Curt Schilling says Red Sox encouraged him to use PEDs in 2008.

What could be interesting is brauns performance in the WBC. Being the best hitter, if he comes up being the MVP for a championship USA team is all forgiven (or at least some) when it comes to fans on the road and the public in general?

ESPN's "Outside the Lines" fingers five more players as being connected to Biogenesis.

Domeboys wrote: Curt Schilling says Red Sox encouraged him to use PEDs in 2008.

That could be huge if he would name anmes and could prove it.

The union is hearing from players they want harsher penalties.

Selig agrees that harsher penalties are needed. Given all parties are saying the same kinds of things, maybe they will do something sooner than later.

From ESPN's TJ Quinn on Twitter:

MLB is actively going after any players connected to Biogenesis clinic. Carrillo is only the first. A-Rod and Braun strongly in their sights

MLB sued Biogenesis today. This is an in-depth analysis by two lawyers with differing viewpoints. (Warning: It may be too wonky for anyone here other than crdswmn and any other lurking lawyers!)

Domeboys wrote: MLB sued Biogenesis today. This is an in-depth analysis by two lawyers with differing viewpoints. (Warning: It may be too wonky for anyone here other than crdswmn and any other lurking lawyers!)

Very interesting.  I tend to agree with the author.  My first thought (and the author mentions this in the end) is that the suit is mainly for discovery purposes, to get all of Biogenesis' records through the courts.  I think to get the case past a motion to dismiss, the intent is going to be the murkier element to prove rather than damages.  They have to prove intent to induce a breach, which I can see the defense arguing the intent was to make money without inducing a breach (inducing a breach would hurt future business from those players).  The question is whether a judge would buy the argument that the intent is assumed just from the sale itself without any further motive. (The sale, if the player is caught, induces the breach).  

There are a number of people who think the suit is bogus, but many of them are people who aren't particularly bothered by PED use in the first place.

Wouldn't some type of claim of a conspiracy (between players and the lab) to breach the non-drug use contract make more sense?

CariocaCardinal wrote: Wouldn't some type of claim of a conspiracy (between players and the lab) to breach the non-drug use contract make more sense?

Not necessarily, because a civil conspiracy, if proven, would impose joint liability against the lab and the player for damages. Because the player is already being punished under the terms of the contract, it could be seen as excessive penalties against the player by the union.  This would be even more so if the lab were judgment proof; then the player would be liable for the entirety of the damages because joint liability imposes full liability on each party regardless of the level of participation in the conspiracy.  MLB is better off going against the lab only.

crdswmn wrote:

CariocaCardinal wrote: Wouldn't some type of claim of a conspiracy (between players and the lab) to breach the non-drug use contract make more sense?

Not necessarily, because a civil conspiracy, if proven, would impose joint liability against the lab and the player for damages. Because the player is already being punished under the terms of the contract, it could be seen as excessive penalties against the player by the union.  This would be even more so if the lab were judgment proof; then the player would be liable for the entirety of the damages because joint liability imposes full liability on each party regardless of the level of participation in the conspiracy.  MLB is better off going against the lab only.

don't really understand that answer as most believe MLB doesn't care about damages as much as they just want trial fact finding.  So the question isn't which type of suit makes it easier to collect damages but which type is less likely to get thrown out.

CariocaCardinal wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

CariocaCardinal wrote: Wouldn't some type of claim of a conspiracy (between players and the lab) to breach the non-drug use contract make more sense?

Not necessarily, because a civil conspiracy, if proven, would impose joint liability against the lab and the player for damages. Because the player is already being punished under the terms of the contract, it could be seen as excessive penalties against the player by the union.  This would be even more so if the lab were judgment proof; then the player would be liable for the entirety of the damages because joint liability imposes full liability on each party regardless of the level of participation in the conspiracy.  MLB is better off going against the lab only.

don't really understand that answer as most believe MLB doesn't care about damages as much as they just want trial fact finding.  So the question isn't which type of suit makes it easier to collect damages but which type is less likely to get thrown out.

Neither cause of action is less likely to be dismissed than the other.  The proof is essentially the same for both, other than proving the existence of a conspiracy.  The only difference is the ability to get joint liability, as I said before.  Some states have held that a party to a contract cannot conspire with another to commit a breach.  I believe New York is one.  I assume this case was brought in Florida, and I don't know how Florida stands on the issue.  If Florida allows it, then you could bring it, but there would be no advantage to MLB to do so in terms of fact finding.  The detriment to doing it is the PR problem with the union.

Bosch has spoken for the first time and to no surprise, he says he did not give PEDs to anyone and "confirms" that Braun was just a consultant.

Well. Braun would seem well qualified to be a consultant on PEDS.

CariocaCardinal wrote: Well. Braun would seem well qualified to be a consultant on PEDS.

Indeed.  If I were of a mind to use PED's, Braun might be the first person I'd consult.