The problem is that with this decision you've set a bad precedent by which guilty people can weasel their way out of punishment. What's to stop future players from crying tampering after they've been caught? You can't just say "WHAT IF MY SAMPLE WAS TAMPERED WITH???" and get suddenly become innocent. I think you need some sort of proof of tampering to justify the claims. The "what if" game is dangerous, because you can be damn sure that lawyers can make up any sort of scenario like this if it doesn't require proof to support it.

He seems to have gotten off because there sufficient proof that predetermined testing procedures were not properly carried out. He probably didn't have to show evidence of tampering, then. I think your concerns are unfounded.

It surely is a bad precedent.

 

But, it's worse than that, as there is no allegation of any tampering at all, only that the delivery guy didn't immediately transmit the sample for a totally innocent (although stupid) reason, that is, Fed Ex wasn't open Friday night and therefore he should wait until Monday morning to ship it.

 

MLB needs to hire delivery/shipping guys who have some clue about what they're doing.

He seems to have gotten off because there sufficient proof that predetermined testing procedures were not properly carried out. He probably didn't have to show evidence of tampering, then. I think your concerns are unfounded.

 

Reading over the PDA, I don't think there was a serious violation of protocol. That's mostly because there just wasn't very much language in place for this type of scenario one way or another. I've heard multiple people write/say on the radio over the last couple of days that such chain of custody procedures aren't really out of the norm for professional sports in general.

 

In other words, I think that people are too inclined to believe Braun's camp saying the procedures weren't carried out without hearing MLB's side of it. I don't see enough "doubt" in the integrity of the procedure that would undermine the validity of a positive test.

The problem is that with this decision you've set a bad precedent by which guilty people can weasel their way out of punishment. What's to stop future players from crying tampering after they've been caught? You can't just say "WHAT IF MY SAMPLE WAS TAMPERED WITH???" and get suddenly become innocent. I think you need some sort of proof of tampering to justify the claims. The "what if" game is dangerous, because you can be damn sure that lawyers can make up any sort of scenario like this if it doesn't require proof to support it.

 

I'm convinced now that Braun did not get off on a technicality, but rather a loophole in the language. MLB just needs to update the PDA.

Loophole = technicality. By definition.

 

Gaby looks like a fool for defending this.

Loophole = technicality. By definition.

 

Gaby looks like a fool for defending this.

 

So does every other player who said "congratulations" to him, then?

Or that they knew he was innocent?

 

Come on, no player is going to publicly say, "they got it wrong and he was guilty."

no player is going to publicly say, "they got it wrong and he was guilty."

 

Neither does any player have to open his mouth and say anything. At all.

Players want to show support for their fellow players. There's no animosity between them, so why not show their support? Why does that bother you so much? It's not a big deal that they say they're happy he got off.

Were they at UM at the same time? UM was roid city when Gaby was there.

they were

He seems to have gotten off because there sufficient proof that predetermined testing procedures were not properly carried out. He probably didn't have to show evidence of tampering, then. I think your concerns are unfounded.

 

Reading over the PDA, I don't think there was a serious violation of protocol. That's mostly because there just wasn't very much language in place for this type of scenario one way or another. I've heard multiple people write/say on the radio over the last couple of days that such chain of custody procedures aren't really out of the norm for professional sports in general.

 

In other words, I think that people are too inclined to believe Braun's camp saying the procedures weren't carried out without hearing MLB's side of it. I don't see enough "doubt" in the integrity of the procedure that would undermine the validity of a positive test.

That may very well be true, in which case there was no reason for him to win the appeal.

 

I was just saying that there is no evidence that he got off because of some proof of tampering offered by his side, but instead because the arbiter bought into something else (rightly or ridiculously wrongly).

Yeah, I mean, I'm fully aware that the intent of legal proceedings and appeals processes such as these is to determine if there is a reasonable doubt surrounding the evidence. It's not so much about proving innocence as it is lack of guilt.

 

However, by looking at the information we've been given, I don't see any legitimate reason to doubt the evidence.