Having some guys win on appeal makes your system look a lot better than having the appeals process be a sham that can't be beaten. How does MLB not get that?

having mentioned this elsewhere this is not news to me. it's understood that mlb is gunning for braun. and they really don't care who knows about it since the mike lupicas of the world think nailing braun for something would be 'justice'

But how does this affect my fantasy draft?

fat

i would factor in a 50 game suspension potential of greater than 50 percent

But how does this affect my fantasy draft?

Braun was the only $40 player in our NL-only auction draft, even as we all joked about his imminent suspension.

"Branded, scorned as the one who ran.
What do you do when you're branded, and you know you're a man"

Having some guys win on appeal makes your system look a lot better than having the appeals process be a sham that can't be beaten. How does MLB not get that?

you want your system to look fair- you want someone to win because he may not really have taken PEDs, the test(s) were inconclusive, or he has a real medical condition, or his sample really was switched with someone else's...

or that real life guy who was suspended in the minors, served his suspension, was called up to MLB, "failed" a random test (lowest level deemed to be a positive test) and was suspended again with o evidence he'd done PEDs since his first suspension- indeed the MLB acknowledged that given the % decline between his two suspension he probably had not.

That guy should have been the one to get off.

Braun OTOH hand used PEDs but because the urine collector did not follow protocol exactly- the arbitrator threw out the test results.

I know Civil Libertarians have hard time with this, but other than them, most people HATE it when perfectly good evidence is thrown out because a judge rules that the search warrant that lead to the evidence was invalid because the affidavit submitted to get the warrant was notarized by a notary with an expired commission.

So Braun isn't seen by most fans/mediots as an example of the system "working," he's just seen as a cheating SOB who successfully exploited a loophole.

or that real life guy who was suspended in the minors, served his suspension, was called up to MLB, "failed" a random test (lowest level deemed to be a positive test) and was suspended again with o evidence he'd done PEDs since his first suspension- indeed the MLB acknowledged that given the % decline between his two suspension he probably had not.

This glove-first shortstop went on to become Michael Morse, gigantic power hitter.

or that real life guy who was suspended in the minors, served his suspension, was called up to MLB, "failed" a random test (lowest level deemed to be a positive test) and was suspended again with o evidence he'd done PEDs since his first suspension- indeed the MLB acknowledged that given the % decline between his two suspension he probably had not.

That was actually Michael Morse, so at the very least he was able to make something good of himself despite getting screwed over that way.

EDIT: Coke to JJ1986. And it's not fair to say that he was a "glove-first shortstop" at the time -- he was never really thought of that way; he always profiled as a bat whose glove could be tolerated but wasn't anything special.

I know Civil Libertarians have hard time with this, but other than them, most people HATE it when perfectly good evidence is thrown out because a judge rules that the search warrant that lead to the evidence was invalid because the affidavit submitted to get the warrant was notarized by a notary with an expired commission.

So Braun isn't seen by most fans/mediots as an example of the system "working," he's just seen as a cheating SOB who successfully exploited a loophole.

Ray DiPerna to the white courtesy phone, please.

(Incidentally, while I agree with what you say, I still think the process "worked" with regard to Braun insofar as I'm glad players have those sorts of procedural safeguards and anything which encourages more diligence w/r/t testing and sample handling is fine by me.)

EDIT: Also, I think it's foolish for MLB to single Braun out to the exclusion of all others. While it ultimately is quite analogous to the sort of prosecutorial discretion exercised by the state's attorney in the real legal system, they should be going after big fish and small fish alike.

Well, except Gio. Leave my Gio out of this!

(Incidentally, while I agree with what you say, I still think the process "worked" with regard to Braun insofar as I'm glad players have those sorts of procedural safeguards and anything which encourages more diligence w/r/t testing and sample handling is fine by me.)

I didn't say the process didn't work as it was designed to, plus having player get off - even on a perceived technicality- probably makes other players more comfortable with the regime-

but the general public just doesn't see things like that

johnny

disagree on players being more comfortable. if anything they are more suspicious knowing the one guy who was deemed impartial lost his job as part of the review committee.

but the general public just doesn't see things like that

I think MLB has a lot of influence over that. If they'd come out and said "we're glad that the appeals process works" then people would have accepted it and moved on. Instead, Selig ranted, fired the arbitrator and then continued to target the exonerated party.

MLB has planted the idea that its own appeals process is ######## and the results don't matter.

I was surprised that I got Trout for $39 in my AL draft. I thought he'd go for well over $40.

