Quin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Please let this cheating f*** go to court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) I don't know if MLB will challenge this ruling in court or not, but that's the only way "This isn't over". That and the boo's. And either his next positive test or the dropoff in his numbers. What do those options actually look like? Could it go as high as CAS, is that even legally possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Appealing an arbitration depends on the contractual agreement of the parties. I have done no research, but my guess is that this was binding arbitration and thus very limited ability to appeal. This is the way the MLB wants it though, the last thing they want is the arbitrator to rule in favor of MLB (as he has done every other time) then the player appeal to a court in his teams state, just to have the state stay the enforcement of the suspension pending the appeal (see Kevin Williams, NFL). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 This btw, sucks for baseball. The Brew Crew goes from lovable to jerks in a blink of an eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) This btw, sucks for baseball. The Brew Crew goes from lovable to jerks in a blink of an eye. No, just Braun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) No, just Braun. Yeah, their team is usually just filled with a bunch of has-beens and Braun + Prince. Now, the one time or so a year I go up there to tailgate and get drunk and watch an indoor baseball game it'll just be a bunch of has-beens and a roider who I get to boo which will piss the locals off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) No, just Braun. I'm still more bothered by the shirts than the steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 08:20 AM) It was really dumb of Braun to put all of this on the collector when he made his speech. He should have just left it at "we won the arbitration case" and left it at that, but he went after the character of an unnamed person who now has a name, and has had his livelihood and integrity questioned. I have a feeling this isn't over by a long shot. I first heard his speech on B&B yesterday. My god, what a gigantic asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 1, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) I first heard his speech on B&B yesterday. My god, what a gigantic asshole. I sorta wonder if he's ever really been questioned by the media in his career. It's like he thought he could go out, make up a bunch of crap and it would never come back to haunt him. Even at the presser, no one asked him a tough question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Brauns Attorney criticizes sample collector "Ryan Braun presented a winning defense in the forum that counted," attorney David Cornwell said in a statement. "The landmark decision in Ryan's favor was based on the evidence and the plain meaning of the words in baseball's joint drug program. The collector's attempt to re-litigate his conduct is inappropriate, and his efforts will only be persuasive to those who do not understand the evidence or the rules. "Ryan Braun was properly vindicated. Both Major League Baseball and Major League Baseball Players Association should be applauded because their joint program worked." Braun escaped a 50-game suspension last week when his positive test was overturned by arbitrator Shyam Das. The legal team for the Milwaukee Brewers outfielder argued in a grievance hearing that the drug collector, Dino Laurenzi Jr., did not follow the procedures specified in baseball's drug agreement, which states the urine sample should be taken to a Federal Express office on the day it is collected "absent unusual circumstances." Amid reports that some players are upset that Braun's suspension was overturned because of an alleged procedural error, Players Association officials continued their tour of spring training camps in Arizona on Thursday. Michael Weiner, executive director of the union, told ESPN.com's Jerry Crasnick that MLB's drug testing policy has been discussed extensively during the clubhouse meetings. "Players legitimately have a lot of of questions when something like this happens'' Weiner said. "I would actually be disappointed if they didn't have questions, because it shows they're paying attention. As always, they understand this is their career, and they want to make sure they understand what's going on. "There are questions about what this means to the program, questions about confidentiality, a lot of questions. In the end, the players make the decisions about what kind of program they want, and whether they want to adjust it in any direction. That's always been the case.'' Laurenzi issued a statement Tuesday defending his actions, saying he never tampered with the urine sample. Laurenzi collected the sample on Oct. 1, a Saturday, and said he placed it in a Rubbermaid container in his basement office because "there was no FedEx office located within 50 miles of Miller Park that would ship packages that day or Sunday." Laurenzi took it to Federal Express on Monday. He got away with it because of the day the sample was shipped. LOOP. HOLE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 09:45 AM) Brauns Attorney criticizes sample collector He got away with it because of the day the sample was shipped. LOOP. HOLE. I would guess that the purpose of that statement is to deflect anger away from Braun and to the attorney by mocking people choosing to think independently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (G&T @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) I would guess that the purpose of that statement is to deflect anger away from Braun and to the attorney by mocking people choosing to think independently. f*** them both. Braun won on a technicality, but he won. The collector was responding to unfairly having his character and ethics attacked by a douchebag on national media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Has it ever come out why Braun's name was released when it was supposed to be secret? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Has it ever come out why Braun's name was released when it was supposed to be secret? I get where you are going with this, but in this case I am glad it came out, otherwise we the fans would have no idea he was a cheating D-bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Has it ever come out why Braun's name was released when it was supposed to be secret? Is it supposed to be secret only through the arbitration process? We found out about Manny immediately pretty much both times he got busted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) Has it ever come out why Braun's name was released when it was supposed to be secret? Because baseball leaks like a sieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 The reason I asked is because Im wondering if Braun feels that the tester was the leak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 03:15 PM) The reason I asked is because Im wondering if Braun feels that the tester was the leak. He literally could not have known the test came back positive until it was reported in the media. He takes the samples and then sends them off with a number attached, unless the program completely broke down. He would have nothing to do with the actual lab work or tests, he took the sample, sealed it appropriately, stored it to prevent degredation, then sent it off. The people actually doing the measurements are supposed to be shielded from the people who take the sample. If that isn't happening then baseball is in a worse spot than let on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Several Chicago Cubs players spoke Friday in support of the man who collected Ryan Braun's urine sample, despite the fact his handling of the sample led to Braun's 50-game suspension being overturned by an arbitrator. The legal team for the Milwaukee Brewers outfielder and NL MVP argued in a grievance hearing that the sample collector, Dino Laurenzi Jr., did not follow the procedures specified in baseball's drug agreement, which states the urine sample should be taken to a FedEx office on the day it is collected "absent unusual circumstances." Arbitrator Shyam Das last week overturned Braun's positive test, freeing Braun of his suspension. Laurenzi Jr. also is assigned by Major League Baseball to collect samples from the Cubs. "Who knows what was going on with [braun's] situation, but for the most part the drug tester that we worked with ... we all know him as well, and he handles his business pretty professionally. And I think that everyone in this clubhouse would agree with me," Cubs outfielder Reed Johnson said Friday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000. Cubs infielder Jeff Baker told the Chicago Sun-Times that he has had no problems with Laurenzi. "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.'" ESPN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Balta, Thats why Im wondering. I would have assumed that the samples are numbered and therefore only the tester knew what sample belonged to who at first. The reason I assume this is because I also assume that the test is supposed to be blind (aka they dont know who the sample is until after the result). If that is the case, then the only people who knew the results had to be pretty high up. People in those positions generally dont risk their job over releasing confidential information. I dont know, Im just speculating. The tone of Braun's speech seemed to suggest that he believes the tester did something to him, not that the tester just made an innocent mistake in delivering the sample late in the afternoon instead of early in the morning. Hard to speculate, just seems like a mess from day 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) Balta, Thats why Im wondering. I would have assumed that the samples are numbered and therefore only the tester knew what sample belonged to who at first. The reason I assume this is because I also assume that the test is supposed to be blind (aka they dont know who the sample is until after the result). If that is the case, then the only people who knew the results had to be pretty high up. People in those positions generally dont risk their job over releasing confidential information. I dont know, Im just speculating. The tone of Braun's speech seemed to suggest that he believes the tester did something to him, not that the tester just made an innocent mistake in delivering the sample late in the afternoon instead of early in the morning. Hard to speculate, just seems like a mess from day 1. Yeah, he insinuated that the collector tampered with it. He couldn't have leaked it. And the tamper evidence seals weren't broken, so he didn't actually tamper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) Balta, Thats why Im wondering. I would have assumed that the samples are numbered and therefore only the tester knew what sample belonged to who at first. The reason I assume this is because I also assume that the test is supposed to be blind (aka they dont know who the sample is until after the result). If that is the case, then the only people who knew the results had to be pretty high up. People in those positions generally dont risk their job over releasing confidential information. I dont know, Im just speculating. The tone of Braun's speech seemed to suggest that he believes the tester did something to him, not that the tester just made an innocent mistake in delivering the sample late in the afternoon instead of early in the morning. Hard to speculate, just seems like a mess from day 1. I'd imagine that when the lab reports a positive test, the result is sent up the chain saying that "number xxxxx tested positive", at which point there is then someone who links the numbers together above the heads of both the collector and the testing facility. At that point, it's almost certain that a number of people in MLB's front office would be informed. MLB would almost certainly inform the team and the player, in addition to obviuosly the commish and his office, probably the top people at the union, and then a substantial legal staff to begin preparing for the player filing an appeal. At the very least, the number of people who knew would be in the dozens. And beyond that, especially if there is a legal challenge being mounted, there are people in MLB's front office who probably are motivated to make sure that positive results become public, especially in the case of MLB having a guy appealing a positive test and then appearing in the playoffs, or a guy appealing a positive test and then receiving an MVP award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Has it ever come out why Braun's name was released when it was supposed to be secret? Many people like divulging secrets. Or maybe the person who knew was a Cubs fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) Balta, Thats why Im wondering. I would have assumed that the samples are numbered and therefore only the tester knew what sample belonged to who at first. The reason I assume this is because I also assume that the test is supposed to be blind (aka they dont know who the sample is until after the result). If that is the case, then the only people who knew the results had to be pretty high up. People in those positions generally dont risk their job over releasing confidential information. I dont know, Im just speculating. The tone of Braun's speech seemed to suggest that he believes the tester did something to him, not that the tester just made an innocent mistake in delivering the sample late in the afternoon instead of early in the morning. Hard to speculate, just seems like a mess from day 1. Yes, because he has to paint somebody else as the bad guy. If he said the latter, he'd be admitting to being a cheater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) Balta, Thats why Im wondering. I would have assumed that the samples are numbered and therefore only the tester knew what sample belonged to who at first. The reason I assume this is because I also assume that the test is supposed to be blind (aka they dont know who the sample is until after the result). If that is the case, then the only people who knew the results had to be pretty high up. People in those positions generally dont risk their job over releasing confidential information. I dont know, Im just speculating. The tone of Braun's speech seemed to suggest that he believes the tester did something to him, not that the tester just made an innocent mistake in delivering the sample late in the afternoon instead of early in the morning. Hard to speculate, just seems like a mess from day 1. Braun was pretty self-righteous after the win and did a great "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" routine where he roundly impugned the collector's integrity and then finished with a statement that he wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I took it as a smug asshole who just got off on a technicality and is trying to rebuild his image by tearing down the collector's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.