Why?

Because, had all the proper procedures been stringently followed, nothing would have ever come out about this. If a player fails a test, then appeals, and that appeal is upheld, the confidentiality rules prohibit any release of information. Only after a player has admitted to a violation or has appealed and had it denied, should anything be released.

Take a look at the official MLB program here
http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf
paying particular attention to sections 6 (Confidentiality) and 8 (Appeals).

You states that there are three possibilities with Braun’s sample from 2011–that he used PEDs, that the excessive testosterone appeared magically, and that the sample was maliciously tainted/he was framed. I agree with you–those are the possibilities. The problem is that there should only be two–he did the deed or magic. Not following the proper procedures is what introduces the third possibility. All that is required to allow the arbitrator to throw out the sample is the introduction of reasonable doubt. Magic is not reasonable doubt. However, it is very easy to obtain urine vials and labels, making forging a sample possible, regardless of how unlikely that might be.

Now, is him getting off a technicality? I won’t argue that as I don’t think that’s relevant, and the term has no specific legal definition–meaning we could argue endlessly about what a technicality is and both be “right.”

Does this leave things such that people can think he’s guilty anyway? Of course. Even in criminal trials, the verdict for an acquittal is “not guilty” and not “innocent”–meaning anyone can always argue that about every case.

The reporter didn’t suggest that the substance of any “communications” be disclosed, merely records corroborating the fact that Bosch was retained. To the extent the identity of Braun’s consultants was privileged, he waived such privilege by already disclosing it himself. Therefore, the lawyer would not be revealing any privileged information by merely confirming what his client has already voluntarily disclosed.

However, I can’t imagine anything as futile as trying to explain legal technicalities – or why the entire body of jurisprudence from Mesopotamia onward – consists of nothing but “technicalities” to anything with a cerebral cortex as atrophied as a spawrtsrighter’s.

Okay, maybe a little. But really, if you care at all about an issue, it doesn’t take that much effort to track down actual information on which to base an opinion….though you do have to be careful with regard to the sources of that information, especially if you are trying to understand in layman’s terms, as there is a lot of disinformation available from people trying to convince you to buy something.

For a group of sports writers and the resources they have available, their complete lack of fact checking is disturbing.

Also, 18 games against the Marlins will help. But we’ll miss the 12 games against the Astros.

Oh wait, I already did this today.

Lawyers do very little in a legal sense. Their clients act through them. So yes, Braun would have to consent.

What a waste of a blog post.

If Braun wants to clear his name, he can release the type of records discussed. If he doesn’t feel he needs to, baseball writers are free to speculate on the reasoning for such decision. He can live with being dubbed a suspected PED user.

“Your honor, I’d like to call a quack fake doctor malpractice waiting to happen, who’s some kind of underground expert on testosterone.”

……. right, lets get that guy involved in our PED case. And on top of that pay him any amount of money. Sorry but that excuse is ####### preposterous.

Look at it this way: I don’t know who did what after Braun pissed in that cup and I don’t know what happened then with the MVPP. Those facts were never made public by a named, impartial and reputable source. If you don’t know what the chain of custody was, and the guy who DOES know that stuff decided that it was handled improperly, why would you go around placing all or any of your faith in those tests?

Now, if I HAD the facts and had the Arbiter’s line of reasoning, then yeah, I’d make with an opinion. BUT absent the establishment of a clear and proper chain of custody, the tests are immaterial. Without the Arbiter’s report, I’m forced to go with the Arbiter’s view of the evidence. He had the facts, we do not. He ruled the tests inadmissible as evidence of guilt. Once again, The End.

You say the possibilities for Braun’s sample in 2011 were that he took the stuff, that it magically appeared in the sealed urine sample, or that it was tainted/he was framed. I agree with your assessment. Those are the possibilities. The problem is that they should not be the possibilities. We can safely exclude magic, but when proper handling and chain of custody procedures are not followed, it introduces the tainting possibility. Samples can theoretically be switched and relabeled, for example, obviating the need to tamper with the original specimen. I am not saying that happened, but for legal issues of guilt/innocence all that is required is the introduction of reasonable doubt. Failing to follow procedures introduced that doubt, so Braun won his appeal before the arbitrator. If procedure had been followed, there would have only been two possibilities: he did it or the excessive testosterone appeared by magic.

Now, you can call that a technicality, and I won’t argue about it. I don’t think that technicality is actually a legal term anyway, so such an argument would just be over how to define the term. Either way, the procedural screw up means it’s pointless to rehash what Braun may or may not have done. His slate remains clean until there is proof of some new infraction. His name showing up in Bosch’s records is not proof.