I look forward to the day when Braun is tied to the stocks and we all get to whip him with our ostrich feathers

disagree on players being more comfortable. if anything they are more suspicious knowing the one guy who was deemed impartial lost his job as part of the review committee.

That was actually the part of the whole Braun affair that upset me the most. Sure, Braun got off on a technicality -- he was guilty as sin, but walked free as a jaybird -- but he got off on a legitimate technicality. The rules as written hadn't been followed, and it wasn't up to the arbitrator to decide that "okay, THESE rules are important and must be followed, but THOSE rules are just niggling technicalities, whose violations can be overlooked." So he tossed the evidence due to improper sample-handling procedures. And got sh*tcanned by MLB for his conscientiousness.

Now of course I'm living in a fantasy world, because that's the sort of thing sports arbitrators are pressured to do (and DO do) all the time: anyone else think it's a questionable arrangement for these guys who hold their jobs subject to the suffrance of one of the two parties in every dispute? Yeah, me neither.

So, is everyone just assuming Braun is using?

Because, if he's not, I don't see how MLB is going to "get him".

They'll never catch Braun. He's a cagey veteran.

It all depends what's in those Biogenesis records.

But, I mean, Braun was caught using something. I'm 100% with Esoteric that I like the way the system worked in Braun's case - every worker should have representation that good - but that doesn't mean as a random human on the internet I can't draw the conclusion that Braun was almost certainly using PEDs.

I think MLB has a lot of influence over that. If they'd come out and said "we're glad that the appeals process works" then people would have accepted it and moved on. Instead, Selig ranted, fired the arbitrator and then continued to target the exonerated party.

MLB has planted the idea that its own appeals process is ######## and the results don't matter.

When they fired the arbitrator, that was the signal that they have no interest in any independent judgments. That may be fine with the Lupicas, but it's hardly likely to inspire much confidence in those who are a little more fairminded than them.

I know Civil Libertarians have hard time with this, but other than them, most people HATE it when perfectly good evidence is thrown out because a judge rules that the search warrant that lead to the evidence was invalid because the affidavit submitted to get the warrant was notarized by a notary with an expired commission.

I know authoritarian personality types have a hard time with this, but procedures are in place to protect people's rights. When procedures can be ignored on the basis of, "hey, we all know he did it", this has an effect on everyone, whether they know it or not.

“Milwaukee Melodrama” now playing at the Biograph Theater!

Actually, There is a Happiness That Morning Is is playing at the Biograph Theater for the next couple of weeks. It's a very funny, smart and affecting comedy, and is one of the twenty or so best productions I've ever seen.

I know authoritarian personality types have a hard time with this, but procedures are in place to protect people's rights. When procedures can be ignored on the basis of, "hey, we all know he did it", this has an effect on everyone, whether they know it or not.

You seem to be indirectly labelling JSLF as an 'authoritarian personality type,' which I don't think is fair to him. What he's doing in that post seems to me to be more about objectively describing the way the average joe looks at this situation, for better or worse.

people HATE it when perfectly good evidence is thrown out because a judge rules that the search warrant that lead to the evidence was invalid because the affidavit submitted to get the warrant was notarized by a notary with an expired commission.

Incidentally, just so you know: in a scenario like this the evidence would almost certainly not be thrown out. The Exclusionary Rule is applied with the overarching goal of curbing police abuses of 4th Amendment rights, so in a scenario where everything about the warrant was otherwise kosher (PC was properly established, the affidavit to the magistrate correctly explained the place for the search and what was sought, etc.) this sort of a technicality wouldn't render the resulting evidence excludable because it wouldn't tend toward the greater goal of curbing police abuses.

Actually, There is a Happiness That Morning Is is playing at the Biograph Theater for the next couple of weeks.

Is that the one where Dillinger got shot?

I find it hard to believe that Bud Selig has directed MLB to "take down" Milwaukee's mega-million-dollar mega-superstar player.

da

don't know what else to tell you. the commish wants braun in the stocks

You seem to be indirectly labelling JSLF as an 'authoritarian personality type,' which I don't think is fair to him. What he's doing in that post seems to me to be more about objectively describing the way the average joe looks at this situation, for better or worse.

I'm with Esoteric.

I know Civil Libertarians have hard time with this, but other than them, most people HATE it when perfectly good evidence is thrown out because a judge rules that the search warrant that lead to the evidence was invalid because the affidavit submitted to get the warrant was notarized by a notary with an expired commission.

So Braun isn't seen by most fans/mediots as an example of the system "working," he's just seen as a cheating SOB who successfully exploited a loophole.

