Scott Brosius’ son accuses Trout

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
11,461
As pointed out in the other thread where this was raised yesterday: Even if true,
(A) therapeutic use exemptions are a real thing, a legit thing, and everyone from Serena and Venus on down to Derek Lowe have relied on them from time to time for their health concerns. If Trout has a TUE for HGH (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), it means a doctor thinks it's necessary for him to have normal functioning, so who the fuck is Scott David Brosius to assert otherwise. Also:
(B) it's supposed to be a private matter for teams, and I think is protected by HIPAA, so blowing someone's cover on that feels pretty liability-ish to me.

edit: acronymania
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
8,598
Santa Monica
It looks like he's trying to erase his statement.

A good reminder that comments on social networks aren't written in ink, they're written on concrete sidewalks o_O
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I’m not a defamation expert — do media outlets that report on deleted social media posts expose themselves to liability?

Liability or no, I’m surprised Yahoo chose to report on this. Even assuming the social media account actually belonged to David Brosius, what reason is there to think he had even secondhand knowledge of the pertinent facts?
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,398,902
NY
As pointed out in the other thread where this was raised yesterday: Even if true,
(A) therapeutic use exemptions are a real thing, a legit thing, and everyone from Serena and Venus on down to Derek Lowe have relied on them from time to time for their health concerns. If Trout has a TUE for HGH (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), it means a doctor thinks it's necessary for him to have normal functioning, so who the fuck is Scott David Brosius to assert otherwise. Also:
(B) it's supposed to be a private matter for teams, and I think is protected by HIPPA, so blowing someone's cover on that feels pretty liability-ish to me.
HIPAA.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,841
Why are we assuming he's lying? Pete Rose would never bet on baseball, Barry Bonds doesn't even need steroids, OJ as a great guy. Who the Fuck is David Brosius? Who the fuck is Mark Felt? Maybe Brosius is lying. Maybe he isn't.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
27,152
Southwestern CT
Why are we assuming he's lying? Pete Rose would never bet on baseball, Barry Bonds doesn't even need steroids, OJ as a great guy. Who the Fuck is David Brosius? Who the fuck is Mark Felt? Maybe Brosius is lying. Maybe he isn't.
I'm assuming he is lying (or rather, that he's simply repeating rumors) because we can say with absolute, 100% certainty that he is not in a position to know that information. Whereas Mark Felt (to cite the only example you gave that was remotely relevant) was absolutely in a position to know what he was saying.
 
Last edited:

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,699
Astoria
That was insanely quick. As a fan of the sport, I think we need Trout to be clean. If folks aren't skeptical about cheating and steroids already, this would shock the fabric of the sport given that it has been a very long time since a notable top player has been caught/accused. We're operating under the assumptions that the sport is clean and those who cheat get caught. I would no longer be able to make those assumptions.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
8,266
Norwalk, CT
I’m not a defamation expert — do media outlets that report on deleted social media posts expose themselves to liability?

Liability or no, I’m surprised Yahoo chose to report on this. Even assuming the social media account actually belonged to David Brosius, what reason is there to think he had even secondhand knowledge of the pertinent facts?
Link is dead now so maybe a Trout/MLB/Player's Union/Angels lawyer sent a note to Yahoo.
 

Dernells Casket n Flagon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,445
As pointed out in the other thread where this was raised yesterday: Even if true,
(A) therapeutic use exemptions are a real thing, a legit thing, and everyone from Serena and Venus on down to Derek Lowe have relied on them from time to time for their health concerns. If Trout has a TUE for HGH (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), it means a doctor thinks it's necessary for him to have normal functioning, so who the fuck is Scott David Brosius to assert otherwise. Also:
We've already seen Therapeutic Use Exemptions abused (BY DOCTORS) to provide Performance Enhancements to professional athletes. The best recent example of this is the 4 year suspension of Alberto Salazar, who's probably the most prominent distance running coach in the world. Jeffrey Brown is an Endocrinologist that worked with the Nike Oregon Project, who prescribed prescription drugs that are also performance enhancers using therapeutic use exemptions. He was known for diagnosing many track and field athletes with onset hypothyroidism. Multiple athletes have spoken out against this. This includes the two most prominent current American distance runners, Galen Rupp and Karen Goucher, who spoke out about Brown's encouragement to her to use a thyroid medication.

Even if Trout does have a TUE, my understanding is that HGH cannot be limited into what symptoms it's treating in the body, so he'd get all the benefits.

Let's say that Trout does have a legitimate TUE that wouldn't prevent him from also getting a performance benefit. We know the HGH provides benefits that would certainly be advantages for a baseball player including:
  • Recovery
  • Eyesight
  • Building muscle mass
  • Reducing body fat
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
10,262
The Paris of the 80s
HIPAA protects patient information held by healthcare providers, plans, and clearing houses. It doesn’t protect information known outside those entities though.

Baseball teams are a bit weird since they have integrated healthcare providers so they might be healthcare providers to some of their contract employee players and that treatment information should receive protect.

However, again, the provider is bound by HIPAA and there may have been a breach but I’m not able to find Brosius son’s connection to the team. I don’t see any way how you could shut him up under the HIPAA regs. If the info is false there are of course other avenues.
 

luckysox

Eeyore
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2009
7,559
S.E. Pennsylvania
I eagarly await the "Trout has a big head" accusations.
I mean, he does have a really big noggin'. Which means nothing. My nephew does, too, and no one is accusing him of using HGH to be the absolute beast that he is on the bass drum in his DIII school's marching band. This needs to go away, and fast. I just want to think about and read about and soon watch regular old baseball with regular old gamesmanship and fewer accusations from fans and other adjacent people looking to bring the game, or specific teams, or specific players, down. Like, the whole "Did the Yankees cheat?" crap. Come on. Do we need to do that here just because we got caught red handed and don't want them to look better than us? I don't care. We got caught, clean it up, move on. This doesn't need to be a fount of what-about-ism for the sporting world. Bring some goddamned evidence about Mike Trout using HGH to cheat, bring some goddamned evidence about the Yankees doing what the Sox or 'Stros did after the edict went out to knock it off, or shut the hell up. Maybe the evidence is out there for either of those things, and for lots of other smarmy things. But until you have it, shut your yap.
 
Last edited:

Patek's 3 Dingers

Luddite
Silver Supporter
Jul 5, 2018
336
According to his Wikipedia bio, Brosius was the 3rd base coach in 2018 and not 2017. The story that the Astros understood Brosius' fake signs and believed he was stealing the catcher's signals from 3rd is nonsense. If Trout using HGH was so well known, it couldn't possibly have been kept secret until Brosius' "son" broke the story.

It's also extremely unlikely someone would put his Father's name on such a inflammatory rumour.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
27,152
Southwestern CT
We've already seen Therapeutic Use Exemptions abused (BY DOCTORS) to provide Performance Enhancements to professional athletes. The best recent example of this is the 4 year suspension of Alberto Salazar, who's probably the most prominent distance running coach in the world. Jeffrey Brown is an Endocrinologist that worked with the Nike Oregon Project, who prescribed prescription drugs that are also performance enhancers using therapeutic use exemptions. He was known for diagnosing many track and field athletes with onset hypothyroidism. Multiple athletes have spoken out against this. This includes the two most prominent current American distance runners, Galen Rupp and Karen Goucher, who spoke out about Brown's encouragement to her to use a thyroid medication.

Even if Trout does have a TUE, my understanding is that HGH cannot be limited into what symptoms it's treating in the body, so he'd get all the benefits.

Let's say that Trout does have a legitimate TUE that wouldn't prevent him from also getting a performance benefit. We know the HGH provides benefits that would certainly be advantages for a baseball player including:
  • Recovery
  • Eyesight
  • Building muscle mass
  • Reducing body fat
The point I was making earlier - and is now confirmed by Brosius himself - is that there is literally zero reason to believe that Brosius was doing anything other than repeating rumors that he heard.

So while your point about how TUEs has validity, there is absolutely no reason to assume that Mike Trout has a TUE.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,059
I eagarly await the "Trout has a big head" accusations.
Not his head but I've seen more than a few mentions about the size of his neck.

The rate at which we have been plumbing the depths of stupidity this week in baseball is alarming AF. Thanks, Manfred.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,478
AZ
I’m not a defamation expert — do media outlets that report on deleted social media posts expose themselves to liability?
For public figures, pretty much only if they act with malice -- so reckless disregard of the truth.

