Another juicer........

[xpress34]

Re: Another juicer........

The word I keep getting hung up on is "intentional". Specifically, "there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program." So they are saying he did violate the program, but on accident... huh. Didn't Bonds initially say his was accidental too... then he changed it to, I didn't know what I was taking -- maybe that was Sheffield. I can't keep who said what lie straight.

What I don't understand is how could he be completely innocent while unintentionally violating the program. If someone accidently runs a red light, they are not innocent because they did it unintenionally.

EXACTLY! The MLBs stance since the program started has been that it doesn't matter 'how' or 'why' you violated it - it only matters that you violated it.

Players are responsible for making sure they know EXACTLY what is going into their bodies and I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't know if a Synthetic Testosterone was being inserted into your system.


My favorite line is, "There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case..." Does that mean that even if the Positive Test stands up, that Braun has a good reason for why i was in his body? More plausible than the others we've heard (i.e. I thought it was B12, it was part of my medical regime, I didn't know what I was taking, etc).

Can't wait to hear it.

On the other hand - if you read my post about ManRam being re-instated - if Manny can get his suspension reduced because of how long he's been away from the game (HE QUIT on the GAME and isn't enough of a man to serve his REAL suspension), then Braun might be able to plea his down.

If he does, it (along with the Manny decision) will water down the whole banned substance program and the penalties attached to it.

- Smitty

[xpress34]

Re: Another juicer........

Does that mean that even if the Positive Test stands up, that Braun has a good reason for why i was in his body?

Should read IT, not I... oh for an EDIT FEATURE!!!!

[freddiefreeman5]

Re: Another juicer........

Should read IT, not I... oh for an EDIT FEATURE!!!!

Good thing you caught that before someone else did.

[philsfan]

Re: Another juicer........

I'm not a Brewers or Braun fan but if you love baseball you can't help but feel like you got hit in the gut with a bat. Doesn't get much worse than the NL MVP failing a drug test. I only owned one game used bat from Braun which I sold a few weeks ago (lucky me). From what I understand, the machine used to test the sample is excellent and very rarely makes a mistake. If that's the case, Braun is in a ton of trouble with fans and one day the Hall of Fame. He'll keep all of his awards, money and perhaps win a World Series (like Arod in NY), but you can't ever get your reputation back.

Total disaster for collectors of Braun stuff. You can't tell me that game used stuff from Giambi, Arod, Mac25, Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Rapha, wouldn't be selling for twice or three times the current amount if they hadn't been stained. Kemp deserved the award and this positive test just confirms, in hindsight, that the wrong decision was made by the press.

Very sad day. I hope that Braun is able to fight the allegations and prove that the test was wrong. We will see...

[trsent]

Re: Another juicer........

My favorite article about this situation:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7346920/mlb-why-ryan-braun-keep-nl-mvp-award

Ryan Braun is MVP, no matter what

If his appeal is denied, Brewers slugger shouldn't be stripped of his award

By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com

I keep thinking back to the last day of September. I keep thinking back to the day I finally cast a National League MVP vote I'd spent way too many hours agonizing about.

I cast that vote for Ryan Braun. It was one of the hardest MVP decisions I've ever made.

Let's just say it hasn't gotten any easier in the last 48 hours or so.

You think I haven't been second-guessing that vote for the last couple of days, since the moment I learned Saturday night what ESPN was reporting about Braun's positive October drug test? Of course I have. Who wouldn't?

What we have here is as big an award mess as this sport has ever gotten itself into. And as Jose Canseco would be happy to tell you, that's saying something, friends.

To get news this ugly about a newly elected MVP before they've even officially handed him his trophy? Yikes. Doesn't get much more embarrassing than that -- no matter how Braun's appeal turns out.

But now that we've got all that out of the way, I'm here to tell you what we can't do:

We can't spray-paint Ryan Braun's name off the list of MVP award winners. We can't rip his nameplate off the trophy.

And we definitely can't -- and shouldn't -- hold a whole new MVP election if his appeal gets denied and he's sent away to serve 50 games of detention.

I say that as a guy who is trying hard not to rush to judgment in this case. I've read every word written by the two great reporters who broke this story, T.J. Quinn and Mark Fainaru-Wada. I've paid just as close attention to the vociferous denials coming from Braun and his camp.

I don't see how Braun talks his way out of this, based on the nearly ironclad stipulation in the drug-testing agreement that says a player can't wriggle out of a positive test by claiming he didn't "intentionally" take the wrong substance. But luckily for Braun, it doesn't matter how anybody on the outside sees his case.

He just has to sell his story to his friendly neighborhood baseball arbitrator, Shyam Das. So I'm just like everybody else. I'm anxiously waiting for Shyam Das to clear all this up for me -- and for the rest of civilization.

If Das upholds this positive test, it figures to taint Ryan Braun's award forever. But it shouldn't be an excuse to produce a not-so-special election sequel -- MVP Story 2. And here's why:

There's no precedent

Never in the history of baseball's award voting has any player had an award revoked. Didn't happen to Alex Rodriguez or Canseco or Ken Caminiti when they admitted to using PEDs after winning their awards. Shouldn't happen now.

Elsewhere on this site, the always eloquent Doug Glanville contends otherwise. One of his arguments is that just because we've never done it before isn't a reason we shouldn't do the right thing now. But in my view, it isn't that simple.

If we overturn Braun's election, does that mean we're going to wipe out all future elections of players who get linked to any sort of PEDs? It should, right?

Or is there going to be a statute of limitations? Would we need to learn of that link within 90 days? How about 120? Before the following Opening Day? Within a calendar year?

Seems impossible to establish any fair cutoff date, doesn't it? If the intent is to keep "cheaters" from winning awards, then everybody ought to be fair game, no matter when he won his award or when we found out about it. Correct?

So if we're going to hold a new 2011 NL MVP election, how can we not do a revote on that 2003 AL MVP award that A-Rod won -- considering that he's admitted he used steroids on the way to winning it?

But wait. Go back and take a look at that 2003 vote sometime. A-Rod was one of 10 players who got a first-place vote that year. Five of them have since gotten tangled up in some level of PED suspicion: Manny Ramirez, Miguel Tejada, Jason Giambi, David Ortiz and Nomar Garciaparra. So what would we do about those guys? How could we hold a fair and rational re-election all these years later?

That doesn't really matter much now, I suppose. But I bring that up because it's a reminder the information or speculation about those men didn't all erupt at exactly the same time. It never does in these cases.

So suppose we hold a new 2011 MVP election and then find out -- even 10 years from now -- that whomever we elect, whether it's Matt Kemp or Lance Berkman or any other guy who seems squeaky clean right now, has some sort of taint of his own? Do we then vote again? Or is this a one-time-only event, like Oprah's farewell show?

The point is, once you start, it seems as if it would get impossible to stop. So why go down that road? You're only asking for trouble -- and never-ending trouble, to boot.

Braun didn't test positive during the season

Here's another point we can't ignore. According to ESPN's report, Braun's positive test came during the postseason. So there is no proof -- zero -- that he was using any banned substance during the regular season, on the way to winning this award.

That won't matter to some people, obviously. But remember, this is a regular-season award. Period. So if a positive test that comes after the regular season is enough to trigger a revote, then it's time to ask:
Would there also be a statute of limitations on when an award winner would need to test positive to crank up the new-election mechanisms?

If a guy wins an award and then tests positive in the offseason, would that be enough to redo the election? How about during the following spring training? Or any time in the following calendar year?

The assumption by the masses would be the same, right? If he was using then, how naive would we have to be to assume he wasn't using before? Seems like a logical enough argument.

But if we're going to adopt that standard, shouldn't that mean that any positive test by any player ever should void an earlier election, no matter how many weeks, months or years later it occurs? And if so, is that enough? How about if a player writes a book someday and accuses a fellow player of using PEDs? Or what if we just strongly suspect a player of PED use, even if it's years after he won his award?

Who wants to answer these questions? Who wants to make these rules? Not me. That's for sure.

How do we know Braun 'cheated' his way to an MVP?

Finally, here's the essence of this argument:

We have no idea what Ryan Braun did or didn't do on the way to his MVP award. We have no idea what he took, why he took it, when he took it or how it affected the season he had -- if at all. Some of this might get cleared up at some point. Then again, it's possible that once we hear all the explanations, we'll just be more confused.

So here are some facts to consider: The MVP had a tremendous year, obviously, or he wouldn't have won this award. But it's not as if we're talking about a guy who came out of nowhere to have an MVP season.

Basically, Ryan Braun just did what he's been doing pretty much his entire career. He just happened to do it in the context of a season where his team finished in first place -- for the first time in nearly three decades.

Other than his batting average and on-base percentage, his numbers this year were pretty much routine Ryan Braun numbers. Don't believe me? Take a look.

CATEGORY 2011-AVERAGE SEASON

HR 33-32
Extra-base hits 77-75
Doubles 38-37
Runs 109-101
RBIs 111-106

Beyond those departments, his average home run distance actually went down, according to ESPN Home Run Tracker, from 408.2 feet to 407.3. And while his slugging percentage and OPS were both up over the previous year, neither was a career high.

So we're not talking about Barry Bonds' 2001 MVP season, when a fellow who had averaged 33 homers a year -- for a decade and a half -- suddenly exploded for 73, at age 36. This was a 28-year-old star having a typically great year, in his prime.

Which means that anyone concluding that the 2011 MVP couldn't possibly have done what he did without "cheating" is making way too convenient an assumption.

None of this is intended to exonerate the guy. Please understand that. If the arbitrator doesn't let Ryan Braun off the hook, it will be his fault that he put a substance in his body that triggered his positive test, even if it was unintentional.

If that's the case, he deserves to serve his time. But please don't ask us to vote again on an award he won based on everything we knew at the time we voted. Please.

You know, it's only a trophy. If we're going to take that away from him, we might as well strip the Brewers of their division title, too. For that matter, shouldn't we also go back and let the Diamondbacks play the Cardinals in the National League Championship Series? At least we know Braun tested positive during the series that eliminated the D-backs from the great Octoberfest.

But it's funny how everybody agrees that replaying the postseason from that point would be impractical. Yet we're all hung up on who won an award -- and redoing the election that made it possible? Seems kind of mixed up to me.

I believe in mulligans -- on the golf course. But in baseball? I believe that what happened, happened. And trying to make it un-happen is more trouble than it's worth, even if it taints an MVP award, and the man who won it, for the rest of time.

Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com. His latest book, "Worth The Wait: Tales of the 2008 Phillies," was published by Triumph Books and is available in a new paperback edition, in bookstores and online

[OaklandAsFan]

Re: Another juicer........

yeah sure its "just" an award, but its an award that leads to certain perks and monetary payments. If we don't start having serious repercussions to PED infractions then IMO baseball will never really be doing all it can to rid the sport of PED's

[lakeerie92]

Re: Another juicer........

If you post a link to an article there is really no need to then go and post the entire article in the same thread.

Let me preface this by stating that I can't make up my mind on whether the MVP should be stripped or not. It actually really doesn't matter either way for me because it doesn't affect me.

People keep stating there is "NO PRECEDENT" for stripping Braun of his MVP. Why do people keep clinging to this statement? There was no precedent of stripping a Heisman before Reggie Bush either, but it happened. There is "NO PRECEDENT" of all things at some point, that is why some decisions "set precedent". That statement keeps bothering me. The BBWA should get together and make a concrete decision via vote on it to clear it up and set precedent on how it is handle from here on out.

Buster Olney has made a very valid point that some of these voters in the past have made statements such as "You can't reward cheaters," and "This is not a court of law. Do the right thing." Wouldn't these views apply to major awards?

I can see it either way, but if they did strip him of MVP they should NOT give it to Kemp or have a re-vote.

[frikativ54]

Re: Another juicer........

I can see it either way, but if they did strip him of MVP they should NOT give it to Kemp or have a re-vote.

Why not, if Kemp passed his drug tests?

[Manram]

Re: Another juicer........

If you post a link to an article there is really no need to then go and post the entire article in the same thread.

Let me preface this by stating that I can't make up my mind on whether the MVP should be stripped or not. It actually really doesn't matter either way for me because it doesn't affect me.

People keep stating there is "NO PRECEDENT" for stripping Braun of his MVP. Why do people keep clinging to this statement? There was no precedent of stripping a Heisman before Reggie Bush either, but it happened. There is "NO PRECEDENT" of all things at some point, that is why some decisions "set precedent". That statement keeps bothering me. The BBWA should get together and make a concrete decision via vote on it to clear it up and set precedent on how it is handle from here on out.

Buster Olney has made a very valid point that some of these voters in the past have made statements such as "You can't reward cheaters," and "This is not a court of law. Do the right thing." Wouldn't these views apply to major awards?

I can see it either way, but if they did strip him of MVP they should NOT give it to Kemp or have a re-vote.

What do you mean Kemp shouldn't get it? He derserved it in the first place

[CampWest]

Re: Another juicer........

when the olympics strips a medal, they move all the qualifying finishers up a spot in the standings and re-award the medals.

That's a decent analogy...

I don't think baseball will do it though.

[frikativ54]

Re: Another juicer........

when the olympics strips a medal, they move all the qualifying finishers up a spot in the standings and re-award the medals.

That's a decent analogy...

I don't think baseball will do it though.

Not sure that the writers will do that either, but it's the right thing nonetheless. If you can fail a drug test and win MVP in the same year, then Braun's punishment is a small penalty for cheating.

[lakeerie92]

Re: Another juicer........

Why not, if Kemp passed his drug tests?

My decision was based on my belief. If I was in the situation I wouldn't want the award second hand. The Olympics move them up a spot, but the NCAA chose to erase the name. It has happened both ways in sports. The statement was my personal belief. That being said I believed Kemp deserved it in the first place. As a player I would just be committed to winning my own outright rather than getting it that way.

[OaklandAsFan]

Re: Another juicer........

this doesn't just affect Kemp, Most players have it written into their contracts that they get X amount of money for finishing 1,2,3,4,etc in the MVP voting so all those players that didn't cheat (or at least didn't get caught) are losing money to someone who was caught.

MLB wanted to clean up the game and it will take something drastic to really make a point, this is the time to step up and do it. BBWA needs to make a stand also.

[trsent]

Re: Another juicer........

So many people want him stripped of his MVP but he hasn't even been convicted yet.

Even if he is suspended, unless you go back and take away MVP awards from anyone who has tested positive, ever, then don't give me a crappy double-standard. You know, Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens. They all have been tied to juice, so if you pick on Braun, pick on each and every name above also please. The time it takes to get caught and when you won the award is a stupid argument.

Notice I left off Barry Bonds - Never has there been any proof he juice. Just speculation (which may be true) but never anything proven.

Personally, I say let them all ruin their bodies and stop these stupid tests.

A good, short read:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AnF8TkHKjY8rTpbRSBGelew5nYcB?slug=ap-braun-positivedrugtest

Weiner: Avoid ‘rush to judgment’ on Braun


NEW YORK (AP)—Baseball’s union head says people should wait for all the facts before making conclusions about NL MVP Ryan Braun.


The Milwaukee Brewers’ star tested positive for a performance-enhancing substance and is appealing to an arbitrator. The case is not likely to be determined until next month at the earliest. If the positive test is upheld, Braun would face a 50-game suspension as a first offender.


Players’ association leader Michael Weiner says in a statement Tuesday that the drug agreement is designed to protect a player from “a rush to judgment.” He adds that “fairness dictates that Ryan Braun be treated no differently.”

[philsfan]

Re: Another juicer........

Notice I left off Barry Bonds - Never has there been any proof he juice. Just speculation (which may be true) but never anything proven.

Really, no proof of juice. Did you read the Grand Jury testimony he gave....? Call it what you want, but the clear and cream was a steroid and bonds admitted under oath he took it...regardless of whether he thought it was flaxseed or birdseed. LOL!

Barry Bonds told a federal grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream supplied by the Burlingame laboratory now enmeshed in a sports doping scandal, but he said he never thought they were steroids, The Chronicle has learned.
Federal prosecutors charge that the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, known as BALCO, distributed undetectable steroids to elite athletes in the form of a clear substance that was taken orally and a cream that was rubbed onto the body.
Bonds testified that he had received and used clear and cream substances from his personal strength trainer, Greg Anderson, during the 2003 baseball season but was told they were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by The Chronicle.
Federal prosecutors confronted Bonds during his testimony on Dec. 4, 2003, with documents indicating he had used steroids and human growth hormone during a three-year assault on baseball's home run record, but the Giants star denied the allegations.
During the three-hour proceeding, two prosecutors presented Bonds with documents that allegedly detailed his use of a long list of drugs: human growth hormone, Depo-Testosterone, undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," insulin and Clomid, a drug for female infertility sometimes used to enhance the effect of testosterone.
The documents, many with Bonds' name on them, are dated from 2001 through 2003. They include a laboratory test result that could reflect steroid use and what appeared to be schedules of drug use with billing information, prosecutors told the grand jury.
In a September 2003 raid on Anderson's Burlingame home, federal investigators seized documents they said showed Bonds was using banned drugs, according to court records. Anderson was indicted in February on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to distribute steroids in the BALCO case. Bonds' attorney, Michael Rains, said he was upset, though not entirely surprised, his client's secret testimony had been revealed. He said he had no proof but suspected the government was the source of the leak, insisting it had been out to get Bonds from the beginning.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1gWL76Pvg