Per ESPN: Braun Tests Positive, May Face 50 Game Suspension (Part 2)

[brettac1]

But why couldn't he have just been taking them for his whole career and then finally got caught this time? That would help the consistency.

IF that was the case, he must have had a really good masking agent that wasn't detected either. Or he has a mole on the inside that told him when he was going to be tested. Or he had a fake you-know-what filled with clean urine. I think you get my point. I believe Braun has been tested at least twice every season, plus both times they made the playoffs. I would think that if he had been on something all along, he would've been caught a lot earlier. I mean Manny has been caught twice already. Sure Braun could have been incredibly lucky the whole time and Manny unlucky but I doubt that's the case.

I'm a Brewers fan (and Braun has been my favorite player in the organization since he was drafted) so I'm obviously biased. But we really don't have enough facts to come to any conclusion now and nothing in Braun's history makes me believe that he actually knowingly took any PEDs.

I guess nothing makes me believe he didn't use them, either. I guess I'm a cynic, but I think the majority of players are using some form of PED or have in the past. The difference is that a lot of them probably have Dr's helping them with their regimens now, as opposed to the past when guys looked really jacked. I'm a Brewers fan who had Braun as his avatar here on draft day and went to his first home game as a Brewer because of him, so I love the guy. I just don't think using PED's is a big deal, I guess. Getting caught is. I don't have a negative opinion about them at all. I love Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Manny, etc., so maybe I am coming at this thing from a slightly different angle than some fans are. I don't think they make a player a bad guy.

[PepsiFanClubAlum]

Reports are surfacing that Braun potentially has an STD and was taking totally legal drugs to combat it. This caused the spike and his appeal will overturn the ban. Probably explains what Mark A. called it a "personal issue." I would not like to be the guy or organization that leaked this story. Have you ever heard of HIPPA laws? I don't think a settlement will completely off-set the sigma, but I am sure Braun will make these people examples in a big way if these reports are true.

[ilovebeer]

Lets say Braun was using for a while(which i don't think he was) could the Brewers void his contract?

[theavrock]

Lets say Braun was using for a while(which i don't think he was) could the Brewers void his contract?

As law students are taught in law school... it depends.

Without his contract there is no way to know this. It could be entirely possible either way.

[Raw Biz]

Lets say Braun was using for a while(which i don't think he was) could the Brewers void his contract?

I hope you're not serious. What would be the point? IF he is suspended, they wouldn't have to pay him for the duration of the suspension. IF he has been using all along and stops now, I highly doubt he will lose much ability. You still need to have hand-eye coordination, quick wrists, some ability, etc. to play baseball at his level. And whatever he took likely wasn't even a PED in the first place. There wouldn't be any point in voiding his contract. Even if he gets caught again (100 games) and a third time (lifetime), the Brewers wouldn't have to pay him during those suspensions.

[Crew2323]

Thanks for posting that jeffy. I think everyone should read it very closely to understand exactly what it really means.

Can you explain to me what it means? You have had to explain pretty much all of this to me http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Focus on this : to the [/i]extent necessary to respond to any inaccurate or misleading claims by that Player [/i]that could undermine the integrity and/or credibility of the Program.[/i]

MLB can go public with stuff if they want to respond to the Player saying mean things about the drug program. The Player can also respond if the Player is saying mean things about the drug program.

 

 

So are you implying that if Braun were lying with his comments, MLB would have come out in defense of their test findings, and would have also defended their drug program by now?

[Tailgat0r76]

Can you explain to me what it means? You have had to explain pretty much all of this to me http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Focus on this : to the [/i]extent necessary to respond to any inaccurate or misleading claims by that Player [/i]that could undermine the integrity and/or credibility of the Program.[/i]

MLB can go public with stuff if they want to respond to the Player saying mean things about the drug program. The Player can also respond if the Player is saying mean things about the drug program.

