MLB Thread 2012

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
PhilsFan said:
Please. He got off on a technicality.

I would feel bad if he sincerely said he did not take the drugs. He didn't. He appealed the process, not the results. He was guilty and got lucky.

How do you know this? We're you at the arbitration? Braun himself still denies taking PED's. Many reports and rumors suggest that this was a result of taking herpes medication that was approved by the league.
 
MrPryck2U said:
Damn, a 50 game suspension is a walk in the park compared to having herpes. That shit is for life.

Lol! Right?

All in all, I'm guessing Braun is a pretty stand up guy. I'm betting that more info will come out on the next few weeks that at least prove that whatever was on his system that made the test freak out and spend the weekend in a guy's house was not an attempt to gain any performance advantage.
 
first off, i don't really give a crap about professional athletes using HGH or various testosterone treatments. despite what the media seems to think, they are NOT anabolic steroids.

they are being prescribed to people by real doctors for every day use more and more, and within 10-20 years time we'll all be taking these things, and we'll look back on this time in sports as us being kinda silly.

that being said... bruan broke the current rules and got away with it on a technicality. his protest wasn't based on faulty results. he didn't even claim that the results were tampered with. there was no protest saying that the levels were a side effect of some other medical treatment that was approved by baseball, as that would be very easy to prove or disprove... all he'd have to do is have his doctor testify. that did not happen, and the possibility of it was never even broached. so the idea that he's clean and he got this because he has the herp is laughable. if you believe that...

brooklynbridge4sale.jpg



braun's people protested the process. he got off because some guy took the sample home because he thought FedEx was closed on sundays. he cheated, as per the current system. argue that the system is wrong? fine, i actually agree with you. claim that he's a nice dude who wouldn't cheat? you're being incredibly naive and gullible.
 
first off, i don't really give a crap about professional athletes using HGH or various testosterone treatments. despite what the media seems to think, they are NOT anabolic steroids.

they are being prescribed to people by real doctors for every day use more and more, and within 10-20 years time we'll all be taking these things, and we'll look back on this time in sports as us being kinda silly.

that being said... bruan broke the current rules and got away with it on a technicality. his protest wasn't based on faulty results. he didn't even claim that the results were tampered with. there was no protest saying that the levels were a side effect of some other medical treatment that was approved by baseball, as that would be very easy to prove or disprove... all he'd have to do is have his doctor testify. that did not happen, and the possibility of it was never even broached. so the idea that he's clean and he got this because he has the herp is laughable. if you believe that...

brooklynbridge4sale.jpg



braun's people protested the process. he got off because some guy took the sample home because he thought FedEx was closed on sundays. he cheated, as per the current system. argue that the system is wrong? fine, i actually agree with you. claim that he's a nice dude who wouldn't cheat? you're being incredibly naive and gullible.

how do you know he cheated though? how do you know what substance he took? do you and philsfan have information that the rest of the public don't have?
 
first off, i don't really give a crap about professional athletes using HGH or various testosterone treatments. despite what the media seems to think, they are NOT anabolic steroids.

they are being prescribed to people by real doctors for every day use more and more, and within 10-20 years time we'll all be taking these things, and we'll look back on this time in sports as us being kinda silly.

I agree with all of this, and I really don't care about this stuff at all. That said, I'm not sure that this is a case of "only a technicality". Maybe this was the guy's legal strategy? It doesn't mean that he couldn't have argued that he took whatever he took for medical purposes, but rather that he chose what his lawyer thought was the argument most likely to succeed in arbitration.

It's always easier to argue that something wrong did happen (they didn't follow the right procedure) that that something didn't happen (that Braun did not take the drugs for performance enhancing purposes).
 
I looked him up on Wikipedia and it said something along the lines of a private medical matter. So, for Braun's sake, I hope he didn't get an STD of some sort.

I would guess that it all comes down to the guy who botched the handling of his urine sample.
 
I agree with all of this, and I really don't care about this stuff at all. That said, I'm not sure that this is a case of "only a technicality". Maybe this was the guy's legal strategy? It doesn't mean that he couldn't have argued that he took whatever he took for medical purposes, but rather that he chose what his lawyer thought was the argument most likely to succeed in arbitration.

It's always easier to argue that something wrong did happen (they didn't follow the right procedure) that that something didn't happen (that Braun did not take the drugs for performance enhancing purposes).

:up:

agreed. if someone was falsely accused of murder, but they knew that the best way to win in court was to find a technicality of how the police handled evidence, would anyone have a real problem with that assuming that the accused was truly innocent?

who knows, maybe Braun took steroids and i'm completely wrong, but to shut the door on this and say he's guilty without knowing any details is as premature as my statement (which was accused of as premature by Philsfan).
 
how do you know he cheated though? how do you know what substance he took? do you and philsfan have information that the rest of the public don't have?

Two sources told ESPN that Braun testified he never used performance-enhancing drugs, but that he and his representatives never disputed the fact that a second test on his urine sample showed exogenous testosterone in his body, meaning it came from an outside source.

Braun didn't argue evidence of tampering and didn't dispute the science, but argued protocol had not been followed. Multiple sources confirmed to ESPN investigative reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and T.J. Quinn that Braun questioned the chain of custody and collection procedure.

MLB officials, however, argued that there was no question about the chain of custody or the integrity of the sample, and that Braun's representatives did not argue that the test itself was faulty.

According to one of the sources, the collector, after getting Braun's sample, was supposed to take the sample to a FedEx office for shipping.

But sources said the collector thought the FedEx office was closed because it was late on a Saturday and felt the sample wouldn't get shipped until Monday.

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, according to multiple sources.

Policy states the sample is supposed to get to FedEx as soon as possible.
Braun's initial T/E ratio was more than 20:1. Sources previously confirmed synthetic testosterone in his system.

Sources said MLB is livid and is evaluating the possibility of suing in federal court to have Das' decision overturned, but that they did not expect a decision to be made until after Das issues his written report within the next week or so and MLB lawyers have a chance to review it. There are very limited grounds by which either party could sue, but sources said MLB officials believe Das' ruling was based on a faulty reading of the policy.

Braun's representatives are saying there was a difference in the ph balance of Braun's sample when it was taken at the time of the test and when it arrived at the lab in Montreal. A source said the director of the Montreal Olympic doping lab, Christiane Ayotte, testified during the hearing that it was not unusual for the balance to be different, as the equipment used in the field is not as sophisticated and accurate as the equipment in the lab. She also said she did not question the integrity of the sample and that it arrived with all seals intact.

Sources told Quinn and Fainaru-Wada 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 show up just 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.

The players' association did not disclose the reasoning behind Das' decision in its announcement.


how do i know? because i'm not a dumb dumb.

if the raised testosterone levels were the result of a medical issue it would be incredibly easy to prove. all braun would have to do is have the doctor that prescribed whatever medication caused the spike testify. case closed.

that he chose not to go down that incredibly easy road? yea... tells me that the herpies story is full of crap. they went after a technicality in the handling of the sample. that's what guilty people do.
 
:up:

agreed. if someone was falsely accused of murder, but they knew that the best way to win in court was to find a technicality of how the police handled evidence, would anyone have a real problem with that assuming that the accused was truly innocent?

who knows, maybe Braun took steroids and i'm completely wrong, but to shut the door on this and say he's guilty without knowing any details is as premature as my statement (which was accused of as premature by Philsfan).

if somebody had an alibi, and chose to try and get off on a technicality instead, then that person, and said person's lawyer, would be morons.

if bruan's spiked testosterone was a direct result of a medical condition, then he has an out. he has an alibi. a witness saying that he did not take PED's. by going the technicality road instead says to any logical thinking person that he has no alibi. there is no doctor's testimony, because the doctor doesn't exist.
 
using ESPN as a source? lol

i hope that MLB sues over this. it'll be entertaining to see their entire drug testing system go up in flames. :)
 
if somebody had an alibi, and chose to try and get off on a technicality instead, then that person, and said person's lawyer, would be morons.

wrong. you have to be strategic in the court room. what if the alibi wouldn't be considered a credible source? what if you're innocent but don't have an alibi? you have to be strategic.

it's really surprising to see how close minded people are being over this and just assuming he's guilty.
 
I agree with all of this, and I really don't care about this stuff at all. That said, I'm not sure that this is a case of "only a technicality". Maybe this was the guy's legal strategy? It doesn't mean that he couldn't have argued that he took whatever he took for medical purposes, but rather that he chose what his lawyer thought was the argument most likely to succeed in arbitration.

It's always easier to argue that something wrong did happen (they didn't follow the right procedure) that that something didn't happen (that Braun did not take the drugs for performance enhancing purposes).


Absolutely there's the possibility that he was innocent and that the technicality was just the best way out of it in terms of a legal matter...

That's a possibility. But there's also a much larger possibility that he did what he knew was wrong and that a technicality was his only way out of it.

Honestly in a situation like this I'd venture to say that rarely is somebody accused and action is taken without a fair justification. I'm more inclined to believe that he's guilty, and no amount of 'he's a stand up guy' will sway me because if there's anything you should've learned over the past 10 years in baseball it's that it can be anyone. Don't buy that bullshit for a second. That's absolute naivety.
 
wrong. you have to be strategic in the court room. what if the alibi wouldn't be considered a credible source? what if you're innocent but don't have an alibi? you have to be strategic.

it's really surprising to see how close minded people are being over this and just assuming he's guilty.

it's really not surprising to see how a fan of the milwaukee brewers is unable to see that there's a pretty good chance he got away with it.

being strategic is just fine and dandy. ignoring an open and shut, clear as day alibi in favor of a technicality is sheer stupidity.

if ryan bruan's testosterone levels peeked because of a medical issue then there would be a doctor that could back those claims up. they didn't even try to go that road.

is there a chance that he didn't do anything against the rules and this is all just a big misunderstanding? sure. anything is possible.

do i believe bruan? fuck no. why use a technicality if you have proof? because you're guilty.

there's a possibility that rafael palmiero thought he was taking a B12 shot.
 
it's really not surprising to see how a fan of the milwaukee brewers is unable to see that there's a pretty good chance he got away with it.

being strategic is just fine and dandy. ignoring an open and shut, clear as day alibi in favor of a technicality is sheer stupidity.

if ryan bruan's testosterone levels peeked because of a medical issue then there would be a doctor that could back those claims up. they didn't even try to go that road.

is there a chance that he didn't do anything against the rules and this is all just a big misunderstanding? sure. anything is possible.

do i believe bruan? fuck no. why use a technicality if you have proof? because you're guilty.

there's a possibility that rafael palmiero thought he was taking a B12 shot.

it'll be fun to see how everyone's opinions change when more information is released. i think the lack of info that's out there right now is causing everyone (including myself) to make big assumptions in both directions.
 
:up:

agreed. if someone was falsely accused of murder, but they knew that the best way to win in court was to find a technicality of how the police handled evidence, would anyone have a real problem with that assuming that the accused was truly innocent?

who knows, maybe Braun took steroids and i'm completely wrong, but to shut the door on this and say he's guilty without knowing any details is as premature as my statement (which was accused of as premature by Philsfan).
The details are out now, and they proved that you were premature. He's guilty and got really, really fucking lucky.

How exactly is this anything other than homerism clouding your judgment?
 
The details are out now, and they proved that you were premature. He's guilty and got really, really fucking lucky.

How exactly is this anything other than homerism clouding your judgment?

what details? i just checked 3 different sports websites and i don't see anything new other than the fact that he will not serve his suspension due to the mishandling of his urine sample.

i challenge you to show me proof of the exact substance he took.
 
What? The proof, as both you and I and everyone else understands it, is that the substance in his sample was discovered to be against the MLB policies. Due to a technical error, he got off.

How are you asking for proof? The bearer of burden is you. You have to prove that there was no illegal substance present in the tests, because the information given to us otherwise states that there was.
 
What? The proof, as both you and I and everyone else understands it, is that the substance in his sample was discovered to be against the MLB policies. Due to a technical error, he got off.

How are you asking for proof? The bearer of burden is you. You have to prove that there was no illegal substance present in the tests, because the information given to us otherwise states that there was.

the burden of proof is on MLB. they mishandled their test.

honestly, i don't know what he was taking. Braun claims that he wasn't taking anything illegal, but he took that strategy to fight the mishandling of the evidence. that's all we really know.

so i'm simply asking for everyone that's 100% convinced that he's guilty to show me the evidence of the exact substance he was taking that made you come to this conclusion. i'm still waiting....
 
So basically what you're suggesting is one of many ridiculous things due to mishandling:

- The MLB tested a sample that was not actually Ryan Braun's
- Somebody rigged Ryan Braun's urine sample to frame him and get him suspended
- His urine result didn't actually test for an illegal substance but somebody said it did
- An illegal substance accidentally slipped into Ryan Braun's urine sample

But we can all agree that the MLB indeed theoretically tested a substance and had a positive result for illegal substances? Who are you to discount that?
 
So basically what you're suggesting is one of many ridiculous things due to mishandling:

- The MLB tested a sample that was not actually Ryan Braun's
- Somebody rigged Ryan Braun's urine sample to frame him and get him suspended
- His urine result didn't actually test for an illegal substance but somebody said it did
- An illegal substance accidentally slipped into Ryan Braun's urine sample

But we can all agree that the MLB indeed theoretically tested a substance and had a positive result for illegal substances? Who are you to discount that?

i can't really speculate. all we know is that the test wasn't handled properly, so i guess any of those scenarios are possible, though i'm not suggesting that anything like that happened. but when a sample is proven to be handled inappropriately, it definitely raises questions.
 
Right well... ask yourself. What's more likely here? An MLB player using an illegal substance and getting caught or the sum of the probabilities of all of those highly unlikely situations?

I'd imagine the former has a higher chance of being the truth, and it's not even close.
 
Right well... ask yourself. What's more likely here? An MLB player using an illegal substance and getting caught or the sum of the probabilities of all of those highly unlikely situations?

I'd imagine the former has a higher chance of being the truth, and it's not even close.

not really interested in chance here. i still would like to see some proof either way, whether it supports Braun or MLB. i also think it's unfortunate for Braun because this story should have never even been made public, and his name has been tarnished and he didn't even get suspended. if the ruling had not been overturned, then yesterday would have been the first day that it had been reported.
 
Here is an article that sums up my opinion quite well on this.

Ryan Braun and Confirmation Bias | FanGraphs Baseball

There’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know”, and given the actual evidence that the public possesses, it’s the only fair thing we can say. We don’t know that Braun used or didn’t use. We don’t know much about the situation, honestly. Instead of letting the small amount of information we do have reinforce our currently held opinions about home run hitters and steroid use, let’s acknowledge that confirmation bias is a powerful force and avoid the temptation to make sweeping conclusions when the information we actually have doesn’t support that kind of strong position.
 
This has nothing to do with confirmation bias at all. I have no opinion of Braun and tend to share Headache's view on PEDs. But taking an objective look at what we know, I really see only one conclusion to draw: he got away with it on a technicality. It doesn't really matter what he took; if it was legal, he would have said so instead of nitpicking the process.
 
This has nothing to do with confirmation bias at all. I have no opinion of Braun and tend to share Headache's view on PEDs. But taking an objective look at what we know, I really see only one conclusion to draw: he got away with it on a technicality. It doesn't really matter what he took; if it was legal, he would have said so instead of nitpicking the process.

i'd hate to be on trial and have you as one of the jurors. :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom