Per ESPN: Braun Tests Positive, May Face 50 Game Suspension… (Part 3, Appeal underway)

[Patrick425]

I think Oldcity's post sums up my feelings on what will happen. Braun will get suspending regardless of the reasons because baseball won't want to look like they let off a star player or admit their testing system was flawed. Meanwhile behind the scenes they will go about tweaking whatever it was that caused the positive or slightly change some minor language on the rules.

 

Braun's camp and fans will loudly proclaim the suspension is unjustified and dump all the data regarding it into the public eye. Non Brewer fans won't care and will label him a juicer in the likes of Canseco, just like we would have if the same happened to Pujols. MLB will just keep a no comment status on the noise and questions about the positive while not stopping from Braun from pleading his case to public either.

 

Sort of like how no matter how many times it gets shown that instant reply on HR's, fair/foul, outs at the plate, etc. in playoff games make a difference, MLB for years said, "Well they get it right most of the time" as a defense for refusing to change despite obvious errors. Baseball will make changes but not retroactive to fix the Braun situation and won't make public on their own or relate those changes to Braun's case.

 

Yeah, unfortunately, I would also have to agree that this is how things will probably go down. It would be nice if MLB would say these are the facts of the case is this is the reason we are suspending him, but they will just say that Braun failed the test and the suspension has been upheald, leaving Braun to explain the situation to the public. The general public, outside of the hometown fans, never believe the player.

 

It almost seems like in this case, since MLB was responsible for leaking the news on this in the first place that they would have a little more of an obligation to explain the results and back up Braun's story (guilty or not). It sure seems like with the information that has leaked so far and the time it is taking that it's not a cut and dry situation and there are some grey areas with this case.

 

I know it's far fetched but perhaps Braun's attorney stated to MLB that we will not file a greivence or come after MLB legally if, suspension or no suspension, they are willing to "cooberate" (spl? where's the spell check on this site?!?) Braun's story to the media and perhaps the extra time it's taking is the process of working out the details of that agreement. Just a wild thought.

[Patrick425]

If Ryan is found innocent, there is no way he will be suspended, the players union or Ryan himself would not go along with that.

 

Who said this might happen?

[jjfanec]

Is there any possibility if there are extenuating circumstances that the suspension could be reduced? I probably asked this earlier in the thread but I dont remember the answer.

[JohnBriggs12]

The length of time it is taking tells me that Braun's side must have made a very compelling case that the testing was flawed. How do you prove a test is flawed? You replicate the results using same process and get a similar result. In other words my guess is Braun's legal team had test subjects ingest what presumably was an MLB approved substance that Braun had taken, then had them tested in the same manner at the same time interval from ingestion and lo and behold, results occured that point to raised testosterone! The time period it's taken is for the arbiters to pour over the data, interview test subjects etc. because the entire testing program is at stake here.

[pebadger]

My guesses as to why it's taking a long time to get a decision:

 

1) There is/was a genuine dispute regarding the decision among the arbitration panel.

 

2) The complex nature of the case means that, regardless of the decision, it is necessary for the written decision supporting the case to be as cogent and thorough as possible. Having a solid written opinion is especially necessary to protect the integrity of the program in this case where it has to be expected that the decision will be subject to public scrutiny given the unfortunate public nature of the case. It's also important because one of the very few ways to challenge an arbitration decision in a court of law is to challenge the throughness and "professionalism" of the process. A well-constructed written decision will virtually eliminate that potential.

 

3) Depending on exactly what rules are in place for the arbitration, the panel may have done some further investigation on its own to clarify facts critical to the decision. Unlike a court of law, the panel is not always limited to using only evidence presented at the hearing in forumlating its decision.

 

4) If the vote is 2-1 in either direction, the dissenting panel member may be constructing his own written opinion as a vigorous defense of either MLB or Braun.

 

Note that these are not all mutually exclusive. I think a number of these reasons, and probably others, are playing a part in the delay. I have no doubt that MLB is insisting that the written decision look and sound as professional as possible. No matter which way this things goes the worst possible outcome for them is this process looking like some half-baked kangaroo court. In my opinion MLB's first priority has always been protecting the process. Once this case became public the emphasis on protecting the process only increased. I'm not saying that this means the decision is fixed: they can protect the integrity of the process no matter which way the decision comes down.