 

 

So are you implying that if Braun were lying with his comments, MLB would have come out in defense of their test findings, and would have also defended their drug program by now?

If he had been holding press conferences and interviews and such explaining his case, yes. But his round-about denials and vague explanations through other people is his way of circumventing this rule. Correct me if I'm wrong?

[pebadger]

What I'm saying is that that provision is hopelessly one-sided and reveals what a lot of the process and procedure is about: protecting the testing program. The language of that provision provides an 'out' for MLB in terms of the confidentiality provisions, but provides the player with nothing similar.

 

1) Per the general confidentiality provisions of the joint drug agreement, neither side is supposed to be saying anything right now. That's why they aren't, and why we don't have anything to further the discussion other than mostly scurrilous rumors.

 

2) What the highlighted language says is that if the PLAYER makes comments about the testing program, MLB is free to say whatever they want (or nothing at all) in response to counter what the player says. They can make this kind of response and still be in compliance with the agreement.

 

3) If something "leaks" about the process, the player is still bound by the general confidentiality provision and isn't permitted to saying anything about the process in his own defense, no matter how inflammatory a leak might be. If he does respond, he is in violation of the agreement. Notice that the highlighted provision doesn't say that the player can respond if his interests are impugned. It says that the player can respond if the player says something about the program, which is basically a meaningless statement.

 

In other words, as long as MLB never officially makes a statement, details/allegations could mysteriously "leak" out about this case every day and MLB wouldn't be in violation of the agreement. But as soon as Braun says ANYTHING about the case that could be considered making MLB look bad, he would be considered in violation of the confidentiality clause, and this would open the door to MLB legally being able to say/release whatever they want in order to counter anything they view as necessary to protect the testing program.

[Ennder]

I could care less if he used or not and I think it is completely plausible that he did use. I don't think going off of steroids would significantly impact his bottom line stat wise, steroids just aren't all that huge of a performance boost, juiced balls had more to do with the big offensive spike than steroids ever did. To me though it seems much more likely that he was clean for most of his career and used when playoff time came to stay in the lineup than anything else though.

[Schlitz001]

I could care less if he used or not and I think it is completely plausible that he did use. I don't think going off of steroids would significantly impact his bottom line stat wise, steroids just aren't all that huge of a performance boost, juiced balls had more to do with the big offensive spike than steroids ever did. To me though it seems much more likely that he was clean for most of his career and used when playoff time came to stay in the lineup than anything else though.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think juiced balls had more of an impact on baseball numbers than steroids. How do you explain guys with 1 or 2 standout years towards the end of their careers, the Brady Andersons out there? How do explain Mark McGuire and Barry Bonds? All you have to do is look at their physique. And what about the anomalous pitching performance during these years (Gagne)?

I don't think steroids ever really left baseball, I just think the players started getting smarter about using and about not looking overly built. I don't want to get too opinionated on Braun specifically without knowing exactly what happened, but it wouldn't surprise me if he had been using his whole career. People continue to post about how Braun had nothing to gain by juicing and I think this is way off base. Baseball players have everything to gain by bettering their performance. Records, MVPs, and multi-million dollar contracts. This is why you can't put too much blame on the players. If you could take an illegal drug and perform better at your job, would you do it? Would you do it if it meant you could make $100 million dollars? The thing that really bothers me the most about steroids is that it takes away the level playing field.

[jeffy]

I don't think steroids ever really left baseball, I just think the players started getting smarter about using and about not looking overly built.

 

There may have been many using at more moderate dosages all along and all that has changed is the extreme users have gone away. I assume at more moderate dosages, you'd not see such noticeable changes in physique or the extreme levels of performance enhancement.

 

If I understand correctly MLB allows up to a 4:1 T/E, before they would even look further. Since for most the normal ratio is about 1:1, this would seem to leave a lot of room to boost T for many.

 

In addition, why could one not simply take epitestosterone and mask a high level of testosterone in order to keep the ratio below 4:1 and avoid having them go beyond the screening test?

