He probably has more to fear from his father than he does from Mike Trout's legal team.He better have a good lawyer.
HIPAA.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 isScottDavid 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.
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.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.
Link is dead now so maybe a Trout/MLB/Player's Union/Angels lawyer sent a note to Yahoo.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?
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.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 isScottDavid Brosius to assert otherwise. Also:
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.I eagarly await the "Trout has a big head" accusations.
Does HGH give you a big head? I thought that was anabolic steroids.I eagarly await the "Trout has a big head" accusations.
Does HGH give you a big head? I thought that was anabolic steroids.
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.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
Not his head but I've seen more than a few mentions about the size of his neck.I eagarly await the "Trout has a big head" accusations.
For public figures, pretty much only if they act with malice -- so reckless disregard of the truth.I’m not a defamation expert — do media outlets that report on deleted social media posts expose themselves to liability?
Manfred is not responsible for idiots idioting on social media.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.
Absolutely not. He is not under any obligation to respond to Twitter noise.So here's a question: should Trout comment on whether he has an exemption? Does he have a responsibility to?
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.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?
To me, this seems exactly why he shouldn't bother to comment on it.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.
He should announce he's going to get to the bottom of it and then never mention it again.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.
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.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.
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.Manfred is not responsible for idiots idioting on social media.
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.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.
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 here's a question: should Trout comment on whether he has an exemption? Does he have a responsibility to?
If he doesn't take it, it's a very easy answer and there is no issue.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".
Not to mention bettorsI 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.
It appears that David Brosius took it back: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.
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.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.
You have it backwards.Does HGH give you a big head? I thought that was anabolic steroids.