I think the problem with Bradman in drafts is more the perception than the reality when it comes to voting. As soon as someone sees Bradman in a team that'll dispel any qualms they have with the quality of its batting, and it also opens up the opportunity to play five specialist bowlers and/or a specialist wicket keeper. It's hard to mentally compare two teams in your head, let alone eight or whatever at once, so Bradman affects everyone's judgement more than he probably should. It's more of an unfair perceived advantage than an unfair advantage, but when you decide the winner based on a 'panel of experts' as you like to put it, then he does become a problem. He's also by far the most unique cricketer; even if one wanted to make the argument that Sobers was better than Bradman, the likes of Miller and Kallis are a lot closer to matching Sobers than anyone would be to matching Bradman's specific role. Same goes for Hadlee and Procter for the Imran claim, and Sangakkara for the Gilchrist claim.