Newest PED scandal: Braun named in Biogenesis clinic records (Reply #365: Additional mention found)

[Fear The Chorizo]

Maybe he needs to be impassioned like Rafael Palmeiro and point his finger at Congress while denying it - oh wait, that was a lie.

 

If Braun really is a PED user, it will become public knowledge before he retires, either through a future suspension or from people in the know squealing on him. He's too big a name to not have somebody provide evidence he used that knows about it - Roger Clemens and Arod can attest to this.

 

I'm actually happy Braun isn't making the rounds on the airwaves and talking to anyone with a microphone about why he's innocent - seems like athletes who feel inclined to do so always end up being liars.

 

What kind of discipline (legally or otherwise) would Braun face if he waits until he retires before trying to tell his full account of these events (via interviews or in a book)? MLB wouldn't be able to suspend him from playing for breaching confidentiality, and if Braun is being truthful what sort of legal risks would he be taking by making his story public?

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

At least Corey Hart won't wreck his knee running to Braun's first spring training presser this year.

[xisxisxis]

He can't talk about the case from last year.

 

But he isn't prevented from talking at all--or from clearing up doubts that exist about who he is right now.

 

 

Jim, how do we know he is free to talk about any issues arising from his PED case from last year. One thing that has always concerned me is did te leak sign a confidentiality agreement. If so, I would imagine Braun would go after him legally. if not, his lawyers screwed up. I can imagine in either case there may be reasons for not pursuing anything or keeping quiet. In the former case it is possible that Braun knew it was Bosch and told MLB as much or they assisted with the investigation (mostly to clear themselves). MLB might be watching Bosch and asked Braun to not go after him as Bosch would take cover and hide his tracks in his other dealings. in the latter case, if his lawyers didnt get a CA or wrote a poor CA they would have a lot to explain. in that case, they most likely would have discounted Braun's costs for him signing an agreement to keep all of the information regarding the leak confidential ( as well as the agreement). The last thing lawyers want is an important client to point out they screwed up one of the most basic issues. So I can see at least 2 issues where Braun has a gag on speaking that has nothing to do with his innocence.

[JimH5]

I don't know the details of any confidentiality agreement between the union and MLB related to these arbitration cases. But I would think it would be limited to the specifics of the case and the evidence presented in it. It's not going to be a permanent muzzle on all things related to a player's fitness. The union wouldn't sign off on that.

 

If he can't answer questions about Bosch or about the Shyam Das case, he could still have Jeff Passan or Buster over to show what his current workout routine is like. Who is his nutritionist? Where does he work out?

 

I guess I'm really looking for more of a PR strategy that isn't so defensive and silent. Go on the offensive. He's a good looking, charismatic guy. People want to believe him. Show us you're putting effort into rebuilding your credibility.

 

I think he can do that without talking about the specifics of last year's case.

[dhoffman19]

I don't know the details of any confidentiality agreement between the union and MLB related to these arbitration cases. But I would think it would be limited to the specifics of the case and the evidence presented in it. It's not going to be a permanent muzzle on all things related to a player's fitness. The union wouldn't sign off on that.

 

If he can't answer questions about Bosch or about the Shyam Das case, he could still have Jeff Passan or Buster over to show what his current workout routine is like. Who is his nutritionist? Where does he work out?

 

I guess I'm really looking for more of a PR strategy that isn't so defensive and silent. Go on the offensive. He's a good looking, charismatic guy. People want to believe him. Show us you're putting effort into rebuilding your credibility.

 

I think he can do that without talking about the specifics of last year's case.

 

 

I get that you have doubts, and so do I. But showing that he works out hard and eats well won't accomplish a thing. PED users work out hard too. I think people would liken it to T.O. doing sit-ups in his driveway a few years ago.

 

Actually, I think he said too much the last time and should not have gone after the sample collector in his press conference unless he was willing to share specifics. That made him look bad, IMO.

[monty57]

I would guess that Braun's attorneys are very high-priced and know more about what he can and can't do than most people, including those in the media. If there was a legal "magic bullet" which would clear his name in the public arena, I'm sure they would pull the trigger.

 

It would seem that it would be pretty easy to prove that they used someone as a paid consultant. If that proof isn't made public, and Braun is not suspended, I'll assume Braun's team has shown the proof to MLB but for whatever reason cannot show it to the public.

[dlk9s]

He should buy a billboard and stream video of his drug tests. A stream of his stream, so to speak.

[dhoffman19]

I would guess that Braun's attorneys are very high-priced and know more about what he can and can't do than most people, including those in the media. If there was a legal "magic bullet" which would clear his name in the public arena, I'm sure they would pull the trigger.

 

It would seem that it would be pretty easy to prove that they used someone as a paid consultant. If that proof isn't made public, and Braun is not suspended, I'll assume Braun's team has shown the proof to MLB but for whatever reason cannot show it to the public.

 

People seem to be assuming that it would be easy for Braun and his team to prove he used Bosch as a consultant, but it may not be that simple.

 

Here's a question - was it established that they actually paid the guy anything? There was a dispute after all. If they never paid him, it's possible that they don't have much if any documentation to actually prove that Bosch was used as a consultant. I say that because I'm a lawyer and the general practice is to keep most conversations with consultants and experts verbal as oppossed to written. The reason is that you want to keep those communications as confidential as possible since you never want the other side to know what you're thinking. Once something is in writing, you create a greater risk that it will be leaked or inadvertently produced in discovery. Plus, if a court ever says, for whatever reason, that you need to produce all communications with the expert/consultant, you have that much less to produce if conversations were verbal. Come to think of it, even if they paid Bosch something, they'd still need to somehow show what the payment was actually for.

 

So, unless Bosch produced some sort of written report to Braun's attorneys, it's at least conceivable to me that Braun's camp does not necessarily have documented "proof" that they used Bosch as a consultant. Plus, even if that proof existed, as has been discussed, he risks waiving privilege by making any of it public, or even turning it over to MLB. So, I'll be surprised if we ever get any further confirmation on that.

[JimH5]

At a minimum, wouldn't they have a cancelled check or record of a banking transfer?

[dlk9s]

Considering there is allegedly a dispute over payment, maybe they haven't paid Bosch yet.

[dhoffman19]

At a minimum, wouldn't they have a cancelled check or record of a banking transfer?

 

Not if they didn't pay him anything yet. And if they did, the check could be for anything, like PEDs, so it wouldn't prove anything anyway absent something more.

[JimH5]

Sure, it wouldn't be lock down proof, but it would be more than just him making his single statement and us being left with questions.

 

There will always be people who will never believe his innocence, but there are others of us who can be sold on his idea if he'd just show more effort.

 

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a banking record, but something.

 

How long did you meet with Bosch? Was it in person? Where?

 

Who else was there? When was the meeting? Why do you think there is a dispute regarding his fees? Have you made a payment to him?

 

I don't expect answers to all those questions, but those are things that an innocent man might be willing to discuss, especially if he wants more of us to believe him.

[Ennder]

I don't expect answers to all those questions, but those are things that an innocent man might be willing to discuss, especially if he wants more of us to believe him.

 

Those are probably things he isn't supposed to talk about though as they directly relate to the case. I don't know, I think you just have unreal expectations on what he can or should talk about here.

[JimH5]

I think they directly relate to his relationship with Bosch in the context of why he was on the Biogenesis records. I don't know why that part would be taboo. But I am wandering so far down the speculative path--we all are--that it probably doesn't make much sense to keep guessing.

 

I'm just saying what it would take to get me more towards his side.

 

He'll be in training camp soon, so its a matter of time before some reporter asks him about his sullied reputation. Maybe he'll have more to say then. If not, then he's lost me.

[ilikewisco]

Sure, it wouldn't be lock down proof, but it would be more than just him making his single statement and us being left with questions.

 

There will always be people who will never believe his innocence, but there are others of us who can be sold on his idea if he'd just show more effort.

 

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a banking record, but something.

 

How long did you meet with Bosch? Was it in person? Where?

 

Who else was there? When was the meeting? Why do you think there is a dispute regarding his fees? Have you made a payment to him?

 

I don't expect answers to all those questions, but those are things that an innocent man might be willing to discuss, especially if he wants more of us to believe him.

 

agreed. By just saying he may not be able to discuss any on this does not remove the suspicion surrounding him. There has to be a way for him to address the problem without violating confidentiality. It seems so far he has just decided not to. I understand the legal ramifications surrounding him, but public opinion is not a court of law. He should show something if he wants to be taken seriously.

[Patrick425]

Yeah, I don't know that I need to necessarily have him produce any evidence that backs his side at this point, but I would at least like to hear from him why he can't. There are plenty of good points made in this forum and in other blogs that speculate why he may not be able to give his side of the story at this point, but that's all they are, speculation. No one, other than Braun and his attorneys, know for sure why he would not be able to give his side of the story (assuming he really does have one).

 

Last year, during his press conference in Spring Training, all he basically said was that he was taking the "high road". He did make a slight reference to possible future legal battles, but I would like to hear him reiterate and elaborate on that.

 

I don't think he would be violating any labor agreement rules or put himself in any legal jeopardy if he just said hey, there is much more to this story, but my attorneys have advised me not to disclose this information at this point and time. I think he could even be a little more specific and state "because of subject matter waiver" issues and/or "MLB labor agreement issues" I'm unable to fully give my side of the story at this point.

 

I don't know that this would cause anyone who thinks he's 100% guilty to suddenly believe him, but it would help give a little more faith to those of us who are starting to have our doubts about him and why he seems to not really want to do anything to protect his name and reputation. If you are truly innocent, you can only take the "high road" for so long. You have to give a better reason and be a bit more specific as to why you are not speaking out more.

[dhoffman19]

I don't think he would be violating any labor agreement rules or put himself in any legal jeopardy if he just said hey, there is much more to this story, but my attorneys have advised me not to disclose this information at this point and time. I think he could even be a little more specific and state "because of subject matter waiver" issues and/or "MLB labor agreement issues" I'm unable to fully give my side of the story at this point.

 

All good points. He could certainly do that. Also, I'm not so sure he took the "high road" last year when he threw the collector under the bus, intimating there were other things about him that showed bias.

[bani1717]

To respond to these statements:

 

Sure, it wouldn't be lock down proof, but it would be more than just him making his single statement and us being left with questions.

 

There will always be people who will never believe his innocence, but there are others of us who can be sold on his idea if he'd just show more effort.

 

Yeah, I don't know that I need to necessarily have him produce any evidence that backs his side at this point, but I would at least like to hear from him why he can't.

 

I really don't know what you guys are hoping for. Here are some snippets from his original presser almost one year ago:

 

"I want to take a moment to especially thank the fans, all the fans who have supported me as well as the fans who withheld judgment as I respected the confidentiality of this case.... I’ve tried to respect this process, even though the confidentiality of the process was breached early on."

 

and then at the end:

"I’ll try to answer all of your questions, but please respect the fact that I can’t get into many details of the process because it’s supposed to be confidential, and because of potential ongoing litigations and the fact that I am considering all my legal options. There may be some questions I can’t answer."

 

He already gave the answer you wanted - he can't produce more evidence because of the confidentiality of the process and potential ongoing litigations. We've seen legal experts say that they wouldn't advise their clients to publicly release more info either. That is enough for me that I'm not going to assume he's guilty or be swayed in that direction simply because he's not releasing every detail.

 

 

He did make a slight reference to possible future legal battles, but I would like to hear him reiterate and elaborate on that.

 

I don't think he would be violating any labor agreement rules or put himself in any legal jeopardy if he just said hey, there is much more to this story, but my attorneys have advised me not to disclose this information at this point and time. I think he could even be a little more specific and state "because of subject matter waiver" issues and/or "MLB labor agreement issues" I'm unable to fully give my side of the story at this point.

 

Again, he's already done that, so what does "reiterating" the point do exactly? Would you like to have him testify in front of congress? Or maybe have him deny for years that he never took PEDs while winning 7 straight championships? None of that really adds any value to anything he's already said.

 

 

How long did you meet with Bosch? Was it in person? Where?

 

Who else was there? When was the meeting? Why do you think there is a dispute regarding his fees? Have you made a payment to him?

 

I don't expect answers to all those questions, but those are things that an innocent man might be willing to discuss, especially if he wants more of us to believe him.

 

Again, I'm not sure these details would add anything to the story. If he is lying, what's to stop him from making up these details? He already gave a plausible story, and I don't really expect him to give additional details right now. I feel like the only way some of this will come out is through results of legal proceedings.

 

 

I don't know that this would cause anyone who thinks he's 100% guilty to suddenly believe him, but it would help give a little more faith to those of us who are starting to have our doubts about him and why he seems to not really want to do anything to protect his name and reputation. If you are truly innocent, you can only take the "high road" for so long. You have to give a better reason and be a bit more specific as to why you are not speaking out more.

 

Why does he need to? I look at it this way - is his behavior consistent with how an innocent person would act or how a guilty person would act. If I were in his shoes and innocent, I don't think I'd come out with the entire story. It may feel good for him to do that, but you have to consider that he's facing more than just the PR/fan opinion/reputation aspect of it.

 

I believe his behavior is also consistent with how a guilty person could act. But quite frankly, looking at the Bosch note in isolation, there is no way I'm going to even consider that as evidence that he's guilty. For me, that adds zero weight to the likelihood that he took any banned substances, since he gave a plausible explanation and since his name was linked to his lawyer moreso than to any banned substances. So then we're back to whether the overturned failed drug test is enough for me to call him guilty based on that alone. But even that has all sorts of questions behind it, so essentially what I'm saying is that I don't see how anyone can say one way or the other at this point, but the Bosch note certainly shouldn't have any bearing on people's opinions IMO.

[Taylor Blue]

I keep hearing people say that Braun threw the collector under the bus. I'm not sure I completely agree with this. Yes, he indicated that some things were concerning about the collector and that he was unsure of what may or may not have happened with his sample. But he also stated that he was not about to falsely accuse someone of something the way that he had been falsely accused. I think this was fair. What what he supposed to say, "I'm 100% sure that nothing happened to my sample"? Maybe part of the reason he isn't saying anything now is because what he said about the collector made him look bad even though he was just questioning what happened. Just more speculation.

[dhoffman19]

I keep hearing people say that Braun threw the collector under the bus. I'm not sure I completely agree with this. Yes, he indicated that some things were concerning about the collector and that he was unsure of what may or may not have happened with his sample. But he also stated that he was not about to falsely accuse someone of something the way that he had been falsely accused. I think this was fair. What what he supposed to say, "I'm 100% sure that nothing happened to my sample"? Maybe part of the reason he isn't saying anything now is because what he said about the collector made him look bad even though he was just questioning what happened. Just more speculation.

 

While I can't remember the exact words, what I was referring to is Braun's statement from last Spring to the effect of: Through this process, we discovered significant information about this individual that caused us serious concern about his neutrality ... or something like that.

 

So basically, he left the message that the guy was somehow dirty or biased or unfair, and then in the next sentence goes on to say he wouldn't want to falsely accuse him. I just think it could have been handled better.

[ilikewisco]

I agree this incident shouldn't sway opinion by itself. But he did fail a test and his name was linked to Bosch. Those two isolated incidents together can't be just dismissed. And his appeal of the suspension has been over for a while now and still no clarification. It all just makes him look very bad when all he's willing to say is take my word for it.

 

We all have our opinions, I just believe if this was another star player on a different team a lot of people's opinions may very well be different. Does anyone not believe Bonds was on something? All people use to assume he was on something was his body, numbers, and links to Balco, that's less than what Braun has against him. And just because Braun's head isn't enormous and he is not overly muscular doesn't rule it out in my opinion. A failed test is more incriminating to me. And I know he won his appeal, but he still failed a test. It shouldn't have been leaked, but it was. If anyone can show me legit proof how synthetic testosterone can show up in the test I'm willing to listen. But it must be real, verifiable proof. Not assumptions like the testers mistook something else for synthetic T.

[brwrsfan]

We'll never get any clarification about his appeal other than what is already out there. MLB made sure of that when they chose to keep it confidential.

 

For those of you looking for more from Braun, he's likely going to have to say SOMETHING about it when he reports to camp. The media isn't just going to let it go.

[dlk9s]

Ok, I think this thread has run its course. Lock her up.

[Nottso]

If anyone can show me legit proof how synthetic testosterone can show up in the test I'm willing to listen. But it must be real, verifiable proof. Not assumptions like the testers mistook something else for synthetic T.

 

Synthetic T was never found. Molecules of a comparable size were found that could have been Synthetic T or could have been something else, especially considering the irregularities in the storage/handling of the sample.

 

You seem to be okay with the assumption of guilt (which is all there ever was for Synthetic T) but you consider anything less than concrete evidence to the contrary to be only an assumption of innocence and that assumption you are not okay with. I have a hard time grasping that.

[ilikewisco]

He failed a test. If you can show me how he failed but was clean, I'll take a look. If not, there is no getting around a failed test. I was willing to accept his excuse before, pretty much because I'm a homer. But I just can't do it now.