topper09er

Well speaking of devastating blackouts, does anyone know if FSN will show Bucks or Brewers games when they overlap this year?

How do you feel about the White Sox? They are all Bears fans too

If we had 30 teams competing for 2 playoff spots that would be terrible. With 16 teams its not so bad. The sport would be far, far worse if more teams didn't have hope. There would no point to being a Brewer fan if there were no playoffs. This is why there are more playoff spots, not because of money. They have playoffs games on during the day, if they were interested in money that would never happen, how many NBA playoff games occur during the day? Also, the playoffs are more exciting from a fan perspective even though they are less "fair". If you wanted a fair system then all 30 teams should play each other an equal number of times and the team with the best record is the winner and there are no playoffs. It is better to have smaller divisions to create rivalries and give more fans hope their team can win the WS. It is great that 5 WC winners have won the WS because most fans can still have WS hope in August, even if it is remote. If we played each team in the league the same number of times we would not hate the cubs any more than the padres, which would suck. We also would have to watch more games starting at late times which is worse for the fans.

Tony LaRussa so thoroughly dominated Ron Roenicke with every possible decision and won the series for his less talented team.

This decision is in place as a way to help the lower revenue teams. In reality in the AL you have 12 teams fighting for 2 playoff spots with the Yankees/Red Sox nearly guaranteed to get the other 2. Now you have 3 spots for those 12 teams which helps out a lot. I don't like it because it does not address the real problem which would be solved by revenue sharing but that is a whole different topic. This also makes the regular season more important because if you don't win your division you have the 1 game crap shoot. Previously, especially with regard to the AL East race recently, it was at many times pointless because the division winner and wild card team are equal in the playoffs except for home field advantage. Now winning the division is much more important. There is also the issue of using your ace at the end of the season just to make the playoffs, giving you a disadvantage in the 1 game playoff, and even if you can use your ace in the 1 game playoff you are at a disadvantage in the division series round because the division winner has their ace rested. This makes it harder for a wild card team to win the world series.

Nowadays no one is more 'grizzled' than Ryan Braun

ESPN headline: Collector in Braun case: I followed protocol MLB headline: Collector of Braun's sample refutes allegations What the national headline should read: Braun's sample left unrefrigerated over weekend

That's because their view is that he was not "exonerated", they feel he got off because of procedural errors not because he was innocent. Even some players share that view. Similarly if the police illegally search my home and find illegal drugs, the fact that the evidence found can not be used to convict me and I end up being found not guilty as a result does not "exonerate" me. I said this because I assumed that this case is not like a criminal investigation. I could be wrong and it would be great if a lawyer around here could chime in. In a criminal case, if the police illegally obtain a video of someone committing the crime they are being tried for the judge has to throw it out, even if he doesn't want to and even if he knows it will allow the criminal to go free. He HAS to follow a set of rules dictated by the law. None of these apply to Braun's case. There are no illegal search and seizure rules here, no judge is deciding whether or not to admit certain evidence. The arbiter does not have a list that says if these things occur then you HAVE to vote for one side or the other no matter what you think. So if MLB could demonstrate that nothing happened to the sample, even if it went missing (which the Yahoo report is claiming by saying there was no sign of biological degradation) then I cant see the arbiter letting Braun off on only the technicality that the sample was stored properly in the collector's house instead of fedex. There must be more to convince the arbiter, and whatever it is did convince him so I am surprised so many people assume that the ONLY reason he sided with Braun was because of the technicality.

In an unrelated note to uncovering what actually went on in this case, say what you want about ESPN or MLB in this case but they have a propaganda machine that would make Joseph Goebbels envious. I can't believe that the majority of public opinion is still siding with them and the whole technicality excuse even though Braun was exonerated by an independent arbiter. I understand the guilty until proven innocent angle that most people had since the December leak, but after he was exonerated it seems like more people think he did it than before.

