Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 112
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by NY Sports Teams View Post
    Braunoid first came up dirty but got off on a technicality.
    No, he didn't "get off on a technicality". I've provided links to articles written by sports journalists stating quite clearly that he didn't "get off on some technicality", that science decided his case, but you just continue to push forward regurgitating the same BS you have been since I first saw you post here on SCF. You refuse to even acknowledge that he could be innocent. You come off as a smug know-it-all. The truth of the matter is you are not an attorney, you have no intimate knowledge of the actual facts of Braun's appeal, and without seeing any of those facts, you continue to spit out the same thing over and over again.

    Wake up. Experts in medical testing and attorneys have come forward and spoken out on this whole fiasco, and have said point blank that Braun is proceeding in a manner that has been prescribed by his legal council. Sorry you don't like it. I don't either. I'd love for transparency in his appeal and suspension overturn. But what you fail to glean, what many of the people speaking out in this thread also fail to glean is that just because the failed test result was leaked, it does not mean that confidentiality is still not attached to the process.

    The second his failed test was leaked, Ryan Braun was put in an untenable position. He could either keep silent for the most part, stating his innocence without being able to go into the details we all want, and play the entire season. Or, he can violate binding arbitration, speak out in detail, and have the appeal overturned by MLB, thereby facing possible suspension. Losing Ryan Braun for 50 games (or more) would completely screw the Milwaukee Brewers' 2013 season.

    I want the answers, believe me. Yes, Braun is my favorite baseball player, but my defense of him does not make me an apologist, or a homer. I'm speaking out because we don't have anywhere near the full picture, and making a definitive judgement about Braun without the facts is foolish.

    He may turn out to be guilty. He may turn out to be innocent. The explanation he gave today in his statement is completely plausible. But none of you want to hear it. You've already made up your minds absent of anything substantive. And if it comes out that Braun is speaking the truth, that his only association with Bosch was as a consultant, you'll still continue your attacks on your character. And that's just sad.
    Hidden Content
    Formerly lambeausouth
    Hi, I'm Bill. Cheesehead by birth. Packer and Brewer fanatic by choice.
    I will treat all SCF members with respect. I ask that you please do the same.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by baseballboy2 View Post
    Well, I'm ready to crucify him. It's not just a coincidence that he tested postive for high testosterone levels and then has his name linked to Bosch. He's a cheater!!!
    Actually, it very well could be a coincidence.

    From attorney Wendy Thurm's article on Fangraphs:

    Braun’s appeal focused on the validity of the urine test that allegedly showed a high level of testosterone. His attorneys reportedly attacked the test in two ways. First, by showing that MLB’s drug testing protocol was not followed; and second, by showing that an improperly-handled urine sample could lead to a much higher-than-normal testosterone reading. Braun’s statement says that his attorneys used Tony Bosch “as a consultant” and that he answered questions “about T/E ratio and possibilities of tampering with samples.” Sounds to me like Bosch worked as a behind-the-scenes expert and advised Braun’s attorneys as they prepared to challenge the positive test.
    Why Bosch? Why use someone who’d already been linked to banned substances? I don’t know for sure, but it makes sense to me to his lawyers would consult with someone who had experience with a player (Manny Ramirez) who had tested positive and had been given a 50-game suspension. If you’re a lawyer defending a client accused of participating in a drug cartel conspiracy, you want to consult with people who knows how drug cartels work. Sure, there are law enforcement experts that you’ll want to testify for the client, but you also would like to consult with former drug cartel members. It’s entirely possible that Bosch had information from Ramirez’s situation that was useful to Braun’s lawyers in preparing their appeal.
    Hidden Content
    Formerly lambeausouth
    Hi, I'm Bill. Cheesehead by birth. Packer and Brewer fanatic by choice.
    I will treat all SCF members with respect. I ask that you please do the same.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by lambeausouth View Post
    And if it comes out that Braun is speaking the truth, that his only association with Bosch was as a consultant.
    Cant find any where why Braun would/did use this guy as a consultant.
    Hidden Content
    ONLY SHIP ON MON & FRI UNLESS PWE. U.S. ONLY
    Dodgers: 1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1981, 1988



  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by EtherealSOC View Post
    People defend ballplayers who are accused of something like this because the evidence is circumstantial and America is the land of innocent until proven guilty. Suspicion and guilt are not one and the same. When we mistake the two we are forsaking the very tenets our countries (I'm Canadian) were founded on.
    You hit the nail on the head, and thank you for being the voice of reason, EtherealSOC.

    Trust me, if it is proven that Braun cheated, I will be more pissed than anybody. But I am keeping an open mind, knowing full well that we have barely seen the tip of the iceberg as far as information goes. All we have to go on is what the media has told us, and the story has changed several times. The media wants ratings, and if the veracity of the information is questionable, eh, who cares, we want to break the story, and get more hits on our website.

