dhoffman19
-
Posts
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by dhoffman19
-
The Cask is a good idea, just behind the Green Monster across Lansdowne St. Also, Game On is directly across the street and is part of Fenway. I'm also a big fan of The Yardhouse which is on Brookline Ave a couple blocks away. About 100 beers on tap and the food is a notch better. There's also a place called Bleacher Bar on Lansdowne which is also built into the CF wall at Fenway. There's a big garage door they open so you're basically a foot away from the warning track. Open even on non game days. Pretty cool. The freedom trail takes you through the North End, so there's your Italian food. If you want pizza there's a great place on Thacher St called Pizzeria Regina. Its a dive but the pizza is great. Otherwise, plenty of other places.
-
Yes, he has 30 days from February 23 (March 24), and I have not seen anything indicating that it's been issued yet. -
I am stunned that a guy who nicknamed himself "Dr. Heat" Is behind this bounty system. Just stunned.
-
That's a good interview. Maybe the most important point he made is that we need to keep in mind we really don't know exactly why Das ruled the way he did. We've been getting little drips and drabs of information, all of which has been leaked to reporters by one side or the other, so everything we're hearing has been spun by someone. Even the doping experts who have been quoted are biased for their own reasons, and even they are forming their conclusions based off of spun information. We'll really never know what happened unless the report eventually leaks.
-
Keep in mind Passan basically stole a FanGraphs article & posted it as his own last season, so this isn't exactly Mr. Ethics. I did not know that. Any more specifics?
-
Polygraphs are admissible in court in some states but not in others. So to refuse to report about it based on his own belief of the reliability of polygraphs or his view that it is not "material" is grossly irresponsible in my opinion. That said, reporting it without being able to confirm it through his sources is probably even more irresponsible.
-
Absolutely correct. Certain media members and Rob Manfred are twisting his words.
-
My understanding of the timeline is that the test(s) were done on Braun's sample, and MLB decided to press forward on Braun. Then, Braun's side appealed and began talking to consultants, after which one of those consultants leaked the info. So it seems that the decision to "press charges" on Braun was made before the leak. As to the other two mystery players testing positive, as far as I know the only source on that was something Dan Patrick said one day on his radio show. I haven't seen anyone else report that since, and I think we really need to take that particular report with a massive grain of salt. Having said all that, if it IS true and that was a big part of Braun's defense, I could understand why Braun would not want to get into more details of his defense at his press conference. He wouldn't want to throw the other teammates under the bus.
-
Fair point, but it seems to me that if one of his supposedly airtight sources was wrong about this, it's at least possible they were wrong about other things too.
-
Oh, and one more thing. His response to another guy asking him about the cooler thing: "You're entitled to believe what you want. My sources have rock solid and I think you're the last one who doesn't believe that." He also says he believed that cooler and container could be used interchangeably.
-
Passan had a back and forth on Twitter with a guy named Mark M who tried to call him on the cooler/container thing. Passan's response: "I suppose we can ask Laurenzi the exact type of Rubbermaid container, but I think he's got more important things on his mind." And actually, i just looked again and Passan responded to a tweet I sent thusly: "Look, if you want to find something to ding me on, I get it. But we're really splitting hairs at this point, are we not?" He also says he's going to call the guy's attorney to see what type of rubbermaid container. I'm sure if its a cooler, he'll rub our face in it. If not, we'll never hear anything. But I can't imagine that Laurenzi would have used the word "container" in a prepared statement surely edited by his attorney, if it was really a cooler - esp. where temperature control is such a big part of the equation. So I guess we can see who we're dealing with. He won't even admit that one of his sources may have been wrong about a minor point, even when it's indisputable. He has his agenda and whatever facts don't fit get ignored.
-
I sent him a quick email but doubt I'll hear anything. If I do, I bet it will be something along the lines of it being a minor detail, it was still a stable temperature, etc.
-
As Drew Olsen just pointed out on Twitter, it's interesting that the collector is being represented by an attorney in the NYC office of Wilmer Cutler, et al. That is an extremely expensive law firm, even by "big city" standards. I have to assume CDT is picking up the tab.
-
Okay, but even if this has been done before, we don't know that anyone has ever challenged a test on this basis, or even if MLB or anyone else was aware that CDT was telling its collectors to do this. Plus, the fact that CDT told him to do it does not make it any less of a problem (although if true, hopefully people will at least lay off this guy). The arbitrator was deciding whether the JDA was followed. It's not up to CDT to alter the procedure.
