Patrick425

I'm guessing he won't speak until the ARod appeal is decided. Even then, can anyone believe a word that comes out of his mouth at this point?

Yes..but would you sell it for $300,000?...that's the question. I think it would be dumb to trade him now for that reason. I think over time, if his numbers don't drop off, he stays clean, and the freshness of the "odor" perhaps dies down a bit, then he becomes more trade-able. However, what would be the point of trading him then. Regardless of the stats he puts up, my belief is that most fan bases would not be very receptive to their team swinging a deal for Braun. I'm aware that others on this site disagree with that.

Last time the Yankees were in town I saw Jane Seymour and ARod walking around downtown. I walked right past them, they were looking for a place to eat lunch. Don't ask me how ARod knows Jane Seymour. When I got back to the office and told people who I saw, someone said that they heard that Seymour was in town that day for some sort of mattress promotion.

No "take a penny, leave a penny" tray?

That's awesome rwa. He's going to be one tough kid!

I think the better question is who's going to give you the value you desire in return for a Bugatti that wreaks of puke? Remember the Seinfeld Car B.O. episode when Jerry eventually just had to leave the car on the street with the keys in it?

Seems somewhat like apples and oranges. People who have had Tommy John surgery faced a pre-mature career ending injury. Taking PEDs that help you perform better and/or recover from an injury quicker is not quite the same thing.

Well, we do know that MLB used some form of coercion against Bosch and Biogenesis (that's blackmail) Ummm....no we don't. I'll stop being "snarky" when you stop pretending to know things you could have no possible way of knowing. We also do know that the majority (by far) of the players that got suspended did not fail a drug test. This is allowed under the CBA that both side agreed to.

Do you guys think the NBA, NFL, Olympics, etc are catching every user? Do you think MLB has a inferior testing policy to other sports? Do you think that nobody should ever be arrested for a crime unless everyone that has ever committed that same crime is also arrested? Also, RoCoBrewfan...do you work for MLB or the Player's Union? You seem to have a lot of facts (or at least you present them as facts) about what "really" happened.

There is no straight answer to that because it's not a "straight" question. $20 million vs. ?? What would have Braun been worth without the PEDs? Some say that the current PEDs do nothing but help you recover quickly. Hard to quantify how much that was worth in terms of $$ in his contract. I don't know that the reward is greater than the risk and I know that I wouldn't agree to play by rules if I didn't think I could follow them. "Keep your name off of lists". A) You say that like you have certain proof that this is the only reason why these guys were suspended. No one on this board knows with any certainty or detail what evidence that MLB accumulated against these players in their investigation B) You also say this like it's a simple thing to do. Even if you separate yourself from the distributor by 2, 3, 4 people, there is always someone out there that knows and can be motivated to blow the whistle on you. There will always be a trail that leads back to you. As has been stated, I think MLB and the players union (who have made no statements to defend these players) has made it clear that they will do what it takes to weed out players that do not want to play by the mutually agreed upon rules. If you can't abide by this and feel that the reward is greater than the risk, then don't cry foul when you are caught and face suspension or even possible banishment from the game.

This might be my favorite post of the entire thread. I don't know enough about all the banned substances that are listed in the drug agreement to make a judgement about how each one of them helps or doesn't help a player perform (same for substances that are not on the list like creatine). However, apparently there are enough players in the game who are in agreement with the powers at MLB that the substances listed as banned are substances that don't have a place in the game of baseball. And, as markedman5 stated, that's really all that matters.

Thank you! That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make! Also, remember, what is happening in baseball is based on a CBA that both the players and MLB agreed upon. So, before you say "what about Braun and double jeopardy"...he was suspended under rules that the people that represent him agreed upon. He knew (or should have known) those rules.

Melky Cabrera, Bartolo Colon, and Yasmani Grandel tested positive last year and were suspended last year (and part of this year for Grandel). However, they won't be suspended now because of their connections to biogenesis because they were already suspended last year for testing positive. To me if you are going to suspend all these other players because of their "connection", those three guys need to be suspended too. What difference does it make that they served a suspension for testing positive last year. Last year's positive results and this year's "connection" are two separate issues and should be dealt with separately. Huh? So, someone murders someone. They spend 30 years in prison and then they are released. A year after they are released the state finds new evidence that was not used in the original trial reaffirms that the murderer committed the original crime. Based on this "new evidence" they send the murderer back to jail for the same crime. I'm not trying to compare murder to taking PEDs. I'm just saying that what you are saying seems to make just as much sense as the scenario I mentioned.

The guy starting for the Yankees tonight, no not A-Rod, Andy Pettitte. He tested positive? I know he was implicated in the Mitchell report and admitted his guilt, but I'm not sure he ever tested positive under any MLB drug test. I could be wrong.

Or, to play conspiracy theorist here... Some completely innocent players are going to be suspended because of unfounded hearsay or a vindictive "clinic" owner. I understand most people think MLB's testing is pretty worthless but the fact that all these players are getting suspended without a positive test is ludicrous to me. Even more ludicrous is that the players that HAVE tested positive AREN'T getting suspended. When people say things like "MLB's testing is pretty worthless" they make it sound like that's MLB's fault. As I said before, I think it's just the nature of the constant revolution of PED's and their masking agents. I don't know that even the most sophisticated system could keep up with it. Also what players have tested positive and are not being suspended??

When you said she "went in", you mean on a non-game day? If that's the case I can kind of see the Brewers having that policy for that situation. If you are not using the tickets but someone else is (or someone else might use them) then they are basically giving away two vouchers for each of your tickets. That may be why they said you can only have one. Otherwise you could just go in and say that you are not going to use your tickets and then go to the game anyways. Sorry I should have been more clear. We drove down on gameday just to get the vouchers and she went in with the crowds. Had two tickets, lady scanned them both and said "only one voucher per household, but you can have two bobbleheads". Did just your wife go in. She should have gone in twice. The person handing out the vouchers are probably instructed to only give one to each person as they can only assume that each person has one ticket. Otherwise you could have friends/family go in front of you, get vouchers, then slip you their tickets so you can tell the person handing out vouchers "See, I have two tickets!" This also avoids the necessity for the people handing out the vouchers to have to check the dates on the tickets (as you could also just bring a bunch of old tickets with you to show the people handing out vouchers).

This could also cause potential "cheaters" to use these drugs in more dangerous manners. Ideally, at least to me, they get HGH from a doctor who makes sure to minimize any negative side effects. Instead, they will now probably purchase through a member of their entourage from someone even shadier than Bosch without proper consultation. I think Jim's point (similar to the point I made earlier) is that players now have to worry about evidence trails and whistle blowers. I don't think trusting the confidentiality exercised by a "member of your entourage" is any smarter than trusting that of the actual provider of the substances.

When you said she "went in", you mean on a non-game day? If that's the case I can kind of see the Brewers having that policy for that situation. If you are not using the tickets but someone else is (or someone else might use them) then they are basically giving away two vouchers for each of your tickets. That may be why they said you can only have one. Otherwise you could just go in and say that you are not going to use your tickets and then go to the game anyways.

However, here are some articles about why flawed testing procedures are not a technicality: I don't dispute this and that's why I said this: And yes, I agree chain of custody is important, and Braun had every right to win his case based on that (if that's how he won it...again, nobody really knows this for sure). I honestly don't really care if a player uses whatever is medically available to them to try to get back or stay on the field, after all I spend a lot to follow the team and I want the best players there and healthy. You are entitled to that opinion. Seems like many have this opinion (that you think it's ok for athletes to use this stuff to recover quickly). I don't share that opinion. For one, injuries have always been part of sports and I accept that as a sports fan. A good team that has depth can overcome injuries. Another reason is because I believe players will use that as an excuse when they are really using it to build muscle and enhance their natural abilities on the field. Knowing what I know now about that era (Sosa, McGuire, and company), I'd rather not return to that. What I have a hard time understanding is that some seem to be ok with players breaking the rules that they agreed upon with MLB? I think the speed limit should be 80 but that doesn't mean I can go 80 or that I should be outraged when I get caught and get a ticket for going 80. The players worked with the owners to make these rules in the CBA. I'm pretty sure that the rules regarding banned substances are posted in every MLB clubhouse right along side the warnings about gambling on MLB games. MLB has made it pretty clear ever since the steroid era blew up that they plan on getting serious about this and that their ultimate goal is to rid the game of PEDs. Whether or not you agree with this stance, I don't know how you can be sympathetic towards a player who knowingly violates these mutually agreed upon rules.

