Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec5000 View Post
    I'm personally still on the fence if wether Braun "did" or "didn't". As we all know, the positive test result was not disputed, it was the chain of custody that was disputed. That being said, the science used to determine positive or negative result is fact. That makes me think he "did". However, looking at his season stats from 2011 & 2012, they're pretty close so where's the enhanced performance? All that risk and no reward? That makes me think he "didn't". There's always more to stories like this. Who knows if the "truth" will ever come out. Just my 2 cents.
    Braun's defense team, as any good legal team would, pursued the course that would give them the best chance at acquittal, or in this case, an overturn of the suspension by the independent arbiter. Does that mean that they couldn't have challenged the test result? No. There were several different ways they could have gone about it. And his team did do independent testing, where the elevated test results were replicated with clean samples subjected to the same environmental conditions. Will Carroll of SI.com said as much in his tweets after the overturn.

    To simply say the test results showed he cheated is wrong. That's the whole reason why the handling of the sample was challenged. If it's not where it's supposed to be, and it's not handled how it's supposed to be, then the sample in question should immediately be disqualified. You just can't say "well, it was mishandled, but the results still showed ___". That's a fallacy that many on the internet don't seem to grasp. The collector could say he did nothing to it, and the original seals could appear to be untampered with. But the guy's been doing this how long now? If he wanted to screw with the sample, having two full days of uninterrupted access to it would go a long way in allowing him to do just that. I'm not saying he did, but there was opportunity. Beyond that, there were the storage conditions, which in prior cases like this, have been proven to skew the results. Read about Diane Modhal's case if you want to know what I'm talking about. Her results were inaccurate because the lab screwed up, and the sample was not handled properly. Read Will Carroll's comments about urine flora.
    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. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by gladdyontherise View Post
    It makes absolutely no sense for any reason to potentially use a source that is involved with selling athletes PEDs (and yes, I don't believe Braun's camp had no idea it was happening, if he happened to not be using them himself).
    So, you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" when I've just shown you an article why that makes perfect sense? Ok, fine.
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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