I did not completely follow all of your reasoning, but i will attempt to answer your last question: “Under what grounds would an arbitrator rule against the submitted evidence in favor of the respondent?”

I don’t think the arbitrator cares one iota about public opinion, and I am not sure there was much of a public opinion until after his ruling had been reached. I am not sure I have seen all of the controlling language from the agreement, but from what I have seen, there were a few parts that he could have found a violation. “Cool and secure” was a passage that seemed pretty open for interpretation, though I would think that industry standard would rule the day on that one. I would think, outside of a broken radiator making his basement 90 degrees, that his basement would fit industry standards on that, considering that was his company’s standard operating procedure. A really disappointing thing that the judge could rule is that the guy should have dropped the box of 6 urine specimens at a FedEx location to sit until Monday at 5PM. That would take a pretty crazy reading of the language I saw.

I feel confident, though, that the arbitrator will explain his ruling pretty well, and it will probably (hopefully) be something we haven’t even discussed. It may still be controversial, but hopefully it is grounded well in logic.

These things are so open to opinion, I really do wish there were 3 independent arbitrators. That would lend a lot more credibility to the system.

As for the leak, I think the reason there are rumors that it came from the Braun camp is that it came with what appeared to be a defense-pushed falsity. Right from the start, the leaks were saying that Braun tested positive with an “unheard of” testosterone level that was “the highest ever recorded.” Those things, assuming the reported levels do not have a zero added to the end of them, are just completely false. But if I had to bet on the person that leaked the results, I’d probably say that it was some low level employee. These things have a way of leaking to the public, and I just can’t feel that sorry for the players. If their union actually acted in their self-interests, the testing process would be a whole lot more stringent, and tests would NOT include recreational drugs. They would only tests for PEDs, so that guys who didn’t use wouldn’t feel pressure to use in order to compete. But, for some reason, the unions are always the last ones to agree to testing.

This thing threads weird, so hopefully you see this correctly..

What I said is; “what may have had the hackles of the arbitrator” up. Not what I believe (there is a HUGE difference). Or did you miss that part which sets the context for one possible interpretation of why this ruling was reached? So slow that thing down there, chief. (And it was also reported that somebody inside MLB leaked the details, which were very precise at the time of leakage, which was also very early in the process. And only the Arbitrator and the parties know which version he believed. And the ruling itself does say something, now doesn’t it).

But, this is what you are going to stand on; “a rumor that a former player heard a rumor that Braun leaked exacting details of the case early”? Sounds like “beyond hearsay” to me. “I know a guy who knows a guy who says he knows Braun did it”. Good luck getting that admitted. Where I come from that’s called “thin ice”. And frankly, that is just as big a “wingnut conspiracy” theory as claiming there was a mole in the collection process, tainting samples for some undisclosed reason of malious. So that’s a wash. One wingnut is just as good as another where I come from.

Prove it, though. The burden is on MLB. Take that to the arbitrator and see where that gets you. Obviously he ruled in favor of Braun, now didn’t he? And it looks more like a procedural ruling than an outright finding of innocence or guilt to me. But what is NOT in traversal is the information was leaked in advance, and in direct violation of Braun’s due process rights. (and in matters like this, I usually go by who actually gets damaged the most by the leak. Why would Braun shoot a massive hole in his foot early on?)

Mocking due process? Seriously, that’s the contractual binding agreement controlling the handling of all of this. So, if it’s in your interest to violate the contract, that’s cool because due process is just BS and motherhood. But if I breach it, out come the longknives, and Braun goes on the rack for 50 days? Really?

And, frankly, MLB is not in a position to be indicted/convicted of anything (this is a civil matter involving a monopoly with special status). However, blackening the eyes of any criticism does not speak well that they will get it right next time, which is the larger point being made here.. You just cannot see it as you are emotionally invested in nothing short of Braun being convicted.

Sorry to rile you up, though. That wasn’t my intent. Just looking for reasons why an arbitrator would cut so hard against the grain of public opinion, which HE in fact DID. Instead of smearing and dismissing me so offhandly, explain THAT. Under what grounds would an arbitrator rule against the submitted evidence in favor of the respondent? You’re a lawyer, and it’s not a big list that can overcome the weight of a failed test.

The only good thing is when I post at this time of night I wont have to listen to him whine because his mommy doesnt let him use the computer in her basement after 9pm

I still think Craig was creating a strawman to paint people who believe that Braun took PEDs into a corner. Why would I need to take that back or admit I was wrong?

Would it surprise you that a former player reported on a rumor that it was actually Braun’s camp that leaked the rumor?

At best, you are being intellectually dishonest. At worst, you are being a tantruming child.

Ok, so now that the comments section has basically taken a dump on your face in response to this post, are you ready to admit that you’re wrong? Otherwise you’d be quite the hypocrite.

This goes directly to MLB’s crediblity (or lack thereof), as there is absolutely no doubt that somebody in the chain of authority, consciously, with knowing intent, violated Braun’s due process rights, solely to break the story, and knowing full well, it would start an incendiary firestorm as a result of said actions.

And that is “a genie that can never be put back in the bottle”, and as this was an arbitration case, there is no actual remedy available to Braun against such unprofessional, unethical, and opportunistic behavior, short of ruling against the claims of MLB.

In essense, MLB’s behavior in this case is more tainted than Braun’s “alleged” test sample, as they failed to protect the very information and existence of the test, and this destroys their claim, on its face, of being THE modicum of the morally superior agency (“so give us the benefit of the doubt, even though the burden is on us”), and lending perhaps undue credibility to Braun’s claim that agents for MLB botched the handling of the sample (if they had no problem blowing out his rights by mishandling the information, what’s a little bottle of piss amongst friends?); whereas, if they had kept their damned mouths shut like real professionals (as per the agreement), and respected due process to begin with, none of this controversy may have been possible in the first place, and many of you would have had what you desire; Braun’s pelt on the rack for 50 days.

You may not agree with this, but saving due process from the ravages of mob rule (which is exactly what MLB did by leaking the details) happens more than many would like to imagine, especially, when you have a ruling party who actually believes in the legal system; instead of being easily swayed by popular opinion. Which also accounts for why Nancy Grace, and her ilk, are so consistently wrong about legal matters.

Braun 1, MLB’s right foot 0.

(The real question here is if MLB learns from its mistakes, as openly violating due process is a very serious offense that smacks more of hubris; than justice).

He is on an Independent League deal, but at same time could very well be registered with league office as a Free Agent (could be as simple as someone representing him filed the paperwork or he did in hopes of getting a spring training invite), which means the league is indeed within it’s rights to ask for a drug test (just like any of us trying to get certain jobs in the real world, it CAN be a stipulation for even applying let alone being employed).

Way to go Bud! I can only assume he has good blackmail on the other owners to keep the commisioner job, or else no one on earth wants it.

With that being said… I did grow up playing ball with Justin. From little league through high school. We’ve kept in touch over the years while he’s been through the minors. And I can rest assure, that even if he avoided a test, it wasn’t because of Performance Enhancing Drugs.

And yes, when you are in the minor leagues, independent ball, playing winter leagues in other countries, it does become a tad difficult to hold down a consistent address. Living at places on a day to day, week to week, month to month basis. Never knowing when your getting traded, released, promoted or demoted. You kind of live where ever you can lay your head down sometimes.

Does any of this make him guilty of taking PED’s. It makes him guilty of chasing a dream. Many guys would have givin up after playing being up and down and let go as much as he has. But he continues to chase that dream of making it one day. And here are all the critics, that because of misunderstanding, miscommunication, people are quick to assume that he’s guilty of taking PED’s.

But other than that, nice try.

I stopped bothering with him yesterday when all of this became abundantly clear.

I don’t really get into moralizing about guys who take PED’s. To me, I see it a lot like I see truck drivers who take amphetamines in order to stay awake and get their cargo delivered on time. It is not something I would do, due to health risks, but I have a hard time blaming someone for trying to get an edge in an industry where everyone is trying to get an edge and millions of dollars are at stake. I feel the same way about poverty stricken Dominican kids who lie about their age to try to make a better life for themselves and their family.

Sure, Braun may have broken the rules, but I don’t see how it is much different than Babe Ruth corking his bat, almost every player from the ’60′s through the mid-80′s taking greenies, players stealing signs, and pitchers scuffing baseballs.

I wish I could aspire to such a high position, but I don’t think I possess the required skill set. Maybe with a few more years of picking up the shit my dog leaves along the side walk I can apply for the piss boy job.

Oh, and I’m with Craig here, procedures are everything to ensure reliability. It’s call the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Look it up. It makes sense in the law and in this circumstance.

The standard to be applied is if he was reasonable in his actions. As far as I can tell, he was. But this is all a side point. It is perfectly reasonable to think Braun is guilty if there is total consensus in the testing and scientific community that none of the actions taken would have tainted the sample.

Your ostrich with his head in the sand routine is pretty silly..

PS. For the record, I’ve never liked Braun. Probably b/c I just don’t like the Brew Crew that much. I really don’t have a good reason so don’t expect one, but I still sit here today not burning him at the stake for all of this…yet. I’m still giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Craig’s not lumping all opposing positions against his as a “Procedures don’t matter”. That’s a strawman. He’s stating his opinion, and leaving it up to those who want to go with evidence that has been ruled untrustworthy to place themselves in the category of “Procedures don’t matter”. You can, of course, look at Dick Pound for nice explanation of that position: “He’s won on a very thin legal technicality that has no substantive value at all,” quoting the big Dick, former head of the World Anti-Doping Agency. “Legal technicality” is what he calls “a procedural violation”. Hence, without too much parsing, we get: “Procedures don’t matter”. If your position is that of Dick’s then your argument is that of Dick’s. No straw anywhere.

You state “While I appreciate the much-repeated argument that he never failed a drug test before this one, that doesn’t carry as much weight when you realize that what he tested positive for is actually undetectable 36-48 hours.after put into the system.” I haven’t seen that before. Can you provide a source?

I completely agree with you on this point: “I fully agree that if collectively bargained procedure was not followed, then Braun should not be suspended. ”

I completely disagree with you on your next point: “Of course, that does not mean that one needs to be too rigid in holding the collector unreasonably to the exact wording in the contract.” Yes it does mean that we have to follow exactly what the wording was. At that point, the test is dismissed and whatever the results were are insignificant. The results could state that Braun is the love child of a penguin and unicorn. And we should ignore the results. Why do we have the wording in the contract if we aren’t going to follow it? Do the players not have any rights?

Lastly “What does appeal to me is that the reigning NL MVP flunked a drug test.”
This demonstrably false. The test is invalid. He didn’t flunk anything. The test might as well didn’t happen.

When process isn’t followed, the results should be ignored.

This case will also probably highlight the need for three independent arbitrators, instead of one. That would surely lower the chances of a “bad” decision.

But I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that Craig seems to be broad-brushing many of us in order to not have to back off of his original position that if we think Braun juiced, we don’t believe in drug testing.

I actually think Craig and I are closer together in our opinions of this situation that one might believe, even if we are far apart on the politics of it all. I fully agree that if collectively bargained procedure was not followed, then Braun should not be suspended. Of course, that does not mean that one needs to be too rigid in holding the collector unreasonably to the exact wording in the contract.

But I find it far more interesting that Braun was most likely using. Craig does not want to take a position on this, and I respect that. Due process and exact wording of contracts does not appeal to me as a baseball fan (no, that does not mean I do not believe in those things). What does appeal to me is that the reigning NL MVP flunked a drug test. The fact that his numbers weren’t a huge spike this past year from previous years could prove to be more condemning if his numbers fall off this year. While I appreciate the much-repeated argument that he never failed a drug test before this one, that doesn’t carry as much weight when you realize that what he tested positive for is actually undetectable 36-48 hours.after put into the system.

And if Jose Bautista is to be believed, there is nothing random about drug testing when you are someone that is highly suspected.

And no matter what side of the issue you fall on, this story just does not instill much confidence in the system MLB has in place. Then again, I think pretty much all of the drug testing policies in the major American sports leagues are weak. They definitely cast a net with gigantic holes.