Ryan Braun Wins His Appeal
The reigning NL MVP has won his appeal for his 50 game-suspension. The Brewers look to be getting a huge boost. The MLB vehemently disagrees with the decision (surprise, surprise).
3 months ago
McCutchenIsTheTruth
253 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Irrelevant.
The Pirates will win the division regardless.
You gotta aim high to fail so big. - Trace Beaulieu
by IAPiratesFan on Feb 23, 2012 5:48 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Stunning
that a player on Selig’s Milwaukee Brewers gets away with cheating.
I call dibs right now: I get to be the one to throw the first syringe at Braun when the Brewers visit PNC Park for the first time in 2012.
No jinx no jinx no jinx.
Er
Selig is pissed. Makes a mockery of their drug-testing process.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
Well, that's fair
Selig makes a mockery of his office and the sport.
by Jitterbug on Feb 23, 2012 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Isn't it possible...
that the Commissioner’s Office (institutionally) is pissed at the decision, but Bud Selig (personally) isn’t all that bothered?
This part makes me sick
“Haudricourt says the appeal went Braun’s way not because of the test result, but because of a technicality with the testing process. CBSSports.com’s Jon Heyman and The New York Post’s Joel Sherman report that part of Braun’s argument was that the sample was not shipped in a timely fashion and that the chain of command was broken for two days, meaning the sample was left unprotected”
Gets through on a technicality. Funny that Braun’s argument wasn’t “I’m innocent” it was “You guys screwed up and I have a loophole”
by SLucas22 on Feb 23, 2012 5:57 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Was trying to copy the link from MLBTR
and I kept getting a prompt for a Bad Script on their page and it was bogging down my computer. Looks like Cheap Beer got it for me though. Thanks
part of Braun’s argument was that the sample was not shipped in a timely fashion and that the chain of command was broken for two days, meaning the sample was left unprotected
If that’s the case, then Das was right to overturn the suspension.
Agreed
you’d rather not have a ‘technicality’, but you can’t uphold the suspension. Burden of proof is on the MLB and they screwed it up.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
I also agree
I don’t like Braun as a player but that doesn’t change the fact that the MLB needs to have their ducks in a row and they failed.
If that's actually the rule, then you're right
From ESPN’s report, though, it is perfectly normal for samples to be stored as Braun’s were if they can’t be shipped right away and that the tester followed World-Anti-Doping-Agency protocol.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 23, 2012 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Storage
may have been correct, but I believe chain-of-custody is the issue.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, chain of custody is critical
Frex, what if someone from BD got their hands on it during the lost 2 days?
Well, OK, if it had been one of us, it would have shown signs of estrogen, tears, and OGH (optical growth hormone).
Still seems silly though
we trust the employee enough to be alone with it for a significant period of time, but not for another 24 hours? Either the system trusts the handlers or it doesn’t, the overturn is bs.
"What up no wings"
we trust the employee enough to be alone with it for a significant period of time, but not for another 24 hours?
If he’d been alone with it, the chain of custody wouldn’t have been broken. Instead, he left it alone by itself in his refrigerator, an unsecured location. That’s the problem.
So the argument is
that somebody OJ’ed the evidence? How would you do that, exactly? And why?
No, the argument is that we don’t know whether or not someone contaminated the evidence (accidentally or deliberately), because the employee mishandled it. We can’t even be sure that it’s the same urine as the sample Braun provided.
Meaning how the hell
are you gonna suspended a guy when we’re not even sure it’s his piss. To everyone of us, how heated would you be if you got fired from your job because your urine sample got mixed up during a random drug screening at work even though you’re completely clean.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 8:37 AM EST up reply actions
Of course
False positives happen and people get fired for that too.
That’s irrelevant here though. You’re absolutely correct and given your educational background, I tend to defer to your say in matters such as this. You simply cannot let this mistake happen. The MLB failed to get their ducks in a row, and it cost them dearly. They look like fools now because they can’t put together a competent testing program one way or the other.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
so chain of custody is what allows Braun to walk free?
well, some of these folks probably have custody of chains
all that's missing here is the clown car
According to one of the sources, the collector, after getting Braun’s sample, was supposed to take the sample to FedEx/Kinkos for shipping but thought it was closed because it was late on a Saturday. As has occurred in some other instances, the collector took the sample home and kept it refrigerated. Policy states that the sample is supposed to get to FedEx as soon as possible.
i havent read through the original article yet
but if this is what is being reported, something makes me doubt the veracity of it— i don’t think the people doing the intermediate handling are total morons.
"i don’t think the people doing the intermediate handling are total morons."
This case would seem to indicate otherwise.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
RIP Corey Keller, James Taylor, M. Jay Darby, Derek Davis.
by gorillakilla34 on Feb 23, 2012 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
it would
it’s conflicting with my priors, so i m all confused and all!
by BurgherKing on Feb 23, 2012 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
We need to track this person down and see if he/she actually exists. And by we I totally mean members other than myself.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
RIP Corey Keller, James Taylor, M. Jay Darby, Derek Davis.
by gorillakilla34 on Feb 24, 2012 10:02 PM EST up reply actions
This is a tricky call, from a legal perspective..
Not that I’m a lawyer, or have full details of the case, but from what I read…
The sample could have been shipped in a more timely fashion, but was still kept in a safe, uncontaminated, cool area. Normally, I would say this is reason enough to let Braun go.
However, I’ve read that keeping a sample in this manner for an extra period of time had been done before and had not been a problem, so in my mind precedence had been set.
The other players who failed tests certainly now have a gripe that opens up a whole new can of worms now.
The sample could have been shipped in a more timely fashion, but was still kept in a safe, uncontaminated, cool area.
And the worker was the only one who had access to that refrigerator over the weekend?
And how do we know that it wasn’t contaminated? Are we just taking the worker’s word for that?
Who’s to say a worker couldn’t contaminate the sample on the way to the FedEx then?
I imagine it was sealed in some form, refrigerated, and still properly sealed when taken the next day.
God, I can’t believe I’m arguing the process of transporting Braun’s freaking test results! I’ll try not to let personal opinion screw with my judgment.
Who’s to say a worker couldn’t contaminate the sample on the way to the FedEx then?
Maybe he did. If he’s dumb enough to leave the sample in an unsecured and unsterilized environment for a couple of days, he’s probably dumb enough to do all kinds of other dumb shit, too.
by Vlad on Feb 23, 2012 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Vlad's right though
major chain of custody issues here.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
So he put the sample next to that tall cool glass of testosterone he has in his fridge, just like all of us do, and some spilled over?
by ATribeCalledGreg on Feb 23, 2012 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
The sample
still had all of its seals and they were unbroken. There was nothing to suggest anything unusual happened with the sample and the tester followed World-Anti-Doping-Agency policy.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 23, 2012 8:36 PM EST up reply actions
The report
on ESPN stated
The source told ESPN the seals were totally intact and testing never reflected any degradation of the sample. Based on the World Anti-Doping Agency code, this is exactly what would have been expected to happen, and the collector took the proper action, the source said. The source also noted that synthetic testosterone doesn’t just show up because a sample sits in one place or another.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 23, 2012 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This really should have been enough. Chain of custody is primarily a criminal law concept and stems from the standard of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Any break in a chain of custody essentially creates a reasonable doubt.
Braun’s case wasn’t a criminal one. It’s possible they’ve specified some different standard in the labor agreement or something, but generally employment matters are governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard, which basically means “more likely than not.” A failure to follow protocol absolutely 100% correctly shouldn’t, by itself, have been fatal to the entire case. If there was sufficient other evidence to show that it was unlikely the sample was contaminated, that should be enough. The ESPN report, if accurate, sounds like there was more than enough evidence to support MLB’s position.
It seems to me the arbitrator applied what was essentially a criminal case standard. Unless there’s some standard governing these cases that I’m unaware of—which is certainly possible—his decision strikes me as misguided.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
Just like to point ou
that it wasn’t one arbiter. It was 2 of 3 that found in Braun’s favor.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
one was representing the MLBPA
I believe the report is that the cases always split 2-1, with the neutral arbitrator (up to now) voting with MLB’s rep and MLBPA’s rep voting against.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 23, 2012 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
Right. MLB has the burden, but that just means they have to establish the 51%.
I should reiterate, though, that I’m not absolutely sure the preponderance standard would apply here. The labor agreement may specify something different.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
and if the criminal standard applies,
beyond the shadow of doubt= 99%>1%
by karreemofwheat on Feb 23, 2012 11:54 PM EST up reply actions
Uh
it’s “beyond reasonable doubt.” The criminal prosectuor must erase any and all doubt that the accused is innocent.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
whats the percentage?
that sounds like wv law. of course maybe thats law and order, cause i’m no lawyer.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 24, 2012 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
That's
standard criminal law. Federal, West Virginia, etc. I don’t think it’s a numbers game. If the jury member can see has a reasonable reason (heh) to doubt that the accused didn’t do it, then they are supposed to declare him innocent.
“This is a Chinese or Russian plot using advanced facial masks and he ability to hack and change footage on security cameras, and this poor sap was a victim” isn’t reasonable.
“This could be a case of mistaken identity; the accused has a identical twin” is reasonable.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 1:16 AM EST up reply actions
The quotes
are a single source. I won’t be surprised if the seals aren’t as perfect as they’re made out or there are other issues with the chain of custody.
FWIW, chain of custody is relevant in civil proceedings as well as real life. If I go to Charlie and tell him this WTM guy did this or that horrible thing, blah, blah, blah, he’s going to ask me what evidence I have and where I got it.
Other issues have already been noted with the sample as well.
Chain of custody is relevant, but it’s not subject to the kind of rigid standards as in criminal cases. You can’t just produce evidence without establishing where it came from, but you don’t have to establish exactly what was happening with it every single second that you had it. You usually just have to make a reasonable showing that the evidence in court (or that was tested) is indeed the same evidence that was seized and that you took reasonable steps to safeguard it.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
the new CBA
spells out in exacting detail the chain of custody policy.
The policy- which you can read in its entirety here -contains a 28-page addendum describing, in minute detail, the process to be followed from the moment a urine test is scheduled until the moment the urine sample is delivered to the testing laboratory in Quebec, Canada.
Unfortunately
that’s not really how chain of custody works. Chain of custody is not, in and of itself, another piece of evidence that can be weighed against “Braun’s” sample. Chain of custody is an issue that actually determines whether or not the sample can be admitted as evidence.
Once it has been determined that there was a problem with the chain of custody, the hot sample can no longer be admitted as evidence of Braun’s PED use. Essentially, when the arbitration panel asks MLB what evidence they had suggesting Braun’s guilt, they really have nothing to offer. The failing sample, the smoking gun in this case, can no longer be considered if it is believed that there were chain of custody problems.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 24, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
The sample still had all of its seals and they were unbroken.
No, the sample appeared to have all of its seals, and they appeared to be unbroken. We don’t know whether or not they actually were, because the employee fucked up the chain of custody.
ok did bud bring this employee with him from milwaukee?
the fix is in, how would braun know this info months ago? he proclaimed he would beat this from the start.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 23, 2012 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
To be fair
the chain of custody issues have nothing to do with the seals or the quality of the sample. If ESPN’s source is to be believed, the sample that was delivered to the lab after the weekend still had the seals in tact and did not show any signs of degradation. The questions that arise because of the c-o-c failures are whether the sample was switched or otherwise tampered with in some way. Nobody has disputed that the sample arrived at the lab in the exact state in which you would expect.
If you question the source, then sure, maybe some of the seals were partially ripped or had been replaced or a couple of them were missing while others were in tact. That, however, is another question all together.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 24, 2012 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
How do they ever differentiate?
shouldn’t there be something which clearly shows that it is the original seal and truly Braun’s sample? How would you ever know that the handler didn’t switch them on the way to fedEx?
"What up no wings"
the ones i have taken
you sign, initial, or put your mark.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 24, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
on a strip that seals the bottle. you would break this seal if you open it.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 24, 2012 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
Easy way to find the killer then
how many people practice forging signatures in Milwaukee?
"What up no wings"
well someone trusted him
or he would not have been in possession of the specimen. those bottles are sealed with strip that is signed by the testee. if the strip is not broken, it has not been opened.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 23, 2012 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
so they had him produce the specimen.
then on the way to fed-ex the employee figured they are closed. i’ll just go home for the weekend. braun just happened to be privy to this info. the fix is in, imo, no doubt about it.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 23, 2012 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
braun just happened to be privy to this info.
My guess is that Braun’s rep interviewed the employee as part of the discovery process, and the employee spilled the beans because he didn’t realize that he’d done anything wrong. If he’d realized that he wasn’t supposed to leave the sample unguarded for several days in a non-sterile location, he wouldn’t have left the sample unguarded for several days in a non-sterile location in the first place.
or a Braun's rep paid off the employee to say that he possibly didnt follow procedure
yeah, i know its bullshit, but a theory is still a theory
A legal technicality
implies that strict adherence to the letter of the law has prevented the spirit of the law from being enforced. If Braun was indeed using PEDs (I’m not saying he did or did not), then, by definition, he slipped through the appeal process on a technicality.
I will say that I was wrong in saying that the loophole was the only argument Braun’s team used; in my original quote it does say part of Braun’s argument was the broken chain of command. That’s my mistake for just skimming and not reading thoroughly.
chain of custody
is what I think they mean. And that’s not a technicality. It’s a bedrock legal procedural principle. when properly followed, it means no one has the chance to contaminate evidence.
I’m just struggling with the fact that this has happened before (A sample being kept and refridgerated) and it not mattering then, but now it’s considered breaking the chain of custody.
I’m just struggling with the fact that this has happened before (A sample being kept and refridgerated) and it not mattering then, but now it’s considered breaking the chain of custody.
Sounds like some of the other players could have used better lawyers.
Doesn't
even say those samples were for MLB players. This guy could have had samples of anything from several people.
Maybe the sample wasn’t what the case rested on in the other cases but merely ‘extra’ evidence, etc. It could be a myriad of reasons.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 8:11 PM EST up reply actions
I might be wrong
but I believe his lawyers were described as having represented players in the same proceedings. I’ve heard so much, its hard to keep it straight.
MLB reporting
I was listening to the radio and they gave a few details on the case. 1. Braun tested far higher than any baseball player ever had on the test after passing a previous 24 tests at the exact same level. Also he self administered a test the following week that didn’t show any spiked level in testosterone. Apparently they administered the test and left it for two days to mail out the results rather than doing it immediately. So whether or not Braun did do anything… MLB screwed up the process and therefore he was found innocent.
It's like OJ*
If the chain is broken, you’re case is screwed.
*No I’m not comparing OJ to Braun Brewers fans.
It doesn’t cost a thing to believe and the payoff on a winner is huge!
Now how can we hate a man who wears shirts like this:
Ovechkin-Leich-Semin: The greatest line in hockey..............................Tee Hee
Proud supporter of the following clubs: Pittsburgh Penguins, Erie Otters, Columbus Crew, Boston Celtics and the best football clubs in the land: Manchester United F.C.
The Manchester United Football Club: Winning countless trophies and making City fans jealous and full of envy since 1902.
by Bradley James McEachern on Feb 23, 2012 6:22 PM EST reply actions
From the looks of the shot, he was just painting a house… must be a hard worker, so that’s a plus, right?
you say that like it's an excuse
Who’s worse, the junkie or the dealer?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 23, 2012 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
Hard worker maybe, but not so effective or efficient. It would be better to get more paint on the house than the shirt.
by lambert58 on Feb 24, 2012 8:48 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
REC
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 24, 2012 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
Can't figure out
why there’s a need for someone to wear 3+ shirts… Only thing that could make this worse is if he was popping his collar.
by SLucas22 on Feb 23, 2012 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
wouldn't it be a likely function of steroid usage...
if he was popping his collar.
dude
He owns that shirt brand
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Lloyd, Andy Russell, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Clemson should've stopped turning the ball over" Dana Holgorsen when asked about running up the score in the Orange Bowl
by WVPiratesfan on Feb 26, 2012 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
Whenever you have a left winger arbitrating cases against corporations guess who is going to win.
Its like Karl Marx vs U.S. Steel.
by oldfrothingslosh on Feb 23, 2012 7:24 PM EST reply actions
Should have said Karl Mark arbitrating a case between a union and U.S. Steel
by oldfrothingslosh on Feb 23, 2012 7:32 PM EST up reply actions
yes, corporations rarely score legal victories…
by rj.reynolds on Feb 23, 2012 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The Brewers
should benefit, of course, with Braun available for the start of the season, but this issue isn’t over. Braun will have plenty to answer for, especially in spring training, and early in the season. The media will be crawling over him like you wouldn’t believe. It’s possible Braun could have a slow start out of the gate.
Or it's
a chip on his shoulder, etc. No way to really predict how this will affect him, although I’m sure ESPN will come up with 30 different theories.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
WOW
I read the headline on ESPN and assumed that the test was invalidated in some way that would suggest Braun was clean. It would appear that the appeal was upheld due to a procedural issue. According to the report, he tested positive for synthetic testosterone and showed 20X normal level of testosterone.
I hope that rat gets blood tested so often that he become anemic.
According to the report, he tested positive for synthetic testosterone and showed 20X normal level of testosterone.
He didn’t test positive for anything, because they weren’t able to demonstrate that the sample was his.
That’s what “chain of custody” means.
Unfortunately
I think most of what you say Vlad is going to fall on deaf ears (not directed at you personally lloyd95)
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, i m not buying it
i mean, I see the legal case due to mishandling, but it doesn’t bind my opinion (and no, i don’t think this way coz Braun looks, acts and picks clothes like he’s a douche :)
by BurgherKing on Feb 23, 2012 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
in all due respect
do you think that OJ Simpson didn’t kill Nicole Brown? He was acquitted in large part because there were chain of custody issues.
And the report said “Braun’s initial T/E ratio was more than 20:1. Sources previously confirmed synthetic testosterone in his system.”
So if you want this semantically perfect, I’ll edit my language, hopefully you’ll be satisfied: According to the report, the sample that was sealed and allegedly signed by Braun, tested positive for synthetic testosterone and showed 20X normal level of testosterone.
Further reports
dispute whether he had any synthetic testosterone in his system. The TE ratio you cite calls into question whether the sample was his or untainted because the levels are so extreme.
I don’t know enough about the process, but I’d presume if the samples were tampered with, there’d be evidence. Or at the very least, the attorneys would have claimed there was tampering in addition to the chain of custody argument.
Considering the stakes and the parties involved, you’d have to imagine that the samples would have some forms of security that would be tamper proof.
I don’t know enough about the process, but I’d presume if the samples were tampered with, there’d be evidence.
Maybe there IS evidence. How do you know? The only information we have about the sample is coming from an anonymous source, and we can’t trust the sample itself because MLB botched the chain of custody.
Considering the stakes and the parties involved, you’d have to imagine that the samples would have some forms of security that would be tamper proof.
If the security around the sample is so great, how did it end up sitting next to some dude’s Hot Pockets for a weekend?
part 2
the same way you know that the mayonnaise you got at costco is safe – it is sealed. and since it is presumable sealed, the fact that it was sitting next to some dude’s hotpockets is immaterial.
One of my teachers
in high school admitted that his friends (claim he didn’t) poked holes in condom boxes using needles when they were in high school… Just saying.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 1:17 AM EST up reply actions
the same way you know that the mayonnaise you got at costco is safe – it is sealed. and since it is presumable sealed, the fact that it was sitting next to some dude’s hotpockets is immaterial.
If you took your mayonnaise home, and put it in the fridge, and came back two days later, how could you tell whether or not it had been left out on the counter and spoiled? How could you tell whether it was your sealed jar of mayonnaise, or someone else’s?
1. There’s too much vinegar in mayo to spoil (but that’s just my fun science fact) – especially if it remains sealed…
2. You couldn’t… unless you took a piece of tape with a bar code, then signed the tape, then put it over the lid so that if the jar were opened the tape would be broken, then you could safely determine that our mayo was not tampered with or switched.
You couldn’t… unless you took a piece of tape with a bar code, then signed the tape, then put it over the lid so that if the jar were opened the tape would be broken, then you could safely determine that our mayo was not tampered with or switched.
What if you printed out a different piece of tape with the same bar code, signed the tape, and put it back over the lid of the jar after you were done tampering with it?
link to MLB drug policy
http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf
The procedure and security requirements are laid out in Addendum A.
After a brief review of the policy and procedures, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the samples were tampered with. Nevertheless the samples were not secured and shipped promptly thus introducing some amount of doubt about the veracity of the sample.
And as stated before, if there was any evidence of tampering, Braun’s legal team would have made note of it both in their appeal and their message(s) to the media/public.
some amount of doubt
Which brings into WTM’s question about what standard – preponderance or reasonable doubt – was used by the arbiter here.
Honestly, with the extreme levels of hormones (which makes the test ‘unique’ to begin with), the other negative tests by Braun, and the chain of custody issue, I can see a the judge ruling in Braun’s favor even with a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Just look to point out that we don’t even have close to the full evidence. To illustrate my point, I’ll direct y’all to the infamous story/case that now dictates why it says on the McDonald’s drive-thru (and every other drive-thru) window that coffee is hot. Person spilled coffee on themselves, got burned, and sued for McDonald’s and won. Sounds like the system is screwed and big-bad McDonald’s actually got the short end of the stick here. Wrong. If one actually knows the fully story and evidence (which I admit I did not until it was the first case we studied in Torts first year), it all makes sense.
1) The Coffee was so hot it gave the woman who spilled it third-degree burns and she had to have a skin graph on her legs where it was spilled.
2) Experts testified that if she had actually drank the coffee at the temperature it was severed to her, it likely would have eroded through her esophagus and she may have died.
3) McDonald’s all but admitted (internal memos, etc.) that their policy was to continue to serve the coffee hot (their reasoning being that commuters would take it to work and it would still be hot by the time they got there) and pay the few amount of lawsuits that would occur rather than adjust the temperature to prevent injuries/burns. Basically they said, screw it, we’ll just pay people we injure rather than take steps to make sure people aren’t injured. That sat very well with the media as you can imagine.
Point is, knowing all the facts is important.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 8:46 AM EST up reply actions
McDonald’s all but admitted (internal memos, etc.) that their policy was to continue to serve the coffee hot (their reasoning being that commuters would take it to work and it would still be hot by the time they got there) and pay the few amount of lawsuits that would occur rather than adjust the temperature to prevent injuries/burns. Basically they said, screw it, we’ll just pay people we injure rather than take steps to make sure people aren’t injured. That sat very well with the media as you can imagine.
And the reason they made their coffee that hot is that they needed to use less actual coffee at that temperature, because it brewed more efficiently, saving them literally pennies per pot.
good points
hopefully all the information will come out, to protect Braun and MLB’s reputation. At this point in time, it looks like they argued a chain of custody technicality, and ONLY that point. Isn’t it in everyone’s best interest to lay out all the FACTS in addition to the chain of custody issue?
There’s a long line of MLB players, current and former, that maintain they’ve never taken performance enhancers, but have for some reason tested positive. Braun is now part of that list.
Isn’t it in everyone’s best interest to lay out all the FACTS in addition to the chain of custody issue?
It may not be in MLB’s best interest, if they did in fact screw something else up.
no I think your earlier point holds up very well here. if they screwed up, they can bring it to light and say that the integrity of the sample was in question and they cannot take action on the testing in question as a result.
by lloyd95 on Feb 24, 2012 9:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"I find it highly unlikely that the samples were tampered with"
+1
and that’s not even considering Occam’s Razor… if the samples were tampered with, then there would need to be an elaborate conspiracy (not to mention a motive) to support that hypothesis. and once you start with conspiracy theories, chances are you’ve gone too far.
You're going down
a slope here where virtually no sample could be considered absolutely untampered with. Maybe the tester made a switch? Maybe the FedEx people pulled a fast one. Maybe the box sat on a cart at the airport and the FedEx people took their eyes off it for a second and somebody at the airport pulled a switch. Maybe the guy assigned to carry the sample in a briefcase handcuffed to his arm on the plane took the handcuffs off to wash his hands in the airplane lav, and an arm reached up out of the toilet while he wasn’t looking …
Enough of that kind of thing and you can get anybody off. Worked for OJ.
And that's why there's
chain of custody protocol.. which wasn’t followed here as far as I can tell. The sample may have been taken care of according to protocol to preserve the “chemical” integrity of the sample but that’s difference than the general integrity of the sample, which I think is an important distinction at play here, at least how I’m interpreting this mess.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
That presumes
that everyone in the chain has unimpeachable integrity. I imagine if you really wanted to, you could impeach the integrity of anyone if not everyone in the chain, given that they’re all fallible human beings, from the tester to the shippers to the people at the airport to the people at the lab (“Do you now or have you ever looked at a woman who wasn’t your wife with lust in your heart?” “Well …” “Your Honor! This man obviously has NO intehrity WHATSOEVER.”)
How do you EVER absolutely prove integrity?
Credibility exists on a sliding scale. If a guy has a fancy degree in the field, he has more credibility than the average joe. If (as in this case) the guy has a history of (accidental or deliberate) misconduct in the field, he has less.
Seems simple enough. You don’t need to make a slippery slope argument about how nobody can trust anybody. Just trust people until they give you a reason not to trust them anymore.
"Just trust people until they give you a reason ..."
This is pretty much how I pick my friends too. But if I really wanted to, I could probably demolish Mother Teresa’s integrity.
So I've heard.
Who was it wrote that piece or book, Christopher Hitchens? Can’t recall.
It is significantly more likely that there was some type of problem in this case than in the average case, since proper procedures weren’t followed. I’m not just arbitrarily voicing the possibility that something got fucked up with the test – I’m voicing that possibility based on the fact that we already know that one thing got fucked up with the test.
If someone advanced the theory that instead of packing up the sample and shipping it to the lab, the tester took it home and shoved in the refrigerator at his house for a couple of days, back with the pickles and eggs and a fuzzy old tomato, and left it there unguarded, that’d sound just as dumb and implausible as any of the theories that you just voiced. It’s ludicrously stupid… but it actually happened. We know that it happened. We can’t un-ring that bell. And once we have that knowledge, we have to consider the possibility that the moron who did that did other moronic things that further compromised the test.
As ludicrously stupid
as that sounds, apparently the World-Anti-Doping-Agency says that is how they would expect a tester to handle a weekend drug test.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 24, 2012 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
I get all that,
but it would be hopelessly naive to believe that the only cases of evidence bungling there ever are are the ones someone admits to and someone writes about and you heard about. And once you open that door, then why isn’t EVERY test, every piece of evidence subject to doubt? YOU DON’T KNOW that a hand didn’t reach out of the airplane lav toilet and switch briefcases, do you? I’d agree that seems ludicrous, but ludicrous stuff happens every day. Speaking of planes, who’d believe a guy would put a bomb in his underwear, or his shoe, and try to bring down a plane with it?
Just because you’re paranoid …
And once you open that door, then why isn’t EVERY test, every piece of evidence subject to doubt?
Because you give people the benefit of the doubt until you have reason not to do so.
and
Braun had 50 reasons not to do so, not to mention the full backing of the MLBPA.
by insane_sanity on Feb 24, 2012 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
part 1
I don’t know, nor do you. I feel like I’m making reasonable suppostitions based on what has been reported. And like I said, if there was evidence of tampering, Braun’s team would have included that in their appeal. Logically speaking, they wouldn’t hold anything back that they felt was out of line.
I don’t know, nor do you.
Exactly! And neither does the worker or MLB. Nobody knows what happened to the jar, because the chain of custody was broken.
And like I said, if there was evidence of tampering, Braun’s team would have included that in their appeal.
Maybe they did. How do you know they didn’t?
you're awesome
keep digging into your position… I understand your points and appreciate them. I get it that the chain of custody was compromised.
However, in my opinion braun failed the drug test and got off on a technicality.
