The Scoundrel HOF

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Oddly, when he quit using banned substances he became a lesser player. How does that work?

Except, um, no, he didn't become a "lesser player". He tested positive in the post season of 2011. The only time he has ever used. He was tested exhaustively in 2012, and every single test result was clean.

In 2012, he was the National League MVP runner up, even after this whole steroid scandal, even though the Brewers missed the playoffs. Braun hit .319 with 108 runs scored, 36 doubles, 41 home runs, 112 RBI, 30 stolen bases and a .987 OPS. He led the NL in runs scored, home runs, OPS and total bases. He was second in RBI (losing the RBI title on the last day of the season to Chase Headley), and third in batting average. He missed his own triple crown by 2 RBI and 11 points in his batting average. Not exactly what I would call being a "lesser player".

The nerve issue he's been dealing with crept up a few months into the 2013 season. He was hit on the hand by a fastball, and not long after that, Braun started reporting tingling and numbness in his right hand. The numbness caused him to grip the bat handle too tightly, causing his hand to swell, and turn black and blue. He's undergone cryotherapy injections to freeze the nerve cluster causing the issue this off season, and thus far in off season workouts, he's experienced no pain. Here's an excellent article showing how the injury has affected Braun, and how he's had to change his swing to compensate with the loss of feeling.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...injury-brewers

At the time when Braun was hit in 2013, he was having another MVP caliber season. 30 games into the season, Braun was hitting .319 with 8 home runs and 25 RBI. He had a .408 OBP, a .602 SLG, and a 1.010 OPS.

I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of your post, because you've gone into full smart-ass mode. I've tried responding to your posts rationally, but you no longer want to discuss this in that way. So, have fun.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by packs

Braun had synthetic testosterone in his system, quoted to be as high as 20:1 by the Daily News, 16 points above what would trigger a positive test.

How is that not a PED?

Originally Posted by packs

Braun had synthetic testosterone in his system, quoted to be as high as 20:1 by the Daily News, 16 points above what would trigger a positive test.

How is that not a PED?

The levels demonstrated in Braun's sample were more than twice the highest level that had ever been recorded in the history of drug testing for professional athletes. That should be the first clue that there was something amiss with the sample. The chain of custody was never in question. The exact location of the samples was known the entire time. But for 44 hours, how the sample was stored, is unknown.

Will Carroll, who does reporting for Sports Illustrated, did a few articles about the Braun case. The short answer he gives is this:

The urine sample was contaminated at the time the lab in Montreal accepted it.

Basically, he says once it was shown that procedure was not followed, the lab should have never accepted the sample, and certainly no testing should have been done utilizing the sample.

I wish the Shyam Das opinion that overturned Braun's suspension were made public. As Will Carroll stated, Braun did not get off on a technicality. The defense team used science to exactly replicate the test results, and that in part led to the independent arbiter's overturning of the suspension. Like you, though, I am curious how they addressed the synthetic testosterone presence, because at least one of the markers in his sample was clearly exogenous in nature. However, because of confidentiality requirements still affixed to the process, anything else that Braun may have been taking with a therapeutic use exemption could not be disclosed. When the story was (incorrectly) leaked that he was taking something to treat a STD, I thought that he might have had an exemption to use something which contained a synthetic substance.

It's frustrating to me as a Brewers fan not having a complete answer. I want to know everything, but at the same time, I know that's never going to happen, so some of the questions I'm presented with, I'll have to say quite honestly I do not know. It's very hard to know what was accurate, and what was a fabrication, out of all the information that came out. The long and short of it is that we are not owed an answer. We know Braun used a banned substance of some sort. We know he was to be suspended, and he won his appeal. We know that his name (along with that of at least one of his lawyers) was on the lists uncovered in the Balco Investigation. And, we know that Braun was suspended 65 games, and admitted to using a banned substance.

Beyond that, I don't know if I can say I know anything else is a fact not in dispute.

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

He is a lying SOS

He absolutely is a liar, Al. You will get no argument from me there, and while I am giving him a second chance (something I would give to almost any other person), he has an awful long way to go before I can trust him again. He's going to have to show me a lot. As far as I am concerned, he's on probation. I will cheer for him on the field, because he is a member of our team.

[jbhofmann]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The levels demonstrated in Braun's sample were more than twice the highest level that had ever been recorded in the history of drug testing for professional athletes. That should be the first clue that there was something amiss with the sample.

"It's possible that no one has ever tested that high in baseball, but Don Catlin, the former director for the Olympic lab at UCLA who is considered the father of performance-enhancing drug testing, said he has seen cases that exceeded 100-to-1. A 20-to-1 ratio, he and others said, is not unusual in a positive test."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...doping-experts

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jbhofmann

"It's possible that no one has ever tested that high in baseball, but Don Catlin, the former director for the Olympic lab at UCLA who is considered the father of performance-enhancing drug testing, said he has seen cases that exceeded 100-to-1. A 20-to-1 ratio, he and others said, is not unusual in a positive test."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...doping-experts

Joel, I don't doubt what this lab director is saying. I was merely reposting what has been repeated numerous times by different news sources. These different media sources have said that Braun's levels were more than twice as high as any other recorded before. Whether that's 20-to-1, or 100-to-1, I am not a scientist. You could hold a gun to my head, and I couldn't tell you what was a high test result, and what was a normal test result. Remember, too, that Braun's first sample underwent two different tests. Perhaps it was the second one showing a 20 to 1 ratio, and the first test was the one demonstrating super high levels?

Here's one of the stories I am referring to, from the New York Daily News:

Ryan Braun’s initial PED test results were ‘insanely high,’ NL MVP’s lawyer insists client did not take PEDs
Outfielder's test results were twice the level of highest test ever taken: source

Milwaukee Brewers star Ryan Braun’s original test for performance-enhancing drugs as the playoffs were winding down in October was “insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken,” said a source familiar with the developing case in which the outfielder was reported to have tested positive for an elevated level of testosterone caused by a synthetic substance, triggering a possible 50-game suspension if the test results are upheld.

The never-before-seen ratio, according to the source, is one of several “highly unusual circumstances” Braun’s camp has referred to when adamantly denying that he is year’s National League Most Valuable Player ingested a performance-enhancing drug that caused the positive test.

There is no ratio stated in this report. But I will say that I have seen verbiage quite similar to that which was used in this report several times before, even with specifics as to the levels.

I must also state that I have learned to take anything posted by ESPN, especially by T.J. Quinn, with a grain of salt. They have been out to smear Braun from the very beginning, completely ignoring things that have come out to discredit negative things posted about him (ie the comments made by Joey Votto offering to make his phone records public to prove that he never spoke to Braun on the phone).

[Piratedogcardshows]

In with Jekyll out with Hyde.

[frankbmd]

A new day is dawning and I'm sure everyone has fresh thoughts on their scoundrels in the closet.

My thought concerns what the list would look like without the PEDiatric scoundrels. Below are the top eleven.

Rose
Cobb
Urbina
Bergen
Anson
Chase
Hall, Mel
Landis
Gandil
Jackson, Joe
Miller, Marvin

Recent history we all have lived through.
Prewar history we live through our cards and collections.

The results of this thread are not surprising and should have been anticipated.

I suggested in the construct of this thread that three scoundrels should be nominated from different eras and perhaps there should have been three lists (or more) to reflect those eras.

I also should have expected a dog fight, to wit arguments for or against any scoundrel could have been limited to 50 words or less (but what fun would that have been).

No changes in midstream rules will be instituted. Que sera, sera?

Did you know that Doris Day is still alive and that her real name is Kappelhoff?

[ALR-bishop]

Everyone knows that...but did you know that Albert Brooks is really Albert Einstein.

And I have been to Thailand a couple of times and never got anything from you while there

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of your post, because you've gone into full smart-ass mode.

You started it, Bill. I thought that was your preferred mode of communication;however, the above statement was an easy out for avoiding the questions you couldn't respond to intelligently.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You started it, Bill. I thought that was your preferred mode of communication;however, the above statement was an easy out for avoiding the questions you couldn't respond to intelligently.

Really? Where exactly did I start it? And what question have I not responded to honestly, calmly, and intelligently?

I'm not exonerating Ryan Braun. Far from it. I think I've been pretty clear in my condemnation of his actions. How many times do I have to say that yes, he broke the rules, yes, I have been angry with him, and, yes, he should have been immediately suspended? I'm sorry if I'm not going to let the "Braun sacrificed a man who was doing his job" spiel go without calling it out. He didn't do his job, that's kind of the point. If the collector had done his job, Braun would have been suspended, no? There would have been no procedural grounds for Shyam Das to overturn the suspension. If Dino Laurenzi, Jr had driven the 5 miles to the Fed Ex location on East Wisconsin Avenue, and given the biological pack to the Fed Ex employee as he had done hundreds of times before, Braun would have been suspended. Braun would have never self-righteously lied in front of reporters, and people around the country wouldn't have a seat reserved in the eighth circle of hell for Braun, right next to Adolf Hitler and Judas.

[Kenny Cole]

Bill,

When the inquistion starts, defenders end up being burned too. That's just an historical fact.

Scott,

I often agree with you, sometimes not. On occasion, you come across as an asshole. I do too. We probably both need to work on our presentation while staying true to our beliefs. Its difficult to do. Best,

Kenny

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Really? Where exactly did I start it? And what question have I not responded to honestly, calmly, and intelligently?

I'm not exonerating Ryan Braun. Far from it. I think I've been pretty clear in my condemnation of his actions. How many times do I have to say that yes, he broke the rules, yes, I have been angry with him, and, yes, he should have been immediately suspended? I'm sorry if I'm not going to let the "Braun sacrificed a man who was doing his job" spiel go without calling it out. He didn't do his job, that's kind of the point. If the collector had done his job, Braun would have been suspended, no? There would have been no procedural grounds for Shyam Das to overturn the suspension. If Dino Laurenzi, Jr had driven the 5 miles to the Fed Ex location on East Wisconsin Avenue, and given the biological pack to the Fed Ex employee as he had done hundreds of times before, Braun would have been suspended. Braun would have never self-righteously lied in front of reporters, and people around the country wouldn't have a seat reserved in the eighth circle of hell for Braun, right next to Adolf Hitler and Judas.

I think you took this all way too personally. In response to Kenny, I didn't burn you at the stake for defending Braun - if I lit any matches, it was for your reference that I was posting out of ignorance, which simply wasn't true. The comments about Braun were only about Braun - not about Milwaukee and certainly not about you. Any judging we do of you is based entirely on your posts here - not on the team you support. You seem like a nice enough guy, and you are certainly very studious. I very much appreciate your sharing your research, and that goes for the stuff you posted here about Braun (which I read). But my thoughts about him haven't changed.

I'm also very happy that Kenny and I haven't gotten into it for quite some time

[Kenny Cole]

Scott,

LOL, as am I.

[Econteachert205]

True confession: Denny McClain May be a scoundrel, but I think he's great. His bio is a great movie waiting to happen and when I read about the stuff he pulled I can't help but chuckle. Be honest, I think most board members have their own favorite scoundrel they can't help but love, for some it might be pete rose, or doc gooden or shoeless joe.

plus guys named Dennis stick together

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think you took this all way too personally. In response to Kenny, I didn't burn you at the stake for defending Braun - if I lit any matches, it was for your reference that I was posting out of ignorance, which simply wasn't true. The comments about Braun were only about Braun - not about Milwaukee and certainly not about you. Any judging we do of you is based entirely on your posts here - not on the team you support. You seem like a nice enough guy, and you are certainly very studious. I very much appreciate your sharing your research, and that goes for the stuff you posted here about Braun (which I read). But my thoughts about him haven't changed.

I'm also very happy that Kenny and I haven't gotten into it for quite some time

Scott, I apologize profusely. I wasn't meaning to say that you were posting about him out of ignorance, and I tried (unsuccessfully) to clarify that my post wasn't meant to single you out. What I meant to say is your statement about Braun is one that is often made by other people who demonstrate that they are ignorant of the facts, relying solely on a few talking points that have been repeated ad nauseam. Even after things have been proven 100% false--completely devoid of any factual merit whatsoever, like the Jeff Passan article about Braun calling Tulowitzki, Kemp and Votto for support--people still throw that out there at every opportunity. I'm seeing less talk about Braun online now, as this has died down somewhat, but whenever this whole debacle comes up somewhere, invariably the "Braun trashed Laurenzi Jr's reputation, calling him an anti-semitic Cubs fan, and got him fired", or something along those lines still comes up, and it's maddening. It's a lot like when I get into what starts out as a friendly political debate with people online. The world wide web has created an interesting phenomena, the "internet expert". One example I can remember clearly was somebody who didn't have even the most rudimentary grasp of how the legislative branch of our government works calling a professor of political science at Chicago University "an idiot". This guy actually called the tenured professor, who, if my memory serves me correctly, had a PhD in Constitutional Law from Stanford University, an idiot when he pointed out that members of the United States Senate serve six year terms, not four year terms. All I could do was laugh.

But anyway, when I get into really drawn out thoughts, Scott, I sometimes get tripped up, and don't effectively communicate what I am trying to say. I am on so many different medications right now, and they all work together to mess with my head just a little, and sometimes that is enough. Please accept my apology. You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion you may hold. I try to present facts, and let whomever I am speaking with review those facts, and draw their own conclusions.