Skip to content

Ryan Braun’s attorney criticizes the collector’s statement

Mar 1, 2012, 5:31 PM EDT

braun tall getty Getty Images

Dino Laurenzi Jr. is the man we’ve come to call “the collector” in the Ryan Braun case.  He defended himself the other day following Ryan Braun’s sharp criticism of him at his press conference. Now Braun’s attorney, David Cornwell, has issued a statement defending Braun from the defense:

“Ryan Braun presented a winning defense in the forum that counted. The collector’s attempt to re-litigate his conduct is inappropriate.  The landmark decision in Ryan’s favor was based on the evidence & the plain meaning of the words in baseball’s Joint Drug Program.  Both Major League Baseball and Major League Baseball Players Association should be applauded because their Joint Program worked.”

Again, as we’ve said a number of times, both Braun — as the accused — and Laurenzi — whose conduct, whatever he may say about it or what we may think of it, was determined to not have adhered to the Joint Drug Agreement by the aribitrator — are interested parties here.  Each has something to lose if their conduct is cast in a bad light. As such, these competing statements, while interesting, do little to get us to any absolute truth here.

Absent further details about the specific reasons why the abritrator ruled the way he did, we’re no further ahead in substantive knowledge here.  It’s just people taking swipes at one another.

103 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. gendisarray - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:36 PM

    “Absent further details about the specific reasons why the abritrator ruled the way he did, we’re no further ahead in substantive knowledge here. It’s just people taking swipes at one another.”

    Pretty apt description of the HBT comment sections over the past few days pretty too. Good times, though.

    • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM

      Actually, Cornwall’s statement does shed some light on the “specific reasons” for the ruling. By saying that the win was based on “the plain meaning” of the drug policy, and that the collector’s statement that he followed the procedures was an improper attempt to “re-litigate” the issue, he effectively confirms that they won based on the collector’s technical violation of the protocol. As the lawyer that presented the case, Cornwall obviously knows which points carried the day; if the substantive basis for the victory was anything else (e.g., bacterial degradation), he would have said so.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:30 PM

        Actually the statement says:

        ” The landmark decision in Ryan’s favor was based on the evidence & the plain meaning of the words in baseball’s Joint Drug Program. ”

        The evidence could mean multiple things. We shouldn’t just assume that it refers to the JDP.

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:37 PM

        Every court/arbitrator decision is nominally based on “the evidence” in the case. If he had anything more concrete than the “language” of the JDP, that would undermine the collector’s statement, he would come out and say it. Being intentionally vague about “the evidence” does nothing to help his client’s image, which is the obvious purpose of his statement. No reason for him to hold back at that point.

      • Cris E - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:41 PM

        Where did you get “the collector’s technical violation of the protocol”?

        As the lawyer that presented the case, Cornwall obviously has a vested interest in also winning his client’s case in the court of public opinion. Let’s just settle down until the official word comes from Arbiter Das.

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:57 PM

        Cris E – Cornwell is addressing Laurenzi’s explanation of the collection process, says it is an attempt to “re-litigate” what Das decided. He then says they won based on “the evidence” and the “plain meaning” of the policy. That is a pretty clear statement that their case was based on evidence that what Laurenzi did “violated” the language of the JDP. I completely agree that Cornwell has a vested interest in winning his client’s case in the court of public opinion. At this point, the public believes Braun’s test was positive for testosterone but that he got off on a technicality. If Cornwell had any actual evidence to the contrary, now would be a logical time to say it. Since he does not, but only vaguely refers to “the evidence”, it is obvious that they have no such evidence.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:10 PM

        “Every court/arbitrator decision is nominally based on “the evidence” in the case.”

        The problem is we don’t know what the evidence is. It’s pure speculation at this point but we can’t just assume that there was no other evidence than the language in the JDP.

        “If he had anything more concrete than the “language” of the JDP, that would undermine the collector’s statement, he would come out and say it.”

        Would he? The arbiters written decision hasn’t even been released.

        “He then says they won based on “the evidence” and the “plain meaning” of the policy. That is a pretty clear statement that their case was based on evidence that what Laurenzi did “violated” the language of the JDP.

        No it’s not. It could just as easily mean “we presented evidence” and “the policy was violated.” They can be different things. Not saying they are but they can be.

        ” If Cornwell had any actual evidence to the contrary, now would be a logical time to say it. Since he does not, but only vaguely refers to “the evidence”, it is obvious that they have no such evidence.”

        Not true again. See above.

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:40 PM

        “we can’t just assume that there was no other evidence…”

        We don’t have to assume it; this is a statement from the lawyer who tried the case and has first-hand knowledge of the evidence (as opposed to articles from ESPN, Yahoo, etc. which are all based on second-hand reports). It is obvious that his purpose in making the statement is to defend his client, who is getting absolutely destroyed in the court of public opinion because 90% of people believe that he tested positive but won because of a technical collection procedure violation. The most effective way to refute that would be to tell us what the evidence is that shows that is incorrect — IF IT EXISTS. But his vague reference to “the evidence” does not accomplish that. Sure, it is possible that Cornwell is intentionally holding back, it just doesn’t make any sense in this context. But apparently you can’t make those deductions yourself without seeing the arbitrator’s report (which may never become public).

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:53 PM

        “It is obvious that his purpose in making the statement is to defend his client…”

        Of course. That’s his job.

        “The most effective way to refute that would be to tell us what the evidence is that shows that is incorrect — IF IT EXISTS. But his vague reference to “the evidence” does not accomplish that. Sure, it is possible that Cornwell is intentionally holding back, it just doesn’t make any sense in this context.”

        The evidence reference isn’t vague. He made an evidence reference that you interpreted as vague because he didn’t state openly state the exact evidence. Of course he’s not going to spill the evidence out, especially because the report hasn’t been filed (or released). Maybe there isn’t any. Maybe he’ll come out with it after the report is filed….no one here knows. But, to me, it makes sense to hold back now.

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:14 PM

        Not stating the exact evidence is pretty much the definition of vague. Why wouldn’t he spill the evidence out if he wants to do “his job” of rehabilitating his client’s image? Cornwell can’t count on the arbitrator’s report being made public or necessarily having a ton of detail. It would be one thing if he didn’t make any statement at all, but it is clear from Braun’s press conference and this statement that they are trying to save his reputation. And since he does refer to one piece of evidence (the collector’s conduct), if they had any other evidence of anything more than a technical violation, he would put his cards on the table now rather than letting the public continue to assume it was a technicality for several more weeks or longer until (if) Das releases the report.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:30 PM

        It’s not really the definition of vague. He didn’t say “the evidence has something to do with things related to items used during sessions that may or may not involve drugs.” He just says “the evidence.” The fact of the matter is that you think its vague because he didn’t tell you what the evidence is. That’s not vague, that’s just saying there is evidence but not revealing it.

        He also says: “The collector’s attempt to re-litigate his conduct is inappropriate.” So if he feels that is inappropriate, why would he “re-litigate” the case in the public by detailing his entire defense? It would look pretty ironic if he did so.

        Again, why jump to conclusions one way or the other.

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM

        Vague, general, whatever word you want to use–it is the opposite of being specific.

        By criticizing the attempt to re-litigate, he’s basically saying “once you lose, you can’t have a do-over”, so it’s inappropriate for the collector to suggest the decision was wrong. But Braun wouldn’t be “re-litigating” anything because he won. He’d just be explaining WHY he won. Which is what Braun TRIED to do at the press conference when he strongly suggested that the collector tampered with the sample, which is the very reason the collector had to make his statement which Cornwell is now complaining about! He had no problem saying he was “very concerned and very suspicious” about the collection process last week, why clam up now? The answer is obvious – because they got nothing. No need to jump to conclusions to figure that out.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:13 PM

        “But Braun wouldn’t be “re-litigating” anything because he won. He’d just be explaining WHY he won.”

        That’s not true because the re-litigation wouldn’t be taking place at another hearing but in the open for the “benefit” of the public and public perception. Any explanations about why he won are going to be met with even more criticism and public judgement like “I googoogled it an that’s unpossible!.” Which is why it makes so much more sense to wait until the arbiter files his report.

        “because they got nothing. No need to jump to conclusions to figure that out.”

        I’m glad you’re so clairvoyant.

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:24 PM

        If he had anything legit, it wouldn’t be criticized. That’s the whole point, people don’t inherently hate Braun, and most reasonable baseball fans would like to give him the benefit of the doubt — IF he would come out and explain why the test came out the way it did. Instead, the best thing he can come up with is to point the finger at the collector and claim that he tampered with it, which is a load of BS because the seals were intact by all accounts.

        I don’t have to be clairvoyant — I read what his lawyer said (nothing of substance), I heard what Braun said (“uh, the collector did it”, obvious BS), and apply common sense and logic.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:31 PM

        “I don’t have to be clairvoyant — I read what his lawyer said (nothing of substance), I heard what Braun said (“uh, the collector did it”, obvious BS), and apply common sense and logic.”

        The point is that you DO have to be clairvoyant because you can’t gain any perspective (or better yet actual information) based on what you read. If you weren’t present at the hearing, then all this stuff is just wild speculation.

        Also, Will Carroll has said sources told him that Braun’s camp was able to reproduce the test results. So there’s that. (Yes still wild speculation)

        I’d like to see all the information but I don’t have any. All I have is a bunch of conjecture from ‘sources” and the morality police. Until I have that, I’ll refrain from my judgement of him.

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

        Of course I can gain perspective by what the player himself and his lawyer say. It would be speculation if it was just based on what some reporters with second hand knowledge were saying (like Will Carroll). But here we can draw reasonable conclusions based on what those directly involved have to say for themselves.

        On the Carroll thing, it is looking very dubious because he is the only one who has reported that. Braun at his press conference easily could have said, ‘once my team looked into it, we found that the conditions in which my sample was stored could cause a huge spike in natural testosterone.’ But he didn’t say that. Instead he said that “we found out some things about the collector … that made us very concerned and very suspicious”. In other words, he implied the collector tampered with it, but said nothing about the delay causing a spike. Again, this is not speculation — this was Braun’s opportunity to explain himself, followed by his attorney’s statement today.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 2, 2012 at 7:05 AM

        “Again, this is not speculation — this was Braun’s opportunity to explain himself, followed by his attorney’s statement today.”

        Wrong again. It IS speculation. Because, again, you don’t know a) what evidence the lawyer is referring to and b) what evidence they did or did not present during the hearing. Just because they didn’t tell the public how they argued the case does NOT mean they didn’t introduce evidence or make an argument about the test results. They do not have to spill their whole argument in the media especially before the arbiter’s decision is in writing.

        “On the Carroll thing, it is looking very dubious because he is the only one who has reported that”

        As far as I can read, only one source has leaked the synthetic testosterone argument and that for some reason has sufficient credibility. Only one article broke the story of Braun testing positive, but that for some reason has sufficient credibility. I’m not saying Carroll’s piece is correct, but I’m saying maybe we should at least give it some thought, no? I mean it’s really easy for a writer (and/or commenter) to construct a column condemning Braun for cheating without including that piece of information. Because that piece of information (if true; again I don’t know the validity of it) would throw a wrench into the piece. So it is really surprising that people who are writing about Braun, similar to the steroids and HoF columns, leave out crucial information that doesn’t support their case?

        Again just me speculating. Because I have NO idea what evidence the actual decision was based on and I have NO idea on why the arbiter ruled the way he did.

        Like it or not, we’re all speculating.

      • shzastl - Mar 2, 2012 at 11:13 AM

        If you choose to believe that what the principals in the case say is nothing more than ‘speculation’, that’s your prerogative. I think what they HAVEN’T said speaks volumes …

    • christinas22 - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

      Looking for someone to share your fantasies with?
      Welcome to—onenightcupid.c/0/m—the best place to seek casual fun and no strings attached relationship. Hundreds of thousands of sexy women and handsome guys are active there. Come in and meet the perfect person, e.x.a.c.t.l.y. what you want for yourself. +_+

  2. Ben - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:36 PM

    That’s where they’re wrong–for better or worse, the court of public opinion is all that matters, and judging by the comments on HBT, the public has turned against Braun (if our motley crew can in any way count as a public–god help us if we are).

    We just need to see Das’s report.

    • kinggw - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM

      Your right. Braun and his camp need to shut up and stop acting as if he was innocent or MLB exonerated him because he was clean. He got off on a technicality, now he should just stop talking and play ball. For me his opinion on the matter became irrelvant when WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), said that what the collector did or did not do, didnt affect the sample and in their eyes he would not have been absolved. Regardless of Das’ report there will always be a cloud over Braun, the more he and his legal team talk the bigger it will be.