Maybe more information will come out that supports your positions, I doubt it will happen.
Maybe more information will come out that supports your positions, I doubt it will happen.
My position doesn’t need any more evidence, since my position is simply that Braun’s sample effectively ceased to exist as a viable piece of evidence the moment it was mishandled. They might as well have opened the lid and poured it down the sink.
The question of whether or not it was actually damaged or tampered with is interesting, but immaterial.
If I were Braun, or his lawyer, that's the argument I'd make
But I’m neither. As a fan, all I’m interested in is the truth. And the truth is never immaterial.
The fact that some anonymous employee failed to follow procedures to the letter creates — at best — the theoretical possibility Braun’s sample was tampered with. But since no one has addressed whether the employee in question had a motive or the expertise to alter the sample, common sense tells me he almost certainly didn’t.
As was the case in the OJ Simpson trial, there isn’t a shred of proof that the sample actually was tampered with. All we know is that someone had the opportunity if they’d been so inclined. And if you’re a juror whose desire to make a point about racial inequality outweighs his responsibility to administer justice, or a union stooge who wouldn’t vote against a player even if there was a signed confession of guilt, I suppose that’s enough.
But the standard in the court of public opinion is much lower. The fact that we’re only 99.9 percent sure Braun is guilty instead of 100 won’t mean much to most fans — nor should it.
This issue is larger than one individual and his presumed “right” to play baseball. It’s about the integrity of the league and sending a message to fans like us that its standards are above reproach. We were skeptical enough before, but seeing the National League MVP cheat, lie about it and escape punishment on a technicality blows any credibility MLB might once have had all to hell.
by bucfaninwa on Feb 24, 2012 4:57 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
This issue is larger than one individual and his presumed "right" to play baseball. It’s about the integrity of the league and sending a message to fans like us that its standards are above reproach.
You’re right, but not in the way that you think you are.
A couple of years ago, JC Romero tested positive for andro, a banned substance. He argued that he had taken a legal, authorized supplement which had been accidentally contaminated with andro during its production, causing his positive test. After investigation, it was determined that Romero’s supplement really was contaminated and he was totally blameless… but MLB still made him serve a 50-game suspension anyway, arguing that he was responsible for whatever he put in his body, whether he actually knew what it was at the time or not. They valued the process, which called for a suspension for any positive test, over any squishy and subjective sense of justice or fairness.
Well, the sauce that’s good for the goose is good for the gander. MLB has a defined set of standards for testing, and those standards are what gives fans confidence in the integrity of the process. They didn’t follow those standards in Braun’s case, and as a result, he goes free without his guilt or innocence ever having been fully determined. That’s a GOOD outcome – we know that if MLB makes a procedural error, as it did in Braun’s case, that the player won’t be unfairly blamed for a test that may have been compromised.
I can't defend the league if it punished an innocent person
At the same time, justice isn’t served if you fail to punish someone who’s obviously guilty just to make up for getting it wrong the time before.
In this case all that’s happened is that Braun’s lawyers have successfully proved there’s a one in a million chance his test results were tampered with. And in a narrow, legal sense maybe that was the bar they had to clear.
But that doesn’t exonerate him and it creates a huge problem for the league’s credibility — one that wouldn’t be there if the arbitrator(s) had been less concerned with process and more concerned with getting at the truth.
At the same time, justice isn’t served if you fail to punish someone who’s obviously guilty just to make up for getting it wrong the time before.
It’s not about guilt or innocence, is the point I was trying to make. Motive doesn’t come into consideration at all. It’s about technicalities: Is the level of Chemical A in the sample above or below Level B? That’s the way the whole thing has been designed from the start. So for MLB to start complaining about Braun “getting off on a technicality” is kind of unseemly, since that’s the way they built the system in the first place.
How is that a technicality?
If the level of Chemical A is so much higher than Chemical B that it can’t be explained by any biological process, there’s no other conclusion to be drawn than that the player did something to increase it.
That’s not a technicality — it’s the whole point of the test in the first place.
It may not be about guilt or innocence in your mind, but I think most fans would disagree with that assessment.
How is that a technicality?
Definition #1 from Merriam-Webster for “technicality”: something technical; especially : a detail meaningful only to a specialist
The level of Chemical A in the sample is a technical detail that’s only meaningful to a specialist (i.e. the scientist conducting the test). It’s a technicality.
That’s not a technicality — it’s the whole point of the test in the first place.
It’s both.
It may not be about guilt or innocence in your mind, but I think most fans would disagree with that assessment.
If they do, then they’re wrong. I can’t do anything about people being wrong.
A modern system constructed to define guilt or innocence would consider questions of intent when determining the necessary level of punishment for the offense. Mitigating or aggravating circumstances, that sort of thing. Was it a deliberate violation, or an accident? Was it done with malice aforethought, or in the spur of the moment? Is the violator of sound enough mind to understand that he should not have taken the action in question, or is his ability to make that determination compromised in some way? For a MLB-specific example, see MLB’s process when assigning suspensions for on-field fights. There isn’t a black-and-white determination based on whether or not a player was fighting – the punishments exist on a continuum.
MLB could have set up its system for assessing PED-related suspensions in the same way, if they had wanted, and they chose not to do so. Ergo, they were more interested in technicalities than in guilt or innocence.
You’re assuming the league can impose any rules it wants. It can’t.
Those rules are established in concert with the player’s union, which has a vested interest in establishing a system that protects the players — even if that means protecting them from being caught.
In any case, I agree with your point that, “A modern system constructed to define guilt or innocence would consider…”
But it has to consider all the facts and all the probabilities. It can’t simply shut down and ignore everything else just because one error was made.
Neither one of us, I gather, has any idea of how the CBA words the rules it uses to handle this situation, but I’d be willing to bet it says that improper handling of evidence may be grounds for dismissal of the case, but doesn’t necessarily require the arbitrator scream, “Gotcha!!” and take the rest of the day off the instant such an irregularity is discovered.
Presumably he can consider the case in its totality.
You’re assuming the league can impose any rules it wants. It can’t.
If the league wanted to set up a mechanism whereby demonstrably “innocent” players like Romero could have their suspensions reduced, I doubt the union would complain about that.
But it has to consider all the facts and all the probabilities. It can’t simply shut down and ignore everything else just because one error was made.
If the error was significant enough, it not only can, it must.
obviously i disagree
the procedures call for multiple levels of security and redundancies. One error by the collector does not invalidate the sample because there were several other security measures taken in the process. It certainly raises doubts, enough to throw out the results in this case.
Your position is not necessarily correct as we don’t know if chain of custody was actually broken.
And your position presumes that the samples were tampered with. And if so, there should be evidence and information that supports it. And, that will be noted in Braun’s appeal.
And your position presumes that the samples were tampered with.
No, it doesn’t. It also encompasses the possibilities of accidental contamination and error during sample collection (since the guy didn’t follow procedure when shipping it, he may not have followed procedure during other steps of the process, either).
sure it does
if you read the procedures you’ll see that if there were errors during collection, Braun wouldn’t have signed the sample or the forms stating everything was done correctly.
if you read the procedures you’ll see that if there were errors during collection, Braun wouldn’t have signed the sample or the forms stating everything was done correctly.
