CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
Wezen-Ball Extra: Majo... (02/24)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article The BP Broadside: Mann... (02/22)
Next Column >>
The BP Broadside: Zimm... (02/27)
Next Article >>
The Stats Go Marching ... (02/24)

February 24, 2012

The BP Broadside

Say It Ain't So, Braun!

by Steven Goldman

We have yet to hear much more about the rationale behind the Ryan Braun decision except rumors about irregularities in the handling of his urine sample, but if it is indeed the case that he was let off the hook because the chain of evidence was broken, his acquittal is a triumph for due process. Sorry, Baseball, but your minions screwed up, and therefore you did as well.

Our Constitution is an amazing living document that stretches and evolves with the times, surviving generations of politicians and Supreme Court justices who life to play taffy pull with its brittle old pages. As a result, sometimes we get a Constitution that’s very expansive in its grant of rights and at other times it’s a bit stingy. For a long time, due process was more about corporations than individuals—the Supreme Court spent decades saying you couldn’t have labor laws because they inhibited the free market, and any law that does that is messing with the right of due process.

The 1919 Black Sox had their case fall squarely during the period of time when due process was more concerned with protecting employers from labor than vice-versa. Had the case happened roughly 20 years later, Joe Jackson and friends might have kept on playing. In some cases (Jackson, Buck Weaver) that might have been a better outcome than what actually happened, whereas in others (Chick Gandil), the result would have been the continuance on the field of some players who were clearly guilty. Still, to the extent that “the verdict of juries,” as Commissioner Landis put it, is one of the keystone of our rights, the Sox clearly got a raw deal.

I’m not going to recapitulate the whole history of the Black Sox; it’s dangerous to assume much of anything in life, but in this case I feel comfortable guessing that most BP readers are conversant with the basic elements of the story: pennant-winning but underpaid stars of the 1919 White Sox conspired with gamblers to throw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. The conspiracy was not very well contained, a grand jury investigation was lost, signed confessions were obtained from Jackson and Eddie Cicotte, and eight players were ultimately indicted. The confessions disappeared, as did immunity waivers and some of the grand jury testimony. The players were acquitted, and the next day the players were banned for life by Judge Landis, who didn’t care what the jury had said.

In a lesser-known coda to the case, Jackson sued the White Sox for his salary in 1924. He had been working under a three-year contract when he had been banished, and although Landis and the owners considered him guilty, the law had deemed him innocent. As Jackson was testifying in the case, Charles Comiskey’s lawyers suddenly were quoting from transcripts of the grand jury testimony, testimony which should have been sealed, the confessions, and other materials that had vanished five years before. Comiskey’s attorneys could not explain how they obtained the materials. Jackson’s lawyers were not allowed to see the materials. The jury was allowed to consider the grand jury material, could consider that Jackson had been indicted by said grand jury, but could not consider that he was acquitted.

In a small miracle, the jury found that Jackson had not conspired to throw the World Series and was entitled to all monies owed him—at which point the judge in the case set aside the verdict and threw Jackson in jail for perjury. The grand jury transcripts were never seen again. The evidence against Jackson is still equivocal at best, with a lot of vague stuff about envelopes with cash being dropped in his room but never put in his hands, as well as his .375 batting average in the eight games of the Series.

It is not my intention to whitewash the Black Sox here, given that most were clearly guilty, particularly the ringleader, Gandil, who later implicated himself in other crimes in open hearings before Judge Landis (Chick Gandil: not Albert Einstein). Rather, I am merely observing the standards of different times. Due to the right of collective bargaining, which was not secured by law until the New Deal, players today have rights versus their employers that didn’t exist in Shoeless Joe’s day. He could be banned from baseball without clear evidence that he had participated in the fix, and his recourse to the courts for justice badly backfired.

If Ryan Braun had been in Shoeless Joe’s place, he would have just been suspended for 50 games, or perhaps received an even harsher punishment given the owners’ ability to ban players altogether through the “gentlemen’s agreement” that let them waive players out of the majors for important disciplinary reasons such as not liking their salaries. That may be more your thing. Maybe you’d rather 100 innocent men be found guilty than one guilty man go free. Maybe the whole PEDs thing, with its ambiguous impact on baseball, means that much to you. I’m not saying that position is right or wrong, but amorphous outcomes such as Braun’s (at least, it’s amorphous to this point) are the inevitable outcome of a system in which one truly must be proven guilty before being subjected to a punishment.

Lives are ruined and even ended on tainted evidence and testimony. Look at how many convicted criminals have been exonerated through DNA evidence in the last decade. If Braun is truly a cheat, he will slip up again. If not, he doesn’t deserve to have his career tarnished because someone took his urine home and stuck it in the fridge between the Hellman’s and the Velveeta. I’ve always suspected that contact with Velveeta could taint anything and should be an indictable crime in and of itself.

Again, until we have all the information before us, we can’t know exactly what went down here. Until we do, I think it best if we stifle those cries of, “Say it ain’t so, Braun!” He not only had the right to this appeal and the verdict that he received, but our acceptance of it as well. It’s not only the American way, but a better justice than many before him have received, and therefore a better America as well.
 

Steven Goldman is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Steven's other articles. You can contact Steven by clicking here

98 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

apbadogs

"He not only had the right to this appeal and the verdict that he received, but our acceptance of it as well"
***
I'm not sure I agree that we have to "accept" this verdict. If I'm understanding correctly he's not arguing that he didn't use, just that the handling of the sample was messed up...and I would assume then arguing that the sample was possibly tainted in the handling process. To me that just reeks of grasping at straws to get off, preceded by lawyers gathering around with Braun and trying to find a loophole. In my mind, he used...but you know what, I'm not sure I really care.

Feb 24, 2012 04:27 AM
rating: 0
 
Behemoth

I had heard that Braun's people had managed to reproduce a very similar result with a clean sample which had been handled in the same way as his sample appears to have been treated. That would suggest that this may be more than a technicality. There is also the issue that Braun may have had other defences to use if the arbitrator had deemed that the chain of custody was satisfactory. Given that the chain of custody was broken, it wasn't necessary to look at any other defences, so saying that he isn't arguing that he didn't use is unfair.

Feb 24, 2012 06:09 AM
rating: 8
 
apollo

Link please to that theory, please. It is hard to believe that sitting in a refrigerator would cause a sealed urine sample to grow synthetic testosterone. LOL Where would have the specimen been all weekend otherwise? A warm FedEx depot, in a refigerator at a lab (hey they are not working weekends).

