2013 Spring Training

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 02/05/2013 @ 06:48:32 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ryan-braun-s-name-listed-in-biogenesis-clinic-records-235650670.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 02/05/2013 @ 08:55:19 PM
And Danny Valencia!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/05/2013 @ 10:34:49 PM
I take exception to describing the story as Braun and "potential ped use." The story mentions nothing about ped use and gives a very logical explanation for his name being associated with that clinic. It's a whole lot of nothing.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/05/2013 @ 10:48:28 PM
It's not impossible, but if his lawyers connected him to a secretive and shady PED clinic in an attempt to clear his name from such a rumor filled and speculative area of sports, then they need to be disbarred. If your client is fighting a cocaine charge and you want to research how long the effects of cocaine might last, and how likely a false positive is, you go to wikipedia, then a doctor, you don't call up the drug cartel and say "Hi, there, I'm Ryan Braun's lawyer. Uh huh. No B, just an R.....R-Y-A-N B-R-A-U-N.....Well write it down somewhere then. Anyway we'll be in touch with some questions for you, regarding your illegal product, and I'd prefer if you mix the documentation of my contact with you, under my client's name, in with all your high profiles users, and then we'll both tell no one about this contact until busted. Ha, I know right! Well, take care, I'll be in touch."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/05/2013 @ 10:54:46 PM
Why would he need to have made the existence of the connection known?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/05/2013 @ 10:58:20 PM
For the same reason that your wife knowing you keep in contact with an ex and your wife finding out on her own one day that you've been keeping in contact with an ex in secret will probably play out differently.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 02/05/2013 @ 11:00:48 PM
I'm not sure that makes any sense. But it's also possible that MLB did know about it since it may have been part of Braun's official defense. MLB declined comment on the story, since everything about it is under investigation still.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 02/05/2013 11:02:25 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/05/2013 @ 11:05:56 PM
Perhaps they did tell, but as far as I know MLB said they were investigating the matter, and you usually don't investigate things you already knew. Of course they could be investigating whether or not they need to investigate anything. So, you really don't think that people only finding out Braun owed this PED place 20-30K because a list of players leaked looks more suspicious than a preemptive "Oh, by the way, we used so and so as a consultant here"? Edit: Also, I don't know what there was to "not make sense" in that situation above.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 02/05/2013 11:07:59 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 02/05/2013 @ 11:44:21 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:05:56 PM Edit: Also, I don't know what there was to "not make sense" in that situation above. It's too late to understand parables.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 12:01:55 AM
Well, it's more or less the same thing as the last time (without the irrefutable science ). Even the most "reasonable" of explanation looks suspicious when you wait until you're caught, and now have to explain yourself, to explain yourself. You can say "I have nothing to hide" over and over, that will fall on deaf ears if people keep finding shit that it would at least appear you're somewhat trying to hide. After the fact "reasonable explanation" and "ass covering" are indistinguishable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 02/06/2013 12:05:39 am

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 02/06/2013 @ 12:25:37 AM
Another analogy: You stop for gas on the way to work. Some weirdo female asks you for a ride home a few blocks away because it's so bitter cold. Your wife sees you driving around with a strange woman, follows you to a strange house where the woman exits your car, and is then waiting for you when you get home that night. Scenario 1) You walk in the door and say "You would not believe the night I had. I was at the gas station and this woman asked for a ride home since it was so cold. I didn't want to be a dick, so I agreed. It was the most awkward 5 minutes of my life. I had no idea what to say, if I was about to have a gun drawn on me, and I kept waiting for the police to swoop in and arrest me for solicitation. Luckily she really did just want a ride home!" Scenario 2) You walk in the door and sit down. The usual how was your day small talk happens, you still say nothing. Your wife asks you if anything unusual happened that day, and you say no. She asks, "you weren't dropping off some skank at some strange house when I thought you were working?" at which point you say. "Oh yeah, You would not believe the night I had. I was at the gas station and this woman asked for a ride home since it was so cold. I didn't want to be a dick, so I agreed. It was the most awkward 5 minutes of my life. I had no idea what to say, if I was about to have a gun drawn on me, and I kept waiting for the police to swoop in and arrest me for solicitation. Luckily she really did just want a ride home!" It's the same story, and the truth, either way, but by waiting until it had to be pried out of you by the Mrs it is now indistinguishable from "Husband Caught Cheating: Makes up story". Edit: Incidentally, this happened to me. (Minus Sarah "busting me", although I was sure her mom was going to drive past on HER way to work, see me, tell Sarah, and my whole life would unravel over some dumbass who made a cigarette run, over a bridge, when it was like -10, in a glorified windbreaker.) I was so relieved when she just thanked me and got out of the car.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 5 times, last at 02/06/2013 1:00:17 am