Braun isn’t trained in proper procedure, so he might not necessarily spot an error if one occurred. Furthermore, he can only testify as to the stages of the collection process that happen in his presence. As one example of the kind of thing I’m talking about, the collection protocol only says that “The Collector shall ask the player to select a collection cup (cups must have lids and be individually wrapped in plastic).” Braun has no way of determining whether or not the collection cup was properly cleaned and sterilized before it was presented to him. The same goes for the sample bottles into which the sample is poured once it has been collected. Similarly, the written procedure has elaborate instructions on how the player must clean his hands before providing the sample, but the collector also handles the sample, and the only thing it says about his hands is, and I quote, “The Collector, for his own protection, shall wear latex gloves during the specimen collection process.” How does Braun know whether or not the Collector’s gloves are clean and sterile while he’s handling Braun’s sample and measuring the volume? He doesn’t.
You’d like to think that the Collector knew not to screw that stuff up, but since the chain of custody on the sample was broken (in violation of procedure), you can’t implicitly assume that the other stages of the operation were handled appropriately.
well if he’s signing something that he doesn’t understand he’s a fool.
those procedures and policies are negotiated and vetted by both MLB and the players union. furthermore, they are very similar to the drug testing that takes place for the rest of the professional world. it’s not rocket science, it’s simple and effective.
And we don’t need to assume the previous procedures were handled appropriately because we have signatures from both Bruan and the collector that they had done so.
well if he’s signing something that he doesn’t understand he’s a fool.
He’s probably doesn’t have enough context to understand whether or not he understands what he’s seeing. He’s not a dumb guy (he had an academic scholarship to Miami, and was recruited heavily by Stanford), but you sometimes need a certain level of knowledge of the subject in order to ask the right questions, y’know?
And we don’t need to assume the previous procedures were handled appropriately because we have signatures from both Bruan and the collector that they had done so.
None of the stuff that I’m talking about (sterilization of implements and such) is stuff that Braun would be able to determine from direct observation, since it wasn’t done in front of him, and given that the Collector royally screwed up at least one part of his procedure (i.e. the transfer to the lab), we can’t just take his word for it that everything else was five-by-five. His credibility on the issue has been damaged.
doesn't fly with me
no player can determine if the cups were properly sterilized etc… and therefore, no testing can be deemed valid.
no player can determine if the cups were properly sterilized etc… and therefore, no testing can be deemed valid.
There’s no reason in those cases to doubt that those things were properly handled. The collectors in those cases are unimpeachable. The propriety of the process is suspect in Braun’s case because we know that the guy handling the collection didn’t follow procedure in at least one respect, and as such, he’s no longer able to testify with any degree of authority as to whether procedure was followed in other areas of the test.
now youre making the assumptions – that everything is kosher and perfect except for this one knucklehead. doesn’t this impeach the screening system for bringing in non-knuckleheads?
now youre making the assumptions – that everything is kosher and perfect except for this one knucklehead
I prefer to think of it as assuming that people know how to do their jobs in the absence of direct evidence that they don’t.
doesn’t this impeach the screening system for bringing in non-knuckleheads?
To a certain extent, maybe.
if my reputation and milions of dollars were on the line
I’d make sure I understand the procedure. And I’d bet dollars to donuts that the players association ensures that all players understand both the drug rules and procedures for testing them.
if my reputation and milions of dollars were on the line I’d make sure I understand the procedure.
And if someone handed you a “sterile” vessel in the moment and told you to pee into it, how would you determine whether or not it was contaminated in any way, right on the spot?
i’d lick it for sure. if it tasted like steroids or other banned substances I’d ask for another vessel! maybe that’s what braun did and that’s why he tested positive for synthetic testosterone – happens all the time!
so you’re saying that no drug test performed in the US is valid because the “testee” has not witnessed the manufacture and sterile conditions of all components of the drug test up to and including the reactants used to confirm substances in urine samples?
so you’re saying that no drug test performed in the US is valid because the "testee" has not witnessed the manufacture and sterile conditions of all components of the drug test up to and including the reactants used to confirm substances in urine samples?
No, I’m saying that if you ALREADY KNOW that the guy giving you your test made a catastrophic error in one part of the process, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that he fucked something else up, too. Fuckups fuck things up. That’s how they roll.
If a guy tells you a piece of information, you’re probably inclined to believe him, in the absence of any reason not to do so. But if you just found out five minutes before that he’d lied to you about something else, would you be willing to just take his word for the new thing, and automatically write off the old lie as an isolated incident?
Nor can you assume they were
you can’t implicitly assume that the other stages of the operation were handled appropriately.
Especially since no one has even suggested, let alone proved, there was any tampering in this case.
The whole thing reminds me of a kids’ game. You get the answer right but you have to sit down because you didn’t say “Mother may I?”
Especially since no one has even suggested, let alone proved, there was any tampering in this case.
Why does everyone always go right for deliberate tampering when I say “handled appropriately”? It also covers unintentional fuckups. For instance, if one of the vessels that held the urine wasn’t properly cleaned, it could have accidentally mixed anything at all with Braun’s sample during the collection process. A contaminant. A masking agent. Maybe even residual testosterone from the last guy whose urine was in that particular container. Who knows? Same goes for if the Collector happened to inadvertently touch something that he shouldn’t have with his gloved hand, which was then transferred to the sample when he handled it. Or if the package of gloves wasn’t kept in sterile conditions before he put them on. Etc.
The whole thing reminds me of a kids’ game. You get the answer right but you have to sit down because you didn’t say "Mother may I?"
Rules are important. If they weren’t going to follow the rules, then they shouldn’t have written them in the first place.
Rules are intended as the road we use to take us to the truth...
…not away from it.
In this case there’s little question the evidence was handle improperly, but that in and of itself shouldn’t totally disqualify it and everything associated with it.
The mistake should raise a red flag, but those concerns should be weighed against common-sense questions like whether the employee had any motive to tamper with the results or the expertise in chemistry to simulate a result that was illegal but not impossible.
And the reason no one considers the possibility of accidental contamination is that it’s even less likely than a deliberate conspiracy. The lab didn’t report finding cleaning fluid, masking agents or malted milk in his specimen. Of all the chemical compounds in the word, it found testosterone — again, in a concentration that suggested its presence was no mere accident.
As I say, the errors are troublesome, but they don’t nullify the outcome per se. Or at least they shouldn’t.
The lab didn’t report finding cleaning fluid, masking agents or malted milk in his specimen. Of all the chemical compounds in the word, it found testosterone — again, in a concentration that suggested its presence was no mere accident.
How does the lab know that it found testosterone, rather than a contaminant that happens to generate a positive result for testosterone?
Is there such a compound?
I assume they’d know that better than you or I would.
Not about the testosterone
but this goes along with it.
Lydia Fairchild and her children are the subjects of a documentary called The Twin Inside Me (also known as “I Am My Own Twin”).1
Lydia Fairchild was pregnant with her third child when she and the father of her children, Jamie Townsend, separated. When Fairchild applied for welfare support in 2002, she was requested to provide DNA evidence that Townsend was the father of her children. While the results showed Townsend was certainly the father of the children, the DNA tests indicated that she was not their mother.
This resulted in Fairchild’s being taken to court for fraud for claiming benefit for other people’s children or taking part in a surrogacy scam. Hospital records of her prior births were disregarded. Prosecutors called for her two children to be taken into care. As time came for her to give birth to her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at the birth. This witness was to ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild. Two weeks later, DNA tests indicated that she was not the mother of that child either.
A breakthrough came when a lawyer for the prosecution found an article in the New England Journal of Medicine about a similar case involving a woman called Karen Keegan that had happened in Boston.2 He realised that Fairchild’s case might also be caused by chimerism. Fairchild’s prosecutors suggested this possibility to her lawyers, who arranged further testing. As in Keegan’s case, DNA samples were taken from members of the extended family. The DNA of Fairchild’s children matched that of Fairchild’s mother to the extent expected of a grandmother. They also found that, although the DNA in Fairchild’s skin and hair did not match her children’s, the DNA from a cervical smear test did match. Fairchild was carrying two different sets of DNA, the defining characteristic of a chimera.
This woman almost lost her children. Sometimes things aren’t exactly what they seem, even if preliminary scientific tests insist that they are. You gotta make sure (again, depending on the standard of evidence – I just need to look this up) before you can just find someone guilty.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
I dunno
Probably. Read about the case in law school. Fascinating stuff.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Interesting research
But it doesn’t prove that it happened in this case. Nowhere in your links does it cite an example where an athlete’s urine actually was contaminated by the microbes — only that you can reproduce a certain result in the laboratory under controlled conditions.
Which puts us right back where we started. It’s theoretically possible the specimen was exposed to precisely the right microbe at precisely the right temperature for precisely the right amount of time to result in an increase of its testosterone to levels that would precisely mock doping.
But that’s just about as likely as an action team from the Pirates’ front office staging a covert operation in the middle of the night to steal the urine sample out of the employee’s refrigerator and replace it with a tainted imposter.
Just because something is theoretically possible doesn’t mean the law should have to perform logical jiujitsu or assume an event defied lottery odds of its happening.
But that’s just about as likely as an action team from the Pirates’ front office staging a covert operation in the middle of the night to steal the urine sample out of the employee’s refrigerator and replace it with a tainted imposter.
We don’t have any way to determine how likely it is, because the guy who collected the sample took it upon himself to remove it from the controlled conditions called for by the protocol. Which is the whole point.
No one has to prove that it did happen, or that it has happened before.
There are certain assumptions made about the sample when it is tested (e.g. that it is uncontaminated, that it comes from a human source etc.), and one of the basic principles behind the protocols and procedures for collecting the samples is to provide a sample that meets the assumptions. If the assumptions are not met, the results of the test have no meaning.
The specifics about how a sample could be tampered with/contaminated/otherwise spoiled are irrelevant; it only really matters that there was opportunity for such events to occur given the breach of procedure. We can no longer reasonably say what did or did not happen with the sample.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
by poorboywilly on Feb 24, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
This microbiologist thanks you for those citations. However, if the sample was truly kept in a fridge, the likelihood of C. albicans growing/producing testosterone is low (I believe). They require 25 C, while fridges are 4 C. Not saying it can’t happen, just that it’s unlikely.
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-Roberto
by blackjackfishtaco on Feb 24, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
do you think that OJ Simpson didn’t kill Nicole Brown? He was acquitted in large part because there were chain of custody issues.
I think that OJ Simpson killed his wife because he wrote a book about killing his wife. You don’t really need to get into chain of custody issues to determine his guilt or innocence.
So if you want this semantically perfect, I’ll edit my language, hopefully you’ll be satisfied: According to the report, the sample that was sealed and allegedly signed by Braun, tested positive for synthetic testosterone and showed 20X normal level of testosterone.
Sure. You’re saying that according to an anonymous source, who may or may not know what he’s talking about, a sample that may or may not have been Braun’s (but appeared to resemble it in some respects) allegedly contained high levels of synthetic testosterone.
I don’t find that particularly meaningful.
So you waited to form your opinion until he wrote the book? Or did the book confirm the opinion that you formed at the time of the case?
your opinion is irrelevant to the outcome
That’s why in criminal cases they have jury trials, and screen the jurors thru voir dire. Think what you want about OJ, Braun, or Lizzie Borden. It doesn’t matter in the end, except to you. The legal or in this case procedural guidelines are what matter. And just to reiterate, chain of custody is NOT a technicality. It’s fundamental to fairness to the accused.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe Braun is a douche and have no trouble believing he could be guilty. But so what? No one who matters is asking me.
He was acquitted in large part because there were chain of custody issues.
Nah, he was acquitted because the glove didn’t fitted [sic], at least according to Jackie Chiles or Johnny Cochran or whoever his attorney was.
At least
Braun’s worst crime is being a douche.
O.J. is responsible for the Kardashians. That should be a hanging offense.
You got THAT right!
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 24, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
The quote from ESPN article
As has occurred in some other instances, the collector took the sample home and kept it in a cool place, in his basement at his residence in Wisconsin…
It reminds me of the Simpons when Marge and Home have to go to parenting class: “put it in the refrigerator, or, failing that, a cool wet sack”.
It doesn’t change my opinion of Braun, but it sounds like a pretty easy case to overturn IMO—you just can’t be taking samples to your residence for the weekend. There is a reason why there are protocols for these kinds of things.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
Ugh, all this makes my head hurt
I’m gonna go write about how awesome Luis Heredia is.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 8:45 PM EST reply actions
P.S.
for all two or three of you who care, I fixed my link in my sig. Sorry!
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 23, 2012 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
Well...
Conspiracy theory anyone? Would it be an absolute shock to see Braun successfully appeal? After all, the Commissioner is the former owner of the Brewers.
Yeah…yeah…I know. Tin foil time. I don’t expect him to get out of it, but I’ve also learned to never say never.
by Thunder on Dec 10, 2011 7:09 PM CST actions
by Thunder on Feb 23, 2012 9:14 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
just got back from school and...
Holy Roly Poly! Coonley diwi, Braun b.s.- good lawyer, bad piss collecter!! A dream day for Charlie the journalist!!!
tx Truth
#31 All Day...
How is that a correct decision?
My understanding is that because of the worker getting the sample late in the day, he had to store the test elsewhere. Why would they schedule a drug test at a time where this is possible? I plan to elaborate in a drunken fan post later this evening
Bees Bees Everywhere
by VoteforPedro on Feb 23, 2012 9:56 PM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
How is that a correct decision?
My understanding is that because of the worker getting the sample late in the day, he had to store the test elsewhere. Why would they schedule a drug test at a time where this is possible? I plan to elaborate in a drunken fan post later this evening
Bees Bees Everywhere
by VoteforPedro on Feb 23, 2012 9:56 PM EST via mobile reply actions
yeah
you should be one to talk about double posting :P
by BurgherKing on Feb 23, 2012 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
ha
i feel like you’re the Pirates and I’m 93.7 the FAN!
by BurgherKing on Feb 24, 2012 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
ESPN is now reporting
That the league is waiting on the written decision set to come some time in the next week, then will explore the possibility of taking this to federal court to get the decision overturned. They believe Das misread the policy. So there’s a chance Braun could end up getting suspended 5 years from now the way the federal court system works.
Guys.. There has been plenty of debate about this
but I think it’s important to point out that, at least from my standpoint, Braun isn’t getting off on a technicality. Example from a Brew Crew Ball (bias is irrelevant here, just read the example please).
In one case while I was in civil practice, my client was lured to a different state for a business meeting where he and a business he was in a dispute with would "settle things without getting lawyers involved". When he turned up for the meeting, the business on the other side had their lawyer serve him with papers so they could keep the lawsuit in their state and not his, since service was arguably affected in their county, establishing personal jurisdiction. I filed a motion to dismiss, wrote a couple of briefs, and pounded the table (figuratively) while arguing that the case should be dismissed on simple fairness grounds. The judge couldn’t do that, even though he agreed with me that my client had been unfairly duped. Instead, the judge discovered that the affidavit of service was never signed, and instead of giving the bad acting business lawyer the chance to cure the technical defect as he normally would, he dumped the whole suit.
Emphasis mine. THAT is a technical defect. The lack of a signature is a procedural issue and that’s it. The chain of custody issue in the Braun case certainly has some procedural undertones but it also has substantive undertones. It can’t be 100% proven that the sample was Braun’s, it wasn’t tampered with, and the sample’s chemical integrity was intact. There exists reasonable doubt that it could be invalid (which again brings up WTM’s point on which standard should have/was used). That’s not a technicality.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 11:27 AM EST reply actions
Thank you for this. I’m not sure why this is still up for debate, honestly.
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-Roberto
by blackjackfishtaco on Feb 24, 2012 3:40 PM EST up reply actions
How is there any doubt about it’s validity? That is the part I don’t get. A != C to me. Employee J had it longer than he was supposed to so it MUST have been effed with. It doesn’t compute. I would think the defense could use that as evidence to try and prove it was tampered but that in itself doesn’t prove shit.
"What up no wings"
so the mlb employee, who also does nfl and nhl, lives in Wisconsin.
it says he put it in a cooler in his basement that he has used in this capacity before.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;ylt=AmyBRo3rXKNPJdiBNHpyykI5nYcB?slug=jp-passanryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_manfred_022412
by karreemofwheat on Feb 24, 2012 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
the world anti doping agency said it was handled correctly. see gonfalon fanshot.
i don’t know what they can do if anything but mlb is not letting go.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 24, 2012 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Pun intended?
And how did everyone forget his name in the conspiracy thread? Along with his cousin Dick Trickle (get the man some penicillin)
did not see dick pound in either references. i'll take your word.
David Howman, the director general of WADA, said in a statement Friday that in a case following WADA code, "the athlete would have to show that the departure from the rule caused the adverse finding. That is not the situation in this case."
by karreemofwheat on Feb 24, 2012 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry I misunderstood you. The reaction from Pound (the former head of WADA) is here. I hadn’t seen Howman’s statement, and figured you were referring to Pound’s.
The obvious solution
is for MLB to fly players it wants to test on sterilized airplanes with sterilized stewardesses directly to a certified sterile lab to pee directly into a certified sterile beaker with a sterilized penis in front of 20 of 50 or 100 sterilized witnesses, all recording the peeing with sterilized video cameras, the sample to be tested by sterilized scientists.
Approximate cost per test: $10 million
by bucdaddy on Feb 24, 2012 11:34 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Probably make that back
by posting the video on youtube pretty quickly or something though.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
well, online tests
you raise a good point. Maybe that’s how they should do it…
by BurgherKing on Feb 24, 2012 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
So it doesn't count
If there’s some bs technicality about they way it happened? I wonder if Connely could arrange to randomly ‘drop’ a suitcase of cash outside of draftees houses after they mysteriously sign for slot when nobody saw it coming.
How do we know it came from Connelly
There is chain of costudy issues here
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Lloyd, Andy Russell, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Clemson should've stopped turning the ball over" Dana Holgorsen when asked about running up the score in the Orange Bowl
by WVPiratesfan on Feb 27, 2012 12:00 AM EST up reply actions
That’s a whole ’nother slot.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 28, 2012 8:39 AM EST up reply actions
can't they check on the spot?
i take them all the time for my job, they check on the spot. course not for steroids and such, the other performance enhancing drugs. only if your dirty do they send them off.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 24, 2012 12:30 PM EST reply actions
You would still have chain of custody issues...
and without a valid lab test of the second sample, the instant kit probably isn’t probably admissible in court.
Your honor!
My client wishes to ask the court how it can be 100 percent certain Officer Smith doesn’t keep a supply of Intoxylizers that have been dipped in White Lightning in his patrol car, to increase his number of DUI arrests and his stature among his fellow officers.
Furthermore, this supposedly “straight line” my client was asked to walk: Has it been certified that the line is straight to a tolerance of .00001 degree in either direction?
Your honor, clearly this is a miscarriage of justice, and I ask that my client be immediately exonerated of all charges.
Thank you.
— Frank Coonelly’s attorney
"At the end of the day the truth prevailed," he said. "I’m a victim of a process that completely broke down and failed in the way that it was applied to me in the case. "
Man I hate that guy.
"What up no wings"
by Mr. E on Feb 24, 2012 3:35 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
Best response I saw
was on twitter:
(Paraphrased…)
“Braun is the kid in Little League whose parents bought him a $400 bat.”
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 24, 2012 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Surprised this hasn't popped up on here
ESPN senior legal analyst was on TV this afternoon.. something Munson and he said that the issue was that MLB couldn’t prove the sample was Braun’s and then Braun offered to give a DNA sample to crosscheck with the sample and the MLB refused to run the test.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 24, 2012 7:09 PM EST reply actions
From ESPN's...
Outside the Lines article…
The offer to test his DNA
Braun’s team suggested Friday that after learning of the positive test result, it requested the player’s sample undergo DNA testing to determine whether it was truly his urine.
MLB declined this request, according to Braun’s camp. While MLB agreed Braun’s camp requested the DNA request initially, a source with knowledge of the case said MLB told Braun and his lawyers it didn’t believe such a test was necessary but that they were welcome take up the issue with the arbitrator if they wanted the test conducted.
Ultimately, the source said, the DNA issue was not raised during the hearing by Braun’s team.
but is DNA even normally found in urine?
see Greg’s post (about 10th or so from the beginning) at this Fangraphs thread:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-braun-and-type-i-vs-type-ii-error/
by gonfalon on Feb 27, 2012 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'ed +1
according to greg, no. unless braun had a yeast infection.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 27, 2012 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
just saw a clip of Braun talking to media
Talking about how he handled everything with professionalism, integrity and class, because that’s what he’s all about (in so many words). Basically things that, you know, OTHER people are supposed to say, not you yourself.
I’ve been foursquare on the side of the tester screwing up and thus agreeing with the decision, but boy – is this guy EVER a douche.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