-
The JDA is perhaps a little inconsistent on this point. It says that absent extreme circumstances the sample must be sent to Montreal via Fedex the same day it is collected. Then a few paragraphs later, it says that "if the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment," the collector must ensure it is safely guarded and stored "in a cool and secure location." So I suppose this is the language CDT and the collector were relying on to give them permission to store it for a couple days - although it seems to me Fedex being done shipping for the day does not constitute "extreme circumstances." It's also interesting that the JDA says that the collector should not leave specimens in a car because this that will affect the lab's ability to analyze the specimen. (It also says that leaving testing kits, dipsticks, etc. in a car can damage them). This would seem to confirm that if the specimen is not stored appropriately it can affect the test. We've heard several different versions of where the sample was stored (fridge, on a desk in tupperware, in a cooler).
-
Fair enough, and the more I think about it the less happy I am with Braun for going down that road if he's not going to back it up with something more concrete. Also, if Will Carroll's report is true that Braun and his team were able to replicate the positive test by letting a specimen sit around for a while, it seems odd that Braun would have so strongly hinted at tampering. Anyway, my point was that it's laughable for Passan to claim the moral high ground and come down so hard on Braun for making this guy a target, when Passan himself was the first one to publish his name and ensure the guy and his family get harrassed.
-
That article is horrible. His response to quotes from Romero and Morse at the end are complete conjecture. The part about why Braun shouldnt pursue legal action - because he would be forced to tell his side to a court and since he is lying he would be guilty of perjury is not journalism but bias thoughts and feelings. I can understand people not being convinced Braun is innocent but when people are positive he is a cheater that frustrates me It's also funny that Passan jumps all over Braun for impugning the collector's character when Passan is the guy who decided to publish the collector's name and make him public enemy #1 to Brewer fans.
-
That's a very good point. I doubt (or at least hope) that ESPN would not have run the story based on one phone call. I suppose another possibility is that the leaker provided them a memo, fax, or email that had enough info to corroborate the story.
-
Agreed. I read TH's tweets to mean that the leak came from the office of one of the scientific consultants that Braun's team spoke to. I would also be floored if if came from an attorney representing Braun. Revealing client confidences is THE cardinal sin and he or she would be disbarred if caught. I'm an attorney and my firm sometimes consults with experts and when we do there is a confidentiality agreement - so I would be shocked if the principal at one of the consulting firms was the one to leak the info. Plus, if it got out that they were the leak, no one would ever hire them again. That said, maybe a secretary or other support staff member overheard something or saw a document they weren't supposed to see. Or maybe someone got fired by the consultant and decided they wanted revenge. Impossible to say.
-
Another point on this which came up in the comments section of the blog I posted earlier. Do we really have confimration that synthetic T showed up in the second test? The only source I am aware of for that statement is the original anonymous leak.
-
Here's a pretty good blog entry summarizing the Will Carroll article and some of the other things that aren't getting a lot of press. http://www.chadmoriyama.com/2012/02/ryan-braun-what-you-dont-know-about-his-case-is-important/
-
Source please? this would be a huge point that I have not heard before??? There is no "source" for that, really. There was a line in one of the news reports (maybe ESPN's) that collectors have taken samples to their homes before - though I haven't seen it attributed to a source. It's simply been repeated by other news sources - again, without sourcing. So now people are getting the idea that this happens all the time. Even if it has happened before, it certainly shouldn't under the JDA.
-
I'm also getting a little annoyed with people like Lupica, etc. saying that Braun didn't argue tampering with any evidence. Actually, Lupica went further and said Braun isn't claiming tampering. What proof could he possibly have of tampering? That's why the JDA (and criminal courts) have chain of custody rules - because it's impossible for Braun's team to know what happened to the sample while it was sitting around the guy's house for almost two full days.
-
Right, although I think Rollins said he knew of a situation where MLB just kind of dropped the issue as opposed to a player actualyl winning an appeal from the arbitration panel.
-
i think it's been reported by 'inside' sources that no one has ever beaten MLB in this situation (until now). Nothing, that i know of, has been officially released by baseball or any player. I think it's just multiple news outlets getting the 'inside' info from baseball. Correct. Although you are right that it would be confidential, members of the media including Tom Haudricourt have reported that according to their sources familiar with the drug testing program, no player has ever won one of these appeals.