    In the mean time, a man that could be guilty, or could be innocent, is having his character assassinated. And the people coming out saying "Braun has never provided the detailed explanation he alluded to, therefore he is guilty as sin" are just plain ignorant. They don't understand anything about the law, how binding arbitration works, what a confidentiality clause is, etc. But they all think they're little experts.
    Hidden Content
    Formerly lambeausouth
    Hi, I'm Bill. Cheesehead by birth. Packer and Brewer fanatic by choice.
    I will treat all SCF members with respect. I ask that you please do the same.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryant #88 View Post
    Cant find any where why Braun would/did use this guy as a consultant.
    Read the article I've linked twice now. The attorney who posted on Fangraphs goes into why Braun's defense team might have contacted Bosch.

    As far as why nothing has been released publicly to support his claim, remember that Braun's attorneys cannot release anything without his written approval. They would have to submit something to him in writing to partially waive confidentiality, and the attorneys would have to determine that what was released wouldn't violate the confidentiality clause of his case.

    I don't have a law degree, but I was pre law for three years in college before changing majors (I'm a stock broker now). I spent those three years learning about the appeals process, researching precedent cases in Westlaw and Lexis, and I worked for a criminal trial lawyer.

    Too many people here are little experts, and their expectations are unrealistic. And in their minds, when information is not provided to satiate their curiosity, it's by extension an admission of guilt. It is not, and if they understood how the whole process worked, they wouldn't think that at all.
    Hidden Content
    Formerly lambeausouth
    Hi, I'm Bill. Cheesehead by birth. Packer and Brewer fanatic by choice.
    I will treat all SCF members with respect. I ask that you please do the same.

  6. #86
    Ok found it.

    "Why Bosch? Why use someone who’d already been linked to banned substances? I don’t know for sure, but it makes sense to me to his lawyers would consult with someone who had experience with a player (Manny Ramirez) who had tested positive and had been given a 50-game suspension. If you’re a lawyer defending a client accused of participating in a drug cartel conspiracy, you want to consult with people who knows how drug cartels work. Sure, there are law enforcement experts that you’ll want to testify for the client, but you also would like to consult with former drug cartel members. It’s entirely possible that Bosch had information from Ramirez’s situation that was useful to Braun’s lawyers in preparing their appeal".

    Personally, I would have still went else where to find help. This is hurting him more then having to appeal last years test, IMO.
    Hidden Content
    ONLY SHIP ON MON & FRI UNLESS PWE. U.S. ONLY
    Dodgers: 1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1981, 1988



  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by NY Sports Teams View Post
    Braunoid" had a dirty urine and now he has ties to an individual involved in PED's. It's no hype, that's the facts. I've made my living having to make judgements on people and situations in a matter of seconds. Having much more time than a few seconds the way Braunoid has acted and not acted are not those of someone I would deem as innocent.
    You're like a pit bull that's bitten down on something, and refuses to let go no matter how many times you're compelled to do so. How many times do I, or somebody else, have to tell you that is patently false? His "dirty urine", as you call it, was in actuality an abnormally high testosterone level (2-3 times higher than any of the near 40,000 samples that have been tested in professional baseball previously), and again, Ryan Braun's defense team were able to reproduce those abnormally high levels with clean samples. Science proved that the sample was mishandled, and responsible for the high levels. Do you understand that? Are you ever going to get that through your thick skull? Chain of custody, and handling methodology, were agreed upon by Major League Baseball and the player's union, and those protocols exist for a reason. Because if they are not followed, the sample can be considered compromised, and any testing on those samples can yield inaccurate results. Jesus Christ, man. For somebody that spent 25 + years dealing in the criminal trial system, you demonstrate an abject ignorance of drug testing protocols.

    Quote Originally Posted by NY Sports Teams View Post
    I've had the displeasure of accompanying scumbags for 25+ years to court and seen first hand defense attorneys tactics both in the military and civilian sectors. They will say and do ANYTHING in accordance with the rules of law to get their scumbag/dirty acquitted.
    That's right. That's their job!!!!!! A defense attorney's sole reason for existing is to vigorously defend their client, doing anything necessary within the letter of the law to acquit their client. That's the heart of the adversarial legal system!! That's why reasonable doubt is one of the chief tenets of trial law. It exists to prevent people from being wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. This is specifically why the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. You may not like it, and you might feel that guilty people "get away with it" (and I think I'm starting to understand your hard on for Ryan Braun....er "Braunoid!". You got a whiff of possible guilt from Braun, and now he's one of the "scum bags" that you saw get off in your 25 years as a cop). But as somebody who understands how the legal system works, I would rather let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man. And therein lies the difference between us. It's not me being " a homer". It's me being a person that understands how the system works, and prefers to let a man to go through it before formulating my penultimate opinion. You, on the other hand, are the judge, jury and executioner before he's had a chance to clear his name. Apparently, you'd rather send a man to prison if there's the slightest hint that they may be guilty of something. Thankfully, there are men and women that don't think like YOU do. Otherwise, the already bloated prison system in this country would be filled with innocent people.
    Last edited by the 'stache; 02-06-2013 at 11:39 PM.
    Hidden Content
    Formerly lambeausouth
    Hi, I'm Bill. Cheesehead by birth. Packer and Brewer fanatic by choice.
    I will treat all SCF members with respect. I ask that you please do the same.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryant #88 View Post
    Ok found it.

