Skip to content

Previewing today’s Ryan Braun idiocy

Feb 6, 2013, 7:05 AM EDT

ryan braun wide getty Getty Images

The Ryan Braun/Biogenesis report from Yahoo! came out in the evening, so most big columnists and opinion-spinners haven’t yet had a crack at it beyond their initial “oh man, Ryan Braun!” reactions.  But rest assured they’ll be out in full force today.

This is Ryan Braun after all. And the anger at him from the anti-PED zealots is extreme. In some cases maybe even more extreme than it is against A-Rod because Braun is seen as having slipped the hangman’s noose last year when he successfully appealed his suspension for testing positive for testosterone. The fact that he did so because the testers failed to follow the rules is irrelevant to them because that’s part of the due process owed the accused in baseball’s drug testing program and these folks don’t much care for due process.

And so it is with Braun Scandal 2.0.  His name showed up in Biogenesis records. Never mind that it, unlike the other players, wasn’t linked to any PEDs. Never mind that his official statement — that his lawyers used Dr. Bosch as a consultant during his appeal last year — is eminently plausible and worth exploring before we rush to judgment.  As per last year’s example we’re apparently allowed to pick and choose the facts when our outrage is at stake, so him merely being in those records are all that will likely matter when the Outrage Industrial Complex gets going.

Among the things I fully expect from the Outrage Industrial Complex later today:

  • People who trust Bosch’s records as 100% accurate insofar as they implicate ballplayers will claim that he is far too sloppy and untrustworthy to have served as a consultant for Braun;
  • People who have never litigated nor consulted a day in their lives will claim that it makes no sense for Braun’s litigators to have used Bosch as a consultant (Morosi is already on this one). The Outrage Industrial Complex LOVES to act like they know the first thing about the law in these kinds of cases;
  • People unconcerned with the actual facts of the situation will be quick to talk about how this is “poetic justice” and or “ironic” — and they will inevitably misuse the word “ironic” in doing so — for Braun to be ensnared again. And of course there will be no desire whatsoever by these people to actually let the investigation proceed beyond the 12 hour mark before deciding such things.

I’m sure there will be other examples. The news business comes at you fast. There’s no time for actually waiting for information to come out and/or be authenticated before drawing conclusions from it. That’s amateurish and naive.  Or at least that’s what people tell me.

Here’s hoping none of them never find themselves under fire for something and face the same sort of treatment to which they subject others.

144 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:16 AM

    People who have never litigated nor consulted a day in their lives will claim that it makes no sense for Braun’s litigators to have used Bosch as a consultant

    I thought Wendy Thurm answered this question really well last night with:


    • Gobias Industries - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:52 AM

      What are her credentials? I’m afraid I’m going to have to see her resume before I’m permitted to consider her opinion. Has she ever litigated or consulted a day in her life?? Does she know the first thing about the law in these kinds of cases??

      • diamondduq - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:35 AM

        The only “idiocy” belongs to Craig. We get it Craig, you’re a lawyer, or were since now you’re just a hack blogger, and you know more about the law than the rest of us non-legal types but that’s far from the only side of the Braun scenario. Craig may know the law but he knows nothing about drug testing, unlike Travis Tygart who is the head of the USADA or David Howman who is the head of the WADA. While Craig may be correct that Braun’s successful appeal should have occurred on the basis of “due process”, that “due process” only pertained to the organization by which Braun was being punished and had no bearing on the legitimacy of Braun’s failed test.

        Both Travis Tygart and David Howman stated when the initial Braun reports came out that the collectors actions were correct and not a violation of “due process” as it pertains to legitimate drug testing or their own, separate protocols. Had MLB adopted USADA or WADA testing Braun would have been suspended but instead MLB chose to write their own drug testing protocol and as Travis Tygart said “(t)o have this sort of technicality of all technicalities let a player off … it’s just a sad day for all the clean players and those that abide by the rules within professional baseball.” Just because Braun’s suspension was overturned in no way made his failed test illegitimate, it only did so as it pertained to punishment by MLB, and it in no way clears his name. This latest revelation is just more “smoke” to the “fire” that is Braun’s obvious PED use and no legal-ese can make that go away. So no, Mr. Calcaterra, we are not the idiots, you are for not being able to get out from behind your own legal background to see reality for what it is rather than what you can turn it into in a courtroom!

