Skip to content

Ryan Braun listed in more Biogenesis docs … and it makes Braun look BAD

Feb 15, 2013, 3:56 PM EDT

ryan braun getty Getty Images

Ryan Braun? What was that you were saying about it only being your lawyers consulting with Biogenesis for purposes of your PED appeal? If that’s the case, then what’s this about your name showing up on another document in the Biogenesis records? One that is more closely associated with PED customers.  T.J. Quinn and Mike Finn of ESPN report:

The list was written in April, in the hand of Biogenesis of America clinic founder Anthony Bosch. Among the names is the Milwaukee Brewers’ Ryan Braun, and to the right of that name is a figure: $1,500.

That list, a source familiar with Bosch’s operation told “Outside the Lines,” indicates that those players received performance-enhancing drugs from Bosch, and owed him money. The document, one of dozens obtained by “Outside the Lines,” suggests a closer link to Bosch and the now-shuttered clinic he ran in Coral Gables, Fla., than Braun has acknowledged.

As before, this is not definitive proof of anything and, in and of itself, does not establish that Braun did anything wrong or give Major League Baseball grounds for action. We simply don’t know whether the Biogenesis records accurately reflect what occurred (they are the very definition of hearsay).

But: Braun gave a pretty specific explanation for his name appearing in those records in the first place. And it’s inconsistent with what Quinn and Fish are reporting here.

I believe you have to give guys the benefit of the doubt when the evidence does not give you anything more to go on than supposition and conjecture. But there’s no escaping that this, at least on the surface, contradicts Braun’s previous explanation and that’s not a good thing for Ryan Braun.

UPDATE: This may all be sexy, but it may not matter.

  1. somekat - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    Well all know he did it, we all know he scammed the system. Please move on

  2. rcali - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:01 PM

    In Braun’s defense, these documents were not handled correctly.

    • bla bla bla - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM

      If I produce a handwritten note with the names of Finn, Quinn, Boesch and Bud Selig in a column under “People that tried to touch my peepee when I was a little boy” will you run with it?

      If not, why not?

      • mscott4 - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM

        The difference being that this is a medical clinic known to have dealt in HGH therapy. These handwritten notes are from the owner of said clinic. And most of the players named have already admitted some connection to the clinic.

      • kopy - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

        The documents are worth about as much as the I.O.U.s in Dumb and Dumber. Braun’s is just the one for the Lambo that they “might wanna hang on to…”

      • thebadguyswon - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM


    • misterchainbluelightning - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:56 PM

      That UPS driver really has it in for Braun

      • Old Gator - Feb 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        Was that his wife’s head in that last package?

  3. whmiv21 - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    This just keeps getting worse…

    • Old Gator - Feb 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM

      Malthus’ Deviant to Murphy’s Law: that which has already gotten bad will only get worse.

  4. dgravey321 - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    Well because a person with the last name Fish found this, it leads us all to believe that this is fishy

  5. mashoaf - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    His lawyers needed samples of PED’s to do tests for his appeal, they just forgot to pay…

    • Old Gator - Feb 16, 2013 at 11:28 AM

      No lawyer on the face of this planet has ever “forgotten” to pay.

      Or to bill.

      I’ve never tried billing a Gowachin legum, though.

  6. mscott4 - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM

    Ok so Braun’s name appeared on a list and Braun admitted ‘consulting’ Biogenesis as soon as it got out. Now Braun’s name appears on a list written by the same person but tied specifically to PED’s and it’s hearsay? Not so sure about that.

    • maverick8948 - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:17 PM

      This is why you all shouldn’t pretend to know what you are talking about. It is the textbook definition of hearsay.

      • southcapitolstreet - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:53 PM

        I dunno – this might fall within one of the recordkeeping exceptions to hearsay. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

    • kappy32 - Feb 16, 2013 at 1:37 AM

      Leave the lawyer stuff to the lawyers. Here is the definition of hearsay, repeated to me hundreds of times in each evidence class and trial practice / complex litigation classes I took in law school.

      Hearsay – an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

      1. Were the allegation(s) / statement(s) made by the ESPN OTL reporters (Quinn & Fish) proffered in court? No, there is no court proceeding going on here.

      2. What is the “matter asserted” in this instance? The matter asserted is that Ryan Braun received PED from Bosch & Biogenesis.