Things still do not add up and this is my summary as of now: There are 4 possible ways the positive test result occurred 1) Braun was juicing 2) The sample was left out or not stored properly and degraded before it was tested 3) The collector intentionally spiked it 4) The lab screwed up/misinterpreted the sample and got a false positive I find 3 very hard to believe, the risk reward does not seem to be there, what could his motivation be? Either money or to hurt a rival team? I assume this would land you some jail time so doing it just to stick it to a rival team is not worth risking jail time, and I don't see how he could make any money off of it, unless he contacted ESPN and was the leak himself. All seems way too crazy. I find 4 to be unlikely just because this has never happened before. If Braun was suspended I think he would have had a press conference anyways saying how this was the wrong decision, he was 100% innocent and he disagrees with the ruling. None of the other suspended players did this, or even said anything to the media from what I can remember...because they knew they were guilty. MLB has to have administered at least 20,000 of these tests and now the first ever false positive happens to the NL MVP, I can't see it. I find 1 hard to believe because of the obvious reasons, he had been tested many times before, including during the 2011 season, and he knew he would be tested for the playoffs. Also all of the documented things he listed about not getting and faster or lifting any more weights. I find it pretty hard to believe that if MLB had a lock tight case that could prove at every step along the way Braun's sample was untainted and he juiced, but the only thing going for Braun was that the sample spent 2 days in the professional collector's fridge instead of FedEx's fridge, that the arbiter would rule in with Braun. Also his press conference seemed pretty convincing, however, playing devil's advocate, how many people though this guy was full of it when he "vehemently" denied juicing to congress. http://a.espncdn.com/media/mlb/2005/0801/photo/a_palmeiro_275.jpg I do think that 1 is more likely than 3 or 4 though. This leaves 2, a handling error that caused the sample to degrade somehow. We know it is possible for this to occur, based on the appeal in the Diane Modahl case which was able to reproduce the high T:E ratio by leaving a sample out. "A theory began to emerge. Perhaps...delayed refrigeration kickstarted a bacterial growth in the urine, a byproduct of which was an increased level of testosterone in the sample. Professor Gaskell was asked to perform experiments to test this hypothesis. He showed that indeed in these conditions testosterone would be created." (http://tinyurl.com/85tgltm) Problem with this are: That Yahoo report specifically said this did not occur...according to "sources" so I'm not very convinced unless these "sources" come out and say who they are have documentation showing they checked for bacterial degradation and did not find any. In the Diane Modahl case her test sample had degraded but the bacteria was missed by the original testers (which may be reasonable if they assume that the sample was not left out or stored improperly) "When the lab ran the tests on Braun’s urine specimen, it did not find microbial degradation – bacteria growth – that would have tainted the sample, according to two sources. The seals on the samples remained intact, sources said." (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_manfred_022412) The other problem is: Why did this not happen to the other 2 mystery Brewers' samples??? I assume the guy stored all 3 samples in the same manner (unless he was intentionally trying to mess with Braun's sample) so if Braun's degraded into a high T:E ratio why didn't the other 2 samples? OR did they but those players also appealed and won using the same defense as Braun and those cases remained confidential?? Another missing piece of info, how would someone show a T:E ratio 3 times higher than ever tested before? Could this be achieved easily if you were simply injecting testosterone? Or would this require such a vast amount of testosterone that it would be very unlikely anyone would do it? Are we talking about something on the scale of eating an extra bag of chips or an extra 50 pounds of meat in one day? In summary if Braun's sample degraded, which I think is the most likely scenario, why didn't the other 2?