      • Kevin S. - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM

        Interesting. For me, WADA’s opinion became irrelevant years ago when it became clear they were nothing more than arrogant blowhards more interested in selling their product than actually coming to a reasonable stance on drug usage in sports.

    • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:28 PM

      The court of public opinion doesn’t really matter where it counts. That court isn’t in control of his playing time or suspension.

      • blabidibla - Mar 2, 2012 at 10:32 AM

        Nope, but they do control endorsement money.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 2, 2012 at 10:34 AM

        If only he was able to make millions of dollars in other ways.

  3. djpostl - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM

    Lol, so his client can toss the guy under the bus all damn day, intimating that he might have tampered with it, but the guy can’t defend himself, huh? F***in’ lawyers.

    • tonyc920 - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM

      GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT OR DON’T COMMENT !! Never at any time has the “Collector” been accused of tampering with the sample or any indication that anybody tampered. The argument was regarding the protocol of handling and storage of the sample in accordance to the rules agreed upon by both MLB and the MLBPA. Got it ???

      • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:15 PM

        Get your facts straight or don’t comment. If you don’t think they’ve cast aspersions on the collector, go re-read Braun’s press conference.

      • djpostl - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:43 PM

        Um get your facts straight moron. Braun mentioned him several times in his press conference dipshit.

      • djpostl - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM

        Lol “Got it” yet idiot?

    • alldonesmith - Mar 2, 2012 at 10:34 PM

      Lawyers like this guy give the rest of us a bad name. I found this press release highly offensive and inappropriate, especially after all the poor guy did was issue a statement defending himself. There’s bad apples in every bunch, and it’s unfortunate that no one outside the legal community sees just how high a percentage of us are actually trying to work for justice instead of our wallets.

  4. patg1041 - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:44 PM

    Seems pretty shitty if you ask me. Braun gets off and completely without proof infers that his sample was tampered with. And now after the collector defends himself, he has his attorney attack the accuser again. Real classy. Just accept your victory and move on. Anything else that can come out of this is only going to make him look bad.

  5. gendisarray - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM

    “The landmark decision in Ryan’s favor was based on the evidence & the plain meaning of the words in baseball’s Joint Drug Program.”

    Not sure how “landmark” this decision was. Braun likely isn’t the first MLB drug suspension that got overturned on appeal, just the first one that the public got to hear about.

    • vivabear - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM

      Jimmy Rollins tweeted a while back that he’d been led to believe MLB has caught others, but they received no punishment.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM

        The tweet actually suggested that players successfully won their appeal which doesn’t mean they were guilty. Their names were never leaked like Braun’s. Rollins wasn’t the only one who tweeted that either- see Kevin Goldstein and Jay Jaffe.

        The Damn Man@stlcards314 10 Dec 11
        @JimmyRollins11 nobody’s ever had it overturned. Just upsets me that player’s always deny first, then apologize & admit much later.

        @JimmyRollins11
        @stlcards314 never been overturned is “technically” correct. I know of a case that no one will hear about.

        @JeffPassan 11 Dec 11
        @Kevin_Goldstein Legit as in names, or legit as in everybody is sure there are aliens at Area 51 but nobody’s really seen ‘em?

        @Kevin_Goldstein
        @JeffPassan Legit, as in people in front office I trust have told me that cases that never got leaked were turned over.

      • vivabear - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:52 PM

        “successfully won their appeal which doesn’t mean they were guilty”

        Thank you capt obvious.

      • phillyphreak - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM

        “led to believe MLB has caught others, but they received no punishment.”

        Captain Obvious says that this writing implies that people were guilty. That’s not necessarily true.

      • vivabear - Mar 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM

        That’s not what that statement says….but if you jump to that conclusion, that’s your own problem.

  6. El Bravo - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM

    That’s it. Someone get me a torch to go with this pitchfork.

  7. bjbroderick - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM

    Unless the lab itself comes out and says that the signed tamper seals were broken on both of the samples, or that the split came back negative, Braun is guilty. Period. If anything, this kind of “not following protocol” is the type of argument the league would use on a negative result, saying that the delay in testing caused the negative. There is no way a delay in testing would create a false positive.

    The league should continue to use the Prego statement. “It’s In There!”

