Ok, so we all know Braun tested positive in 2011 and also is linked to the Miami health clinic "Biogenesis". Well here is my question, if Braun is found to be guilty does that mean he will get a 100 game suspension for a second offense?

Brauns name showed up on clinic documents dated to April, 2012. His first positive test was in october 2011... So that looks like 2 different offenses to me which is why i am wondering if he will be penalized like a second time offender..

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=8952705&categoryid=2378529

This post has been removed.

In response to mef429's comment:

   What you say makes some sense, but don't believe it will happen, I too think he is dirty, and is caught this time it will be a 50 game suspension.

In response to attic-dan's comment:

Unless he gets off on a technicality llike last year.

There wasnt anything but his name on those paper. Unlike all the others that had the name of the PED's they were taken next to their names. Braun had nothing next to his, so there was no solid evidence.

With that said, I truly believe he was/is on something.

The two events with Braun are likely very closely linked.  The document trail from Biogenesis that elads to him is probably related to the substances he purchased and tested positive for.  

 

I would think that this should be his first suspension, given that he was let off on a breach of protocol last time.    I doubt the reasons Braun was let off last time will consitute a "double jeopardy" in this case, either.

 

I would also assume Melky Cabrera has already served his time and stands to face no punishment...

The suspensions are punishments for failed drug tests - not showing up on somebody's list.  If MLB starts down that road, they are going to have to establish the validity of every outside claim.  I don't think Braun receives any suspension at all.

 

Justice doesn't work that way. Unless you are O.J.

In response to slomag's comment:

MLB has disciplined players with no failed test.  Jason Grimsley, for example..

 

Going to the anti-aging clinic in Miami to seek advice is like a kid telling his/her teacher that his/her dog ate his/her homework.   LOL

Each player's lame and silly excuse makes me laugh.  LOL

 

 

In response to notin's comment:

Grimsley was retired at the time - it probably would not have stood up to an appeal.

In response to slomag's comment:

No, he was injured at the time, but was a member of the Diamondbacks.   He got busted and then was released the next day and in the face of punishment, decided to retire....

 

Hmmmm, where should I go for advice?  My team doctor or a fake doctor at the clinic in Miami.  Yeah, I'll go to the latter.  LOL

 

 

In response to notin's comment:

OK.  But Grimsley signed affidavits attesting to the fact that he had violated the testing policy.  He wasn't just a name on somebody's notes.  

Grimsley was a distributor - MLB was trying to send a message, but if he had not retired, I bet the players union could have beaten the suspension.

 

In response to slomag's comment:

true.

 

It will be interesting to see if the CBA specifically requires a drug test for a suspension.

 

If I had to bet, I would say none of these guys sit a day (aside from Melky, who already did some sitting).  I find it hard to believe all those BALCO investigations did not turn up a name or two, and yet we never saw anyone suspended following one.   Bonds was linked to BALCO for years and yet never sat a single game of suspension....

He won't be convicted. The urine sample delivery boy will somehow be blamed for a false test.

This post has been removed.

Braun had nothing next to his, so there was no solid evidence.

The evidence is overwhelming that Braun is one of baseball's Lance Armstrongs. He should be banned from MLB, for life. He won't be, because of the MLBPA, which is a literal racketeer.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

He also won't be banned because Selig still has ties to the Brewers and as we all know Braun plays for the Brewers.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

The flaws in the current disipline and tesing system goes far deeper than the MLBPA. All parties have a vested interest in ensuring that the marque names are on the field. The owners are beholden to the networks who are beholden to their sponsors who ultimately are the ones paying the freight. All are beholden to we the fans who line up to buy the product. 

(1) The discipline meted out by MLB is for using banned substances.  Failing a blood or urine test is just one way MLB can "prove" a violation of the policy.  Other ways would be the testimony of witnesses, a confession, or circumstantial evidence such as reciepts or paraphanalia.  Obviously, a posative test is the easiest way to prove a violation. A player's name appearing on a list at a clinic that has some legitimate and some illegitimate activities is probably not enough to prove a violation.

 

(2) Ryan Braun did not "get off on a technicality."  The chain of custody requirements are there for a reason: to ensure that the sample is reliable evidence.  Failure to follow the chain of custody means the sample could have been tainted and/or deteriorated.  The arbitrator found that MLB did not have enough reliable evidence to prove that Braun failed a drug test.

MLB and the union agreed to the chain of custody guidelines. Presumably, they designed those guidelines based on objective evidence that failure to follow them could result in tainted or deteriorated samples.  The guidelines were not invented whole-cloth just to be a pain-in-the-neck; they were tailored to protect the integrity of the evidence. 

In this case, the arbitrator felt that the failure to follow the chain of custody requirements was sufficient to undermine the reliability of the evidece.  Even when the official testified that he kept it safe and didn't let it get contaminated, the arbitrator found that it was unreliable.  This is not a case where MLB was not allowed to introduce the evidence; rather it is one where the factfinder, knowing all of the evidence, was not convinced that Braun was guilty because the evidence was flawed.

This is not like a jury trial, where the jury doesn't get to hear that there were drugs in the car because the cops did an illegal search.  It is more like a jury trial where the eyewitness has a motive to lie about the defendant, and the jury acquitts because they don't believe the witness.  The evidence was not kept out, it was just shown to be unreliable.

Since he was not "convicted," it would be unjust to escalate the penalty for what would be his first conviction to the level of the second conviction.  

If you're charged with DUI and you successfully beat it in court because the breathalyzer test was bad, your next DUI charge is not a 2nd, but a first.  Likewise in this case.  Braun's next conviction for using will not be a second conviction, but a first conviction.  

 

In response to djcbuffum's comment:

While most of what you said it true,  I do not like this comparison, as there was no reason for anyone had reason to tamper with Braun's anonymous sample.  MLB had a breach in protocol, and that was why Braun was allowed to play last year.  The DUI comparison is probably mroe apt. (Don't those machines have to read within a certain limited range on two tests or something?  Any cops out there?) 

It is more than likely the synthetic HGH in his system was acquired from Biogensis anyway, so this is probably the same incident.   So there is noway this should be consdiered his "second violation" anyway.  Ditto or Melky...

 

Blue Jay's GM said that he is not concerned about a possible suspension for Cabrera.

Speaking of Cabrera, did the Giants give him a World Series ring? 

 

@notin:

I used the eyewitness example because it is obvious to a layperson why that evidence is unreliable.  It is less clear to a layperson (myself included) why the evidence in Braun's case was unreliable; but the chain of custody protections put in place were undoubtedly designed to protect against specific risk factors for contamination/deterioration of the evidence. There's a reason for the 72-hour delivery deadline.  It wasn't plucked out of thin air.  It was based on how long a sample can be kept in unsanitary conditions, or something along those lines.  

 

Regarding breathalyzers, rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  In Wisconsin, for example, breathalyzer results are not admissible in court to prove drunk driving because they are known to be very unreliable.  Instead, they are used to esablish probable cause for an arrest, and then blood is drawn as part of a "search incident to arrest." The blood draw is then used in court. Other jurisdictions have different rules. Multiple tests with consistent results, as you describe, would be one way to confirm that the results are reliable; I wouldn't be surprised if some jurisdictions use that approach.

 

 

 

We need Chris Hanson from Dateline NBC to handle this matter. 

Chris Hanson: "Grab a seat over there." "What are you doing here?"

Ryan Braun: "Ummm,......I'm here to see a friend."

Chris Hanson: "Ryan, I have the transcript here so you better be open and honest with me."

LOL