      • Craig Calcaterra - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM

        If someone belongs to an organization that adheres to Testing Protocol X, and if Testing Protocol X is not followed, the person should not be punished due to that organization’s rules. That’s what happened to Ryan Braun.

        Your analogy to WADA ans USADA is the same thing as saying “sure, the U.S. attorney couldn’t prove that the defendant committed that crime, but if he were in Saudi Arabia he WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED!”

      • Old Gator - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

        Well Craigster, your headline proclaimed “Today’s Ryan Braun Idiocy,” and you sure brought it down upon yourself – kinda like loading your backyard buzzard feeder with roadkill. That post by diamondduq was the closest thing to a semiotic lynch mob I’ve seen here today – but only today.

        This topic really brings out the Ox Bow Incident in folks, doesn’t it?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:15 AM

        What are her credentials? I’m afraid I’m going to have to see her resume before I’m permitted to consider her opinion. Has she ever litigated or consulted a day in her life?? Does she know the first thing about the law in these kinds of cases??

        With all this talk going back and forth, not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic. So just in case:

  2. igbomb - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:17 AM

    Though I have no doubt that the outrage will come spewing out any minute now, is it really necessary to publish some screed in anticipation of such? Seems rather hasty.

    • Gobias Industries - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:39 AM

      You ain’t seen nothing yet. You have a lot more posts on this topic coming today. I’m putting the over/under at 6 posts. Place your bets.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:45 AM

        Is “today” until midnight tonight? And are we talking about just posts by Craig?

        Ah, it doesn’t matter. I’ll take the over no matter how you answer those questions.

      • heyblueyoustink - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:22 AM

        At least we don’t open a day with an AROD post. For that much, we can all be thankful. Side effects of substances taken eventually show in one’s health as they age, generally speaking. So if these guys are loading up indeed, it matters little to me, especially from a guy who isn’t winning a World Series anytime soon.

      • Old Gator - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM

        It would be just like some steenkin’ lawyer to distract everyone with an A-roid post though, wouldn’t it?

  3. Norm B - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:18 AM

    It says on this site, in the previous post, that it is odd that Braun used him as a consultant.
    I agree with you though…

  4. dawglb - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:19 AM

    Guilty, (again)!

    • Old Gator - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

      Not merely guilty. Gowachin guilty!

  5. sonyguts - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:20 AM

    He’s such a weasel, and yes he does deserve this. He got off on technicality last time and went around thumping his chest in victory, despite the fact that he was never exonerated on the facts. Sorry OJ, no one believes you.

    • skeleteeth - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM

      Ok, Goose. I follow. This is just like double homicide…

  6. Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:23 AM

    I’m with you on all this Bosch nonsense as it relates to both A-Rod and Braun.

    However, I still can’t believe that you will not just admit that Braun got off on a technicality. A murderer who has the smoking weapon hidden at his home is entitled to privacy and the police need a judge-signed warrant to search the his home before they and just knock down his door on a hunch. When they find the gun without securing a warrant, the murderer gets off on a technicality. Doesn’t mean he didn’t commit murder. Just means he doesn’t get punished by the court of law because the police didn’t follow procedure. Braun’s sample was tainted. The testing facility testified that the sample was still double sealed and signed by Braun across the seals. He got away with cheating. Period.

    ps No, I didn’t say murder is as bad as cheating…just making a comparison is all.

    • philsieg - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM

      Due process is not a technicality. Only those individuals that have decided they possess the moral rectitude to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner think that it is.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:09 AM

        Who said due process is a technicality? Getting off on a technicality while receiving your due process is simply getting off on a technicality. Braun’s sample was dirty. Period. Either someone tampered with it or it magically grew testosterone while it sat around for one extra day because of the idiot sample taker. Had he gone to the 24 hour FedEx place, Braun would have served his 50 games. The taker didn’t, Braun got his due process, and he got away on a technicality. I don’t begrudge him that…I am simply stating the facts.

      • Old Gator - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM

        Did anyone see where I left my Nicole Brown Simpson Pez dispenser?

    • paperlions - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:56 AM

      Let me pose a scenario to you. Say your work place required regular drug tests, you don’t use drugs, but one of your tests comes up dirty. You know it has to be wrong because you know you don’t use anything. An cursory investigations shows that the sample’s chain of custody was broken, meaning that it can not be established that the sample results tied to your name can not be 100% guaranteed to be from the sample you provided. A follow up test comes up clean. Some jackhole administrator at your work place gossips around that you failed a test and got off on a technicality.

