Fear The Chorizo

It's got to be the fact that they're the current World Champs - never mind that this team isn't close to being as potent without Pujols, their manager and their pitching coach. They have talent, but between the Brewers, Reds, and Cardinals, they have the most question marks when it comes to durability and projectibility. The Cards' best talent is largely past its prime, so it becomes a crapshoot to project how they perform as a team based on their age and injury risks.

I believe the new ownership group will have the opportunity to negotiate a new TV contract in 2013 - when the Angels got what they did in their new TV deal, and the Rangers recently landed a TV deal worth over between 1.6 and 3 Billion dollars, it starts getting easier seeing how the Dodgers may be worth 2 Billion with a B. Probably an overestimation, but there's people out there saying the Dodgers' new TV deal alone could give them annual revenue approaching 300 million. Plus the stadium, parking lots and other land owned in the area is included with the Dodgers sale. Land in LA is still pretty expensive. The ManU takeover in 2005 is largely irrelevant, since TV money 8 full years later dwarfs what is was then. Purchasing ManU and everything that comes with them right now would cost much more than 1.5 billion.

Also, when Marcum gave up the granny to Paul Goldschmidt he threw his glove like a 10 year old, but I seem to remember him having to call Lucroy to the mound that AB because of the signs. I remember thinking Marcum looked pissed at Lucroy even though he just gave up a grand slam. I remember the same thing - at the time I thought Marcum couldn't see the signs Lucroy was giving him with a guy on 2nd base - I remember it being difficult for me to see Lucroy's signs from television. I also remember Lucroy coming out, either in the next inning or the next game, with white tape on his fingers - presumably so it was easier for pitchers to see his fingers.

I don't think you can pencil the Brewers for 90+ wins after they lost the most important bat in their lineup. Yeah Fielder was poor defensively, but he anchored the lineup that struggled to score all season long when he wasn't hitting well. I like the Brewers' staff and they will have an improved defense from last season. Offensively, I think it's tough to just look at Fielder+McGehee vs Gamel+Ramirez as a wash. The best pitchers in the NL Central are righties, and arguable the best lefthanded power bat in the NL over the last few seasons isn't on the Brewers anymore. If the Brewers stay relatively healthy and Gamel doesn't fall on his face, the Brewers are in a great position to win the division. I like the Reds more than the Cards, but any of the 3 teams could win the division if the breaks go their way.

Here's how I look at the Marcum-Lawrie trade: If it didn't happen, there's no way the Brewers win the division or even get in the playoffs last season, and it's likely that Melvin would have been looking for a different job. He knew 2011 was the Brewers' best shot at winning it all with Fielder still around and he went for it. Like others have said, if Lawrie wasn't part of the trade for Marcum he most certainly would have been for Greinke (if Greinke had even waived his no trade without Marcum being acquired). Marcum had a horrible postseason and struggled down the stretch, but he was excellent in keeping the Brewers afloat during the 1st 1/2 of the season until Greinke rounded into form and the rest of the pitching staff stabilized. Sure it would be nice to have Lawrie in Milwaukee, but last I checked he isn't a pitcher. If you don't have enough pitching you have to pay dearly to get it (See the Reds with the Latos trade). Based on what the Brewers' brass knew about Lawrie at the time, you make that trade 10 out of 10 times with the situation the big league team was facing going into 2011. I think he'll be a very good player, but I don't think he's going to be an organization-changer like a Braun or Fielder.

Braun can tell us a lot right now. He's just not going to, if for no other reason than that he's subject to an agreement that says he can't say anything about it. That agreement was breached by the initial leak, who I think may be the focus of legal action by Braun's team. If the leak was someone Braun's team was talking to following the failed drug test as many believe, the issue is the leak didn't come from Braun, MLB reps, or the players' union. Braun can respect the intended confidentiality of this process all he wants, but I think there are going to be enough people fully aware of more information (including Das' written decision) that eventually somebody's going to take what they know and release it publicly. Braun wouldn't have gotten into specifics with teammates if he wasn't intending on more information eventually being made public. This isn't going to be a story that goes away, and there's too much incentive by members of the media to get the whole scoop.