What I have read is Braun argued and won the case on a bare technicality, one, that given all other facts, would not change the outcome of the test. Flimsy due process, fig leaf, some will be happy because RB is a good guy and did not break any records anyway, so its ok. I wonder how his fellow players will perceive him, off the record, I mean. RB has presented no evidence beyond minimal COC violation to exonerate himself, yet he proclaims innocence, lol.

In some ways, i dont care about PEDs personally, no one i know should ever need them, yet if they are a health hazard, given all the money in Sports and Entertainment, they should be banned, and we should care. Then again, the USA has horrible problems much worse to worry about, and I have other things I need to do.

Feb 24, 2012 06:40 AM
rating: 0
 
skaron01

"What I have read is Braun argued and won the case on a bare technicality, one, that given all other facts, would not change the outcome of the test."

If the arbitor felt this way, he would have upheld the suspension. If the above were true, it would amount to "harmless error" in legal parlence. Due Process violations generally have to be beyond ones involving harmless error.

Feb 24, 2012 06:48 AM
rating: 3
 
williams51

As a former prosecutor I can tell you that breaking the chain of custody with evidence is not "harmless error" but a great way to make sure that the evidence never sees the inside of a court room.

Feb 24, 2012 07:41 AM
rating: 7
 
Behemoth

Will Carroll was suggesting it on Twitter (@injuryexpert, if you want to look).

Feb 24, 2012 06:50 AM
rating: 1
 
Behemoth

https://twitter.com/#!/injuryexpert/status/172873030148694018

Feb 24, 2012 06:55 AM
rating: 1
 
jrmayne

Did the tweet also talk about Beltran's career-ending injury, *****'s steroid use, Rose's reinstatement, or Strasburg's visit to James Andrews?

Feb 24, 2012 07:16 AM
rating: 3
 
Behemoth

Also, how do you know that Braun presented no other evidence. If the custody chain was broken to an extent that the test had to be thrown out, there would be no reason for the arbitrator even to listen to any other defence as there would be no case to answer.

Feb 24, 2012 06:57 AM
rating: 2
 
alangreene

He's repeatedly said he is innocent. What am I missing that he's not arguing he didn't use?

People seem to think these tests are infallible. Even if handled correctly, there can be errors.

I am not sure why people are so disbelieving that he could be innocent. They process thousands of tests a year, right?

Feb 24, 2012 11:35 AM
rating: 6
 
Dodger300

"If I'm understanding correctly he's not arguing that he didn't use,"

Since Braun has said repeatedly from day one that he is completely innocent, how do you get off saying that "he's not arguing he didn't use?"

Incredible. Perhaps English is not your mother tongue?

Feb 25, 2012 09:59 AM
rating: -1
 
Jack Thomas

Good article on a topic that will cause many different reactions. Braun has maintained he was innocent from day one.
What brothers me is the leaking of a condidential process. Innocent or guilty, Braun's reputation is tarnised forevever. I am not sure the public was entitled to be a part of a confidential process. Yet, the reporters were lauded as being good investigate reporters -- Where did they get the leak? Did they pay for the information? Is there anything ESPN would not consider news worthy?
No simple answers -- Part of the 24/7 news frenzy we live in these days.

Feb 24, 2012 05:07 AM
rating: 17
 
Behemoth

MLB and the players have agreed to a confidential process. ESPN never did, and has no obligations to keep these things confidential. My own view is that the confidentiality is a mistake and allows things to be swept under the carpet too easily - whatever happens with this case, there are clearly things that MLB would have preferred us not to know which are better off in the public domain. That isn't to say that Braun wasn't entitled to confidentiality, given that it had been agreed, but just that it isn't a great idea generally.

Feb 24, 2012 06:23 AM
rating: -2
 
apollo
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

yes interesting he seemed to know from day 1 he would/could be exonerated. Given all the money in basbeall, and how Barry Bonds trainer went to jail, is it possible that RB paid to have the COC messed up so he could be exonerated?
That is at least as likely as a sealed urine sample growing synthetic testosterone in a refrigerator.

Feb 24, 2012 06:48 AM
rating: -14
 
skaron01

Wow.

It needs to be noted that technically the Chain of Command was not "messed up". The sample's whereabouts are known throughout the process. The issue is more likely that for the medical testing results to be reliable, the handling of the sample needs to be done in a certain way, and such handling was not sufficiently achieved in this case.

Feb 24, 2012 06:56 AM
rating: 3
 
MichavdB

Chain of Custody.

Feb 24, 2012 07:40 AM
rating: 3
 
CRP13

Dunno what you're on, but I wouldn't plan on winning the appeal, if I were you.

Feb 24, 2012 07:06 AM
rating: 4
 
dzzard
(805)

MLB employees fouled up, and that is not Braun’s fault. A test of a mishandled sample cannot be valid. The greatest and the least are entitled to be judged on honest scales, not weighted down by procedural failures. The burden is on MLB to hold up its side of the bargain: do a fair test to produce results that have integrity.

Oh, and about the “confidentiality” of the program. The biggest problem with the Ryan Braun situation is that we knew about it. This testing program is supposed to be confidential. Someone violated that. ESPN took advantage of that breach of faith, ran with it, and ensured that this process could not play out as the collective bargaining agreement provided. An “unnamed source” told TJ Quinn at ESPN, and an unnamed source is always unimpeachable. Let’s call Quinn’s “The Burning Bush.” The Burning Bush cannot be cross-examined. The Burning Bush never forgets, cannot be confused, and does not lie. How do we know? The Burning Bush & Quinn say so. WTF?

The only fair thing now is for MLB to ferret out the source. If it is an employee of MLB or its drug testing program, MLB should ensure that the individual loses his/her job.

Feb 24, 2012 05:28 AM
rating: 17
 
Behemoth

There should be more than just the source of any leak losing their job. MLB have been incompetent in what is an important area where players should be able to have confidence that samples are dealt with competently and fairly. Whoever is responsible for these events should also be getting fired.

Feb 24, 2012 06:13 AM
rating: 6
 
apollo
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I think the leaker is a hero. Now we know how a player might get around a positive test. Somehow get a COC issue raised, and "Get out of jail free" card is drawn. I think that information is worth a lot to fans who care about the game and about the health of the youth who will be MLB players in the future

Feb 24, 2012 06:54 AM
rating: -23
 
raef12

TJ Quinn's report was 100 percent correct. Braun did indeed fail an MLB run test. Braun does not dispute that he failed the test. He disputes the validity of the test and the arbiter agrees. Good for Braun and good for due process. I have no problem with the way it played out.

