The Unintended Byproduct of Ryan Braun's Biogenesis Defense

[Brisco]

(I started this as a new thread because it is not actually about Ryan Braun and his use of PEDs.)

Ryan Braun's statement that Bosch was used as a consultant and that there was a dispute as to the fee comes accross as far more detailed and credible then the statements and categorical denials by the other players named in the Biogenesis files.

However, it creates a huge problem for all of the other players named. Braun's statement serves to authenticate the Biogenesis files both in general and in specific content. No one but Bosch, Braun and Braun's attorneys would know if Bosch was consulted... that sort of data is privileged, and Braun's attorney would have been careful to tell Bosch not to mention it to anyone.

Thus, Braun's assertion and the corroborating statement of his lawyer show that only Bosch could have made those documents. Further, the fact that the document accurately contains the specific 20k and 30k figures that Bosch allegedly tried to collect for his consultant services, it appears that when Bosch was compiling the documents, he was intending to convey the truth.

When I was a magistrate this would have been enough to convince me to find probable cause. If the source of the files can testify as to where he/she got them and the meaning of the various abbreviations, it would probably get past the preponderance of the evidence standard needed in civil trials. (For the other legal beagles on the board, I think that it might qualify as an 801 exclusion or an 803 exception to any hearsay objection).

I wonder if Ryan Braun was realizing how he was indirectly undercutting the defenses of the other named players?

Brisco

[TRF]

Hi! I'm Ryan... would you guys come over here? the bus i want to throw you under is this way...

[RedEye]

Whoa. Fascinating post. Can't claim to understand all of the legalese, but would love to know more. Thanks, Brisco.

[mattfeet]

Originally Posted by RedEye

Whoa. Fascinating post. Can't claim to understand all of the legalese, but would love to know more. Thanks, Brisco.

I agree. Very good post, Brisco. Thanks for sharing your insight.

-Matt

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Brisco

(I started this as a new thread because it is not actually about Ryan Braun and his use of PEDs.)

Ryan Braun's statement that Bosch was used as a consultant and that there was a dispute as to the fee comes accross as far more detailed and credible then the statements and categorical denials by the other players named in the Biogenesis files.

However, it creates a huge problem for all of the other players named. Braun's statement serves to authenticate the Biogenesis files both in general and in specific content. No one but Bosch, Braun and Braun's attorneys would know if Bosch was consulted... that sort of data is privileged, and Braun's attorney would have been careful to tell Bosch not to mention it to anyone.

Thus, Braun's assertion and the corroborating statement of his lawyer show that only Bosch could have made those documents. Further, the fact that the document accurately contains the specific 20k and 30k figures that Bosch allegedly tried to collect for his consultant services, it appears that when Bosch was compiling the documents, he was intending to convey the truth.

When I was a magistrate this would have been enough to convince me to find probable cause. If the source of the files can testify as to where he/she got them and the meaning of the various abbreviations, it would probably get past the preponderance of the evidence standard needed in civil trials. (For the other legal beagles on the board, I think that it might qualify as an 801 exclusion or an 803 exception to any hearsay objection).

I wonder if Ryan Braun was realizing how he was indirectly undercutting the defenses of the other named players?

Brisco

He knew. He, like other users, needs to go all in on his defense and it doesn't matter who's throat he steps on.

[MikeThierry]

All this thread needs now is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4-aEGvqQM

[smixsell]

Interesting. Braun's statement's made in asserting his defense do tend to corroborrate the authenticity of the records, so it's not good news at all for the other players involved.

As for hearsay objections, I don't think MLB's investigations are limited by the Federal Rules of Evidence so not too big a deal there. In the case of civil or criminal prosecution I don't think that Braun's statements will affect admissability much at all, but they may impact the weight of the evidence by corroborrating the accurracy of the information the document's contain.

[bigredmechanism]

Kill or be killed?

[blumj]

Francisco Cervelli also:

Cervelli, the Yankees catcher, tweeted that he "consulted with a number of experts, including Biogenesis Clinic, for legal ways to aid my rehab and recovery. I purchased supplements that I am certain were not prohibited by Major League Baseball."

Cervelli was recovering from a foot injury in March 2011.

Unlike A-Rod and the other players first mentioned, the names of Braun and Cervelli were not listed next to details of PED use or distribution.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseba...peds-1.4575807

[Brisco]

Originally Posted by smixsell

Interesting. Braun's statement's made in asserting his defense do tend to corroborrate the authenticity of the records, so it's not good news at all for the other players involved.

As for hearsay objections, I don't think MLB's investigations are limited by the Federal Rules of Evidence so not too big a deal there. In the case of civil or criminal prosecution I don't think that Braun's statements will affect admissability much at all, but they may impact the weight of the evidence by corroborrating the accurracy of the information the document's contain.

Sorry to confuse you Smixsell... I was not trying to make any statement about the MLB investigation or subsequent case. I have no idea what rules they have negotiatied with the union concerning investigations and findings.

I was just using legal concepts, which are largely based on common reason, to show how Brauns comments undercut the claims of the other players. I used 801 and 803 to counter the discussion among the talking heads that "... there is no evidence until Bosch comes forward and talks about the documents." This is basically a hearsay objection to the records, even though they are not couching it in legal terms, but made in the court of public opinion. My point is that if our court system, the agency our government tasks with deciding truth, would consider the records probative and having indicia of reliability despite appearing to be in the realm of unreliable hearsay (the jurisprudence behind 801 and 803), then certainly our public should give them weight.

[BenHayes]

My question is why out of all the clinics he could have chosen to consult did he choose this one? Did he know of the bussinesses affilliation with users? Or was it from his own experiences with them? Any way its sliced it doesnt look good for any involved even if no suspensions or punishments come from it.

[smixsell]

Originally Posted by Brisco

Sorry to confuse you Smixsell... I was not trying to make any statement about the MLB investigation or subsequent case. I have no idea what rules they have negotiatied with the union concerning investigations and findings.

I was just using legal concepts, which are largely based on common reason, to show how Brauns comments undercut the claims of the other players. I used 801 and 803 to counter the discussion among the talking heads that "... there is no evidence until Bosch comes forward and talks about the documents." This is basically a hearsay objection to the records, even though they are not couching it in legal terms, but made in the court of public opinion. My point is that if our court system, the agency our government tasks with deciding truth, would consider the records probative and having indicia of reliability despite appearing to be in the realm of unreliable hearsay (the jurisprudence behind 801 and 803), then certainly our public should give them weight.

No problemo.

PS Not confused, just overly precise at times. I did get that this was the main thrust of your post, and I agree wholeheartedly that Braun's assertions do not help the other players mentioned in the docs AT ALL.

[Brisco]

Originally Posted by BenHayes

My question is why out of all the clinics he could have chosen to consult did he choose this one? Did he know of the bussinesses affilliation with users? Or was it from his own experiences with them? Any way its sliced it doesnt look good for any involved even if no suspensions or punishments come from it.

Ben, according to Braun's primary lawyer, one of the secondary lawyers (Chris Lyons?) suggested they confer with Bosch, but after a quick review they decided that he would not be a useful expert. That comes accross as credible due dilligence to me... and I think this is indirectly supported by the records.

Again, I think it is because Braun's defense team is probably telling the truth about this that makes it so interesting.

[TRF]

it's odd because his link appears legitimately advisory. But seeking out a them as advisors is odd, lending credence to him having interest in PED's, while proving this was not his source.

To me, this strongly ties him to PED's though not them as the source.

[joshua]

Originally Posted by TRF

it's odd because his link appears legitimately advisory. But seeking out a them as advisors is odd, lending credence to him having interest in PED's, while proving this was not his source.

To me, this strongly ties him to PED's though not them as the source.

Yep. The place is in Miami, just consulting them is enough to assume Braun knew what the place was even without considering Braun's connection to other players on the list via the U.