“Less culpable” is not the same thing is innocent. So if you ask us to look at Barry Bonds stats as essentially worthless, stop asking us to make an exception for Braun just because he’s a great public speaker with great lawyers.

The sword you used to slay Barry Bonds is the same one you’re using to defend Ryan Braun.

possibility
possibility
<bpossibility</b

We played once a week, and I think I was Gimli (or not), a character from Lord of the Rings. We played it as a board game. We used dice to determine moves, and hits and degree of power etc. I think there were also cards used to determine other things that I just don’t remember any more. But I do remember it lasted long into the night, and beer and pizza were involved.

Arguing over whether it was a “technicality” is pointless. I haven’t read every comment here, so I hope I’m not just repeating what someone else said, but there is one thing to keep in mind that is easily overlooked in the passionate debate of drugs in the UNIONIZED workplace. I emphasize that word because the parties to a collective bargaining agreement must both live up to the written language — the rules — to which they have bargained to agreement, and which they will follow in conduct of all their dealings together. And in drug testing procedures in the CBA, it is not at all uncommon for there to be specific language to the effect that if the procedure is not followed exactly, and to the letter, the result will be void.

There is also a reason why the panel of arbitrators agreed to have a ruling issued without an explanatory written opinion. At least one of the parties — and I think we all know which one — knew that they had a seriously flawed case, but could not or would not want this exposed with language issued by the neutral arbitrator that could hurt them in future cases, or in litigation.

And as far as any appeals go, the chances of an appeal by MLB being upheld by the courts is slim to none. Arbitrators’ rulings are generally not overturned unless the arbitrator blantantly ignored the parties CBA, or if his ruling was in reckless violation of public policy and would have harmed the public in some significant way. Certainly not the case here.

Only one disagreement with the article. Rules governing drug testing, since they affect the livelihood of the employee (resulting in suspension or discharge) are held to the highest standard, not lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What seems to be a “technicality” will cast doubt on the test result and nullify it. And that’s what happened here.

I freely admit that he may have used. All I’m saying is, the sample that came back positive is no good. They should have tested him again, and continued to test him, until the collection procedure that was laid out was appropriately followed.

This is why no one like lawyers, Craig. Everyone smells blood in the water and then you guys have to come in and stubbornly insist that we actually follow the rules that we’ve all agreed upon. It’s a real bummer.

You were doing alright until you stated “Sorry, Braun haters . . .” It is perfectly reasonable to have a different opinion about this situation without hating the man. There’s no need to ascribe motives to others. Why do people do that? For the record I like Braun as a player. I root for an American League team so I don’t have any real interest in seeing him suspended. However, it is possible to still have a different opinion on the issue.

The bottom line is: You wrote it chump, so wear it like a man and stop whining like a little girl.

And what’s with the ad hominem attack? Are you getting frustrated? Gee, things must be tough at Walmart these days, even the cashiers are getting testy.

I would also note that even the 24 hour Fedex locations do not make any shipments after 4-5 pm saturday. So the collector can drop off the sample at Fedex on saturday night, where it will sit at room temperature until it is shipped monday. Or he can keep it in a ‘cool secure place’ per p.39 of the testing protocol (i.e., the collector’s fridge), and then deliver it to fedex monday morning. Which presents a greater risk of contamination? If the cup remains seales in the collector’s fridge, with Braun’s signature on the seal, and the collector testifies that he maintained it in a secure, cool place for the weekend, what’s the problem?

Nothing like starting out with a Straw Man Fallacy:
“In almost all cases, the people who say that someone “got off on a technicality” or took advantage of a “loophole” really mean “I think the SOB was guilty and because of that I don’t care if the proper safeguards and protocols were followed!” It’s a ridiculous stance.”

So good of you to interpret what people mean so… generally.

Whether or not someone got off on a technicality is a separate thing from believing they’re guilty or not. A “technicality” normally deals with the process around a case, and not the substance… like how evidence was handled, or documentation prepared, or was a form filled out properly and filed in a timely way.

Braun didn’t face a finding of guilt or innocence. Nothing was settled about the substance of the case besides that it couldn’t continue.

In other words, a technicality.

However, I still want to know how and why.

And now I will tell the following tale . . . phlebotomists are just as likely to be fine upstanding citizens as they are to have a screw loose. Now phlebotomists are not likely to be the one who is collecting and transporting a urine sample – but it is does happen on occasion. I know of this because one of my friends was a medtech in the SEALS. He finishes his duty, comes home and immediately dives into, shall we say, an alternative lifestyle. I heard a few stories that would change your political outlook for good. But basically he’s so traumatized he can’t sleep at night. So he used his own sleep aid.

Anyway, by day my friend is known as the best phlebotomist in the County – constantly being called to area hospitals to get veins that other staff phlebs failed to get. By night, he’d inject HIMSELF with sodium pentothal (that’s an anesthesia often used for surgeries) – you don’t get high from sodium pentothal – you go straight to passed out.

Anyway, come to find out, a large number of the people that worked for the lab he worked at (MAJOR national lab testing company, btw) are either drug addicts or borderline nutjobs.

Incidentally, ‘Ryan’ eventually shook off a lot of the nightmares, but it took years. He is happily married with kids and does something totally legal and far away from the medical field.

All this is to say that this story about Braun’s sample being mishandled does not surprise me.

And this just dawned on me . . . here is where MLB is probably VERY nervous . . . the next time an MLB star gets caught legitimately – whats to stop that player from hiring an intermediary to track down the courier and negotiate a very handsome reward for raising doubt about ‘chain of custody’? Because afterall, isn’t investing $100,000, or even $250,000 in sabotaging the testing worth avoiding a suspension and the embarrassment?

Manny? Ya taking notes?

Besides, if the system had any integrity, why do we all think we know what Braun’s numbers were? The system failed him; and he should walk. I hope he was clean. But we won’t know one way or the other from that test. And that is as should be.

Dear Urkel yada yada yada, many many words, yada yada yada you still don’t get the point yada yada yada, you can’t take a joke yada yada yada, I went to Columbia, yada yada yada, a real institute of higher learning, yada yada yada. Fordham yada yada yada, that’s a real joke.

The real question is, how would MLB handle a compromised sample that showed up on the test as negative. Does anyone really believe they would go, “Well, the sample wasn’t handled properly, but it turned out negative. I guess it’s negative!”. I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the player would have to be re-tested. The original result would be considered null and void.

So why do people expect anything different from a positive test. When the sample was mishandled, whatever result came from that, at least in my mind (and probably anyone with any sort of training in the sciences) is that IT IS NULL AND VOID. The result doesn’t exist because it came from a compromised sample.

Sorry Braun haters. The positive test everyone is referring to failed to exist (for all intents and purposes) the moment it was mishandled.