      3. Would the allegation(s) / statement(s) made by Quinn & Fish help “prove” that Braun received PED from Bosch & Biogenesis? Absolutely it would.

      Taking it even a step further, the handwritten notes of Bosch implicating Braun in PED use – the document itself – would be inadmissible hearsay in a formal court proceeding without the proper evidentiary foundation being set forth.

      On the other hand, the handwritten notes of Bosch would be admissible in a formal court proceeding if they were introduced with Bosch as the witness & using the Business Records exception to inadmissible hearsay evidence. In order for the notes to be deemed admissible, the following foundation would have to be laid:

      1. Is the document actually a memorandum, record, report, or data compilation? If yes, then…

      2. Does the document demonstrate acts, events, opinions, or diagnoses? If yes, then…

      3. Was the document made at or near the time in which the actions being depicted took place? If yes, then…

      4. Was the document compiled by – or from information transmitted by – a person with first-hand knowledge of the actions or events being depicted? If yes, then…

      5. Was the document made in the regular course of business? If yes, then…

      6. Is it the regular course of business, or common and customary practice of aforesaid business to make said document? If yes, then…

      7. Is the person in which the document is being sought admission through the custodian, record-keeper or creator of aforesaid document? If yes, then the handwritten notes from Bosch will be admitted in a formal court proceeding.

      It’s my opinion that so long as Bosch is the testifying witness, the handwritten notes would be admitted into evidence under the Business Records Exception to hearsay inadmissibility. However, I am not sure what the evidentiary rules are in an MLB arbitration / suspension / appeal hearing. Chances are that there are very lax rules of evidence in these proceedings & the document would be admitted without having the lay any evidentiary foundation. Regardless of whether it is a formal court proceeding – where Braun sues for defamation or to prevent MLB from suspending him (see, Vilma v. Goodell, et al) – or a an MLB-conducted quasi-legal proceeding, the document will almost certainly come into play & be a huge piece of evidence. Nevertheless, there is no question whatsoever that both the statements made by Quinn & Fish, as well as the handwritten notes from Bosch itself are, in fact, prima facie inadmissible hearsay. However, as I demonstrated above, there are many ways – 20-something I believe – in which hearsay is admissible evidence.

      You’re welcome, ladies & gents. Hearsay & the Business Records Exception Lecture is over for today. Tomorrow we will begin discussing the Dying Declaration, Presence Sense Impression, and Excited Utterance Exceptions to Hearsay.

      – Professor Kappy

  7. cadillacjosh - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM

    As a diehard Brewer fan and having Ryan Braun being my favorite player, I would just like to say “Damn it.”

    I gave him the benefit of the doubt before, when he was cleared the first time. He said there was more to the story, but he was aquitted. His statement that this was a consultant, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But it becomes harder and harder.

    • bbk1000 - Feb 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

      “But it becomes harder and harder”?????

      This is the third time and you still believe….haha…man you are naive…

  8. bla bla bla - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM

    If I produce a handwritten note with the names of Finn, Quinn, Boesch and Bud Selig in a column under “People that tried to touch my peepee when I was a little boy” will you run with it?

    If not, why not?

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 15, 2013 at 10:47 PM

      Classic strawman argument.

      So if you are drawing a parallel….I assume your note is backed up by arrests (like is the case here), and confirmed by people who worked for the perps (as is the case here). In that instance, of course it would be printed, accusation like that hit the papers all the time.

  9. ireportyoudecide - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    99% sure he has used and broken MLB’s PED policy. 99% sure he’s not going to be suspended for it.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM

      Occupy Ryan Braun! We are the 99%

  10. brewcrewfan54 - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM

    I’ve figured Braun us likely guilty. Now what I’d like to know is why do things keep getting leaked every few weeks? Os it a deliberate attempt by news agencies to make the story last long? Do people who do investigations really have this hard of a time keeping things a secret until it should be public? What gives? I’m tired of every few weeks hearing new names from the same documents that were found earlier.

  11. chacochicken - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:20 PM

    So, you’re a doc, right? I need to have some people help me beat a positive test. Yeah, PEDs. Wait, are they already plural or do you add an s? And look, dude totally sat on my piss for like a whole weekend..if it was even my piss. Are you writing all this down on a cocktail napkin? So, anyway, since I’m already here what do you have in a citrus flavored amphetamine? No, I don’t have ADD. No, I don’t think I have low testosterone, in fact the test was high for that. You can tell just by looking? Yeah, dude, I’ll take some adderall, cool. Am I ever around pregnant women? No way bro, they kinda creep me out with the big belly. Ok so I can use this topical testosterone. Can I get it in an axe body spray scent?