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 02/06/2013 @ 02:12:46 AM
So if Ryan Braun's explanation is the truth, he should have held a press conference sometime in the past to tell us that his people talked to some people connected to PEDs...but don't worry, it was on the up and up? That doesn't seem like it would have helped. Or very practical.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 02/06/2013 2:13:39 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 08:09:45 AM
It doesn't seem that suspicious to me that Braun consulted with someone with experience in the realm of PEDs while he was preparing a defense for a charge regarding PEDs. So really, it seems more obvious and explanable rather than suspicious. It seems more obvious that Braun is telling the truth when you consider that numerous other players were listed with that Clinic with a specific PED listed with their name where Braun's name was only mentioned about money owed. To me that seems reasonable, but then again, perhaps I'm just a reasonable person. It only seems suspicious if you want it to seem suspicious, irrelevant marriage-sneaking-around-with-exes analogies notwithstanding.* *Why would Braun treat the MLB like his wife? If you didn't use or purchase PEDs from a clinic that deals with them, why would you feel the need to release that information, especially since Braun's lawyer called Bosch's contributions "negligible"? He literally had "nothing to hide" so no one felt any need to "share" what didn't exist. You're reaching with this one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 02/06/2013 8:35:57 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 08:13:12 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:01:55 AM Well, it's more or less the same thing as the last time (without the irrefutable science ). Even the most "reasonable" of explanation looks suspicious when you wait until you're caught, and now have to explain yourself, to explain yourself. You can say "I have nothing to hide" over and over, that will fall on deaf ears if people keep finding shit that it would at least appear you're somewhat trying to hide. After the fact "reasonable explanation" and "ass covering" are indistinguishable. Then it's a lose lose, and he's being tried for the same crime twice. If you were charged with murder with a gun, and then in preparing your defense you talked to some gun experts, then you were acquitted, then a year later someone found your name associated to a gun expert, am I to now assume that "holy crap he obviously did it because his name is associated with gun nuts"? Braun didn't get "caught" doing anything this time. His name showed up in what is likely the same context as when he was preparing his defense, so the only thing that the "all I care about is making a good story regardless of context" journalist "uncovered" was that Braun and his lawyers did some homework in preparing their appeal. And the only reason he has to "cover his ass" is because there indeed is a reasonable explanation for the discovery, and because journalists these days present anything they find and leave the context up to however anyone wants to interpret it. My guess as well as is that this is probably verifiable, like emails with the clinic, or receipt for services. Even Braun's lawyer released a statement saying that consulted with the Clinic in question, but that the value was "negligible". Ultimately, jumping to conclusions to support a narrative that someone has already made their mind up about is easier than finding out the truth. I'm not saying I know the truth, but this to me seems like a non-story, and will do little more than drag Braun through the mud again for a "crime" that he has been acquitted of.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 02/06/2013 8:25:58 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 02/06/2013 @ 08:26:39 AM
Newsflash: Braun talked to a PED specialist about his PED appeal a year ago!!!* *this is not actually news		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 02/06/2013 8:27:03 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 10:12:32 AM