Counting weekend days, I believe today is the 30th day from when the announcement of Braun winning his appeal was made. Not sure if we'd even know whether Das' written decision has already been submitted, but I think it's due by today unless weekend days don't count in that timeframe. If what Lucroy and other Brewer players have said is true, that they know much more of the story than the general public because Braun told them about it, more details are going to keep coming out. They're going to get asked about the treatment Braun's going to get at every road game repeatedly, and eventually the answer of "if you only knew what we do" is going to get tired. Braun will feel pressure from the locker room to give that information publicly or do what he threatened to do in his press conference and pursue legal options.

IF there were two other samples, the immediate question to be asked by the media is "Whose samples?" Remember the media seeming perplexed at how little Fielder wanted to talk about Braun after he won his appeal, and how quickly he changed the subject? Wouldn't be surprised if he was tested that day, too.

I heard the other 2 were thrown out, but have we confirmed that? That was the rumor - interesting that Laurenzi and Braun mentioned 3 players being tested that day. If all 3 of the samples collected on that day had unusual T/E results, I would hope that would raise some red flags on sample integrity. There may be a coordinated effort between MLB and Braun to keep the other players' tests under wraps - the way Braun's been villified I wouldn't want to be the other players who were tested and had the results thrown out or also overturned a suspension on appeal.

To make any conculsions at this point is foolish, because for as much information that's been discussed, we (the public) don't know everything involved factually - simple as that. And as evidenced by the repeated misrepresentation of how foolproof the test for synthetic T is, it seems that there are a great number of people who would never think Braun is clean. Even if Braun's the FIRST player to win his appeal of a suspension, even if there are a good # of things we do know publicly that bring the integrity of the failed sample into question, even if more information is eventually made public that a reasonable person views as solid evidence exonerating Braun, many will still assume he's guilty because of a leak in the process made several months before Braun's defense was even heard in the appeal hearing. I think there's two things holding up the process of more information being made public - 1. I think Braun's team may be weighing the option of going after the leak in court, and the only way they would have grounds to go after them is if they don't do the same thing. If Braun's clean and "the whole story" hasn't been told, it may benefit him more to forego legal action and just air everything out (including who the leak was). I think there'd be more benefit to him by clearing his name in public rather than trying to litigate this further. 2. Has it been confirmed whether Das has even issued his written decision yet? I think he has 30 days after the ruling to send that to MLBPA and MLB - if that hasn't been issued, there really hasn't been any new information produced by anyone of note to leak.

More information will come out over time, either good or bad for Braun's reputation. Today's society relies so much on getting all the information ASAP - this case wasn't intended to be like that but the leak changed things. There's $ signs for whoever publicizes the whole scoop, too many people know the actual details for this not to be made public eventually. If Braun truly is innocent, he's going to get sick of dealing with the prolonged stigma of being a cheater who found a loophole to luckily get away with it. I don't care what sort of arrangement he would have with MLB, at some point you have to look out for your own best interests if there's more information available to sway public opinion. If the leak did come from someone Braun's team was consulting (as all signs currently point), then Braun or MLB would be foolish to leak additional information at this time if they were considering legal action. Presenting Das' decision themselves would be doing the same thing that they would be going after the initial leak for doing. My guess is Braun's team is currently weighing the option of either going after the leak in court while witholding the information that led to his exoneration or forgetting about legal benefits maintaining confidentiality and just air out all the information from the decision and who the original leak was publicly.

I wonder if he'll be collecting samples this year at Miller Park - my gut tells me the Brewers may request someone else. I'm guessing this "article" wasn't based off Cub players stating that they'd love to have Laurenzi take their samples home for the weekend before shipping them out, too.

Have tie-breaking criteria been published yet? Is it possible we'll have multiple one-game playoffs before the actual one-game playoffs? Yeah, that would be interesting - Say there has to be a game #163 to determine the AL Central winner between two teams. Then the loser of that game has the same regular season record as the #2-seeded wild card team, so they have a game #164 to see who the 2nd wildcard is. Then the winner of that game finally plays the top-seeded wildcard. What if there are multiple teams from separate divisions that have the same record for a wildcard spot? I'm sure there are tiebreakers, but it gets tricky to do that because winning the division is now an even bigger deal than winning a wildcard spot.

Hopefully the whole decision will be leaked soon. I'd assume MLB will leak it if they feel as strongly in private as they do publicly. I think MLB is the one party in all this that wouldn't want to leak the decision - regardless of what's in it, the decision will make either the testing protocol or appeals protocol of the JDA that MLB has been advertising as "the gold standard" for professional sports drug testing look bad. Either Braun is the victim of a poorly constructed testing protocol, or Braun's defense found a gaping loophole in the JDA to overturn his suspension.

Laurenzi's statement focuses on how he didn't tamper with the sample - Braun may have insinuated that it was very possible for him to tamper with it, but he didn't directly accuse him. Braun focused on trying to show how 44 hours could have led to just about anything happening to that sample, and listed several scenarios that, when you look at how the JDA is written, are plausible to have happened. Even if Braun doesn't focus on the collector during his statement, his identity would be known by now and the same questions Braun publicly stated would be asked by others. At this point, I view both Braun and Laurenzi as victims of a poorly formulated drug testing procedure, unless additional evidence comes out to change my opinion. As written, Laurenzi didn't violate the JDA - but the procedure in the JDA could very well have led to Braun's sample results being screwed up. The appeal process outlined in the JDA worked to overturn a faulty testing procedure, IMO.

Shyam Das, Ryan Braun, and Dino Laurenzi?

apologies for a long post, but I spent too much time reviewing the JDA from the grassy knoll. A couple of other items from the JDA collection procedures protocol: F...."There must be a minium of 3 specimen collection cups from which the player can choose" P. "The player shall select the collection kit from a choice of at least 3 collection kits" (this kit includes the A&B vials and security seals) R. "The Collector must ask the player to verify that the Specimen I.D. numbers on the top of the chain of custody form match those on the security seals.....Only the collector shall initial and date the security seals." From the Chain of Custody procedures in the JDA: V-4. The Collector shall turn to Page 2 (the pink copy) of the chain of custody form...the Player shall print and sign his name and provide the date of the collection in Section 5 of the chain of custody form. V-9. The Collector shall place Page 1 of the chain of custody form in the back pocket of the plastic bag and shall seal the plastic bag. V-10. Plastic bag containing specimens and chain of custody shall be placed in the specimen box. So here's the conspiracy theory of sample tampering at play: 1. The collector took 3 samples that day. The JDA would require him to have at least 2 extra sample containers and kits to take with him to the ballpark so the players tested always had at least 3 options to complete their test with. That means he also has extra vials and security seals. Players don't initial/date the security seals after they've been placed on the vials. 2. The Player does sign and date the pink copy of the chain of custody indicating he agrees that his sample matches the specimen ID # listed on the chain. He doesn't, however, sign the copy of the chain that gets shipped to the lab with the sample so the lab can't identify whose it is. In summary, the collector would have in his possession: at least 2 extra sample containers, kits, and chains of custody with preprinted security id numbers. The only markings made by a player are on a copy of the chain that doesn't go to the lab. If motivated, the collector could take a sample home, break the seals and place in a "spiked" container or grab a different sample that's tainted. He could then use one of the extra kits to collect, seal, and initial the tampered sample. Fill out the chain with the matching specimen ID#, and then transpose a player's signature/date writing from the original to the tampered chain's pink copy by retracing it. I'm not saying this is how it happened - just an exercise to show that Braun was correct in his statement that it would be "extremely easy" for someone in the collector's position to tamper with a sample if motivated given these circumstances without the lab finding any issues of tampering with containers.

The JDA specifies that samples need to be shipped express overnight to the lab so they are received the next day. It details that if a sample is collected on a Friday that the box on the airbill needs to be checked for Saturday delivery to maintain the overnight shipment. There is nothing specific in the JDA detailing the proper way to handle a sample if it was collected on a Saturday or Sunday - just store samples in cool, secure location and maintain chain of custody. I'd even argue that this language has more to do with the circumstance that the sealed specimen boxes weren't immediately packaged in the shipping packaging. Laurenzi cites in his statement that he did all of that while still at Miller Park that Saturday. It's a technicality, but Laurenzi's statement indicates he did immediately prepare the samples for shipment...he then waited 44 hours to actually drop the samples off at a Fedex (from 5 pm Saturday to 1:30 pm Monday) If a 2-3 day delay wasn't an issue with urinalysis, the JDA wouldn't detail the need for overnight shipment and many of these samples could be shipped via ground at a lower cost to MLB. The "fatal flaw" of the current testing policy to me appears to be the lack of a solid protocol for what to do with samples collected on weekend days and late Friday nights. To have this gap in the policy in a sport that always has games on both weekend days just doesn't add up, and it's a huge oversight no matter what side of the aisle you're on in Braun's case.

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 believe ESPN had something similar running on their ticker sometime in December as well, but it wasn't as specific. That same source Patrick cited was the one who indicated that Braun likely would be exonerated and not suspended - this was shortly after the actual appeal hearing and well before anyone else in the media was publicly saying Braun would likely be cleared. Patrick's source may not have been directly involved with the hearing, but he/she may have gotten information from someone who was.

Collector of Braun's sample implicates wife - states she was in home with sample

The quick lab check for degredation, I believe, is to look for flora (bacteria) in the sample. They're not looking to see if metabolites in the urine have been altered or destroyed. The pH of a sample affects how rapidly it could promote flora generation if improperly stored. It is possible for the metabolite ratios tested in the sample to change due to chemical processes without flora being present. Cooling or freezing a sample significantly slows or stops those processes, which allow a longer timeframe to analyze a sample and get a reliable result. In this instance, it appears as if the lab received Braun's sample almost 3 full days after it was collected, and the only thing keeping the sample cool for 2 of those days was it being in a basement that probably wasn't below 60 degrees. Plus, the sample likely sat in the collector's car for 4 hours before he could finally take it to Fedex early Monday afternoon. So the lab can say they tested for degredation and didn't see evidence of it, but the sample still could have been altered by how it was stored in a way that produced the failed T:E result. This, I believe, is what Mr. Carroll has been alluding to over the past few days. Anyone in the know, please correct me if I stated anything poorly.

Spent some time going through the JDA - for specimens, the policy dictates that they are to be shipped "Fedex Express OVERNIGHT*", and the asterisk details that "If Shipping on Friday, check SATURDAY delivery" on the airbill - that indicates that MLB wants the samples at the lab by the next day. There is no part that I could find in the JDA that covered what to do for samples collected on a Saturday specifically, just the general language stating that the collector must keep the chain of custody in tact and store the samples in a cool and secure location (what's the acceptable temperature for "cool"?). I find it shocking that for a sport who plays games 7 days/week that they don't have specific instructions for how to properly store samples collected on Saturdays/Sundays, when overnight shipment of them to the lab is most likely not possible. There's also specific language stating that the collector should not leave specimens in a car, since it affects the lab's ability to analyze the specimen. And, the collector shouldn't leave kits, refractometer or dipsticks in his car. The heat/cold can adversely affect the equipment.

Ask Passan if it's still considered a cooler if there's nothing cool inside of it...It could be the best insulated cooler Rubbermaid makes - means nothing if there's no ice inside it. Maybe when he goes tailgating he doesn't need to put ice in his cooler to make the beer cold - must be one of them magic coolers they give sample collectors or something.

Rubbermaid makes plenty of coolers - problem is if you don't have ice in them, they're about as good as a cardboard box at keeping things cool. You think Dino's lawyered-up statement would have omitted something as important as ice being put into whatever stored those samples if he actually did? Say Dino put the samples in the cooler after the game ended. If he doesn't put ice in that cooler, he's essentially putting the samples in a controlled environment that's at best 50 degrees and realistically closer to 65 degrees for 2 days in a basement. The other point about the samples being dropped off at Fedex at 1:30 - if he's dropping them off on his break, he's going from work to FedEx. That means those samples are in his car for the morning on a day that reached into the mid-60's for highs. On Sunday Oct 2, the temperature approached 70.

I also agree with you about the opportunity to make some changes to the system. I think MLB has no other choice after this. Two quick changes off the top of my head would be: 1 - MLB should designate specific FedEx locations near ballparks where all samples HAVE to be dropped off by the collectors on the same day the samples were taken, or by a designated time the next day (if it's collected after a night game, for example). 2 - As a backup, MLB should buy all sample collectors icemakers. One thing bothers me - what's the acceptable method for these urine samples to be shipped to the lab? I probably haven't found the right resource, but I'm reading alot of methods that they should be frozen via dry ice or at a minimum shipped with ice. I don't think Mr. Laurenzi's basement is kept at a controlled temperature of 37-degrees F, so it's tough to view his assertion that it's cool enough to store samples based on his word that he's done it before without incident.