 

Hmm, let me see what google tells me about this, let's try "how to beat mlb drug testing". Top result confirms it's probably pretty easy to do: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3662262

[Mass Haas]

Players' Union head Michael Weiner spoke on MLB Network Radio Friday on the Braun situation -- link ; nothing earth-shattering.

 

FYI, I just tweeted two Shaun Marcum audio clips from this AM.

[brewmann04]

It will be very interesting to see this all come out and who is wrong and what person or persons has leaked this before the correct process.

[Patrick425]

So, watching TMJ4 morning news today and they had "breaking news" regarding Braun. Turns out this breaking news came from TMZ (which I consider kind of like the National Enquirer) and states that sources close to MLB are saying that the positive tests were a result of medication he is taking for a medical condition. If this is correct and I understand the rules correctly, if he did not inform MLB that he was taking this medication he will likely face a 50 game suspension.

 

Again this is from TMZ, so take it for what it's worth:

 

http://www.tmz.com/2011/1...ation-baseball-steroids/

[brwrsfan]

If it is true, how do you NOT inform them? Simple procedure and he's in the clear. That is an oversite that is just not excusable and I fail to see how he could possibly get off.

[BillHall02]

Not thati agree with his course of action, but if I had a medical condition I wanted kept private, it doesn't seem that MLB would be the first people I would tell after seeing all of this...

[CheezWizHed]

I don't think they have to inform about the medical condition. They just need the "note from the doctor" that XYZ medication will show up like this. Otherwise, they would have some HIPAA issues.

[Bernman23]

What don't people understand about players potentially not wanting to disclose a medical issue when it is embarrassing and MLB has shown a recent tendency to leak information.

[jazzytrav]

Not thati agree with his course of action, but if I had a medical condition I wanted kept private, it doesn't seem that MLB would be the first people I would tell after seeing all of this...

Bernman23 wrote:

What don't people understand about players potentially not wanting to disclose a medical issue when it is embarrassing and MLB has shown a recent tendency to leak information.

Exactly what I was thinking. MLB just proved during this process to be unable to prevent the leak of sensitive information. I wouldn't be surprised to see the suspension hold up, and also wouldn't be that terribly angry...the rules are still the rules. But this is definitely part of that rules process that needs to be looked at. And in my baseball heart, if this proves to be true, I won't hold it against him.

 

One more thing along the "if this proves to be true" line of thinking. I could see the possibility of MLB just backing away as quickly as possible. [if this is true], they had a leak that not only defamed one of their most popular players, but also may force him to go public with embarrassing personal information just to clear his name. [if this is true], MLB should be more embarrassed than Braun.

 

Heck, they should already be embarrassed. Buster Olney just broke your ranks and exposed HIGHLY confidential information.

 

 

[Crew2323]

Exactly what I was thinking. MLB just proved during this process to be unable to prevent the leak of sensitive information. I wouldn't be surprised to see the suspension hold up, and also wouldn't be that terribly angry...the rules are still the rules. But this is definitely part of that rules process that needs to be looked at. And in my baseball heart, if this proves to be true, I won't hold it against him.

I'm still not entirely convinced that Braun will be suspended if he in fact took something for medical purposes. I believe that the player only needs to get a waver if the medication they are taking is on the banned substances list. So if Braun's medication wasn't on the banned substance list, why would he feel the need to get a waver?

[brettac1]

Exactly what I was thinking. MLB just proved during this process to be unable to prevent the leak of sensitive information. I wouldn't be surprised to see the suspension hold up, and also wouldn't be that terribly angry...the rules are still the rules. But this is definitely part of that rules process that needs to be looked at. And in my baseball heart, if this proves to be true, I won't hold it against him.

I'm still not entirely convinced that Braun will be suspended if he in fact took something for medical purposes. I believe that the player only needs to get a waver if the medication they are taking is on the banned substances list. So if Braun's medication wasn't on the banned substance list, why would he feel the need to get a waver?