  12. vallewho - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:29 PM

    Oh Braun!

    Can’t wait for your new “statement”.

  13. canucks18 - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM


  14. thebadguyswon - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    You can’t trust the media at all, so there’s little doubt they are milking the story for maximum exposure.

  15. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:51 PM

    ARod’s name found on list: BAN HIM FROM BASEBALL AND TEAR UP HIS CONTRACT!!!

    Braun’s name found on list: The media is really blowing this up, haven’t we already been through this? Can you leave poor Ryan alone?


  16. luz56 - Feb 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM

    I have an answer for all of this….. Allow every major leaguer to use PEDs….

  17. Old Gator - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM

    Gowachin circumstantial evidence.


  18. btwicey - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:06 PM

    Gosh this whole steroids thing is so frikin annoying as an MLB fan, move on and let’s just play ball . They all have 2 arms and 2 legs . It is a FACT that there is no evidence that peds actually work

    • dondada10 - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:44 PM

      Can I see those facts?

      • Kevin S. - Feb 15, 2013 at 6:41 PM

        It’s not a positive claim that steroids don’t work, but it does show that there is no evidence that they do work.

      • paperlions - Feb 16, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        What he should have said is that there is no evidence that steroids result in increased power production in baseball hitters. Because there is not….and a lot of people have used all the available data to look for such a signal and what they found implicated a number of factors, none of which could be associated temporally with steroid use.

  19. fuzaq2muq2 - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM

    $1500 for a consulting fee, for a client who is a multi-millionaire ballplayer….. does that really seem so impossible to believe? I tell ya…… the only thing people like to do more than put athletes and other celebrities on pedestals is to rip em right off those pedestals….. sick.

    When Braun is proven to have taken PED’s, let me know, and I’ll jump on the bandwagon…… until then, get a life… all of ya.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM

      Except I don’t believe there was ever a player with as much evidence against him as there is with Braun who has ended up looking innocent. Hell, Lance Armstrong has failed fewer drug tests than Braun, and he defended himself against accusations far more vigorously than Braun has thus far.

      I’m not saying Braun is guilty, but at this point it would be far from surprising if some (more) real evidence implicating him comes to light.

    • countduku - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:36 PM

      RE: fuzaq2mug2…do you understand that Ryan Braun has failed his PED test. His failed test was valid. The seal was proven too never have been broken on his urine sample. Neither he nor his attorneys dispute that. His suspension was revoked because and only because the chain of events in submitting the sample was not followed exactly as it is written in the CBA. I don’t care whether you jump on the bandwagon or not, i’m just trying to make sure you understand why he is not a convicted user.

      • bla bla bla - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM

        Actually, Braun won the appeal because his team proved that (mis)handling the sample in the manner that it was would cause the crazy levels. They were able to replicate it more than once. For more info, read up on the case of former Olympian Diane Modahl. And stay away from ESPN.

      • stercuilus65 - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM

        “bla bla bla” you should change your name to “bs bs bs”

      • bla bla bla - Feb 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM

        All anyone has to do is do some reading. Braun didn’t win because his sample was mishandled. Braun won because it was proven (and has been proven before) that mishandling a sample in the way that Braun’s sample was mishandled will cause the humanly impossible levels found.

        If you need to, get a 10 year old to help you with the “big scary words”.

      • countduku - Feb 15, 2013 at 6:36 PM

        so are you actually trying to say that to have a sample (sealed) sit for 2 days WILL cause PED’s to automatically show up in someone urine sample? the off the chart levels are totally beside the point. The diane modahl case you mention was overturned because in 1995, the 3 arbitrators decided that they could not prove that the portegese lab’s results were 100% reliable. science has come along way since 1994, when we knew nothing about PED’s. Again, the urine sample was sealed, never broken and they contained PED’s. PED’s do not just show up in a sample if they remain sealed, no matter how long they sit.

    • countduku - Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 PM

      the $1500 fee has not yet been offered as an explaination by Braun or his attorneys. The consulting fee was $20-30k, according to Braun and his attorney. Why would they even consult a non licensed doctor for 20-30k in the first place seems weird but who am i to question it. just seems even stranger now that his name has come up in this same business owners log book, when he claimed to have no other business contact with him.

    • catskinnerd11r - Feb 16, 2013 at 12:42 AM

      Braun fans are fu&@ing idiots

  20. ryantk6 - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM

    The records may be admissible under the Business Records exception to hearsay. Also, it’s funny that Braun’s lawyers didn’t say that Biogenesis was a consultant. Probably because it wasn’t true. Braun could have easily waived privilege.

    • ezthinking - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM

      Hand written notes would not fit the business record exception.

      And Braun’s comment does not waiving the privilege. Just because you say something that you also may have told your lawyer does not waive the privilege.

      Let me guess, paralegal student?

      • seeingwhatsticks - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:51 PM

        I’m guessing, but I think he meant that Braun could have waived privilege to allow his attorneys to confirm that Biogenesis consulted on his case.

      • ryantk6 - Feb 15, 2013 at 6:24 PM

        803(6) does not say anywhere that a handwritten record is inadmissible simply because it is handwritten; however, it is less likely to be admitted because it is handwritten. Secondly, I said it MAY be admissible under 803(6), not certainly admissible. To be admissible it must meet the criteria of 803(6), and these facts are missing from the post. That is why I said it MAY be admissible. Finally, you should actually read my comment carefully because seeingwhatsticks hit the nail right on the head.

        FRE 803(6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

        (A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

        (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

        (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

        (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

        (E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

      • dparker713 - Feb 15, 2013 at 7:11 PM

        Wow ryan, thats an awful lot of speculation required to make this a business record given what we’re presented. Not to mention that to get any testimony to verify the paper you’d need to hand atleast someone at the clinic and maybe Bosch himself with immunity.

        And merely disclosing the employment of someone for a legal defense does not waive privilege.

      • ryantk6 - Feb 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM

        Yes, it is speculation! That is why I noted previously that we are missing some key facts. I am simply stating that there is a possibility depending on some yet unrevealed key facts. That is why I said it MAY be admissible. It may not be likely, but it is certainly reasonable that this note could have come from a handwritten ledger or file of his illicit dealings that was regularly kept by him.
        And for the last time, I know disclosing employment does not waive privilege. What I meant to say is that Braun could have waived privilege so his lawyer’s could have made the statement about Biogenesis being a consultant because it would have been more credible. Because Braun could have done this easily, and he did not. I suspect that he lied because his lawyers will not provide him with false excuse.

  21. losanginsight - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    …and your 2011 NL MVP is Matt Kemp.

  22. gbar22 - Feb 15, 2013 at 5:55 PM

    Someday the media will realize nobody really cares

    • manchestermiracle - Feb 15, 2013 at 11:05 PM

      The “media” are businesses trying to make money. They report what sells. One look at the responses on this thread should make that ridiculously obvious.

  23. dparker713 - Feb 15, 2013 at 7:06 PM

    Why exactly does this look Braun look any worse than before? He’s on a list of people that supposedly owed Bosch money. He’s already admitted that he paid the guy for consulting services, so Bosch seeking money from him is hardly inconsistent with his story.

    The only thing that is new in that story is that an unnamed source ‘familiar’ with the company claims the only reason someone could be on that list was for PEDs purchased. This is a handwritten list with no indicia of business records in the report. Basically, the reporters’ unnamed source is at best speculating and at worst completely fabricating the importance of that list. Unless and until Bosch himself actually backs up this source or someone from within the organization speaks to its commonly understood purpose in the daily activities of the business, we’re still at exactly the same point as we were before.

    I expected a more level-headed reading of the ESPN article from you Craig.

    • manchestermiracle - Feb 15, 2013 at 11:06 PM

      You’re right, but not the way you think. An obvious juicer like Braun could hardly look much worse already.

  24. sunsation3413 - Feb 15, 2013 at 7:15 PM

    Braun was guilty last year and got off only because of a technicality. How arrogant of him to go right back and do it again. Once a cheater, always a cheater. Just ask Barry.

  25. jaybird22seven - Feb 15, 2013 at 7:29 PM

    I hope he gets 50 games to start the year!!!

    • Old Gator - Feb 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM

      You want him to play 214 games as punishment?

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2588)
  2. D. Span (2398)
  3. G. Stanton (2395)
  4. Y. Puig (2334)
  5. J. Fernandez (2284)