Originally Posted by jojo
Nowhere have I suggested any sample was tampered with. To me, it's pretty obvious that the collectively bargained procedure for sample handling was violated and it's possible that as a result the sample integrity was compromised. That position derives objectively from fact.
Proof of tampering absolutely was NOT needed. MLB failed to guarantee that sample integrity wasn't compromised. Those are two distinctly separate issues. You shouldn't brush with such broad strokes.
BTW, you've continually mischaracterized my position and it seems to be because you keep viewing this issue through a preconceived filter.
Jojo, I think you are guilty of the same broad brush stroke here. The fact that a negotiated rule was not followed does not justify, in and of itself, a doubt as to the results of the test. It depends on the nature of the rule, doesn't it?
In this case, it appears that the violation was that the collector took the sample from Braun at 4:30 pm but by the time he was able to get out of the stadium it was 5 pm and no FedEx office was open within a 50 mile radius. The negotiated agreement said that samples must be mailed the same day they are collected IF the FedEx office is open, but if the office is closed, the collector is instructed to take the sample home and store it exactly as it was stored in this case. The agreement prohibits using a Fed-Ex Drop Box. Braun's team argued that because he could have driven to a FedEx store that was more than 50 miles away and still mailed the specimen, he did not follow the express language of the agreement that "...absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the laboratory on the same day they are collected."
Imagine if the violated rule was that the sample would be mailed/shipped using Federal Express. Imagine if the collector, realizing it was 50 miles to the nearest Fedex office, but only 40 miles to the lab where he was mailing the sample, drove the 40 miles and delivered the sample rather than mailing it.
In both examples (mail that night/use Federal express) the violation of the rule only brings into question the authenticity of the urine sample IF one can show how the violation actually increased the chances of tampering or mishandling. If you cannot show this, then it would be the quintessential "technicality."
The manner in which the sample was treated was a negotiated, agreed upon alternate method of sample handling. The only objection was whether or not the facts justified the alternate handling... not whether that alternate handling was a safe process... the Union had agreed that it was.
Just my 2 cents.