    • stevejeltzjehricurl - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM

      He’s guilty? Really? In what forum? Your backyard? This comment section? Some parallel universe where Calcaterra has a full head of hair and Rollie Fingers’ mustache?

      Again, the arbitrator’s decision renders the sample effectively non- existent for the purposes of MLB. We’re all entitled to our own opinion on whether Braun cheated, but unless one of us was in the hearing room, or read the transcript, we’re basing that opinion on incomplete information.

      • bjbroderick - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:53 PM

        Dirty piss is dirty piss. If he can prove the sample was tampered with (which he can’t or else he already would have), then we can talk innocence.

        He’s guilty. He just won’t be serving a suspension.

  8. cur68 - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:53 PM

    I really, really, REALLY wish all parties would stuff trying to score points in the press. It gets in the way of me havin’ a laugh here on HBT. I need a laugh.

    • stevejeltzjehricurl - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:50 PM

      Cur, just think about the fact that Bud Selig is spending his week listening to his advisors debate about the best way to store piss. Btw, does Braun’s piss have it’s own Twitter feed yet?

      • cur68 - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:56 PM

        I’d be amazed if the name “MVPee” wasn’t already providing daily updates on its movements.

      • davidpom50 - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:26 PM

        “RyanBraunMVPee” is currently available, if anybody wants to snap that up. Just give me credit!

      • umrguy42 - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:05 PM

        cur, I thought “movements” were the OTHER kind of sample…

  9. phukyouk - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:53 PM

    Braun gains nothing by this. it can only hurt him. he really should take his victory and STFU. seriously! just play the game that you are paid millions to play and leave the matter alone. those that think you guilty will not change their minds and those that think you innocent (or not guilty) will continue to do so as well.

  10. randygnyc - Mar 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM

    I’ve searched everywhere, but can’t find the article I read where it said that the arbiter is not compelled to give an explanation for his ruling. I suppose this means we not even get a written report, beyond “appeal approved”.

  11. randygnyc - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:00 PM

    At this point, I hope MLB leaks all the info they have on this case and the specifics of the test results. Fuck Braun. What a douchebag.

    • larryboodry - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:03 PM

      His lawyer is the real douchebag.

      • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:20 PM

        His lawyer didn’t stand at a podium and insinuate that a family man with a career to look out for tampered with a sample because he roots for a team in the same division as the Brewers. His lawyer may have coached Braun to do it, but Braun wasn’t enough of a man to say “there’s no reason to throw this guy under a bus, let’s move on.”

  12. NFL In L.A. - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM

    Love Braun, hang in there!

  13. sleepyirv - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM

    “The collector’s attempt to re-litigate his conduct is inappropriate.”
    How dare anyone play to the media besides my client and me!

  14. ezthinking - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM

    Funny how the piss boy and MLB can’t come clean and just say the piss boy didn’t follow Drug Testing procedure. People are clamoring for Braun to fess up, but where’s MLB and the piss boy’s acceptance of responsibility? It’s hypocritical to call for one side to fess up and not the other.

    Situation: My employer says I can double park to make a delivery, so I do. The police say I broke the law and write me a ticket. The judge sides with them.

    Lesson: I guess it’s important to know which set of rules I should be following.

    • bjbroderick - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:32 PM

      You do know there’s a cup of Braun piss with too much testosterone, right?

      Your hypothetical should include a big bag of cocaine in the vehicle. Then when they find it, you say “but my employer said I could double park.” Still doesn’t explain the drugs.

    • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:33 PM

      The proper analogy would be if the customer rejected your delivery, claiming the product was spoiled because the delivery driver got a ticket. Your violation of the parking law has nothing to do with the integrity of the product you delivered …

      • ezthinking - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:36 PM

        Wow zero thumbs up. Truth hurts huh folks.

        bj – bag of coke is perfect analogy, can’t search without probable cause. Double parking doesn’t qualify. Whole 4th Amendment thing. Don’t need to explain anything when a violation occurs to get it. You must have been a KGB supporter.

        Shzastl, you don’t get it. And that’s OK. Maybe someday you will. Life teaches alot of lessons.

      • saints97 - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:13 PM

        Where did you get your law degree, EZ?

      • stercuilus65 - Mar 2, 2012 at 12:30 AM

        Ez is a Devry flunk out saints97 while the “Piss Boy” he refers too has two Masters Degrees and is a director of rehabilitation services at a health care facility.
        Puts his posts in perspective I guess.

    • lanflfan - Mar 2, 2012 at 3:57 PM

      ez,

      From everything I have read, the Collector did follow a very poorly designed procedure. MLB should change the procedure immediately, especially if it intends to collect samples at times when it dam well knows transportation to the lab may be difficult.

      Until then, I’d still like to know why the test was so high (were the other samples also that high) and why are Braun and his attorney skewering the delivery agent instead of producing proof Braun was innocent? Looks like a smoke screen to me, and a few people are buying it.

    • alldonesmith - Mar 2, 2012 at 10:38 PM

      I’m a lawyer, and you don’t know what you’re talking about dude.

  15. shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM

    What is the source for this statement? Laurenzi isn’t “re-litigating” anything because (1) he was not a party to the case, and (2) he did not say anything about the language of the policy or that his collection procedure followed the language of the policy. He merely described what he did and that he followed his employer’s instructions; Cornwell is simply mad because it is easy to conclude after hearing the collector’s side that the technical deviation from the policy had nothing to do with the test result.

  16. cool10857 - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM

    Ryan Braun = PED taker

  17. beanster71 - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM

    Let’s not lose sight of what really matters — how this is affecting the kids:

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/kids-of-milwaukee-forced-to-look-up-to-ryan-braun,27499/

  18. bcopus - Mar 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM

    So, what I’m getting from all of this is basically: Braun is guilty because the commenters(people with no firsthand knowledge of the event) say he is and it doesn’t matter that the court system(people with firsthand knowledge) says he is innocent. So…Braun is a cheater on the basis of trial by public opinion? An opinion largely produced by a media who has every reason to sensationalize a story?

    • cur68 - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM

      Yep, that’s the gist of it, bc. They’re pretty loud and proud about it, too. Mind you, if it was happening to them, they’d be crying like wee kids, no doubt.

    • bjbroderick - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:58 PM

      No, he’s guilty because there are two samples that came up dirty. And the tamper seals were not tampered with. You know, the ones he signed?

      People on this thread better not drink any prepackaged sodas. They probably all have rat piss in them. Even got through the sealed can!

    • saints97 - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM

      The arbitrator had firsthand knowledge? I think that would probably force him to recuse himself.

    • cur68 - Mar 2, 2012 at 12:08 AM

      I think you know what he means, saints. Straw meet man. Anyways, would you accept a paternity test where the child gave blood and the protocol for ensuring the integrity of the sample was breached, or would you want a re-test?

      • saints97 - Mar 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

        Get this idea to Perrish Cox immediately!!

        I do like “ripped from the headlines” examples, Cur. Not bad at all. But, believe me, I will not be needing to take any paternity tests to (dis)prove my fatherhood, and will never have dirty piss. So I think I am safe.

        The more I see of this, though, the more I think it is pretty stupid to use one lab in Montreal when there are excellent labs that could do a fine job in all 30 MLB cities.

    • stercuilus65 - Mar 2, 2012 at 12:43 AM

      Triple sealed sample, twin samples with identical results. That’s why public opinion is against him. Not because “the media” is out to get him.

  19. pandebailey - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:14 PM

    For Ryan Braun to continue to try to throw the sample collector under the bus just to divert his attention from his attempt to cheat shows us all what a total jerk he is.

    Braun and his team of lawyers and investigators no doubt they tried every urine test and retest they could on both samples, and challenged every piece of equipment in the lab in question, But they were left with just the last-ditch lawyer dance of how the samples were put in a corner for the week-end by a collection clerk instead of in a corner for the week-end by a FedEx clerk?

    I bet anything the Braun people were just totally shocked when they won.

    Anybody who believes the collector spent $200-300 of his own money on artificial testosterone – a controlled substance – and risked his job to doctor the samples, IF he could find a way to get past the triple tamper-proof seals, I’ve got a bridge in Milwaukee I’d like to sell you.

    • bcopus - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:35 PM

      http://bridgehunter.com/wi/milwaukee/B400414000B0000/

      Is it this one?

      • bjbroderick - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:23 PM

        That’s a mighty nifty bridge you got there. No hobo’s living under it or anything!

  20. surly1n1nd1anapol1s - Mar 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    Who has the most to lose? Ryan Braun. As such doesn’t he have the greater incentive to lie?

  21. Chris Fiorentino - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:13 PM

    “”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. – (Act IV, Scene II, King Henry VI)

    Never has Shakespeare been more right.

    • ezthinking - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:41 PM

      no attorney’s huh, must not like civil freedoms, like the Constitution and the like. Have fun living in Cuba.

    • badmamainphilliesjamas - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:50 PM

      Yes he was.

      Shakespeare’s actual point was that the first thing any tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to “kill all the lawyers.” He recognized that lawyers and legal process were impediments to those who would usurp our rights.

      • ezthinking - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:10 PM

        exactly. I’m not sure Chris gets it.

    • lanflfan - Mar 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM

      Hmm, not sure you put that quote in its proper context.

  22. simon94022 - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:28 PM

    I was initially sympathetic to Braun, since I distrust the anti-steroid fanatics. Most of them seem to think that PED use magically adds 15-20 home runs per year to a hitter’s performance (by and large these people don’t seem to worry about pitchers getting a comparable advantage).

    But it really is long past time for Braun and his spokesmen to shut up. They more they talk the worse it gets. At this point the only people who believe Braun was clean are the ones waiting for OJ to find The Real Killers.

    • saints97 - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:47 PM

      Yeah, unless he has some evidence that will show that he didn’t take PEDs, he really needs to go into silent mode. I am really surprised his lawyer would make this mistake, as apparently he is pretty good at his job.

      The only thing statements like this do is invigorate your opponent. I think we might see a backlash from the testing community flooding the press with the science behind what happened and how Braun’s test results make it clear he took PEDs.

      Then again, Braun’s side has been sloppy with the PR game on this from the start. First they tried to float the idea that the results were “unheard of” and “the highest ever recorded.” That one didn’t fly. Later they claimed that there were plenty of open FedEx offices, which was fine unless someone actually looked up that the deadline for getting a shipment out on Saturday is 5:00. The latest, that hasn’t been totally disproven, is that his team recreated a false positive to show it could happen. I have seen more than one chemist write that this is a red herring, so it’s just a matter of time on that one.

      Methinks thou doth protest too much.

  23. metalhead65 - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:43 PM

    his lawyer is just as big of a douche as braun is. so he thinks it is ok to bash the “collecter” and say it is all his fault then bash him some more when he dares to try and defend himself? does he have a legal leg to stand on to sue braun and this clown for defamation? since they raised questions about the way he handled the sample I would think he would since he followed procedure while doing his job.

    • ezthinking - Mar 1, 2012 at 8:51 PM

      Truth always defeats defamation. Braun won b/c piss boy screwed up. No case.

    • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

      Exactly, the only reason the collector had to say anything was because Braun couldn’t keep his mouth shut! Unbelievable…

      • ezthinking - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

        Weren’t you demanding Braun explain himself?

      • shzastl - Mar 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM

        It’s fine with me if he wants to keep his mouth shut, I’m sure he wishes he had now instead of now looking like a liar. But if he is going to (try to) explain himself, he can’t very well accuse the man of corruption and then complain when he sticks up for himself.

    • hooterdawg - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:35 PM

      Dino Laurenzo Jr.’s statement was actually just defending his company. Whatever he did was based upon the direction that they gave him – to take the samples home with him. It’s a safe bet that the law office that issued Laurenzo’s statement is the same law office retained by his employer.

  24. hooterdawg - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

    Cornwall reminds me of those ‘drunk driving’ lawyers who promise to get you off regardless if you are guilty or not.

  25. hooterdawg - Mar 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM

    Furthermore, how is Laurenzo ‘relitigating’ when he wasn’t involved in any litigation? Arbitration is not litigation, so Braun wasn’t involved in any litigation, either. Cornwall doesn’t seem very bright, afterall.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who's to blame for Cubs tarp fiasco?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cuddyer (3230)
  2. R. Castillo (3190)
  3. W. Myers (2447)
  4. M. Fiers (2372)
  5. A. Garcia (2362)
  1. J. Werth (2344)
  2. A. McCutchen (2295)
  3. Y. Molina (2288)
  4. C. Gonzalez (2244)
  5. K. Bryant (2236)