APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"I am not an attorney but I assume in arbitrations there is alot less BS.  There is no jury to impress.  Throwing shit at a wall and hoping something sticks isnt going to work as well."

Actually quite the opposite.  Arbitrations are a lot less formal and you can feel free to throw anything and everything at the arbitrator because the arbitrator (usually an attorney) understands that's part of doing your job.  If you start presenting a half-cocked defense to a jury, and they figure out you're trying to bullshit them, you're done.  They stop listening to you because at that point they assume you're full of it.

"For Braun to come in there and say the sample was tainted or that the tamper proof container was repackaged wouldnt have held as much weight as saying something they can prove happend."

It doesn't matter how much weight it holds.  If you can make the argument in good faith, you make it.  Again, arbitrators are trained to sort out the evidence and figure it out--much more so than a jury.

Interesting.  I, not having been involved in arbitrations would figure an arbirtator could cut through the BS were as an jury could have there emotions prayed upon.  I expect atorneys and judges to be smarter then the average folks being that they are exposed to BS everyday.

Arbitrators do cut though the BS much better, but because of that, they'll allow you to present any BS theory/evidence you want. Parties rarely object to anything in arbitration or a bench trial, because the response is almost always "I'll allow the evidence and give it the weight it deserves."  It's easier to recive all of the evidence and decide later what's important. A judge can't allow that to happen in front of a jury because jurors don't know what is and isn't BS.

I should qualify that everything I'm saying relates to civil, not criminal rules. I don't do criminal law, but it's my understanding that a criminal defendant can present just about any BS theory he wants.

forsberg_us wrote:

I thought this explains the process pretty well.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/OTL-Ryan-Braun/ryan-braun-defense-raises-more-questions-doping-experts

Note the comments from the Olympic Doping expert. Braun's 20:1 ratio may have been the highest ever recorded, but other doping testing programs have found. Similar and significantly higher ratios. There wasn't anything necessarily abnormal as has been suggested.

In the end, none of this matters. As Alz said, Braun will be playing opening day. But it sure looks like he got away with doping

Wonder how "part-time urine sample collector" looks on a resume?

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I just watched Braun's interview.  He is either pathological or innocent."

I don't give too much weight to Braun's comments. These guys are used to being in front of cameras and can be pretty good actors. Rafael Palmeiro was convincing when he testified before Congress.
It's been reported the sample remained sealed, and was not tainted due to the delay in delivery. What makes me give pause is Braun submitted so many clean samples, and then boom, he tests off the charts. Either he's been masking an extraordinary amount of juice, or the dirty test was somehow flawed.
The composition of the panel still astounds me. Instead of a union stooge and a guy from the commissioner's office, why not have two impartial guys and a 3-man independent panel?

No matter how tamper proof the container was it could still be replaced.  Meaning that you cant tamper with the container but you could remove the sample and put it in a new tamper proof container.  Not saying that is what happend but it could have happend.

Whoa! A conspiracy, AP?!? *sniff*

Clearly I like one from time to time.  They make simple life much more interesting.

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

No matter how tamper proof the container was it could still be replaced.  Meaning that you cant tamper with the container but you could remove the sample and put it in a new tamper proof container.  Not saying that is what happend but it could have happend.

Whoa! A conspiracy, AP?!? *sniff*

Clearly I like one from time to time.  They make simple life much more interesting.

Have you heard about this "Tuck Rule" the NFL instituted about 10 years ago?

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Whoa! A conspiracy, AP?!? *sniff*

Clearly I like one from time to time.  They make simple life much more interesting.

Have you heard about this "Tuck Rule" the NFL instituted about 10 years ago?

Tell me about it.