Not sure how much of a "gift" it is because I'm not sure if they have the ability to fix it. Seems to me that it pretty much impossible to keep up with the ever changing landscape of PEDs and their associated masking qualities. What I do think this does is sends a message to players stating that if we are unable to catch you with lab results then we will not hesitate to follow any other leads that are given to us regarding banned substance use in the game. Providers may be able to just about "guarantee" that substances will not be detected if they are used as directed, but they have a much harder time making the same claim in regards to a paper trail or other incriminating evidence that may be leaked out.

Yeah..lines were long Saturday night, especially during the game. We used some of them before the game started and the lines were not too long. I wasn't going to miss an inning or two just to save $10. I'll be going to some games in September and will use the vouchers then (they are good until some time in September). I also wanted to get a cell phone cover for my new cell phone. So, I went down to the pro shop and it was a zoo. I looked for the covers anyways, and as I suspected, they only had Iphone covers (I have a Samsung Galaxy). Why is there this assumption that everyone that has a smart phone owns a Iphone? Oh well, I wasn't going to stand in the long line anyways.

and left it in his basement for 44 hours. Speculation based on reports that you choose to believe. It's somewhat evident that he did not follow the proper procedure, but there are not absolute facts about what the procedural violation was and where the sample was left before it was delivered to Fedex. SOMEONE violated the confidentiality of the process in December 2011 with the leak. To date, no punishment has been revealed. From this statement I'm guessing you are inferring that the leak came from MLB. Again, speculation. Braun then gets suspended for telling his side of the story after he is cleared Again..complete speculation.

I think it's funny how people choose to believe things on twitter, the internet, TV, or whatever media source based on their own personal feelings about this issue. They will believe one source because it's in alignment with what they think, but not another if it conflict with their beliefs. There are only a few facts I know for sure about this situation. Some of these facts are: A) Braun failed a drug test. B) Braun won his appeal of the failed drug test C) Braun held a press conference where he pretty much stated that he never took PEDs and that the person who handled his sample did not follow proper procedures D) Braun has agreed to a 65 game suspension (whether or not he was "railroaded" into agreeing to this suspension is pure speculation - even though some choose to present it as absolute fact) Just to expand on the report of Braun's team reproducing results, 1- Carroll is a pretty well respected journalist 2- this was reported by multiple reporters, not just Carroll 3- these results matched what a lot of people with a scientific or technical background figured happened. Otherwise, chain of custody and sample handling on their own are large enough issues to render results inconclusive. In other words, Braun's appeal wasn't overturned on a technicality and thats still the case despite what has happened since...not that it really matters anymore. Carroll is a pretty well respected journalist Many people consider Bob Costas and Buster Only respected journalists, but I'm guessing you don't agree with their thoughts about this situation. "Respected" is an opinion of the people respecting them. Respected or not, any information that anyone states regarding what happened during the appeals process, other than words coming directly from MLB, the arbitors, or Braun himself, has to be considered speculation at this point. You can't choose to believe one person who claims to have inside information and not another based on your opinion about their "respectability" (or just because it fits in with your line of thinking). 2- this was reported by multiple reporters, not just Carroll Who? Did they report it independantly or did they quote Carroll? Did they report it as fact or speculation? these results matched what a lot of people with a scientific or technical background figured happened. Otherwise, chain of custody and sample handling on their own are large enough issues to render results inconclusive. "figured" being the key work here. And yes, I agree chain of custody is important, and Braun had every right to win his case based on that (if that's how he won it...again, nobody really knows this for sure). Funny how it's ok if Will Carroll leaks information that he somehow got (like to know how he got this information), but if someone else leaks information that is not "Pro-Braun" they are scum.

He did? Was this recent? Did I miss it? I saw a statement from him after the suspension was announced where he said something like "he made some mistakes", but I don't remember anything like "I took PED's" ever coming out of his mouth.

First of all...wow that guy in the snail suit was trusting! Secondly, yes, like bani1717 if it's one or two people who are obviously oblivious, then yes I'm going to honk at them. The situations I'm talking about are much different than that. Yes, there is a degree of being oblivious with these people, for there is much more of an attitude that this is all about me and I could care less about how my actions effect others.