Bob Nightengale reports in USA Today about Major League Baseball’s efforts to investigate players named in the Biogenesis documents. Of somewhat surprising note: Nightengale says some 90 players appear in the records. Of less surprising note: it’s the big fish that MLB is clearly focusing on: Alex Rodriguez and, even more so, Ryan Braun:
There might be plenty of minor leaguers to go down before this is over, maybe a few major league players, too, but there are really two players who captivate MLB’s interest. New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez and Braun. And Braun happens to be MLB’s Public Enemy No.1.
His successful appeal of a positive testosterone test led to major revisions in baseball’s sample collection process last year. Baseball officials, from the top executives in New York to their field investigators, refuse to let it go. They want Braun — badly. They have been relentless in their pursuit, trying to make life as miserable as possible for him.
...But there is a troubling element to it. The biggest mistake of the Mitchell Report was how it was hellbent to get a list of names and make examples/token victims out of some while failing, almost entirely, to grasp what was really going on with PEDs in baseball in such a way as to actually combat their proliferation and use. If, in this case, baseball has a monomaniacal focus on carrying out some vendetta against Braun and, because of it, fails to undertake a systematic investigation of the Biogenesis matter, it is once again going down the road of the Mitchell Report.
If Nightengale is right and there are 90 players named, there should be interviews and investigations of 90 players. Or, at the very least, investigations of enough of them to get a full picture of what’s going on down in Miami. The point should not be to settle some score with Ryan Braun. He should be meted out justice, if justice is so justified, in the same manner and measure as any other player involved.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. JJ1986 Posted: March 20, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4392269)i would factor in a 50 game suspension potential of greater than 50 percent
Braun was the only $40 player in our NL-only auction draft, even as we all joked about his imminent suspension.
What do you do when you're branded, and you know you're a man"
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.
This glove-first shortstop went on to become Michael Morse, gigantic power hitter.
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.
(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!
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
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.
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.
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.
Because, if he's not, I don't see how MLB is going to "get him".
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.
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 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.
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.
Is that the one where Dillinger got shot?
don't know what else to tell you. the commish wants braun in the stocks
I'm with Esoteric.
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.
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.
Yep.
Unless, of course, you believe the conspiracy theories (i.e. that the body wasn't his -- different height, eye color, scars, etc., supposedly).
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.
Wanted dead or alive for all the crimes of this land
Killing God's children one by one
Casting affliction upon the innocent man
I'm with Esoteric.
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.
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.
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).
The Ashkenazi are a cunning people.
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 think it depends on whether she was drunk beforehand, & whether the killer was under 18. Or something.
Well played, sir.
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'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.
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.
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.
"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...
You mean I've been lied to by vigilante movies?!
:-)
I actually agree with this statement as well.
Ryan's sample wasn't tampered with.
Have fun debating it though, Aspergers.
Not if they lead to firings, arrests and convictions of abusing police.
Well, at least in utopic Sweden this isn't a problem, because there is no such thing as excluding evidence here.
Honestly though, at this point maybe we SHOULD give those guys a shot. They could hardly do much worse, and politics would at least certainly be more fun.
In theory, if the police simply arbitrarily broke into your home, and found the body, it would then be excluded...
Of course knowing that you killed her, the Police would almost certainly be able to investigate you and find enough evidence "legitimately" to enable them to get the warrant...
yes, but exigent means something like, 911 Call, "I heard screams from my neighbor's house"
Police come, knock on door, also hear someone screaming for help... they break down the door...
EDIT: Coke to JSLF.
What COULD get excluded is the question of where the body was found. But if, say, you can establish that Joe Blow was killed by being stomped to death by a guy wearing shoes with a unique (or fairly rare) imprint, and you then find a pair of shoes belonging the Defendant that match exactly and were taken from his possession (and aren't themselves barred by the Exclusionary Rule -- let's say you found them in the garbage dumpster two streets over), then guess what? You've got a pretty solid murder case, even if you can't get into evidence the fact that oh yeah, the body was found in the Defendant's closet.
forgive me if its been covered by Esoteric or others, but there are several recognized exceptions that allow warrantless searches. Perhaps the most obvious is 'consent', others have been mentioned here at least indirectly.
Yeah, but Snapper was talking about cases where the defendant goes free because of the lack of warrant.
Isn't there some sort of "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle? If the police gather evidence off of a body that they obtained illegally, isn't that evidence also excluded?