Their first line of defense (which is kind of shaky but not insignificant) is usually that the statements they make are not even objective statements of fact regarding the underlying allegation. In other words, if they report it as "Scott Brosius' kid says X," they only need to show truth of whether or not Scott Brosius' kid actually said X not whether X is true. They would claim even a second level of a truth defense* if they report it like this: "TMZ is reporting that Scott Brosius' kid says X." In that case, they would argue that all they have to show is that TMZ actually reported that.

These are not really all that airtight and if the underlying statement is highly defamatory, and the paper acted with malice, it is unlikely to be a defense that gets the case kicked out, though you have to read the entire article to understand context to know whether they have a legal defense.

(Pinhead point that it's not the paper's obligation to show truth in most states but the plaintiff's to show falsity, but not relevant for the discussion.)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
14,225
"[H]ow powerful and dangerous social media can be."?! Really? *That's* what he "learned"?

"I'd like to apologize for drinking a fifth of gin and driving my car into that group of children crossing the street. I learned how powerful and dangerous cars can be."
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
9,034
Not his head but I've seen more than a few mentions about the size of his neck.

The rate at which we have been plumbing the depths of stupidity this week in baseball is alarming AF. Thanks, Manfred.
Manfred is not responsible for idiots idioting on social media.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,750
Newton
Ok, but if he has an exemption should he? I get why they're given and support that. And I get why HIPAA rules prevent anyone else from saying it for him. But given that HGH is a performance enhancer, if Trout does have one, does he have any obligation to confirm it?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,907
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Ok, but if he has an exemption should he? I get why they're given and support that. And I get why HIPAA rules prevent anyone else from saying it for him. But given that HGH is a performance enhancer, if Trout does have one, does he have any obligation to confirm it?
No, I don't think so. Trout's obligation is to play the game according to the rules and guidelines of the CBA. If his exemption (if he has one) is proper and vetted, he isn't obligated to say a damn thing.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,875
Totally agree that he has ZERO obligation to even address this.

However, if he starts getting the sense that people are questioning his accomplishments, he may WANT to address it.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,750
Newton
I think that’s what I mean. Trout is a generational talent, and arguably the single greatest player in the history of the game. As a fan would I feel differently about him if I knew he had an exemption for PEDs? Honestly I probably would.
 

biff_hardbody

lurker
Apr 27, 2016
196
I think that’s what I mean. Trout is a generational talent, and arguably the single greatest player in the history of the game. As a fan would I feel differently about him if I knew he had an exemption for PEDs? Honestly I probably would.
To me, this seems exactly why he shouldn't bother to comment on it.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,805
Totally agree that he has ZERO obligation to even address this.

However, if he starts getting the sense that people are questioning his accomplishments, he may WANT to address it.
He should announce he's going to get to the bottom of it and then never mention it again.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I think that’s what I mean. Trout is a generational talent, and arguably the single greatest player in the history of the game. As a fan would I feel differently about him if I knew he had an exemption for PEDs? Honestly I probably would.
I would advise Trout not to comment because the allegation has already been retracted and came from a non-credible source. Commenting on that allegation would only tend to lend credence to it.

If a credible source claimed that Trout had a medical exemption to use HGH, then I agree that depending on the particulars, it might make sense for Trout to address it (especially if it were untrue).
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
4,461
Sort of reminds me of when Schilling was spouting off about steroids before the big congressional hearing and backtracked on almost all of it under oath because he didn't have actual first hand knowledge of anything.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,059
Manfred is not responsible for idiots idioting on social media.
Of course not. Those people were going to be idiots because the day ends in "y". But he is responsible for them taking aim at MLB.
 

Patek's 3 Dingers

Luddite
Silver Supporter
Jul 5, 2018
336
Totally agree that he has ZERO obligation to even address this.

However, if he starts getting the sense that people are questioning his accomplishments, he may WANT to address it.
If David Brosius comes forward and supports his claim then Trout should address the accusion. Until then, it should be considered as just more social media idiocy.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,478
AZ
So here's a question: should Trout comment on whether he has an exemption? Does he have a responsibility to?
I think in a world where there are no other competing interests, information about which players have an exception to use substances that others cannot use is relevant information that fans, and especially other players, should have.

