pebadger

Braun Ditka Braun Ditka Braun Ditka Braun Ditka Braun I don't like it that Braun doesn't hit clean-up but this way he gets 5ABs every trip through the lineup. I though about batting him twice in a row, but I didn't want him to think he has to hit a homer every AB. OR Weeks Morgan Braun Ramirez Hart Gamel Gonzalez Lucroy sounds pretty good. Kind of torn on Weeks. I could see him hitting down in the order, but when he is healthy I just really think the lineup works better with him leading off. Whether that will continue to be true (at least in my mind) in the post-Prince era remains to be seen. Apart from the everyday starting lineup, I hope Gomez can provide something this year. There was a lot to like about how he was rounding into his role just before the injury. He seems like a guy his teammates like and who can provide a spark off the bench. Assuming the Morgan platoon situation holds, I do have to wonder if the lineup is tweaked at all so as to keep the lineup otherwise static regardless of whether Morgan or Gomez is starting (not to leave other candidates out of the question, either). Problem is, I don't think there is a way to do that and I think RR will be happy to just leave Weeks at the top and Morgez in the 2 spot.

At the risk of blowing my own horn, I called this aftermath scenario way on the night the story first broke. I'm not a psychic, I've just seen it done before. viewtopic.php?p=757045#p757045 A "technicality", as it is simple-mindedly and misleadling characterized, is the only real avenue open for athletes to win these cases. It's virtually impossible to prove "innocence" in these things, even when it's the truth. Any journalist who does the minimum amount of homework on this subject knows this to be the truth. One can only conclude that majority journalists covering the case have either not done their homework or are not interested in conveying these facts to a broader audience. The first alternative makes them miserable journalists. The second alternative makes them miserable human beings. It appears that Will Carroll at least falls into neither category. Tom H has been very fair-minded as well, hometown guy or not. I'm not going to kill all the coverage on this case because to a certain extent the subject matter is simply too much to cover in the space that most writers have available to do justice to the story. What I cannot abide is the cynicism and rush to judgment which was all too prevalent beginning way back on that first night in December. Cheating athletes bear most of the burden for creating such a toxic atmosphere, but the role of the testers, aided and abetted by a much too cynical and "scoop"-oriented media, should not be undersold.

The telling fact is that MLB doesn't need to prove anything to anywhere close to a "reasonable doubt" standard and they had an opportunity to win in spite of a simple "oops" just by showing that the test result was strong enough that the arbitrator feel "reasonably comfortable" that suspending Braun was the right decision. In spite of all that they still lost. The uncomfortable squealing from places like USADA, which have as much access to the facts in this case as you or I, and the totally predictable spin that the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd immediately resorted to in the wake of the decision provides strong support for my feelings about this case from the beginning. It's really too bad that they have to run these things like they do. There are some very good people and some incredibly bright and fair-minded scientists who have done incredible work in the field of drug-testing who really do have the best interests of athletes and sports at heart. It's just sad that crusaders almost inevitably ruin everything they touch.

Soak in this quote, from a guy who ha no direct connection to the case. It tells you all you need to know about the attitude of the people who are in positions of power in the drug-testing community. Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, called the decision "a real gut-kick to clean athletes." During the hearing, Braun's side challenged the chain of custody from the time the urine sample was collected by Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc. to when it was sent, nearly 48 hours later, to a World Anti-Doping Agency-certified laboratory in Montreal, two people familiar with the case said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because what took place in the hearing is supposed to be confidential. The sample was collected on Oct. 1, a Saturday and the day the Brewers opened the NL playoffs. The collector did not send the sample to the laboratory until Monday, thinking it would be more secure at home than at a Federal Express office during the weekend. Baseball's drug agreement states that "absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the laboratory on the same day they are collected." "To have this sort of technicality of all technicalities let a player off ... it's just a sad day for all the clean players and those that abide by the rules within professional baseball," Tygart said. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/02/23/braun.suspension.ap/index.html#ixzz1nGJLZfSZ

There have been cases before the international Court of Arbitration for Sport where it was admitted by the analysts that they KNEW whose sample they tested because of labeling problems, in spite of the rule that such knowledge is prohibited, and the court upheld the test result because, in effect, that rule was no big deal. There is just an unacceptable amount of sloppiness in this system that holds people's livelilhoods and reputations in its hands. The fact that they can get away with this sloppiness, and a general "crusaders for good against the dirty cheats" attitude is what led MLB to press this case so hard in the first place.

When I watched the Bucks earlier in the season they made a big deal of saying that every Bucks game would be televised on FSW this season. Will be interesting to see how they handle the conflicts. As a satellite subscriber I do "worry" that it may mean that the Brewers end up on a non-HD alternate channel. At that time of year the available HD bandwith gets tight. If this is the worst thing I have to worry about life is pretty good.

Right. It's like complaining that Indiana Jones cheated when he shot the swordsman on the streets of Cairo.

If you take warming leftovers off the stove, transfer them to tupperware and then shove them in the fridge, still hot/warm next to a sample, things can happen to the sample. Not saying that happened, but it's just one of many things that COULD, and nobody would ever know. The sample handling/custody rules are there for a very simple reason: if they weren't there isn't a single neutral, scientifically-minded observer who could vouch for the results of the subusequent tests of this type on that sample.

I agree wholeheartedly. There is a better way to do this, for everyone involved. The basic problem with the system, in my opinion, is that the "prosecutors" have become too zealous and the "defendants" who are actually guilty (which is most of them) have made such stupid arguments in most cases that they have made all who come after them look bad, no matter whether they are guilty or not. Then you have cases like this that in the end leave room for everyone to look bad. IT would be so simple to fix if people could sit down and be reasonable, but thisis such a touchy and political topic that it's hard for people to do that, especially in a collective bargaining atmosphere.

Here's another angle to consider. As many have posted, chain of custody is important for a lot of reason, not least of which is maintaining the scientific basis of the testing procedure. At some point in this process MLB had to become aware of the problem with chain of custody, possibly from day 1, and yet they decided that they had to press the case anyway. I have little doubt that they though that they would win anyway. What does that tell you about the general integrity of the system? But even if they didn't win, they could minimize the damage after the fact by saying that they really should have won (and by implication that Braun is dirty), by playing off on the "technicality" angle. As I posted way back at the start of the thread, the outcome of the case doesn't get us much closer to "the truth" than we were at the start. MLB had a simple job to do and they would have won regardless of the truth. They blew it. It doesn't change things one iota that Braun was vindicated in that way. If MLB had done their job impartially he wouldn't have had to be vindicated at all.

xisxisxis, Thank you very much for posting this.

What if the reports of the two other samples being high in T are also correct? What would lead me to beleive that the chain of custody problem had effects beyond just Braun's test. For those accepting the line that "Braun didn't contest the science" know this: attacking the science is generally not allowed in these hearings. It's a standard line that is brought up when the testers lose to besmirch a person who beat them.

Co-elution for the win!

This is all very predictable spin from the MLB and people who want Braun to be guilty. It happens almost every time somebody "beats" a case of this type, no matter what the forum. Let's go way back to the start of the thread. Assume Braun really is innocent, in that he did nothing wrong. Now MLB says they have a positive test result. There are two ways for Braun to win. First, he can show that there is something wrong with the testing procedure. That means EVERYTHING that happens from the time they takes his sample to the time they come back and accuse him of guilt. Second, he can go out and win a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in the time between the accusation and the hearing. For people wanting a "full explanation", there simply isn't one that is likely to be had. And the fact of the matter is, it's not required, unless you are going to say that everything MLB does in making the accusation doesn't matter and that Braun is the one who must explain everything that happened after the sample left his control.

I'm guessing there is more to this than just the "protocol", which is enough in any event to make the result suspect. As noted above by Fear the Chorizo, this sample wouldn't even BE evidence in a civil or criminal trial. In this case, all the the matter of protocol does is require MLB to go farther in proving that the test is valid. In other words, even with this "technicality", MLB STILL had a chance to win the case, but now they had to prove their side to the satisfaction of the arbitrator. The fact that they didn't leads me to believe that it's more than just a simple "oops" situation with the courier (which is a nice, convenient argument for those who still want to villify Braun to make). There have been plenty of "chain of custody" arguments made in past drug hearings, and several that have worked to shift the burden back to the governing body, but very often the governing body wins anyway.

Not necessarily, I mean what if the guy who took Braun's sample misspelled his name on the test tube and they had to throw it out? If it is a technicality like that it looks very bad for Braun, if it is something like the first test gave a false positive then its not a big deal. IF it is truly a technicality in that very limited sense, then it looks bad for Braun. On the other hand, these are all extraordinarily complicated tests, the validity of which are dependant on following procedures extremely closely. When the entire case rests upon doing things exaclty right to get a vaild result, and you are going to construct a system in which the person not in control of the process or the evidence must essentially prove a negative, there should be no such thing as saying that the accused "got off easy". The system was stacked in MLB's favor. Either Bruan is innocent or MLB lost a stacked game. Whining after the fact in either case is extraordinarily poor form.

Considering that these cases are built entirely on technicalities, saying that someone "got off on a technicality" is pretty stupid and pointless. Very happy for Braunie and Brewers fans everywhere.

Sorry, pebadger that this is from a few pages back, but I think you've made too many presumptions about what "the facts" in this case are anymore. I don't agree with numbers 2. and 3. on your list because I don't think either of those things have been confirmed by MLB or Braun's people. Braun has never said that it wasn't a steroid and he never said that it wasn't a masking agent. In fact, Braun's people only indirectly confirmed that he tested positive for something. All 70 pages of this thread are pure speculation all based on 2nd or 3rd party rumors. I'm not saying it's not fun to speculate, but you can't use speculation as a concrete defense in an argument (friendly discussion) with someone. Hopefully that dosen't come off hyperbolic. Sorry for the double post. I'm not sure they're facts, either. I explicitly said they were assumptions and then premised what I was saying based on IF (with emphasis) those were true. In any event, the point of that post wasn't to presume facts, it was to emphasize what I believe to be the arbitration panel's most important duty in this case other than than making best efforts at finding "truth": a thorough, supportable justification for their decision. I also think that if were I in the position of arbitrator and given the probable impact of the decision if Braun (or any player) were to be suspended, the standard of being "reasonably comfortable" with my decision would tend to require more from MLB in the way of "proof" than it might for others who would gladly shift the burden of proving a negative onto the player with a minimal showing. I think the actual legal standard at play is a little more nuanced, in that once MLB makes a minimal showing of proof they have a legal presumption on their side, which can then be rebutted only by a strong showing from the defense, which then in turn shifts the burden back onto MLB to show that their evidence is sufficient to "convict" even under a stronger standard of proof. I just want the thing to be over with, and hopefully those of us who want to dig into this a little more will have access to some of the facts/data at some point.

I doubt MLB will do anything more than issue a press release, no matter which way the decision falls. Regardless of which way it falls, all the initial action is in Maryvale for the reporters, so that's where they need to be. After the networks get the human reaction angle on the story, a more enterprising reporter who is actually interested in expanding on the facts (or maybe even all six of these reporters still in existence) will have to do some actual investigative journalism.

Was doing some reading about the JC Romero case from a few years back. Interesting reading for those wanting to learn more about the process with a set of facts different from the Braun case. You can come to some interesting speculative conclusions if you read between the lines a bit, especially with regard to MLB looking out for the testing program above all else. In the end Romero got suspended (after the key arbitrator had a change of heart), but he settled a lawsuit with the supplement people/GNC just about a month ago, so that relieved some of the financial hit. I don't think it's unfair to argue that Romero was the least culpable of any of the parties in that situation (player, union, MLB, supplement people, government) and he's the only one who paid any price. Easy links to be had simply by googling.

There is nothing that I have read in the drug agreement in the way of sanctions for violating the confidentiality agreement, except for the exclusively one-sided provision relating to MLB being able to go public with information if they feel it necessary to protect the drug program from public statements made by a player. (In other words, the agreement assumes that any unauthorized disclosure is a one-sided proposition). Because the contract is silent on the point of a party seeking relief for damages caused by violation of the confidentiality provision, I'd think that Braun's lawyers would be able to investigate a number of different avenues for doing so if they chose to do so. That would probably tend to be a fairly complicated legal mess because you have the general collective bargaining agreement to deal with along with a bunch of other questions of contract and/or tort law to deal with. In my opinion there is a lot of sloppiness in that drug agreement; sloppiness of the kind you wouldn't expect from the caliber of lawyers working for both sides in the negotiation process that produced the agreement. If anything I think that the sloppiness tends to support the argument that both sides simply accepted a template based upon the international model and then just sort of left it alone, as neither side wanted to get bogged down in reinventing that wheel or get into fights along those lines (fights which neither side was probably technically educated enough to fight in any event). They both just wanted something down on paper that was strong enough to get Congress to butt out of their business.

It heartening to know that WMLW will still mean Milwaukee, and that I'll still get a glimpse into the current trends in mid-afternoon syndicated television programming.

Thanks for the thorough analysis as always. However, I read the JDA to say that the written opinion does not need to be issued for another 30 days after the panel's "award" (decision). So I don't think finalizing the written opinion would necessarily hold up the announcement of the decision. That said, maybe in this case they want to have the opinion ready before the decision is announced because of the unusual circumstances involved - current MVP, test result leaked, etc. This is correct. Given the public nature of the case I think that in this particular instance there is an imperative to announce the award and release the written decision simultaneously. The last either party wants is the appearance that a decision was made and that the justification for that decision was made after the fact.

What other facts? Unless I missed a link, we still have no idea what Braun did or did not take. The only info I'm using is original ESPN article that stated that Braun's T/E ratio was elevated and that he tested positive for exogenous testosterone, and even that has not been confirmed by MLB or Braun. You are trying to throw out test results for a test that you haven't even seen. I'm not trying to throw out any test results. I'm just assuming, for sake of argument the following, which seem to have at least not been outright refuted by the leaks/info we do have: 1) Braun tested positive for something. 2) That something was not a steroid. 3) That something was not a masking agent. IF those things are true, and IF there truly is no scientific connection between the mystery substance and a CIR positive, and IF there is other reasonably convincing evidence that Braun is telling the truth and that he didn't knowingly take any substance that would cause a positive, wouldn't any reasonable person at least take an extra minute or two (or week or two) before simply saying "Sorry, pal, you're guilty"? If you're going to sully a man's reputation and there is a real mystery involved regarding the basis for doing so don't you at least want to be as sure as you can be in your justification for your decision, even if you're quite comfortable that your decision is correct? Everyone knows that this isn't a criminal proceeding and that the standard of reasonable doubt does not apply. That doesn't change the fact that what is at stake is still darned important and it doesn't change the responsibility of those sitting in judgment to treat it as such. It is exactly because the standards of proof are relaxed that the emphasis on providing a well-reasoned decision should be somewhat greater. To do any less diminishes the interests of both parties. The CIR test is the gold standard in testing for very good reason. I'm just not willing to say that the entire process should come down to an analyst running a test on a mass spectrometer somewhere and that being the end of the case.

I think Verducci has it exactly backwards. If you reduce the suspension, despite the fact that there is no mechanism for doing so in the drug agreement, what message are you sending? What precedent are you setting? On what ground would they reduce Braun's suspension if they did so? If they reduce his suspension because they believe it was an unintentional violation of the program that opens an enormous hole in the process for everybody moving forward. MLB is simply better off with a simple up/down decision on the suspension and no departure from the norms of the drug agreement. If Braun is exonorated they say the system worked and they fully explain why the system justly supports clearing Braun so that there are no charges of protecting a superstar. If Braun is suspended, they say that the system worked and that there is simply no room for any violation, because the policy of strict liability is the only way they have to keep the game clean.