[ilovebeer]

Old city made a reference to that on the previous page

[Nottso]

The length of time it is taking tells me that Braun's side must have made a very compelling case that the testing was flawed. How do you prove a test is flawed? You replicate the results using same process and get a similar result. In other words my guess is Braun's legal team had test subjects ingest what presumably was an MLB approved substance that Braun had taken, then had them tested in the same manner at the same time interval from ingestion and lo and behold, results occured that point to raised testosterone! The time period it's taken is for the arbiters to pour over the data, interview test subjects etc. because the entire testing program is at stake here.

 

This what I was alluding to on the previous page, although not as well said.

[brwrsfan]

So if it's the week AFTER next then, we're talking somewhere in the 40 day range, possibly longer. That's a tad absurd for something that per the guidelines should have "every reasonable effort made to be handled in 25 days". We're talking about it taking close to twice as long as it's supposed to. That just doesn't seem right or fair to anyone involved, especially since this has been made public.

[Patrick425]

Old city made a reference to that on the previous page

 

I believe what Old City was referring to was that even though Braun may be "innocent" in that he did not knowingly put PEDs in his body (he wasn't a "juicer"), the MLB policy regarding this is pretty clear in that players are responsible for anything that goes into their body, regardless of how innocently it got there. They have been pretty consistant with this policy in previous rulings and I don't think the union would have any grounds to sue or file a grievence based on that. I think it's more likely that a greivence or lawsuit could be filed in regards to the leak of information in this case.

[MarquesJohnson2000]

If you're looking for more useless speculation, Tom Verducci was on Dan Patrick's radio show this morning and said he didn't think they would throw the entire suspension out the window, because that would be a "game-changer" for the testing system, but he would not be surprised if the suspension was reduced. He feels that the length of the process indicates that Braun has a legitimate case.

[pebadger]

I think Verducci has it exactly backwards.

 

If you reduce the suspension, despite the fact that there is no mechanism for doing so in the drug agreement, what message are you sending? What precedent are you setting?

 

On what ground would they reduce Braun's suspension if they did so? If they reduce his suspension because they believe it was an unintentional violation of the program that opens an enormous hole in the process for everybody moving forward.

 

MLB is simply better off with a simple up/down decision on the suspension and no departure from the norms of the drug agreement. If Braun is exonorated they say the system worked and they fully explain why the system justly supports clearing Braun so that there are no charges of protecting a superstar. If Braun is suspended, they say that the system worked and that there is simply no room for any violation, because the policy of strict liability is the only way they have to keep the game clean.

[brwrsfan]

See, it's people that Tom Verducci that just irritate the crap out of me. Now, if he is found guilty, MLB could choose to reduce the suspension if they want. That is their right. However, the aribitrator is an INDEPENDENT person in this process. If he finds Braun to be innocent and rules it that way, then there is no suspension. Period. I honestly don't think he gives a rats butt if that messes up baseball's testing process or not. It's his job to make sure that he sees the case right down the middle and makes his ruling accordingly.

 

Am I missing something there? Isn't that why he is involved in the first place?

[Oldcity]

Old city made a reference to that on the previous page

 

I believe what Old City was referring to was that even though Braun may be "innocent" in that he did not knowingly put PEDs in his body (he wasn't a "juicer"), the MLB policy regarding this is pretty clear in that players are responsible for anything that goes into their body, regardless of how innocently it got there. They have been pretty consistant with this policy in previous rulings and I don't think the union would have any grounds to sue or file a grievence based on that. I think it's more likely that a greivence or lawsuit could be filed in regards to the leak of information in this case.

 

Yep. That he'd be "guilty" for failing a test, but "innocent" as far as any intent. And yeah, there wouldn't be any grievance if he failed the test, regardless of intent.

[Schlitz001]

On what ground would they reduce Braun's suspension if they did so? If they reduce his suspension because they believe it was an unintentional violation of the program that opens an enormous hole in the process for everybody moving forward.