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/brauns-explanation-on-biogenesis-is-entirely-plausible/ The work of behind-the-scenes experts, or consultants, is considered confidential and within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product privilege.--Braun probably didn't disclose this because they didn't have to or because it was privileged. Why Bosch?...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. It’s entirely possible that Bosch had information from Ramirez’s situation that was useful to Braun’s lawyers in preparing their appeal.--Sometimes criminals make the best detectives, or at least if you need information on a crime, go to someone with experience with dealing with it. So yes, someone fighting a cocaine charge might indeed consult with someone involved in a drug cartel. You'd be a fool not to; please reinstate the lawyer whom you disbarred for doing so. Why didn’t Braun get out in front of the story? Why not disclose his connection to Bosch and Biogenesis after the New Times report last week? Two reasons. For one, Braun may not have known that the Biogenesis documents contained any reference to him. The New Times report didn’t identify Braun in any way. Why get out in front of a story without knowing the facts? Second, if Bosch was a behind-the-scenes consultant, then his identity and work on Braun’s appeal was privileged and confidential. If Braun had issued a broad statement disclosing everything he knows about Bosch, it could result — down the line — in a waiver of confidentiality. Braun’s statement today was narrowly crafted to address only the documents in Yahoo!’s report. If I were Braun’s attorney, I would have advised precisely the same approach. -- Braun likely couldn't have made any statements before hand for legal reasons, even if he HAD known that something was going to come out. Doing so might have been illegal in real court, not just the MLB drug policy court or public opinion. There are a lot of non-lawyers giving their "expert" opinion to this particular story. Maybe we should start listening more to people who actually know what they are talking about.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 02/06/2013 10:16:25 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 10:34:35 AM
Basically, Jeremy's marriage/sneaking around with an ex analogy is actually a bad one, primarily because it is totally backwards. Braun's camp would have a legal privilege with Bosch's camp, wherein neither party can discuss the contact they had with each other under a confidentiality clause. In terms of issues in a marriage, the only person you have this confidentiality with is your wife. So not telling your wife about getting a ride from some girl might be stupid, but it doesn't open you up to major legal problems and breach of confidentiality contracts with your ex. In this case, MLB would the ex, and Braun and Bosch would be the married partners, since Braun (the defendant) would have no legal obligation or ability to disclose the relationship with his legal "partner" to MLB (the prosecutor). #FTW		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 02/06/2013 10:45:33 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 12:34:57 PM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 02:12:46 AM So if Ryan Braun's explanation is the truth, he should have held a press conference sometime in the past to tell us that his people talked to some people connected to PEDs...but don't worry, it was on the up and up? That doesn't seem like it would have helped. Or very practical. No, but it might have been reasonable to mention to MLB you were consulting with the person. Besides which, that's not the point. It's not not suspicious just because he had some explanation after the fact. Of course he did. I never actually said "Braun should have ____" anywhere. I only implied contacting this person was really stupid, and then addressed Scott's question as to why not disclosing it would be a factor in how suspicious it is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 02/06/2013 1:18:05 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 12:56:50 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:34:35 AM Basically, Jeremy's marriage/sneaking around with an ex analogy is actually a bad one, primarily because it is totally backwards. Braun's camp would have a legal privilege with Bosch's camp, wherein neither party can discuss the contact they had with each other under a confidentiality clause. In terms of issues in a marriage, the only person you have this confidentiality with is your wife. So not telling your wife about getting a ride from some girl might be stupid, but it doesn't open you up to major legal problems and breach of confidentiality contracts with your ex. In this case, MLB would the ex, and Braun and Bosch would be the married partners, since Braun (the defendant) would have no legal obligation or ability to disclose the relationship with his legal "partner" to MLB (the prosecutor). #FTW Only because you're running away with the analogy. The point was only that it looks more suspicious if you only come out with the story once cornered, than voluntary. It's not automatically the truth if you volunteer the information, and it's not automatically a lie if you only have a story for why there are drugs in your backpack once your parents find them, but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that one looks more suspicious than the other, because it is. A person with a "plausible story", and this certainly is one, is indistinguishable from someone making up a story. Every player linked to this list, or any other, has a story, has "nothing to hide", and is "willing to fully cooperate". That's just a statement of fact. It's not a call to action about what Braun should have done. In and of itself it isn't proof of anything. It might lead to something else perhaps, it might not. Braun might have told the truth about why they contact the guy, and it doesn't mean he's telling the