Don’t believe what you hear about Ryan Braun
By Nathan Petrashek
Let me put this out there immediately: I have no idea whether Ryan Braun used performance-enhancing drugs. It’s entirely possible that he did. As much as we think we do, we (fans) don’t know who professional athletes really are. While everything in Braun’s public persona suggests to me he didn’t, I simply don’t know. And neither does anyone else except Ryan Braun.
That didn’t stop a ton of national reporters from generating clicks with misleading headlines.
Here’s one from SI’s Tom Verducci: “As Braun’s name surfaces in PED scandal, another sad day for sports”
The Miami Herald writes: “Braun releases statement on PED link to Miami-based clinic”
Even the Journal-Sentinel’s Tom Haudricourt gets in on the fun: “Ryan Braun attributes PED link to Research for 2011 drug appeal”
The problem: Recently discovered documents don’t link Ryan Braun to PEDs.
Let’s recap what we know. Less than a week ago, the Miami New Times published a report linking some of baseball’s biggest names, including Alex Rodriguez, Nelson Cruz, and Melky Cabrera, with a Miami anti-aging clinic that also supposedly supplied performance-enhancing drugs. The New Times obtained the records from an employee who worked at the clinic, Biogenesis, before it closed in December 2012. The records contained numerous references to the University of Miami baseball team, including conditioning coach Jimmy Goins, which I said at the time spelled bad news for Braun after his successful appeal of a positive drug test in 2011.
It got much worse for Braun yesterday. Yahoo’s Tim Brown and Jeff Passan found Braun’s name in the Biogensis records. In some people’s minds, this meant an immediate link to PEDs and guilt. Yet Brown and Passan specifically stated:
Three of the Biogenesis clinic records obtained by Yahoo! Sports show Braun’s name. Unlike the players named by the Miami New Times in its report that blew open the Biogenesis case, Braun’s name is not listed next to any specific PEDs.
Which is why the New Times didn’t report his name in the first place, incidentally. In a blog post, the Mami New Times’ Chuck Strouse clarified:
Yahoo!’s story raises an obvious question. If Braun and Cervelli’s name appear in the Bosch records at the heart of New Times‘ investigation — and indeed, Yahoo!’s report does appear to match New Times records — why didn’t we report them in our first story?
Simple: An abundance of caution.
As Yahoo! notes, the records do not clearly associate either Braun, Cervelli or a third player who this morning denied all ties with Bosch (Orioles third baseman Danny Valencia) with use of supplements. Yahoo! apparently obtained copies of just these page of Bosch’s notebooks independently of New Times.
So what did the Biogenesis records reveal? The Yahoo! story identifies three documents with Braun’s name:
1) A list that includes some players linked to PEDs (Rodriguez, Cabrera, and Cesar Carrillo) and some not (Francisco Cervelli and Danny Valencia).
2) A document which lists Braun’s name along with “RB 20-30k.” A picture of this document was not included in the Yahoo! report.
3) A letter to an associate apparently congratulating Melky Cabrera on his MVP and referencing something called the “‘Braun’ advantage.”
Braun issued a plausible explanation after the story broke, claiming his attorneys consulted with Tony Bosch, a Biogenesis employee, while preparing for his successful appeal. Braun stated Bosch answered questions “about T/E ratio and possibilities of tampering with samples.” According to Braun, there was a dispute over compensation for Bosch’s work, which was why Braun and his lawyer were listed under “moneys owed” and not on any other list.
This is at least consistent with the “RB 20-30k” notation and multiple references to one of Braun’s lawyers, Chris Lyons, later in the documents. David Cornwell, another Braun attorney, released a statement saying he was introduced to Bosch early in Braun’s case and “found Bosch’s value to be negligible.”
While the reference to a “‘Braun’ advantage” is somewhat troubling, it amounts to nothing more than an obscure and ambiguous reference in a letter that could mean almost anything. Nothing in the newest documents directly links Braun to PEDs or gives any more clarity to the circumstances surrounding Braun’s positive test in 2011 (for which I found Braun’s explanation last year wanting).
In short, we don’t know much more now than we did in 2011. As with his statement last year, Braun’s most recent pronouncement almost raises more questions than answers.
So if you read anything proclaiming Braun definitively guilty or innocent, don’t believe it. We just don’t know.