Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

NL MVP Ryan Braun has tested positive for performance enhancing drugs?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
367 replies to this topic

#351 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:33 PM

What are you talking about?


Braun dragged the guys name through the mud and accused him of a serious crime.

#352 Sampo Gida

  • 3113 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:27 PM

Assuming this is even possible, that scenario could happen with most tests taken. With materials ready to go it wouldn't take more than 20 minutes to make changes and ship on the same day. Seems like a red herring.


Yes, I made that point earlier if you had read the thread. If the collector could tamper with the sample, he did not need 44 hrs, so having the sample stored at home should not raise any undue concern. My point was not to how much time he needed, but if he could tamper with it if so inclined. Raising the time needed is in fact the red herring.

#353 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6607 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:46 PM

By others, yes. The only person who could have tampered would be the collector (or his son) . Since he was the one to seal and pack the samples, whats to prevent him from using new seals and packaging to do the same (but with someone elses urine sample, one who uses steroids), and rewriting the COC form to make sure all the numbers match up (and forging Brauns signature, but Braun seems not to get a copy of what he had signed).

I get the feeling that when drafting the protocol, no one in MLB or MLBPA thought this was a huge issue because if worse came to worse, they could do a DNA test on the sample to find out if it was really the person who pissed in the cup. And if wasn't the person who pissed in the cup, the collector would have a whole slew of issues.

If this is true - and I haven't been able to find confirmation on this - I have to say that I would guess that most anyone who was in the business would realize how easily it would be to deal with a switched sample.

I also think that the mostly likely course of events that fit what I've seen from both sides is that Braun offered to give a DNA sample, MLB said to raise it at the hearing, but when Braun did not raise tampering as an issue at the hearing, MLB thought the issue was moot.

#354 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9948 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:18 AM

Braun dragged the guys name through the mud and accused him of a serious crime.


A few points:
  • Braun implied that there were problems with the handling of his sample, possibly including tampering. How, exactly, does this fit the definition of "a serious crime?"
  • Braun's contention about the handling of his sample is no longer just his opinion - it's an adjudicated fact.
  • I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Braun never mentioned this guy's name. Kinda hard to drag a name you're not using through any mud.
The other thing I'd point out is that you seem to be outraged by the fact that the man who collected the sample from Braun has somehow been damaged because the entire process should have been confidential and since no wrongdoing on his part has been proven, his name should have never been leaked in the first place. I'll let you take a minute to appreciate the logical problems here.

Given all of the above, I think the chances of Braun being sued and settling to avoid a damaging trial are pretty close to zero

I get that you think the arbitration was wrongly decided, but you really do need to keep in mind that this case has already been adjudicated and Braun won on the very points that you keep trying to refute. My advice would be to let this go.

Edited by Average Reds, 29 February 2012 - 06:54 AM.


#355 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 07:54 AM

A few points:

  • Braun implied that there were problems with the handling of his sample, possibly including tampering. How, exactly, does this fit the definition of "a serious crime?"
  • Braun's contention about the handling of his sample is no longer just his opinion - it's an adjudicated fact.
  • I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Braun never mentioned this guy's name. Kinda hard to drag a name you're not using through any mud.
The other thing I'd point out is that you seem to be outraged by the fact that the man who collected the sample from Braun has somehow been damaged because the entire process should have been confidential and since no wrongdoing on his part has been proven, his name should have never been leaked in the first place. I'll let you take a minute to appreciate the logical problems here.

Given all of the above, I think the chances of Braun being sued and settling to avoid a damaging trial are pretty close to zero

I get that you think the arbitration was wrongly decided, but you really do need to keep in mind that this case has already been adjudicated and Braun won on the very points that you keep trying to refute. My advice would be to let this go.


Braun won his suspension hearing but I don't think this is over.

The sample didn't test positive for testosterone because it sat in his basement. The only explanation that Braun is hinting at with the handling process is tampering and tampering with it would be a serious crime.

I will let it go and wait for more to come out. I will continue to believe as most do that Braun pissed a cup full of testosterone and got off an interpretation of a wording discrepancy. If details come out that aren't some million to one shot and cast doubt to the sample, I will change my mind and I am sure others will as well.

#356 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9948 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:06 AM

Braun won his suspension hearing but I don't think this is over.

The sample didn't test positive for testosterone because it sat in his basement. The only explanation that Braun is hinting at with the handling process is tampering and tampering with it would be a serious crime.

I will let it go and wait for more to come out. I will continue to believe as most do that Braun pissed a cup full of testosterone and got off an interpretation of a wording discrepancy. If details come out that aren't some million to one shot and cast doubt to the sample, I will change my mind and I am sure others will as well.


My comments are exclusively about your contention that Braun is at risk of being sued and will settle such a suit to avoid the publicity.

Given the fact that he won his arbitration case based on questions about the handling of the sample, I cannot see a lawsuit against Braun succeeding under any circumstances. If you disagree - and you obviously do - I'd like to know the reasoning.

#357 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:00 AM

My comments are exclusively about your contention that Braun is at risk of being sued and will settle such a suit to avoid the publicity.

Given the fact that he won his arbitration case based on questions about the handling of the sample, I cannot see a lawsuit against Braun succeeding under any circumstances. If you disagree - and you obviously do - I'd like to know the reasoning.


He won his arbitration case based on the fact that the arbitrator interpreted the rules in a way that said the collector didn't follow protocol. He didn't win because the arbritator ruled that the collector tampered with the sample.Braun didn't just come out and say that in his statement. He questioned the guys character and basically accused him of tampering with the sample. There is no other way to read his statements. He had to do this in order to save face because he most likely knew that everyone would think he got off on a technicality. He had to hint to the fact that something shady happened under the collector's watch because most experts, other than Braun's crew, said there was no way the 44 hours would cause a normal sample to suddenly have super high levels of testosterone.

It's possible that most people don't interpret Braun's statement the way I do. I think he railroaded the guy, accused him of tampering with the sample(which would be a crime) and damaged his good name.Maybe he can't sue based on that but I have seen people sue for much less.


"Laurenzi has retained high-powered New York attorney Boyd Johnson III of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, although, according to sources, Laurenzi has not yet taken legal action against the Brewers outfielder."


http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1029953

Edited by Bob420, 29 February 2012 - 11:26 AM.


#358 Sausage in Section 17


  • Poker Champ


  • 676 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:29 AM

If there's anyone that deserves to get sued, it's MLB. They lost fair and square on the terms that they agreed to, now they're trying it in the court of public opinion. When they lose there (and they are), what's next? Tell Braun's grandma? It's Braun who's name is being dragged through the mud, and accused of illegal and unethical behavior by the employers who didn't follow their own rules for testing. And now to compound that, they are betraying the confidentiality that is supposed to be a guarantee of this process, and tearing down one of the marquee names of their sport.

This is classic 'cut of your nose to spite your face' stuff. Good luck getting the Player's union to re-up on this testing program at the next CBA.

#359 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:40 AM

If there's anyone that deserves to get sued, it's MLB. They lost fair and square on the terms that they agreed to, now they're trying it in the court of public opinion. When they lose there (and they are), what's next? Tell Braun's grandma? It's Braun who's name is being dragged through the mud, and accused of illegal and unethical behavior by the employers who didn't follow their own rules for testing. And now to compound that, they are betraying the confidentiality that is supposed to be a guarantee of this process, and tearing down one of the marquee names of their sport.

This is classic 'cut of your nose to spite your face' stuff. Good luck getting the Player's union to re-up on this testing program at the next CBA.


It will be very interesting to see if Braun files a lawsuit. He definitely could based on what happened but for some reason I seriously doubt he wants to open up that can of worms. He got off and spread enough doubt for some people to believe him but I don't think he wants anyone digging any deeper.

#360 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9948 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:55 AM

He won his arbitration case based on the fact that the arbitrator interpreted the rules in a way that said the collector didn't follow protocol. He didn't win because the arbritator ruled that the collector tampered with the sample.Braun didn't just come out and say that in his statement. He questioned the guys character and basically accused him of tampering with the sample. There is no other way to read his statements. He had to do this in order to save face because he most likely knew that everyone would think he got off on a technicality. He had to hint to the fact that something shady happened under the collector's watch because most experts, other than Braun's crew, said there was no way the 44 hours would cause a normal sample to suddenly have super high levels of testosterone.

It's possible that most people don't interpret Braun's statement the way I do. I think he railroaded the guy, accused him of tampering with the sample(which would be a crime) and damaged his good name.Maybe he can't sue based on that but I have seen people sue for much less.


"Laurenzi has retained high-powered New York attorney Boyd Johnson III of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, although, according to sources, Laurenzi has not yet taken legal action against the Brewers outfielder."


http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1029953


Couple of responses:

- I understand that he did not win his arbitration case based on tampering. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I think that.
- I also understand that he implied that the samples might have been tampered with and that he learned some unsavory things about the person who collected the sample during his investigation of the process.

I get that the guy is pissed and he may very well sue. I just don't know how Braun's statements are actionable given that he did win his arbitration over procedure, and unless Laurenzi has evidence that Braun or his representatives were the ones to leak his name, I don't see a viable case based on an implication of a possibility with respect to an unnamed individual.

I can say that if Laurenzi does sue, I'll be utterly shocked if Braun settles. That would be tantamount to admitting his guilt, and I just can't see it. But hell, stranger things have happened.

Edited by Average Reds, 29 February 2012 - 11:56 AM.


#361 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6607 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:11 PM

My comments are exclusively about your contention that Braun is at risk of being sued and will settle such a suit to avoid the publicity.

Given the fact that he won his arbitration case based on questions about the handling of the sample, I cannot see a lawsuit against Braun succeeding under any circumstances. If you disagree - and you obviously do - I'd like to know the reasoning.

Depends what "success" is.

Here is the transcript of some of the Q&As at Braun's press conference: http://www.jsonline..../140342983.html. Don't know if he made other statements. But from that press conference, a couple of answers jump out at me:

How do you explain such a high reading in your test?
“The most honest answer I can give you is that I’m 100 percent certain it’s never entered my system. I can only speak for what happened up until the time that the sample went missing. I have no idea what happened to it for that 44-hour period. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. I don’t have any idea.”

Have you become preoccupied with trying to figure out the entire scenario?
“Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I’ve lived this nightmare every day for the last four months. There’s been a million possibilities that have ran through my head. Ultimately the scariest thing is that it was missing for a prolonged period of time We had no idea what happened to it, what could have happened to it, and it’s a scary thought, without a doubt.”

Do you believe the test collector tampered with your sample?
“Again, I honestly don’t know what happened to it for that 44-hour period. There are a lot of different things that could have possibly happened. There were a lot of things that we heard about the collection process, the collector and some other people involved in the process that have certainly been concerning to us. But beyond that, as I’ve dealt with this situation, I know what it’s like to be wrongly accused of something and for me to wrongly accuse somebody else of something wouldn’t help anybody.”


While this is likely not enough to "win" a case after trial, that may not be the only thing that might constitute "success" for Laurenzi. His lawyer must be trying to figure out if he can put the sample in play during discovery, and if he can do that - and if he can prove the sample is Braun's - that is really as good as winning. In fact, unless Ryan Braun has Roger Clemens-level of delusion, all he needs to do to get a settlement from Braun is to make Braun's attorneys think that it is possible the judge will allow the sample into discovery.

I'm not saying this is likely - or even possible. I would think this would be the reasoning, and it would depend on the nature of WI evidentiary law.

#362 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5644 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:24 PM

Depends what "success" is.

Here is the transcript of some of the Q&As at Braun's press conference: http://www.jsonline..../140342983.html. Don't know if he made other statements. But from that press conference, a couple of answers jump out at me:

While this is likely not enough to "win" a case after trial, that may not be the only thing that might constitute "success" for Laurenzi. His lawyer must be trying to figure out if he can put the sample in play during discovery, and if he can do that - and if he can prove the sample is Braun's - that is really as good as winning. In fact, unless Ryan Braun has Roger Clemens-level of delusion, all he needs to do to get a settlement from Braun is to make Braun's attorneys think that it is possible the judge will allow the sample into discovery.

I'm not saying this is likely - or even possible. I would think this would be the reasoning, and it would depend on the nature of WI evidentiary law.


Wouldn't Laurenzi need actual damages to sue? The obvious thing that jumps out is him getting punished by MLB. Now, MLB has little incentive to punshish him as

1)They don't seem to actually blame him given they disagreed with the arbitrators decision.
2)It's in their best interest to let this die.

Laurenzi's lawyers could(and probably have) sent a letter telling Braun to back on off on the implications tampering and it wouldn't surprise me if he did. Brauns answers seem to be pretty heavily coached though.

None of the parties involved has any incentive to pursue this, so I think this is probably closed.

Edited by BucketOBalls, 29 February 2012 - 04:26 PM.


#363 Statman

  • 585 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:16 PM

Wouldn't Laurenzi need actual damages to sue?


Not necessarily. If Laurenzi files a defamation suit against Braun, then me may not need to proven actual damages. Damages are often presumed in defamation cases.

#364 Sampo Gida

  • 3113 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:49 AM

If there's anyone that deserves to get sued, it's MLB. They lost fair and square on the terms that they agreed to, now they're trying it in the court of public opinion. When they lose there (and they are), what's next? Tell Braun's grandma? It's Braun who's name is being dragged through the mud, and accused of illegal and unethical behavior by the employers who didn't follow their own rules for testing. And now to compound that, they are betraying the confidentiality that is supposed to be a guarantee of this process, and tearing down one of the marquee names of their sport.

This is classic 'cut of your nose to spite your face' stuff. Good luck getting the Player's union to re-up on this testing program at the next CBA.


What rules did MLB not follow. Under the JDA, both MLB and MLBPA agreed to contract with CDT to handle the collections. If anyone violated the protocol, it was CDT. You can't sue MLB w/o also suing the MLBPA for CDT's actions.

Also, what confidentiality is MLB breaching now? They disagree with the arbitrator, so what?. Prosecutors disagree with jury findings all the time. Brauns the one who alleged tampering by the collector in so many words.

The players union, like MLB, were forced into this testing program so as to keep Congress from enacting legislation and giving them a program with some more teeth and more bite than the current program.

I also think that the mostly likely course of events that fit what I've seen from both sides is that Braun offered to give a DNA sample, MLB said to raise it at the hearing, but when Braun did not raise tampering as an issue at the hearing, MLB thought the issue was moot.


I read that MLB sources said that Braun backed off on his original offer of doing a DNA test. Not sure if it is true.

http://espn.go.com/m...t-system-failed

Sources also told Munson that there was doubt over whose urine was actually being tested. Braun offered to take a DNA test to confirm whose urine was in the sample, but Major League Baseball declined. However, an MLB source told ESPN's Mike Golic that Braun's side backed off of the offer to take a DNA test.


Edited by Sampo Gida, 01 March 2012 - 12:49 AM.


#365 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:14 PM

Ouch! Not good when players are stepping up for the collector. Can't wait to watch a Cubs vs Brewers game.

"Just from knowing Dino the three years I've been here, he's been nothing but professional," Baker told the paper. "He's been very, very thorough. I have no concerns and no qualms.'"


"The process to me is something a lot of the guys in the clubhouse really trust," Johnson said. "Obviously, you don't want your sample going to somebody's house and sitting around for a couple of days, but you know that that process of them taking your sample and sealing it inside a case, stickers over it and that's inside a bag, stickers over that and that's inside a sealed box, stickers over that.

"When you see the process and the detail that goes into that type of drug testing, you really do feel safe that nothing is going to happen."

"I'm not worried that it's the same guy," Soriano told the Sun-Times. "'I'm not worried because I know what I take. It doesn't matter who takes the sample. If you don't take nothing, he can take [the specimen] home for a week and nothing will come out."

http://espn.go.com/c...braun-collector

#366 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25355 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:17 PM

One might almost think the Cubs and Brewers are rivals...oh wait.

Isn't the collector, or the collector's son, a Cubs fan?

#367 Sampo Gida

  • 3113 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 06:56 PM

Now we hear MLB did not leak the Braun test results

http://www.jsonline..../141358073.html

If not for the leak -- which came from someone whom the Braun defense team talked to in preparing their case -- no one would have known that the NL MVP had a positive drug test, appealed the decision and won his appeal. All of that would have remained confidential, as designed in the program.



#368 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 09:43 PM

Did the same guy tamper with the Miami clinics records?

 

http://espn.go.com/m...ccording-report






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users