Log in:  

Register

MVP tests positive

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

26 Feb 2012 04:11

This is such garbage.
Braun is holding a press conference to proclaim his innocence but yet he and his lawyers have never disputed the results of his positive test. The only leg they have to stand on is that the test wasn't sent to the lab within a 24 hour period. As if we are all supposed to forget about the synthetic testosterone in his urine and a 20:1 t/e ratio. The nerve of this guy to stand there shove his "innocence" in baseball fans faces while never addressing the facts that prove his guilt. The only thing worse is the terrible comparisons US journalists have drawn between PEDs in cycling and MLB... at least cycling has the balls to punish their stars.
I hear MLB is going to appeal the ruling but there stance on PEDs is nothing to cheer about. Already this year they have reduced Manny Ramirez's 100 game suspension to 50 games, because he retired instead of facing the 100 game suspension he received last year. So much for cleaning up the sport.
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

26 Feb 2012 17:18

EasyRider wrote:This is such garbage.
Braun is holding a press conference to proclaim his innocence but yet he and his lawyers have never disputed the results of his positive test. The only leg they have to stand on is that the test wasn't sent to the lab within a 24 hour period. As if we are all supposed to forget about the synthetic testosterone in his urine and a 20:1 t/e ratio. The nerve of this guy to stand there shove his "innocence" in baseball fans faces while never addressing the facts that prove his guilt.

The implication being that the person who took the samples and brought them home with him and into the fridge somehow tampered with Braun's sample. Even though, apparently, the seal wasn't broken. So either Braun dodged a bullet or he was the victim of a terrible, terrible act of sabotage. Bottom line - Brewer's fans shouldn't get too excited just yet as Braun could suffer a baffeling drop off in production this year.
Pazuzu
Junior Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 04 Feb 2012 00:52

26 Feb 2012 18:01

Cycling gets alot of deserved heat due to cheaters getting away with doping. Regardless, I think they seriously test more than most sports and cycling gets a bad rap due to the amount of positives vs other sports. I don't believe this is because there is more doping in cycling.

There is incentive to cover up positives or dismiss positives in sport, as opposed to the opposite. If PED testing in US sports was taken seriously, most of the stars would be busted IMO.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,494
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

26 Feb 2012 18:47

Pazuzu wrote:The implication being that the person who took the samples and brought them home with him and into the fridge somehow tampered with Braun's sample. Even though, apparently, the seal wasn't broken. So either Braun dodged a bullet or he was the victim of a terrible, terrible act of sabotage. Bottom line - Brewer's fans shouldn't get too excited just yet as Braun could suffer a baffeling drop off in production this year.


The possibility of sabotage lies in all drug tests but I can't help but feel that is a very weak excuse in this situation (or any situation). I could very well be mistaken here, but from everything I have heard the steps this tester took were very common. A lot of sporting events take place on the weekend and later in the day, so when the tester comes around quite often Fedex or any other shipping locations are closed. MLB's player's association has negotiated this 24 hour rule.
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

26 Feb 2012 18:53

ChrisE wrote:There is incentive to cover up positives or dismiss positives in sport, as opposed to the opposite. If PED testing in US sports was taken seriously, most of the stars would be busted IMO.


I completely agree with you there.

Money>Ethics, American capitalism at its finest
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

26 Feb 2012 18:58

EasyRider wrote:I completely agree with you there.

Money>Ethics, American capitalism at its finest


Its not just American. It is human nature to not do things that are detrimental to your well being. Busting sports stars is not good for the marketing of that sport.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,494
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

26 Feb 2012 19:06

ChrisE wrote:Its not just American. It is human nature to not do things that are detrimental to your well being. Busting sports stars is not good for the marketing of that sport.


Yes but roiding up athletes is also detrimental to our well being, especially the well being of said athletes. The money home runs brings is more important to MLB than preserving the integrity of the sport and the well being of its athletes.

My previous post would probably be more accurate if I had just said "capitalism at its finest"

Everything is for sale and everything has a price, integrity included.
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

26 Feb 2012 23:25

at the end of the day sports are entertainment. people want to see the fastest,farthest,hardest athletes perform at the highest level. ethics are mostly window dressing.
User avatar usedtobefast
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,367
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 23:19
Location: southern california

27 Feb 2012 01:20

usedtobefast wrote:at the end of the day sports are entertainment. people want to see the fastest,farthest,hardest athletes perform at the highest level. ethics are mostly window dressing.