So, again if there were no other competing interests, my vote is that this is highly relevant information and there should be transparency about it.

The competing interest is that we treat medical information as highly confidential personal information. There are many good reasons for this rule. Like when people were getting fired for having certain diseases. But I think I could actually make the case that most -- maybe not all -- of these important factors that go into the extreme privacy laws for medical facts do not apply with quite the same force to professional athletes.

There is always the exception that will make what I've said seem wrong, or even insensitive, and just the possibility that a player might have a condition that fits into this category may be enough to say that this information should be kept private.

But I don't think this issue is a no-brainer. Teams talk about player medical conditions all the time. The law is the law, and I really don't know exactly what it says or doesn't say about these cases, but if I were writing on a clean slate, I don't think this would be an obvious issue at all.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,446
The problem now for Trout is if he's asked about using HGH, or if he has an exemption.

If he does, but denies it, he risks being caught in a lie later - which will have bad optics for him.

If he offers a "no comment", then many will reach the conclusion of "if he was clean, he would just say so".
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,478
AZ
The problem now for Trout is if he's asked about using HGH, or if he has an exemption.

If he does, but denies it, he risks being caught in a lie later - which will have bad optics for him.

If he offers a "no comment", then many will reach the conclusion of "if he was clean, he would just say so".
If he doesn't take it, it's a very easy answer and there is no issue.

If he does he could just say, "I am not going to talk about a private medical condition."

Which is a yes but basically ends the discussion. There's nothing he can do if people think it gives him an edge.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,750
Newton
Thanks, DDB. You’re getting at what I’m thinking about here. Putting aside the legal aspect and the fact that Brosius is a dingus, I wonder:

Would it be appropriate for MLB to require athletes to disclose medical exemptions for PEDs where there wasn’t some abiding privacy concern? I imagine the union would never allow this.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,515
Oregon
I think in a world where there are no other competing interests, information about which players have an exception to use substances that others cannot use is relevant information that fans, and especially other players, should have.
Not to mention bettors
 

Patek's 3 Dingers

Luddite
Silver Supporter
Jul 5, 2018
336
If he doesn't take it, it's a very easy answer and there is no issue.

If he does he could just say, "I am not going to talk about a private medical condition."

Which is a yes but basically ends the discussion. There's nothing he can do if people think it gives him an edge.
It appears that David Brosius took it back:

However, Brosius walked back his accusation on Friday with a follow-up post on Instagram.
I’d like to clear the air about a comment made earlier this week about Mike Trout potentially using HGH. The statement in question was taken from a conversation where I was explaining how there are certain situations in which actions that would usually be against the rules and considered cheating, are deemed okay for medical or other reasons, thus not cheating. The example I used of Mike Trout does not stem from information from my Dad or sources within the MLB and has no evidence behind it. I had no intention of this becoming an accusation against Mike Trout or causing the uproar it did. Mike Trout has been the face of MLB for good reason, as he is an amazing player and even better example for baseball players like myself. I would like to sincerely apologize to him and his family for the unfair statement I made and the negative fallout it has had on them. No criticism or skepticism should be pointed at him, it should all be at me. I had a lapse in judgment when posting the comment and have learned my lesson on how powerful and dangerous social media can be.
 
Last edited:

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,478
AZ
Would it be appropriate for MLB to require athletes to disclose medical exemptions for PEDs where there wasn’t some abiding privacy concern? I imagine the union would never allow this.
I don't think MLB wants to get into trying to decide when privacy outweighs the need to have the information. We can all sort of say that we think hypothyroidism is no big deal. But once you imagine a case of, say, a player taking a banned substance because it is part of the recommended regimen for AIDS, the matter gets more difficult. (I have no idea what treatments are for various diseases, just trying to make a case where a player might rightfully be worried that people will act out of ignorance or do or say shitty things.) I think MLB is not going to want to draw these lines.

As I said, I think it's an interesting discussion in the abstract. But once you start making up hard examples, I think you conclude pretty quickly that the best we can do is hope that MLB has a sense of fair play and does not allow everyone with a doctor's note to take banned substances out of proportion to what they need. I kind of think that since the players who do not have exemptions will care about this pretty strongly, as fans we probably have good reason to assume the playing field is pretty level.