- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,957
- Reaction Score
- 5,401
Ryan Braun won his appeal yesterday, not because he denied having taken illegal drugs, but because the chain of custody for his failed test results was broken. By the letter of the law, his failed test was invalid because it could not be proven that it wasn't tampered with during the time it was in the wrong hands. As one of the most basic standards in this country, this would apply to any evidence submitted for any case being tried in a court of law. Major League Baseball, as the governing body in this case, could not enforce their penalties on Ryan Braun because they (or the third party administering the test) did not follow basic principles of the law.
I am not a lawyer, but I'd like to know the difference between Braun's case and our APR case. The governing body, the NCAA, is not applying the APR punishments according to the letter of the law. I know that we are appealing to an NCAA sub-committee rather than a third party so this argument assuredly would fall on deaf ears. But I've also heard people say that we have no basis for taking this to a court of law - why not?
I am not a lawyer, but I'd like to know the difference between Braun's case and our APR case. The governing body, the NCAA, is not applying the APR punishments according to the letter of the law. I know that we are appealing to an NCAA sub-committee rather than a third party so this argument assuredly would fall on deaf ears. But I've also heard people say that we have no basis for taking this to a court of law - why not?