truth about not taking the PEDs. By the by, I know he's your guy and all, but you have accepted that he almost certainly did in fact do some form of PEDs, right? I'd prefer not rehash the whole thing, but they offered no explanation for the failure other than "it's probably within the capabilities of human technology to tamper with this, and even though we have no specific reason, other than not liking the results, to think that it WAS tampered with or otherwise corrupted, seeing as they can even test for that, maybe someone could have had it in for him." and then ended up beating the wrap on some legalese, not the science. And yes, there's a reason "we" place the bar very high in legal proceedings, as well we should, but that doesn't speak to what is most probable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 02/06/2013 1:14:25 pm

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 02/06/2013 @ 01:06:17 PM
http://www.nutcan.com/article/The_Court_of_Public_Opinion.php		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 02/06/2013 @ 01:17:14 PM
You're missing the entire point. I'm not running away with the analogy. The analogy makes no sense for the reasons I stated. And he's not "only (coming) out with the story once cornered" becasue he likely was not legally able to come out with it. You make it sound like he just didn't feel like disclosing the information because it might look bad. Have you considered that perhaps he was legally restricted from disclosing the information? Because that's what it sounds like to me, according to someone with the legal know-how. I haven't necessarily accepted that he did anything. There was doubt raised about the test (and even doubt about whether it was his sample; there were rumors that Braun's camp request to have a DNA test performed was denied). At this point, people may already have their minds made about whatever happened. People who think he did it can be justified in their belief, people who think he's innocent can be justified in their belief. So yes, I still have my doubts, and I'm inclined to believe him. The point is, this story doesn't change anything. Those that think he did are going to be inclined to not believe his explanation, and therefore will ignore any legal reason for why he didn't disclose information (apparently like yourself). Those that are willing to listen to facts rather than speculation about what isn't known will probably realize that Braun having his name tied to Bosch's clinic has no bearing on his guilty or not guilty appeal verdict. The legal professionals that are weighing in on this story seem to be concluding that if Braun used Bosch as a behind-the-scenes expert or consultant then he was legally bound to not disclose that relationship. Once the existance of the relationship came out, he has a duty to respond only to the facts presented in the article, and nothing more. Not because "I hope we don't get caught", but because he couldn't. Read the fangraphs article if you haven't already. It basically refutes all the claims you made about his willingness or lack of to release the information before hand.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 01:28:28 PM
Again, it's just a statement of fact, not a statement of what he should have done. His name being leaked from a PED clinic, on a list of known PED users, looks more suspicious than if he preemptively disclosed it. This is true, regardless of how or why he didn't disclose it. It's not a statement that "he should have disclosed it". It's just that now his "story" sounds pretty much the same as every other person ever actually busted. You asked why it would look more suspicious to only come out with a story now than it would have theoretically been before. I answered you. No where did I say he should have, or he could have, or I would have, or that an innocent person would have, or anything like that. I don't have to have "my claim" "refuted" because you're fighting a strawman here.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 02/06/2013 1:28:41 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 02/06/2013 @ 01:33:15 PM
Either way, the analogy doesn't work, perhaps because I'm dealing with reality and not fabricated hypotheticals. The reality being he was likely legally bound against saying anything. So maybe that's nothing about "what he should have done", but then people are being borderline malicious if they reject the explanation without having a clue about the actual facts behind the story. If his explanation checks out and he actually has receipts and documented proof that he used Bosch as a consultant in preparing his defense, does that change anything for you? Or is it still suspicious because it is because it is?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 02/06/2013 1:36:57 pm

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 02/06/2013 @ 01:37:55 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:17:14 PM The point is, this story doesn't change anything. Those that think he did are going to be inclined to not believe his explanation, and therefore will ignore any legal reason for why he didn't disclose information (apparently like yourself). Those that are willing to listen to facts rather than speculation about what isn't known will probably realize that Braun having his name tied to Bosch's clinic has no bearing on his guilty or not guilty appeal verdict. That's very unfair, though I realize that I'm replying to the same comment where you maybe hadn't yet realized that you're taking what I said a step or two what I was saying. I nothing his explanation. It's reasonable, especially given his trial, but it isn't fundamentally any different than any other story ever told. My main objection to it is the reaction I've read so far seems to be 95% people talking about how this will cause people to "jump to conclusions" even though that's basically what they're doing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 02/06/2013 @ 01:42:25 PM
Anon. Nut Can Fan Wrote - Today @ 01:37:55 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:17:14 PM The point is, this story doesn't change anything. Those that think he did are going to be inclined to not believe his explanation, and therefore will ignore any legal reason for why he didn't disclose information (apparently like yourself). Those that are willing to listen to facts rather than speculation about what isn't known will probably realize that Braun having his name tied to Bosch's clinic has no bearing on his guilty or not guilty appeal verdict. That's very unfair, though I realize that I'm replying to the same comment where you maybe hadn't yet realized that you're taking what I said a step or two what I was saying. I nothing his explanation. It's reasonable, especially given his trial, but it isn't fundamentally any different than any other story ever told. My main objection to it is the reaction I've read so far seems to be 95% people talking about how this will cause people to "jump to conclusions" even though that's basically what they're doing. Well, in my opinion, jumping to the conclusion of innocence is a lot more fair than dragging someone through the mud by declaring them guilty when those declaring him guilty are void of any facts. (and I am now only talking about the Yahoo Sports story about the clinic).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 02/06/2013 1:42:50 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 01:46:07 PM
Anon. Nut Can Fan Wrote - Today @ 01:37:55 PM It's reasonable, especially given his trial, but it isn't fundamentally any different than any other story ever told. The difference, in this case, is that we know virtually nothing about anything. His name popped up in a clinic that has shady dealings. Other guys had PEDs written next to their names, Braun didn't. That's about all we know regarding this story. So I think there is very little to be suspicious about, ESPECIALLY (not in spite of) because of his trial. His trial IS the explanation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 02/06/2013 @ 01:46:43 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:33:15 PM Either way, the analogy doesn't work, perhaps because I'm dealing with reality and not fabricated hypotheticals. The reality being he was likely legally bound against saying anything. So maybe that's nothing about "what he should have done", but then people are being borderline malicious if they reject the explanation without having a clue about the actual facts behind the story. I disagree. The analogy is spot on, for what it was. You asked why "not telling anyone" would be a factor in how suspicious it looked. That is why, and that is all the analogy was. Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:33:15 PM If his explanation checks out and he actually has receipts and documented proof that he used Bosch as a consultant in preparing his defense, does that change anything for you? Or is it still suspicious because it is because it is? Depends on what you're asking. If his claim checks out then his claim checks out. My only objection at this point is that I see just as many people on the "it must be true" bandwagon, hurling stones at the "he must be lying" bandwagon, or at least what they perceive to be, when they're both on an equally shaky foundation. If we don't know, we don't know. Overall I'd say, if this claim turns out to be true, that it has little bearing on whether or not he legitimately his failed drug test. You can tell the truth about lots of things and still lie about others. While it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that there was a problem with the test, there are safeguards of safeguards to prevent such a thing, as well as tests to verify the sample can still be used to verify anything. Until this has an actual explanation, I really don't see any reason to give Braun more benefit of the doubt than every other person who fails and then claims the test must be somehow wrong, and I don't see this as "hating on Braun".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 02/06/2013 1:58:30 pm

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 02/06/2013 @ 01:55:53 PM
Well, I suppose I was posing the question specifically about Braun disclosing his relationship with Bosch to the league, not any generic scenario that could be derived. So if an analogy was necessary, I was looking for one that had analogous pieces. The suspicion is removed if the legal proceedings are understood. That's the ground I'm standing on. Basically, if Braun claims that they used him as a consultant, then you use that as your assumption. If you use that as your assumption, then the fan graphs article comes into play. If the fan graphs article comes into play, then there is little reason for suspicion. Or at the very least, there is no basis (yet) to say "he must be lying", but at least a little bit more to say "it must be true".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 02/06/2013 2:04:22 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 01:59:31 PM
Anon. Nut Can Fan Wrote - Today @ 01:46:43 PM Overall I'd say, if this turns out to be true, that it has little bearing on whether or not he his failed drug test. You can tell the truth about lots of things and still lie about others. This I agree with.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 02:06:12 PM
The analogy is apt for what it is. You look like you have "less to hide" if you willingly tell than you do if you wait until cornered, regardless of why. This isn't the same thing as saying "not telling is automatically suspicious" because you might have a good reason to not tell.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 02/06/2013 2:09:15 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 02:08:12 PM
Well, fine, but it stops working when we're talking starting talking about the specific case, where there are legal limitations and specifics to worry about. Basically, it becomes less suspicious if it turns out that he had a legal reason to withhold the information, and if he had a legal reason to withhold the information, then he likely had a legitimate reason for having been in contact with the guy in the first place.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 02/06/2013 2:12:41 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 02:13:38 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:08:12 PM Well, fine, but it stops working when we're talking starting talking about the specific case, where there are legal limitations and specifics to worry about. It doesn't explain how internal combustion engines work either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 02/06/2013 @ 02:23:50 PM
Scott, you've mentioned that Braun might have been legally prevented from talking about the connection. I'm not sure that's true. My understanding of it is that it was privileged in the sense that the other side can't require the parties involved to disclose the relationship or what was said, not that Braun couldn't disclose that stuff voluntarily. Much like, a doctor can't talk about his patients, but the patients can talk all they want about their relationship with the doctor. Now, that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea to disclose his relationship. As it said in the fangraphs article, by volunteering the information, he could be seen as waiving his privilege in certain aspects, and that could hurt him down the road. So legally, though it may not have been a good idea, I don't think he was bound to stay silent. A small difference results wise, but I thought I'd put it out there. Also, just because I can: Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:12:32 AM Maybe we should start listening more to people who actually know what they are talking about. I agree. We can start with all the experts who say that Braun's sample wasn't tampered with and that the testosterone ratios wouldn't increase because of the delay in shipping, and conclude that Braun probably used a PED. P.S. Maybe if you guys slowed down and pondered your responses for a moment or two, you would stop talking past each other/repeating the same things over and over. It might also keep you from having to go back and add more substance to comments you already posted.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 02:27:45 PM
Your doctor/patient analogy fails to demonstrate the small point you used it to make in that context because it's possible that in this case "the doctor" might have also expected some anonymity. and F*ck you. Edit: Since the "joke" there will be lost about 6 seconds later, assuming even Matt picked up on it, I added the "and F*ck you." as an edit. Thus it was "more substance to comments you already posted".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 02/06/2013 5:24:44 pm

	Matt - 3941 Posts 02/06/2013 @ 04:54:26 PM
I got it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 02/06/2013 @ 06:13:31 PM
http://disciplesofuecker.com/why-wont-braun-prove-relationship-with-bosch/7854 According to this, if Braun were to do anything to "prove" that his relationship is what he says it is (in the form of some sort of documentation), he would open up the possibility that he would have to disclose any and all correspondence he had with Bosch. from the article: Once a document is out, it’s out FOREVER. If Major League Baseball hypothetically sued Braun for anything: fraud, libel, etc., even if that case didn’t have much merit, they could quite possibly get their hands on all of the discussions Braun’s lawyers had with Bosch, and maybe even more than that. I'll let the article explain the rest, I don't want to mix any commentary I have on the matter with something from a more unbiased source. (even though the author is a Brewer fan).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/13/2013 @ 08:10:41 AM
One thing about this Braun-Bosch story is that people seem to be concluding that Braun based his entire defense soley on the "expert testimony" of the shady character. Even people that seem to give him the benefit of the doubt will still interject something like "I would think I'd want to go to a (doctor) or a researcher in the field of drug testing vs. a guy who is running a lab in Miami that doesn't have credentials (from JSOnline.com). No one ever said that Braun's camp DIDN'T go to a doctor or a researcher in the field of drug testing for advice. It's possible (and probably pretty smart) to do both. There is nothing about this story that would justifiablly point someone to the conclusion that he didn't seek legitimate testimony for legitimate sources. But people seem to be assuming now that Braun's defense started and ended with Bosch, despite Braun's lawyer releasing a statement saying that Bosch's contributions were negligible. Again, I don't think this story has any merit on the conclusions drawn a year ago. At least, it shouldn't. Someone can still think Braun did it without this story coming into play. And the legimitacy of this story shouldn't have someone conclude that it now proves he's innocent. This story, in my opinion, should in no way "further confirm" guilty or innocent, which seems to be exactly what everyone is doing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 02/13/2013 8:13:47 am

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 02/14/2013 @ 01:30:06 PM
You could interpret that series of points as "why go to this guy at all?" or "why not only go to real doctors?". In a situation where even being associated with the wrong people is enough to derail a hall of fame bid, it seems silly to me to go out of your way to associate your client with the wrong people, when legit people will more than suffice. Especially when knowing you won't be able to be frank about your relationship with the person. The fact that his contribution was, evidently, "negligible" makes it even stupider in my mind. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see how bad people finding out your client owes the dealer an ass load of money for a nondescript reason would look. IMO he better be vital to the process, or why bother with the risk.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 02/14/2013 1:33:09 pm

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 02/14/2013 @ 01:37:48 PM
That said, I agree this story has little effect either way. In other situations it might in an ongoing "where there's smoke there's fire" situation where someone has never been busted, but has been linked to the wrong people enough times. In this case we've already seen the fire.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 02/15/2013 @ 04:57:45 PM
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8945988/milwaukee-brewers-ryan-braun-shows-additional-document-clinic-linked-major-league-baseball-ped-investigation Braun listed on another document from the PED clinic. It could still be a mistake or explainable, but this doesn't look too good for him.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 02/18/2013 @ 01:00:28 PM
Not helpful, Gamel out for season http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/191688761.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 02/20/2013 @ 07:47:19 PM
http://mlb.com/min/ticketing/road_trips.jsp?partnerId=fb_tix_MIN Who's in? Can't believe we can listen to spring training games starting on Saturday! Whoop Whoop!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 02/20/2013 @ 10:58:44 PM
I'll be in Ft. Myers for spring training the 22nd through 25th. Any messages you want me to deliver to any of the players?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/21/2013 @ 12:19:16 AM
I can take this one for the group... Tell Brian Dozier "what's up" from Matt and me. I'm sure he remembers speaking to us for a few seconds a few years ago. Sarah would like to get lots of pictures of whoever has the lowest batting average. And Jeremy would like to know if any of them keep in touch with Robby Incmikoski.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this 2 times, last at 02/21/2013 1:54:24 am

	Micah - Shaken not stirred gets you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth 02/21/2013 @ 09:37:02 AM
I'll see if I can get a Butera/Dozier combo picture.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 02/21/2013 @ 06:51:08 PM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:19:16 AM I can take this one for the group... Sarah would like to get lots of pictures of whoever has the lowest batting average. Preferably of just their arm....		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 02/21/2013 @ 10:59:19 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:51:08 PM Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:19:16 AM I can take this one for the group... Sarah would like to get lots of pictures of whoever has the lowest batting average. Preferably of just their arm.... hi-oh!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 02/27/2013 @ 12:32:53 AM
Arm? You're actually giving the picture too much credit.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 02/27/2013 12:33:40 am

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 02/27/2013 @ 08:51:47 PM
What? that's a picture of Sarah and her favorite co-author James Keller. It's what she wanted.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 02/27/2013 @ 08:55:31 PM
Also, I don't remember it being that drastic. Do we have a similar picture that has more of him in it? Man I messed that one up.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 03/01/2013 @ 08:18:28 PM
Jon Wrote - 02/27/2013 @ 08:55:31 PM Man I messed that one up. This is why we don't hang out together anymore.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/10/2013 @ 05:30:20 PM
Is anyone watching the WBC? The Brewers and Twins are well represented. The Twins have the most players in the tournament with 13 and the Brewers are right behind with 12. Carlos Gomez pulled out right before it started, as did a couple other Brewer players. The Brewers at one point had 15 players committed, but officially it's only 12. Anyway, at least it's baseball.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/14/2013 @ 08:25:48 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/gomez-gets-3year-extension-ch95bnl-197919991.html Carlos Gomez signs a long term deal. I hope that his stats from this current spring training our indicative of how the next 4 years are going to go (.529 ba, .652 obp), but at least his defensive play has made up for any offensive shortcomings in the past. I'm not necessarily overly excited about this deal, but I wouldn't say I'm really disappointed in it either. Gomez is an easy guy to root for, at least when he's not making you rip your hair out of your head.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 03/14/2013 8:31:22 am

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 03/14/2013 @ 01:44:00 PM
Good signing. He's practically worth $28.3 million over his age 27-31 seasons for just his defense and base running alone. If the power surge is at all sustained that's gravy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/14/2013 @ 10:16:20 PM
The Brewers have the 2nd shortest longest positional All-Star drought http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/33796/longest-positional-all-star-droughts-nl		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/20/2013 @ 03:01:25 PM
With the disclaimer that I'm not making any absolute claims about the translation of spring training stats into regular season success, I present two stat lines for you enjoyment: avg, obp, slg, ops SS Jean Segura (40 at-bats): .350, .366, .500, .866 2B Rickie Weeks (37): .378, .425, .676, 1.101 In addition, Carlos Gomez (yes, The Carlos Gomez) leads the team in walks per plate apperance and has an OBP above .500. So feel free to ignore my disclaimer and resond with "spring training means jack squat" or whatever way you wish to pretend I'm saying something that I'm not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 03/20/2013 3:05:04 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 03/25/2013 @ 01:03:55 PM
Brewers Sign Lohse. Apparently when nearly all of your potential starting rotation is either coming off of a season ending injury or making their first opening day start on a big league roster you will overpay towards the end of spring training for a pitcher described among other ways as "the only top-tier player left on the free-agent market." The only thing I know for certain about this signing is that it cost the Brewers their first round draft pick in the upcoming draft. Hopefully the trend of the last 2 years is what the next 3 years will look like for Lohse.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/26/2013 @ 09:04:02 PM
No. Just...no. http://disciplesofuecker.com/the-return-of-yuni/8761		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/26/2013 @ 09:10:31 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:03:55 PM Brewers Sign Lohse. Apparently when nearly all of your potential starting rotation is either coming off of a season ending injury or making their first opening day start on a big league roster you will overpay towards the end of spring training for a pitcher described among other ways as "the only top-tier player left on the free-agent market." The only thing I know for certain about this signing is that it cost the Brewers their first round draft pick in the upcoming draft. Hopefully the trend of the last 2 years is what the next 3 years will look like for Lohse. Here's the problem. Braun is 29. They need to do some winning like, right now. So with that in mind, at least they waited as long as they did and presumably got him for way less than Boras was asking (3 years instead of 5). Buster Olney doesn't like the move at least largely because they had to give up the draft pick, but lets face it, they can be at least fringe contenders while Braun is in his prime and then at some point shortly after that they're going to have to go into a major rebuilding process. Unless they can stay in the middle of the salary pack long term. Or get lucky with some new stars with their picks. So basically nothing is certain except that there's a 95% chance this makes them a better team in 2013. Unlike bringing back YB.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 04/01/2013 @ 04:34:45 PM
Aoki on pace for 162 HRs! Axford on pace for 162 blown saves...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/01/2013 @ 09:00:35 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 04:34:45 PM Axford on pace for 162 blown saves... but 486 strikeouts!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 04/01/2013 9:25:16 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 08/31/2015 @ 10:04:19 PM
Some blogs are more fun to go back and read later once the dust has settled. Ha. (sorry Scott.) (kind of, not really).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 08/31/2015 @ 10:26:43 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/27/2013 @ 12:32:53 AM Arm? You're actually giving the picture too much credit. I feel like I should've made a bigger deal out of this tragedy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.