Yes this is true for most sports but the thing that separates baseball (I realize this is the wrong site to have this discussion but while I'm here what the heck) from a lot of other sports is its emphasis on stats and history. I'm not sure any sport places as much importance on the these two factors as baseball. PEDs distort the stats and change the history in such a way that it deteriorates the past, present, and future of the sport.

I guess my point is baseball is a numbers game. PEDs distort the numbers and, in my opinion, ruin the game. I do not want to see the fastest, strongest, best athletes medicine can create. I want to see the the best athletes compete with relatively the same advantages and disadvantages every other player has had. If not the history of the game is meaningless, the present soon to become meaningless, and the future irrelevant. Who would want care to invest any time into a sport like that?
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

27 Feb 2012 02:01

at the end of the day sports are entertainment. people want to see the fastest,farthest,hardest athletes perform at the highest level. ethics are mostly window dressing.


Window dressing exactly. When people have suggested a two tier system, with one league allowing unlimited doping, and the other for clean athletes, there is almost universal dismissal of the idea. Forget the problems in actually implementing the clean tier. The real reason why most people are revolted by unlimited, unapologetic doping is that while sports fans want to see the fastest, strongest, most enduring, they also want to maintain the pretense that the athletes are clean. Doping among athletes is like extra-marital affairs among politicians. Everyone knows it’s going on, and most people don’t have a problem with it as long as it’s done discreetly. As long as they don’t have to be reminded that it’s going on. Braun getting busted is a reminder.

Shakespeare had it right, as usual. The fault is not in our stars, it’s in ourselves.

I guess my point is baseball is a numbers game. PEDs distort the numbers and, in my opinion, ruin the game. I do not want to see the fastest, strongest, best athletes medicine can create. I want to see the the best athletes compete with relatively the same advantages and disadvantages every other player has had. If not the history of the game is meaningless, the present soon to become meaningless, and the future irrelevant. Who would want care to invest any time into a sport like that?


Even without PEDs, it’s well-recognized that you can’t make historical comparisons. Baseball has gone through several major phases, with records in one phase not comparable to those in another. The era before Ruth is the best example, but there are others. For example, it was a pitcher’s game in the late 60s. One year, Bob Gibson had a record 1.12 ERA, and conversely, only one player in the majors hit .300. Then they lowered the pitching mound, and BA and ERA numbers both began to climb. The wiser people who get to vote for HOF take this into account, so e.g., HOF players from that era can have acceptably lower batting averages than candidates from more recent years.

That one factor alone—the height of the mound—can have an enormous impact on numbers, probably far more than doping. Other factors that have also probably changed the numbers are the size of the ballparks, night games, the DH in the AL, a far larger pool of players, now including many foreign countries, less development of pitchers, and perhaps the way the balls and the bats are made. Also, the fact that relief pitchers are used much more often today than in the past (the middle reliever or set-up man didn’t even exist in the past), and that starters pitch on four days rest, whereas in the past pitching on three days rest was common.

While steroids have had a major effect on HR totals, in other respects they have not seemed to change anything, e.g., batting averages are no higher, and strike-out totals not much lower. This is probably because both hitters and pitchers dope, so there is something of a stalemate. And also, as I argued earlier, because there is a lot of skill required in baseball which is not that much affected by doping.
User avatar Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,284
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

27 Feb 2012 04:02

Merckx index wrote:Even without PEDs, it’s well-recognized that you can’t make historical comparisons. Baseball has gone through several major phases, with records in one phase not comparable to those in another. The era before Ruth is the best example, but there are others. For example, it was a pitcher’s game in the late 60s. One year, Bob Gibson had a record 1.12 ERA, and conversely, only one player in the majors hit .300. Then they lowered the pitching mound, and BA and ERA numbers both began to climb. The wiser people who get to vote for HOF take this into account, so e.g., HOF players from that era can have acceptably lower batting averages than candidates from more recent years.

That one factor alone—the height of the mound—can have an enormous impact on numbers, probably far more than doping. Other factors that have also probably changed the numbers are the size of the ballparks, night games, the DH in the AL, a far larger pool of players, now including many foreign countries, less development of pitchers, and perhaps the way the balls and the bats are made. Also, the fact that relief pitchers are used much more often today than in the past (the middle reliever or set-up man didn’t even exist in the past), and that starters pitch on four days rest, whereas in the past pitching on three days rest was common.

While steroids have had a major effect on HR totals, in other respects they have not seemed to change anything, e.g., batting averages are no higher, and strike-out totals not much lower. This is probably because both hitters and pitchers dope, so there is something of a stalemate. And also, as I argued earlier, because there is a lot of skill required in baseball which is not that much affected by doping.


Every change MLB has made over the years was either for player safety or to preserve the integrity of the game and the game's stats. The hitting era before Ruth is interesting because originally a game was played using one or two baseballs. These baseballs would be scuffed and darkened by dirt and grass stains, making it more difficult for the batter to see the ball as the game progressed. This all ended when Ray Chapman was hit in the head by a pitch and died. This unfortunate incident brought about a rule that required umps to replace any dirty ball with a new clean white one. Constantly seeing clearer white balls batting stats increased, from this point forward MLB has attempted to prevent game strategies from grossly altering the games stats.

After MLB began to expand in the late 50s the pitching became watered down as more pitchers were required for the increase in teams. After the famous 1961 season MLB responded by widening the strike zone, bringing the game back into balance (although it didn't take long for pitcher to catch up). The pitchers mound was raised in 1969 after 1968's "year of the pitcher". The change in pitching strategy, relief pitchers, and the strike zone drastically shifted the advantage towards pitchers. MLB lowered the mound taking away some of the pitchers advantages, thus a change to bring back balance to the game. (While the changes in the mound increased batting stats they were only increased to the back to numbers prior to the wider strike zone. This did not have nearly the effect PED has had on hitting. Only one batter hit over 50 HR between 1969 and 1989. Compared to 6 in the 20 years before the mound was lower. So while it did bring a balance back to the game it didn't have close to the effect that steroids have on power numbers)

Contrary to your believes HR totals isn't the only thing PEDs increases. What once was a ground out might now have enough power to get through the hole (increasing batting average and hits). What was a warning track out now has the power to leave the yard (increasing batting averages, hits, home runs and RBI). The over all power increases lead to higher slugging percentages and RBI. While also increasing these stats they also allowed player to stay in top athletic condition for much longer periods. Players stats no longer started to drop once they reach their mid 30s. Longer playing careers leads to higher stats in every category. Take a look at Rodger Clemens stats, he was pitching better in his 40s than he was in his 20s and 30s. The increased batting stats were mostly countered by increased pitching abilities do to PEDs but by no stretch of the imagination were HR totals the only stat to increase.

With that being said HR totals are the most bloated stat due to PEDs. HR totals are the most cherished stat to baseball enthusiasts and casual fans alike. The use of PEDs tarnished baseballs most important records. From 1927 to 1997 two players hit 60 HR. From 1998 to 2001 this feat was achieved 6 times with two player hit 70 or more. PEDs didn't just boost stats they have grossly distorted the history of the game. And once again a game built on its history cannot survive when PEDs make its history irrelevant.
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

27 Feb 2012 09:57

Every change MLB has made over the years was either for player safety or to preserve the integrity of the game and the game's stats.


Not recently. The changing playoff formats are all about money, as are almost all changes made in any sport these days. I don't see how the DH improved the integrity of the game, either.

After MLB began to expand in the late 50s the pitching became watered down as more pitchers were required for the increase in teams.


This is a common argument I’ve never bought. More teams means that the hitters also get watered down. Also, as I noted, there is a much larger pool today than in the past from which to obtain players. Up until 1961, there were 16 teams. Now there are thirty, an increase of 88%. But the population of the U.S. has increased almost as much in the same time period—about 75%--and players now come from many other countries that back then never contributed anyone to MLB. So the ratio of the pool size to the number of available slots has almost certainly increased, not decreased.

Contrary to your believes HR totals isn't the only thing PEDs increases. What once was a ground out might now have enough power to get through the hole (increasing batting average and hits). What was a warning track out now has the power to leave the yard (increasing batting averages, hits, home runs and RBI). The over all power increases lead to higher slugging percentages and RBI.


Yes and no. Overall batting averages and power numbers may be up, a little. That is, the total number of HRs for all players in a season, and the average batting average for all players in a season. And the average runs scored per game per team. Fair enough.

