And I don’t care what Braun does as I’m a Dodger fan with little to no chance of seeing my team going to the playoffs the year, unlike the Brewers (unless they make 10 Wild Cards per league).

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.

Fact: Braun failed the test for elevated testerone.
Fact: The Collector is a Cub fan
Fact: There has to be more then this to have had the 50 games overturned.

Fact: Im done with it…. lets all move on

I know its the american way for sports fans to look at a player and say that his is guility till proven otherwise (Unless he is a player for the team you support).

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.

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.

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.

Parent: “How did you catch him?”

Principal: “He took a test and scored a 100%, but his answers look exactly the same as the teacher’s answer sheet. We made him take the test again, and he scored a 100% again. He normally only gets a 75%, so we know he cheated.”

Parent: “Did you watch him take either test?”

Principal: “No.”

Parent: “Weren’t you supposed to, according to your rules?”

Principal: “Yes, but that’s beside the point. We know he cheated.”

Parent: “How? If you didn’t follow your own rules?”

Principal: “Rules or no rules, your child cheated. We can’t punish him because we technically didn’t follow our rules, but we will make sure that ever child who goes to school here will know your son is a cheater.”

Parent: “But you don’t know for sure. Maybe he cheated, but maybe he didn’t? If you had followed your rules, we would know. But since you didn’t, would you really make my child suffer when he may be innocent?”

Principal: “Absolutely we would. And he better not talk bad about me or the teacher, or it’s going to get even uglier.”

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.