Someone needs to write a national article on the parallels between Braun and the Diane Modahl case. It seriously looks like the exact same thing happened to Braun. Here is more: http://www.thelawyer.com/sports/mergers-guidelines-beyond-reproach/96293.article "Diane Modahl was banned following a drug test which apparently revealed a record ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in a urine sample provided by her. On appeal her lawyers queried whether the Lisbon testing laboratory had correctly followed the scientific procedures and guidelines laid down by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF). It was also alleged that Modahl's sample had become degraded by being left unrefrigerated for about 40 hours before being transferred to the laboratory. The medical evidence produced by her lawyers (albeit at a late stage) supported the view that this could have led to an inaccurate test result. Contrast this with Al Guy, a senior IAAF official and one of the members of the original tribunal which heard the case, who was quoted in The Sunday Telegraph as saying: "If I conduct testing at Gateshead on a Friday night, I'll hand the samples over and they might be in someone's car boot until they are delivered to the lab at Chelsea on the Wednesday morning." The legal procedures followed at the two hearings into Diane Modahl's case are worthy of scrutiny. By its own guidelines the IAAF provides for the production of contemporaneous documents evidencing the chain of custody relating to the samples given. At the first hearing, none of the directors of the testing laboratory were available for cross-examination by Modahl's lawyers on their procedural methods. This, together with the fact that no chain of custody could be evidenced, makes the tribunal's initial decision difficult to reconcile with the burden of proof required. At the appeal hearing new scientific evidence produced by Modahl's lawyers was admitted and proved crucial to the appeal tribunal's decision to overrule the initial decision. The appeal tribunal clearly felt that it could not be said beyond reasonable doubt that Modahl had taken testosterone enhancing drugs."

This makes sense because the whole son thing seems a little odd/unusual, however around the 9:30 mark in Braun's talk he said: "There were upward of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and HIS house..."

Another interesting read that sounds like Braun's case. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/whats-on/ou-on-the-bbc-background-brief-testing-the-best-the-story-so-far "High levels of testosterone were found in her urine and she was suspended from further competitions. She knew she was clean. But until then no athlete accused of drug-taking had succeeded in clearing their name, so her chances looked slim." "...assessment showed there were some serious flaws in the way the analysis had been performed, not least in the way the sample had been stored immediately prior to analysis. The sample certainly contained very high amounts of testosterone - but something didn’t add up because when testosterone is injected or ingested, the body normally produces chemicals called metabolites. These were mysteriously missing from Diane’s sample... Also an extremely high pH level suggested the the urine sample had degraded while in the lab, which raised questions about the storage of the sample."

More that sounds like the Braun case: "Diane Modahl's appeal against her ban was heard by the Independent Appeal Panel. The same evidence was put forward. By this time, however, the defense could show that the bacterial transformation theory could be replicated under laboratory conditions. On this ground the panel held that the taking allegations could no longer be sustained on the balance of probabilities. The finding was overturned and the ban squashed. http://tinyurl.com/6r3bnn5, from the book Sports Law by Simon Gardiner

More parallels from the Diane Modahl incident and Braun: "Whether Modahl finally wins or loses, the sport will be thrown back into turmoil...If she wins, the whole drugs procedure will be open to criticism. Officials of the IAAF have made it clear that they want to see a guilty verdict confirmed in order to vindicate their dope testing system." http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/modahl-appeal-adds-to-strain-1592831.html

More on Diane Modahl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Modahl From wikipedia: "Her career nearly ended in 1994 when she was accused of taking the performance-enhancing drug, testosterone. She was sent home from the Commonwealth Games in Canada. Modahl engaged lawyers to show that the laboratory in Lisbon had stored her urine sample on a table in a room heated at 35 degrees for three days, which caused bacterial degradation. " NO SOURCE FOR THIS. From a story BEFORE her suspension was overturned: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/15/newsid_2559000/2559981.stm "The former 800m Commonwealth gold-medallist, Diane Modahl, has been found guilty of taking a performance enhancing drug" "It dismissed claims the high level of testosterone in her urine - 42 times greater than normal - was caused by mishandling in the Portuguese laboratory." "But the athlete pledged to prove her innocence. 'I have declared my innocence, I have never taken any banned substance' 'I am horrified at the decision and at the prospect of the nightmare of the last four months continuing,' she said. "Her defence argues there was a degradation of the urine sample taken after the Santo Antonio athletic meeting in Lisbon. They claim the Lisbon laboratory failed to follow good practices, casting real doubt over the result. But the BAF panel chairman, Dr Martyn Lucking, said:"Having heard all the evidence and considered all the documents, the committee was satisfied unanimously beyond all reasonable doubt that a doping offence had been committed by Mrs Modhal." Oops, I assume Dr Martin Lucking never issued an apology

Found this by doing some google searching: "Testosterone and a related compound, epitestosterone, are eliminated from the body in urine. When an athlete takes anabolic steroids, the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (the T/E ratio) increases. The International Olympic Committee states that an athlete is guilty of doping if their urine sample shows a T/E ratio above 6. There are problems with this test. For example, British athlete Diane Mohdahl had a 4-year competition ban lifted after demonstrating that a high T/E ratio detected in her urine sample could have been caused by bacterial contamination. Another problem is that some athletes have been shown to have a naturally high T/E ratio, so that the threshold of 6 could be set too low." Source: http://www.science.org.au/nova/055/055key.htm Could the part in bold be what happened with Braun's sample if it was left out at room temperature?

Maybe it was Steve Bartman in an attempt to regain respectability in Chicago.

Source please? this would be a huge point that I have not heard before???

Let's assume this was not a false positive and the sample tested in the lab actually had the elevated T:E ratio. Is it possible for a normal sample to change into one with a high T:E rate just by being left out in a non ideal temperature for a day? I am asking you since you seem to be very knowledgeable on the topic.

Well we do know that there have been 13 (50 game) suspensions + Braun, so 14 positive tests for steroids since 2005 (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/steroids_baseball.shtml). If we assume each player was tested 3 times/season (which is conservative based on Braun saying he has been tested 25 times in 5 years) that would mean there have been 3 tests*750 players*7 seasons = 15,750 tests performed, meaning a positive rate of 14/15750 = 0.0009. None of the other 13 tests seem to be false positives based on: No player had the suspension overturned, no player came out and denied everything like Braun, no player gave a plausible explanation for what went wrong and how the test came out positive and no player tried to pursue further legal action after the case was settled, again like Braun. Even in the case of J.C. Romero who likely unknowing took something other than steroids which caused his suspension, he never challenged that the test result was incorrect, he claimed he did not knowingly cheat. This makes it look like the "false positive" rate for the 50 game steroid suspension is 1/15750 = 0.00006. The odds that this false positive would happen to the star player of a team, say 1 out of every 25 players, is even more remote.

Won't happen. Roenicke has said Ramirez will be cleanup, and Morgan will hit 2nd. Since Weeks won't hit 5th, that leaves leadoff. Thus, my prediction is... Weeks Morgan Braun Ramirez Hart Gamel Gonzalez Lucroy I didn't know Ramirez was already announced as the cleanup hitter, however didn't Hart complain about 5 last season and they moved him?

The important aspects of this case we do not know are: 1) Is it possible a sample could show this result by just sitting around for a day or 2 2) Why did this not happen to the other 2 mystery samples or 2a) did they also show up positive and those other 2 brewers also appealed and won and we have no idea because it was not leaked or 2b) is it statistically likely that given all the variables 1/3 samples could change by sitting out, or this the kind of chemical process that is all or nothing, ie any sample left out would show the elevated levels 3) If 1 is not chemically possible is there any other possible explanation besides either Braun is guilty (seems almost impossible after that presser) or the guy intentionally spiked Braun's sample? It seems very unlikely this could be a false positive due to human error by the lab tech in Montreal because there must have 10s of thousands of these tests analyzed previously with 0 false positives and now the first one happens to the NL MVP?

One important question I would like to have answered by someone who knows: Is it physically possible for the T:E ratio to increase in a urine sample if it is say left at room temperature? This seems like a huge question that has never been addressed. If I peed in a cup, left it at room temperature for a day would it be possible to see an elevated T:E ratio afterwards?

Opening day prediction: 1 Hart 9 2 Morgan 8 3 Braun 7 4 Weeks 4 5 Ramirez 5 6 Gonzalez 6 7 Gamel 3 8 Lucroy 2