OK, how about this? Police bring you in for questioning, and you invoke your Miranda rights and refuse to talk without a lawyer. The police ignore that and repeatedly badger you over many hours "Where's the body? Where's the body?" Finally you break down and tell them where the body is. By your definition, they can't use the fact that you knew where the body is against you, but they could gather evidence off the body to hang you. That doesn't seem right.
Then why would the cops ever let you have a lawyer?
But in my example they did, and illegally obtained evidence against you, which according you, they can use. Suppose the cops are under huge pressure to crack the case. Say the victim is a prominent person, or there is a serial killer on the loose. If they can gain evidence illegally by denying you counsel, knowing that such evidence can be used against you, why wouldn't they? You think the DA is going to crack down on a couple of cops who brought him the case of his lifetime all tied up in a pretty bow because they broke a little technicality?
It's a bit more nebulous than that- it can attach before you are formally arrested depending on the circumstances.
I also remember a Bill Veeck comment about how the losing side in a major arbitration always fires the arbitrator.
I also remember a Bill Veeck comment about how the losing side in a major arbitration always fires the arbitrator.
IIRC, the MLBPA and MLB each pick one arbitrator for the panel and the third is an "independent" who requires approval from each side so that, in practice, they could be fired by either party.
Ryan Braun should stay in the closet.
Some folks have awfully dangerous interpretations of "fair" and "justice".
"Loophole" is a loosely used term. There is this thing known as "Due Process" for a damn good reason.
There's "procedural" due process and "substantive" due process
part of the problem is that "due process" itself has historically been a very loosely used term.
Any way, I think Braun's way out of the PED's charge had far more to do with the exploitation of a loophole than it did with any "due process" violation by MLB.
A defendant is denied a lawyer by the cops until after 16 hours of grilling he confesses- that is a due process violation
You lose a lawsuit because the other side is represented by the Judge's old Frat brother- that is a due process violation
A default judgment is entered against you, even though you were never served with a complaint and the next thing you know your bank account has been restrained- that is a due process violation.
Here, the arbitrator excluded a positive test because the sample taker kept it overnight in his fridge- there was no evidence that this affected the test results in any way, there is no evidence that Braun was prejudiced in any way, there was no evidence that the sample was tampered with- some have referred to this as a chain of custody issue- it really isn't- no evidence was presented that the chain of custody was broken/interrupted.
Essentially the arbitrator treated it as a contract matter (which is what is is), and told MLB, the contract says you have to do XYZ, you didn't do XYZ, it doesn't matter that not doing XYZ had no impact on what XYZ is for, you are in breach.
Even in contract law this is a gray area- a judge could just as easily said that MLB substantially complied with the prescribed procedure and in the absence of any evidence that the deviation from prescribed procedure changed any outcome (in this case affected the test result) that such deviation was NOT a breach.
Let's reverse this, let's say a DA and a criminal defendant agree to allow and admit a DNA test, let's say the agreement states that the test will take place on one day and the sample will go to a specified lab within X hours. the test is taken and it exonerates the defendant-
but wait, the DA reneges, refuses to consent to the admission of the test results- why? Because the sample didn't reach the lab within X hours, it reached the lab in X+6 hours - the defendant produces an expert who says, "that had no effect whatsoever on the test results" - the DA says, don't care, it's outside the agreement.
The vast majority of judges would tell the DA, "unless you give me evidence that the test results have or could have been affected those results are going in." - not admitting the results would almost certainly be seen as a due process violation.
This is of course not a criminal case, it's a civil/contract case, but absent any evidence that the test results were wrong somehow (and its my understanding that Braun's people offered no such evidence) this is not remotely a due process issue - Braun exploited a contractual loophole, yippee. (don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for MLB, the whole org. is run by people who'd exploit a contractual loophole favoring them in a heart beat).
Does the "automobile" exception to the warrant requirement still exist? I think it does -- if you have probable cause, not need for a warrant, since the evidence might drive off. You still need probable cause.
There is also the "inevitable discovery" exception. Sooner or later, presumably, the body would have turned up.
Does that depend on how well the body is hid?
Body in the suspect's basement?
Body encased in 16 in of concrete at the bottom of lake Superior?
Are these the same wrt inevitable discovery??
This gets repeated often, but it's simply not true. Will Carroll and Mat Kovach both mentioned it. Part of Braun's successful appeal was that the defense was able to repeat the results using urine that initially tested clean. When subjected to the same conditions as the initial sample and retested, it flagged hot.
I don't care one way or the other if Braun's a user, but the choruses of "loophole! technicality!" still going a year later are annoying me.
Some people will believe anything.
