Anyone hear the Doug Melvin interview on 1250 WSSP?

If not, I'm sure it'll show up on their website, but it was on about an hour ago. Gary Ellerson by the way, drives me nuts. It must be how some of you feel about Shroeder. Anyway, in his best, "we don't need to use complete sentances," attempt to grill Melvin on what we are going to do at 1st base.

Melvin gave an answer that made me feel a lot better about the Brewers, but also led me to believe that he and Ron had had some disagreements on how players have been and should be used.

He said that the only reason Mat hasn't made it up to the big league club yet is because he's been blocked, that the Brewers are confident that he can become an above average big league 1st basemen, but that they have to give him more than 50 at bats, and he can't feel like if he gets off to a bad start or struggles for a stretch that he's going to lose his job.

He went on to mention Taylor Green as a guy who would back up Gamel in the event of an injury as well as Weeks, and Aram, and mentioned how the Brewers need to show more patience with their young players and give them a real chance as they've got more and more large contracts within their core. He didn't mention, but elluded to other young players that they'll need to count on in order to fill out their roster with their payroll rising.


He also said that he was frustrated with the Braun situation because he's been in contact with a couple of different teams/players(wasn't sure which) and there was some guys who were interested in coming to Milwaukee and he wanted to bring in, but he couldn't until he knew what was going on with Braun.

My guess is nobody significant, but Matt LaPorta did kinda stand out.

Fan174 wrote:He also said that he was frustrated with the Braun situation because he's been in contact with a couple of different teams/players(wasn't sure which) and there was some guys who were interested in coming to Milwaukee and he wanted to bring in, but he couldn't until he knew what was going on with Braun.

This kinda bugs me. I would like to know who these players were. Probably some guys that coulda helped this summer. Maybe guys like Saito and Hawkins figured screw it, and went to other teams because the knew Fielder was gone and didnt know if Braun was gone for 50.

brewcrew4 wrote:

Fan174 wrote:He also said that he was frustrated with the Braun situation because he's been in contact with a couple of different teams/players(wasn't sure which) and there was some guys who were interested in coming to Milwaukee and he wanted to bring in, but he couldn't until he knew what was going on with Braun.

This kinda bugs me. I would like to know who these players were. Probably some guys that coulda helped this summer. Maybe guys like Saito and Hawkins figured screw it, and went to other teams because the knew Fielder was gone and didnt know if Braun was gone for 50.

Ok, first of all, I thought this was BrewerfanX initially actually making a good point. Upon further review, it's actually just a new and coherent poster who actually adds a valid point.

For what Saito and Hawkins signed for, that's a good point. Perhaps one of them, particularly Saito comes back if he thinks we're doing everything else we're doing, ie, Gonzalez, Ramirez, Aoki, etc..etc..

The Braun leak by ESPN for sure hurt the team. I wonder if Melvin would have known about the situation though ahead of time either way.

Curious as to whether this entire thing could go from a tense matter to a legal one. Braun has had every right to expect confidentiality throughout this process and instead it's been one of the biggest stories in baseball for the last two months.

I wonder if there's any potential of Braun or even Mark A. seeking damages from MLB on this one because of the leak. I would even go as far to wonder if his suspension could be challenged even if upheld on the grounds that the confidentiality process was violated. I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no, but just throwing it out there.

With no legal knowledge whatsoever, I think there's absolutely no chance he could get the suspension overturned based on the leak. And little chance he could sue for damages based on the leak.

Macha Man wrote:With no legal knowledge whatsoever, I think there's absolutely no chance he could get the suspension overturned based on the leak. And little chance he could sue for damages based on the leak.

ESPN reported that he had failed a drug test for PED use. From what we know "know" that was 100% false. Isn't that libel or defamation of character? I mean what's to stop them from running a story tomorrow about ARodg being found guilty of killing a hooker if I send John Clayton an anonymous email.?

shirt wrote:

Macha Man wrote:With no legal knowledge whatsoever, I think there's absolutely no chance he could get the suspension overturned based on the leak. And little chance he could sue for damages based on the leak.

ESPN reported that he had failed a drug test for PED use. From what we know "know" that was 100% false. Isn't that libel or defamation of character? I mean what's to stop them from running a story tomorrow about ARodg being found guilty of killing a hooker if I send John Clayton an anonymous email.?

Honestly, I don't know if there's anything stopping them from running that story as long as they use the disclaimer "according to sources".

Question about suing over defamation is who do you sue? ESPN I would think is covered as they are only reporting what they are told, and always use the disclaimer of "according to sources". The MLB front office possibly, but can you sue an organization for defamation because of what one of their employees said? Especially if you can't prove for sure that something was even said, and ESPN didn't just make it up? I don't know.

The obvious candidates to sue would be the exact person(s) that leaked the story to ESPN, but don't think you'll ever get the reporters at ESPN to give up their sources.

Macha Man wrote:Honestly, I don't know if there's anything stopping them from running that story as long as they use the disclaimer "according to sources".

Here is the story that broke on ESPN.com: National League MVP Ryan Braun, who last season led the Milwaukee Brewers to their first division title in nearly three decades, has tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug and faces a 50-game suspension if the initial finding is upheld, two sources familiar with the case told "Outside the Lines."

Here is what they put as the headline online and IIRC on the bottom line: "Breaking: Ryan Braun Tests Positive for PEDs, Could Face 50 Game Suspension"

I think that headline is absolutely libel.

shirt wrote: two sources familiar with the case

Wouldn't Braun need to go after the sources and not ESPN?

Sven wrote:Wouldn't Braun need to go after the sources and not ESPN?

I would assume so. Did you see where I said the headline is what I would consider libel? That is sort of the central point.

The fact it leaked that Braun has herpes (even if it is just cold sores) is a violation of HIPPA. IF Braun didnt give permission to let that leak first.

medicalgary33 wrote:The fact it leaked that Braun has herpes (even if it is just cold sores) is a violation of HIPPA. IF Braun didnt give permission to let that leak first.

That was just a rumor, not a leak. Whats the difference? I don't really know. I don't think anyone ever said "sources say Braun has herp." It never scrolled across the bottom line "Breaking News: Braun has herp."

Didn't braun initially test positive? Isn't that why he was suspended? Isn't that what he's now appealing? So, tell me what was inaccurate about this statement at the time it was made:

National League MVP Ryan Braun, who last season led the Milwaukee Brewers to their first division title in nearly three decades, has tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug and faces a 50-game suspension if the initial finding is upheld, two sources familiar with the case told "Outside the Lines."


I guess you could argue that the test revealed his testosterone was high, not that he tested for a PED. Other than that, looks like that statement was 100% accurate.

The other issue with there being "libel" here is that Braun would most likely be considered a "public figure." You'd basically have to show that ESPN published this leaf with malice, for the purpose of causing harm to Braun. Incidental harm is irrelevant.

horsechukk314 wrote:Didn't braun initially test positive? Isn't that why he was suspended? Isn't that what he's now appealing? So, tell me what was inaccurate about this statement at the time it was made:

National League MVP Ryan Braun, who last season led the Milwaukee Brewers to their first division title in nearly three decades, has tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug and faces a 50-game suspension if the initial finding is upheld, two sources familiar with the case told "Outside the Lines."


I guess you could argue that the test revealed his testosterone was high, not that he tested for a PED. Other than that, looks like that statement was 100% accurate.

That part is ok. As you know on a legal standpoint

BUT, we heard that it was because of a medication due to herpes. IF Braun didnt give consent to let that public, there can and should be a huge law suit.

It would be like me telling everyone that I treatd Chukk for DTs outside of the bar during a Packer game, because he passed out like a bitch, and was an alchololic, if there was full truth to that matter

medicalgary33 wrote:

horsechukk314 wrote:Didn't braun initially test positive? Isn't that why he was suspended? Isn't that what he's now appealing? So, tell me what was inaccurate about this statement at the time it was made:

National League MVP Ryan Braun, who last season led the Milwaukee Brewers to their first division title in nearly three decades, has tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug and faces a 50-game suspension if the initial finding is upheld, two sources familiar with the case told "Outside the Lines."


I guess you could argue that the test revealed his testosterone was high, not that he tested for a PED. Other than that, looks like that statement was 100% accurate.

That part is ok. As you know on a legal standpoint

BUT, we heard that it was because of a medication due to herpes. IF Braun didnt give consent to let that public, there can and should be a huge law suit.

It would be like me telling everyone that I treatd Chukk for DTs outside of the bar during a Packer game, because he passed out like a bitch, and was an alchololic, if there was full truth to that matter

HIPPA only applies to doctors and the hospital, right? So, provided the leak came from somewhere else, which is most likely the case, there's no HIPPA violation.

And again, Braun is probably "public figure." Stating that he has herpes wouldn't likely be considered "malicious" in this instance.

medicalgary33 wrote:That part is ok. As you know on a legal standpoint

BUT, we heard that it was because of a medication due to herpes. IF Braun didnt give consent to let that public, there can and should be a huge law suit.

Right, but the difference is I never saw that reported in any kind of official manner on ESPN, SI, Sportscenter, etc... It was just rumors on the internet, nobody knowing for sure where they started.

horsechukk314 wrote:

medicalgary33 wrote:

horsechukk314 wrote:Didn't braun initially test positive? Isn't that why he was suspended? Isn't that what he's now appealing? So, tell me what was inaccurate about this statement at the time it was made:

National League MVP Ryan Braun, who last season led the Milwaukee Brewers to their first division title in nearly three decades, has tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug and faces a 50-game suspension if the initial finding is upheld, two sources familiar with the case told "Outside the Lines."


I guess you could argue that the test revealed his testosterone was high, not that he tested for a PED. Other than that, looks like that statement was 100% accurate.

That part is ok. As you know on a legal standpoint

BUT, we heard that it was because of a medication due to herpes. IF Braun didnt give consent to let that public, there can and should be a huge law suit.

It would be like me telling everyone that I treatd Chukk for DTs outside of the bar during a Packer game, because he passed out like a bitch, and was an alchololic, if there was full truth to that matter

HIPPA only applies to doctors and the hospital, right? So, provided the leak came from somewhere else, which is most likely the case, there's no HIPPA violation.

And again, Braun is probably "public figure." Stating that he has herpes wouldn't likely be considered "malicious" in this instance.

It applies to health care professionals. So if his friend leaked it (Aaron Rodgers for example) then its not a breach of HIPPA

Macha Man wrote:

medicalgary33 wrote:That part is ok. As you know on a legal standpoint

BUT, we heard that it was because of a medication due to herpes. IF Braun didnt give consent to let that public, there can and should be a huge law suit.

Right, but the difference is I never saw that reported in any kind of official manner on ESPN, SI, Sportscenter, etc... It was just rumors on the internet, nobody knowing for sure where they started.

I also have gone off info provided by the board here