"And that your honor, um...is the god's honest truth...yeah, that needle mark in top of that "clean" speciman is just a deformity in the plastic. Uh yeah."
I understand the BS that resulted in him not being suspended. That by no means makes him innocent or even believable. So, I would guess A-Rod is innocent too? Well, other than that one time...I bet he never inhaled when he smoked pot either...
For your argument to fly, the Defense team has to present one plausible theory as to how it COULD have happened that would not be rebutted by the other facts in the case, otherwise they are left with only a technicality and a prophylatic ruling. (i.e. yes he did it, but to punish the accuser for not following the rules, we are going to let him walk).
For example, a murder suspect confesses to a murder, and as part of that confession, takes the police to where the body is hidden, and with the body he also hid video and audio recordings of him actually committing the murder. If the original confession was collected in violation of his 5th amendment rights, then everything is excluded (confession, body and tapes) and the guy walks even though we would be absolutely certain that he committed the murder. Why? A prophylatic ruling on a technicality to protect the system.
I can use the same fifth amendment rule to rebut your example. The Miranda warnings exist to prevent suspects from giving involuntary confessions. We make cops say the warnings to ensure every suspect is aware of their rights prior to confessing. Imagine a police officer does not provide the proper warning to a suspect and instead jumps right into interrogation. In response, the suspect confesses.
Your argument is that this confession should be treated as involuntary because the rules violation made an involuntary confession possible. However, if the government can show that minutes before the interrogation, the accused, a law professor, had just finished giving a class on the fifth amendment rights of suspects, this possibility would be eliminated.
In this case, the evidence appears to rebut the possibility of mishandling or tampering linked to or cause by the rule violation.
One final example... dang am I wordy today... if the rule said that the collector was required to check Ryan Braun's driver's license prior to the test to ensure he was testing the right person and he failed to check Braun's driver's license, would that make the sample he collected invalid even if the lab was able to do DNA testing on the sample to verify it was Braun's?
I am not saying he should have been found guilty. Protocol is there for a reason, and the integrity of that must be defended even if it means a guilty man is found innocent. Yet if you believe Braun is innocent, then you have to believe the sample was tampered with. It was not because it sat around too long.
The defense team has never made any such public pronouncement. Don't tell me they can't or they wouldn't, because this simple assertion could be made without actually disclosing anything about the MLB testing procedures and so is not subject to the confidentiality and gag orders attached to the hearing.
The defense team could have simply said "We were able to replicate the same result starting with clean urine and following the same storage process."
They never did prior to, during or after the hearing. They allowed their client to continue to be villified in the press rather than choosing to make this simple statement? They made many official statements before during and after the hearing that detailed specific aspects of the testing process... but they never made this general statement that discloses nothing confidential?
I do not believe that this hearsay within hearsay from an anonymous source has even the slightest indicia of credibility.
His whole argument the whole time was the sample could have been tampered with it. I have no idea why you keep fighting this battle about a sample magically getting synthetic testosterone by sitting around for while. It simply does not happen. That is why they do a second test for synthetic testosterone after they find abnormal levels of testosterone. Testosterone levels can change over time skewing the ratio, but at no point does that cause production of synthetic testosterone.
Last edited by scott91575; 02-07-2013 at 04:47 PM.
They tested his initial sample and it showed a 3:1 ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone. A normal sample has a 1:1 ratio or close to it. This sets the red flag, but if a sample sits long enough either of them can break down changing the ratio (if the epitestosterone broke down faster that could cause a false positive). So, they then do another test for the type of testosterone in the sample. It came can as exogenic, or coming from outside his body (in other words, synthetic testosterone). The b sample tested the same. There is only two ways for that to happen. He took testosterone, or the sample was tampered with.
In the end, the fact remains he tested positive for synthetic testosterone. The only way that happes is if the sample was tampered with or he used synthetic testosterone. You be the judge.
BTW...here is an article on the whole thing. Braun's defense never addressed why the sample came back positive. They simply attacked the fact the test took 48 hours to ship, yet it in no way explains why there was synthetic testosterone in the sample.
The reason for him being found not guilty was a technicality, not that they proved the sample was wrong.