But the individual records, which was what I was responding to, and what fans are most interested in being preserved as meaningful, have for the most part not been threatened. There still has been no .400 hitter since Ted Williams (whose .406 was in turn well below the single season record of .424), not even a .390 hitter in three decades, and no one has come close to Dimaggio’s 56 game hitting streak. No one has come remotely close to Hack Wilson’s 190 RBIs in a season (I personally believe that record will last longer than Dimaggio’s hitting streak); 150 RBI seasons have always been very rare, and still are. Bonds did break Ruth’s single season slugging record, but no one else in recent years has come close to it, certainly none of the other players who managed to hit 50, 60 or 70 HRs. Even during the height of the steroid era (if indeed it has peaked), a .700+ slugging average was rare, let alone the .800+ put up by Ruth and surpassed only by Bonds.

The situation is much the same for career records. No one has come close to Ty Cobb’s career BA, and except for Bonds—who barely surpassed Hank Aaron- -no one is challenging the career HR record, or probably even Ruth's former record. Same with RBIs, and no one, including Bonds, has come or will come remotely close to Ruth’s career .700 slugging average (or probably even Williams at .634). There used to be hitters like Ruth, Williams and Musial who hit for power and a high average. There are none today, in terms of career numbers, except Pujols, whose career BA is well below that of those three, and most likely will fall in the coming years.

So with the notable except of Bonds, who was or would have been an awesome player clean, PEDs have had no effect on any records except single season HRs. {Not to belittle this problem. It isn't just the broken records, but the high numbers put up by so many players. There is something sad when some of the greatest power hitters of all time—Aaron, Robinson, Killebrew, Jackson, Schmidt—never had a single season with 50 HRs, when someone you never heard of like Brady Anderson did). PEDs may be responsible for the somewhat higher overall hitting numbers in recent years, but there may be other factors. As I noted, some of the power increase has resulted from shorter fences, which probably actually reduce batting averages (less outfield to cover; you forgot to point out that more power means that some of those line drive singles become line drive outs, some of those bloop doubles become warning track fly balls). Also, artificial turf, which didn’t exist back in the day, has a major impact on whether those ground balls get through, and if they do, whether they roll all the way to the fence.

I do agree with you about longer player careers, certainly Bonds and Clemens are prime examples. That they were able to play at a high level, let alone the best of their careers, in their late 30s and early 40s, is most definitely the result of doping. I still regard Bonds as probably the most successful doper in the history of sports, all the unreal numbers he put up in what should have been his declining years.

But the bottom line is in any sport where excellence is defined mostly relative to one’s peers, doping has limited impact. I’m not going to argue that there is a level playing field, but the edge that doping gives an athlete is to some extent reduced by the fact that he’s competing against other dopers. Today’s hitters may have a doping advantage that those of the past lacked, but they also face pitchers who have a doping advantage that those of the past lacked. Baseball records are not objective, in the sense that one man’s performance at one point in time is directly comparable to another man’s performance at some other point in time. They can only be measured against one’s peers.

Contrast this with the situation in sports like track and field, where accomplishments can be measured objectively in terms of parameters like time or distance. There doping is much more of a problem, because we don’t know how much of today’s advances over the records of the past are due to doping.
User avatar Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,284
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

27 Feb 2012 16:07

Merckx index wrote:Not recently. The changing playoff formats are all about money, as are almost all changes made in any sport these days. I don't see how the DH improved the integrity of the game, either.


Yes, but more playoff games has no effect on regular season stats. I agree with you that I cannot see how the DH has improved the integrity of the game. It allows older or the less athletic fielders to continue batting later in their careers. IMO batters need to be solid fielders along with hitters. Also it devalues the roles of pitchers, they are players too and need to participate at the plate as well. At least I still have the National League.



Merckx index wrote:This is a common argument I’ve never bought. More teams means that the hitters also get watered down. Also, as I noted, there is a much larger pool today than in the past from which to obtain players. Up until 1961, there were 16 teams. Now there are thirty, an increase of 88%. But the population of the U.S. has increased almost as much in the same time period—about 75%--and players now come from many other countries that back then never contributed anyone to MLB. So the ratio of the pool size to the number of available slots has almost certainly increased, not decreased.


Okay lets do the math here. Teams increase by 88%. Us population increased by 75%. The remaining 13% increase is easily made up by international players and the black Americans that were first allowed to play in 1947. As you said "the ratio of pool size to the number of available slots has almost certainly increased, not decreased." Meaning the talent pool has not been watered down, but instead has been given an increase in talented players to choose from.

Merckx index wrote:But the individual records, which was what I was responding to, and what fans are most interested in being preserved as meaningful, have for the most part not been threatened. There still has been no .400 hitter since Ted Williams (whose .406 was in turn well below the single season record of .424), not even a .390 hitter in three decades, and no one has come close to Dimaggio’s 56 game hitting streak. No one has come remotely close to Hack Wilson’s 190 RBIs in a season (I personally believe that record will last longer than Dimaggio’s hitting streak); 150 RBI seasons have always been very rare, and still are. Bonds did break Ruth’s single season slugging record, but no one else in recent years has come close to it, certainly none of the other players who managed to hit 50, 60 or 70 HRs. Even during the height of the steroid era (if indeed it has peaked), a .700+ slugging average was rare, let alone the .800+ put up by Ruth and surpassed only by Bonds.


For fans there are historic numbers that add to the allure of the game. When you say "the last player to hit .400" everyone instantly thinks Ted Williams. Similarly 56=Dimaggio, 61=Maris, 755=Aaron. For hitters these seem to be the historic numbers that everyone is measured against. Steroids has led to the demolishing of 61 and also taken the most honored record away from Arron. Baseball records are not supposed to fall year after year. Many MLB's records have rarely been approached after they were set. It should take a "once in a generation player" to break a record set by another generations greatest player. (Not to split hairs here but Tony Gwynn has hit over .390 in the past 30 years.)

Merckx index wrote:The situation is much the same for career records. No one has come close to Ty Cobb’s career BA, and except for Bonds—who barely surpassed Hank Aaron- -no one is challenging the career HR record, or probably even Ruth's former record. Same with RBIs, and no one, including Bonds, has come or will come remotely close to Ruth’s career .700 slugging average (or probably even Williams at .634). There used to be hitters like Ruth, Williams and Musial who hit for power and a high average. There are none today, in terms of career numbers, except Pujols, whose career BA is well below that of those three, and most likely will fall in the coming years.

Why would we expect players to come close to 700+ when only two (clean) player in history of the game have reached this mark. Even 600-699 consists of 5 players, 4 from the steroid era with 2 being directly linked to roids. Take a look at the 500 home run club, this honor has been greatly reduce due to the infusion of juiced hitters. Ruth, Williams, and Musial were the best of there generations, they don't come around every year.

Merckx index wrote:There is something sad when some of the greatest power hitters of all time—Aaron, Robinson, Killebrew, Jackson, Schmidt—never had a single season with 50 HRs, when someone you never heard of like Brady Anderson did


Fun fact: Bonds only has one season over 50, the year he hit 73.

Merckx index wrote:As I noted, some of the power increase has resulted from shorter fences


In 1959 MLB set up for minimum boundaries for all parks, 325-400-325 feet. Power numbers didn't increase until the mid-90's.

Merckx index wrote:But the bottom line is in any sport where excellence is defined mostly relative to one’s peers, doping has limited impact. I’m not going to argue that there is a level playing field, but the edge that doping gives an athlete is to some extent reduced by the fact that he’s competing against other dopers. Today’s hitters may have a doping advantage that those of the past lacked, but they also face pitchers who have a doping advantage that those of the past lacked. Baseball records are not objective, in the sense that one man’s performance at one point in time is directly comparable to another man’s performance at some other point in time. They can only be measured against one’s peers.


Doping prevents us from comparing player to their peers as we can't know who is and who isn't on the juice. A doped hitter is always a doped hitter, the pitcher he faces may or may not be on any thing. Therefor a doped hitter is on a relatively level playing field only when going against a doped pitcher but has an advantage when going against a non-doped pitcher. The only players who don't have an advantage are the clean player, batter and pitchers alike.

Merckx index wrote:Contrast this with the situation in sports like track and field, where accomplishments can be measured objectively in terms of parameters like time or distance. There doping is much more of a problem, because we don’t know how much of today’s advances over the records of the past are due to doping.


We also have no way of knowing how much longer players prime years were/are extended due to PEDs, or how much faster they were/are allowed them to recover from injury or if they prevented injuries normal wear and tear has on the body.
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

28 Feb 2012 10:29

usedtobefast wrote:at the end of the day sports are entertainment. people want to see the fastest,farthest,hardest athletes perform at the highest level. ethics are mostly window dressing.


Since, like darts and bowling, it can be played while drinking beer, baseball is a game, not a sport.

(The Red Sox players are angry because their team management has just banned beer from the clubhouse).
Paco_P
Junior Member
 
Posts: 319
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 15:38

28 Feb 2012 17:10

Paco_P wrote:Since, like darts and bowling, it can be played while drinking beer, baseball is a game, not a sport.

(The Red Sox players are angry because their team management has just banned beer from the clubhouse).


Image

Old school PEDs
Image
EasyRider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 10:00

Braun stepped in it

01 Mar 2012 01:54

If Braun was smart like Sir Lancelot he would have simply stated that, even though he knew he'd be exonerated in the end, he's relieved that the ordeal is over and is now eager to get back to playing baseball, blah blah blah...

Instead it looks like he went after the wrong person: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/here-is-laurenzis-statement-c74c8qo-140750013.html
Pazuzu
Junior Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 04 Feb 2012 00:52

01 Mar 2012 11:28

Pazuzu wrote:If Braun was smart like Sir Lancelot he would have simply stated that, even though he knew he'd be exonerated in the end, he's relieved that the ordeal is over and is now eager to get back to playing baseball, blah blah blah...

Instead it looks like he went after the wrong person: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/here-is-laurenzis-statement-c74c8qo-140750013.html


I was just coming here to post a story on this. I was reading yesterday on ESPN and there was chatter in the comment sections about there being Fedex offices open in Milwaukee during that time on Saturday. The gist apparently is that they would not ship until Monday as he states, and protocol states if it cannot be shipped the same day the collector should keep it at his house, in general.

If this is the case, how can an arbitrator rule for Braun? :confused:

I agree with you he should have just said thanks and stfu. I used to be an Aaron Rogers fan but I have scratched him off the list because of his recent statements about this.

I hope this collector sues the shyt out of Braun, and hopefully his lawyer is slick enough to at least cause Rogers some stress as well.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,494
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

01 Mar 2012 21:40

ChrisE wrote:I was just coming here to post a story on this. I was reading yesterday on ESPN and there was chatter in the comment sections about there being Fedex offices open in Milwaukee during that time on Saturday. The gist apparently is that they would not ship until Monday as he states, and protocol states if it cannot be shipped the same day the collector should keep it at his house, in general.

If this is the case, how can an arbitrator rule for Braun? :confused:

I agree with you he should have just said thanks and stfu. I used to be an Aaron Rogers fan but I have scratched him off the list because of his recent statements about this.

I hope this collector sues the shyt out of Braun, and hopefully his lawyer is slick enough to at least cause Rogers some stress as well.


Because he is a commodity to MLB, and upholding the positive test would cast a shadow on him and the sport.

We can't have that now can we?

It is obvious and clear to anyone using common sense, there is nothing wrong with the collection process and protocol used.

One of the most common methods to foil a positive test, is to bring into question the handling and collection of the sample. Nothing new. But the fact that the arbitrator overturned the positive test makes one wonder how the person came to this conclusion.
zigmeister
Junior Member
 
Posts: 769
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 15:43

01 Mar 2012 22:53

zigmeister wrote:One of the most common methods to foil a positive test, is to bring into question the handling and collection of the sample. Nothing new. But the fact that the arbitrator overturned the positive test makes one wonder how the person came to this conclusion.


Exactly. If protocol was followed, then WTF is going on? I refuse to believe it could be this blatant, but I can't find the smoking gun here.

MLB brought the sanction and have voiced displeasure at the overturning, so power covering up stars does not seem to apply here.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,494
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

01 Mar 2012 23:56

EasyRider wrote:PEDs didn't just boost stats they have grossly distorted the history of the game. And once again a game built on its history cannot survive when PEDs make its history irrelevant.


But the game has and will continue to survive.
Thriving. Paid Attendance at an all time high.

And the steriod era is part of the history too. 1909, 1932, 1958, 1985, 1998, and 2011 are ALL history. 2025 and 2058 will be history someday too.
You can not rewrite history. You can look back on it. Admire it. Condemn it. But can't rewrite it sorry.

There is no point in time that can be considered a more relevant part of history than another time. Its all history.

And you cannot predict the future. Medical and Training advances may make 100 HR seasons commonplace in 70 years.

http://michaelbein.com/baseball.html
User avatar Polish
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,827
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 19:30

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackcat, ChewbaccaDefense, Google [Bot], meat puppet, ScienceIsCool and 25 guests

Back to top