Saturday, February 25, 2012

Saturday Shuuto

Wendy Thurm's take.

Ryan Braun's take:


  1. To say that's Ryan Braun's take seems a bit suspect to me. I highly doubt that temporaneously is a word that's common to his vocabulary, rather, I think someone has been feeding him some legalese.

    Also when he says, "We're a part of a process where you're 100% guilty until proven innocent" seems to be a bit of a stretch.
    If that were the case, all ball players would be issued 50 game suspensions unless they test negative for PEDs. In this case, there was proof that Braun was guilty. I use the term proof, rather than evidence, as a urine sample is fairly black and white. It's not like there was just shady testimonies from club house attendants that he was using PEDs.

    The fact that the chain of custody wasn't followed certainly invalidates the proof. However, that doesn't prove him innocent. If he was able to produce a negative drug test from that date, that would prove his innocence.

    The fact that he had negative drug tests earlier in the season doesn't prove whether or not he was clean in October, just that he was clean earlier in the season.

    The fact that he didn't get faster, stronger, better in October also doesn't prove whether or not he was clean. It just goes to demonstrate that if he was on PEDs, they didn't enhance his performance, which wouldn't make it ok to take PEDs.

    You may have gotten away this time Dr. Claw... but we'll be watching closely... Better keep your whizzinator handy...

    1. Is a urine sample really that black and white? What if Braun was able to prove that the October 1st sample was tainted?

  2. Also, referring to your urine sample as a nuclear weapon could certainly call into question whether or not you've contracted some kind of other disease.