They don't have a banned substances list. They have an allowed substances list. If a player takes something that is not on the allowed list, he needs to get league approval. He should certainly be suspended if he took something that wasn't on the allowed list without clearing it. It would be his fault.

[jeffy]

They certainly seem to me to have a list of banned substances.

 

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf

 

section 2:

 

All Players shall be prohibited from using, possessing, selling, facilitating the sale of,

distributing, or facilitating the distribution of any Drug of Abuse, Performance Enhancing

Substance and/or Stimulant (collectively referred to as “Prohibited Substances”).

 

Some other excerpts:

 

A test will be considered positive if any Performance Enhancing Substance as

defined in Section 2.B of the Program is present (testosterone is listed).

a Player is not in violation of the Program if the

presence of a Prohibited Substance in his urine was not due to his fault or negligence.

the Player...has the burden of establishing that his test result was not due to his fault or negligence. A Player

cannot satisfy his burden by merely denying that he intentionally used a Prohibited Substance; the Player must provide objective evidence in support of his denial.

 

So if he took a medication that is not on the prohibited list or included in the more general description of PEDs and he can show that the medication caused the test results and that it was not known that this would happen, that would perhaps appear to meet the requirements for winning an appeal.

[Patrick425]

They certainly seem to me to have a list of banned substances.

 

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf

 

section 2:

 

All Players shall be prohibited from using, possessing, selling, facilitating the sale of,

distributing, or facilitating the distribution of any Drug of Abuse, Performance Enhancing

Substance and/or Stimulant (collectively referred to as “Prohibited Substances”).

 

Some other excerpts:

 

A test will be considered positive if any Performance Enhancing Substance as

defined in Section 2.B of the Program is present (testosterone is listed).

a Player is not in violation of the Program if the

presence of a Prohibited Substance in his urine was not due to his fault or negligence.

the Player...has the burden of establishing that his test result was not due to his fault or negligence. A Player

cannot satisfy his burden by merely denying that he intentionally used a Prohibited Substance; the Player must provide objective evidence in support of his denial.

 

So if he took a medication that is not on the prohibited list or included in the more general description of PEDs and he can show that the medication caused the test results and that it was not known that this would happen, that would perhaps appear to meet the requirements for winning an appeal.

I still think MLB would look at this as being negligent for consuming something that you were not really sure about without informing MLB. Now, perhaps, if he can prove that he specifically asked the doctor about this drug and the doctor told him it was clean, then I'm not sure how MLB would look at that.

 

 

[jeffy]

Now, perhaps, if he can prove that he specifically asked the doctor about this drug and the doctor told him it was clean, then I'm not sure how MLB would look at that.

 

 

Yeah, that is kind of what I meant by "not known", not just that Braun was intentionally ignorant, but that it was a surprise even to the Doctors that it caused him to fail the drug test.

 

...not that I am really buying the new rumor, which sounds exactly like last weeks herpes rumor

[Raw Biz]

I still think MLB would look at this as being negligent for consuming something that you were not really sure about without informing MLB. Now, perhaps, if he can prove that he specifically asked the doctor about this drug and the doctor told him it was clean, then I'm not sure how MLB would look at that.

If Braun can prove that he had no way of knowing the drug would cause him to fail (or if he was specifically misled), he should win the appeal. Guys have tried this defense in the past but I believe most of the time they have been told that they SHOULD have known and so were negligent. With Braun's case, it's not unreasonable to think that he asked if it would cause him to fail, doctors/trainers told him he would not, and he decided he wouldn't inform MLB because of the highly sensitive nature of his "condition." If that happened, I don't see why he should be suspended. Or maybe he was taking something like this for awhile and he never failed but switched to a new brand/kind of medication which caused him to fail. There are definitely ways in which Braun can win the appeal and I still think he will.