Braun Chain of Custody Arguement

[ledzepp8]

We are playing a game of semantics here. He gave a sample. The sample had too high levels of testosterone. That's a failed test. The result was later invalidated because of the chain of command of the sample.

Breaking chain of custody is a pretty big issue. Can of corn is right. If they break the chain of custody, then we suddenly have no idea whose sample of urine it is. Braun copping to it later is irrelevant.

[Number5]

Breaking chain of custody is a pretty big issue. Can of corn is right. If they break the chain of custody, then we suddenly have no idea whose sample of urine it is. Braun copping to it later is irrelevant.

As I understand it, the chain of custody was never broken. The same individual charged with transporting the sample had custody of the sample the entire time, and the normal procedure was followed. Braun's attorney challenged the system that allowed for the samples to be kept at the individual's home overnight due to the late hour of receipt. The seal was unbroken. The sample was not readily exposed to the public, and could only have been tampered with if the individual's home was broken into. Please correct me if I am wrong on that. If you want to argue that the individual himself could tamper with the sample, that is the case regardless of the method used. The people charged with custody of samples have to be screened and vetted in any case. The vilifying of that individual when, as we now know, Braun was truly guilty of PED use, was despicable, IMO.

[weams]

As I understand it, the chain of custody was never broken. The same individual charged with transporting the sample had custody of the sample the entire time, and the normal procedure was followed. Braun's attorney challenged the system that allowed for the samples to be kept at the individual's home overnight due to the late hour of receipt. The seal was unbroken. The sample was not readily exposed to the public, and could only have been tampered with if the individual's home was broken into. Please correct me if I am wrong on that. If you want to argue that the individual himself could tamper with the sample, that is the case regardless of the method used. The people charged with custody of samples have to be screened and vetted in any case. The vilifying of that individual when, as we now know, Braun was truly guilty of PED use, was despicable, IMO.

Braun goes somewhere else. Please. And yes. You are right.

[weams]

Here...

[atomic]

The original argument was when I said Braun failed a drug test. He failed it. The fact that he was able to get off because he had a good attorney and a bad Arbitrator does not mean that he did not fail a drug test. He got off on a technicality. The arbitrator was then fired.

And the reason I even mentioned him was someone said that players aren't getting caught by drug tests and mentioned A-Rod and Braun as examples. Well Braun was caught by the test. Even if the Arbitrator was right about the chain of custody drugs were still detected in his sample of urine.

[ledzepp8]

The original argument was when I said Braun failed a drug test. He failed it. The fact that he was able to get off because he had a good attorney and a bad Arbitrator does not mean that he did not fail a drug test. He got off on a technicality. The arbitrator was then fired.

And the reason I even mentioned him was someone said that players aren't getting caught by drug tests and mentioned A-Rod and Braun as examples. Well Braun was caught by the test. Even if the Arbitrator was right about the chain of custody drugs were still detected in his sample of urine.

Look we can all agree that it's a semantics argument but if the test was declared invalid, then it's not therefore possible for him to have failed it. If chain of custody is called into question, then it's not fair to the player (whether or not he admits to it later) to say that he failed the test. If you take a drug test for your job and they say that you tested for marijuana, you challenge it, and win the challenge, did you fail the drug test?

[Number5]

Look we can all agree that it's a semantics argument but if the test was declared invalid, then it's not therefore possible for him to have failed it. If chain of custody is called into question, then it's not fair to the player (whether or not he admits to it later) to say that he failed the test. If you take a drug test for your job and they say that you tested for marijuana, you challenge it, and win the challenge, did you fail the drug test?

The arbiter overstepped. He allowed himself to be persuaded by Braun's attorney that a custody breach had occurred without investigating to find out what the normal protocol was. The sample was never subjected to public access, and the seal remained unbroken. The arbiter basically ruled on a specific point that he had no knowledge or experience in. The arbiter was fired after the case.

Braun accused the individual in custody of the sample of impropriety, going so far as to label him an anti-Semite, and suggested he tampered with the sample because he was a Cubs fan. Braun lied. He besmirched a man's character. I could care less about PEDs, frankly, and I try to avoid PED conversations. Braun, however, is a lowlife, as far as I'm concerned, because he lied and defamed the character of a man who was just doing his job.

Yes, of course he failed the dag-gone test.

http://thebiglead.com/2013/08/19/ryan-braun-says-urine-collector-for-failed-drug-test-was-an-anti-semite-cubs-fan/

[Can_of_corn]

The arbiter overstepped. He allowed himself to be persuaded by Braun's attorney that a custody breach had occurred without investigating to find out what the normal protocol was. The sample was never subjected to public access, and the seal remained unbroken. The arbiter basically ruled on a specific point that he had no knowledge or experience in. The arbiter was fired after the case.

Braun accused the individual in custody of the sample of impropriety, going so far as to label him an anti-Semite, and suggested he tampered with the sample because he was a Cubs fan. Braun lied. He besmirched a man's character. I could care less about PEDs, frankly, and I try to avoid PED conversations. Braun, however, is a lowlife, as far as I'm concerned, because he lied and defamed the character of a man who was just doing his job.

Yes, of course he failed the dag-gone test.

http://thebiglead.com/2013/08/19/ryan-braun-says-urine-collector-for-failed-drug-test-was-an-anti-semite-cubs-fan/

I doubt you are qualified to declare that the arbiter overstepped his bounds. I think it is insulting for you to declare he had "no knowledge or experience" He dd pretty well serving in that role from 1999-2012 despite your opinion of his abilities. One would think someone how went to Harvard, did his grad work at the U of Chicago then got a law degree from Yale would be bothered to be fully informed on a topic before ruling on it.

The arbiter was fired for having the temerity to disagree with MLB.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Shyam_Das

[Number5]

I doubt you are qualified to declare that the arbiter overstepped his bounds. I think it is insulting for you to declare he had "no knowledge or experience" He dd pretty well serving in that role from 1999-2012 despite your opinion of his abilities. One would think someone how went to Harvard, did his grad work at the U of Chicago then got a law degree from Yale would be bothered to be fully informed on a topic before ruling on it.

The arbiter was fired for having the temerity to disagree with MLB.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Shyam_Das

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ryan-braun-sample-collector-says-he-followed-drug-test-protocol-022812

" MLB had no comment, and referred instead to its statement from last week:

''The extremely experienced collector in Mr. Braun's case acted in a professional and appropriate manner. He handled Mr. Braun's sample consistent with instructions issued by our jointly retained collection agency,'' it said."

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/milwaukee-brewers-ryan-braun-took-statements-too-far-in-accusing-sample-collector-Dino-Laurenzi-Jr-022812

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ryan-braun-says-he-s-made-amends-with-dino-laurenzi-jr---and-if-so-he-would-be-wise-to-emulate-laurenzi-213618095.html

There is zero doubt what went on here. Braun has even fessed up. I am unsure as to why you would argue otherwise.

I have no doubt that the arbiter was qualified as an arbiter. I was speaking to his lack of knowledge as to the standard protocol for custody that was being used in these cases when the sample was received after the delivery office was closed. That protocol was followed, as confirmed by MLB. MLB's position is quite clear and unambiguous.

[Can_of_corn]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ryan-braun-sample-collector-says-he-followed-drug-test-protocol-022812

" MLB had no comment, and referred instead to its statement from last week:

''The extremely experienced collector in Mr. Braun's case acted in a professional and appropriate manner. He handled Mr. Braun's sample consistent with instructions issued by our jointly retained collection agency,'' it said."

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/milwaukee-brewers-ryan-braun-took-statements-too-far-in-accusing-sample-collector-Dino-Laurenzi-Jr-022812

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ryan-braun-says-he-s-made-amends-with-dino-laurenzi-jr---and-if-so-he-would-be-wise-to-emulate-laurenzi-213618095.html

There is zero doubt what went on here. Braun has even fessed up. I am unsure as to why you would argue otherwise.

I have no doubt that the arbiter was qualified as an arbiter. I was speaking to his lack of knowledge as to the standard protocol for custody that was being used in these cases when the sample was received after the delivery office was closed. That protocol was followed, as confirmed by MLB. MLB's position is quite clear and unambiguous.