But please understand ESPN did nothing wrong in this case because it did NOT report Ryan Braun used PEDs. It reported he failed a test. As a journalist I understand that using unidentified sources can make people uncomfortable and many news organizations are way to quick to cite sources familiar with so-so's thinking to 'report' opinions and not hard facts. ESPN is as guilty as any of overusing unidentified sources.

But TJ Quinn is a damn good reporter and he nailed this story right down the middle of the fairway.

Feb 24, 2012 18:44 PM
rating: 3
 
cachhubguy

There is a vast conspiracy at Fedex to tamper with Ryan Brauns urine sample. That makes perfect sense.

Feb 24, 2012 06:28 AM
rating: -3
 
cachhubguy
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

So I'm UNAMERICAN if I don't accept the OJ verdict? Wow.

Feb 24, 2012 06:30 AM
rating: -8
 
Behemoth

Much better for random members of the public who have heard none of the evidence to decide they know what the verdict should be.

Feb 24, 2012 06:39 AM
rating: 7
 
skaron01

Nice to ignore the first sentence of that paragraph: "Again, until we have all the information before us, we can’t know exactly what went down here."

In the OJ trial, we had access to all the information the jury had given the trial was fully televised.

Feb 24, 2012 06:40 AM
rating: 6
 
Marycontardi

So, essentially, we still have no idea what happened or didn't happen except someone may have leaked something and something may have been fabricated... seems to be a lot something that may be nothing... or not?!?!?!

Feb 24, 2012 06:42 AM
rating: 0
 
Eusebio

I highly doubt Braun's people put all their eggs in the chain-of-custody basket. You typically don't argue legal theories like that. Instead, you argue your two or three strongest arguments. You will usually lose on technical arguments like chain of custody and can no way bank on them.

I bet MLB's people selectively leaked the one defense that makes Braun look as if he was let off on a mere technicality. (Chain of custody for a urine sample is no mere technicality anyway!!)

Feb 24, 2012 06:51 AM
rating: 5
 
skaron01

sorry for beating this drum again, but this technically is not a Chain of Custody issue in the usual sense. The chain of custody was not broken. The whereabouts of the sample seem to be known throughout the process.

Instead it appears the issue is one of proper handling to establish reliabilty of the testing result. It's sort of like having the state prove that a radar gun that nailed you for speeding was properly calibrated. If the state testifies it didn't follow procedures for ensuring proper calibration, do you think you should be set free?

Feb 24, 2012 07:02 AM
rating: 6
 
williams51

Again, as a former prosecutor you would be set free.

Feb 24, 2012 07:43 AM
rating: 6
 
Eusebio

I agree with you. It's not a chain of custody yssue per se, but that's how it's been characterized. And if the radar gun isn't properly calibrated, no way you ought to be convicted. Nor should we assume someone is guilty based on the readings.

And the radar gun analogy is a darn good one, btw.

Feb 24, 2012 08:23 AM
rating: 5
 
alangreene

Yes, you should.

Otherwise there is absolutely no incentive for the state to maintain any fairness. Maybe you were speeding, maybe you weren't. The bigger evil here would be a state that does not need reliable evidence to charge and convict, no?

Feb 24, 2012 11:39 AM
rating: 2
 
HoldSteady

Yep - they better set me free if the gun wasn't proiperly calibrated

Feb 24, 2012 14:46 PM
rating: 1
 
KaiserD2

Braun's appeal was heard by a three-man panel representing the players, MLB, and the neutral arbitrator. There was no evidence that anything went wrong with the chain of custody. The man who took the sample could not find a FEDEX office to mail it and testified that he kept it in his refrigerator for 48 hours until he could. The most you could say is that that was evidence that something COULD have happened to it during that time, but there's no evidence that anything DID, since the seals he put on at the time of the test, which I would assume Braun signed just the way I sign the ones I give out at work from time to time, were unbroken. Nor was there any rule against doing what the tester did (there is NOW.) Nonetheless, for reasons we do not know, the arbitrator ruled with Braun.

There is, by the way, a huge loophole in MLB testing directly related to this test: you have to have a very abnormally high ratio of testosterone to epistesterone to convict you of taking testosterone. But Braun's sample passed that threshold.

I will remain a devoted reader of Baseball Prospectus, but on this issue its writers seem to share the view of MLB(as well as of the players) that the game will benefit if players are given the benefit of every doubt. The idea that the National League MVP had used PED's was a clear threat to the game's integrity. That threat has now been dealt with with the help of the arbitrator. Whether justice was served is a separate question.

Feb 24, 2012 06:53 AM
rating: -2
 
Behemoth

Have you read the arbitrator's report or something? You seem very sure about what has happened. I'm curious where this certainty comes from.

Feb 24, 2012 06:59 AM
rating: 5
 
apollo
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

If I was Ryan Braun, and there was a legitimate reason for the false positive on a scientific basis, I would give as much detail as possible, to clear my name. And no, taking anti-herpes drug will not cause sky high samples of synthetic testosterone in your urine. I think all of us are still open to that, if RB cares to explain it to us.

Feb 24, 2012 07:07 AM
rating: -4
 
apollo
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I agree with you that many in the industry want shield the game, both players and BP writers and many other, but not all bloggers and baseball writers. While the arbitrator's ruling is regretable and wrong, there is a gray area, that for the arbitrator i have to accept. But for Braun, absolutely not. unless he gives good evidence on why the test was positive, he, like OJ, at minimum should be highly suspect in court of public opinion, if not guilty.

Feb 24, 2012 07:02 AM
rating: -13
 
skaron01

he did give good evidence to the arbitor. He demonstrated to the arbitor that the test result was not sufficiently reliable because the sample was improperly handled.

Now you may or may not choose to accept that, but to say "unless he gives good evidence" already demonstrates how you feel.

Feb 24, 2012 07:17 AM
rating: 12
 
apollo
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

it is bureaucratic procedure, that did not impact the test itself.

Ryan Howard gets a 100 RBIs just like Albert Pujols ergo they are the same. Look at all the stats.

RB is innocent because of minimal procedural issue? Look at ALL the facts. If that is all RB has, he is no more clean that Howard is as good as Pujols.

Feb 24, 2012 07:26 AM
rating: -13
 
apollo
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgjtNXKuOLqVJsQCVIEZ5SYRvLYF?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_appeal_drug_program_selig_022312

RB got off a flimsiest of technicalities

It is ironic that so many baseball bloggers and writers which prides itself rightly for going after baseball truth, and laughs at 100 RBIs as an indicator of excellence when other advanced stats show mediocrity, yet they will cling to a minimal COC violation to cover for a player, when all else points to a positive test.

Feb 24, 2012 07:14 AM
rating: -10
 
Karl T

Ugh, my browser is not letting me hit reply to specific posts.
1 - KaiserD2, read some of the comments from MLB executives. They are definitely not happy. Congress made a public farce of their lack of testing, they were shamed, and Selig put in a strict program with the agreement of the players' union. They are VERY mad.
2 - Indeed, they are so mad that one wonders if the leak was intentional. They knew they had an unusual result. They suspected chain of custody problems? And they figured better to leak the issue and let the public condemn him because they might ultimately lose an arbitration? A conspiracy theory of speculation, but not that hard to imagine.
3 - Cachhubguy, Fedex had nothing to do with it, they were closed so the collector --- the guy responsible for taking and sealing the sample --- took it home and put it in his fridge. There is no evidence any seals were broken, but the failure to follow proper procedures (and some argue that these ARE proper procedures in other sports) raises the spectre of someone tampering with his results intentionally.
4 - The leak helped MLB look tough on PEDs, but it also destroyed Braun's reputation in violation of the CBA. Yes, Braun is now able to play without suspension, but he certainly faces a significant loss of future income resulting from the damage to his reputation caused by MLB and its agents violating the terms of the CBA.

In sum, according to information currently reported, MLB violated due process in two ways: (1) they, either directly or through their agents, leaked confidential information; and (2) they prosecuted a PED violation that was collected inconsistent with procedures agreed to in the CBA (though, to be fair, apparently consistent with collection procedures in other sports).

Mr. Goldman's point is that in our nation of laws, due process matters. It is not just a technicality. I just hope Braun stays clean until I trade him away off my keeper fantasy team some day.

Feb 24, 2012 07:14 AM
rating: 16
 
williams51

Braun is signed through 2020, so I assume you are referring to endorsements. That said, most studies show that casual fans don't care nearly as much about steroids as MLB or Congress thinks they do. I bet any decrease in sale of Braun memorabilia will be minimal.

Feb 24, 2012 07:48 AM
rating: 0
 
swarmee

FYI, you can respond to individual posts if you press the "Compatibility View" button next to the address bar. It looks like a piece of paper ripped in the middle.

Feb 24, 2012 14:38 PM
rating: 2
 
amazin_mess

Thanks man! Works perfectly!

Feb 24, 2012 14:52 PM
rating: 0
 
surfdent48
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Braun got lucky on a technicality. I don't blame MLB for being upset.

Feb 24, 2012 07:34 AM
rating: -6
 
dzzard
(805)

I’ll make a couple of points here. First, we really do not know what the basis for the successful appeal was. There is, as far as I know, no published decision. Lester Munson said on Mike & Mike this morning that Braun’s representatives had (again apparently, because who really knows what the hell happened?) offered to have him submit DNA for comparison with the urine sample, and that MLB nixed that idea. Why would MLB not want that sample compared to Braun’s DNA if there was nothing to worry about? Munson implied that this tactic turned the arbitrator toward the appellant’s views on the case.

Second, the unfairness of playing this mess out in public is that an overwrought chattering class got to obsess about it for three months, only to have their applecart overturned when their world view collided with the reality of the process. Process matters (Ask George Hugely; he owes his life to process). Anyway, ESPN and their ilk are now going apoplectic, defensively trying to deflect attention from their highly destructive role in this fiasco. They caused a lot of the problems here by listening to The Burning Bush and then blabbing about it for weeks as if they knew everything . . . EVERYTHING . . . that was going on. Well, after all, The Burning Bush can never be wrong, can it?

You know, some day will come the day when The Burning Bush’s best move will be to put a cork in its mighty pie hole. Come to think of it, if that had happened 3,000 years ago or so, somewhere in the desert, the world might be a more peaceful place.

Feb 24, 2012 08:04 AM
rating: 6
 
dodgerken222
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

What a shock. The ever-reliably liberal Mr. Goldman is thrilled that someone is found not guilty on a legal loophole. I'll bet he hasn't been this happy since the OJ trial. He says look how many criminals have been found innocent because of DNA evidence. Those are the only cases the media chooses to harp about. Exactly what percentage of convicted killers have been found innocent because of DNA evidence? o.ooo1%? If that much? And how does that compare with felons who have had their charges dropped because of legal sleight of hand? Only to commit further crimes?
The Braun decision is emblematic of the current society we live in that favors the criminals. Furthermore, Mr. Goldman's sanctimonious weekly liberal diatribes are getting pretty tedious.

Feb 24, 2012 08:42 AM
rating: -31
 
mpirani

Well, what's the alternative? Guilty until proven innocent? That's the standard you're suggesting. The "legal slight-of-hand" protects all of us. Sure, it sucks when someone who seems obviously guilty goes free, but those protections are to try to minimize the risk of innocent people being convicted. In the abstract, we'd love to see the bad guys get what's coming to them every time, and if the authorities bend the rules a bit and don't follow proper procedure, what's the harm? Until one of us gets falsely accused of something, that is.

Anyway, Mr. Goldman's "weekly liberal diatribe" isn't really about much of the above. It's a workplace grievance issue. It's kind of like if your employer decided to dock your pay because your computer showed someone accessing BP during working hours. If you could show that other people had access to your machine during that time, wouldn't it be better if the boss had to prove it was you before docking your pay? But I guess that's a "legal loophole" too; if the bosses say you did something, that's proof enough, right?

Feb 24, 2012 09:56 AM
rating: 13
 
pmcfadden

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of convicted killers found innocent is acceptable to you? Stated another way, if one innocent person is executed because a prosecutor screwed up, are you okay with that?

Feb 24, 2012 10:27 AM
rating: 11
 
Dodger300

DodgerKen, please feel free to apologize to BP readers for making things up to fit your agenda. Your .00001% guess is ridiculous. Try 12.5%.

"For every seven executions since 1976, one other prisoner on death row has been found innocent."

Moreover, the state of Illinois released more convicted murderers (13) due to DNA evidence than it executed (12) which led to the Republican governor placing a moratorium on executions.

http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1231b-1.html

In total, 289 convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

Feb 24, 2012 13:33 PM
rating: 19
 
NoHRTyner

I don't minus very often, but when I do it is dodgerken222.

Feb 24, 2012 13:47 PM
rating: 20
 
BrewersTT

"Liberal Mr. Goldman"? I would have thought that the _conservative_ point of view would be that it is best to follow the constitutional concept of fair process, even in the face of unpopular outcomes, as opposed to individual arbiters deciding how much to weigh errors in process.

Feb 24, 2012 15:22 PM
rating: 3
 
roughcarrigan

As long as the NDAA only covers purported enemies of the state rather than National League pitching, Braun still gets due process. Though any supposed teacher of constitutional law who can somehow sign such a document can probably work himself into the frame of mind that opposing senior league hurlers equals support for terrorists. Step lightly, Ryan!

Feb 24, 2012 09:06 AM
rating: 0
 
cjslawyer

My experience and reaction may be colored slightly by my job (I'm a defense attorney who does some product liability work). But, here goes...

Let's start with the idea that the whole basis for Ryan Braun's potential suspension was this positive test. The results of the test are, presumably, the reason why action was taken and why he was issued a 50 game suspension. So, the results of the test are the primary factor here, the primary evidence.

If that's the case, the way in which the evidence was drawn, evaluated, and kept are important issues. If any of those steps are done incorrectly, then there is a problem with the evidence that is the central factor in the case.

Then, it turns out that there was a problem, a chain of custody issue. There was a problem with the way in which this very important evidence was handled.

In that way, this doesn't seem like so much of a "technicality" or a "loophole." It goes to the heart of the entire case, and the care in which the process was undertaken.

Again, this all may be colored by my work experience. In my world (product liability defense), chain of custody is a huge issue. You look for chain of custody forms from other parties all the time, and if chain of custody is not properly documented or preserved, then it changes the whole complexion of the case.

Feb 24, 2012 09:30 AM
rating: 13
 
19braves77

The most interesting tidbits out of all of this to me is that:

1. Major League baseball uses Fedex to deliver samples for testing for MLB players to a lab in Montreal.
2. Samples from Minor league players go to a lab in Salt Lake City.
3. A tester took the sample home and stored it in a refrigerator until he could bring it to an open FedEx center. Its rumored that two other unnamed Brewers also failed tests from the same package.
4. That the leak of Braun's failed test came from someone within the Brewers Front Office.
5. Braun's defense hinting they contested whether the urine sample was even Braun's.

Feb 24, 2012 09:34 AM
rating: 1
 
keef66

The oddest comment in the whole article is "If Braun is truly a cheat, he will slip up again." That's implausible and/or naively devoted to karmic sensibilities. To use Goldman's analogous case, I doubt that Joe Jackson would have gone anywhere near a gambler had he been allowed to stay in baseball. I can't see Braun slipping up again, even assuming he was using PEDs.

Feb 24, 2012 09:38 AM
rating: 2
 
ScottyB

Ramirez, Manny

Feb 24, 2012 16:31 PM
rating: 2
 
boards

One cannot compare Manny's "common sense" with Rya...ANYONE'S.

Feb 24, 2012 19:06 PM
rating: 6
 
Richie

Horrible coverage of the 'Black Sox' scandal. Terrible. Landis proclaimed that knowledge of a fix or discussion of a fix, unless reported, would be grounds for permanent suspension from Major League Baseball. By which grounds Jackson (Weaver, too) was guilty as sin.

If I knew my co-workers were dipping into the till but kept my mouth shut about it, once that's shown to be so (and not necessarily beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law) I'd fully expect to be shown the door, too. Very properly so.

Feb 24, 2012 10:58 AM
rating: 2
 
eighteen

Agreed. Outside baseball, Goldman's not much for letting facts get in the way of his slant.

Feb 24, 2012 12:03 PM
rating: 0
 
frampton
(870)

Wait -- Landis became Commissioner in 1920; the "proclamation" you refer to was well after the fact.

You do support Steven's point, though, that players had few if any protections from processes stacked against them. I for one a glad that they have more protections now.

Feb 24, 2012 12:19 PM
rating: 5
 
juiced

The arbitrator absolutely made the right decision. Let's review the evidence in timeline fashion:

1. Braun repeatedly tests clean during the entire regular season.

2. At no point in Braun's career including the 2011 regular season have witnesses, reliable or shady characters, ever accused Braun of roiding.

3. At no point in Braun's career up to the present day has Braun undergone the sorts of documented behavioral and morphological indicative of, and incapable of being hidden by, roid use: no mood swings, no statistical performance swings correlated with roid cycles, no hair loss, body acne, unusual muscular or head growth (all of which were easily documented in the cases of guys like Bonds, Bret Boone).

4. He tested positive for "insanely high levels of testosterone" a single time in mid October 2011, levels that exceeded boundaries characteristic of positive tests of known, undisputed users. Something was out of ordinary from the start.

5. He immediately demanded a re-test and proclaimed his innocence to MLB authorities, and underwent a re-test within 1-2 weeks with a clean result. This is repeatedly being ignored in the media coverage and fan rants on the subject.

6. There are no known masking agents that can be reliably used to "beat" the current steroid test regime that MLB employs, which contrasts with the state of the science at the heart of the late 90's steroid era.

7. Proper handling and immediate refrigeration of biological samplesare not "technicalities" of drug testing in the scientific, criminal justice, or other arenas; rather they are essential for insuring that the results themselves are reliable. This applies to narcotic testing, blood alcohol testing, roids, the works.

8. Braun's sample was neither handled properly nor immediately refrigerated, but rather taken home overnight by a lab tech. This is not the same thing as a confession getting thrown out because a cop didnt read a suspect his rights first; this undercuts the test result reliability itself. This is not the same thing as a pound of narcotics seized from a trunk getting excluded from court because the cop pulled the car over to mess with the driver because he's black. Emphatically, Braun's defense was a substantive one not a technical one.

9. Roid tests involve known "false positives" a non trivial percentage of the time, perhaps as large as 10% in the scientific literature. That can occur regardless of proper chain of custody or refrigeration protocols being followed; ie the test regimes themselves, like all other scientific testing, have margins of error. Related examples include the fact that poppy seed ingestion can cause a false positive for heroin use, 10 stop watches timing a race will produce 10 different results even if properly calibrated, and when improperly calibrated, will produce a wholly wrong result.

10. Braun's lawyers are prohibited by the operating agreement, as is Braun himself, from making a specific defense to the media, so their vague protestations that he'd be vindicated do NOT indicate a lack of belief in his actual innocence. They followed the rules, MLB did not by "leaking" the test result to the media before the process played out. It is incorrect to assert that Braun is the only one vindicated by MLB's process. He is the only one PUBLICALLy vindicated, BP itself in prior articles has discussed the many private exonerations that MLB hasnt released to the public.

11. The immediate conviction of Braun in the court of the public opinion was disgusting and un American. We almost want the high paid atheletes to be knocked from their pedestal to make us feel good about ourselves. The continued conviction of Braun even after his vindication by the arbitration process is also disgusting. His critics know very little about what was presented in the hearing yet cite to unsourced conspiracy theories to explain Braun's acquittal. They made a decision long ago before hearing the evidence that he was guilty because it made them feel good to do so; their current protestations about Braun just demonstrate that once one's mind is made up no matter of hell on earth evidence can make many people change their minds. Hopefully they are never accused of any wrongdoing themselves in the public arena and someday must rely on a jury of their like minded peers to subjugate the actual evidence to their preexisting prejudices.

Feb 24, 2012 11:08 AM
rating: 40
 
djardine

This is an outstanding delineation of the controversy. Thank you for taking the time to shine this bright light on the matter.

Feb 24, 2012 15:52 PM
rating: 4
 
juiced

Thank you

Feb 24, 2012 18:32 PM
rating: 2
 
BarryR

I differ in only one thing from this excellent post - Braun is not accused of using steroids or any other PED. He is accused of having an unusually (and, according to WADA, illegally) high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone, caused by use of synthetic testosterone. The ratio could be caused by use of steroids, but he has not tested positive for that.

Feb 25, 2012 14:43 PM
rating: 0
 
Ric Size

Terrific post! I'm in agreement with all your points, and couldn't agree more strongly with #11.

Feb 26, 2012 08:42 AM
rating: 0
 
BrewersTT

I wonder whether this is the highest-rated post ever at BP.

Feb 26, 2012 18:21 PM
rating: 0
 
amazin_mess

The immediate conviction is a byproduct of the steroid era and simple human nature.

Feb 24, 2012 11:17 AM
rating: 5
 
dodgerken222
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

So just to recap....In the past few weeks Mr. Goldman has written columns 1) attacking anyone who would criticize Josh Hamilton, an addict who will always be an addict 2) Bean-counting Latinos in baseball and attacking Arizona for opposing illegal immigrants and insinuating that Cookie Lavagetto was racist and 3) exulting in the acquittal of Ryan Braun, who failed a drug test and won a 2-1 decision by an appeals panel through a legal loophole. Is Mr. Goldman auditioning to host a show on MSNBC?

Feb 24, 2012 11:18 AM
rating: -30
 
Behemoth

Oh, go away.

Feb 24, 2012 13:28 PM
rating: 18
 
BrewersTT

Always best to ignore the content of someone's arguments, and instead rely on pigeonholing and labeling to decide whether there's any merit to them.

Feb 24, 2012 15:35 PM
rating: 5
 
dzzard
(805)

Well stated.

Feb 24, 2012 12:05 PM
rating: 1
 
dzzard
(805)

To be clear, in support of "juiced."

Feb 24, 2012 12:06 PM
rating: 1
 
Ric Size

I think the BP user ratings make that clear.

Feb 26, 2012 08:44 AM
rating: 0
 
eighteen

This episode makes so much sense when you remember the policies behind the testing regime:

1) Make it look like MLB is doing something about PEDs.
2) Use negative publicity over PEDs as leverage over the players and their union.

Feb 24, 2012 12:08 PM
rating: 11
 
Mike H

"For a long time, due process was more about corporations than individuals—the Supreme Court spent decades saying you couldn’t have labor laws because they inhibited the free market, and any law that does that is messing with the right of due process."

Steven, this statement is both misleading and incorrect. Care to provide any citation to support your claim?

I assume you mean to refer to Lochner, but you wildly misstate the holding of the case, as well as the other cases relating to freedom of contract. The right vindicated by those cases is the right of an individual to be free from arbitrary, protectionist restrictions on labor without a valid health or safety reason.

Moreover, due process was never "more about corporations than individuals". Most due process cases were and are about not about the substantive due process to which you allude without naming it.

Given your solid writing in other areas, your misstatements of law and legal history are pretty disappointing.

Feb 24, 2012 12:09 PM
rating: -1
 
juiced

Due process nowadays actually is as tilted in favor of corporations as its ever been , with the Supreme Court "reading" the First Amendment somehow in Citizens United to deem corporations to be "people" and corporate campaign contributions of money to be "free speech". Moreover, the Constitution applies to relationships between individuals and their govt, not relationship of individuals to their employers. Although hopefully, its lofty ideals are in practice applied in those disputes as well. SAdly this whole episode reveals that many Americans give lip service to presumptions of innocence and requirements of evidentiary proof.

Feb 24, 2012 12:18 PM
rating: 4
 
Mike H

The First Amendment's restrictions on campaign finance law have absolutely nothing to do with Due Process. They're entirely separate areas of law, and trying to link them is as incorrect as your gross misstatements of Citizens United and the jurisprudence relating to corporate speech.

You are correct that the constitution does apply to the government, but it is not restricted to "relationships between individuals and their govt". The constitution is a charter of negative rights, which means that it provides restrictions on the government.

One such restriction, which was rightly upheld in Lochner, was that the government was not allowed to arbitrarily interfere in an individual's contractual relationship without a valid health or safety reason.

Feb 24, 2012 12:30 PM
rating: -1
 
frampton
(870)

Steven is closer to correct about Lochner and its progeny than you are. The law overturned in Lochner *was* a health/safety regulation (limiting bakers to 10 hours/day and 60 hours/week); the 5-4 majority held that the law unconstitutionally infringed on the parties' rights to contract. It was 30+ years later that a different majority held that substantive due process was no longer a bar to such statutes, and that governments (state and federal) *could* limit private contracts to protect (mostly workers') health and safety.

Feb 24, 2012 12:43 PM
rating: 0
 
Mike H

No, it wasn't. The court explicitly stated that the hours restriction is insufficiently related to health or safety, unlike the various restrictions related to miners.

You should probably give the opinion another read. -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0198_0045_ZO.html

"The mere assertion that the subject relates though but in a remote degree to the public health does not necessarily render the enactment valid. The act must have a more direct relation, as a means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor."

"We think the limit of the police power has been reached and passed in this case. There is, in our judgment, no reasonable foundation for holding this to be necessary or appropriate as a health law to safeguard the public health or the health of the individuals who are following the trade of a baker. If this statute be valid, and if, therefore, a proper case is made out in which to deny the right of an individual, sui juris, as employer or employee, to make contracts for the labor of the latter under the protection of the provisions of the Federal Constitution, there would seem to be no length to which legislation of this nature might not go. The case differs widely, as we have already stated, from the expressions of this court in regard to laws of this nature, as stated in Holden v. Hardy and Jacobson v. Massachusetts, supra."

There's a lot in there. But your take is just not consistent with the case or the history.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't refer you to David Bernstein's masterful "Rehabilitating Lochner", which does an amazing job of contextualizing the opinion, the circumstances, and the historical evidence surrounding bakeries, why the law was passed (at the behest of large, established bakeries to screw over small family-run bakeries). It's a useful corrective to historically inaccurate impressions like yours.

Feb 24, 2012 13:13 PM
rating: 0
 
frampton
(870)

Well, yes, the majority *said* that the limit to 10 hrs/day and 60 hrs/week was insufficiently linked to the workers' health and safety. The minority justices, and courts after 1937, argued for (and eventually got) a standard more deferential to legislatures in the area of workers' and unions' rights. There's no question (referencing the comment below) that there is still agrument over the wisdom and the constitutional rationale for a more "statist" result in these cases.

Your reference to the Bernstein book looks interesting, and from the little I've looked into it, he might have a point concerning the use of Lochner-like analysis in later civil rights jurisprudence. That said, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the Court correctly decided Lochner, the minimum-wage cases, etc. Maybe it was going to law school in the 70s -- we spent a lot of time on them, and I was always reading the dissents from that era more favorably. Hence my agreement with Steven about the substantive due process analysis that did in fact favor the economically powerful over those with less power in the labor law arena.

Feb 24, 2012 15:20 PM
rating: 0
 
Mike H

That's why you need to read Bernstein's book. The point isn't to justify the result of Lochner -- it's to place it in context, which makes it seem far less radical than it's portrayed and really explodes the myth of a "radical laissez-faire" court, which was constructed as a strawman by the progressivists and their allies in the legal academy.

As Bernstein, the law at issue in Lochner was passed at the behest of the larger, industrial bakeries to screw over the smaller, non-factory, often-family owned/operated bakeries, most of which were run by immigrants (Jews and Italians). If you have enough labor to work in multiple shifts, as the larger bakeries did, the law doesn't bother you.

Looking to a lot of these laws (like the bans on hair braiding, or the Florida ban on non-licensed interior design, or the requirement in some state for a degree in mortuary science just to sell caskets, and yes, selling glasses like in Williamson v. Lee Optical), any alleged "health and safety benefit" is often just a fig leaf to protect the powerful or connected from competition.

Feb 24, 2012 15:48 PM
rating: -1
 
frampton
(870)

The examples you cite are probably instances in which the regulation is indeed harder to justify, but the bigger cases involved "yellow dog" contracts, minimum wage laws, and child labor laws. These are the decisions that are more difficult to reconcile with a jurisprudence that is applying an actual due process analysis as opposed to an animus towards laws protecting workers.

Feb 24, 2012 19:38 PM
rating: 1
 
juiced

Mike you do realize that Lochner has been emphatically rejected by the next 8 plus decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence; ie, Congress' exercises of commerce power are routinely upheld rather than routinely rejected. Congress' regulation of contractual relationships need only meet a deferential rational basis test. Fact. Moreover the personification of corporations in Citizens is highly relevant to the court's intention to attribute them a higher level of due process than individuals. AFter all, corporations wont get put in jail for yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Feb 24, 2012 13:11 PM
rating: -1
 
Mike H

Juiced, you do realize that Lochner had absolutely nothing to do with the commerce clause, right? And that nothing Congress did was at issue, because it was a state regulation (there's a big hint in the title of the case -- it's Lochner v. NEW YORK)?

So you've improperly conflated Lochner ("substantive" due process under the 14th amendment) the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and a state regulation with congress' powers. You've also incorrectly asserted that Citizens United (under with the First Amendment restricts what Congress can do in the campaign finance area) with the Due Process clause.

Oh wait, you did that. There is no "higher level" of due process in Citizens United, as it is simply not an issue in the case. Nor is there ever any such thing as "levels" of due process. What there are are various standards of review in the equal protection context, but they have nothing to do with Due Process, Citizens United, or the First Amendment.

The court did not "personify" corporations in Citizens United. (You really should read the opinion, rather than relying on bizarre misstatements from the media about it). But since I doubt you'll do that, you should start here -- http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-medias-shameful-inexcusable-distortion-of-the-supreme-courts-citizens-united-decision/

Feb 24, 2012 13:21 PM
rating: 0
 
eighteen

Juiced, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Constitutional jurisprudence. Give it up.

Following Roosevelt's threat to make the Supreme Court part of the Executive Branch by packing it with his supporters, the Supreme Court needed a way to validate Roosevelt's New Deal statism. It chose the Commerce Clause, which has nothing whatever to do with the basis of either the Lochner decision nor Due Process.

Feb 24, 2012 13:44 PM
rating: 2
 
juiced

Lochner was a federal case though involving the court citing to the 14th amendment to find a substantive "liberty of contract" right nowhere mentioned in the Constitutional text to limit state regulations. Similarly, the Court was blocking federal regulations for similar reasons. The Lochner era ended when rightfully so the court abandoned such judicial activism and largely left it up to the elected political branches to decide what was wise regulation, rather than leaving it up to court to find rights that werent written in. When the Lochner era ended, it ended the trend of invalidating both state and federal legislation on "liberty of contract" or restricted "commerce" definition grounds. Fact. You both are 8 decades behind the times and probably would prefer to return to an era of judicial activism where your economic philosophies serve as a judicial veto on the popular branches.

Feb 24, 2012 15:23 PM
rating: -2
 
chrisekeedei

Wonderful article -- kudos to Steven Goldman for giving perspective on the issue that moves way beyond the cliches and inappropriate levels of rage you get everywhere else.

Feb 24, 2012 13:49 PM
rating: 1
 
KaiserD2

From today's New York Times:

"The tester claimed that by the time the test was completed early in the evening after the game there was no open FedEx center at which he could drop off the sample, the person with knowledge of the case said. Instead, he said the tester followed established protocol that when a sample cannot immediately be dropped off at a FedEx center it must be kept in a cold and secure place until it can be shipped.

"In this instance, the person said, the tester took the sample home and stored it in a refrigerator until he could bring it to an open FedEx center on Monday.

"Lawyers for Major League Baseball told the panel that the sample had been sealed in both a bag and then a box while Braun watched and that they showed no sign of tampering when the arrived at the Montreal laboratory."

I don't know why the arbitrator decided to side with Braun, but based upon those paragraphs, I can't see that there was any problem with the chain of custody.

Feb 24, 2012 13:54 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Matt Kory
BP staff

I'm guessing there's more to it than that alone.

Feb 24, 2012 15:14 PM
 
apollo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/chief-says-braun-wouldnt-have-been-cleared-under-wada-code/2012/02/24/gIQAYy0SYR_story.html

Braun is guilty by WADA.

And why are my earlier comments masked by low rating? I called no one names, no slurs, just a web link to a yahoo story, and expressed an opinion that is mainstream, but I guess not for this site, which prides itself on openmindedness. RB may be innocent but the facts out there do not support him. The idea that a delay in testing caused this is ludicrous; the sample would have been stored in a fridge over the weekend. It was probably better in the courier's fridge than a fedex depot, but October in MIL may be cool too.

Feb 24, 2012 16:24 PM
rating: -1
 
juiced

The protocols do NOT allow for lab tech to take samples home and store them in kitchen refrigerators. They must be kept by authorized authorities in lab settings and under lab refrigeration, and they must be delivered there immediately. That's what prevents claims of tampering and framing, but it's also necessary to ensure the scientific reliability of the test result. You cant leave a urine test or blood test at room temperature for very long before it becomes unsuitable for accurate testing of any kind.

Feb 24, 2012 15:26 PM
rating: 4
 
apollo
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

And suppose the courier can account for the sample and the refrigerator, and the vial was NOT tampered with? I am in health care (not toxicology though) and i will tell you that lots of specimens are reliably tested despite not following procedure perfectly. Or would a person rather get stuck again, have another colonscopy, or laparotomy etc. Stuff happens, we consider the evidence and when we can be sure of specimen ID given all the redundancies built into a specimen collection, even if it is not perfect, it is almost always useable. If it is not, there is no point in running it.

It is a loophole, it is a technicality until Braun can tell us why this deviation in protocol can cause a false positive. he has had 4 months to figure something out. And that link from that horrible Wash Post has WADA official saying that Braun would not be cleared by them.

Now, censor me again.

Feb 24, 2012 16:34 PM
rating: -7
 
monkey

"stuff happens"


Man, I hope you aren't on the jury if I ever get wrongly convicted of a crime

Feb 25, 2012 00:40 AM
rating: 5
 
John Carter

It is not up to Braun specifically to come up with a plausible reason how his sample was tainted or switched. He is not an expert on that. He is only an expert on what he has put in his body. It is enough that the sample wasn't handled properly. As he stated, he doesn't want to make any false accusations, because he knows what that feels like.

Feb 25, 2012 20:52 PM
rating: 1
 
tonyfranco

Ultimately, in my mind what I don't understand is that Braun offered to have a DNA test to verify that the sample was his. MLB denied to do that. My question is why?

Really, what else could have Braun done to prove his innocense. From day 1 he was astonished by the positive test. He hired attorney's and began the fight. And he offered to have a DNA test to prove that the positive sample was not his.

This is an example of a case where you are guilty till proven otherwise. And even then, you're not cleared. I have heard from multiple reports that he and his attorneys are barred from going into the complete details of his case.

Last point, if you're going to assume that Braun is guilty then I have several unanswered questions. What of the 25 tests that came back negative? Even if you assume he was previously was using something that wasn't detected, did he suddenly become stupid and use something new that could be detected?

Feb 25, 2012 07:34 AM
rating: 5
 
KaiserD2

I am amazed both that everyone is so eager to ignore the evidence and even more amazed that anyone who makes obvious points is immediately censored, as I was the first time that I did. You might want to take a look at that first post--there was nothing abusive about it.

Today's New York Times initially said that Braun asked for a DNA test but backed down when MLB took him up on it. It also pointed out that if the tester had immediately taken the sample to FEDEX it would have sat in their office under much less safe conditions for the entire weekend--and testers in all sports have been dealing with this problem for years.

Feb 25, 2012 17:13 PM
rating: 0
 
UtahDave

I manage a small manufacturing plant near Salt Lake City, Utah. We have to do pre-employment drug testing. There is a well understood chain of custody necessary for these tests. Is this really the best the MLB could do? It either sits in someone's refrigerator all weekend or in a FedEx warehouse? I think what we have is an administrative failure at MLB. RB was the beneficiary of a half-baked (pun intended) policy by MLB. Their poor planning was their own undoing. Now they are acting like a jilted bride. RB may have gotten off on a technicality, but that's not his fault.

That said, if RB was using, let's just watch his performance this year. As a Pirate's fan I hope he was using and now he's not. We need all the help we can get.

Feb 25, 2012 19:09 PM
rating: 0
 
juiced

Braun demolishing the naysayers. 3 bombs tonight, up to 7 on the year. So much for the nonsense that he's a steroid creation.

Apr 30, 2012 21:48 PM
rating: 0
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
Wezen-Ball Extra: Majo... (02/24)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article The BP Broadside: Mann... (02/22)
Next Column >>
The BP Broadside: Zimm... (02/27)
Next Article >>
The Stats Go Marching ... (02/24)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Premium Article What You Need to Know: Fiiiiiiiiiiight!
Premium Article The Call-Up: Kevin Plawecki
Premium Article The Call-Up: Carlos Rodon
Premium Article Minor League Update: Games of April 17-19, 2...
Premium Article Monday Morning Ten Pack: April 20, 2015
BP Wrigleyville
Tools of Ignorance: The San Diego Hedgehogs?

MORE FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2012
The Stats Go Marching In: The Art of Handlin...
Wezen-Ball Extra: Major League Baseball's La...
Premium Article Collateral Damage: The DL Kings: Chad Fox
The BP Wayback Machine: Spring Training, Wha...
Fantasy Article Preseason Value Picks: Second, Short, and Ca...
Fantasy Article Fantasy Beat: Henderson Alvarez: Fantasy Sle...
The BP First Take: Friday, February 24

MORE BY STEVEN GOLDMAN
2012-02-29 - Premium Article Prospectus Preview: AL Central 2012 Preseaso...
2012-02-28 - Premium Article Prospectus Preview: AL Central 2012 Preseaso...
2012-02-27 - The BP Broadside: Zimmerman, Rendon, and the...
2012-02-24 - The BP Broadside: Say It Ain't So, Braun!
2012-02-24 - The BP Wayback Machine: Spring Training, Wha...
2012-02-22 - Premium Article The BP Broadside: Manny Ramirez Through the ...
2012-02-17 - The BP Broadside: The Kid's Biggest Moment
More...

MORE THE BP BROADSIDE
2012-03-02 - The BP Broadside: The Final Broadside
2012-02-27 - The BP Broadside: Zimmerman, Rendon, and the...
2012-02-24 - The BP Broadside: Say It Ain't So, Braun!
2012-02-22 - Premium Article The BP Broadside: Manny Ramirez Through the ...
2012-02-17 - The BP Broadside: The Kid's Biggest Moment
2012-02-16 - The BP Broadside: Fernandomania and Linsanit...
More...