 

Your exactly right. It's the old, "I'm sorry officer, I don't know how that got there" argument. Unless the accused can prove it was planted, injected, placed or ingested unknowingly you create a slippery slope by letting a violator go. The silver lining is that it would potentially limit the harm done to his public image.

[Schlitz001]

As the link notes, and as I've posted before, making the claim that a CIR test is a positive is still a purely statistical conclusion, though most often a very compelling conclusion. At some point, however, when none or few of the other facts tend to support the conclusion suggested by the statistical result, a reasonable person has to at least pause before relying only on the statistics to destroy a man's reputation.

 

What other facts? Unless I missed a link, we still have no idea what Braun did or did not take. The only info I'm using is original ESPN article that stated that Braun's T/E ratio was elevated and that he tested positive for exogenous testosterone, and even that has not been confirmed by MLB or Braun. You are trying to throw out test results for a test that you haven't even seen.

[dhoffman19]

2) The complex nature of the case means that, regardless of the decision, it is necessary for the written decision supporting the case to be as cogent and thorough as possible. Having a solid written opinion is especially necessary to protect the integrity of the program in this case where it has to be expected that the decision will be subject to public scrutiny given the unfortunate public nature of the case. It's also important because one of the very few ways to challenge an arbitration decision in a court of law is to challenge the throughness and "professionalism" of the process. A well-constructed written decision will virtually eliminate that potential.

 

Thanks for the thorough analysis as always. However, I read the JDA to say that the written opinion does not need to be issued for another 30 days after the panel's "award" (decision). So I don't think finalizing the written opinion would necessarily hold up the announcement of the decision. That said, maybe in this case they want to have the opinion ready before the decision is announced because of the unusual circumstances involved - current MVP, test result leaked, etc.

[rwa12]

I think #2 on pebadgers list is pretty much where I'm sitting. Regardless of the outcome of the decision, there is going to be intense blowback. Saying wait 30 more days for the "why" is probably not beneficial to either party. I'm not concerned about the time that it is taking, their obligation isn't to set anyone at ease. Their obligation is to come to a reasoned conclusion.

[MissBrew]

I've read this topic from page 1 and am new to the forums, but have not commented until now. I was just thinking about this whole issue yesterday, and this may have been brought up before, but I was wondering if it would be safe to assume that if Braun is suspended, would the other two "mystery" Brewers who failed the test be suspended too? Depending on who the two other presumed failed tests were, we could be looking at quite a loss.

[brettac1]

I'm pretty sure that those two cases were dismissed at the time of the test.

[pebadger]

As the link notes, and as I've posted before, making the claim that a CIR test is a positive is still a purely statistical conclusion, though most often a very compelling conclusion. At some point, however, when none or few of the other facts tend to support the conclusion suggested by the statistical result, a reasonable person has to at least pause before relying only on the statistics to destroy a man's reputation.

 

What other facts? Unless I missed a link, we still have no idea what Braun did or did not take. The only info I'm using is original ESPN article that stated that Braun's T/E ratio was elevated and that he tested positive for exogenous testosterone, and even that has not been confirmed by MLB or Braun. You are trying to throw out test results for a test that you haven't even seen.

 

I'm not trying to throw out any test results. I'm just assuming, for sake of argument the following, which seem to have at least not been outright refuted by the leaks/info we do have:

 

1) Braun tested positive for something.

2) That something was not a steroid.

3) That something was not a masking agent.

 

IF those things are true, and IF there truly is no scientific connection between the mystery substance and a CIR positive, and IF there is other reasonably convincing evidence that Braun is telling the truth and that he didn't knowingly take any substance that would cause a positive, wouldn't any reasonable person at least take an extra minute or two (or week or two) before simply saying "Sorry, pal, you're guilty"? If you're going to sully a man's reputation and there is a real mystery involved regarding the basis for doing so don't you at least want to be as sure as you can be in your justification for your decision, even if you're quite comfortable that your decision is correct?

 

Everyone knows that this isn't a criminal proceeding and that the standard of reasonable doubt does not apply. That doesn't change the fact that what is at stake is still darned important and it doesn't change the responsibility of those sitting in judgment to treat it as such. It is exactly because the standards of proof are relaxed that the emphasis on providing a well-reasoned decision should be somewhat greater. To do any less diminishes the interests of both parties.

 

The CIR test is the gold standard in testing for very good reason. I'm just not willing to say that the entire process should come down to an analyst running a test on a mass spectrometer somewhere and that being the end of the case.

[pebadger]

2) The complex nature of the case means that, regardless of the decision, it is necessary for the written decision supporting the case to be as cogent and thorough as possible. Having a solid written opinion is especially necessary to protect the integrity of the program in this case where it has to be expected that the decision will be subject to public scrutiny given the unfortunate public nature of the case. It's also important because one of the very few ways to challenge an arbitration decision in a court of law is to challenge the throughness and "professionalism" of the process. A well-constructed written decision will virtually eliminate that potential.

 

Thanks for the thorough analysis as always. However, I read the JDA to say that the written opinion does not need to be issued for another 30 days after the panel's "award" (decision). So I don't think finalizing the written opinion would necessarily hold up the announcement of the decision. That said, maybe in this case they want to have the opinion ready before the decision is announced because of the unusual circumstances involved - current MVP, test result leaked, etc.

 

This is correct. Given the public nature of the case I think that in this particular instance there is an imperative to announce the award and release the written decision simultaneously. The last either party wants is the appearance that a decision was made and that the justification for that decision was made after the fact.

[Menotti80]

3. The Wild Brew Yonder: What a happy, uplifting tale those 2011 Brewers were. A team in the second-smallest media market in baseball draws 3 million customers, finishes in first place for the first time in almost three decades, produces an MVP (Mr. Ryan Braun, ladies and gentlemen) and even employs The Artist Occasionally Known As Tony Plush. And now? Hoo boy. What a winter these guys just had. Prince Fielder takes the money and bails for Motown. The MVP awaits word on whether he's about to get suspended for 50 games. And suddenly, this tale doesn't feel so happy and uplifting anymore. Even the serenity of spring training figures to last about 30 seconds -- until the Braun verdict bombshell drops on this team. But it'll be interesting to see how the Crew sorts through it all, anyhow.

 

why do i even bother reading ESPN?

[jjfanec]

3. The Wild Brew Yonder: What a happy, uplifting tale those 2011 Brewers were. A team in the second-smallest media market in baseball draws 3 million customers, finishes in first place for the first time in almost three decades, produces an MVP (Mr. Ryan Braun, ladies and gentlemen) and even employs The Artist Occasionally Known As Tony Plush. And now? Hoo boy. What a winter these guys just had. Prince Fielder takes the money and bails for Motown. The MVP awaits word on whether he's about to get suspended for 50 games. And suddenly, this tale doesn't feel so happy and uplifting anymore. Even the serenity of spring training figures to last about 30 seconds -- until the Braun verdict bombshell drops on this team. But it'll be interesting to see how the Crew sorts through it all, anyhow.

 

why do i even bother reading ESPN?

 

Yep, typical espn acting like it is a certainty Braun will be found guilty unless that "bombshell" they are saying will happen is going to be Braun being exonerated. I don't really have a problem with ESPN running with the story. I have a problem with the misinformation at first (what he tested positive for) and now all their talking heads just assuming he is guilty like there is no way he could be innocent

[craigharmann]

Even the serenity of spring training figures to last about 30 seconds -- until the Braun verdict bombshell drops on this team. But it'll be interesting to see how the Crew sorts through it all, anyhow.

 

 

Oy. I'm done with the network that formerly reported sports. They're talking out of their butts and think they're being smart doing it. They're not.

[brwrsfan]

As great as it is if Braun is innocent - for him, the team and for us the fan. The thing I might enjoy most about it is watching ESPN squirm and I will make it a point to email guys like Kurkjian and what not with direct quotes from them like the one above, where it just blatantly states he is already guilty at this point. Please let this happen.