Quote:
Originally Posted by OmahaChief
Braun actually admitting he was on something does not change the fact the guy still mishandled the sample and should have been fired any way.
|
But here's the thing:
He didn't.
Shyam Das ****ed up that ruling. If you look at what he did and when he did it, the guy that handled the sample really had no other options available to him and he did take every step possible to ensure that the sample was protected.
At the very worst, the chain of custody requirements had some holes in them and/or contingencies that weren't considered. But Laurenzi did his job correctly given the rules at the time.
What people forget about that 3-member arb panel is that 2 votes were cast before the first piece of evidence was entered - one member is a union rep, the other a baseball rep. in Braun's case the MLB rep was Michael Weiner, who has now run screaming from Braun's case, but neglects to mention that he was instrumental in absolving him the first time; he was a guaranteed 'no' vote as the panel's Union rep.
The entire ruling came down to the opinion of one man: Shyam Das. It was a ruling that he got wrong, IMO. And Das promptly made an even more egregious reversal when he overturned Eliezer Alfonso's suspension for a 2nd failed test immediately thereafter on tenuous procedural grounds. Das became a rogue operator and it got him shitcanned as an arbitrator.
Braun's an asshole and Das is an enabler. Laurenzi was just some poor schlub that did his job as best as could be reasonably expected given some very nebulous and incomplete guidelines. And in the end, by my eye, from a chain of custody perspective for trial purposes, Laurenzi did a fine job of protecting the evidence and ensuring it's veracity.
Das got the ruling wrong.