My question to you is: Do you have the castangias to debate the issue with me to it’s logical conclusion? si o no?

You are the victim of a very poorly thought out, and meaningless analogy.

Simply telling you that the “the Delaware City Water & Utilities people are on the curb, not wearing rain gear, and are preparing to dig up your lawn” is absurd, because it begs the question. It assumes that the anecdote “another home in the area had burst a water main” is valid.

If the water main burst in “ANOTHER home in the area” (My emphasis), then why is the water company preparing to dig up YOUR lawn? Why does the water company need to get to your pipe?

Doesn’t it seem reasonable to believe that if the water main burst in front of your house, that your front yard would be soaked? You didn’t say it was your property that was soaked, in fact you were rather generic, “the ground is soaked and the skies are cloudy.” It is the author of the meaningless analogy that assumed you were referring to your property.

Therefore, if the burst water main is analogous to the Bruan case, and The Delaware City Water & Utilities people are analogous to MLB’s drug testing agency, and the digging up of your lawn to get to your water pipe is analogous to overturning another case using the criteria for overturning Braun’s, then two out of three premises of your argument fail, and your conclusion does not follow.

I suggest you stick with your “it rained” analogy, and count your blessings that you process information the way you do and not like a pseudo-intellect (No one processes logic. Logic is a mechanism; it is used to reason with information).

I’ll paraphrase an old Texas adage for the author of the meaningless analogy: Just because you pissed on your leg, doesn’t mean it isn’t raining.

You had a leak? You call what’s goin’ on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.

Something caused Brauns sample to be positive – what was it?

“We don’t know” did not cause the sample to be positive. Either his sample was tampered with, it degraded, or he used PED’s

Anyone being reasonable would acknowledge that Braun’s case absolutely made this a no-win situation for MLB’s testing program and thus Alfonso and probably others will have their suspensions overturned now, not because they are innocent or even “not guilty” (a technicality that for some reason Braun’s proponents seem to be fascinated by), nor because it’s a big MLB conspiracy, but because it’s a political non-starter as an issue with traction for MLB’s drug testing program at this point. Again, though: this ain’t a courtroom. This is about appearance, marketing, the player’s union, and most of all what can actually be done at this point.

Can we get an “Absence of Malice” quote?

WADA demanded, not asked, but demanded, that MLB give up all testing to them. Not just for the Olympics, but permanently, to include the regular season and playoffs, if they wanted to compete in the Olympics. MLB said no, and all of a sudden, there is no baseball in the Olympics anymore.

As much as I detest Bud, he got this one right.

Olympic (re: WADA) testing standards are draconian, and they test for substance that MLB doesn’t, but would have made baseball players fail their drum tests.

Oh yeah, WADA also demanded, again demanded and not asked, that they be the governing body and determine the punishment given out to ball players. Considering most of the punishement given out by WADA are two-year bans, MLB had no reason to agree to any of it.

As much as I would like to see baseball in the Olympics, and as much as I hate to give credit to Bud for anything, he made the right choice on this one.

I’m pretty sure you’ll find the union agreed to it also.

If you don’t have an opinion on whether he in fact took PED’s, that is your choice. But don’t tell me you are not entitled to an opinion, you are

Funny how the union refuses olympic standard drug testing, then complains that the procudure has problems. If you want the cheaper tests (so you can get away with the designer drugs), they tend to have draw backs

Again, take Braun at his word, You still have a sample that came in positive. So if he is innocent it comes down to tampering (perhaps by neglect) or degrading of the sample.

I am looking out my window right now. The ground is soaked and the skies are cloudy. I never saw it rain. According to you, it is impossible to know if it rained.

You want to believe he is innocent, fine. But you can’t say there are no facts. There are plenty

I believe it was Voltaire who said “If Ryan Braun didn’t exist, he would have to be invented”

And Descartes noted “Ryan Braun appealed his suspension, therefore he is”