Ryan Braun Addressed The Media

I’d bet my life this substance never entered my body at any point.

Watching Ryan Braun’s press conference after the successful appeal of his 50 game suspension from Major League Baseball, I feel it is safe to say that he is either completely innocent, or a liar worthy of a future in politics, or at the very least used car sales.

During his address and the subsequent question and answer period with the media, Braun was open, upfront and seemingly honest with pronouncements like:

I’m innocent. I’ve maintained my innocence from day one. And now, I’ve been proven to be innocent.

Braun’s words, cadence and delivery reminded me of two things: 1) The way that Frank Thomas has never been accused of using PEDs because of his being so adamant that not only has he never done them, but that to do so would be cheating; and 2) when Roger Clemens spoke before members of Congress during The Mitchell Report hearings.

The confidence and matter-of-fact nature with which Braun spoke was reminiscent of The Big Hurt’s stance. And while such things as reactions are obviously circumstantial, the Milwaukee Brewers’ outfielders’ was as convincing as it possibly could be for me. In this way, it was the exact opposite of Clemens’ past testimony, which seemed shaky, inaccurate and exceedingly questionable.

Once again, that’s entirely my own opinion.

It must be said though, that given the firmness of Braun’s presentation today, if it is indeed found out that he did use performance enhancing drugs prior to the disputed test, the National League MVP will most likely face the largest backlash for his actions since backs and lashes were first combined to wreak punishment.

Comments (27)

  1. “Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth…”

  2. No Braun wasn’t proven innocent.

    • It’s a matter of semantics. If we believe that one is innocent until proven guilty, by not being guilty, one is thereby innocent.

      • It’s a fair point though. He wasn’t proven innocent, it’s just that people failed to prove him guilty. Those aren’t the same.

        • As long as we maintain innocence before guilt, I’d say it is.

          • There was no proof of anything whatsoever. That’s why he isn’t suspended. The whole point of maintaining innocence before guilt is that you don’t need to prove anyone innocent, ever. They are presumed innocent until you prove otherwise.

          • Why do we have to maintain innocence before guilt in this case? Its not a court of law, its a court of my opinion. And right now the verdict is they couldn’t prove anything, but he still probably did something wrong (either on purpose or by taking something he shouldn’t have by accident)..

        • Yes. Proof requires evidence. There is no evidence found for his guilt, nor was there any evidence found for his innocent, thus he was found to be not guilty.

  3. I was reading a mid-60s Playboy with an interview of George Wallace in it, and it claimed that the term backlash was coined (in sociological terms) to describe the… well, the backlash after he successfully garnered huge portions of the vote in 1964 Democratic primaries in northern states with his racist, pro-segregation rhetoric. Who knew?

  4. I posted most of this in the other thread, but maybe it is worth reposting here:

    Minor Leaguer’s post concerning the integrity of testosterone relative to the conditions it would have experienced during the time and temperature variations from protocal confirms what I’d been thinking since reading some journals about urinalysis and PED tests last nite – and, at the same time I agree with what Parkes and others are saying here and elsewhere: the correct decision was made based on chain of custody.

    What I do want to add, is that while going through the MLB’s testing policy,
    (found here: http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf)
    Section 3.C – Reasonable Cause Testing – is one that sticks out to me.

    Does Braun’s test constitute “reasonable cause” for the mlb to institute a “program of testing” for him? We’re still within the 12 month period in which they might argue as much. While the chain of command isn’t enough to uphold a positive test, perhaps it is enough to suggest that there is reasonable cause to investigate further?

    • It really bowls me over how vague the language is surrounding much of the MLB’s testing. From “reasonable cause” to “cool place” it seems like it would benefit quite a lot from a rewrite with specifics.

  5. He wasn’t proven guilty though, just a slippage or a fuck up in protocol gave him an argument. He didn’t argue his flat out innocence, nor even tainting of evidence…but he argued that proper protocol wasn’t followed.
    At least he properly rehearsed what he was going to say.

  6. Yea, He def got lucky there.

    In a month or 2 months or so, someone will probably “snitch” him out.

  7. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Braun’s only recourse to argue chain of custody? My understanding is there is a reverse onus provision that places the burden of proving innocence on the accused party. Not only does this run counter to the established legal principles of Canada and the United States, it makes the whole testing process seem like a Kangaroo Court.

    He was effectively precluded from arguing “innocence”; because he did not argue for his “innocence” but rather challenged chain of custody (arguably his only recourse), this has been enough for the frothing masses to conclude he must have been guilty and got off on a “technicality”.

    He simply did not have any other avenue through which to pursue this appeal other than the avenue his lawyers’ elected to use. As a young lawyer, I’d love to work with his legal counsel and learn from them.

    • Youuuuuuuuuuuu`re a CROOK Cpt. Hook!

      There was no trial, this is not a legal matter. You are not a lawyer.

    • Josh is right, he can’t just say ‘I’m innocent’ the onus is on him to show how the failed urine sample might have come about, and he did that. For what its worth he also proved that there is no evidence of him getting bigger or stronger over the year.
      He’s a class act, handled this really well

  8. Is that Ryan Braun or Jerry Seinfeld??

  9. maybe you should listen to ben johnson’s speech about how he would never disgrace his mother by cheating. innocence or guilt have nothing to do with this. he was caught with a banned substance. case closed. the proof will be in the results. how will braun explain his big dropoff in production this year?

    • If you listen you’ll see it’s not case closed. But you’ve already made up your mind. There is doubt here. Things were done incorrectly. How do you explain his 25 passed tests? It’s not like he had a huge jump in performance this year (assuming you believe that steroids would even have such an effect).

      • how do you explain manny only getting caught once? good cheaters dont get caught. lance armstrong never got caught. nothing was done incorrectly. that’s like saying oj was innocenct because the blood wasn’t secured properly. as I said, when braun’s numbers have a big dropoff this year then it will be obvious he was using.

  10. Well … were he black …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *