Gwreck

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Honestly, I'm less concerned with how he "got off," and more concerned about the fact that he's now loudly decrying his false accusation and poor treatment at MLB's hands when his people never actually questioned the result, and had no apparent reason to do so. The drug testing program is confidential. Both the players and MLB agreed to that provision. There is supposed to be no announcement regarding a positive test until a player's appeal is exhausted. Somebody leaked it to ESPN and if it wasn't Braun -- which, by all accounts, it wasn't -- he's got great reason to be aggrieved. If this had been handled properly, nobody should have even known about the alleged positive test.

I found this bit remarkably self-aware, and yet still maddeningly frustrating as he fails to acknowledge they are charging NY prices for a Pittsburgh-quality team: But we have a diminished population coming to Citi Field. We need that revenue. We just can't do it on air. We need that revenue to support. And the only way we're going to get that revenue is if we have a competitive, interesting team on the field. Otherwise, they're not going to come just because they love Citi Field.

It's more analogous to a police officer taking critical evidence...say, an alleged murder weapon...and taking it to his house for safekeeping rather than the evidence locker at the police station. As a result, the evidence is inadmissable in the trial.

Some more interesting revelations here from the Daily News In a two-day hearing on Jan. 19 and 20, Braun and his legal team raised the chain-of-custody issues and pointed out that the 28-year-old left fielder had never failed a test before, and that he easily passed another test not administered by MLB shortly after he was told of his positive test. Braun�s positive test (his testosterone to epitestosterone ratio was 20:1; the trigger point for a positive is 4:1) was described to the Daily News in December by a source familiar with his case as reflecting �insanely high� levels of testosterone. �(It was) the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken,� said the source, and was used as evidence that Braun would not have knowingly taken such a large dose of a substance that would trigger such a high positive. �It was more than just (the CDT representative) not giving it to FedEx promptly,� said a source familiar with the case. �Isn�t it odd that of 40,000 tests, the one that goes missing for two days has a higher ratio than any test ever?� According to the source, there were also noticeable differences in Braun�s test and samples from two other players held by the same collector. �The pH level changed,� said the source, �from the original recording to the time it reached the lab. The sample deteriorated.� The director of the Montreal lab, Christiane Ayotte, however, testified during the hearing that it was not unusual for the pH balance to change from the original reading, which is conducted, as one source said, at the collection site with something resembling a dip stick, and that the equipment used in the field is not as accurate as the equipment in the lab.

TransMonk wrote: I'll be very interested to see how Bruan will respond to the inevitable question: "Ryan, can you tell your fans, especially the children who may be listening or watching, that regardless of the results of your test or appeal, you have never used any banned performance enhancing drugs?" I think he already answered it when he claimed innocence immediately upon hearing the results.

If there was no proper chain of custody, it's as if the samples didn't exist in the first place. Assuming the samples were indeed from Braun's urine, this tidbit from the New York Times is curious: The test sample at issue revealed that Braun had significantly elevated levels of testosterone in his body. The test showed a prohibited substance in Braun�s body, but not a steroid, according to another person familiar with the appeals process. So what exactly was in his body? If it caused elevated levels of testosterone, it seems it wasn't a masking agent. Was it something he was taking for a medical issue? Was it some other non-steroidal PED?

Edgy DC wrote: Kinda makes the whole three-man-panel idea seem pointless when two of them have obviously compromised loyalties. Indeed. I think part of the problem is that neither side trusts the other enough to just have a 3-person impartial panel.

I'm so glad you have the money for a helicopter trip to Miami and tickets to the Heat-Knicks but not Jose Reyes. Yes, I know the cost is not the exact same.

TransMonk wrote: That is bullshit. He's an even bigger cheater in my mind now. I think it's best to wait for more details. I am very surprised by the result and I'd really like to know what the flaw in the process was too.

Forget Jeff's hair, what the hell is that on Terry Collins' head? That's an abomination.

MFS62 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Sometimes, I wonder if you or your lawyer going to the media declaring your innocence immediately after you've pled guilty on the record should be regarded as a violation of the agreement and re-open the charges. Forget anout reopening the charges. The "pled guilty on the record" part is more important. If he is saying that what he pled isn't true, he's guilty of perjury. Samuels testifying under oath and Samuels' lawyer speaking to the media are two very different things.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: n but unless I win tickets on the radio I ain;t going to see him no time soon. Philosophical objection or not wanting to spend the 100 bucks for a ticket? Should be able to find some cheap seats in the parking lot to the Citi Field shows in August.

Centerfield wrote: Just rebuild. Stop insulting our intelligence. This. I fully support a full organizational rebuild, and in fact trust Sandy to do that exact job. Just please don't pretend you're putting a team out there with reasonable playoff expectations. Also, Sandy, we don't blame you for the ticket prices and it's not your job to sell tickets. Just focus on fixing the team.

Ceetar wrote: "It's a lock for the Mets to finish last" comments out there are dumb things to say. I'd agree to this. It's not a lock. That being said, it's far more likely that the Mets finish in last than that they make the playoffs, and it would be dumb to suggest otherwise.

66, but in fairness it was really 64, as I got 2 extra by accident (was guessing something else and it was the right spelling for a correct answer). Some of those old stadiums are [crossout:3vqa54yp]really tough[/crossout:3vqa54yp] basically impossible. Totally struck out on Jarry Park and Griffith Stadium which I thought I would've been able to get.

The problem I see with your analysis is that 1 WAR is not necessarily worth $4-5M to the Pirates. If they were expecting to compete for the division title (or even a wild-card spot), that 1 WAR might indeed be worth the money. But in their position, I doubt it.

Sounds like the Pirates have the leverage here, particularly if they are giving anything more than a few sacks of baseballs in return. I don't see why they would want to pay $5-6M a year for Burnett's services. I think he's worth maybe $3 M a year.

R.A. Dickey says that Jeff W. congratulated him on his climb and made a large donation to the Bombay Teen Challenge.

This is really very simple, and it indeed appears that Cerrone has reported incorrectly. Check out the key difference in the verbs: Cerrone's story says that Megdal believes the Mets don't like Megdal's reporting. Megdal's editor says the Mets said they don't like Megdal's reporting. Either way, the Mets are morons for doing this, particularly after they already trashed Megdal publicly. There is no way they come out looking anything but petty.

Ceetar wrote: It's not like they're going to jettison Howie if they switch is it? Why is Lewin different? If the Mets' radio contract with WFAN is up at the end of 2012, it's likely that's when Howie's current contract expires as well.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Would you take Max Scherzer? Phil Hughes? What'd be a fair trade for this guy? Yes, iI take either of those guys, in a heartbeat. I see Murphy as having less value to others than he has to us. I say we give him the full year at second base to figure it out. Otherwise lost years are exactly the time to do such things.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Let's see whatcha got. We could do a show and tell thread. Pair of green seats, still sitting in the middle of my living room as I haven't figured out what else to do with them.

Personally, I'd bet cash before I'd bet wearing MFY stuff. Money can be replaced. My soul, not so much.

Now I'm confused. So your question wasn't really a question, but more of a comment? I still stand by my answer as a reasoned explanation, and object to any insinuations that it might be otherwise. People have been upset at the Wilpons for this, that or the other thing for years. I'll bet many fanbases have the same problem with their owners. Things are coming to a head now because 2012 is the season where it can reasonably be argued (or, at the very least, reasonably perceived) that the Wilpons have given up on the team being successful.

Edgy DC wrote: I'm kind of asking a more specific question than whether or not folks think the Mets will be good. I think I answered your specific question. Why is there a Wilponian cloud over everything? See above