    "Why Bosch? Why use someone who’d already been linked to banned substances? I don’t know for sure, but it makes sense to me to his lawyers would consult with someone who had experience with a player (Manny Ramirez) who had tested positive and had been given a 50-game suspension. If you’re a lawyer defending a client accused of participating in a drug cartel conspiracy, you want to consult with people who knows how drug cartels work. Sure, there are law enforcement experts that you’ll want to testify for the client, but you also would like to consult with former drug cartel members. It’s entirely possible that Bosch had information from Ramirez’s situation that was useful to Braun’s lawyers in preparing their appeal".

    Personally, I would have still went else where to find help. This is hurting him more then having to appeal last years test, IMO.
    I understand your position, Bryant #88. Unfortunately, sometimes legal defense teams have to consult with people that are not what you or I would call "upstanding citizens". If you were accused of a crime, and I were your defense attorney, how would I best serve your interests? By just talking to the pillars of society? Of course not.

    Bosch was involved in Ramirez's arbitration hearing, one he lost. Braun's defense team, knowing this, listened to what he had to say when he was introduced to them. Remember, first of all, this was a year ago, and at the time, based on what I have read, Bosch himself had not been accused of any wrongdoing. It was his father that had been implicated.

    Braun's defense team (or at least one of his attorneys) has admitted that he met with Bosch (and the attorney is listed on that piece of paper with Braun's name). He's not a medical doctor, and might not meet the level of what would be called an expert witness, but he has practical experience in the kind of appeal process that Braun was about to go through. So as Wendy Thurm stated, it's not out of the ordinary for a legal team to still hire this person as a consultant. They did, and after speaking with him, determined that his information/knowledge wouldn't be useful in Braun's defense. One of his attorneys said Bosch's contributions were "negligible".

    But they couldn't have known just how much (or how little) he could help them unless they talked to him. And that involves paying a retainer up front.

    I don't like Ryan Braun's name being linked to the guy any more than Ryan Braun himself does. But again, sometimes if you're about to be dragged through the mud, you have to talk to a few people with dirt on their shoes. It's just a reality of how the whole system works. Braun's defense team vetted a possible asset, and determined he wouldn't be able to provide any assistance. And based on what's been released to the public in that Yahoo article, it appears that Bosch's only connection to Braun was as a possible consultant.

    Lastly, referring back to the paper linking Braun. The amount listed as "owed" by Ryan Braun is ten times more than any other name. The other names have specific drugs listed next to them. No drug name next to Braun. If he owed for some type of illegal substance, and owed substantially more money than anybody else, why wouldn't he specify what was bought next to his name, too? Is it not possible that Braun's explanation is at least plausible?
    Last edited by the 'stache; 02-06-2013 at 11:34 PM.
    Hidden Content
    Formerly lambeausouth
    Hi, I'm Bill. Cheesehead by birth. Packer and Brewer fanatic by choice.
    I will treat all SCF members with respect. I ask that you please do the same.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by lambeausouth View Post
    Lastly, referring back to the paper linking Braun. The amount listed as "owed" by Ryan Braun is ten times more than any other name. The other names have specific drugs listed next to them. No drug name next to Braun. If he owed for some type of illegal substance, and owed substantially more money than anybody else, why wouldn't he specify what was bought next to his name, too? Is it not possible that Braun's explanation is at least plausible?

    I understand every thing being said: Amount next to his name is more then any bodys and it has Brauns attorney's name also. Why would Braun not pay him off to remove his name from any possible list. I'm sure Braun has 20-30k in his sock.

    Just trying to piece things together as are you, looking at it from a different side then many others are not.
    Hidden Content
    ONLY SHIP ON MON & FRI UNLESS PWE. U.S. ONLY
    Dodgers: 1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1981, 1988



  10. #90
    If you did not honestly laugh out loud at Braun's excuse, you will believe anything, and are probably one of the jurors that got Casey Anthony off. Real talk. Please do not try to rebuttle my statement with a longwinded explanation. These players have much more to gain from juicing than not; it is the world we live in. Melky Cabrera was rewarded with a 2 yr/$16mil deal the year after getting caught. He would not have sniffed that kind of a contract had he not juiced and he still got paid, albeit far less than if he had not tested dirty, BUT still way more than anything his body of work has earned. And this is straight from someone who would cheer Barry Bonds from the bleachers in San Francisco; you have to admit it to yourself.

    Jerad
    Always looking for autos of Giants stars, and other stars and HOFer's

    My links

    Hidden Content

    Hidden Content

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •