Photo

Milwaukee Brewers


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#1 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,261 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:57 AM

MLB Dirt: Top 16 Prospects
http://mlbdirt.com/2...p-16-prospects/

#2 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,261 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:58 AM

NBC Hardball Talk: Greinke, soon to be FA, Agent Free
http://hardballtalk....-is-agent-free/

#3 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,261 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:59 AM

Baseball Analytics: Greinke's many curveballs
http://www.baseballa...curveballs.html

#4 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 82,629 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 23 February 2012 - 06:36 PM

Pretty surprised he won and won't be suspended.

The rumor is he won the appeal because of the way the test itself was handled...It took to go to get the positive test to the right people.

The rumor out there has been that he tested positive because of meds he was taking for herpes.

If that is true, this never should have gotten out and this never should have been an issue.

Braun said he has passed over 25 drug tests and 3 within the last year.
@BSLRobShields

#5 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,910 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 23 February 2012 - 06:40 PM

I'm glad the system worked like it should. The process corrected a mistake.

I just wish it never came out, because this will hang over his head forever.

#6 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:46 PM

I don't think this clears Braun at all. It doesn't explain (or even attempt to explain) why the test came up positive.

#7 Can_of_corn

Can_of_corn

    Lacks Fancy Title

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 557 posts
  • LocationFL

Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:11 PM

It might however explain why the levels were ludicrously high and why despite that, a test taken days later came back clean.

The chain of custody integrity was compromised. Any number of things could have happened to that sample why it was sitting in some dude's fridge.

The real travesty is that someone leaked the results.

Well I hear Linda Ronstadt is looking for a guitar player.


#8 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,910 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:14 PM

I don't think this clears Braun at all. It doesn't explain (or even attempt to explain) why the test came up positive.


It does clear him, because something was wrong with the test. Whether it was simply mishandled or that something happened when it was mishandled doesn't make a difference.

Now, it doesn't answer whether or not HE did something wrong. But the only evidence of that was the test.

#9 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:35 PM

I don't think this clears Braun at all. It doesn't explain (or even attempt to explain) why the test came up positive.


It does clear him, because something was wrong with the test. Whether it was simply mishandled or that something happened when it was mishandled doesn't make a difference.

Now, it doesn't answer whether or not HE did something wrong. But the only evidence of that was the test.


The positive test is still out there.

I would like to see an explanation as to how the "mishandling" would lead to a positive test. If someone at, say, WADA says keeping a urine sample in a fridge or delaying the testing over a weekend can make a clean sample incorrectly show a very high level of testasterone, that's one thing. But I haven't seen anything of the sort. The folks handling the testing have apparently followed this same procedure in the past. Why didn't those tests come up positive like Braun's? Should those negative tests be considered null and void?

The arbitrator did not dispute that the test(s) were positive. Apparently, the Players' Association never disputed that either.

#10 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:49 PM

From ESPN's coverage

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.

Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, called the decision "a real gut-kick to clean athletes."

"To have this sort of technicality of all technicalities let a player off ... it's just a sad day for all the clean players and those that abide by the rules within professional baseball," he said.


Nobody has made a case that the sample was tampered with. Nobody has made a case that the delay or the specifics of the handling could possibly have prompted a false-negative.

#11 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,910 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:59 PM

From ESPN's coverage

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.

Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, called the decision "a real gut-kick to clean athletes."

"To have this sort of technicality of all technicalities let a player off ... it's just a sad day for all the clean players and those that abide by the rules within professional baseball," he said.


Nobody has made a case that the sample was tampered with. Nobody has made a case that the delay or the specifics of the handling could possibly have prompted a false-negative.


It creates the possibility of tampering. There's a reason the rules and procedures are in place.

#12 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 23 February 2012 - 09:24 PM

It creates the possibility of tampering. There's a reason the rules and procedures are in place.


Right, and that possibility, however slim, is why he won't have to serve the suspension. But it doesn't mean he didn't have a legitimately positive test. This is like a murderer getting off because nobody read him his Miranda Rights.

There is no legitimate explantion as to why his sample (which remained sealed) would show these levels of testasterone.

#13 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,910 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:27 PM


It creates the possibility of tampering. There's a reason the rules and procedures are in place.


Right, and that possibility, however slim, is why he won't have to serve the suspension. But it doesn't mean he didn't have a legitimately positive test. This is like a murderer getting off because nobody read him his Miranda Rights.