You said he had "no knowledge or experience". So you are accusing him of not bothering to do the necessary work before hearing the case. You think he just showed up hung over, put his feet up on his desk and said "What ya got?"

This wasn't his first drug appeal, the man ruled on the Rocker case for goodness sake. He was very experienced.

[Number5]

You said he had "no knowledge or experience". So you are accusing him of not bothering to do the necessary work before hearing the case. You think he just showed up hung over, put his feet up on his desk and said "What ya got?"

This wasn't his first drug appeal, the man ruled on the Rocker case for goodness sake. He was very experienced.

See above--- I was speaking specifically to the custody after hours issue which caused his unfortunate ruling. For crying out loud, of course I realize that MLB and the players union would not hire an uneducated dolt with no arbitration experience to arbitrate their cases.

Braun lied. He has admitted that fact. He says he has made amends to the individual he lied about. MLB fired the arbiter. These are all facts. If these facts somehow don't please you, I don't know what to tell you.

[Can_of_corn]

See above--- I was speaking specifically to the custody after hours issue which caused his unfortunate ruling. For crying out loud, of course I realize that MLB and the players union would not hire an uneducated dolt with no arbitration experience to arbitrate their cases.

Braun lied. He has admitted that fact. He says he has made amends to the individual he lied about. MLB fired the arbiter. These are all facts. If these facts somehow don't please you, I don't know what to tell you.

Read what I said, you are accusing the arbiter of failing to do the necessary work.

Does he really strike you as the type that wouldn't be up to speed on what the protocol was?

You just don't like the result so you are assuming he acted improperly.

Braun lying has nothing to do with the competence of the Arbiter.

As for firing him, yea, we don't have any evidence of MLB being vindictive.

Hey want to talk this over at the All Star game this year? Oh wait, it's in San Diego because Baltimore failed to file some paperwork.

[Number5]

Read what I said, you are accusing the arbiter of failing to do the necessary work.

Does he really strike you as the type that wouldn't be up to speed on what the protocol was?

You just don't like the result so you are assuming he acted improperly.

Braun lying has nothing to do with the competence of the Arbiter.

As for firing him, yea, we don't have any evidence of MLB being vindictive.

Hey want to talk this over at the All Star game this year? Oh wait, it's in San Diego because Baltimore failed to file some paperwork.

Well, I'm tired of spitting into the wind. Really don't care what your agenda is here.

The facts are obvious. Braun is guilty and he lied. The approved individual in custody of the sample did nothing wrong. The sample was not tampered-with. Braun failed the test. Braun has now admitted all of that. The arbiter was fired.

Agree, disagree, whatever. The facts are very clear, and are undisputed.

[weams]

Look we can all agree that it's a semantics argument but if the test was declared invalid, then it's not therefore possible for him to have failed it. If chain of custody is called into question, then it's not fair to the player (whether or not he admits to it later) to say that he failed the test. If you take a drug test for your job and they say that you tested for marijuana, you challenge it, and win the challenge, did you fail the drug test?

Braun failed the drug test. Twice. Both samples were positive for an extremely high level of testosterone to epitestosterone. A testosterone level that at the time was three times higher than any number in the history of drug testing . He beat the rap. But then later as a part of a settlement so he did not miss more suspension time he admitted that he had used before, was caught, lied about the collector and about his own purity. He failed it. It is perfectly ok to talk about his failed test. Just like David Ortiz's test that we were never supposed to know about either.

[Can_of_corn]

Well, I'm tired of spitting into the wind. Really don't care what your agenda is here.

The facts are obvious. Braun is guilty and he lied. The approved individual in custody of the sample did nothing wrong. The sample was not tampered-with. Braun failed the test. Braun has now admitted all of that. The arbiter was fired.

Agree, disagree, whatever. The facts are very clear, and are undisputed.

The fact that Braun lied is irrelevant to this issue.

The fact that the sample was not tampered with is irrelevant to this issue.

The fact that the arbiter was fired is only marginally at issue and in my opinion his prior work for MLB outweighs it.

The chain of custody was at issue.

I used to work physical security, you can't leave something in an unsecured fridge over the weekend.

That is my "agenda".