Most fans don't care strongly at all. If Braun is playing for the other team that day, they'll heckle him with it regardless. But we are a nation where the majority are pot smoking, drug using, hard boozing independents, and are naturally suspicious of untrammeled authority.

And Braun doesn't have to be caught using. I expect the Commish will suspend him for the association with Biogenesis alone. Which means that soon another arbiter will be facing a career making/ending decision.

You seem to be indirectly labelling JSLF as an 'authoritarian personality type,' which I don't think is fair to him. What he's doing in that post seems to me to be more about objectively describing the way the average joe looks at this situation, for better or worse.

I dislike when people assert what "most people" believe without actually providing evidence that it's the case. When someone does this, I generally think what they're really saying is more like, "I believe this to be the case, and I just knowthat most people agree". I structured my post in the same fashion that he structured his though, with a squishy assertion about what people of a certain ilk believe rather than telling him what he believes. If I'm misinterpreting what he wrote, my mistake and my apologies.

Is that the one where Dillinger got shot?

Yep.

Unless, of course, you believe the conspiracy theories (i.e. that the body wasn't his -- different height, eye color, scars, etc., supposedly).

this sort of a technicality wouldn't render the resulting evidence excludable because it wouldn't tend toward the greater goal of curbing police abuses.

I don't get that, in what way is letting a criminal off the hook a strike against police abuses? The only one harmed by that are crime victims, not police. Wouldn't the logical way to combat police abuses be to use internal discipline and/or the law against the police that do these kinds of things?

I don't get that, in what way is letting a criminal off the hook a strike against police abuses? The only one harmed by that are crime victims, not police. Wouldn't the logical way to combat police abuses be to use internal discipline and/or the law against the police that do these kinds of things?

If abuses lead to arrests and convictions, that encourages the use of abuses.

Satan is public enemy number one
Wanted dead or alive for all the crimes of this land
Killing God's children one by one
Casting affliction upon the innocent man

You seem to be indirectly labelling JSLF as an 'authoritarian personality type,' which I don't think is fair to him. What he's doing in that post seems to me to be more about objectively describing the way the average joe looks at this situation, for better or worse.

I'm with Esoteric.

When they fired the arbitrator, that was the signal that they have no interest in any independent judgments. That may be fine with the Lupicas, but it's hardly likely to inspire much confidence in those who are a little more fairminded than them.

Heh. They signaled this when they installed an incredibly limited universe of appealable issues. There was at least one report that Braun's test results were wacky with respect to testosterone levels but because MLB only allows for appeals regarding procedural issues there was no opportunity to address that substantive issue (if it existed). Braun argued a technicality because that's all he is allowed to argue. So instead of addressing the merits of the test, MLB rules created a situation where player's don't get a meaningful review. The appeal seems merely designed to have an empty process they can point to and declare the system fair and reasonable. The fact that an appeal actually succeeded was apparently a shocking turn of events.

Of course it's all supposed to be confidential but MLB's track record seems less than stellar in that department.

I don't get that, in what way is letting a criminal off the hook a strike against police abuses? The only one harmed by that are crime victims, not police.

It would seem to me that if the police and the prosecutors office are repeatedly letting people off because of sloppy procedure, the people at the top will ensure heads will roll. Top level politicians like mayors and DAs don't like getting embarrassed in front of the public by their underlings.

Incidentally, just so you know: in a scenario like this the evidence would almost certainly not be thrown out. The Exclusionary Rule is applied with the overarching goal of curbing police abuses of 4th Amendment rights, so in a scenario where everything about the warrant was otherwise kosher (PC was properly established, the affidavit to the magistrate correctly explained the place for the search and what was sought, etc.) this sort of a technicality wouldn't render the resulting evidence excludable because it wouldn't tend toward the greater goal of curbing police abuses.

Evidence must meet certain minimum requirements of reliability; the 4th Amendment isn't the only test of admissibility. Here there are issues regarding the chain-of-custody as well as what effects the storage may have had on the results.

I don't get that, in what way is letting a criminal off the hook a strike against police abuses? The only one harmed by that are crime victims, not police. Wouldn't the logical way to combat police abuses be to use internal discipline and/or the law against the police that do these kinds of things?

It's not letting a criminal off the hook. It's excluding certain evidence regarding a suspect of undetermined guilt. It's also the only real deterrent for police forces that is effective (according to some).

They'll never catch Braun. He's a cagey veteran.

The Ashkenazi are a cunning people.

I don't get that, in what way is letting a criminal off the hook a strike against police abuses? The only one harmed by that are crime victims, not police. Wouldn't the logical way to combat police abuses be to use internal discipline and/or the law against the police that do these kinds of things?

Yes, that would be the sane system. If the evidence is real (i.e. not planted or manipulated) the evidence is admit, and the cops/DAs that gathered the evidence are disciplined/fired/prosecuted, depending on the severity of their abuse.

I believe that's how it generally works in the UK, with the judge having wide discretion over what evidence to admit.

I mean, if you've got a dead girl in your closet, but the police don't get a warrant, is it really justice to let the murderer go free?

If abuses lead to arrests and convictions, that encourages the use of abuses.

Cops care much more about losing their pensions than whether a criminal is convicted or walks.

I mean, if you've got a dead girl in your closet, but the police don't get a warrant, is it really justice to let the murderer go free?

I think it depends on whether she was drunk beforehand, & whether the killer was under 18. Or something.

Somebody should make a "Days of Future Past" cover pastiche of Ryan Braun trying to escape the long arm of MLB while a sheet of mugshots in the back show what happened with past PED people.

I think it depends on whether she was drunk beforehand, & whether the killer was under 18. Or something.

Well played, sir.

I mean, if you've got a dead girl in your closet, but the police don't get a warrant, is it really justice to let the murderer go free?

Well, why didn't they have a warrant? How did they find the body without a warrant? Did they break into your home?

Well, why didn't they have a warrant? How did they find the body without a warrant? Did they break into your home?

I don't know. Maybe they cam to question you, and the cop poked around. Maybe they had the super let them in.

If they did break into your house, then the cop(s) should be fired, lose his pension, and be prosecuted for breaking and entering. The evidence should be admissible, however.

Note: I would only apply this to serious violent crimes (murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.). I would keep the current exclusionary rule for property crime, drug possession, etc.

If they did break into your house, then the cop(s) should be fired, lose his pension, and be prosecuted for breaking and entering. The evidence should be admissible, however.

If they're willing to disregard pretty clear rules, what else might they have screwed up in the process? Why should a jury trust that someone willing to disobey rules about privacy wouldn't plant the evidence themselves? Granted, a body would be pretty damning, as it's not trivial to plant, but there's a lot more cases that involve drugs putatively found in someone's house than bodies in closets.

If they're willing to disregard pretty clear rules, what else might they have screwed up in the process? Why should a jury trust that someone willing to disobey rules about privacy wouldn't plant the evidence themselves? Granted, a body would be pretty damning, as it's not trivial to plant, but there's a lot more cases that involve drugs putatively found in someone's house than bodies in closets.

See my note. I wouldn't apply this to drug cases, or property cases.

And, the judge still would have the discretion to suppress evidence if he thought the police/DA were trying to pull something.

Cops care much more about losing their pensions than whether a criminal is convicted or walks.

Fine. Now ask yourself: under your system, who would make the decision to prosecute them? Who would investigate and gather evidence against them? Who would have the responsibility of 'policing' the policemen? Answer: the police themselves and the prosecutor's office (in other words players on the same team with identical interests). Which is why these systems of internal enforcement (which was way things were done prior to the firming up of the Exclusionary Rule by SCOTUS) were inevitably a ghastly joke: the cops who violated search and seizure laws weren't about to be investigated/reprimanded by their brothers in blue, or prosecuted by the state's attorney whose cases they assisted so much. Civil remedies were a fantasy: most accused criminals are near-indigent anyway, and good luck finding a jury that wouldn't think "hey, screw this guy, he WAS a crook after all."

The Exclusionary Rule works. In fact, it's quite arguably the ONLY thing that works: it's the only penalty that can't be controlled by police or the prosecution, the only one that doesn't require implementation and enforcement by the very people it's targeted against. Which is why cops generally DO try to be conscientious and by-the-book about these things.

I don't know. Maybe they cam to question you, and the cop poked around. Maybe they had the super let them in.

If they are not complete morons, they go back and get a search warrant and return.

Of course, your offered scenarios basically requires the police officers to be willfully violating the law from the get-go.

EDIT: I should admit that my understanding of the nuts and bolts of the 4th Amendment case law is outdated and probably fuzzy in many areas. I haven't really had occasion to look at these issues since I finished school half a decade ago.

Ray DiPerna to the white courtesy phone, please.

"Give me Ham on five, hold the Mayo!"

But we are a nation where the majority are pot smoking, drug using, hard boozing independents

Then why do we keep electing teetotaling Republicans and Democrats?

and are naturally suspicious of untrammeled authority.

Trammell authority doesn't work so well either...