Abbreviated transcript || Podcast (Bautista interview starts the show)
He said it was a matter of altering the way he ate more than what he ate, and coupling that with an emphasis on core strengthening to regain the leg drive so important to a pitcher.It's anyone's guess how successful this will be, but there's much more of a specific plan here than "lose weight & work out".
He said trainers and coaches showed him a video after the season that “measured the biomechanics” and the “speed of my body parts” throughout the pitching motion.
“My legs were skipping the core and not giving me the torque needed from the core,” Cecil said.
Being overweight factored into that.
Quite apart from some of the Jays ganging up on him, I thought there were other interesting aspects to his interview. First, it shows the role that confidence has in some players performance. We all know that baseball is a game of failure but how you manage it can be key to your success. A lot of hitters are "see ball, hit ball" guys and that seems to work well for a lot of players. Brooding over failure can be self destructive. And even though we say failure is a part of the game Hayhurst, in the interview, says that a lot of players are not ready to handle failure on the major league level. Failure at the major league level could also be the end of a players dream, and they likely have no plan B. As Dirk also says, the minor leagues are not really relevant, it's what happens in the big leagues that counts.
We have known that players hate going on the DL and Hayhurst lays it out for us. If the injury is serious you are separated from the pack, and that puts you temporarily out of the loop and out of the gang. Many players hate the DL for that reason.
And getting back to the Jays, I know Dirk is more sensitive than your average ballplayer, but he says the things said to him were so horrible he felt like taking his own life. What could have been said? I will be front of the line for that book when it comes out next year.
It's anyone's guess how successful this will be, but there's much more of a specific plan here than "lose weight & work out".
I guess we'll see. While it's nice to see him taking his career seriously and taking steps that he believe will help him improve, it's all just talk at this point.
Wasn't it Shea Hillenbrand who one off-season said he had modified his swing to the point that he should become a 30-homerun hitter (or some such)?
Interesting article in the Globe and mail this weekend
Thanks for posting the actual link. I can see that it is by Dowbiggin and not worth reading. I'm going to assume that the Jays did the opposite of dropping the ball this offseason. Yay Jays!!!
A.K.A. 95% of all spring training stories across baseball.
To "He who shall not be Kermit"
Which 2011 Cecil? Early Cecil, 3 April - 20 April had an ugly fastball. Mid-season Cecil, 30 June - 25 September his fastball was better. At times, I saw telecasts' in which he was consistantly pitching 92-93.
Shi Davidi has a good story on Kyle Drabek. here are some of the key paragraphs:
First a willingness to change:
"Changing my mechanics, that’s one thing that the team and coaches wanted to do, and last year I didn’t really like it and this year I’m starting to figure it out," he said. "They are there to help, and I guess last year I was just so frustrated that I didn’t want it at times.
"Now, I wish I would have listened and tried harder than I did."
And this:
They had tried to implement what Walton described as "simple fixes" to Drabek’s delivery last year, focusing on keeping his body aligned with home and his feelings in check, but the adjustments were simply too difficult to make in-season and their charge was reluctant to implement them anyway.
Then, the changes:
But perhaps an even more important point of emphasis for Drabek at the moment is tightening up a delivery that became increasingly wild as his problems on the mound mounted.
To that end, he’s spent the past two weeks focused on keeping his body within a simulated box – created by two yellow ropes on the ground framing the rubber – while throwing his bullpen sessions, a process designed to keep his head on a line to home plate and his body from falling toward first base.
Compounding matters, Drabek was tipping his curveball as well.
"I noticed in film that sometimes I would bend my back more to try and get that 12-to-6 and I think (hitters) started noticing that," he explained. "Plus every time I threw it, it was in the dirt, and they noticed that too."
It is spring, and everyone is optimistic, but Drabek has a good arm and if he can fix his delivery he would be a big addition to the rotation.
Spring is here, spring is here
Life is skittles and life is beer
I think the loveliest time of the year
Is the spring, I do, don't you, of course you do
My spring dreams include a surprise Oswalt announcement later today
Roy Oswalt has made a decision. Of sorts. He has decided that he is Roger Clemens.
Does anyone have views on the Braun non-suspension? If what I am reading on ESPN is any indication, this is not a decision any baseball fan should feel too good about. Even if the decision is correct on the topic of the chain of custody, Braun did not even allege that his positive sample had been tampered with, and all the evidence (original seals on the sample were intact) suggests that it was not. Seems to me that he got off on the most insignificant of technicalities. I'm all for following protocol, but any player who makes the effort to play clean (including and especially those who never make the majors as a result of their choice to stay clean) has a right to be very upset with this outcome.
He didn't have to. Once the chain of custody is broken, they can't prove what they delivered to the lab was exactly the same as what came out of Braun's body.
I don't know, but I also imagine there are issues of time-sensitivity and storage. Even if the substance wasn't "tampered" with (and I believe, and I think most people do, it's highly unlikely that the FedEx guy deliberately messed with the sample), we don't know if he left it out on his kitchen table overnight or if he refrigerated it, what temperature his fridge was set to or numerous other things.
Seems to me that he got off on the most insignificant of technicalities.
Protocol is put into place for a reason. The protocol for handling MLB drug tests is relatively simple and meant to ensure the system's legitimacy. Failure to follow it should be fatal to any positive test.
any player who makes the effort to play clean (including and especially those who never make the majors as a result of their choice to stay clean) has a right to be very upset with this outcome.
I disagree. First off all, we still don't know if Braun used steroids. However, this result will likely make MLB much more careful about following procedure in subsequent cases. If I am a player who is not taking PEDs, I'd be quite happy to know I'm not going to pee in a cup and then some FedEx employee will take that sample home with him for the weekend before delivering it to be taken to the lab. I'd be much more worried about that resulting in false positives than about whether or not Braun took steroids, which we still don't know.
I understand everything you are saying. I agree that if the protocol was not followed, the appeal should be allowed. I understand the "protocols are in place for reasons" and I understand the concenpt of chain of custody.
I disagree with your statement that "we still don't know if Braun used steroids". He may have won his case, but I don't think we can breath a sigh of relief as fans knowing that our game is clean. Even if the decision is correct, it is hardly a vindication of Braun. He has no theory of how the stuff got into his sample, does not allege it was tampered with, does not claim that the sample was not his, and does not even claim that there was a false positive (granted, this is all based on ESPN's reporting). We know that he gave the sample, that the sample was sealed, delivered with the seals unbroken and with no signs of tampering to the lab, where it was tested and revealed massively-high quantities of testosterone. This is enough to satisfy me on a balance of probabilities that he took something he should not have. His defence that MLB hadn't satisfied the chain of custody rules does nothing to disabuse me of this impression.
If I am a player who is not taking PEDs, I'd be quite happy to know I'm not going to pee in a cup and then some FedEx employee will take that sample home with him for the weekend before delivering it to be taken to the lab.
The sample was not in the hands of a FedEx employee all weekend --it was in the hands of an MLB employee and stored at his home -- a practice that is contemplated by the protocol agreed to by the players.
I'd be much more worried about that resulting in false positives than about whether or not Braun took steroids, which we still don't know.
No one alleged a false positive. I find it very unlikely that there was a false positive because the same sample can be tested many times. One test might get it wrong, but multiple tests?
I don't know, but I also imagine there are issues of time-sensitivity and storage. Even if the substance wasn't "tampered" with (and I believe, and I think most people do, it's highly unlikely that the FedEx guy deliberately messed with the sample), we don't know if he left it out on his kitchen table overnight or if he refrigerated it, what temperature his fridge was set to or numerous other things.
As you acknowledge, you are guessing here. We all are, and will continue to until the fact come out (if they ever do). I will reiterate that no one alleged the sample was tainted on account of improper urine refrigeration practices, or for any other reason. Delivery by FedEx by the way, is embedded in the protocol. It is accepted that FedEx can and will make the deliveries to the lab.
A link to the protocol is here. I suppose it turns on your level of sophistication, but I don't think many would describe this as being relatively simple.
I will add (based on Mike Lupica's article) that there were apparently two other samples from two other players stored that same weekend in exactly the same premises and conditions as Braun's sample. They did not demonstrate elevated levels of artificial testosterone.
Braun didn't have to, if they believed they could prove the collection and shipping procedures were not followed correctly. Why turn the hearing into a debate about science, when you can instead underline to the arbitrator a clear breach of protocol?
I find it very unlikely that there was a false positive because the same sample can be tested many times. One test might get it wrong, but multiple tests?
One could argue, regardless of what happened with the tests of the two other players, that it is equally unlikely that a player with no positive tests on his record would suddenly have a positive test that is off the charts during the same test where MLB beached their chain of custody procedures.
I think most people are saying that the decision means we have no idea whether Braun used steroids or not. And neither do you, despite your impression otherwise.
He has no theory of how the stuff got into his sample, does not allege it was tampered with, does not claim that the sample was not his, and does not even claim that there was a false positive (granted, this is all based on ESPN's reporting).
How do you know that? Just because it wasn't raised in the hearing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Braun didn't have to (allege a false positive), if they believed they could prove the collection and shipping procedures were not followed correctly. Why turn the hearing into a debate about science, when you can instead underline to the arbitrator a clear breach of protocol?
How do you know that? Just because it wasn't raised in the hearing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If you were concerned about being suspended for 50 games, wouldn't you raise all of your potential defences that had a chance of succeeding? The most likely explanation for not raising the issue, is that Braun though he had no case on this point. It is possible that there were strategic motivations for relying solely on the chain of custody argument, but typically if a defendant has a decent argument, they run it in the alternative.
One could argue, regardless of what happened with the tests of the two other players, that it is equally unlikely that a player with no positive tests on his record would suddenly have a positive test that is off the charts during the same test where MLB beached their chain of custody procedures.
I don't think so. The chance of a false positive can be narrowed to very close to zero by multiple tests. The same can't be said of the proposition you are asserting. MLB may breach the chain of custody all of the time. The truth is, the only time you will ever find out there was a breach in the chain of custody is when there is a positive test, since that is the only time the chain will get challenged. So there's a selection bias implicit in your proposition above. Regardless, when three samples are treated exactly the same way, two show up completely normal and one shows up with massive amounts of testosterone, the most likely conclusion is that a problem witht he chain of command would result in positive (or negative) tests for all three.
I can say that in Toronto someone will deliver on Sundays, but not someone with the same level of sophistication or package tracking mechanisms that UPS or Purolator have. I work at a place that would gladly pay a premium for this service, but it is genuinely not available. We also wait until Monday (whenever possible) to deliver sensitive materials.
I misspoke in my earlier email. The individual who had control of the Braun sample was not an MLB employee: it was a completely independent program administrator agreed to by both parties. So this is not a situation where MLB is trying to support the results arrived at by their own man. They just strongly believe in the process that was agreed to and believe it was accurate. They have no dog in the fight, just want to see the process upheld.
If you have any questions about the integrity of the sample, you should read pages 31-38 of the policy contained at the link I sent earlier. You will see that the system is almost impossible to game. Braun's two samples were sealed in a pre-numbered jar, which were in turn placed in a sealed, tamper-proof bag, and then sealed a third time in a shipping package. All of the seals were initialled by the collector in Braun's presence.
Immediately after Braun gave the sample, he would have signed a certification saying "I certify that I produced the attached urine specimen under observation, that it consists entirely of my own urine, that my specimen bottles were capped and sealed in my presence, that the specimen ID number on both specimen bottles was the same as the specimen ID# appearring onthe form and that I observed the collector palcing his initials on the seal."
I can see why MLB is pissed.
I realise my enthusiasm for this topic appears to outstrip everyone else's but I think this is outrageous.
Not if my lawyer advised me otherwise or there was some other motivation for not raising possible defences. And, as you admit, it's entirely possible there were strategic motivations at play.
MLB may breach the chain of custody all of the time. The truth is, the only time you will ever find out there was a breach in the chain of custody is when there is a positive test, since that is the only time the chain will get challenged. So there's a selection bias implicit in your proposition above.
Yes, they may. And hopefully now they'll stop. I'm not sure what your point is here. There was a breach in the chain of custody this time and, therefore, Braun's positive test result should be thrown out. If they breached it before on tests that came up negative, I'm not sure how that impacts your point, unless you believe all urine reacts similarly to particular storage techniques and that every MLB employee that breached the chain of custody stored the samples in exactly the same conditions each time the chain of custody was breached.
I'm too busy to have read your link this afternoon, but I'll try to take a look at it this evening. I appreciate you providing it.
Given your consideration of the issue, I'm very puzzled by your reaction to the arbitrator's decision. Chain of custody procedures are put in place to ensure the accuracy of the materials under consideration and to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of the process. It shouldn't matter whether there is a 90%, 50%, 10%, 1% or 0.1% chance that the samples were compromised during the breach in the chain of custody. The samples had the possibility of being compromised and that is sufficient.
I'm not sure what your point is here. There was a breach in the chain of custody this time and, therefore, Braun's positive test result should be thrown out.
Let's go back. You said there was potential for false positives. I said there was close to a zero possibility. You seemed to accept this, but said that even still, those odds were likely greater than the odds of a formerly clean player testing positive for the first time in a case where the chain of command had been broken. I pointed out that all cases in which the chain of command is found to have been broken will be cases of a positive test. The chain of command only gets investigated when a player fails a test. So the odds of the situation you described are actually quite high, certainly non-zero.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter to me whether whether there are gaps in the chain of custody. Once Braun has placed his sample in the pre-numbered vial, watched the vial get sealed and initialled by the collector, watched the vial get placed in a tamper-proof bag that was again sealed and initialled by the collector, certified that this all took place by signing a confirmation form, and then watched the form and the sealed bag containing the sealed vial place in a shipping container that was then again sealed and initialed, I think we can have a high degree of confidence that the sample has not been tampered with.
I'm a lawyer (as are many on this board). I understand rules are put in place for reasons. In the long run defending the integrity of the process is more important than arriving at the correct outcome in any particular case. I'm also more than happy to take advantage of loopholes and technicalities when they present themselves on behalf of my clients. As I've tried to explain from the beginning, I can see how the panel arrived at the result they did.
But I'm also a fan. And as a fan, I could care less about the integrity of the process. I want the right thing done. The test for me is not "is there a chance he is innocent?" , but rather, "Based on what we know, what is most likely"? Unless the policy was completely thrown out the window, I think it is far more likely than not (even taking into account the chain of custody issues and the slim possibility that the sample was sabotaged), that Braun cheated.
For what it is worth I asked John where he would have ranked Lawrie and Alvarez if they had still been eligible. Here was his response:
"If Lawrie was still a prospect, I would rank him #3. Ahead of Trout. That is how much I love Lawrie. Alvarez….80-100 somewhere."
I think we can have a high degree of confidence that the sample has not been tampered with.
Again, tampering is not the issue (and isn't what is being argued by most people. It's the due process that should have been afforded to Braun was denied.
I'm also more than happy to take advantage of loopholes and technicalities when they present themselves on behalf of my clients.
It's not a technicality. Or, if you prefer, that's a very loaded way of phrasing it. The procedure was put in place to ensure the integrity of the specimen and it was not followed
Ryan Braun has not gained muscle mass in the last couple of years, has not undergone changes to his physical appearance and has never failed a drug test. Do you know why most people think he failed the test? The common rumour is that he failed due to taking medication to treat herpes. (Google Braun and herpes or STD and you'll see it's all over the internet).
And as a fan, I could care less about the integrity of the process. I want the right thing done.
Is herpes medication why Braun tested positive? I don't know, but let's assume it was. Would you similarly be in an uproar if Braun's suspension was upheld? If not, why not? The PED policy is intended to rid the gain of steroids and other drugs that can be taken to improve performance. The purpose is not to prevent ballplayers from taking medication to treat STDs. If that was the reason Braun tested positive, wouldn't the "right thing" be to excuse his positive test, as Braun was not intending to cheat or take anything designed or with the effect of explicitly improving his performance?
The sad thing about this is, let's say Braun goes berserk this year -- .340/45/140, another MVP. IF he wins the MVP again -- many writers will drop him down or off their ballots on suspicion alone! -- then his 'win" will be questioned by a large percentage of fans who ask simply "I wonder how he beat the system?"
The tag "cheater" will literally never leave Braun for the rest of his career.
You didn't answer my question. My question was that if he took "exogenous testosterone" through normal medication to treat a diagnosed medical disease with no intention of improving his performance, would you be similarly outraged if his suspension was upheld? If not, why not? If you are concerned, as a fan, with the "right thing" being done, as opposed to following the CBA, wouldn't you want to rid the game of PEDs, but not suspend a player who unknowingly or negligently took medication to treat a recognized condition?
I understand your position. I just vehemently disagree that the only thing fans can or should be concerned with is tampering. You don't. And you don't have to answer my previous post if you don't want to keep talking about this.
Just on a side note, this may very well make a difference if the collector didn't store the urine at the right temperature. If you don't believe me, ask Dianne Modahl, who tested positive for incredibly high levels of testosterone after her urine was improperly stored for three days.
(On a side note, I'm the furthest thing from a scientist, but I would guess that Ms. Modahl isn't the only person to have her urine stored improperly and I doubt everyone whose urine is stored like her's test positive for such elevated levels of testosterone. I may be wrong and if someone knows more about this, please weigh in, but I am not persuaded that the fact the other two samples stored similarly didn't test positive is conclusive proof Braun's couldn't have tested positive due to storage issues.)
I am not a medical expert, but I believe this happened in the case of Diane Modahl. She was found to have an elevated level of testosterone due to improper storage of her urine sample.
Maybe I'm not explaining it well and maybe I should just give up. You've admitted that Arbitrator Das made the legally correct ruling. You are talking about whether fans should be concerned about Braun's use of PEDs. My point is that if his positive test came from inadvertently taking a medication that contained something on the banned substances list, shouldn't the fans forgive that player. My point was in reference to your comments about "the right thing" being done, as opposed to what is legally correct.
We are dealing with a guy who intentionally used a banned substance to get an unfair advantage.
No matter how much you repeat this, it doesn't make it true.
Can you explain how this ruling does that? I honestly have no idea what basis you have for that statement.
I've had to provide urine samples before and have always been told explicitly to refrigerate them. However, the policy just specifies a cool and secure location, which the collector states he followed with Braun's sample.
From the BBC article I linked: "Diane Modahl was cleared of drug taking a year later after an independent appeals panel accepted evidence bacterial activity could have increased testosterone levels while the sample was not refrigerated."
Admittedly, the article doesn't state whether the testosterone was natural or synthetic, but an independent appeals panel explicitly found that improper storage of urine could have resulted in elevated testosterone levels.
Also, MLB was supposed to maintain confidentiality during the process, and didn't.
Do you have information the Executive Director of the MLBPA does not? His statement is in this article, and I'm sure he'd like to hear from your sources..
Maybe I'm not being precise enough with my language for your liking or something, but I'll assume the leak came from the MLB side of things,
Your language is absolutely precise. You have an agenda against the MLB side, and despite the MLBPA clearing everyone except Braun's camp, you wish to see things differently. You are welcome to your beliefs, however, I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing your position for what it is.
The MLBPA didn't clear everyone, just a few specific offices. If the leak came from within a sub-contractor to MLB involved in the testing (I assume they didn't set up there own testing labs), to me, that's still MLB, even though technically it might not be. Somebody broke confidentiality, and you are implying (as I read it) that it came from Braun's camp. This is possible, I suppose, but I think it's more likely it came from some body that isn't technically the Comissioners office, which is the only body that that link seems to be clearing. To me, not every person working for MLB is in the Commissioners office (or the "Program", however that is technically defined), which is why this seems (to me) like a case of specific wording being used to skirt around the point.
It's most likely we'll never know where this all came from anyway. My "agenda", such as it is, is to give Braun the benefit of the doubt, of which there is a lot. But whatever...
The subcontractor is supposed to be a neutral third party selected by MLB and the union, but not affiliated with either. This is one area where I would agree that there is not enough information out there to even wager a useful guess.
Still waiting for anyone's explantion as to how Braun's urine miraculously grew synthetic testosterone during the 44 hour period in question. If you figure it out you should contact David Copperfield immediately.
Still waiting for anyone's explantion as to how Braun's urine miraculously grew synthetic testosterone during the 44 hour period in question. If you figure it out you should contact David Copperfield immediately.
There is a thread on all this at BTF. Wade in at your peril.
The collector's name is Dino Laurenzi Jr. He claims to have followed the protocol meticulously. Here is a link to his statement. It is consistent with the policy and what I said in my earlier posts.
Agreed. More likely it will come out in dribs and drabs though. Once Braun stood up at his press conference and impugned the collector's character and competence, the collector didn't have much choice but to stand up and defend his reputation. Braun would have been better off to simply stick to his blanket denial.
At the end of the day, I think the arbitrator's view is a judgement call that is pretty tough to second guess. The policy contemplates that a sample may not be shipped immediately, and in those circumstances permits the collector to place it in "temporary storage" so long as he maintains the chain of custody and keeps the sample in a cool and secure location. We have no hard facts about the nature of the location and what its temperature was, and the word temporary can be construed however one likes. So (as I've said many times), the decision may be correct.
The question for me is, knowing these issues, and not being subject to the same rules of evidence as the arbitrator, do you think Braun took PEDs? If the collector's statement is accurate, it's a pretty compelling case that he did.
Good on you for reading the policy. That puts you ahead of 95% of the professionals writing about this topic.
That's a fair question. But, to me, this question in combination with your comments about whether we should let him off the hook suggests a second question concerning what possible courses of action could one take in response to to Braun's test. I would be very uncomfortable in taking any course of action against Braun (to which I'm referring most prominently to withholding award and eventual HOF votes, if Braun is a viable candidate) based on the result of the hearing.
Assuming Braun never tests positive again over the rest of his career, I would have trouble with a HOF voter withhold a vote from him based solely on the PED issue and not on performance.
I've heard they will be released in a few weeks. I agree that hopefully that's the case.
This is your statement I was referring to in my previous post. I don't know what you meant by this. If you mean that you can sit in your armchair and think Braun took PEDs, we're doing the same thing. On a balance of probabilities, based on what we now as of right now, I think that Braun, wittingly or unwittingly, took a banned substance. But, that's about all I'd be willing to say or do.