There is no legitimate explantion as to why his sample (which remained sealed) would show these levels of testasterone.


I think it's more like a murder case getting thrown out because a critical piece of evidence against the accused was discovered illegally. It might not mean much in regards to their actual guilt, but it opens all kinds of questions about whether the evidence itself is legitimate.

I don't expect baseball drug appeals to follow exactly the procedures of the overall justice system, but there is still something to be said for reasonable doubt.

#14 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:45 PM

Yeah, that's probably a better analogy. But the gist remains the same. Braun failed the drug test. He was using. That is, unless we hear of some way that the test could have been incorrect. But nobody is making that claim.

#15 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,910 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:00 PM

Yeah, that's probably a better analogy. But the gist remains the same. Braun failed the drug test. He was using. That is, unless we hear of some way that the test could have been incorrect. But nobody is making that claim.


Well, it sounds like Braun's defense was that the sample came up positive because of how it was handled, and provided evidence to that effect. So I wouldn't say that nobody is disputing whether he failed the test, just the reason it was positive.

I mean, if you gave me a Scantron test then ran it through with the wrong key, the test would come back with a poor grade but I didn't fail the test. The mistake would be in the procedure, and I wouldn't expect to be held accountable for it no matter what my grade on the exam would be.

#16 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:17 PM

Yeah, that's probably a better analogy. But the gist remains the same. Braun failed the drug test. He was using. That is, unless we hear of some way that the test could have been incorrect. But nobody is making that claim.


Well, it sounds like Braun's defense was that the sample came up positive because of how it was handled, and provided evidence to that effect. So I wouldn't say that nobody is disputing whether he failed the test, just the reason it was positive.

I mean, if you gave me a Scantron test then ran it through with the wrong key, the test would come back with a poor grade but I didn't fail the test. The mistake would be in the procedure, and I wouldn't expect to be held accountable for it no matter what my grade on the exam would be.


But I don't think they are arguing that. That's the thing. I don't believe they presented any evidence showing that the incorrect handling could have caused a false positive.....only that the handling was incorrect. That was enough to overturn the suspension.

I'll refer again to the info in the ESPN story:

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.


The test administrator didn't follow the specific rules MLB and PA agreed to. But he/she didn't do anything that would taint the test results. If so, Braun's deal would have argued that. Apparently, they didn't.

#17 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,979 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 10:04 AM

I don't believe they presented any evidence showing that the incorrect handling could have caused a false positive.....only that the handling was incorrect. That was enough to overturn the suspension.

They didn't try to present evidence that the test was incorrect because they didn't need to. They had the evidence that the process wasn't handled correctly and that alone nullifies the test.

Had the process been handled correctly, then maybe they would have had to challenge the science behind the test or give a reason for a positive result. And nobody knows how that may have turned out. But they didn't have to. It'd be like if a game-winning shot was attempted just after the buzzer, but it only went in because of offensive goaltending. You don't need to argue the goaltending call, because the fact that it was released after the buzzer negates the shot attempt entirely.

#18 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:40 PM

I don't believe they presented any evidence showing that the incorrect handling could have caused a false positive.....only that the handling was incorrect. That was enough to overturn the suspension.

They didn't try to present evidence that the test was incorrect because they didn't need to. They had the evidence that the process wasn't handled correctly and that alone nullifies the test.


Right, I agree they didn't need to prove the test was wrong to escape the 50-game ban. But don't you think they need to if they want to prove Braun wasn't doping? Don't you think they would want to if they had such evidence?

I'm interested to hear Braun's presser, because this is still no explanation for the positive test....however obtained.

#19 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,979 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:49 PM

Right, I agree they didn't need to prove the test was wrong to escape the 50-game ban. But don't you think they need to if they want to prove Braun wasn't doping? Don't you think they would want to if they had such evidence?

I'm interested to hear Braun's presser, because this is still no explanation for the positive test....however obtained.

I don't know, I probably would have gone with the same approach since it appears to have been a pretty slam dunk case that the collection was mishandled and the result would have to be an overturn. As far as public perception, since it was overturned Braun can go out and say he's innocent (even though not guilty is a more accurate wording) and folks really aren't going to dig too much further. I mean sure some people will still harbor doubts, but he's not going to face anywhere near the same sort of widespread public backlash as people who have tested positive (or are just widely suspected) and had their suspensions upheld.

#20 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 82,629 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 24 February 2012 - 01:07 PM

Braun said he never had an STD...false report.
@BSLRobShields




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners