Ryan Braun Named NL MVP

[Namaste]

Captains Log: February 24th, 2012
1724 hours

-twitter is still the worst

[Ramp]

I mean, it's not

but it can be

[Beef]

Also, LOL at Braun "I won't discuss this process" bookending a detailed discussion of the process.

I mean it, I've gone from being completely indifferent to this guy to flat out hating him.

For the sake of being correct, the bolded quote above never happened.

[emkayseven]

I mean, I don't think it's a Jewish bias. I'm Jewish though so maybe I'm biased against thinking it's a Jewish bias.

I do think it's a white bias but also - maybe moreso - it's a "good guy" bias. If you are a white athlete who is perceived to be a good teammate/person you get the benefit of the doubt more often. Roger Clemens was a dickbag who was not very well liked so when his steroid scandal hit he did not get the benefit of the doubt. Imagine if the same situation happened to Greg Maddux. People would not hate him the way people hate Clemens.

I mean, hell, Andy Pettitte ADMITTED to taking steroids but he was a quiet, reserved, well-liked guy who only wanted to pitch and be with his family. No one even talks about his steroid issue even though he actually admitted to using HGH and when he retired people began legitimately debating his HOF credentials, yet Clemens won't get in despite being one of the top 5 pitchers of all time. Case in point: http://espn.go.com/mlb/notebook/_/pa...ight-clubhouse

Yes, it was written by Bobby Valentine who's a moron, but that article sucks Pettitte's dick about how he gets betterwith age and is so religiously regimented with his conditioning. THE MAN ADMITTED TO TAKING HGH AND IT'S NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE. In fact the article even mentions him rebounding from an injury WHICH IS WHAT PETTITTE SAID WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND HIS USING HGH.

If it came out tomorrow that Brett Favre tested positive, people would laugh and sully his name. If the news broke that Drew Brees tested positive, people would ask where the proof was and wonder how the sample had gotten tainted.

The bottom line is people are biased not just against race but against perception. It's why until actual concrete details of Tiger Woods' affair came out, people didn't believe it. It's why no one talks about Derrick Rose's SAT scandal. It's the way people are.

[Namaste]

"That's the way off the world"

-Earth Wind and Fire

Excellent post, Polkster.

[CrimsonCane]

You now have a player whose entire contest was not on the discovered substance, but on the protocol used to protect the tested specimen.

C'mon swift, you're an attorney. You know better. You never win an appeal by reweighing the evidence. You always have to attack the procedure if you want any chance at prevailing.

[Party]

Braunberg

[Swifty]

C'mon swift, you're an attorney. You know better. You never win an appeal by reweighing the evidence. You always have to attack the procedure if you want any chance at prevailing.

You also plead everything you can and sort it out later. I'm not critiquing his prevailing the way he did, I'm simply dumbfounded by the notion that "truth is on [his] side."

If having a sample sit for 24 hours creates elevated levels of synthetic testosterone, then sure, the truth is there, but Braun never contested the sample as being tampered with, which, if he's going to puff his chest and say he's clean and his time to first didn't improve (lol at that too) that also seems like a reasonable argument to make...which he didn't.

[MiamiHomer]

There are such things as false positives though.

[Mainge]

Sure, but why didn't any of the other Brewers who took the test that day also receive a false positive?

[MiamiHomer]

Because it's a random occurrence. False positives don't necessarily have to be affected by something to happen. Each sample is also tested individually so comparing it to other tests doesn't really represent anything.

[Mainge]

Right, but Brauns' whole defense was that the mishandling caused a false positive. Why didn't it for the other Brewers samples? Unless he's accusing the collector of directly tampering with his sample. Also, the chances of a random false positive are so remote that there's just no way that's what happened. The MLB splits the urine sample in two for that very reason.

Personally, there's no doubt in my mind that he did it but I also don't give a shit. Really doesn't change my opinion of him at all, which is that he fucking rakes and it's fun to watch.

[MiamiHomer]

I don't think the argument was that the mishandling of the sample caused the sample to be positive. I believe their argument focused solely on the protocol that was not followed in delivering the sample.
--------------------
False positives do happen though. So just because the odds are so low doesn't mean the possibility shouldn't be thrown out of question.

[Mainge]

I don't think the argument was that the mishandling of the sample caused the sample to be positive. I believe their argument focused solely on the protocol that was not followed in delivering the sample.
--------------------
False positives do happen though. So just because the odds are so low doesn't mean the possibility shouldn't be thrown out of question.

Maybe I'm wrong but who cares that protocol wasn't followed unless there's a chance that it triggered a false positive. If he really got off only because protocol wasn't followed, how can anyone doubt that he did it?

And I understand that false positives happen but, like I said, they split the sample in two for a reason. The odds of just one test resulting in a random false positive isn't good. The odds of both separate tests resulting in random false positives has to be just astronomically low.

[CrimsonCane]

You also plead everything you can and sort it out later.

That's not how it works on appeals. Shotgun pleadings may work in complaints but you are forced to narrow the issues on an appeal. Furthermore, most appellate procedures specifically limit the ability to reweigh evidence. There is a presumption of correctness in the evidentiary findings. You are wasting your time if you try to fight that.

I'm also dumbfounded by how you would expect him to conclusively prove his innocence. From the reports, there was a 19 day gap between his testing and his notice that the sample tested positive. What is he supposed to do? Any new test taken at that point would be totally inconclusive and irrelevant as to whether or not he had any banned substances in his body at the time of the initial test.