case, however; even if it was, that's a tall order for Braun to prove.
If I were a litigator looking to make a buck, I would go after ESPN solely in an attempt to produce who actually leaked the info, and if then sue that person's employer (be that WADA, MLB or FedEx). However, it's likely that ESPN won't reveal, so some proud journalist would likely sit in jail for 30 days on contempt, get released, and the whole case likely dies at that point.
EDIT: Now if the case were that the courier or someone at WADA knowingly tainted the sample, I'm sure something like that would carry not only civil but likely criminal penalties as well.
Bottom line here is that Braun probably wants this to go away ASAP, so no action is going to be taken from his side. MLB is going to huff and puff for a few months so to keep up their facade, but doing so is a double-edged sword because Braun is the reigning MVP and one of the "faces" of their brand. If they keep dragging him through the ringer, they'll only end up hurting themselves. By the time the playoffs roll around, most of this will be forgotten.
Could go away a whole quicker. Actually, as soon as someone else gets their tit in the wringer.
Here are my thought on the situation.
We will never know for sure whether Ryan was doping or not. Just because he got off on a technicality does not mean he was doping. It was simply the only way he could get out of the suspension. This was clearly the BEST defense so it is what they went with.
There are rules for chain of custody for a reason. It protects players from tampering with their specimen. Whether or not the tampering occurred is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 23, 2012, 08:37:09 PM
Here are my thought on the situation.
We will never know for sure whether Ryan was doping or not. Just because he got off on a technicality does not mean he was doping. It was simply the only way he could get out of the suspension. This was clearly the BEST defense so it is what they went with.
There are rules for chain of custody for a reason. It protects players from tampering with their specimen. Whether or not the tampering occurred is completely irrelevant.
Agree. My thought's exactly.
Kudos to Braun and his people for getting him off on a technicality. However, outside of Milwaukee, he'll always be considered a cheater.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 23, 2012, 09:01:10 PM
Kudos to Braun and his people for getting him off on a technicality. However, outside of Milwaukee, he'll always be considered a cheater.
Yep.....just like Bonds and McGuire.
ESPN was wrong about it even being a positive test for PEDs, I have little faith they are reporting all the facts about this process.
Wait til tomorrow and the upcoming days before you are all quick to judge. That being said, in arbitration they are not required to disclose the reasonings for their decision and the whole process, so we may never know.
How do you know? Cause ryan braun said so?
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 23, 2012, 09:16:44 PM
How do you know? Cause ryan braun said so?
How do you know? Because you choose to believe so? None of us know anything.
Fact is Ryan Braun was cleared by the same arbitrator who had never cleared anyone before. That has to count for something
Will Carroll is a writer for SI that specializes in medical issues and PED's. He has been tweeting that Braun's team recreated the circumstances and showed that it matched what the original positive showed. I don't think we've hit the tip of the iceberg yet on what actually happened in this, but Carroll is saying that the chain of custody issue was just the beginning of their defense.
It will be interesting to see how much detail Braun goes into tomorrow.
Yep. Among Carrol's tweets:
Brauns appeal was won on the scientific argument, I am told. No specific precedent set here. I'm curious if the substance will leak.
And
Quit calling Braun decision a technicality, media. It was decided on science.
And
Defense wasn't based on that it could happen, but how it DID happen.
And one last one......
The Braun decision was based on HOW the sample was corrupted. Panel was shown exactly what happened, why result was invalid.
Also said he has an article in where he explains more about Braun's appeal. In case anyone is following this with the interest level I am haha.
I'm not the expert 4never is on herpes cream but he sure picked an opportune time to raise up his T levels.
Quote from: MUEagle1090 on February 23, 2012, 09:49:08 PM
Yep. Among Carrol's tweets:
Brauns appeal was won on the scientific argument, I am told. No specific precedent set here. I'm curious if the substance will leak.
And
Quit calling Braun decision a technicality, media. It was decided on science.
And
Defense wasn't based on that it could happen, but how it DID happen.
And one last one......
The Braun decision was based on HOW the sample was corrupted. Panel was shown exactly what happened, why result was invalid.
Aww, what are Cubs fans going to have as their new excuse :'( :'( :'(?
As far as the MLB releasing a statement saying the "vehemently disagree" with the decision, of course they do, they are covering their own ass! How on earth can they "vehemently disagree" with THEIR OWN PROCESS?! If they don't like it, then this shouldn't be the process. He has a right to an appeal and he won his appeal. That is the
MLB process!
Quote from: wadesworld on February 23, 2012, 11:56:59 PM
As far as the MLB releasing a statement saying the "vehemently disagree" with the decision, of course they do, they are covering their own ass! How on earth can they "vehemently disagree" with THEIR OWN PROCESS?! If they don't like it, then this shouldn't be the process. He has a right to an appeal and he won his appeal. That is the MLB process!
This. This is the real ridiculous part of this. MLB completely undermined the jointly administered process that they agreed to. With that comment they inherently (vehemently) stated that their process is flawed. Just dumb.
They don't disagree with the process. They disagree with the decision. There is a big difference. Still curious to hear how 20 times the normal amount of testosterone found its way into sealed vials of Braun's urine. Seems strange, no matter how long they sat in someone's basement before being shipped.
So happy for Braun, and the whining by Cubs fans on here is hilarious.
Bottom line, he has never tested positive, he passed 3 tests this year, one of which was right after the one in question.
If you don't trust the independent arbitrator then what do you trust?
Let's go Crew, defend that division title!
I'm not a cubs fan. Just a baseball fan. And from what has come out so far, braun has done nothing to prove he didn't have testosterone in his system. To everyone but brewers fans, they will view braun as a cheater with good lawyers. Just like casey anthony and oj will forever be known as murderers with good lawyers.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 07:25:15 AM
And from what has come out so far, braun has done nothing to prove he didn't have testosterone in his system.
When did you stop beating your wife? Just asking.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 07:25:15 AM
I'm not a cubs fan. Just a baseball fan. And from what has come out so far, braun has done nothing to prove he didn't have testosterone in his system. To everyone but brewers fans, they will view braun as a cheater with good lawyers. Just like casey anthony and oj will forever be known as murderers with good lawyers.
Many, including yourself, are making decisions without facts. Will the facts come out? Who knows. I suspect that the ferver will die down over time, as some facts do come out supporting the decision. Remember, the only ones who heard the facts are the ones who made the decision.
The analogy to Anthony and OJ does not hold water. In both those cases, the public heard everything from the trials. They had facts to form their own opinions.
What I find odd, though, is that MLB is not blasting the individual who took the sample home. That is where the derision should be placed. Who takes a sample home and puts it in their refrigerator? Did they taint it? Maybe, who knows. Control of the sample NEEDS to be paramount importance. When you can't guarantee that, you get results like this.
All I'm arguing is public perception. Braun will be public enemy #1 this year. It will also be forgotten in five years... Unless of course he has a down year or two.
Warrior07, when you get an independent, accredited testing firm to say i beat my wife, I'll address your allegations. Hopefully i can get off on a technicality.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 07:39:42 AM
All I'm arguing is public perception. Braun will be public enemy #1 this year. It will also be forgotten in five years... Unless of course he has a down year or two.
It will definitely be the topic of conversation on TV whenever they show the Brewers. Opposing fans will also treat him as public enemy #1, no doubt.
This year will be a critical year for him.
IF he has a down year this year, it will fuel those who believe he is guilty. I know one thing, if he wasn't completely clean before, he will be from now on.
My point is, you are asking him to dispute a negative. I'm sure you realize how little sense this makes.
Except that's exactly what MLB asked him to do...and apparently he did it. So how hard can it be?
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 08:22:49 AM
Except that's exactly what MLB asked him to do...and apparently he did it. So how hard can it be?
So now you are saying he did it, when five seconds ago you were saying he had "done nothing" to disprove it?
I was being facetious. My point was, if it's so dang hard and non sensical, how could Braun have possibly pulled it off?
And I certainly never said I believe he proved anything. I pointed out that apparently an arbitrator believes he did. And the arbitrator didn't even rule that he didn't have testosterone in his sample, merely that it is possible he didn't.
Why are so many posters pointing fingers at Cubs fans? It's basically ALL non-Brewers fans who think Braun is a cheater who got off on a technicality.
While listening to Mike and Mike this morning, they said that Braun offered to provide his DNA to prove that it wasn't his sample. MLB refused. Anyone hear more info on this part? Like they had already destroyed his sample, or another explanation as to why MLB refused?
If Braun offered his DNA to prove the sample wasn't his while the test was still able to be performed, I don't know how people can think he still did it. Having said that, it could be a ploy that he used in his defense if he knowingly knew there was no way they would have said yes. But outsides of that, and without testing positive again, I don't know what people can expect from him to prove his innocence.
Also as a sidenote, HIPPA offenses committed with the intent to sell or use health information for commercial advantage, gain or malicious harm can be cause for fines of like a million dollars and ten years imprisonment. Thats a lot to prove, but i would be shocked if Braun doesn't at least try to go after someone in this case.
HIPAA only applies to health care providers.
Drug labs would also be covered.
Quote from: Abode4life on February 24, 2012, 08:58:24 AM
While listening to Mike and Mike this morning, they said that Braun offered to provide his DNA to prove that it wasn't his sample. MLB refused. Anyone hear more info on this part? Like they had already destroyed his sample, or another explanation as to why MLB refused?
If Braun offered his DNA to prove the sample wasn't his while the test was still able to be performed, I don't know how people can think he still did it. Having said that, it could be a ploy that he used in his defense if he knowingly knew there was no way they would have said yes. But outsides of that, and without testing positive again, I don't know what people can expect from him to prove his innocence.
Also as a sidenote, HIPPA offenses committed with the intent to sell or use health information for commercial advantage, gain or malicious harm can be cause for fines of like a million dollars and ten years imprisonment. That's a lot to prove, but i would be shocked if Braun doesn't at least try to go after someone in this case.
No new info at the moment but I suspect Braun and his team will lead with this. Listen, when the accusing body REFUSES to accept a DNA test to corroborate whether or not it was actually Braun's pee AFTER it violated the chain of custody protocol, that's enough evidence for me. In my mind Braun is, and always has been, clean. And I'm glad he's a Brewer for life.
Quote from: MUMac on February 24, 2012, 07:34:20 AM
Many, including yourself, are making decisions without facts. Will the facts come out? Who knows. I suspect that the ferver will die down over time, as some facts do come out supporting the decision. Remember, the only ones who heard the facts are the ones who made the decision.
The analogy to Anthony and OJ does not hold water. In both those cases, the public heard everything from the trials. They had facts to form their own opinions.
What I find odd, though, is that MLB is not blasting the individual who took the sample home. That is where the derision should be placed. Who takes a sample home and puts it in their refrigerator? Did they taint it? Maybe, who knows. Control of the sample NEEDS to be paramount importance. When you can't guarantee that, you get results like this.
+1
I'd only add, however, that if Braun's numbers go significantly down this year then the perception the dwaderoy mentions will only intensify. People will feel he got off on a technicality, but you are absolutely correct if you can't keep the chain of custody in control then you have to throw out the positive test.
I'm reading a twitter feed of a guy following the Dan Patrick show, and it said that the Courier took 37 seconds to state his name and couldn't even look at Braun. Also, stated he was a Cubs fan that bypassed two open FedEx posts and the third one was closed.
So I feel that there is a lot of interesting things yet to come out and ESPN ran with a story without having all the facts (gee, seems familiar). They are hammering the fact it was the 2 day thing that makes it seem the only reason he got off, and it sounds like there is much more to it (not based off this, Will Carroll has been saying that the FedEx thing was just the beginning).
Quote from: cheebs09 on February 24, 2012, 09:21:06 AM
I'm reading a twitter feed of a guy following the Dan Patrick show, and it said that the Courier took 37 seconds to state his name and couldn't even look at Braun. Also, stated he was a Cubs fan that bypassed two open FedEx posts and the third one was closed.
So I feel that there is a lot of interesting things yet to come out and ESPN ran with a story without having all the facts (gee, seems familiar). They are hammering the fact it was the 2 day thing that makes it seem the only reason he got off, and it sounds like there is much more to it (not based off this, Will Carroll has been saying that the FedEx thing was just the beginning).
I agree, I think there is much more to the story.
Quote from: cheebs09 on February 24, 2012, 09:21:06 AM
I'm reading a twitter feed of a guy following the Dan Patrick show, and it said that the Courier took 37 seconds to state his name and couldn't even look at Braun. Also, stated he was a Cubs fan that bypassed two open FedEx posts and the third one was closed.
I seriously hope this was all sarcasam. Your soruce is a guy following Dan Patrick on twitter?
Only Brewers fans could blame this on Cubs fans.
No one in Chicago considers the Brewers rivals. In fact the vast majority of Cubs fans cheered for the Brewers in the playoffs. The Cardinals are our rival.
What does the Cubs fan have to gain by doing this? The Cubs are going to be garbage the next two years.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:01:16 AM
HIPAA only applies to health care providers.
And Health Plans and Health Care Clearning Houses.
I would think the lab would be included.
Right, but the lab has to tell the results to MLB. And then MLB would not be covered by HIPAA.
And people in this thread want Braun to sue ESPN. ESPN is not a health care provider last time I checked.
Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 24, 2012, 09:15:32 AM
+1
I'd only add, however, that if Braun's numbers go significantly down this year then the perception the dwaderoy mentions will only intensify. People will feel he got off on a technicality, but you are absolutely correct if you can't keep the chain of custody in control then you have to throw out the positive test.
I agree. I mentioned that in another post. This year will be critical for him. A lot of pressure. If he falls off, and he was MVP last year with Prince batting behind him, it will perpetuate the drum beat that he was guilty and got off on a technicality.
For the Brewers fans out there, do you seriously believe Ryan Braun didn't take anything? Technicality or not, do you believe he took anything?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:32:03 AM
No one in Chicago considers the Brewers rivals. In fact the vast majority of Cubs fans cheered for the Brewers in the playoffs. The Cardinals are our rival.
I love this... what's next, each time the Brewers play the Cubs it is their world series?
When I see loads Brewers fans wearing shirts mocking the Cubs rather than supporting their team, yeah, it leads me to believe the games against the Cubs are your World Series.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
For the Brewers fans out there, do you seriously believe Ryan Braun didn't take anything? Technicality or not, do you believe he took anything?
I would lean towards no for two reasons. First, the alleged level of testosterone was twice as high as they have ever seen it, which suggests that there is an anomoly. Second, on a related note, he doesn't seem to have any of the physical characteristics of people who have taken something (see Cub Sammy Sosa, for instance).
Quote from: warrior07 on February 24, 2012, 09:44:21 AM
I love this... what's next, each time the Brewers play the Cubs it is their world series?
It certainly used to be. As the Brewers have become actual world series contenders I don't think that's the case anymore. But in the early to mid 2000's, it was certainly the biggest series played all year in Milwaukee.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
For the Brewers fans out there, do you seriously believe Ryan Braun didn't take anything? Technicality or not, do you believe he took anything?
I honestly do not know. Neither do you. I would say, if it was the NFL's testing and procedures, I would believe it. I don't have that same faith in MLB.
Loads? Like how many? A few dozen in Miller Park each time they are actually playing the Cubs?
Given how many Cub fans obsessively come to MP for their away games compared to the opposite, it would appear that this is the Cubs world series. Hey, at least they get to win this version of a world series once in awhile.
Quote from: warrior07 on February 24, 2012, 09:47:07 AM
I would lean towards no for two reasons. First, the alleged level of testosterone was twice as high as they have ever seen it, which suggests that there is an anomoly. Second, on a related not, he doesn't seem to have any of the physical characteristics of people who have taken something (see Cub Sammy Sosa, for instance).
I would add that from the very beginning, Braun has been steadfast in his denial's. Saying he would be vindicated. Scuttle butt is that there is more information in his favor that may come out. We shall see.
Cubs fans go to Miller Park because it is easier to get to (and quite frankly a lot nicer) than Wrigley Field.
EDIT: It also used to be a lot easier to get tickets to.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
For the Brewers fans out there, do you seriously believe Ryan Braun didn't take anything? Technicality or not, do you believe he took anything?
Honestly, I don't know. I'm waiting to hear the press conference at noon before I make up my mind. Lots of information swirling around with different motivations... we still haven't heard Braun's side of the story.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
For the Brewers fans out there, do you seriously believe Ryan Braun didn't take anything? Technicality or not, do you believe he took anything?
I do not believe Braun took anything. He immediately came out and said it was BS. Why would the sample collector not take it right to FedEx? Nowhere does it say "He attempted to take it to FedEx (or wherever he was supposed to send it from), but it was closed," it says "He thought it was too late." Isn't this matter a bit too important to leave it up to "thinking it is too late?" To go from 4x the testosterone level ever tested in an MLB player to being clean on his next test shortly after seems weird (I honestly have no idea, maybe it can be flushed out in 4 hours or something, so maybe that has nothing to do with it really, it just seems odd that there is THAT much yet shortly later it is normal). He had 3 other tests that came back clean this season and he has had over 30 tests done in his career that came back clean.
There is way more to this story than just the 2 extra days that it took to get it to the currier (which is enough as it is, that is definitely enough to think there may have been tampering...may being the key word, not saying it for sure was tampered at that point). Yes, they won the argument on that, but in no way does that mean he was saying "I failed my test and definitely juiced, but there was a technicality that I can get by on." A ton more to this story than that. Braun apparently was very confident he was innocent and by saying it was BS from the start and offering a DNA sample would seem to suggest he knows he took nothing. And if there was an appeal going on would MLB really have destroyed the sample in question? My guess is no, that'd be pretty dumb and probably make it impossible to give a fair appeal, so I'm guessing Braun wasn't just saying that knowing it wasn't possible to prove it wasn't his sample at that point.
The real problem in all of this is the leaking of information when it never should have been leaked. The MLB should have never leaked he failed a drug test before he had the chance to appeal the result, and it should have never gotten to ESPN for them to release. If this had been followed correctly, nobody would have ever known Braun had ever had to appeal the results of a failed drug test. MLB is the only one at fault here.
On ESPN right now...
Part time collector, thought FedEx would be closed so he brought it to his house, left it in a tupperware container on his desk for 2 days and was thus in clear violation of the MLB rules, Braun offered a DNA test that would have concluded whether or not the sample was tested was from Ryan Braun, MLB said "no thank you" and were not interested in a test that would have cleared things up for everyone.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
For the Brewers fans out there, do you seriously believe Ryan Braun didn't take anything? Technicality or not, do you believe he took anything?
No. I don't believe he took anything.
What if anything changes if we find out that it was Braun himself who leaked the information to ESPN
Talking head (Byrnes) on MLB network last nite intimated that a 'little birdie tweeted in his ear' that the leak originated from Braun's camp
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 12:22:57 AM
They don't disagree with the process. They disagree with the decision. There is a big difference. Still curious to hear how 20 times the normal amount of testosterone found its way into sealed vials of Braun's urine. Seems strange, no matter how long they sat in someone's basement before being shipped.
I get that. But how can they disagree with the decision if they agree with the process? I'm listening to an interview with ESPN's legal analyst and he said "What Braun and his camp showed is baseball failed to follow its own procedure." So MLB agrees to this procedure, but when they break the procedure then what do they want to happen? They are the ones who agreed to having this procedure. When the procedure is not followed, I do not understand how they can "vehemently disagree" with a decision that is a result of the procedure.
Quote from: jsglow on February 24, 2012, 10:42:15 AM
No. I don't believe he took anything.
Replace Braun with Pujols or Zambrano or any other non-Brewer, would you still not believe he took anything?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2012, 11:03:31 AM
Replace Braun with Pujols or Zambrano or any other non-Brewer, would you still not believe he took anything?
Depends on the situation. Z? I would believe it. Pujols? I don't know. Look at the guy. He has the body of a guy that has taken steroids. Obviously, that does not mean he did or did not take steroids. But to go from like a 32nd round draft pick or something to potentially the best baseball player ever who played during the steroid era, I would be more likely to think Pujols took steroids AT SOME POINT in his career. Braun does not have the body of a guy who took PEDs. Is he a strong guy? Absolutely. But it is not outside of the norm.
Wonder if LaRon Landry is on the clear.
(http://static03.mediaite.com/sportsgrid/uploads/2012/02/laron-landry-e1330018583527.jpeg)
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 11:06:24 AM
Depends on the situation. Z? I would believe it. Pujols? I don't know. Look at the guy. He has the body of a guy that has taken steroids. Obviously, that does not mean he did or did not take steroids. But to go from like a 32nd round draft pick or something to potentially the best baseball player ever who played during the steroid era, I would be more likely to think Pujols took steroids AT SOME POINT in his career. Braun does not have the body of a guy who took PEDs. Is he a strong guy? Absolutely. But it is not outside of the norm.
Who has the body of someone who took PEDs? Most people would point to the extreme examples - Sosa, Bonds, Canseco, McGwire - but there have been plenty of guys who used PEDs but don't fit the stereotype. Do you think that Alex Sanchez, Edison Volquez or Neifi Perez have the bodies of guys who took PEDs? All of them failed drug tests and were suspended by MLB.
PEDs have come a long way in the past 10-15 years so I don't think that the eye ball test works any more.
I don't give a crap about PEDs. Let people take whatever they want.
Quote from: BlindboyPatSmith on February 24, 2012, 10:45:19 AM
What if anything changes if we find out that it was Braun himself who leaked the information to ESPN
Talking head (Byrnes) on MLB network last nite intimated that a 'little birdie tweeted in his ear' that the leak originated from Braun's camp
what would he have hoped to gain by that?
I doubt that was what transpired
MLB needs to STFU - they just sound like a sore loser at this point, how many players that lost an appeal vehemently protested the results and why wasn't that news?
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 11:06:24 AM
Depends on the situation. Z? I would believe it. Pujols? I don't know. Look at the guy. He has the body of a guy that has taken steroids. Obviously, that does not mean he did or did not take steroids. But to go from like a 32nd round draft pick or something to potentially the best baseball player ever who played during the steroid era, I would be more likely to think Pujols took steroids AT SOME POINT in his career. Braun does not have the body of a guy who took PEDs. Is he a strong guy? Absolutely. But it is not outside of the norm.
Alex Sanchez didn't have the body of a guy using PEDs either.
It's not all about bulky strength, especially if a guy was trying to hide it. I don't think Braun is dumb enough to look like Sammy (if Braun took something, which I'm not sure of).
As far as Pujos goes, I think he did/does them because of what you listed above. AND using that same logic I think Clay Matthews does as well and probably Jared Allen. I'm always skeptical of guys who suddenly develop into great players. Certainly come guys develop later in life, but hard to go from walk-on to all-pro, ya know?
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 24, 2012, 11:37:23 AM
what would he have hoped to gain by that?
I doubt that was what transpired
MLB needs to STFU - they just sound like a sore loser at this point, how many players that lost an appeal vehemently protested the results and why wasn't that news?
He also had nothing to lose at the point the story was leaked either. From a purely cynical point of view - and I believe from the comments I have read substantiate the following - the leak of this story made ESPN and MLB the bad guy.
Making ESPN and MLB the bad guy certainly would be in Braun's best interest. It would make him the victim. In the court of public opinion - and maybe in the opinion of one certain arbiter - this would work to Braun's benefit.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on February 24, 2012, 11:40:31 AM
Alex Sanchez didn't have the body of a guy using PEDs either.
It's not all about bulky strength, especially if a guy was trying to hide it. I don't think Braun is dumb enough to look like Sammy (if Braun took something, which I'm not sure of).
As far as Pujos goes, I think he did/does them because of what you listed above. AND using that same logic I think Clay Matthews does as well and probably Jared Allen. I'm always skeptical of guys who suddenly develop into great players. Certainly come guys develop later in life, but hard to go from walk-on to all-pro, ya know?
Unless your dad and uncle were both very successful professional football players and your brother is also a professional football player. Sometimes it's in the family.
Quote from: BlindboyPatSmith on February 24, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
He also had nothing to lose at the point the story was leaked either. From a purely cynical point of view - and I believe from the comments I have read substantiate the following - the leak of this story made ESPN and MLB the bad guy.
Making ESPN and MLB the bad guy certainly would be in Braun's best interest. It would make him the victim. In the court of public opinion - and maybe in the opinion of one certain arbiter - this would work to Braun's benefit.
What? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So he was better off having this all leaked and now his image tarnished (regardless of having it overturned) than if it had not been leaked, the decision was overturned, and nobody ever found out he had ever "failed" the drug test in the first place? I'm going to go ahead and say he had a ton to lose by the story being leaked, and no matter what happens, his image is tarnished as a result of it. There is no way this is a better result.
Quote from: BlindboyPatSmith on February 24, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
He also had nothing to lose at the point the story was leaked either.
Ah, reputation in the least which he'll never fully regain, if the appeal had the same result this never would have come to light, he lost quite a bit including national endorsement opportunities for some time to come
Braun's press conference right now..."I would bet my life that the substance never entered my body." Said if he had knowingly or unkowingly put a substance in his body he would come forward and admit it. He is not perfect but has taken responsibility for all his mistakes in his life.
October 1 was the failed drug test before a Playoff game. October 19th he was made aware of the failed drug test. Called the Players Union and told them there is no way he failed a drug test. Told them he would take any and all tests to prove that. They told him it was 3x higher than any test result in the history of the drug testing, which made him question the validity of the testing. He literally had not gained a single pound, did not get any stronger or faster, additional power or arm strength as they record all of these things once or twice a week. Tested 25 times plus 3 times this year and additional time when he signed his extension, never failed a drug test. 18-19 FedEx locations that were open between the collector's house and the ballpark that were open at the time. If he had dropped it off at that point the sample would have become a number rather than a name. Confidentiality was lost. No documentation during the 44 hour period, didn't bring the sample in on Monday until 1:30 PM when FedEx opened at 7:30 AM. Talked to biochemicists who said if the person was motivated it would be extremely easy to tamper with the sample. The system is that of which the player is 100% guilty until proven innocent. He is a victim of the process. He doesn't have any idea what happened to the sample during the 44 hour period but he is 100% certain nothing was ever in his system. He respect's MLB position and opinion and is sad it has turned into a PR battle. Because of potential litigation he cannot go into detail about the process of the appeal. Truth was on his side and he believed he would win all along. Baseball agreed to the process that is in place, players are held to 100% perfection and everyone else involved should be held to that too. Biggest regret is not being able to enjoy the offseason after an incredible season both in terms of team achievements and individual achievements. The way the process was applied to him was completely flawed, unjust and unfair. He respectfully disagrees with MLB saying they disagree, he went through their process and was found innocent. Simple truth is that he's innocent and has maintained that since day one and is proven to be innocent.
Came off very classy.
Kruk said he came off very classy and that you have to believe his innocence. "I firmly believe his innocence...How can you take that sample and say this is a true sample?...I'm not going to say anybody tampered with it, but you can't get a true test out of it in my opinion." He didn't throw anybody under the bus including MLB who is coming out and saying they disagree with the decision.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
For the Brewers fans out there, do you seriously believe Ryan Braun didn't take anything? Technicality or not, do you believe he took anything?
Having heard the press conference, I don't believe he took anything knowingly or negligently. Someone could have slipped him something, might have been something in the buffet that day... not really sure. But I believe him that he didn't put this substance in his body, and I don't believe it would have been from a "tainted" supplement either.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 09:54:55 AM
I do not believe Braun took anything. He immediately came out and said it was BS. Why would the sample collector not take it right to FedEx? Nowhere does it say "He attempted to take it to FedEx (or wherever he was supposed to send it from), but it was closed," it says "He thought it was too late." Isn't this matter a bit too important to leave it up to "thinking it is too late?" To go from 4x the testosterone level ever tested in an MLB player to being clean on his next test shortly after seems weird (I honestly have no idea, maybe it can be flushed out in 4 hours or something, so maybe that has nothing to do with it really, it just seems odd that there is THAT much yet shortly later it is normal). He had 3 other tests that came back clean this season and he has had over 30 tests done in his career that came back clean.
There is way more to this story than just the 2 extra days that it took to get it to the currier (which is enough as it is, that is definitely enough to think there may have been tampering...may being the key word, not saying it for sure was tampered at that point). Yes, they won the argument on that, but in no way does that mean he was saying "I failed my test and definitely juiced, but there was a technicality that I can get by on." A ton more to this story than that. Braun apparently was very confident he was innocent and by saying it was BS from the start and offering a DNA sample would seem to suggest he knows he took nothing. And if there was an appeal going on would MLB really have destroyed the sample in question? My guess is no, that'd be pretty dumb and probably make it impossible to give a fair appeal, so I'm guessing Braun wasn't just saying that knowing it wasn't possible to prove it wasn't his sample at that point.
The real problem in all of this is the leaking of information when it never should have been leaked. The MLB should have never leaked he failed a drug test before he had the chance to appeal the result, and it should have never gotten to ESPN for them to release. If this had been followed correctly, nobody would have ever known Braun had ever had to appeal the results of a failed drug test. MLB is the only one at fault here.
Your realize he wasn't retested for several weeks after the inital test....plenty of time for things to clear out
It's now being reported that Braun's test which was 20 times above normal wasn't the highest ever recorded. Apparently tests 70 times the normal value are not uncommon.
Braun straight KILLED that presser
Braun did a great job in the press conference.
It still doesnt change that 99.9% of people outside of Milwaukee thinks he is guilty.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
Braun did a great job in the press conference.
It still doesnt change that 99.9% of people outside of Milwaukee thinks he is guilty.
Perfectly stated.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 12:00:58 PM
Unless your dad and uncle were both very successful professional football players and your brother is also a professional football player. Sometimes it's in the family.
Could be.
But, he didn't get any of that good DNA in high school, and then suddenly found the good DNA in corrupted college program where his former teammate tested positive for steroids?
Also, his father and uncle played in an era where a lot of players were using steroids. They could have been using for all we know.
Again, none of this is a smoking gun, nor am I implying that it is.
It's easy to look at another teams guy and suspect steroids, but when it's your own teams guy, we rationalize it like "Braun doesn't look like a juicer" or "Clay's dad was in the NFL".
Sports fans I guess.
Dan Patrick reporting that the collector was a Cubs fan (a pathetic and untrustworthy human being), took 37 seconds to state his name during appeal hearing, couldn't look at Braun to identify him, passed two open FedEx locations before going to a closed location, and that Braun passed a lie detector test.
It's not a lie if you believe it to be true. What I mean by that is Braun doesn't think he took a PED. Doesn't mean he didn't.
I've always been known as a 1%er...
See my patch on my biker vest
I have seen hundreds -- probably thousands, actually -- of press conferences. Braun was extremely convincing. Though I'm a big-time cynic, I'm also a benefit-of-the-doubt guy. Until I get more info, Braun passes the smell test for me.
On a semi-related note, for those who think body type is the main indicator of juicing, I have two words: Felix Heredia.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 01:33:53 PM
It's not a lie if you believe it to be true. What I mean by that is Braun doesn't think he took a PED. Doesn't mean he didn't.
Whenever an athlete says that he never "knowingly" took (
fill in the illegal substance), it raises red flags. For all we know, Barry Bonds never knowingly took PEDs. He just took what his trainers gave him and didn't ask questions because he didn't want to know. Therefore, when asked, he could honestly tell a jury that he never knowingly took PEDs.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on February 24, 2012, 01:30:22 PM
Could be.
But, he didn't get any of that good DNA in high school, and then suddenly found the good DNA in corrupted college program where his former teammate tested positive for steroids?
Also, his father and uncle played in an era where a lot of players were using steroids. They could have been using for all we know.
Again, none of this is a smoking gun, nor am I implying that it is.
It's easy to look at another teams guy and suspect steroids, but when it's your own teams guy, we rationalize it like "Braun doesn't look like a juicer" or "Clay's dad was in the NFL".
Sports fans I guess.
Or you could just believe that since neither have been suspended for failed drug tests that they have never done steroids. That's what I believe. If that makes me a blind fan with blue and gold and green and gold glasses on then I guess I am a blind fan with blue and gold and green and gold glasses on. Now if the independent arbitrator (someone with absolutely no vested interest in the case) decided to uphold the 50 game suspension and I came out whining and crying (like some Cubs fans here have been doing for the past 20 hours) about how innocent Braun is, then maybe I can see your point.
I don't believe Pujols did take steroids because he has never been suspended for a failed drug test. But, as the question was asked, if he gets suspended this season for a failed drug test, then I'd probably say to myself "Makes sense. He's probably been doing it his whole career." But as of right now he has a clean record and I believe he is clean.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
Now if the independent arbitrator (someone with absolutely no vested interest in the case)
Just to clarify....the "arbitrator" was actually a 3 person panel and the suspension was thrown out on 2-1 vote of the panel and I am not a cub fan.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
Or you could just believe that since neither have been suspended for failed drug tests that they have never done steroids. That's what I believe. If that makes me a blind fan with blue and gold and green and gold glasses on then I guess I am a blind fan with blue and gold and green and gold glasses on. Now if the independent arbitrator (someone with absolutely no vested interest in the case) decided to uphold the 50 game suspension and I came out whining and crying (like some Cubs fans here have been doing for the past 20 hours) about how innocent Braun is, then maybe I can see your point.
I don't believe Pujols did take steroids because he has never been suspended for a failed drug test. But, as the question was asked, if he gets suspended this season for a failed drug test, then I'd probably say to myself "Makes sense. He's probably been doing it his whole career." But as of right now he has a clean record and I believe he is clean.
Braun won a split decision in his appeal which means that one independent arbitrator believes he's guilty.
Sosa, Bonds and Clemens never got suspended for failed drug tests. Do you believe that none of them used PEDs?
Why do you keep implying that it's only Cubs fans who think Braun is guilty? Go check out some of the comments on national sites. The overwhelming majority of posters believe this ruling is a joke and that Braun is a user.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2012, 01:39:40 PM
Whenever an athlete says that he never "knowingly" took (fill in the illegal substance), it raises red flags. For all we know, Barry Bonds never knowingly took PEDs. He just took what his trainers gave him and didn't ask questions because he didn't want to know. Therefore, when asked, he could honestly tell a jury that he never knowingly took PEDs.
Or it could just be that he never knowingly took something?
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on February 24, 2012, 01:48:48 PM
Just to clarify....the "arbitrator" was actually a 3 person panel and the suspension was thrown out on 2-1 vote of the panel and I am not a cub fan.
I believe that the 3 people consist of a MLB rep, a player rep, and the arbitrator. Most of these end 2-1 and that's why.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 01:55:47 PM
I believe that the 3 people consist of a MLB rep, a player rep, and the arbitrator. Most of these end 2-1 and that's why.
Now that is a joke.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
Or you could just believe that since neither have been suspended for failed drug tests that they have never done steroids. That's what I believe. If that makes me a blind fan with blue and gold and green and gold glasses on then I guess I am a blind fan with blue and gold and green and gold glasses on. Now if the independent arbitrator (someone with absolutely no vested interest in the case) decided to uphold the 50 game suspension and I came out whining and crying (like some Cubs fans here have been doing for the past 20 hours) about how innocent Braun is, then maybe I can see your point.
I don't believe Pujols did take steroids because he has never been suspended for a failed drug test. But, as the question was asked, if he gets suspended this season for a failed drug test, then I'd probably say to myself "Makes sense. He's probably been doing it his whole career." But as of right now he has a clean record and I believe he is clean.
Fair enough. I don't mean to single you out specifically. Just seemed like a good place to jump in.
I don't know if Braun took anything... too much conflicting info.
But, the way you feel like "makes sense" with Albert, is how I feel about Braun.
The guy has had injury issues in the past, and maybe he was looking for a recovery edge to stay healthy. It wouldn't have shock me if he was taking something. I'm not saying he did, but the equation makes sense.
As far as Clay and the rest, you're right, nothing has been proven, so no foul.
I'm just making the observation that fans are quick to suspect and blame other players and quick to defend their own with bogus reasons like "He doesn't have the body type" or "His dad was in the NFL" etc. etc.
Braun might be 100000% innocent. But, saying something like "he doesn't have the body type" is a 100000% stupid, and Brewer fans should not think or believe that.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on February 24, 2012, 01:48:48 PM
Just to clarify....the "arbitrator" was actually a 3 person panel and the suspension was thrown out on 2-1 vote of the panel and I am not a cub fan.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
Braun won a split decision in his appeal which means that one independent arbitrator believes he's guilty.
Sosa, Bonds and Clemens never got suspended for failed drug tests. Do you believe that none of them used PEDs?
Why do you keep implying that it's only Cubs fans who think Braun is guilty? Go check out some of the comments on national sites. The overwhelming majority of posters believe this ruling is a joke and that Braun is a user.
It was a 2-1 vote with 1 vote in favor coming from the MLB Players Association representative (of course they're going to vote in favor of Braun and support their player) and the 1 vote against coming from the MLB representative (of course they're going to vote to uphold the suspension that they placed on Braun). So the 2 votes that had a vested interest in the case voted accordingly, and it came down to the independent arbitrator, Shyam Das, who voted in Braun's favor. Hence why the MLB's statement:
"Major League Baseball considers the obligations of the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program essential to the integrity of our game, our Clubs and all of the players who take the field. It has always been Major League Baseball's position that no matter who tests positive, we will exhaust all avenues in pursuit of the appropriate discipline. We have been true to that position in every instance, because baseball fans deserve nothing less.
"As a part of our drug testing program, the Commissioner's Office and the Players Association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute.
While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das."
It was, essentially, the independent arbitrator's decision to make, as the MLB and the MLBPA of course were going to vote the way they did.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 24, 2012, 01:55:47 PM
I believe that the 3 people consist of a MLB rep, a player rep, and the arbitrator. Most of these end 2-1 and that's why.
That is correct. 2 of the 3 people involved are always going to vote against one another, making it essentially a 1 person decision.
Quote from: warrior07 on February 24, 2012, 01:54:14 PM
Or it could just be that he never knowingly took something?
Sure, that's possible. But if I'm a pro athlete who chooses to be clean and understands that there are serious personal and professional repercussions for failing a drug test, I'd make absolutely certain that every supplement I put into my body is legal. If I was willing to take my chances, I'd ingest whatever my trainer gave me, not think twice about it and legitimately play the "never knowingly" card if I got busted. I'm probably giving pro athletes too much credit though.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 02:04:08 PM
It was a 2-1 vote with 1 vote in favor coming from the MLB Players Association representative (of course they're going to vote in favor of Braun and support their player) and the 1 vote against coming from the MLB representative (of course they're going to vote to uphold the suspension that they placed on Braun). So the 2 votes that had a vested interest in the case voted accordingly, and it came down to the independent arbitrator, Shyam Das, who voted in Braun's favor.
Didn't realize that. I appreciate the clarification.
The danger in saying that he passed 20 or 30 or 50 prior tests is that isn't the end of it.
Marion Jones passed 20+ tests. A number of cyclists have passed their tests on multiple accounts only to finally get caught. I don't know whether Braun did it or not. The herpes medication rumor has been around for a long time which might have triggered something. He's going to have some added pressure on him this year to perform close to last year to overcome those that feel he cheated. As Mac correctly points out, not having Fielder only makes that harder for him (or does it give him an out if his numbers drop)?
The Score just had their sports legal expert Eldon Ham on. Nothing really new but he said:
- Lots of issues jumbled together
- First, from experience he's most likely guilty
- However, MLB did not follow it's own rules
- Rules specifically say you have to put it in a FedEx box (if it was in a UPS box it could be thrown out)
- Even though it is highly unlikely it was tampered with, it still raises questions
- Arbitration decesion is final, however, MLB can go to federal court to overturn it
- Braun's attorny was assistant council at the NFL when Eldon won a nearly identical case for Richard Dent on a technicality of NFL not following their rules
The thing with the herpes rumors or whatever other rumors are out there, Braun said over and over since the suspension was leaked that he did not knowingly or unkowingly take any illegal substances. He also said that he literally had not gained a single pound, did not get any stronger or faster, had not gained any additional power or arm strength as the Brewers record all of these things once or twice a week and there was documentation of this that they provided to the MLBPA. If he was taking PEDs, his performance on these things would have increased.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2012, 01:39:40 PM
Whenever an athlete says that he never "knowingly" took (fill in the illegal substance), it raises red flags. For all we know, Barry Bonds never knowingly took PEDs. He just took what his trainers gave him and didn't ask questions because he didn't want to know. Therefore, when asked, he could honestly tell a jury that he never knowingly took PEDs.
Let's play hypothetical.... you take a drug test and test positive for ________. You know for a fact that you have never taken it, but the results clearly state that you have. The sample has your name on it, the results show that the substance was in the sample, but you have never taken the substance.
How would any of you explain why you failed the drug test?
How would you know that someone didn't slip something into your Coke when no one was looking?
How would you know if that chocolate milk truly wasn't taken from cows treated excessively with growth hormones?
How would you know that your sample was tainted?
How would you know if the test was actually negative, and someone maliciously changed the results?
How would you know if the scientist didn't screw up the test?
How would you know if someone didn't make a data entry error?
Bonds didn't "knowingly" take something... he "negligently" took something. I'm starting to get the distinct impression that Braun didn't do either, but absent some sort of scientific explanation, he still has to recognize the fact that something might have been in his system through no act or fault of his own.
With the right motivation, I could get any one of you to fail a drug test, and you would have no idea it was me (except that I just tipped you off.... so watch your drinks at the bar this weekend... Benny's out to get you.)
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 02:25:04 PM
The thing with the herpes rumors or whatever other rumors are out there, Braun said over and over since the suspension was leaked that he did not knowingly or unkowingly take any illegal substances. He also said that he literally had not gained a single pound, did not get any stronger or faster, had not gained any additional power or arm strength as the Brewers record all of these things once or twice a week and there was documentation of this that they provided to the MLBPA. If he was taking PEDs, his performance on these things would have increased.
Then the pressure is on him to repeat his performance of 2011 into 2012. At least that is what many a baseball fan will judge him on.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 24, 2012, 02:25:04 PM
The thing with the herpes rumors or whatever other rumors are out there, Braun said over and over since the suspension was leaked that he did not knowingly or unkowingly take any illegal substances. He also said that he literally had not gained a single pound, did not get any stronger or faster, had not gained any additional power or arm strength as the Brewers record all of these things once or twice a week and there was documentation of this that they provided to the MLBPA. If he was taking PEDs, his performance on these things would have increased.
What's the timeframe of these measurements? Hasn't gained a pound or increased his strength since...?
If he had been using PEDs for a number of years and those measurements were only from last season, they don't really mean anything.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on February 24, 2012, 01:48:48 PM
Just to clarify....the "arbitrator" was actually a 3 person panel and the suspension was thrown out on 2-1 vote of the panel and I am not a cub fan.
The arbitration process is almost always 2-1. 1 chosen by MLB, 1 by the Union and 1 independent (selected by both MLB and the Union). I read somewhere, can't recall where and verify 100%, but that the independent is the critical one.
Quote from: MUMac on February 24, 2012, 02:45:34 PM
The arbitration process is almost always 2-1. 1 chosen by MLB, 1 by the Union and 1 independent (selected by both MLB and the Union). I read somewhere, can't recall where and verify 100%, but that the independent is the critical one.
It's actually always 2-1. The MLB guy has never voted for the player and the Union guy has never voted against the player. so you are correct, it was basically a one person ruling.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2012, 02:42:41 PM
What's the timeframe of these measurements? Hasn't gained a pound or increased his strength since...?
If he had been using PEDs for a number of years and those measurements were only from last season, they don't really mean anything.
Can't say I have the answer to that, but I would imagine they have kept those numbers from the minor leagues all the way through last season and could provide those numbers if they were asked for them. I'm sure there were increases throughout, but my guess is there was never any sudden jump out of nowhere. I can say that he was an all star in high school, an all star in college, an all star in the minor leagues, and an all star from day 1 in the major leagues. It's not like he blew up out of nowhere or his production suddenly spiked. He has been an all star at every level.
I'm more convinced Pujols has cheated on his birth certificate rather than using PEDs.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on February 24, 2012, 03:34:32 PM
I'm more convinced Pujols has cheated on his birth certificate rather than using PEDs.
Pujols was born in 1977 but the courier kept the birth certificate on his desk for 3 years before sending it to the courthouse. Therefore, Pujols is only 32.
I think it would be an improvement if future appeals are heard by a panel made up completely of third party arbitrators instead of Das being under pressure to decide every case on his own.
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 24, 2012, 03:46:26 PM
Braun also explained how players are weighed several times each week, record times running the bases regularly and he has never gained 1 pound or been 0.1 second faster, what benefit of PEDs is he displaying then if he's been dirty?
Sustained performance through a long season? Not feeling the affects of fatigue?
Just guesses. But the point isn't what benefits it gave him, if any, because no matter what statistics you want to look at, it can almost always arguably go back to PEDs in one mind or the other.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/OTL-Ryan-Braun/ryan-braun-defense-raises-more-questions-doping-experts (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/OTL-Ryan-Braun/ryan-braun-defense-raises-more-questions-doping-experts)
Still don't know how braun pulled it off...
A question I have is why wasn't the sample split in two and two separate people courier to two different testing facilities. Cycling does this... why not MLB?
Obviously most of the people on this blog have never been wrongly accused of charged of something. The stark reality is people still draw their conclusions, and believe they are experts on the matter because they read something on the matter, viewed or heard "details". Fact is you have no clue what went on. Just 'cause Buster Onley of the most reliable news network ever(of course i'm being sarcastic) reported it doesn't make it so. All journalism, especially today, is absolutely not nonbiased!
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 06:03:38 PM
Still don't know how braun pulled it off...
A documented, undisputed breech in protocol in collecting/handling the samples...whether they could prove the sample was tainted, tampered with or not, frankly I don't know what took so long.
As Braun accurately said, the requirement on the players is 100% compliance, and guilt until proven innocent. Personally, I think it is beyond reasonable, and absolutely necessary to expect everyone else involved in the process to be held to the same standard of 100% compliance to their responsibilities. If they aren't, how can the validity of the testing proces or results be trusted? They can't.
Thanks brecht. Your words really cut deep.
Actually the breach in protocol is very much disputed. Mlb policy says that the collector is responsible for protecting the samples and may store them temporarily to do so. Read the article. So what, exactly, did mlb do wrong?
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 07:19:07 PM
Actually the breach in protocol is very much disputed. Read the article.
You meathead article you linked that says this...
This much is not in dispute: Braun gave a urine sample after the Brewers' Saturday, Oct. 1 playoff game against the Arizona Diamondbacks. The sample collector did not take the sample directly to a FedEx/Kinko's location as proscribed by MLB's policy. [/u]
Nobody disputes that, and the protocol was clearly breeched, even if we take the collector at his word and he had good intentions. Worst case, that sample, know to be that of Ryan Braun went completely untracked/undocumented for 2 days. The protocol is there for a reason. If it isn't followed it the entire process is undermined and wide open to question.
I'm fine that Braun got off. Actually happy for him and hope he's clean.
- Cubs fan.
Usually helpful to read the whole article, chief:
Addendum A, Section V, Subsection 7 of the collective bargaining agreement states that "Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected." As well, language in the CBA states, "If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage." It also directs the collector to keep the "chain of custody intact" and to "store the samples in a cool and secure location."
According to sources with knowledge of Braun's case, the collector believed the FedEx/Kinko's pickup time for shipments had passed and the samples would sit at FedEx until Monday, the next business day. Because of that, he took the samples, already secured and sealed for shipping, and placed them in the basement of his home. MLB believed that decision fit with the language in the contract and should not have been grounds to toss the result."
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
Usually helpful to read the whole article, chief:
Addendum A, Section V, Subsection 7 of the collective bargaining agreement states that "Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected." As well, language in the CBA states, "If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage." It also directs the collector to keep the "chain of custody intact" and to "store the samples in a cool and secure location."
According to sources with knowledge of Braun's case, the collector believed the FedEx/Kinko's pickup time for shipments had passed and the samples would sit at FedEx until Monday, the next business day. Because of that, he took the samples, already secured and sealed for shipping, and placed them in the basement of his home. MLB believed that decision fit with the language in the contract and should not have been grounds to toss the result."
"The collector believed..." "MLB believed..." I read the whole article. What I cited are the facts of what happened. What you cited is some of the CBA language, and comments "according to sources with knowledge of Braun's case."
Did the guy sit on the samples for two days, or not? Yes he did. Again, even if he had The best of intentions, he didn't follow proceedures, nor can he prove where those samples were for two days (that's kind of why it's important that he take them immediately to FedEx where they are anonymous and tracked every step of the way.), Cheif.
Do you know those samples were in the guy's refrigerator for two days? No you don't. Nor do I, or anyone else. One person does. If it was your career, I wonder if you would be so quick to decide we should just take the guy's word for it.
You said it wasn't disputed. Mlb disputes that point and says the collector did nothing wrong. And if this guy is so untrustworthy, why is he even trusted to take samples in the first place?
The article clearly states he's allowed to take the samples home and store them.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 08:26:21 PM
You said it wasn't disputed. Mlb disputes that point and says the collector did nothing wrong. And if this guy is so untrustworthy, why is he even trusted to take samples in the first place?
Apparently two FedEx locations close by were open. That was his mistake. Keeping it in "his basement" or a "refrigerator" is a questionable secure location.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 08:28:24 PM
The article clearly states he's allowed to take the samples home and store them.
The article clearly states that is the opinion of MLB officials. Clearly, the independent arbitrator disagreed with the opinion of MLBs interpretation of the rule they wrote.
You are misinterpreting what the article is saying, and who is saying it.
It is extremely important to do be able to read stuff like this as a lawyer.
No. You're wrong. The CBA clearly states "If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage." It also directs the collector to keep the "chain of custody intact" and to "store the samples in a cool and secure location."
Mlb is not making it up.
What you misunderstand is the word appropriate. That is the word of contention. The appropriate thing to do was to drop the sample off at any of the Fedex locations he passed on his way home.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 09:04:32 PM
No. You're wrong. The CBA clearly states "If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage." It also directs the collector to keep the "chain of custody intact" and to "store the samples in a cool and secure
And what evidence or documentation is ther that any of that was done? There is none, besides the guy's word, which you and MLB seem to all too willing to accept, while Braun has to provide 100% indisputable evidence that he
didn't do something. do you realize how absurd that is, particularly when there is legitimate question about where that sample was for 2 days.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 24, 2012, 08:57:19 PM
The article clearly states that is the opinion of MLB officials.
This (for the second time)!
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 23, 2012, 06:43:21 PM
Just like O.J.'s trial. When ya got the facts on your side, argue da facts. When ya got the law on your side, argue the law. When you got neither, muddy the waters. That, my friends, is Law 101.
A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge (or arbitrator).
Quote from: Z F-B on February 24, 2012, 11:25:28 PM
A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge (or arbitrator).
And a bad lawyer gets a job as baseball commissioner.
Quote from: Benny B on February 25, 2012, 01:14:07 AM
And a bad lawyer gets a job as baseball commissioner.
What does a bad car dealer get?
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 24, 2012, 09:04:32 PM
No. You're wrong. The CBA clearly states "If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage." It also directs the collector to keep the "chain of custody intact" and to "store the samples in a cool and secure location."
Mlb is not making it up.
it sounds like it WAS "prepared for shipment" just he didn't ship it until Monday
I wouldn't call sitting on his desk in the basement "appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage"
his son helped him collect it, who knows, he might have invited friends over to see "Braun's pee sitting on my dad's desk"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/sports/baseball/drug-test-collector-in-braun-case-says-he-followed-protocol.html?_r=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nyt/rss/Sports+(NYT+%3E+Sports)&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/sports/baseball/drug-test-collector-in-braun-case-says-he-followed-protocol.html?_r=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nyt/rss/Sports+(NYT+%3E+Sports)&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports)
The collector followed the rules by refrigerating the sample since it couldn't be delivered right away.
Outside of Milwaukee fans, no one will believe Braun after this.
Here is the collector's full statement:
http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=7037 (http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=7037)
"On February 24th, Ryan Braun stated during his press conference that "there were a lot of things that we learned about the collector, about the collection process, about the way that the entire thing worked that made us very concerned and very suspicious about what could have actually happened." Shortly thereafter, someone who had intimate knowledge of the facts of this case released my name to the media. I am issuing this statement to set the record straight.
"I am a 1983 graduate of the University of Wisconsin and have received Master Degrees from the University of North Carolina and Loyola University of Chicago. My full-time job is the director of rehabilitation services at a health care facility. In the past, I have worked as a teacher and an athletic trainer, including performing volunteer work with Olympic athletes.
"I am a member of both the National Athletic Trainers' Association and the Wisconsin Athletic Trainers' Association.
"I have been a drug collector for Comprehensive Drug Testing since 2005 and have been performing collections for Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program since that time. I have performed over 600 collections for MLB and also have performed collections for other professional sports leagues. I have performed post-season collections for MLB in four separate seasons involving five different clubs.
"On October 1, 2011, I collected samples from Mr. Braun and two other players. The CDT collection team for that day, in addition to me, included three chaperones and a CDT coordinator. One of the chaperones was my son, Anthony. Chaperones do not have any role in the actual collection process, but rather escort the player to the collection area.
"I followed the same procedure in collecting Mr. Braun's sample as I did in the hundreds of other samples I collected under the Program. I sealed the bottles containing Mr. Braun's A and B samples with specially-numbered, tamper-resistant seals, and Mr. Braun signed a form signifying, among other things, that the specimens were capped and sealed in his presence and that the specimen identification numbers on the top of the form matched those on the seals.
"I placed the two bottles containing Mr. Braun's samples in a plastic bag and sealed the bag. I then placed the sealed bag in a standard cardboard Specimen Box which I also sealed with a tamper-resistant, correspondingly-numbered seal placed over the box opening. I then placed Mr. Braun's Specimen Box, and the Specimen Boxes containing the samples of the two other players, in a Federal Express Clinic Pack.
"None of the sealed Specimen Boxes identified the players. I completed my collections at Miller Park at approximately 5:00 p.m. Given the lateness of the hour that I completed my collections, there was no FedEx office located within 50 miles of Miller Park that would ship packages that day or Sunday.
"Therefore, the earliest that the specimens could be shipped was Monday, October 3. In that circumstance, CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office. The protocol has been in place since 2005 when I started with CDT and there have been other occasions when I have had to store samples in my home for at least one day, all without incident.
"The FedEx Clinic Pack containing Mr. Braun's samples never left my custody. Consistent with CDT's instructions, I brought the FedEx Clinic Pack containing the samples to my home.
"Immediately upon arriving home, I placed the FedEx Clinic Pack in a Rubbermaid container in my office which is located in my basement. My basement office is sufficiently cool to store urine samples.
"No one other than my wife was in my home during the period in which the samples were stored. The sealed Specimen Boxes were not removed from the FedEx Clinic Pack during the entire period in which they were in my home.
"On Monday, October 3, I delivered the FedEx Clinic Pack containing Mr. Braun's Specimen Box to a FedEx office for delivery to the laboratory on Tuesday, October 4. At no point did I tamper in any way with the samples. It is my understanding that the samples were received at the laboratory with all tamper-resistant seals intact.
"This situation has caused great emotional distress for me and my family. I have worked hard my entire life, have performed my job duties with integrity and professionalism, and have done so with respect to this matter and all other collections in which I have participated.
"Neither I nor members of my family will make any further public comments on this matter. I request that members of the media, and baseball fans, whatever their views on this matter, respect our privacy. And I would like to sincerely thank my family and friends for their overwhelming support through this difficult time. Any future inquiries should be directed to my attorney Boyd Johnson of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP."
The samples were in a sealed cup, then sealed in a bag, then placed in a sealed box.
The chain of custody was never broken.
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 25, 2012, 07:02:22 AM
it sounds like it WAS "prepared for shipment" just he didn't ship it until Monday
I wouldn't call sitting on his desk in the basement "appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage"
his son helped him collect it, who knows, he might have invited friends over to see "Braun's pee sitting on my dad's desk"
Look, I'm a Brewer fan, but cmon... It's amazing to me the mental hoops that people will jump through, no matter how much of a reach it is, to justify their fandom. He did it. He wasn't set up.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 01:53:38 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/sports/baseball/drug-test-collector-in-braun-case-says-he-followed-protocol.html?_r=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nyt/rss/Sports+(NYT+%3E+Sports)&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/sports/baseball/drug-test-collector-in-braun-case-says-he-followed-protocol.html?_r=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nyt/rss/Sports+(NYT+%3E+Sports)&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports)
The collector followed the rules by refrigerating the sample since it couldn't be delivered right away.
Outside of Milwaukee fans, no one will believe Braun after this.
So we should take the collector at his word but not Braun at his word? We know that the collector is telling the truth, but we don't know that Braun is (or even know he is lying)? OK, fair enough. Seems like a double standard to me, though.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 01:59:37 PM
The samples were in a sealed cup, then sealed in a bag, then placed in a sealed box.
The chain of custody was never broken.
Based on the fact that there has NEVER been an appeal overturned in the history of MLB drug testing before, I'm guessing he did NOT, in fact, follow the rules. I don't think the independent arbitrator would have ruled in favor of Braun if everything was correctly carried out. If the chain of custody was never broken, then everyone's lying and they really overturned it based on the science, which Braun's camp never argued (because there's no way to prove that). But maybe there's just a conspiracy because Braun plays for the Brewers and Bud used to own the Brewers, yet Bud and the MLB "vehemently disagree" with the decision.
::)
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 01:59:37 PM
The samples were in a sealed cup, then sealed in a bag, then placed in a sealed box.
The chain of custody was never broken.
You have cracked the case Gumshoe! For your next task...you will need to locate
(http://images.wikia.com/villains/images/f/f8/Carmen-sandiego.jpg)
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:00:55 PM
So we should take the collector at his word but not Braun at his word? We know that the collector is telling the truth, but we don't know that Braun is (or even know he is lying)? OK, fair enough. Seems like a double standard to me, though.
The collector also has the evidence of a sample with THREE unbroken seals.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 01:53:38 PM
Outside of Milwaukee fans, no one will believe Braun after this.
Outside of Milwaukee fans, no one believes Braun as it is.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 01:55:53 PM
Here is the collector's full statement:
"I completed my collections at Miller Park at approximately 5:00 p.m. Given the lateness of the hour that I completed my collections, there was no FedEx office located within 50 miles of Miller Park that would ship packages that day or Sunday.
nm, my mistake
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 28, 2012, 02:09:36 PM
I think he doesn't know crap about FedEx or he's lying to cover his lazy butt. I work in logistics and know FedEx could have delivered that the next day (Saturday). It wouldn't have sat unless he just dropped it into a drop box instead of going to FedEx or at a FedEx office location(formerly called Kinko's).
you can just go to FedEx.com and get transit times to Canada using a Friday date for shipping, with FedEx International Priority service it would have been there Saturday.
Except that the test was collected at 5pm on SATURDAY, Oct. 1. Not Friday.
The sample was collected on a Saturday. So unless the collector has a time machine, the ability to ship it on a friday is irrelevant. Good to know if I ever need to ship anything overnight to Canada though, so thanks.
Quote from: copious1218 on February 28, 2012, 02:13:26 PM
Except that the test was collected at 5pm on SATURDAY, Oct. 1. Not Friday.
That is correct. My biggest question is this. The sample was taken before Game 1 of the NLDS. Game 1 began at 2:00 PM. Meaning he had to have taken the sample well before 2:00 PM, as I'm guessing they weren't taking the sample during the National Anthem. He states that Braun signed to say that he saw the collector seal everything. Which means the collection process had to have been done well before 2:00 PM. Why is he claiming the collection process was completed at approximately 5:00 PM?
How do you know they didnt take it after the game? In the NCAA tournament, players take drug tests after the game.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 02:17:20 PM
How do you know they didnt take it after the game? In the NCAA tournament, players take drug tests after the game.
Thought I read that somewhere. Maybe I'm misremembering it. But what, so the game is scheduled to start at 2:00 PM. If I remember correctly (I was at the game), first pitch was at 2:07 PM. So they got an MLB Playoff game in, with all of the postgame interviews, etc. etc., and then had time to get a drug test collected within 3 hours? Sounds fishy to me...
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:00:55 PM
So we should take the collector at his word but not Braun at his word? We know that the collector is telling the truth, but we don't know that Braun is (or even know he is lying)? OK, fair enough. Seems like a double standard to me, though.
Well, yes. The collector (or an eyewitness, lab technican, arresting officer, etc) has no horse in the race. What's their motivation to lie? To be exposed as such and have their lives ruined? Braun, on the other hand, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by maintaining his innocence. Vigorous denial is the one thing everyone testing positive for PEDs seems to have in common.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 28, 2012, 02:19:37 PM
Well, yes. The collector (or an eyewitness, lab technican, arresting officer, etc) has no horse in the race. What's their motivation to lie? To be exposed as such and have their lives ruined? Braun, on the other hand, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by maintaining his innocence. Vigorous denial is the one thing everyone testing positive for PEDs seems to have in common.
He didn't lie before any of this came out. The statement was released after it was known that the chain of custody was broken. So he definitely has motivation to lie to save face. What, should he come out and say "Yes, I tampered with the specimen?"