      Everyone you know things you got off on a technicality and you’re a druggy, right? Because that is the exactly the scenario that happened to Braun (with the exception of 1st hand knowledge of innocence, which no one here can possibly know).

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:59 AM

        paper, you left out the part where the sample was received by the testing facility and the DOUBLE SEAL was not tampered with in any way whatsoever. Basically what you are saying is that either the sample magically became tainted while sealed or that someone opened the sample, tainted it, then resealed it in a way that tricked the place that testified that the DOUBLE SEAL was not tampered with in any way. Which is it?

      • paperlions - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:02 AM

        Do we know that? The report of Braun’s appeal was never made public, which I believe was MLB’s decisions, not Braun’s or the arbitrators.

        No offense, but you based on reports by the same group of people (baseball writers) you (and many millions of others) believe that HGH can speed healing and enhance baseball performance, which is patently false.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM

        paper, the fact that the lab deemed it appropriate for testing is in the public record. I may not know much about HGH but I do know how to read. Maybe you should try it sometime because what I wrote is public knowledge.

      • paperlions - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:09 AM

        If the lab couldn’t verify the chain of custody, they should have thrown out the sample. The review noted the break in the chain of custody rules, and those rules have not been arbitrarily determined. An unaffiliated arbitrator decided that the sample’s identity could not be verified because protocols were not followed.

        Try reading this: find me a reliable source that verifies that the seal was unbroken and not something from a hack that can’t be bothered to educate himself about PEDs. The funny thing to me, is that you still think that HGH speeds healing and enhances baseball performance. You want that to be true, so it is.

      • saints97 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:08 AM

        There is a difference between being found guilty and being guilty. Braun was as guilty as OJ was. Both found a way to avoid punishment. I’m okay with how both systems work and the fact that there are protections that help to prevent innocent people from being punished (that also also allows many guilty men to escape punishment.

        But let’s not ignore plain facts that show that Braun doped. This new information does nothing to change that in any way.

      • paperlions - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:10 AM

        You are assuming facts not in evidence. There is no plain fact that Braun doped.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:12 AM

        paper, maybe you have a man-crush on Braun or something because you keep throwing my lack of knowledge about HGH back at me. Why? What does this particular case have to do with my knowledge about HGH?

        Sorry if I offended your boy Braun. But I’ll just agree to disagree with you and move on. You are blind to the fact that the lab found the specimen worthy of testing because the double seal was not tampered with. That was part of baseball’s statement on the matter. Go look it up.

      • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:17 AM

        Except if that happened to me, I’d be claiming innocence, which Braun NEVER did. He merely went “the test is bad” not I didn’t do it. Even in his victory statements he never talks of his rep or innocence or anything buf instead bragged of beating the system and fixing a broken system, etc. Weird no?

      • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:36 AM

        Except, of course, that Braun DID deny using steroids:

        Took me a grand total of two seconds of web searching to find that. But nonetheless, feel free to pull whatever random bullshit you want out of your ass, if it helps support your stupid point.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM

        no offense, mrfloyd, but I read that article 3 times and didn’t see a single quote from Braun saying he never did steroids. The headline appears to be misleading at best.

      • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

        Where exactly does he deny it in that article? Oh wait he didn’t……..

      • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

        Are you really and truly confused Fiorentino? Are you trying to make a useful point? Or are you actually that goddamn stupid? Allow me to quote for you the FIRST SENTENCE of the story:

        “Milwaukee left fielder Ryan Braun maintained his innocence Saturday night, disputing allegations he took performance-enhancing substances when he accepted his National League MVP…”

        There are only two ways to explain the presence of this sentence in the story:

        1. The reporter was summarizing the content of Braun’s remarks, which reporters commonly do, since it is often the most precise or efficient way to communicate what has happened.

        2. The reporter is a complete fraud and hack who made the whole story up, and is hoping that nobody who was at the Baseball Writers Awards Dinner will see the story and call her out on it.

        Which one of these do you think it is?

        And incidentally, when you read a story that says something like, “The Mets beat the Phillies tonight by the score of 7 to 2” are you skeptical, unless they have a direct quote from Ryan Howard that says, “Wow. We got beat tonight. By the Mets. It was 7-2.”

      • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM

        Oh, and if you insist on direct quotes, it’s too bad you don’t know any sites that printed any. Like, for example, THIS site:

        “If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally I’d have been the first one to admit it. I truly believe this substance never entered my body.”

      • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM

        Except without a quote, its hearsay, as Craig will attest.

      • padraighansen - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:59 AM

        @Chris Fiorentino

        Let me ask it this way: What was the job of Braun’s lawyers with regard to the appeal? Was it to prove is innocence beyond a reasonable doubt or two have his suspension without pay overturned?

        Now, I was not part of the defense team, but from experience, I would say that the primary goal was to overturn the suspension. And, as a result, the reckless disregard for following established chain-of-custody protocol made that the easiest target for his legal team.

        If I was his lead counsel on that matter, I would have approached it the same way, and if you pose the matter to other members of the bar, my experience says that 99.9% of them would take a similar approach.

        And part of that approach, as Craig points out below, involves consulting with a wide range of individuals who can provide vital pieces of intelligence, including those that, at first blush, may seem illogical on the surface. I can guarantee you, any counsel worth their salt that handled this or any other similar appeal, would have taken a similar route.

        Finally, a note on “journalists” like TJ O’Quinn, whose tweets and SportsCenter interview included very powerful accusations: TJ O’Quinn cannot afford to be wrong on Ryan Braun, because it literally kills his credibility if he is. Always ask the question, “who benefits?” With Quinn and ESPN as a whole, they jumped the gun with Braun last year, both on the story itself and then on the blurring of the line between opinion and fact, and were left with a bit of egg on their face. TJ O’Quinn is running the risk of becoming Randy Quaid in “Independence Day” – his career now literally depends on Braun being guilty and his ability to say “I told you so”. If not, every subsequent allegation / report he makes will be treated with a lack of credibility and suspicion, which will make him very difficult to employ.

        Finally I’m not claiming to know whether Braun did or did not use PED’s. There is not one person on here making comments for either side that knows for certain what did or did not happen with Braun. In terms of both his defense team’s strategy, as well as the need (not desire) for reporters like Quinn to find a smoking gun – any smoking gun – my suggestion is to digest all of this with a big grain of salt.

      • indaburg - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:04 AM

        Wallio, Braun did deny using steroids. I remember his press conference last year.

        Here is Braun’s quote: “If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally I’d have been the first one to admit it. I truly believe this substance never entered my body.”

      • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM

        Wow, wallio. You have made your decision and rendered your judgment, and you will just do whatever it takes to remain committed to that point of view. Even using legal concepts you clearly don’t understand.

        Your assertion was that Braun never denied using steroids. I gave you a story reporting that he DID deny it. Whether the reporter summarizes the remarks or provides a direct quote has no bearing on the question of “hearsay.” Unless she is lying and her story is a fabrication, she is a direct witness to the fact that he publicly denied using steroids. If a lawyer needed to prove, in a court of law, that Ryan Braun publicly denied using steroids, he could call that reporter to the stand and her testimony would be admissible on that point.

        Now, if the reporter needed to prove that Ryan Braun never TOOK steroids, then the reporter’s testimony would be hearsay. But that is not the question you asked, nor is it a question anyone on this site is able to answer.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:19 AM


        I have never said a negative thing about the lawyers or the process. I also have nothing at all against Braun. All I am talking about is the facts. And the facts are these…the sample was collected and sealed and signed off on by Braun. The idiot sample taker held it an extra day and a half because he was too stupid to find a 24 hour FedEx/Kinkos, and he thought the sample would be safer in his locked fridge at his domicile. Dumb mistake. The sample was then received by the testing agency and they found nothing wrong with the seal or the Braun signature and they tested it. They found it tainted. That’s it.

        Now, if I think Braun didn’t do the PEDs, then I am saying one of two things…either the sample was tampered with or the sample magically became tainted while in the taker’s fridge. I choose option 3…he did it and got lucky that the idiot sample collector screwed up the protocol. And again…BRAUN DESERVED TO GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE OF THIS!!! I have never said he didn’t deserve to get away with it. The guy broke protocol. But his breaking the protocol did not affect the sample in my opinion…and more importantly, in the opinion of the testing lab who found nothing wrong with the sample and tested it.