Is there any actual description of the test and procedures and such that returned the false positive they're referring to, or a citation from a connected source? Neither of those guys said what the process was that returned the false positive or had an outside citation or anything, they both just stated it.
It does, but even here there are some limitations. (of course this varies state to state). Some states will allow the search of the vehicle incident to the arrest, to include interior and trunk but may prohibit an exhaustive search, say under the hood, tearing up the upholstery, etc. w/o a warrant.
as noted this does get rather nebulous, particularly when there are other 3rd parties, and then determinations of whether or not they have an expectation of privacy (generally, no). ex. You're riding shotgun with your buddy, he's pulled over (legitimate stop) and there's PC to search the car for any legitimate reason. Your duffle bag full of weed is in the back seat. You're ######, you have no legitimate expectation of privacy, and now you're going down with your driving buddy. Now this find may lead the cops to go get a 'warrant' to conduct an exhaustive search of the car.
Well, it's pretty well documented that the majority of this country's adults imbibe alcohol, weed, or other drugs on a regular basis. So that part of my assertion doesn't need much defending.
And few politicians are teetotalers, that's pretty well documented as well.
Whether the majority can be considered "independents" is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but I would argue that the very reason we elect politicians who claim to be teetotalers is that we aren't given any other options. The political parties know that any candidate who professes their love for demon rum, evil weed, and/or the angelic effects of prescription mood enhancers immediately starts off well behind their opponent. So do the candidates. So when asked, all politicians rarely drink, have never used illegal drugs, and don't have any affinity for prescription meds.
Or I'm wrong, and by pure chance a population where the majority gets loaded on a regular basis and admits use of illegal drugs at some time in their life consistently elects a 500+ person group of representatives where 90% have never tasted a drop of alchohol, never inhaled from a marijuana cigarette, and never popped a pill for recreational purposes. One of the most astounding statistical conundrums of our time.
You forgot the inventory search. I recently had a case were the cop pulled over a kid, did the whole "I smell pot" thing and took the kid into custody. This was validated by the whole "my years of experience led me to believe..." justification for probable cause. The cop didn't find anything in his search incident to arrest, so he had the car impounded. An impounded car is subject to an inventory search which is much more invasive than the search incident to arrest.
edit: I should mention that this is not what an inventory search is for. In theory, if the inventory search is a ruse to look for incriminating evidence it should be thrown out. An inventory search is really there to theoretically protect the department from liability should your property go missing while your car is impounded. I've just seen it misused so often I felt it should be mentioned.
Are you asking about in theory, or in practice?
A better example would probably be a search. Say your a criminal and I'm a cop. I see you walking down the street, and you look at me funny and start reaching into your pocket. I've got a reasonable fear for my safety, so I give you a basic Terry stop including a frisk. I feel no weapons or anything like that, but I do feel a bulge in your pocket I suspect is drugs. At this point, I reach in and find the drugs.
If that's the entire story then the drugs are excluded as the result of an improper search.
But, if you had a warrant out for your arrest at the time I found the drugs then they'll get in. I would have arrested you when I called your name in, and then I would have found the drugs in a search incident to arrest.
The prosecution has to prove that the discovery was more likely than not to have happened. So wrt your bodies, theoretically the better hidden the body the less likely inevitable discovery will be used successfully, but practically in something like a murder investigation the police will be found to have likely eventually gotten to the body.
It's a banana!
EDIT: I'll take quotes taken out of context for $1000 Alex.
I once saw a video on, I think, live leak where a cop was frisking some guy and asked questioned him regarding a large bulge down his pants leg near his knee and if it was a weapon. The reply from the guy was "It's my penis".
OK, but it's my understanding that offering evidence would have gotten them nowhere. The rules don't offer appeal for incorrect test results. So the only option open to Braun was exploiting the loophole.
In the body-in-the-closet example, let's say that it was an illegal search. But let's also stipulate that you didn't kill the person and didn't even know the body was there. Your lawyer says to you: Well, the police have some evidence, and you never know what the jury's going to think. We can go to trial, but it doesn't look good for you. Or I can try to argue that the police illegally found the body and try to get it thrown out that way.
Does anybody at all say, "Hey, that's a loophole, don't try that!". Even if Braun was innocent, his best play was to argue chain-of-custody violation (or whatever the correct term is). So he argued that and won. He had no reason to do anything else, so arguing that he didn't do anything else and therefore is guilty, is not fair.
I've read that this was floated by Braun's team to the media, but it wasn't part of the case simply because the "re-test" as described by Kovach didn't happen - if what Kovach says happened don't you think Braun's team would be endlessly asserting it?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main