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:18:01 PM
Thought I read that somewhere. Maybe I'm misremembering it. But what, so the game is scheduled to start at 2:00 PM. If I remember correctly (I was at the game), first pitch was at 2:07 PM. So they got an MLB Playoff game in, with all of the postgame interviews, etc. etc., and then had time to get a drug test collected within 3 hours? Sounds fishy to me...
His release says he "completed his collections around 5pm".
Quote from: copious1218 on February 28, 2012, 02:23:03 PM
His release says he "completed his collections around 5pm".
Yes. So the game started at 2:07 PM. The game lasted 2 hours and 44 minutes. The last out was recorded at 4:51 PM. You don't think the team was on the field and in the dugout for 9 minutes? The players would have to do all of their post game interviews, celebrate with their teammates (a 4-1 Game 1 victory), pack up all of their things in the dugout, walk to the clubhouse, 3 players would have had to go pee in 2 cups, watch the collector seal everything up correctly, sign that everything was done correctly, etc. on 3 separate occasions (the 1 collector collected the samples from all 3 players himself) in 9 minutes. It just doesn't add up.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=311001108
Braun even said in his press conference the sample was collected at 5:00 P.M.
This isn't an issue.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 01:53:38 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/sports/baseball/drug-test-collector-in-braun-case-says-he-followed-protocol.html?_r=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nyt/rss/Sports+(NYT+%3E+Sports)&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/sports/baseball/drug-test-collector-in-braun-case-says-he-followed-protocol.html?_r=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nyt/rss/Sports+(NYT+%3E+Sports)&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports)
The collector followed the rules by refrigerating the sample since it couldn't be delivered right away.
Outside of Milwaukee fans, no one will believe Braun after this.
Also, nowhere does it say he refrigerated the samples. He says it was in his basement office, which he claims is cool enough to store samples. So it was sitting on an office desk...
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
Yes. So the game started at 2:07 PM. The game lasted 2 hours and 44 minutes. The last out was recorded at 4:51 PM. You don't think the team was on the field and in the dugout for 9 minutes? The players would have to do all of their post game interviews, celebrate with their teammates (a 4-1 Game 1 victory), pack up all of their things in the dugout, walk to the clubhouse, 3 players would have had to go pee in 2 cups, watch the collector seal everything up correctly, sign that everything was done correctly, etc. on 3 separate occasions (the 1 collector collected the samples from all 3 players himself) in 9 minutes. It just doesn't add up.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=311001108
First, I was just trying to point to the fact that the sample was not collected PRIOR TO the game.
Second, who says players have to do their interview first? He also said around 5pm - would you consider 5:10/5:15/5:20 around 5pm. Is the collector expected to look at his watch and document the exact time?
I think the timeframe is perfect. Plus, it appears Braun agreed with him on the timeframe so no issue.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:20:57 PM
He didn't lie before any of this came out. The statement was released after it was known that the chain of custody was broken. So he definitely has motivation to lie to save face. What, should he come out and say "Yes, I tampered with the specimen?"
Again, I think that the possibility that some rogue, Ryan Braun hating collector tampered with his sample is extremely remote. I don't blame Braun for using the life preserver that fell so conveniently into his lap. I don't blame the arbitrator for throwing out Braun's suspension, either. But the chance that he's truly innocent is a real longshot.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 28, 2012, 02:34:31 PM
Again, I think that the possibility that some rogue, Ryan Braun hating collector tampered with his sample is extremely remote. I don't blame Braun for using the life preserver that fell so conveniently into his lap. I don't blame the arbitrator for throwing out Braun's suspension, either. But the chance that he's really innocent is a real longshot.
Beyond a real longshot.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:30:53 PM
Also, nowhere does it say he refrigerated the samples. He says it was in his basement office, which he claims is cool enough to store samples. So it was sitting on an office desk...
He kept them at acceptable levels.
Why can't you accept Braun is most likely guilty. Red Sox fans accept Manny was dirty. Cubs fans accept Sosa was dirty. Every team in baseball has dirty players.
Not that it REALLY matters but that game ended at 4:51 pm
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 02:36:58 PM
He kept them at acceptable levels.
Why can't you accept Braun is most likely guilty. Red Sox fans accept Manny was dirty. Cubs fans accept Sosa was dirty. Every team in baseball has dirty players.
Why is he most likely guilty? None of us have any information needed to make that claim. He'd have to be pretty dumb to juice right before the Playoffs began, especially to the point that he had 3x the testosterone level that was ever recorded in baseball's drug testing. Again, there is a reason that this is the first appeal ever to be overturned in baseball's drug testing. If somebody is guilty, they are guilty and serve their penalty.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:41:33 PM
Why is he most likely guilty? None of us have any information needed to make that claim. He'd have to be pretty dumb to juice right before the Playoffs began, especially to the point that he had 3x the testosterone level that was ever recorded in baseball's drug testing. Again, there is a reason that this is the first appeal ever to be overturned in baseball's drug testing. If somebody is guilty, they are guilty and serve their penalty.
(http://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/pi/mp/7252/5681642903p?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsfanshop.com%2Fimages%2Fitems%2F5460303036.jpg&d=35a2aceb1a428bfed8b949f4d7c3019b562b6191)
Take them off wadesworld. I know you love him, but quit running from it. He can still hit the crap out of the ball and is still a great baseball player. It's okay to admit he may have cheated.
Everyone has to remember that the arbitrator decided in favor of Braun. I think there is more to it than just this 44 hours. It's not like the arbitrator is some average guy off the street, he's got some serious credentials. It is really tough to overturn these cases, and the collector testified. According to Dan Patrick's source, he took 37 seconds to say his name and couldn't even look at Braun.
Granted it is tough for non-Brewer fans to see why he is innocent, and vice versa, but let's not act like all the facts are out there right now. I think this still has a decent way to go before it is resolved in the public's eye.
Will Carroll said that he has sources saying Braun's defense team was able to recreate the positive test.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:41:33 PM
If somebody is guilty, they are guilty and serve their penalty.
What world do you live in? Just as there are many truly innocent people incarcerated today, there are many guilty people free on technicalities. If a cop fails to Mirandize a cold blooded killer the perp walks - technically not guilty but anything but innocent.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
(http://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/pi/mp/7252/5681642903p?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsfanshop.com%2Fimages%2Fitems%2F5460303036.jpg&d=35a2aceb1a428bfed8b949f4d7c3019b562b6191)
Take them off wadesworld. I know you love him, but quit running from it. He can still hit the crap out of the ball and is still a great baseball player. It's okay to admit he may have cheated.
I don't think he is running from anything. If you look critically at the evidence not as a baseball fan, there is enough to cast a lot of doubt as to whether the results are valid because the procedures in place were not followed. I hope they test Braun multiple times a year because i love him and I would definitely be disappointed if he was doping. There isn't much Braun can do besides continue to test negative to prove that he doesn't do it. If he truly didn't do it, that's probably the biggest shame in all of this.
Quote from: cheebs09 on February 28, 2012, 02:50:50 PM
Will Carroll said that he has sources saying Braun's defense team was able to recreate the positive test.
Was he able to do this without opening three seals? Was he able to do this without altering the other samples in the box as well?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 28, 2012, 02:52:45 PM
What world do you live in? Just as there are many truly innocent people incarcerated today, there are many guilty people free on technicalities. If a cop fails to Mirandize a cold blooded killer the perp walks - technically not guilty but anything but innocent.
I said nothing about society. Is there any other time that a test result was overturned in baseball's drug testing? If there was, then maybe you have a point. But this is the first time it has ever happened. It goes well beyond what has been made public.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
(http://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/pi/mp/7252/5681642903p?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsfanshop.com%2Fimages%2Fitems%2F5460303036.jpg&d=35a2aceb1a428bfed8b949f4d7c3019b562b6191)
Take them off wadesworld. I know you love him, but quit running from it. He can still hit the crap out of the ball and is still a great baseball player. It's okay to admit he may have cheated.
I love Braun because he is a great baseball player on the Brewers, but he is far from my favorite player and I do not love the guy's personality. In fact, I had said (and stated as such on MUScoop after the leak was reported...and to friends years before any of this happened) that I thought Braun HAD juiced...back when he was at the University of Miami and A Rod was there juicing. But based on everything that has come out, and the fact that we know very little, and the fact that this is the first and only time a ruling has ever been overturned, I don't think Braun had anything in his system.
Again, he would have to be an extremely unintelligent and careless person to put whatever it took to get 3x as much testosterone in his body than any other baseball player has been found to have right before the beginning of the Playoffs.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 02:57:28 PM
Was he able to do this without opening three seals? Was he able to do this without altering the other samples in the box as well?
Biochemicists testified that if the individual(s) was(/were) motivated, they could "easily" tamper with the specimen in a 44 hour timeframe.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:00:45 PM
Biochemicists testified that if the individual(s) was(/were) motivated, they could "easily" tamper with the specimen in a 44 hour timeframe.
Again, could they do this without opening three seals? Could they do this without altering the other samples in the box as well?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 02:36:58 PM
He kept them at acceptable levels.
Why can't you accept Braun is most likely guilty. Red Sox fans accept Manny was dirty. Cubs fans accept Sosa was dirty. Every team in baseball has dirty players.
Cubs fans accept Sosa was dirty because his corked bat exploded all over Wrigley field.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 02:58:23 PM
Again, he would have to be an extremely unintelligent and careless person to put whatever it took to get 3x as much testosterone in his body than any other baseball player has been found to have right before the beginning of the Playoffs.
This is another fact Ryan Braun is wrong about. Players have tested higher.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 03:01:29 PM
Again, could they do this without opening three seals? Could they do this without altering the other samples in the box as well?
Yes, they could open 3 seals and reseal them. And without altering the other samples? Umm, yes. Take the 2 samples you want to alter and alter them. Leave the other 2 alone.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 03:03:58 PM
This is another fact Ryan Braun is wrong about. Players have tested higher.
Says who? Human beings have, but not baseball players.
Also, Dan Patrick said two other Brewers had spiked tests and they were presumably thrown out. Maybe all 3 were screwy, but Braun's was lower or something. Like I said earlier, there is still a lot that we don't know.
Also, yes Patrick's sources and Carroll's may also be wrong, but just because they are saying facts that may be pro-Braun, doesn't mean they are wrong.
when this story first leaked I seem to recall there were 2 other players with just as high of results
we haven't heard anymore about that but maybe their appeals are still confidential like Braun's should have been
all this mention about no other player ever won an appeal doesn't impress me much because it's NOT like 200 players lost their appeals, the number is still relatively small and perhaps they actually were dirty (I'm not saying Braun wsn't but I still am giving him the benefit of my doubt)
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
Says who? Human beings have, but not baseball players.
The Score has been reporting it for awhile. I'll see if I can find it.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_testosterone_022712 (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_testosterone_022712)
Some of Braun's other arguments reeked of desperation. He talked about how his T:E ratio of more than 20:1 was three times higher than any previous in baseball. He didn't talk about how other athletes' ratios have tested as high as 70:1.
I love the dodge about no FedEx shipping within 50 miles, when this clown knows that the problem is that he was originally claiming that there were no FedExs OPEN after he got finished at Miller Park. That alone suggests to me that this guy is full of it. He wants to get around the fact that there are 5 FedExs within 5 miles of the park and a couple dozen more on his way home to Kenosha, and that almost all of them were open until 9pm that night, many auxillary facilities were open on Sunday, and this guy didn't even drop off the collection until the AFTERNOON of Monday!
Quote from: warrior07 on February 28, 2012, 03:16:16 PM
I love the dodge about no FedEx shipping within 50 miles, when this clown knows that the problem is that he was originally claiming that there were no FedExs OPEN after he got finished at Miller Park. That alone suggests to me that this guy is full of it. He wants to get around the fact that there are 5 FedExs within 5 miles of the park and a couple dozen more on his way home to Kenosha, and that almost all of them were open until 9pm that night, many auxillary facilities were open on Sunday, and this guy didn't even drop off the collection until the AFTERNOON of Monday!
Is this a real post?
If you read the collectors statement, FedEx stops shipping after 5 P.M. on Saturday which has been confirmed. The collectors agency's protocol is to have the collector take the sample home and keep it until it can be delievered (Monday).
If the collector had dropped the sample off, Braun could have argued that the sample was out of the collectors custody.
BREWERS FANS, JUST ADMIT IT ALREADY!
No he couldn't have because that's part of the agreed upon procedures between MLB and the Player's Association that they use Fedex, who has procedures in place to ensure the sample is safe.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 03:15:08 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_testosterone_022712 (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_testosterone_022712)
Some of Braun's other arguments reeked of desperation. He talked about how his T:E ratio of more than 20:1 was three times higher than any previous in baseball. He didn't talk about how other athletes' ratios have tested as high as 70:1.
Athletes. Not baseball players. His was 3x higher than any other baseball player that has been tested.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 03:25:01 PM
If the collector had dropped the sample off, Braun could have argued that the sample was out of the collectors custody.
BREWERS FANS, JUST ADMIT IT ALREADY!
Admit what? There are probably less than 5% of relevant details that have been released to the public at this point. Again, for him to juice within days of the playoffs beginning would have been incredibly dumb on his part. Maybe if it were in the middle of the season it would have been a little bit more realistic, but you don't think players going into the playoffs would know to get whatever it is they may have in their systems out of there before then? That would be pretty naive to think otherwise.
CUBS FANS, STOP PRETENDING YOU KNOW ALL OF THE DETAILS!
Quote from: Abode4life on February 28, 2012, 03:31:01 PM
No he couldn't have because that's part of the agreed upon procedures between MLB and the Player's Association that they use Fedex, who has procedures in place to ensure the sample is safe.
Exactly. And then once the specimen had been dropped off at FedEx, nobody knows whose sample it is. The confidentiality was broken by keeping it on his desk in his basement for 44 extra hours. There was no reason to do that, and it was against the drug testing rules.
You seriously believe he is clean?
That is insane.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 03:40:53 PM
You seriously believe he is clean?
That is insane.
I absolutely do. Apparently the arbitrator did too. An independent arbitrator. That both the MLB and MLBPA agreed upon. Somebody who surely has more expertise in this than any of us do.
Wow.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:33:48 PM
CUBS FANS, STOP PRETENDING YOU KNOW ALL OF THE DETAILS!
It's not Cubs fans, it's everyone. Look at the national media. Look at the MLB, they are considering appealing to the Supreme Court.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
I absolutely do. Apparently the arbitrator did too. An independent arbitrator. That both the MLB and MLBPA agreed upon. Somebody who surely has more expertise in this than any of us do.
The arbitrator did not determine Ryan Braun was clean, it was determined that the testing procedure was flawed.
If you blow a .10 BAC, get charged with a DUI but get off because of a procedure error you still were driving over the legal limit.
It's interesting how the protocol keeps switching. Originally we were told that samples must be brought to FedEx the same day. Now we're told by MLB and this guy's lawyer that that doesn't really matter and you or your kid can bring it home if you want.
TITAN: JUST ADMIT IT. YOU'RE A BIASED CUBS FAN WHO IS OBSESSED ABOUT THIS TO THE POINT OF TYPING IN ALL CAPS.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:33:48 PM
Again, for him to juice within days of the playoffs beginning would have been incredibly dumb on his part. Maybe if it were in the middle of the season it would have been a little bit more realistic, but you don't think players going into the playoffs would know to get whatever it is they may have in their systems out of there before then? That would be pretty naive to think otherwise.
That's what masking agents are for. Juicers don't stop juicing just because it's the playoffs.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
I absolutely do. Apparently the arbitrator did too. An independent arbitrator. That both the MLB and MLBPA agreed upon. Somebody who surely has more expertise in this than any of us do.
The arbitrator didn't rule that he was clean. He ruled that the proper protocol hadn't been followed.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
I absolutely do. Apparently the arbitrator did too. An independent arbitrator. That both the MLB and MLBPA agreed upon. Somebody who surely has more expertise in this than any of us do.
Hold on. There is a difference between "believing he is clean," and "believing he might not be dirty."
The evidence you bring forward suggests that you believe he might not dirty....but how could you possibly believe he is clean? He failed a drug test...there was no evidence of tampering or personal animosity... All the defense comes down to a procedural error.
I should point out that I'm really indifferent as to whether he did it. I can't really tell. But the heavy panting from MLB and angry Cubs fans makes me lean towards Braun being clean.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
I absolutely do. Apparently the arbitrator did too. An independent arbitrator. That both the MLB and MLBPA agreed upon. Somebody who surely has more expertise in this than any of us do.
I'm not a Cubs fan and have absolutely no dog in this fight, but unless I've missed something, the arbitrator absolutely did not state that he thinks that Braun is clean. Braun won this on a technicality. And as someone who has handled many labor arbitrations in my career, I honestly don't have a problem with the decision (assuming that the procedures agreed to in the CBA weren't followed -- I haven't read it). But let's not pretend that the arbitrator even touched upon the issue of whether Braun was clean.
Quote from: warrior07 on February 28, 2012, 03:47:17 PM
TITAN: JUST ADMIT IT. YOU'RE A BIASED CUBS FAN WHO IS OBSESSED ABOUT THIS TO THE POINT OF TYPING IN ALL CAPS.
I can also admit when my guys screw up.
Sammy Sosa = Juicer (despite never failing a test)
Michael Jordan = A$$hole
Walter Payton = Adulterer
Bobby Hull = Wife beater
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 28, 2012, 03:48:41 PM
All the defense comes down to a procedural error.
I'm not sure it's just a procedural error. The story from this guy and MLB keeps changing: that's the problem. First we were told by this guy that he didn't think that any FedExs were open after he left MP. Now we're told that he himself was told to keep it in his possession until the next business day. This is also the first day since the story broke on Thursday that MLB has had
any kind of justification for where the sample was for 44 hours.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 03:52:19 PM
I can also admit when my guys screw up.
Sammy Sosa = Juicer (despite never failing a test)
Michael Jordan = A$$hole
Walter Payton = Adulterer
Bobby Hull = Wife beater
I was mostly trying to rib you. 8-) I'm glad you are acknowledging that Chicago has had some bad guys. If Braun really did it, I hope eventually the truth gets out.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 03:44:39 PM
Wow.
Yeah, I can't believe how much time you've wasted in this argument about a player on another team which you supposedly don't care at all about since they aren't a rival and nobody in Chicago ever thinks about.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 28, 2012, 03:48:41 PM
Hold on. There is a difference between "believing he is clean," and "believing he might not be dirty."
The evidence you bring forward suggests that you believe he might not dirty....but how could you possibly believe he is clean? He failed a drug test...there was no evidence of tampering or personal animosity... All the defense comes down to a procedural error.
The problem is you don't know that. Nobody does. Again, I would bet that
less than 5% or relevant evidence has been released to the public in this case. How do we know Braun failed his drug test without any tampering? If people on this board were sitting in on the hearings, then I apologize and am wrong. But if not, nobody knows anything. I wasn't sitting in on the hearings either, but I think it is fair to assume that Braun's camp didn't walk in and say, "The proper procedures weren't followed with this specimen so he should be considered innocent" and the the independent arbitrator said, "You know what, you're right, we're reversing the 50 game ban." (Not to mention, MLB and fans on this board are arguing that the procedures were correctly followed, so there must be more to it than just a 44 hour period in which the specimen was undocumented, and in that 44 hours in which it was undocumented, how can we know what was done to it?)
There is way more to this story than anybody here knows. It was not just "He didn't drop it off at FedEx right away. Overruled."
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 28, 2012, 03:48:22 PM
That's what masking agents are for. Juicers don't stop juicing just because it's the playoffs.
The arbitrator didn't rule that he was clean. He ruled that the proper protocol hadn't been followed.
OK, my fault, I will rephrase my question. You don't think Braun would have been careful enough to use a masking agent going into the Playoffs (even easier than laying of the juice for a while)? Again, I find that hard to believe.
Quote from: warrior07 on February 28, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
I'm not sure it's just a procedural error. The story from this guy and MLB keeps changing: that's the problem. First we were told by this guy that he didn't think that any FedExs were open after he left MP. Now we're told that he himself was told to keep it in his possession until the next business day. This is also the first day since the story broke on Thursday that MLB has had any kind of justification for where the sample was for 44 hours.
There's nothing for you to be 'not sure' about.
Braun's legal team argued that the chain of custody was not proper procedure. That was their argument. That is that was voted upon. That's what the arbitrator agreed with.
Quote from: warrior07 on February 28, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
I'm not sure it's just a procedural error. The story from this guy and MLB keeps changing: that's the problem. First we were told by this guy that he didn't think that any FedExs were open after he left MP. Now we're told that he himself was told to keep it in his possession until the next business day. This is also the first day since the story broke on Thursday that MLB has had any kind of justification for where the sample was for 44 hours.
MLB's biggest problem is that the big wigs at MLB are, for the most part, bumbling idiots.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 28, 2012, 03:48:41 PM
All the defense comes down to a procedural error.
That we know about. Will Carroll is saying that the procedural error is the beginning of his defense, not his whole defense. He may be wrong, but so may others.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:56:38 PM
OK, my fault, I will rephrase my question. You don't think Braun would have been careful enough to use a masking agent going into the Playoffs (even easier than laying of the juice for a while)? Again, I find that hard to believe.
No, I don't.
How does ANY player fail a drug test? He wasn't being careful enough.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:56:38 PM
The problem is you don't know that. Nobody does. Again, I would bet that less than 5% or relevant evidence has been released to the public in this case. How do we know Braun failed his drug test without any tampering? If people on this board were sitting in on the hearings, then I apologize and am wrong. But if not, nobody knows anything. I wasn't sitting in on the hearings either, but I think it is fair to assume that Braun's camp didn't walk in and say, "The proper procedures weren't followed with this specimen so he should be considered innocent" and the the independent arbitrator said, "You know what, you're right, we're reversing the 50 game ban." (Not to mention, MLB and fans on this board are arguing that the procedures were correctly followed, so there must be more to it than just a 44 hour period in which the specimen was undocumented, and in that 44 hours in which it was undocumented, how can we know what was done to it?)
There is way more to this story than anybody here knows. It was not just "He didn't drop it off at FedEx right away. Overruled."
Obviously, I wasn't in the hearings either, and can't say for certain that this is what happened. But having been involved in many labor arbitrations over the years, I wouldn't make that assumption. In fact, I strongly suspect (but admittedly do not know) that this is pretty much exactly how the hearing went -- although they probably didn't say he was innocent. Rather, they would say that the suspension should be overturned because of MLB's failure to follow the collectively bargained procedure. And when you're dealing with a collective bargaining agreement, that probably would be enough to get the discipline overturned. I suspect they also put on some evidence about the possibility of tampering (and not actual tampering) and such in order to explain to the arbitrator why the procedure is important and should be enforced, but at the end of the day, the failure to follow the procedure was the basis for overturning the decision.
Quote from: jmayer1 on February 28, 2012, 03:55:43 PM
Yeah, I can't believe how much time you've wasted in this argument about a player on another team which you supposedly don't care at all about since they aren't a rival and nobody in Chicago ever thinks about.
For me the Brewers are a rivial since I lived in Milwaukee while at Marquette.
No one else here cares.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2012, 03:56:42 PM
There's nothing for you to be 'not sure' about.
Braun's legal team argued that the chain of custody was not proper procedure. That was their argument. That is that was voted upon. That's what the arbitrator agreed with.
They also argued about his past history of never failing a test and providing documentation that his physical stats have not changed like other juicers. Without having talked to the arbitrator or reading his rationale, I assume this added to creating enough doubt that the procedural error could have caused the result to be wrong.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 28, 2012, 03:56:38 PM
The problem is you don't know that. Nobody does. Again, I would bet that less than 5% or relevant evidence has been released to the public in this case. How do we know Braun failed his drug test without any tampering? If people on this board were sitting in on the hearings, then I apologize and am wrong. But if not, nobody knows anything. I wasn't sitting in on the hearings either, but I think it is fair to assume that Braun's camp didn't walk in and say, "The proper procedures weren't followed with this specimen so he should be considered innocent" and the the independent arbitrator said, "You know what, you're right, we're reversing the 50 game ban." (Not to mention, MLB and fans on this board are arguing that the procedures were correctly followed, so there must be more to it than just a 44 hour period in which the specimen was undocumented, and in that 44 hours in which it was undocumented, how can we know what was done to it?)
There is way more to this story than anybody here knows. It was not just "He didn't drop it off at FedEx right away. Overruled."
OK, my fault, I will rephrase my question. You don't think Braun would have been careful enough to use a masking agent going into the Playoffs (even easier than laying of the juice for a while)? Again, I find that hard to believe.
Under this logic, every Olympian whose ever tested positive was probably clean. After all, who would train for four years and then juice before the Olympics when you know you're going to be tested. Same with every cyclist in the Tour de France. The "he can't possibly be that stupid, can he?" defense isn't terribly persuasive to me in light of the fact that history shows us that many athletes are, in fact, that stupid.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 28, 2012, 04:05:03 PM
For me the Brewers are a rivial since I lived in Milwaukee while at Marquette.
No one else here cares.
Don't 75% of cubs "fans" not even care about the cubs? I feel its just a cool thing to do for a much larger percentage of the "fans" that I know than other sports teams.
And yes i came up with 75% via statistical analysis.
Quote from: Abode4life on February 28, 2012, 04:06:09 PM
They also argued about his past history of never failing a test and providing documentation that his physical stats have not changed like other juicers. Without having talked to the arbitrator or reading his rationale, I assume this added to creating enough doubt that the procedural error could have caused the result to be wrong.
This isn't a criminal case -- whether or not there was doubt about the results is not relevant. The arbitrator did not need to even address the question of whether or not the result might have been wrong. MLB and the players union agreed upon a procedure. It appears that MLB (through its agent) did not follow the agreed-upon procedure. That is enough for the arbitrator to overturn the suspension. The arbitrator might very well be completely convinced that Braun was dirty -- with no doubt in his mind whatsoever -- but still overturn the suspension.
Edited to add: it is my understanding based upon media reports that the arbitration did not address the question of whether the results were wrong, so an unbiased arbitrator hopefully would not have an opinion one way or the other on whether Braun was clean or dirty...I was just trying to make a point.
Quote from: Abode4life on February 28, 2012, 04:06:09 PM
They also argued about his past history of never failing a test and providing documentation that his physical stats have not changed like other juicers. Without having talked to the arbitrator or reading his rationale, I assume this added to creating enough doubt that the procedural error could have caused the result to be wrong.
The problem with that is in MLB, as I uderstand it, is that it's not innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty until proven innocent. While there certainly COULD have been circumstances leading to the sample being tainted or tampered, the things I've seen and read don't seem to suggest that is what actually happened. And I still don't know what procedures weren't followed by the collector. I'm bowing out of the discussion because there is nothing that is gonna change my mind, and I'm clearly not going to change the mind of the Braun apologists.
Quote from: Abode4life on February 28, 2012, 04:10:06 PM
Don't 75% of cubs "fans" not even care about the cubs? I feel its just a cool thing to do for a much larger percentage of the "fans" that I know than other sports teams.
And yes i came up with 75% via statistical analysis.
Are the Cubs still in the National League?
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on February 28, 2012, 04:16:03 PM
The problem with that is in MLB, as I uderstand it, is that it's not innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty until proven innocent. While there certainly COULD have been circumstances leading to the sample being tainted or tampered, the things I've seen and read don't seem to suggest that is what actually happened. And I still don't know what procedures weren't followed by the collector. I'm bowing out of the discussion because there is nothing that is gonna change my mind, and I'm clearly not going to change the mind of the Braun apologists.
Based upon what I've seen/heard it's a little confusing because it seems like there might be different sets of "procedures" being discussed. First, there are the collectively bargained procedures between MLB and the player's union. It is my understanding that these procedures required the sample to be dropped at FedEx right away (don't know the specific language used). It was the violation of this procedure that caused the arbitrator to overturn the suspension. But today, the collector issued a statement that talked about procedures that he's used as a collector for the testing lab. He claims that under this procedure he's supposed to keep the sample rather than drop it at a FedEx location if FedEx won't be shipping right away. This would be between him and his employer (the testing lab). It's not entirely clear to me, and I'll admit I'm speculating, but it is quite possible that a testing lab's procedure (collector keeps keeps sample rather than dropping it at a FedEx location for later shipping) could be inconsistent with the collectively bargained procedure (collector leaves sample at FedEx for later shipping). Both
could be effective chain of custody from a legal sense, and both
could ensure accurate results. But since MLB didn't do what it agreed to do in the collective bargaining agreement (even if the collector acted completely appropriately -- and I honestly don't know whether he did or not), the suspension gets overturned.
Quote from: Abode4life on February 28, 2012, 04:06:09 PM
They also argued about his past history of never failing a test and providing documentation that his physical stats have not changed like other juicers. Without having talked to the arbitrator or reading his rationale, I assume this added to creating enough doubt that the procedural error could have caused the result to be wrong.
Marion Jones never failed a test either, over 20 of them, until she failed one.
If I drive on the freeway for 30 years without an accident but then cause one later today, am I less responsible for causing the accident because of the previous 30 years of driving activity?
Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 28, 2012, 05:01:43 PM
If I drive on the freeway for 30 years without an accident but then cause one later today, am I less responsible for causing the accident because of the previous 30 years of driving activity?
No, but you should get a lighter punishment than someone who has a history of driving negligently.
Braun didn't focus on positive/negative because it isn't relevant to his case. This is lawyering 101. You find the weakest point (not points) of an argument and you attack that. And that was the procedure.
Personally, I have been drug tested for work and the 'tape' that they use is not like the old school tape that you find that void's warranties. Also, the same can be said for the thousands of samples that I tested when I worked in the pharma industry. So many of those labels are half assed when they are put on I could easily remove them without making it look like it was tampered with. I mean, its a sticker. It isn't fool proof.
He is playing baseball because the MLB screwed up the test they designed. They designed it to be bulletproof. What if this was a DNA test for a guy who was on death row. He should smile and be called a murder for life because the chain was broken and he got off on a 'technicality'?
FURTHERMORE, drugs respond differently when they are exposed to different temps and humidity. You'd be surprised at how much. Again, having worked in stability testing in the pharma industry we would NEVER be allowed to even test a sample that had been sitting out two days unless it was explicitly stated in the paperwork. Who is to say that Epitestosterone doesn't degrade faster than testosterone when it sits out for a period of time?
I really can't believe we are still talking about this.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 28, 2012, 05:38:47 PM
Braun didn't focus on positive/negative because it isn't relevant to his case. This is lawyering 101. You find the weakest point (not points) of an argument and you attack that. And that was the procedure.
Personally, I have been drug tested for work and the 'tape' that they use is not like the old school tape that you find that void's warranties. Also, the same can be said for the thousands of samples that I tested when I worked in the pharma industry. So many of those labels are half assed when they are put on I could easily remove them without making it look like it was tampered with. I mean, its a sticker. It isn't fool proof.
He is playing baseball because the MLB screwed up the test they designed. They designed it to be bulletproof. What if this was a DNA test for a guy who was on death row. He should smile and be called a murder for life because the chain was broken and he got off on a 'technicality'?
FURTHERMORE, drugs respond differently when they are exposed to different temps and humidity. You'd be surprised at how much. Again, having worked in stability testing in the pharma industry we would NEVER be allowed to even test a sample that had been sitting out two days unless it was explicitly stated in the paperwork. Who is to say that Epitestosterone doesn't degrade faster than testosterone when it sits out for a period of time?
I really can't believe we are still talking about this.
Good post. Thanks for the insight. You clearly have more expertise on this than I do and what I would assume most posters here do. Same goes for StillAWarrior in terms of the legal part of the equation. So I will take your word on those issues.
Since you did bring up DNA, Braun claims (again, I have no knowledge as to whether he is telling the truth on this or not, but considering MLB could very easily have come out and said "No he didn't" but didn't do that, I believe he did) that he offered to have a DNA test done to, I believe I remember him saying, prove that the sample was not his sample. If this is the case, Braun's camp must have found some evidence to suggest that the sample didn't even come from Braun's body. Again, I am no expert on any of this, but you would think Braun's camp had some knowledge on this or MLB would have come out and claimed that he did not make this offer. Why would MLB have rejected this offer? Would they really destroy a sample that is under appeal?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 28, 2012, 05:38:47 PM
I really can't believe we are still talking about this.
Exactly....he tested positive and got off on a technicality.....he is going to play next year.....he obviously took PED's.....let's move on. I am pretty sure MLB does not use "half assed" labels, just sayin'.....He tested positive and that is all anyone will remember except for the few in this country that will defend the guy till the end....p.s. not a cubs fan here.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on February 28, 2012, 03:01:38 PM
Cubs fans accept Sosa was dirty because his corked bat exploded all over Wrigley field.
Sosa, very clearly, was not dirty. Prior to that bat breaking, Sosa's bats had been tested (by breaking) at least 25 times over the course of his career, and at least three times in 2003 prior to that bat breaking. He never had any cork issues. Furthermore, if you look at his stats from around the time of the corked bat incident, you will see that he didn't get one percent stronger, and he didn't have any additional power or any additional arm strength. He was 2-15 in the three games prior to the incident, including one five-strikeout game. All of those things are documented contemporaneously. It is possible that just before Sosa was on deck, someone planted the corked bat where Sosa usually keeps his uncorked bats (probably someone who was paid a large sum of money by ESPN), and Sosa unwittingly grabbed the tainted bat. Finally, it should also be noted that Sammy Sosa only admitted to having taken Flintstone's vitamins, something that is not on MLB's banned substance list. He was so sincere when he said it, too. I have seen many press conferences in my day, and believe me, he
said it
himself, and you could just tell he was speaking the truth.
There. It might sound ridiculous, but I have successfully proven that just like Ryan Braun, Sammy Sosa is innocent of any wrongdoing.
...or maybe they both actually cheated?
Quote from: timinatorx3 on February 28, 2012, 09:37:59 PM
Sosa, very clearly, was not dirty. Prior to that bat breaking, Sosa's bats had been tested (by breaking) at least 25 times over the course of his career, and at least three times in 2003 prior to that bat breaking. He never had any cork issues. Furthermore, if you look at his stats from around the time of the corked bat incident, you will see that he didn't get one percent stronger, and he didn't have any additional power or any additional arm strength. He was 2-15 in the three games prior to the incident, including one five-strikeout game. All of those things are documented contemporaneously. It is possible that just before Sosa was on deck, someone planted the corked bat where Sosa usually keeps his uncorked bats (probably someone who was paid a large sum of money by ESPN), and Sosa unwittingly grabbed the the tainted bat. Finally, it should also be noted that Sammy Sosa only admitted to having taken Flintstone's vitamins, something that is not on MLB's banned substance list. He was so sincere when he said it, too. I have seen many press conferences in my day, and believe me, he said it himself, and you could just tell he was speaking the truth.
There. It might sound ridiculous, but I have successfully proven that just like Ryan Braun, Sammy Sosa is innocent of any wrongdoing.
...or maybe they both actually cheated?
I think Sammy Strikeout's bats were delivered via FedEx and during that plane/truck trip someone drilled the bats and corked them in their basement.
Braun tested positive = Dirty player...no questions asked.
(http://www.halloffamememorabilia.com/images/products/p-501133-sammy-sosa-baseball-card-1990-bowman-topps-312-chicago-white-sox-aw-40189.jpg)
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on February 28, 2012, 05:11:47 PM
No, but you should get a lighter punishment than someone who has a history of driving negligently.
Not when there is a zero tolerance policy that everyone in the league knows about.
If you actually think him getting out of this actually means he's innocent then I'll assume you also think OJ didn't do it.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7625905/milwaukee-brewers-ryan-braun-case-sample-collector-says-followed-protocols
Another rich guy finds a technicality. Have fun pretending like he's not a cheater milwaukee.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 28, 2012, 05:38:47 PM
So many of those labels are half assed when they are put on I could easily remove them without making it look like it was tampered with. I mean, its a sticker. It isn't fool proof.
the collector DID refer to the labels as tamper
resistant not tamper
proof
Problem?
(http://www.millerparkdrunk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/braun.jpg)
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on February 28, 2012, 06:32:27 PM
Exactly....he tested positive and got off on a technicality.....he is going to play next year.....he obviously took PED's.....let's move on. I am pretty sure MLB does not use "half assed" labels, just sayin'.....He tested positive and that is all anyone will remember except for the few in this country that will defend the guy till the end....p.s. not a cubs fan here.
And you think a multi-billion dollar pharma company would use half assed labels when they are worried about their samples getting FDA approval? People make mistakes, samples get confused, samples get contaminated, samples are improperly stored... and like I said, stickers are EASILY defeatable. You've seen those "warranty void if removed" stickers they place on almost every PC? I have never had a problem removing them by hand. Beyond that, who is to say that the collector didn't make some of 'his own' samples, or someone else's samples... he clearly has access to all of the supplies needed to fake something like this.
Look I'm not saying the collector did fake it or anything like that. What I am saying is that the rules are far too sketchy and the MLB needs to be more clear with the language they created in a legal document. With 100% of the burden of proof on the players, the MLB better have airtight language and procedures.
You guys can believe what you want about Ryan's presumed guilt or lack of guilt, but the only thing that matters is that the MLB screwed this up, and it should have been a non-story from the get go. Whoever leaked the story should be prosecuted, and should serve some time.
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 29, 2012, 08:00:42 AM
the collector DID refer to the labels as tamper resistant not tamper proof
I was really on the fence about the whole thing, but this settles it for me.
"Resistant" is the smoking gun that proves this guy screwed Braun.
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 29, 2012, 08:00:42 AM
the collector DID refer to the labels as tamper resistant not tamper proof
What would possibly be the courier's motivation to tamper with the sample? He wanted the best player on his favorite team to sit for 50 games?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 29, 2012, 11:30:54 AM
What would possibly be the courier's motivation to tamper with the sample? He wanted the best player on his favorite team to sit for 50 games?
It was not the courier, it was the collector.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 29, 2012, 11:30:54 AM
What would possibly be the courier's motivation to tamper with the sample? He wanted the best player on his favorite team to sit for 50 games?
It was pointed out in the JS online comments (I know, I know) that this guy had the Cubs listed as one of his favorite teams on facebook, before removing it when his name was leaked. He's from Kenosha -- not exactly a hotbed of Brewers fandom.
You guys think the US Goverment was behind the 9/11 attacks too?
Quote from: warrior07 on February 29, 2012, 11:47:25 AM
It was pointed out in the JS online comments (I know, I know) that this guy had the Cubs listed as one of his favorite teams on facebook, before removing it when his name was leaked. He's from Kenosha -- not exactly a hotbed of Brewers fandom.
Well, he's not a Cubs fan so there goes that theory.
Quote from: MUMac on February 29, 2012, 11:33:35 AM
It was not the courier, it was the collector.
OK. Then what was the collector's motivation?
I bet there are thousands of broads in the 6 county area that would be happy to collect brauny's sample...
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 29, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
Well, he's not a Cubs fan so there goes that theory.
OK. Then what was the collector's motivation?
Quote ... ?
That's what I thought, thanks. Hope those Cubbie colored glasses treat you well this season.
Quote from: Z F-B on February 29, 2012, 02:44:49 PM
I bet there are thousands of broads in the 6 county area that would be happy to collect brauny's sample...
Do they have a proper receptacle, though?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 29, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
Well, he's not a Cubs fan so there goes that theory.
OK. Then what was the collector's motivation?
http://brewcrewcentral.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/if-you-said-dino-laurenzi-was-a-cubs-fan/
Not saying it's relevant... just saying he
is a Cubs fan.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 29, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
OK. Then what was the collector's motivation?
I was only correcting a common error that I continually see.
Does this look like someone that should be trusted to keep something safe?
(http://www.tvacres.com/images/dino.jpg)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 29, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
OK. Then what was the collector's motivation?
Dino Laurenzi's statement was quite clear... he did not tamper with the sample. I believe him. However, I do raise a small yellow flag in the fact that he omitted an exculpatory detail.... what he should have said is "I did not tamper with the sample and there's no way anyone else could have tampered with the sample while it was in my custody." Instead, all he said was that
he did tamper, period.
Meethinks everyone is too focused on the collector. It would seem to me that if my son was the only other person in the world who knew that Braun's sample was in my basement, not only would I issue a statement insisting upon my innocence, I would also include a statement insisting upon my son's innocence as well (instinctively, as a parent, I would want to protect my child) -- unless I had doubts about whether my son was innocent... then I would say exactly what Dino said.
Quote from: Benny B on March 01, 2012, 01:46:11 PM
http://brewcrewcentral.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/if-you-said-dino-laurenzi-was-a-cubs-fan/
Not saying it's relevant... just saying he is a Cubs fan.
Not according to someone who knows him. I'll take her word over a wordpress Brewers blog. Who's to say that the FB screenshot wasn't tampered with? ;)
Quote from: Benny B on March 01, 2012, 02:25:26 PM
Dino Laurenzi's statement was quite clear... he did not tamper with the sample. I believe him. However, I do raise a small yellow flag in the fact that he omitted an exculpatory detail.... what he should have said is "I did not tamper with the sample and there's no way anyone else could have tampered with the sample while it was in my custody." Instead, all he said was that he did tamper, period.
Meethinks everyone is too focused on the collector. It would seem to me that if my son was the only other person in the world who knew that Braun's sample was in my basement, not only would I issue a statement insisting upon my innocence, I would also include a statement insisting upon my son's innocence as well (instinctively, as a parent, I would want to protect my child) -- unless I had doubts about whether my son was innocent... then I would say exactly what Dino said.
Similarly, Braun said that he and his people learned a lot of concerning things about the process and the collector. However, he never actually elaborated on what those things were. Why not? What would he have to lose by further making his case of innocence as opposed to just getting off on a technicality? He was getting absolutely CRUSHED for this by B&B on The Score yesterday. It was an interesting point that I haven't really heard much about.
FWIW, MLB players aren't very happy with the ruling...
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=7633132&_slug_=ryan-braun-successful-appeal-highlighted-change-how-players-view-baseball-drug-testing-policies-mlb&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d7633132%26_slug_%3dryan-braun-successful-appeal-highlighted-change-how-players-view-baseball-drug-testing-policies-mlb (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=7633132&_slug_=ryan-braun-successful-appeal-highlighted-change-how-players-view-baseball-drug-testing-policies-mlb&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d7633132%26_slug_%3dryan-braun-successful-appeal-highlighted-change-how-players-view-baseball-drug-testing-policies-mlb)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 01, 2012, 03:14:15 PM
He was getting absolutely CRUSHED for this by B&B on The Score yesterday.
That actually makes me believe Braun is innocent then. Those two are awful.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 01, 2012, 03:06:58 PM
Not according to someone who knows him. I'll take her word over a wordpress Brewers blog. Who's to say that the FB screenshot wasn't tampered with? ;)
Wow, well, I know a nameless woman who states that he is a lifelong season ticket holder to the Cubs.
My anonymous, made up source can beat up your anonymous, made up source.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 29, 2012, 09:56:00 PM
Do they have a proper receptacle, though?
Living Social had a deal for Brazilian waxes in Milwaukee today. $32 for a nice polish.
Quote from: warrior07 on March 01, 2012, 07:28:26 PM
Wow, well, I know a nameless woman who states that he is a lifelong season ticket holder to the Cubs.
My anonymous, made up source can beat up your anonymous, made up source.
You don't have to believe me. I couldn't care less. That doesn't change the fact that the best player on your favorite team is a cheater.
alleged cheater
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 01, 2012, 03:06:58 PM
Not according to someone who knows him. I'll take her word over a wordpress Brewers blog. Who's to say that the FB screenshot wasn't tampered with? ;)
Good point. I saw multiple references to his supposed FB page from different websites, but upon further review, they all point to the same source. It could easily be a hoax. But I don't care if he's a Cubs fan or not; I don't think it makes any difference at all.
If this has already been discussed, I apologize.
Does the collector have supplies of the collection materials? In other words, could the collector, or someone with access to the collectors supplies, break all the seals, and then reseal the sample with what would appear to be original seals? Or is the collector just supplied with what he needs for X number of samples?
I read each player must have 3 choices as to which cup and supplies they use. Since there would be 3 players that were tested, that means he walked in with five sets of supplies so that the last person had a choice of 3. So based on that, I think he would have two extra set of supplies.
I read this on the brewerfan.net board. It was posted by someone who read through the Joint Drug Agreement.
I have a few problems with Braun's press conference which everyone said he won:
1) He said that his testosterone level "was three times higher than any number in the history of drug testing". This is not true. His 20:1 levels were the highest for baseball, but drug tests in other sports such as track and football have been as high as 70:1.
2) When it came to the collect dropping the samples off at FedEx, Braun said, "There were at least five FedEx locations within five miles of the stadium that were open until 9 p.m. and an additional FedEx location that was open for 24 hours. There were upwards of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and his house that he could have dropped the samples off at". He failed to mention in his press conference that all of these locations had stopped delievery at 5:00 when his test was taken.
3) Had the sample been delievered to FedEx, Braun said, "it would have been stored in a temperature-controlled environment". This isn't true. Several FedEx employees have confirmed that they have no temperature controled enviroment. The box gets placed with all of the others.
All Braun quotes are from the transcript below:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/140333483.html (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/140333483.html)
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 02, 2012, 10:57:23 AM
I have a few problems with Braun's press conference which everyone said he won:
2) When it came to the collect dropping the samples off at FedEx, Braun said, "There were at least five FedEx locations within five miles of the stadium that were open until 9 p.m. and an additional FedEx location that was open for 24 hours. There were upwards of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and his house that he could have dropped the samples off at". He failed to mention in his press conference that all of these locations had stopped delievery at 5:00 when his test was taken.
3) Had the sample been delievered to FedEx, Braun said, "it would have been stored in a temperature-controlled environment". This isn't true. Several FedEx employees have confirmed that they have no temperature controled enviroment. The box gets placed with all of the others.
All Braun quotes are from the transcript below:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/140333483.html (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/140333483.html)
You're missing the point about why they need to be taken to FedEx as soon as possible. Even though Braun's name does not appear on the sample, the collector knows whose sample he has. Once the samples are dropped off at FedEx, the samples are only identified by a number or code, so nobody would be tempted to tamper with them (since they don't know whose they are). When they are sitting in the collector's house for 48 hours, the collector and his son, and whoever they choose to share that information with,
could have access to the sample
knowing whose samples they are.
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on March 02, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
You're missing the point about why they need to be taken to FedEx as soon as possible. Even though Braun's name does not appear on the sample, the collector knows whose sample he has. Once the samples are dropped off at FedEx, the samples are only identified by a number or code, so nobody would be tempted to tamper with them (since they don't know whose they are). When they are sitting in the collector's house for 48 hours, the collector and his son, and whoever they choose to share that information with, could have access to the sample knowing whose samples they are.
Incorrect.
As the Joint Drug Agreement states, if FedEx cannot ship the samples that day, the Collector is to retain custody to the next shipping day.
Quote from: PTM on March 02, 2012, 11:20:20 AM
Incorrect.
As the Joint Drug Agreement states, if FedEx cannot ship the samples that day, the Collector is to retain custody to the next shipping day.
Why was the suspension overturned then? Seems like a pretty open and shut case from several pepole's point of view here, but it obviously isn't.
Quote from: jmayer1 on March 02, 2012, 11:32:09 AM
Why was the suspension overturned then? Seems like a pretty open and shut case from several pepole's point of view here, but it obviously isn't.
The arbitration determined a difference in language between the Joint Drug Agreement and the procedures. What it was exactly is unknown unless the aribtrator finally releases a statement. Many speculation it was the lack of documentation.
Either way, MLB will be forcing upon the MLBPA a fast change to close this loophole.
Quote from: PTM on March 02, 2012, 11:20:20 AM
Incorrect.
As the Joint Drug Agreement states, if FedEx cannot ship the samples that day, the Collector is to retain custody to the next shipping day.
Quote from: jmayer1 on March 02, 2012, 11:32:09 AM
Why was the suspension overturned then? Seems like a pretty open and shut case from several pepole's point of view here, but it obviously isn't.
No kidding. The independent arbitrator didn't decide to overturn Braun's suspension because everything was done
correctly. We can sit here and argue whether Braun juiced or whether the sample was tampered, whether the sample was his, or whether Braun simply got off on a technicality, but you're grasping at air if you say the collector followed the correct protocol. He didn't. That is the
only fact that we have about this case. The chain of custody was broken by the collector and that is why Braun's 50 game suspension was overturned. That is the only fact that is out there for the public. If it wasn't, there would be absolutely no possible way to have overturned the suspension. Unless you think the science is messed up and everyone who has spoken is just lying and saying it was chain of custody when it was the science, which Cubs fans here have made fairly clear they don't think the science was messed up.
By saying the proper protocol was followed, you are admitting there is
way more to the story than the 44 hour period the sample was undocumented. Otherwise why will Ryan Braun be playing on Opening Day?
Quote from: wadesworld on March 02, 2012, 11:52:01 AM
No kidding. The independent arbitrator didn't decide to overturn Braun's suspension because everything was done correctly. We can sit here and argue whether Braun juiced or whether the sample was tampered, whether the sample was his, or whether Braun simply got off on a technicality, but you're grasping at air if you say the collector followed the correct protocol. He didn't. That is the only fact that we have about this case. The chain of custody was broken by the collector and that is why Braun's 50 game suspension was overturned. That is the only fact that is out there for the public. If it wasn't, there would be absolutely no possible way to have overturned the suspension. Unless you think the science is messed up and everyone who has spoken is just lying and saying it was chain of custody when it was the science, which Cubs fans here have made fairly clear they don't think the science was messed up.
By saying the proper protocol was followed, you are admitting there is way more to the story than the 44 hour period the sample was undocumented. Otherwise why will Ryan Braun be playing on Opening Day?
We also have the fact that Ryan Braun tested positive for a banned substance.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 02, 2012, 11:52:01 AM
No kidding. The independent arbitrator didn't decide to overturn Braun's suspension because everything was done correctly. We can sit here and argue whether Braun juiced or whether the sample was tampered, whether the sample was his, or whether Braun simply got off on a technicality, but you're grasping at air if you say the collector followed the correct protocol. He didn't. That is the only fact that we have about this case. The chain of custody was broken by the collector and that is why Braun's 50 game suspension was overturned. That is the only fact that is out there for the public. If it wasn't, there would be absolutely no possible way to have overturned the suspension. Unless you think the science is messed up and everyone who has spoken is just lying and saying it was chain of custody when it was the science, which Cubs fans here have made fairly clear they don't think the science was messed up.
By saying the proper protocol was followed, you are admitting there is way more to the story than the 44 hour period the sample was undocumented. Otherwise why will Ryan Braun be playing on Opening Day?
Loose use of the term correct.
He did exactly what his company has trained him to do.
He did exactly what the World Anti-Doping Agency requires.
He did more than the NFL requires.
Here's the quote from the World Anti-Doping Agency:
Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, thought the collector made the correct decision.
"You have to ask yourself how ridiculous the argument is – particularly because athletes would much prefer to have their sample kept with the trained professional, hired by your union to maintain it and keep it secure rather than it being dropped off overnight at some random Mailbox Inc., in a strip mall waiting to be shipped out with a bunch of Christmas presents," Tygart said.The sample was said not to have been tampered with.
"The very experienced laboratory director in Montreal gave evidence that the sample had not been compromised nor tampered with," Howman said. "Accordingly, no damage occurred to the sample before analysis."He got off an a technicality. It's not that difficult to see. If he would have acted like a professional, this whole thing would have been over with. Instead, he attacked a widely respected MLB collector making this out to be more than what it actually is. His press conference was laughable at best with the factual errors in his argument.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 02, 2012, 11:58:37 AM
We also have the fact that Ryan Braun tested positive for a banned substance.
However, we do not know
for a fact that the sample tested did actually come from Braun or that it was not tampered with.
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on March 02, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
However, we do not know for a fact that the sample tested did actually come from Braun or that it was not tampered with.
Except that the testing agency said the sample had not been compromised or tampered with.
wades, you need to drop the Cubs thing.
Let me reiterate that I am glad he got off. I would instantly be losing two very high dollar fantasy baseball leagues if Braun's suspension stuck. I like Ryan Braun as a player, I have no problem with removing the team from the player.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 02, 2012, 11:52:01 AM
No kidding. The independent arbitrator didn't decide to overturn Braun's suspension because everything was done correctly. We can sit here and argue whether Braun juiced or whether the sample was tampered, whether the sample was his, or whether Braun simply got off on a technicality, but you're grasping at air if you say the collector followed the correct protocol. He didn't. That is the only fact that we have about this case. The chain of custody was broken by the collector and that is why Braun's 50 game suspension was overturned. That is the only fact that is out there for the public. If it wasn't, there would be absolutely no possible way to have overturned the suspension. Unless you think the science is messed up and everyone who has spoken is just lying and saying it was chain of custody when it was the science, which Cubs fans here have made fairly clear they don't think the science was messed up.
By saying the proper protocol was followed, you are admitting there is way more to the story than the 44 hour period the sample was undocumented. Otherwise why will Ryan Braun be playing on Opening Day?
I'm very curious to read the arbitrator's decision. With my luck, it will probably be the
only thing in this entire case that is not leaked.
I just read the relevant portions of the MLB joint testing agreement. There are a couple of portions that, based upon what is being widely reported (which might or might not be correct), appear relevant.
First, it provides that "if the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipping, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage. (1) the Collector must keep the chain of custody intact. (2) The Collector must store the samples in a cool and secure location." A couple thoughts. First, this isn't very specific. Second, the term "chain of custody" is not defined in the agreement. I'm not aware of anything in this case that would necessarily suggest that the Collector broke the chain of custody -- but that's not to say that there might not be something there. Clearly the agreement contemplates that the Collector could hold the sample for "temporary storage" and that this would not necessarily break the chain of custody. I think the definition of "secure location" might be an issue.
Second, the agreement says that "when all the specimens have been collected at a collection site, the Collector shall take the specimens in the appropriate packing to a FedEx Customer Service Center for shipment. The specimens
cannot be placed in a FedEx Drop Box location." There is nothing in the agreement that specifically addresses the question of whether the specimen should/can be left at a FedEx location if the last shipment on Saturday has already been sent. However, there is a provision that states if it is being sent on a Friday, the Collector should request Saturday delivery. It is my understanding that the procedure cited by the Collector that the sample should be taken home is a procedure from the testing laboratory,
not from the MLB Joint Testing Agreement.
Based upon media reports, it does appear that Braun won his grievance because of something wrong with the procedures that were followed by the Collector. We just don't know exactly what it was yet.
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on March 02, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
You're missing the point about why they need to be taken to FedEx as soon as possible. Even though Braun's name does not appear on the sample, the collector knows whose sample he has. Once the samples are dropped off at FedEx, the samples are only identified by a number or code, so nobody would be tempted to tamper with them (since they don't know whose they are). When they are sitting in the collector's house for 48 hours, the collector and his son, and whoever they choose to share that information with, could have access to the sample knowing whose samples they are.
I think that this is a fair point, and Braun mentioned it in his press conference. Frankly, I think Braun would have done better to focus on this, than on the fact that once at the lab the sample is treated like "a nuclear weapon" with careful documentation of who enters the room and whatnot. Remember, Braun is the one who is advocating that the Collector should have dropped the sample off at a FedEx location where any number of people would have had access to his sample with no documentation whatsoever (although at least it would have been anonymous).
My biggest problem with Braun in all of this is that he's publicly thrown the Collector under the bus without offering even a shred of evidence that he did anything "wrong" aside from apparently following his employer's policies for shipment and temporary storage of samples (which might have been inconsistent with MLB's policies). Braun gets up there and talks about how awful it is to have someone question his integrity publicly, and then does the same thing to the Collector. I think less would have been more in Braun's press conference.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 02, 2012, 10:57:23 AM
2) When it came to the collect dropping the samples off at FedEx, Braun said, "There were at least five FedEx locations within five miles of the stadium that were open until 9 p.m. and an additional FedEx location that was open for 24 hours. There were upwards of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and his house that he could have dropped the samples off at". He failed to mention in his press conference that all of these locations had stopped delievery at 5:00 when his test was taken.
I think you're missing that there is a difference between "stopped delivery" and "stopped accepting shipments". FedEx wouldn't be open until 9pm if they weren't accepting shipment.
BTW the FedEx Office on Bluemound Rd in Brookfield is one that is open 24 hours.
Quote from: Homebrew101 on March 02, 2012, 12:34:50 PM
I think you're missing that there is a difference between "stopped delivery" and "stopped accepting shipments for delivery". FedEx wouldn't be open until 9pm if they weren't accepting shipment.
BTW the FedEx Office on Bluemound Rd in Brookfield is one that is open 24 hours.
This distinction is, I think, the source of some of the confusion. Clearly there were offices open that were accepting shipments for delivery. But, the Collector has stated that it was his employer's policy that if they weren't shipping that day the packages should be stored at the collector's home rather than being left at FedEx. I didn't see anything in the MLB Joint Testing Agreement addressing this issue. It's not clear whether this was the basis for the arbitrator's decision.
Why can the guy be trusted for an hour or two with the sample but he can't be trusted for 44 hours?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 02, 2012, 08:52:15 AM
You don't have to believe me. I couldn't care less. That doesn't change the fact that the best player on your favorite team is a cheater.
Right... as opposed to your favorite team, which is an institution of cheaters?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 02, 2012, 12:45:13 PM
Why can the guy be trusted for an hour or two with the sample but he can't be trusted for 44 hours?
Many more chances for other people to get their hands on it. In an hour or two, the guy can actually physically have custody of the sample for the entire time. In 44 hours, he puts it down and goes out of the house, goes to another room to sleep, etc., leaving the door open for someone to mess with it, possibly without him even knowing.
There are obviously a lot of details to be disputed on this case which have all been liad out here, but for me personally it simply comes down to which is more likely: A) A collector brings home a sample with him and adds some form of testosterone to the sample and in the process prevents any signs of tampering. B) A major league baseball star with a clean history tested positive for steroids.
Quote from: warrior07 on March 02, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
Right... as opposed to your favorite team, which is an institution of cheaters?
Mike Cameron
Derrick Turnbow
Eric Gagne
Ryan Braun
See the thing is, I could make a list of pretty much every MLB team proving them to be "an institution of cheaters".
Great argument, except:
Mike Cameron - did not cheat as a Brewer
Derrick Turnbow - did not cheat as a Brewer
Eric Gagne - did not cheat as a Brewer
Ryan Braun - did not cheat
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on March 02, 2012, 01:14:06 PM
Great argument, except:
Mike Cameron - did not cheat as a Brewer
Derrick Turnbow - did not cheat as a Brewer
Eric Gagne - did not cheat as a Brewer
Ryan Braun - did not cheat
C'mon seriously? Braun is as innocent as Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 12:18:26 PM
I'm very curious to read the arbitrator's decision. With my luck, it will probably be the only thing in this entire case that is not leaked.
I just read the relevant portions of the MLB joint testing agreement. There are a couple of portions that, based upon what is being widely reported (which might or might not be correct), appear relevant.
First, it provides that "if the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipping, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage. (1) the Collector must keep the chain of custody intact. (2) The Collector must store the samples in a cool and secure location." A couple thoughts. First, this isn't very specific. Second, the term "chain of custody" is not defined in the agreement. I'm not aware of anything in this case that would necessarily suggest that the Collector broke the chain of custody -- but that's not to say that there might not be something there. Clearly the agreement contemplates that the Collector could hold the sample for "temporary storage" and that this would not necessarily break the chain of custody. I think the definition of "secure location" might be an issue.
Second, the agreement says that "when all the specimens have been collected at a collection site, the Collector shall take the specimens in the appropriate packing to a FedEx Customer Service Center for shipment. The specimens cannot be placed in a FedEx Drop Box location." There is nothing in the agreement that specifically addresses the question of whether the specimen should/can be left at a FedEx location if the last shipment on Saturday has already been sent. However, there is a provision that states if it is being sent on a Friday, the Collector should request Saturday delivery. It is my understanding that the procedure cited by the Collector that the sample should be taken home is a procedure from the testing laboratory, not from the MLB Joint Testing Agreement.
Based upon media reports, it does appear that Braun won his grievance because of something wrong with the procedures that were followed by the Collector. We just don't know exactly what it was yet.
I'm glad someone could be reasonable with their analysis. Well said. The bolded secotion is probably what got the suspension overturned. A fridge in a basement can not be called a 'secure location', especially for 44 hours. Think of it this way: Would you feel comfortable storing $5 million dollars in someone's basement fridge? I know I wouldn't.
Now imagine that you are storing someone's career in a fridge.
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on March 02, 2012, 01:14:06 PM
Great argument, except:
Ryan Braun - did not cheat
Haha, either did Sammy.
I wonder what MLB pays the collector/sub contractors?
he stated he's done this over 600 times - I could use some good part time $$$ and the job requirements don't sound too difficult and there is likely an opening in this market after this cluster**** :D
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 01:30:02 PM
I'm glad someone could be reasonable with their analysis. Well said. The bolded secotion is probably what got the suspension overturned. A fridge in a basement can not be called a 'secure location', especially for 44 hours. Think of it this way: Would you feel comfortable storing $5 million dollars in someone's basement fridge? I know I wouldn't.
Now imagine that you are storing someone's career in a fridge.
It wasn't in a fridge. That said, I don't have any real issue with it being stored in the collector's basement (I consider my house/basement secure enough for my family and my possessions). The alternative was in some FedEx office. Frankly, I'd trust the collector who is highly trained and has a five-year history of handling urine samples to some $10/hour FedEx counter worker. Particularly when he is following the procedures that have been established by an extremely respected testing lab that was selected by MLB/Union. Again, it is my opinion that the collector did absolutely nothing wrong in this case -- it seems he followed his employer's procedures. The problem is that it would appear that his employer's procedures might have been inconsistent with the agreed-upon procedures in the MLB Joint Testing Agreement. In my mind, that is probably enough to overturn the suspension. It doesn't make the Collector a bad actor (or even irresponsible), and it doesn't prove that Braun was innocent.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 02:14:52 PM
In my mind, that is probably enough to overturn the suspension. It doesn't make the Collector a bad actor (or even irresponsible), and it doesn't prove that Braun was innocent.
It also doesn't prove that Braun cheated.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 02:14:52 PM
It wasn't in a fridge. That said, I don't have any real issue with it being stored in the collector's basement (I consider my house/basement secure enough for my family and my possessions). The alternative was in some FedEx office. Frankly, I'd trust the collector who is highly trained and has a five-year history of handling urine samples to some $10/hour FedEx counter worker. Particularly when he is following the procedures that have been established by an extremely respected testing lab that was selected by MLB/Union. Again, it is my opinion that the collector did absolutely nothing wrong in this case -- it seems he followed his employer's procedures. The problem is that it would appear that his employer's procedures might have been inconsistent with the agreed-upon procedures in the MLB Joint Testing Agreement. In my mind, that is probably enough to overturn the suspension. It doesn't make the Collector a bad actor (or even irresponsible), and it doesn't prove that Braun was innocent.
That is why I said $5 million dollars, not your family's possessions. ;)
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 02, 2012, 10:57:23 AM
I have a few problems with Braun's press conference which everyone said he won:
1) He said that his testosterone level "was three times higher than any number in the history of drug testing". This is not true. His 20:1 levels were the highest for baseball, but drug tests in other sports such as track and football have been as high as 70:1.
His testosterone
level was 3x higher. He said nothing about his
ratio being 3x higher. In other words, let's say the natural levels of testosterone & epitestosterone in a human male is 10. That's a ratio of 1:1. Lets say that Macho Man Randy Savage is the all-time, all-sport record-holder and had testosterone of 350 and epitestosterone of 5. That's 70:1. Let's say Braun's sample is 1000 testosterone and 50 epitestosterone. While the 20:1 is a smaller ratio than Macho Man, Braun also had 3x his testosterone level.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 02, 2012, 10:57:23 AM
2) When it came to the collect dropping the samples off at FedEx, Braun said, "There were at least five FedEx locations within five miles of the stadium that were open until 9 p.m. and an additional FedEx location that was open for 24 hours. There were upwards of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and his house that he could have dropped the samples off at". He failed to mention in his press conference that all of these locations had stopped delievery at 5:00 when his test was taken.
According to JDPTP language... absent unusual circumstances, the sample was to be taken immediately to FedEx. Whether FedEx was still delivering that day or not is irrelevant according to MLB's rules.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 02, 2012, 10:57:23 AM
3) Had the sample been delievered to FedEx, Braun said, "it would have been stored in a temperature-controlled environment". This isn't true. Several FedEx employees have confirmed that they have no temperature controled enviroment. The box gets placed with all of the others.
Climate control of the sample isn't the issue here. As many have already surmised, a clean urine sample isn't going to develop synthetic testosterone in any environment, frozen, boiling or room temperature. The issue is with chain of custody... the urine sample was left in a non-secure environment for nearly two full days. Whether it was in a cooler or not, it was not being monitored. Elaborating on Warrior's point... if left at a FedEx site, however, there would be at least one employee monitoring the sample during business hours and during non-business hours it would be secured and monitored by security. Moreover, the people who would have had access to the package at FedEx would not be able to identify whose urine sample it was; conversely, there were at least two people who both knew the identity of and had access to the urine sample while it sat in Dino Laurenzi's basement.
In the eyes of the legal and bioethics communities, the chain of custody would have been compromised in this scenario and therefore the results could only be deemed inconclusive at best. In the JDPTP system where a positive result yields an immediate finding of guilt by default, chain of custody must be maintained, and the onus is on the testing authority to prove that it was. In this case it wasn't, therefore, the test is negated because there's no way the authority can prove that a) the sample was not tainted and b) the sample belonged to Ryan Braun.
In my opinion, this doesn't fall into the category of a "technicality." If there was a DNA test on the urine sample to prove it was Braun's and he still got off, that would be a technicality. But in this case, Braun's drug test - positive or not - does not even exist because chain of custody cannot be demonstrated. Neither Laurenzi, WADA, or MLB has reasonably proven that the sample was untainted and belonged to Braun... at this point, it's unlikely that they ever could.
"If the custody chain is missing a link, the urine must be dumped in the sink."
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on March 02, 2012, 02:17:02 PM
It also doesn't prove that Braun cheated.
I agree completely and have never said otherwise. Braun is not a proven cheater; and he has not been proven innocent.
I personally think that he did fail his drug test, and that he got off on a technicality. However, based upon my professional experience and what we've heard thus far, I think the arbitrator probably made a correct decision. But in the grand scheme of things, what I think doesn't matter all all.
Quote from: Benny B on March 02, 2012, 02:58:22 PM
His testosterone level was 3x higher. He said nothing about his ratio being 3x higher. In other words, let's say the natural levels of testosterone & epitestosterone in a human male is 10. That's a ratio of 1:1. Lets say that Macho Man Randy Savage is the all-time, all-sport record-holder and had testosterone of 350 and epitestosterone of 5. That's 70:1. Let's say Braun's sample is 1000 testosterone and 50 epitestosterone. While the 20:1 is a smaller ratio than Macho Man, Braun also had 3x his testosterone level.
According to JDPTP language... absent unusual circumstances, the sample was to be taken immediately to FedEx. Whether FedEx was still delivering that day or not is irrelevant according to MLB's rules.
Climate control of the sample isn't the issue here. As many have already surmised, a clean urine sample isn't going to develop synthetic testosterone in any environment, frozen, boiling or room temperature. The issue is with chain of custody... the urine sample was left in a non-secure environment for nearly two full days. Whether it was in a cooler or not, it was not being monitored. Elaborating on Warrior's point... if left at a FedEx site, however, there would be at least one employee monitoring the sample during business hours and during non-business hours it would be secured and monitored by security. Moreover, the people who would have had access to the package at FedEx would not be able to identify whose urine sample it was; conversely, there were at least two people who both knew the identity of and had access to the urine sample while it sat in Dino Laurenzi's basement.
In the eyes of the legal and bioethics communities, the chain of custody would have been compromised in this scenario and therefore the results could only be deemed inconclusive at best. In the JDPTP system where a positive result yields an immediate finding of guilt by default, chain of custody must be maintained, and the onus is on the testing authority to prove that it was. In this case it wasn't, therefore, the test is negated because there's no way the authority can prove that a) the sample was not tainted and b) the sample belonged to Ryan Braun.
In my opinion, this doesn't fall into the category of a "technicality." If there was a DNA test on the urine sample to prove it was Braun's and he still got off, that would be a technicality. But in this case, Braun's drug test - positive or not - does not even exist because chain of custody cannot be demonstrated. Neither Laurenzi, WADA, or MLB has reasonably proven that the sample was untainted and belonged to Braun... at this point, it's unlikely that they ever could.
"If the custody chain is missing a link, the urine must be dumped in the sink."
boom, lawyered.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 02:50:57 PM
That is why I said $5 million dollars, not your family's possessions. ;)
This case is yet another example of why lawyers get all fussy over defining terms. The question of what is a "secure" location would vary based upon what is being stored. I would agree with you that I would not keep $5 million in my basement. For large piles of cash to be "secure" you want protection from theft and/or destruction. If it is stolen or burns, you're screwed. For Ted Williams' head, you'd want to have a dependable cryogenic freezer for it to be secure. A big question is what you need to keep a urine sample secure. Apparently the testing company thought a cool location was good enough. I suspect Ryan Braun disagrees.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 03:05:21 PM
This case is yet another example of why lawyers get all fussy over defining terms. The question of what is a "secure" location would vary based upon what is being stored. I would agree with you that I would not keep $5 million in my basement. For large piles of cash to be "secure" you want protection from theft and/or destruction. If it is stolen or burns, you're screwed. For Ted Williams' head, you'd want to have a dependable cryogenic freezer for it to be secure. A big question is what you need to keep a urine sample secure. Apparently the testing company thought a cool location was good enough. I suspect Ryan Braun disagrees.
Secure to me for urine would be a locked fridge with one key which the collector keeps on his person at all times.
First, let me say that I agree with a lot of what you said.
Quote from: Benny B on March 02, 2012, 02:58:22 PM
According to JDPTP language... absent unusual circumstances, the sample was to be taken immediately to FedEx. Whether FedEx was still delivering that day or not is irrelevant according to MLB's rules.
Not exactly. The JDPTP language is: "Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected." I'd argue that this is ambiguous -- what does "sent...on the same day..." mean? I believe that MLB and the Collector are contending that it was impossible for the sample to be "sent...on the same day." Based upon what we've read (which, I'll say
again, may or may not be accurate), it appears possible that the arbitrator interpreted "sent" to mean "dropped off at FedEx" and rejected the argument that "sent" means actually shipped.
Quote from: Benny B on March 02, 2012, 02:58:22 PMIn the eyes of the legal and bioethics communities, the chain of custody would have been compromised in this scenario and therefore the results could only be deemed inconclusive at best...
...But in this case, Braun's drug test - positive or not - does not even exist because chain of custody cannot be demonstrated. Neither Laurenzi, WADA, or MLB has reasonably proven that the sample was untainted and belonged to Braun... at this point, it's unlikely that they ever could.
I'm not disputing what you've said, but I haven't seen anything that states this as strongly as you have. I'm not aware that there is a universally accepted definition of "chain of custody." The JDPTP language very clearly contemplates that it is possible for chain of custody to be preserved even if the Collector "temporarily" stores the sample himself, but it doesn't define what is required. (Actual language: "
If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage. 1. The Collector must keep the chain of custody intact. 2. The Collector must store the samples in a cool and secure location." -- anybody want to count the number of significant undefined terms in that section?)
As a
general matter, the Collector's sworn testimony and/or affidavit indicating that he placed the sample in his basement and that no one disturbed it or had access to it
could establish chain of custody for legal purposes. Perhaps that's not enough under the JDPTP, but there's nothing inherent in the Collector's actions that would necessarily destroy chain of custody.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 03:11:20 PM
Secure to me for urine would be a locked fridge with one key which the collector keeps on his person at all times.
Well, that's all well and good. But I'm not aware of anyone that has suggested that this was required (although who knows...maybe the arbitrator did).
In light of the fact that this well-respected testing laboratory apparently did not require that, your standard might be a little higher than what is common in the industry. However, based on all that's transpired in this case, perhaps your proposed standard will become the norm.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 03:29:14 PM
Well, that's all well and good. But I'm not aware of anyone that has suggested that this was required (although who knows...maybe the arbitrator did).
In light of the fact that this well-respected testing laboratory apparently did not require that, your standard might be a little higher than what is common in the industry. However, based on all that's transpired in this case, perhaps your proposed standard will become the norm.
The answer to most of this is, 'maybe'. This is why it is left up to the arbitrator to determine what the wording meant.
I can tell you from experience that samples provided to my former employer are locked up in our building with only a few keys which are controlled by a few people.
I completely agree that the document was too ambiguous. Especially since we are talking about someone's career.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 03:38:33 PM
The answer to most of this is, 'maybe'. This is why it is left up to the arbitrator to determine what the wording meant.
I can tell you from experience that samples provided to my former employer are locked up in our building with only a few keys which are controlled by a few people.
Just out of curiosity, how many keys were there to the Collector's house? How many people had them?
Aside from the issues relating to anonymity, there is nothing at all inherently problematic about the Collector keeping the sample in his basement. It might be a violation of the agreed-upon procedures and justifies overturning the suspension, but that doesn't mean that the sample wasn't secure.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 03:44:47 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many keys were there to the Collector's house? How many people had them?
Aside from the issues relating to anonymity, there is nothing at all inherently problematic about the Collector keeping the sample in his basement. It might be a violation of the agreed-upon procedures and justifies overturning the suspension, but that doesn't mean that the sample wasn't secure.
It doesn't mean it was either, hence the whole reason the agreed-upon procedures that may have been what overturned the suspension are in place. You're taking the guy's word that it was in his house, that his house was locked (stereotypical Wisconsinites are known to leave their house unlocked when they go on vacation), that the sample was refrigerated or kept in appropriate conditions. The procedures are in place because the collector's word is the only evidence you have that the sample even remained in the state during the 44 hour timeframe.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 03:44:47 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many keys were there to the Collector's house? How many people had them?
Aside from the issues relating to anonymity, there is nothing at all inherently problematic about the Collector keeping the sample in his basement. It might be a violation of the agreed-upon procedures and justifies overturning the suspension, but that doesn't mean that the sample wasn't secure.
I don't think the problem is how many people had keys, or how many there were. In the basement of a house where people are in and out all weekend, there is a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with it.
Kids are interesting creatures and for all we do or do not know the son of the collector (who was present at the collection) could have had friends over for the night... or the day... who knows what went on. There is reasonable doubt that the container was securely stored for those 44 hours while at his house... and that is all the arbitrator would need.
Quote from: chapman on March 02, 2012, 03:50:22 PM
It doesn't mean it was either, hence the whole reason the agreed-upon procedures that may have been what overturned the suspension are in place. You're taking the guy's word that it was in his house, that his house was locked (stereotypical Wisconsinites are known to leave their house unlocked when they go on vacation), that the sample was refrigerated or kept in appropriate conditions. The procedures are in place because the collector's word is the only evidence you have that the sample even remained in the state during the 44 hour timeframe.
I've said repeatedly that based upon what I've read, I think it was correct for the suspension to be overturned. I agree that the procedures are there for a reason, and that if they weren't followed then MLB loses. I don't have a problem with that.
I'm simply making the point that the procedures are not well-defined and that they are somewhat arbitrary. We've had one person say that to be secure a sample should be kept in a locked refrigerator. We've also heard that one company keeps samples locked up in a building with only a few keys which are controlled by a few people. It would appear that the MLB agreement required the sample to be immediately dropped with FedEx.
But there are a couple common themes I detect here. First in any scenario, you're taking someone's word. Did you really keep it in the locked refrigerator? Did you really keep the key on you at all times? Is there really only one key? Are there really limited keys to the building? Are they really all controlled by a few people? Did FedEx control access? Was it kept in a cool area? We rely on people's word in all of these cases. No matter which standard is used, the person responsible for the sample could lie.
Second, some of these procedures are somewhat arbitrary. How many keys? How many people? Etc.
Third, it's not that difficult to argue that the way Braun's sample was handled was actually
more secure leaving it with FedEx. But, as you correctly mention, we have to take the Collector at his word to conclude that the sample was not tampered with.
All that said, I think the best argument for immediately turning the sample over to FedEx is to preserve Braun's anonymity. That argument makes a lot of sense to me. Arguments that the Collector's actions were somehow inherently inappropriate or inherently inconsistent with a valid chain of custody (as opposed to inconsistent with the Agreement) don't make sense to me.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 03:55:28 PM
I don't think the problem is how many people had keys, or how many there were. In the basement of a house where people are in and out all weekend, there is a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with it.
Kids are interesting creatures and for all we do or do not know the son of the collector (who was present at the collection) could have had friends over for the night... or the day... who knows what went on. There is reasonable doubt that the container was securely stored for those 44 hours while at his house... and that is all the arbitrator would need.
I've apparently not made my point very clear. The Collector said that only two people were in the house that weekend: him and his wife. He's either telling the truth, or he's lying (or mistaken). If the rule had been that it needed to be in a locked refrigerator with a single key, and he said he complied with that standard, he'd either be telling the truth or lying (or mistaken). If the rule said the sample needed to be in a building with few keys controlled by a few people, and he said he complied with that standard, he'd either be telling the truth or lying (or mistaken).
I don't think that any one of those standards is inherently more secure than the others, and all rely upon the honesty and integrity of the person safeguarding the sample. And with respect to my comment about the number of keys, my point was only that access to his house may well have been more limited than to a building with a "few keys" controlled by a "few people."
I really need to let this go...
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 03:55:28 PM
In the basement of a house where people are in and out all weekend...
I can't help but wonder what the heck is going on at your house...but it sounds like a good time.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 03:55:28 PM...there is a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with it.
Just like there's a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with the sample at FedEx...or a building with a few keys controlled by a few people...etc.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 03:55:28 PMKids are interesting creatures and for all we do or do not know the son of the collector (who was present at the collection) could have had friends over for the night... or the day... who knows what went on.
I've assumed that the Collector's son was an adult, but might be wrong about that. The Collector is 51 and has stated that he and his wife were the only ones in the house while the sample was there.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 02, 2012, 03:55:28 PMThere is reasonable doubt that the container was securely stored for those 44 hours while at his house... and that is all the arbitrator would need.
I have no idea if this is true or not. There apparently was proof that the agreed-upon procedures were not followed. I'm not sure whether this necessarily means that there was doubt that the collection was securely stored. That might be what the arbitrator says, and it might not.
Unless Braun presented evidence that cast doubt on the Collector's integrity (and I have absolutely no idea if he did that), it would not surprise me if the Arbitrator's decision focuses exclusively on the failure to follow the agreed-upon procedure (i.e., deliver immediately to FedEx) but specifically mentions that the collector followed procedures established by his employer that happened to be inconsistent with the MLB procedure.
I think that this Collector has gotten a really raw deal. For the record, I also think Braun has gotten a raw deal because the original result never should have been leaked. Braun just rubbed me the wrong way last week when he threw the Collector under the bus and suggested that the arbitrator's decision proved his innocence.
Is it possible that someone tampered with Ryan Braun's sample? Of course. Anything's possible. But highly, highly (I can't say highly enough) unlikely. Brewers fans twisting themselves into pretzels in order to believe in Braun's innocence are reminiscent of the jury nullification in the OJ case or Jim Carey really thinking he had a chance in Dumb and Dumber. I guess if you want to believe in something badly enough...
By the way, I am not a Cubs fan - they're my least favorite team. And I rather like both Braun and the Brew Crew. I just don't usually go for whatever conspiracy theory people are pushing.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 04:35:34 PM
I really need to let this go...
I can't help but wonder what the heck is going on at your house...but it sounds like a good time.
Just like there's a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with the sample at FedEx...or a building with a few keys controlled by a few people...etc.
I've assumed that the Collector's son was an adult, but might be wrong about that. The Collector is 51 and has stated that he and his wife were the only ones in the house while the sample was there.
I have no idea if this is true or not. There apparently was proof that the agreed-upon procedures were not followed. I'm not sure whether this necessarily means that there was doubt that the collection was securely stored. That might be what the arbitrator says, and it might not.
Unless Braun presented evidence that cast doubt on the Collector's integrity (and I have absolutely no idea if he did that), it would not surprise me if the Arbitrator's decision focuses exclusively on the failure to follow the agreed-upon procedure (i.e., deliver immediately to FedEx) but specifically mentions that the collector followed procedures established by his employer that happened to be inconsistent with the MLB procedure.
I think that this Collector has gotten a really raw deal. For the record, I also think Braun has gotten a raw deal because the original result never should have been leaked. Braun just rubbed me the wrong way last week when he threw the Collector under the bus and suggested that the arbitrator's decision proved his innocence.
Am I wrong in assuming that the samples would have been packaged before they were brought to the FedEx store for shipment? Would counter workers have any reason to assume that there are pee samples in a package that would give him/her some reason to open the package? Unless a collector fears that the workers at FedEx would rummage through every package that goes through the store, I don't understand how FedEx workers would know what they were handling contained specimen for a drug test, unless the collector whispered in his ear "This is a pee test of Ryan Braun's" or something, or unless he just walked in carrying an unpackaged pee sample and asked for a box to ship it in, which I find highly unlikely.
I guess I just really struggle to understand how FedEx workers would have any clue as to what was inside the package and doubt that they rummage through every package in case there is something interesting. I would think the risk of tampering there would be less than the risk of sitting out on a desk in someone's basement over the course of a 44 hour period, even if it is a trained collector.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 02, 2012, 05:50:12 PM
Am I wrong in assuming that the samples would have been packaged before they were brought to the FedEx store for shipment? Would counter workers have any reason to assume that there are pee samples in a package that would give him/her some reason to open the package? Unless a collector fears that the workers at FedEx would rummage through every package that goes through the store, I don't understand how FedEx workers would know what they were handling contained specimen for a drug test, unless the collector whispered in his ear "This is a pee test of Ryan Braun's" or something, or unless he just walked in carrying an unpackaged pee sample and asked for a box to ship it in, which I find highly unlikely.
I guess I just really struggle to understand how FedEx workers would have any clue as to what was inside the package and doubt that they rummage through every package in case there is something interesting. I would think the risk of tampering there would be less than the risk of sitting out on a desk in someone's basement over the course of a 44 hour period, even if it is a trained collector.
Bingo! The "give it to FedEx right away" rule is in place not for purposes of expedited shipping, but for the simple purpose of getting it out of the hands of the only people who can identify the sample. It floors me that an "experienced collector" didn't grasp this fundamental concept that should have been shoved down his throat on the first day of Pee In A Cup 101.
Quote from: Benny B on March 02, 2012, 08:27:32 PM
Bingo! The "give it to FedEx right away" rule is in place not for purposes of expedited shipping, but for the simple purpose of getting it out of the hands of the only people who can identify the sample. It floors me that an "experienced collector" didn't grasp this fundamental concept that should have been shoved down his throat on the first day of Pee In A Cup 101.
Except that his employer, an extremely respected testing lab, thought that it was preferable for the "experienced collector" to keep the sample at his house as compared to dropping it off at FedEx.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 02, 2012, 05:50:12 PM
Am I wrong in assuming that the samples would have been packaged before they were brought to the FedEx store for shipment? Would counter workers have any reason to assume that there are pee samples in a package that would give him/her some reason to open the package? Unless a collector fears that the workers at FedEx would rummage through every package that goes through the store, I don't understand how FedEx workers would know what they were handling contained specimen for a drug test, unless the collector whispered in his ear "This is a pee test of Ryan Braun's" or something, or unless he just walked in carrying an unpackaged pee sample and asked for a box to ship it in, which I find highly unlikely.
I guess I just really struggle to understand how FedEx workers would have any clue as to what was inside the package and doubt that they rummage through every package in case there is something interesting. I would think the risk of tampering there would be less than the risk of sitting out on a desk in someone's basement over the course of a 44 hour period, even if it is a trained collector.
I don't think there is any real risk of tampering at FedEx (although the paperwork did indicate that it was a urine sample). I also don't think that there was any real risk of tampering at the Collector's house. But, as I've said several times, the anonymity that would have come when the sample was dropped off was a good reason for that procedure.
What would motivate someone to tamper with a drug test? A Cubs' fan's hate for the Brewers? Heck no. An undetected tamper job could only be pulled off by a "professional" and those people are motivated by one thing -- cash. So all this time, I've been asking myself, "who would stand to benefit financially from a tainted Ryan Braun drug test?" And just now, it finally hit me:
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 02, 2012, 09:45:24 PM
Except that his employer, an extremely respected testing lab, thought that it was preferable for the "experienced collector" to keep the sample at his house as compared to dropping it off at FedEx.
His employer is CDT, but CDT only does the collecting; WADA does the testing. While CDT does provide drug testing services, it's not a service they perform for MLB.
I'm not sure what CDT makes on the "collecting" contract for the JDPTP, but it's a pretty safe assumption that CDT would make a heck of a lot more if, say WADA screwed up the test on a high-profile sample and in the wake of the aftermath, MLB awarded both the "testing" and "collecting" contracts to CDT.
My question now is did CDT provide or have access to the sample containers before Braun's drug test. CDT would have known in advance that Braun was being tested that day, and if they provided the vials to Laurenzi
and if there's any truth to the speculation that the other two urine samples that day also had abnormalities, then I may have just established suspect and motive to "frame" Braun. The sample may not have been tampered with... the sample container may have been tainted to begin with.
Of course, the twist in this story is that CDT wasn't expecting the chain of custody issues. They wanted Braun to challenge the test results and expose WADA's process. Instead, CDT's own employee's actions opened the door for Braun's team to challenge the test validity without ever having to argue the results. So CDT may eventually be the one who gets their contract pulled. Oh, the sweet irony.
I really need to stop watching Law and Order reruns. But seriously, where did those sample containers come from, and is there enough here to fill a 60 minute timeslot?
I have been reading this thread, without really commenting, but I want to say it has been fascinating to read. A few comments, though.
- At this point, you cannot say Braun cheated. You can believe he had, but definitively, no you cannot say so.
- I do not know if the collector was a Cubs fan, Brewers fan, Twins fan, White Sox fan, Yankees fan, fan of any team or not a fan at all. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The guy is a professional. I do not agree with tearing someone's integrity apart based on their fandom. Cheap shot, IMHO.
- I do not know if Braun got off on a technicality or not. Some things that I need to know more before deciding. This is the first time someone "beat the rap". There has to be some facts to support that. I would like to see MLB release the report - I doubt they will.
- Dan Patrick was pretty emphatic that Braun would win the case. I am wondering if he knows more of the story. I suspect their is more to the story.
- This has been a bizarre case from the beginning. Results leaked, which dramatically changed the process. MLB should be ashamed of much of this - it is their process they are the ones who need to accept the responsibility when it is leaked.
- Braun was adamant all along of his innocence. Very emphatic denials. Most in his position have not been as adamant of their innocence. That may, though, be a result of the fact that most instances it is not known until after the arbitration.
- I hope Braun is innocent. I don't know if he is or is not. I would like to hear more of the reasons - factual, not message board fodder. Sadly, I am guessing this will not happen.
The huge dip in Braun's production this year is far beyond the natural dip that would occur based solely on Prince Fielder no longer being behind him. It is clear now that Braun truly had been juicing. His career might as well be over now, he's been exposed without Prince and without 'roids...
Quote from: wadesworld on June 30, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The huge dip in Braun's production this year is far beyond the natural dip that would occur based solely on Prince Fielder no longer being behind him. It is clear now that Braun truly had been juicing. His career might as well be over now, he's been exposed without Prince and without 'roids...
FACT: Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs. He's a cheater.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on June 30, 2012, 09:21:04 PM
FACT: Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs. He's a cheater.
Fact: A sample reported to be Brauns that was mishandled be a courier tested positive for PEDs.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on June 30, 2012, 09:21:04 PM
FACT: Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs. He's a cheater.
Haha. That's what you consider a fact? I hope you're not a lawyer.
Quote from: forgetful on June 30, 2012, 09:42:25 PM
Fact: A sample reported to be Brauns that was mishandled be a courier tested positive for PEDs.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 30, 2012, 10:02:21 PM
Haha. That's what you consider a fact? I hope you're not a lawyer.
If I rob a bank and get arrested, but the case is thrown out in court because the cops didn't read me my Miranda rights, does that mean I didn't rob a bank? Believe whatever you want but getting off on a technicality doesn't make someone innocent.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on June 30, 2012, 10:06:31 PM
If I rob a bank and get arrested, but the case is thrown out in court because the cops didn't read me my Miranda rights, does that mean I didn't rob a bank and should not be considered a criminal? Believe whatever you want but getting off on a technicality doesn't make someone innocent.
Were you in the hearings? Sitting in on the decision? I'd love to hear exactly what cases were made. Please enlighten me. The public knows roughly 1% of what was presented in the case. Don't pretend you know. You know as little as I know, and I know nothing other than I would LOVE to see the numbers Ryan Braun would put up on steroids. Aramis Ramirez and Corey Hart are the only 2 other healthy MLB worthy players in the lineup, and yet Braun continues to RAKE! He'd hit 95 home runs on steroids.
Gotta love Cubs fans who, thinking his numbers will drop big time without the protection of Prince Fielder behind him, play the "How he plays next year will determine whether or not people view him as a cheater" card, and then when the inevitable drop never happens, it's back to "I know all the FACTS (which Merritts clearly doesn't know the definition of that word...) in this case and Ryan Braun got off solely on a technicality. I watched the entire process. My eyes never left the cup that Braun peed into from the second it was made until it was found to be a positive drug test and no tampering occurred."
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on June 30, 2012, 10:06:31 PM
If I rob a bank and get arrested, but the case is thrown out in court because the cops didn't read me my Miranda rights, does that mean I didn't rob a bank? Believe whatever you want but getting off on a technicality doesn't make someone innocent.
Bad example. Miranda rights implies due process. In drug testing, there is no due process.
IOW, if you robbed the bank, it's not considered a "technicality" if the prosecutor can't identify who to charge.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 30, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The huge dip in Braun's production this year is far beyond the natural dip that would occur based solely on Prince Fielder no longer being behind him. It is clear now that Braun truly had been juicing. His career might as well be over now, he's been exposed without Prince and without 'roids...
Even Jayson Stark, from the people who hate Ryan Braun the most (ESPN), has observed that Braun's numbers haven't dropped off from last year (http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/stark_jayson/id/8000296/2012-ryan-braun-vs-2011-ryan-braun), even without Fat Boy hitting behind him.
Interesting points in that article:
Quote"I haven't seen anything about this guy change," one NL scout said. "I don't see any difference in his swing. I don't see any difference in the effort in his swing. I don't see any difference in his speed. I don't see any difference in his gait. I don't see any difference in his size. I saw him as a 20-year-old, as a 22-year-old and now. And I don't see anything different."
This isn't Barry Bonds, where his head became so big that they needed to borrow a helmet from the top of those work trucks and paint it in Giants colors. This isn't Alex Sanchez, where taking PEDs was needed just to be a fringe MLB player. Braun hasn't had the dropoff that was expected from people who thought he either 1. was living off of Fat Boy hitting behind him and/or 2. got caught taking something.
Yes, Braun has a perception issue, courtesy of the d-bags at ESPN. It's going to likely take years of Braun performing at the same high level he's been at thus far for his big league career and passing every drug test thrown his way in order to even come close to overcoming that. Some people will think that he cheated regardless and that he's always a cheater. To borrow from Bobby Brown, that's their prerogative:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Bobby-brown-my-prerogative.jpg)
But if Braun is able to continue to perform at this high of a level and test cleanly for the next, say, 8-10 years... I'd say he'd be able to overcome a lot of the naysayers. Not all, mind you, but a lot of them. Part of me - if for no other purpose than sheer entertainment - wishes Braun would grant ESPN one final interview with the OTL staff and Buster "Bitter that Kemp Didn't Win MVP" Olney with the following rules: He gets to punch one of them in the head once, they're not allowed to protect themselves in any fashion, and they cannot retaliate against Braun in any way, shape, or form. I hope he'd knock the chosen person clear into 2015. Doc Brown doesn't need a DeLorean: Ryan Braun's fists are just as effective.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 30, 2012, 10:17:33 PM
Were you in the hearings? Sitting in on the decision? I'd love to hear exactly what cases were made. Please enlighten me. The public knows roughly 1% of what was presented in the case. Don't pretend you know. You know as little as I know, and I know nothing other than I would LOVE to see the numbers Ryan Braun would put up on steroids. Aramis Ramirez and Corey Hart are the only 2 other healthy MLB worthy players in the lineup, and yet Braun continues to RAKE! He'd hit 95 home runs on steroids.
Gotta love Cubs fans who, thinking his numbers will drop big time without the protection of Prince Fielder behind him, play the "How he plays next year will determine whether or not people view him as a cheater" card, and then when the inevitable drop never happens, it's back to "I know all the FACTS (which Merritts clearly doesn't know the definition of that word...) in this case and Ryan Braun got off solely on a technicality. I watched the entire process. My eyes never left the cup that Braun peed into from the second it was made until it was found to be a positive drug test and no tampering occurred."
Braun peed in a cup. According to experts, that cup was not tampered with, was sent to the lab and tested positive for high levels of testosterone. However, the exact protocol wasn't followed so the test was thrown out. His urine still tested positive. Pull your head under your Ryan Braun blanket and pretend that's not how it happened if you'd like, but those are all facts.
You want my honest opinion? Braun is a punk but he's also one of the top 10 players in MLB, possibly top 5. I don't think he's a long-time PED-user nor do I think that his numbers are "steroid enhanced." What I do think is that, late last season, he wanted to come back sooner and as close to full-strength as possible for the playoffs when he had his ribcage issues so he took a banned substance to help aid in that process. Unfortunately for him, he got caught and because of that one lapse in judgment, he will forever be considered a cheater in my book and in the eyes of the commissioner's office.
Quote from: Benny B on July 01, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Bad example. Miranda rights implies due process. In drug testing, there is no due process.
IOW, if you robbed the bank, it's not considered a "technicality" if the prosecutor can't identify who to charge.
Fair enough. My point is that if I commit a crime but go free because of a technicality, that doesn't mean I didn't commit the crime.
Merritt's, as a Brewer fan, I think that is a pretty fair assessment of what might have occurred. However I do think that numerous players do, and have done, the same thing. Now that is not meant as an excuse to say "well everyone does it so therefore he shouldn't get in trouble." But I do think that it is unfair to "forever be considered a cheater," based upon what you think is "one lapse in judgement." IMO there is a difference between chronic use and a one-time lapse...if that is indeed what happened here. Only time will tell.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 01, 2012, 09:37:34 AM
Merritt's, as a Brewer fan, I think that is a pretty fair assessment of what might have occurred. However I do think that numerous players do, and have done, the same thing. Now that is not meant as an excuse to say "well everyone does it so therefore he shouldn't get in trouble." But I do think that it is unfair to "forever be considered a cheater," based upon what you think is "one lapse in judgement." IMO there is a difference between chronic use and a one-time lapse...if that is indeed what happened here. Only time will tell.
I still find it highly ironic - perhaps somewhat questionable - that MLB was actually advertising prescription testosterone during the postseason last year. That says all you need to know about the hypocrisy of MLB's "drugs are bad" stance.
It's unfortunate that - regardless of whether Braun did or didn't - Sultan's intuition is not unique in baseball... far from it, in fact. Take synthetic testosterone as an example -- evidently, the stuff can clear out of your system within a matter of days, maybe a week? Here MLB has a drug testing policy where a player - who hasn't tested positive previously - might only be tested twice a season. So over a span of 240 days (spring training through postseason) if you take ST once to help with recovery from an injury, you have a window of 3 or so days where you'd test positive, and if you're tested twice a year at random, you have only a 1 in 40 chance of being tested within your "window." Those are pretty decent odds for guys with millions of dollars on the line.
Of course, this is one grossly oversimplified, arbitrary example... nevertheless, in the new "PED-free" era, we're not seeing the power like we did a few years ago, but we are seeing amazingly-fast recoveries and players returning from injuries much sooner than they normally would/should -- Albert Pujols' injury last year is one that sticks out in particular. Does one positive test then make Braun a cheater? Technically, yes. Relatively speaking, probably not.
You can dislike Braun for whatever reason you want... you can be a Matt Kemp fan, maybe you're a Cub fan, perhaps you're just feeling anti-Semetic today; but if you're going to call Braun a cheater, then you better be prepared to call half of your own players cheaters, too, because if Braun is indeed guilty, then I would be willing to bet that at least 50% of active players have used a banned substance since MLB's current policy went into effect a few years back.
Quote from: Benny B on July 01, 2012, 11:34:08 PM
I still find it highly ironic - perhaps somewhat questionable - that MLB was actually advertising prescription testosterone during the postseason last year. That says all you need to know about the hypocrisy of MLB's "drugs are bad" stance.
It's unfortunate that - regardless of whether Braun did or didn't - Sultan's intuition is not unique in baseball... far from it, in fact. Take synthetic testosterone as an example -- evidently, the stuff can clear out of your system within a matter of days, maybe a week? Here MLB has a drug testing policy where a player - who hasn't tested positive previously - might only be tested twice a season. So over a span of 240 days (spring training through postseason) if you take ST once to help with recovery from an injury, you have a window of 3 or so days where you'd test positive, and if you're tested twice a year at random, you have only a 1 in 40 chance of being tested within your "window." Those are pretty decent odds for guys with millions of dollars on the line.
Of course, this is one grossly oversimplified, arbitrary example... nevertheless, in the new "PED-free" era, we're not seeing the power like we did a few years ago, but we are seeing amazingly-fast recoveries and players returning from injuries much sooner than they normally would/should -- Albert Pujols' injury last year is one that sticks out in particular. Does one positive test then make Braun a cheater? Technically, yes. Relatively speaking, probably not.
You can dislike Braun for whatever reason you want... you can be a Matt Kemp fan, maybe you're a Cub fan, perhaps you're just feeling anti-Semetic today; but if you're going to call Braun a cheater, then you better be prepared to call half of your own players cheaters, too, because if Braun is indeed guilty, then I would be willing to bet that at least 50% of active players have used a banned substance since MLB's current policy went into effect a few years back.
If Pujols tested positive for a banned substance, I wouldn't be surprised. If Kerry Wood, one of my all-time favorite Cubs, admitted to taking a banned substance to help recover from his injuries, I wouldn't be surprised. Honestly, I can't think of anyone who would surprise me if he got caught or admitted using. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of PED users never got caught or will never get caught so for those players all we have are educated guesses and skepticism. Braun got caught which removes all doubt. He cheated. Do I think he cheated as often or as blatantly as some other players? No. But he still cheated, which makes him a cheater.
Merritt, if you say it enough times hopefully it will become true.
I dont understand the people trying to invalidate MM's position. A year ago this time, most Braun supporters would have agreed with him.
Just to be clear: If Ryan Braun hits 40 homers this year, it means he didn't test positive?
I'm not sure I see it.
By that logic, if Braun goes on the DL with a nagging injury, does that mean he was using something last year?
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 02, 2012, 09:24:30 AM
I dont understand the people trying to invalidate MM's position. A year ago this time, most Braun supporters would have agreed with him.
Again - irrespective of whether Braun did or didn't - my point was that MLB is full of cheaters. There are plenty of guys in the HOF who are known cheaters... there will be more. It doesn't matter whether you steal signs, tar your glove, use PED's, stand outside the coach's box, get a bogus ADHD diagnosis from a physician, slide spikes up, or have a "momentary lapse in judgement," you're still violating the game. Cheating may have evolved over time, but it's always been a part of the game... baseball "historians" even tried to cheat Alexander Cartwright out of his legacy. It's just baseball's thing.
To expand on Sultan's point, whether Braun is a chronic cheater or a one-time moron remains to be seen, but that is what should define his legacy. I simply expanded on the point by implying that there's nothing pejorative about calling a player a cheater. I don't disagree with MM's underlying sentiment; however, if I'm attempting to invalidate anything, it's the connotation of the word "cheater" in the context which MM's is using.
Gaylord Perry was ejected, and suspended, for doctoring a ball in 1982. He is a "known cheater." However, despite this, he was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1991. (Many people dispute that he should have been elected, but that is based on his on-field performance, not the fact that he cheated.) Now if Perry had been repeatedly been suspended for doctoring a ball, he would have been viewed as a chronic cheater and likely would not have made the Hall of Fame.
If Braun stays clean the rest of his career, and he continues on the same arc he is now, this incident will likely be a footnote to what is a great career. If there are other incidents, he will likely have a big black mark that will be hard to shake. Only time will tell.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 02, 2012, 11:39:08 AM
Gaylord Perry was ejected, and suspended, for doctoring a ball in 1982. He is a "known cheater." However, despite this, he was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1991. (Many people dispute that he should have been elected, but that is based on his on-field performance, not the fact that he cheated.) Now if Perry had been repeatedly been suspended for doctoring a ball, he would have been viewed as a chronic cheater and likely would not have made the Hall of Fame.
If Braun stays clean the rest of his career, and he continues on the same arc he is now, this incident will likely be a footnote to what is a great career. If there are other incidents, he will likely have a big black mark that will be hard to shake. Only time will tell.
It's more than a black mark. It's a screaming red flag.
Pretending you got hit by a pitch, acting safe when you were out, running out a dropped third strike that the catcher actually caught, Gaylord Perry doctoring the ball....flopping in basketball...are examples of deceit. Injecting yourself with PEDs is cheating. Big difference.
Only fans in Milwaukee think Braun is clean. Players know differently.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 02, 2012, 08:19:12 PM
It's more than a black mark. It's a screaming red flag.
Pretending you got hit by a pitch, acting safe when you were out, running out a dropped third strike that the catcher actually caught, Gaylord Perry doctoring the ball....flopping in basketball...are examples of deceit. Injecting yourself with PEDs is cheating. Big difference.
Only fans in Milwaukee think Braun is clean. Players know differently.
I never said I thought Braun was clean. I think I made that point pretty clear earlier. I was pointing out an relevant, non PED example. Doctoring a baseball isn't simple deceit....it is cheating, and something he was ejected and suspended for.