        That has nothing to do with due process. That has nothing to do with the lawyers fighting to get Braun off. That has nothing to do with being a fan of the guy or not. He got off and rightfully should have. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t do PEDs. I think he did and got off on a technicality…rightfully so.

      • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM

        You just don’t get it, do you Fiorentino? The rules don’t exist because they are fun or because they are cute or because lawyers like rules (though they do). The rules exist because improperly handled evidence is unreliable evidence.

        Here are some areas of concern:

        1. If this guy screwed up the simplest part of the procedure–dropping the sample off at FedEx–did he screw anything else up? If so, what?

        2. Was the sample ACTUALLY stored properly during the extra time it was in the collector’s possession? He says it was, but he has every reason to say that, whether or not it is true.

        3. How does a sample’s chemical composition change, if at all, if it is not tested promptly?

        4. Did anyone else handle the sample while it waited to be shipped?

        In short, MLB has no trustworthy evidence that Braun took PEDs and neither do you.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 6, 2013 at 12:18 PM

        mrfloyd, I get it. We all get it. You don’t care whether Braun pissed a tainted sample or not. The rules were violated so it’s as if he never pissed in a cup at all that night. That’s your prerogative.

        On the other hand, the fact does remain that the guy did piss in a cup that night. And the cup was tested. And it contained a banned substance. Those are facts. They are undeniable.

        Now, you can say it wasn’t his piss. Or that it was a tainted sample. Or that sitting in a fridge for 36 hours made it magically grow the banned substance. Or someone was out to get Braun and switched the cups in a way where the lab wouldn’t know they were switched.

        Or you can say it was his piss with the banned substance that he was taking. And he legitimately got away with it through a technicality that is perfectly acceptable.

        You choose #1. I choose #2. Where’s the disconnect and why all the personal attacks? I don’t care that you choose #1. Why do you care so much that I choose #2?

  7. timpaz - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:23 AM

    Sooner or later the lies come back and bite u, fess up and be a man Braun.

  8. sdelmonte - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:29 AM

    How about the Outrage Industrial News Complex? So we can call it OINC?

  9. eshine76 - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:34 AM

    Assuming Braun is telling the truth, why would these lawyers (who, like you, Craig, are apparently so much smarter than the rest of us) use a guy who is NOT A REAL DOCTOR to be their expert witness with so much on the line? We’ll overlook that this “doctor” was already previously linked to PEDs with Manny Ramirez. Seems like an unfortunate coincidence for a guy who was already wrongly accused a year ago.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:56 AM

      An expert witness is not the same as a consultant. Consultants rarely if ever see a courtroom or face scrutiny from the other side. They are used by lawyers to learn and to help devise strategies.

      When I practiced I handled an embezzlement case. I did not, you will be shocked to learn, hire a priest from the local parish to be a consultant. I hired a guy who had been convicted of embezzlement. Becuase he knew about the world in which my case took place. That’s how it works.

      • bradmoss1 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:31 AM

        Whenever you hired a consultant/expert witness, did you give them your client’s name?

        This is a serious question: Why did Braun’s lawyers tell Bosch who they were representing?

        If the lawyers were familiar with him previously, why not just call him up and get the information they wanted and keep Braun’s name out of it?

      • Craig Calcaterra - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:33 AM

        Sure. They need to know the specifics of the case for which they’re consulting. “Hi, I’m Bob Loblaw. I have a case where I’m representing a ballplayer who tested positive for testosterone and I want to talk a bit about x, y, z … Ryan Braun. Yeah, anyway …”

        It’s not a state secret who your client is.

      • albertmn - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM

        Thumbs up to Craig for the Bob Loblaw reference.

    • philsieg - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:57 AM

      You do know the difference between consultant and expert witness, don’t you? From your post it’s not clear that you do.

    • paperlions - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:59 AM

      Oddly enough, lawyers regularly use experts that are not particularly great experts….in part, because the experts generally do not have the time to wasting with legal proceedings.

      It is funny to me that Craig notes how people that don’t know anything about the law besides what they learned on Law & Order like to act like the know something. Because these same people like to act like they know something about human physiology and PEDs, yet never cite a 1st hand conversation with an actual medical professional about their effects.

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 6, 2013 at 3:57 PM

        What if they slept at a Holiday Inn Paper? Huh? What about that?
        Yeah…you are stumped aren’t you?
        That’s what I thought!

      • paperlions - Feb 6, 2013 at 4:00 PM


    • eshine76 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM

      My bad on the consultant vs expert witness. I’m with you Craig on not hiring a priest, but out still seems like a very unfortunate set of circumstances. Honest question – did you ever pay $20k for a consultant? Is that the going rate?

      • Craig Calcaterra - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:10 AM

        I’ve paid $2000 for a consultant I’ve paid a $50K retainer for one who I reserved the right to use as an expert later. Guys who do it a lot charge by the hour. It can be $500. It can be $200. It can be anything. Some guys would ask for a flat fee. It’s like any other business. Sometimes a consultant will say he’s owed $25K and I’d say no damn way and we’d negotiate.

        What truly drives whether something makes financial sense is how much is at stake. Ryan Braun stood to lose millions if he was suspended last year. It would not shock me at all, then, if his lawyers budgeted tens of thousands for experts and consultants.

      • padraighansen - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:08 AM

        I am a consultant, primarily big law & other large professional services organizations, and a large number of engagements are well into six figures. $20k is nothing, believe me. In fact it’s pretty low. Now, what is not explained is whether or not that was the engagement fee, or the AR that was in dispute.

  10. wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:42 AM

    Allow me to be the first to say it: Poetic Justice. Remember he never once denied using PEDs during his trial…..

    • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:37 AM

      Boy, you’re going to keep posting the same observation all over this thread, aren’t you? Then I will keep posting the same link that shows you’re full of crap:

    • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM

      Oh, and by the way, Ryan Braun was never on trial. He did have one or more hearings with MLB. The distinction may be trivial to you–heck, you may not even know there is a distinction–but it’s a big one. Most obviously, it means that there is no public record of what was said. Which means you have NO FUCKING IDEA whether he did or did not deny using PEDs during his actual hearing. What we do know is that he issued a public denial, per the link above.

      • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

        I’m sorry where in that article does he deny PED use? I may have “no idea” but at least I can read. But keep cursing, it really makes you look smart.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:27 AM

        What is so difficult to understand about:

        Milwaukee left fielder Ryan Braun maintained his innocence Saturday night, disputing allegations he took performance-enhancing substances

    • indaburg - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:15 AM

      I posted this above, wallio, but I want to make sure you see it. (Everyone else, apologies for double posting.) I remember Braun’s press conference and I heard him deny using steroids.

      Braun: “If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally I’d have been the first one to admit it. I truly believe this substance never entered my body.” (

      Here is a link which includes the press conference so you can hear it yourself:

      • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:40 AM

        Finally someone who gets the concept of denial posts a quote. Although with how long it took it must have been buried deep. But yes it looks like he did make a denial afterall.

      • indaburg - Feb 6, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        I heard him deny it live during last year’s press conference. It didn’t take long to find it. The only reason I didn’t post earlier is that I was still asleep when Craig’s post went live.

      • mrfloydpink - Feb 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM

        Seriously, wallio? What on Earth are you talking about?

        1. The story I posted does not evince a lack of understanding of the concept of “denial” on my part. What you mean–although you are wrong–is that I don’t understand “evidence.” And on top of that, I posted the same quote that indaburg did.

        2. “Although with how long it took it must have been buried deep.” What does this even mean? The quote is from THIS SITE. How deep can it be? And more significantly, what are you implying? That the evidence is untrustworthy? That it’s being covered up?

        3. “But yes it looks like he did make a denial afterall.” Here, let me fix that for you: “But yes, I was wrong and probably shouldn’t talk without knowing–or at least checking–my facts.”

    • myopinionisrighterthanyours - Feb 7, 2013 at 3:41 PM

      Remember he never once denied using PEDs during his trial…..


      Hey, I didn’t know Pedro Gonzalez posted here!

  11. scottgilroy - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:43 AM

    Braun needs to get himself better lawyers.

    • rdillon99 - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:48 AM

      Scott, you seem to be forgetting that Braun’s lawyers successfully challenged MLB’s case against Braun last year and he avoided what would have otherwise been a certain suspension. It was the first time that a failed drug test had ever been successfully challenged by an MLB player… Seems like a job well done by his lawyer’s to me.

  12. chip56 - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:46 AM


    On your Twitter feed this morning you equated Braun being in the Biogenisis notes to Jodi Foster being in John Hinckley’s note’s, saying, “Look, Jodie Foster was ALL OVER Hinckley’s notes. She was clearly involved in Reagan’s shooting.”

    This is really not even close to the same thing. Unless of course Foster was caught in DC with a loaded gun and let go because the search was deemed illegal.

    What I’m getting at is that Braun isn’t some innocent here. He’s a guy who used steroids and got off due to a violation in procedure (one that had no impact on test results). Is it possible that the circumstances for him being in the Clinic’s records are exactly what he says they are? Sure. But it’s also not unreasonable for someone who escaped formal punishment like Braun did to not get the benefit of the doubt from people or reporters.

  13. chacochicken - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:47 AM

    Has anyone every gone to trial with a personal injury or a civil trial with something like a handwriting expert? The term “expert” is subjective first and foremost. Lawyers quickly find the most reliable doctors, psychologists, or experts to effectively schill for their side. No surprise at all they would use this guy Bosch who would be presented to the court or arbitrator (without a significant background check) as Dr. Bosch, as sport supplement, anti-aging, and probably bio-mechanics specialist who has a clinic in Miami. Presumably if Bosch sounds good, he is the perfect expert witness. For comparisons sake, I paid a hand-writing expert (there is no degree and the certification process is suspect from state to state) about 15K for maybe 20 hours worth of work. This is completely plausible and you should still draft Ryan Braun in the first round.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:31 AM

      Lawyers quickly find the most reliable doctors, psychologists, or experts to effectively schill for their side. No surprise at all they would use this guy

      It’s not only that he’s an expert, I imagine the conversation started over similar to:
      Good morning Dr *, I’m an attorney representing Ryan Braun in a case against MLB where he wants to challenge testing protocol. Would you be willing to help us, on the record, in a fight against MLB?

      How many would actually agree to do that, and face the wrath of an organization that has no issue firing people whose findings disagree with it? Would Dr. James Andrews do it? Highly unlikely.

  14. chip56 - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:47 AM

    And from what I remember, Braun’s case was about challenging the guy for not sending the sample right away – wouldn’t better choices for consultants been the kid at a FedEx shop?

  15. ErinAndrewsStopCallingMe - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:48 AM

    Looks like Braun has some splaining to do. Not to the public, but to his Discount Double Check fbuddy Rodgers.

  16. brazcubas - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:50 AM

    What’s funny about the folks who assume Bosch’s records are 100% accurate probably haven’t even taken a close look at the handful that have been released. For example, they probably haven’t noticed how the days and the dates don’t match up in the documents with A-Rod’s name.

    In 2009, February 7 and 14 were Saturdays, not Mondays. Sure it might just means someone does sloppy record keeping, but it does raise some questions.

  17. hojo20 - Feb 6, 2013 at 7:52 AM

    GUILTY……lame excuse by Braun. Like the “To Catch a Predator” pervs saying they’re meeting the girl just to tell her sex is bad.

  18. henson58 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:00 AM

    It would seem if I knew I didn’t take peds and had a messed up test and then used this guy as a “consultant” and knew I owed him money that when this report first surfaced about the company I would’ve issued a statement saying look I used this guy for this and I could be connected in that way not wait til my name came out.

  19. ErinAndrewsStopCallingMe - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:04 AM

    One can imagine Bud Selig writing Braun’s name in the book late at night lol. I for one think Braun is guilty as all getup, but just like w/ other allegations, there has to be difinitive proof. One other thing, it seems a lot of commenters are speculating on what happened during his previous positive rest i.e. the chain of custody, why the package was dropped off to FedEx, etc. it’s not hard people–research and read!

  20. greymares - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM

    Justice, justice, the only real justice is that all p.e.d. users die by the age of 40.

    • Alex K - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM

      That seems about right. Those mean guys did something you don’t like so they should probably die young.


      It’s baesball, not life or death. Get some perspective.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM

      Why would you want Willie Mays and Hank Aaron dead at age 40?

    • jwbiii - Feb 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      So Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and Palmeiro are all cleared? Phew. Glad we got that over with.

  21. timmons94 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM

    As a pirates fan, the hatred for Braun is pathetic. Best player in baseball hands down. Move on with your lives people

  22. brewcrewfan54 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:16 AM

    Some of the same people who are or will be wrecking Braun were celebrating Ray Lewis the last 2 weeks because PED’s are somehow way worse than being involved in double murder.

    • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM

      Thats funny, you say don’t convict Braun in the court of public opinion, he was acquitted, but yet you call Ray Lewis a murderer of which he was also never convicted. Not a Lewis fan, but double standards much?

      • brewcrewfan54 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM

        Ray Lewis was involved in double murder. There’s nothing inaccurate about my statement. And Ray was convicted of a crime.

      • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM

        Lewis was allegedly involved in a double murder and was convicted of a different crime. Again I can’t stand the man, but be honest here.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM

        I am being honest. He was involved in double murder. I didn’t say he was a double murderer. And he was convicted of a crime that possibly helped keep a murderer or murderers out of prison. But the fact is you missed the point of the statement altogether.

    • chill1184 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM

      There is a huge double standard when it comes to PEDs in MLB vs NFL

      • wallio - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM

        This is a very true statement.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM

        That’s true and i’ve stated that on this site many times. My point was that its going to be amazing how many sportwriters and fans today are going to trash Braun for something he likely did but were celebrating Lewis last week as fans when what he was a part of was way worse.

      • chill1184 - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:15 AM


        Fully agreed, granted I am a Steelers fan so yes some will just accuse me of being bitter. Despite MLB’s problems the NFL and NBA for that matter have more players to get into more legal/off the field trouble but the clowns in the media treat people like Braun and other PED users like they’re worse than Hitler.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM

        Exactly chilli and its become incredibly tiresome. And the way baseball fans flip out over steroids is just beyond ridiculous now.

  23. deadeyedesign23 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:21 AM

    I enjoy your use of the word zealots as a pejorative as it pertains to people who don’t like cheating because you’re incredibly zealous in your defense of anyone who does cheat.

  24. tgifinley88 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:21 AM

    It’s ridiculous all the idiots that are pulling out the pitchforks and calling for Braun’s head as they ignore his plausible explanation for why his name is on the list. He said he would cooperate fully and has nothing to hide, and it’s going to be incredibly easy for him and his lawyers to show documentation for their consultation with Bosch. You really think it’s just pure coincidence that Braun had no PED listed next to his name, unlike the other players on the list? No doubt the MLB is out for Braun’s blood due to them still being embarrassed for having egg on their face from last year’s trial, but this seems like a story that is blown way out of proportion and will be nonexistent halfway through spring training.

    And to all the Braun bashers that are salivating at the mouth to see him get suspended, you will be sorely disappointed. The same thing that happened last year will happen this year. The “internet heroes” that seem to have a personal vendetta against this man will get their time to whine and squeal about how Braun is a cheat and how he’s going to struggle this season…blah blah blah. And what will happen during the season? Braun will tune them out and put together another MVP caliber season, as he takes as many drug tests as any player in the game. It’s a real shame that he’s going to have to go through this witch hunt from MLB and from idiotic fans the rest of his career.

    • brewcrewfan54 - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:30 AM

      Stop making so much sense! Baseball fans don’t like that when it comes to PED’s!

    • indaburg - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      100% agree.

  25. manute - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:38 AM

    If Braun’s lawyers retained the expert, then why would Braun’s name show up all over the docs? Wouldn’t the law firm – rather than Braun personally – owe this guy the $20-30K? Craig, would your embezzler-consultant’s records show that you personally owe him the money or that Craig & Associates, LLP (the firm that signed him up) does?

    I’m not taking a position here (!), just asking a question….

    • Craig Calcaterra - Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM

      Because the docs belong to Bosch. He can keep track of it anyway he wants. I have no idea what my consultants write in their own private records. Maybe they call it “the Braun case.” Maybe they call it “that job for Craig.” It’s of no concern to me.

    • Francisco (FC) - Feb 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      I think this was answered above, it’s not unusual to hire a consultant and say who your client is. For the consultant I bet it can be a reference source for the future: “Hey I consulted for Ryan Braun!”

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2532)
  2. D. Span (2368)
  3. G. Stanton (2326)
  4. Y. Puig (2273)
  5. J. Fernandez (2237)
  1. B. Crawford (2145)
  2. G. Springer (2074)
  3. M. Teixeira (1857)
  4. M. Sano (1835)
  5. J. Hamilton (1780)