PDA

View Full Version : Braun wins his appeal of his 50-game suspension



Pages : [1] 2

SirFelixCat
02-23-2012, 06:23 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7608360/ryan-braun-wins-appeal-50-game-suspension


whoa.

Joseph
02-23-2012, 06:25 PM
Hopefully because there was a mix up/error in the testing and not because some arbitration panel randomly decided not to enforce the rules.

If its the latter its bad for baseball. If its the former, its great for baseball.

buckeyenut
02-23-2012, 06:29 PM
I am sure this had nothing to do with the fact he plays for the team owned by the commissioner of baseball.

KronoRed
02-23-2012, 06:33 PM
I am sure this had nothing to do with the fact he plays for the team owned by the commissioner of baseball.

Neither Bud or his family have owned the Brewers in six years.

oneupper
02-23-2012, 06:40 PM
Hopefully because there was a mix up/error in the testing and not because some arbitration panel randomly decided not to enforce the rules.

If its the latter its bad for baseball. If its the former, its great for baseball.

The decision was split, ergo no testing error.

MikeThierry
02-23-2012, 06:42 PM
This doesn't surprise me. If tests are showing the highest level of testosterone of any athlete ever test, it tells me that it was a false positive.

Razor Shines
02-23-2012, 06:45 PM
For a couple months Dan Patrick has been saying that he knows something and thought there was a good chance it could be over turned. He wouldn't say why because it would be embarrassing for Braun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2012, 06:54 PM
Obviously there was enough evidence for a split vote. I hope the deciding factor was something stronger than "chain of custody" -- unless you're alleging a plot to frame the guy, it makes no sense to reject the test outright based on that.

RedEye
02-23-2012, 07:01 PM
I had a feeling this would happen.

fearofpopvol1
02-23-2012, 07:05 PM
Neither Bud or his family have owned the Brewers in six years.

Yeah, but there's no denying that Selig has a rooting interest in the Brewers. Whether that influenced this decision or not, I have no clue.

edabbs44
02-23-2012, 07:06 PM
Wow.

TheNext44
02-23-2012, 07:09 PM
The reason why it was overturned sounds very fishy and to me makes Braun look even more guilty.

The reason it was overturned was because Braun claimed that "the chain of possession" was broken at one point, which allowed for a possible tampering with the sample.

So Braun's argument is that he was framed.

Total BS if you ask me. Really disappointed with him getting off on a technicality.

I am convinced he's a juicer. His reputation is forever tarnished.

757690
02-23-2012, 07:17 PM
This doesn't surprise me. If tests are showing the highest level of testosterone of any athlete ever test, it tells me that it was a false positive.

Only that wasn't why it was overturned. It was overtured by a technicality. the result was not questioned.

He's a cheater plain and simple. No doubt in my mind.

edabbs44
02-23-2012, 07:17 PM
The reason why it was overturned sounds very fishy and to me makes Braun look even more guilty.

The reason it was overturned was because Braun claimed that "the chain of possession" was broken at one point, which allowed for a possible tampering with the sample.

So Braun's argument is that he was framed.

Total BS if you ask me. Really disappointed with him getting off on a technicality.

I am convinced he's a juicer. His reputation is forever tarnished.

Good point. Just read the article, so of Kinko's was open an he had an elevated level of testosterone does that mean he wouldn't have appealed?

Also, does that fact pattern truly give someone 100% certainty that this ruling would be overruled, as he was apparently claiming for months?

jojo
02-23-2012, 07:27 PM
Good point. Just read the article, so of Kinko's was open an he had an elevated level of testosterone does that mean he wouldn't have appealed?

Also, does that fact pattern truly give someone 100% certainty that this ruling would be overruled, as he was apparently claiming for months?

The argument seems to be that the initial result was extraordinary but the sample had not been handled according to procedure. A second test, processed properly, was negative. Basically, Braun has tested negative 25 times and the one time he tested positive it was an usual result for a positive and was from a sample that wasn't handled in an acceptable manner.

It will be interesting to see what mlb says and if facts are released to help better understand the details.

Matt700wlw
02-23-2012, 07:29 PM
Hmmm....(from the story)

Braun didn't argue evidence of tampering, didn't argue anything about science being wrong but argued protocol had not been followed. A second source confirmed to ESPN investigative reporter Mark Fainaru-Wada that Braun did not dispute the science but rather questioned chain of custody/collection procedure.

According to one of the sources, the collector, after getting Braun's sample, was supposed to take the sample to FedEx/Kinkos for shipping but thought it was closed because it was late on a Saturday. As has occurred in some other instances, the collector took the sample home and kept it refrigerated. Policy states that the sample is supposed to get to FedEx as soon as possible.

Braun's initial T/E ratio was more than 20:1. And sources previously confirmed synthetic testosterone in his system. Source says MLB is livid and is considering options and other comment.

Blitz Dorsey
02-23-2012, 07:41 PM
What a bunch of junk! Overturned on a technicality. It's like the guy who is obviously guilty of a crime, but because of "juror misconduct" he's set free. What a load of crap. And MLB's sketchy reputation keeps right on rolling.

Lance Armstrong thinks there's nothing to see here. Move along.

RBA
02-23-2012, 07:42 PM
"It has always been Major League Baseball's position that no matter who tests positive, we will exhaust all avenues in pursuit of the appropriate discipline. We have been true to that position in every instance, because baseball fans deserve nothing less," Manfred said. "As a part of our drug testing program, the commissioner's office and the players' association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute. While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das."

Cedric
02-23-2012, 07:45 PM
Sounds like Braun needs to endorse for Fed Ex pro bono.

Tom Servo
02-23-2012, 07:48 PM
Personally I don't plan on holding a grudge against Braun or calling him a cheater or anything, let's just see how everything plays out (ie: how his year goes and how his next tests go).

757690
02-23-2012, 07:49 PM
The argument seems to be that the initial result was extraordinary but the sample had not been handled according to procedure. A second test, processed properly, was negative. Basically, Braun has tested negative 25 times and the one time he tested positive it was an usual result for a positive and was from a sample that wasn't handled in an acceptable manner.

It will be interesting to see what mlb says and if facts are released to help better understand the details.

For the record, the second test done by MLB came back positive, in fact, it was the highest positive result MLB ever recorded. Remember, before it wasn't handled properly, it came back positive.

The second test you may be referring to was done by Braun himself, which makes it even less reliable than the first one.

Blitz Dorsey
02-23-2012, 07:50 PM
Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson think Ryan Braun is getting off lucky here. What an absolute sham!

LoganBuck
02-23-2012, 07:52 PM
Pro sports finds another way to disenfranchise the fans. Shakes head

RBA
02-23-2012, 07:54 PM
Johnny Bench ‏ @Johnny_Bench5 Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Tom Manfred is mad. Give me a break. Ryan Braun had his day in court. He won.

oneupper
02-23-2012, 07:59 PM
Ryan Braun has very good lawyers.

Brutus
02-23-2012, 08:05 PM
So it was overturned (not even unanimously mind you) because of a chain of custody, technicality.

He may deserve a not-guilty verdict, but he doesn't deserve to say he's not guilty.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2012, 08:07 PM
This whole situation reminds me of how DUI / OVI cases are handled in criminal court.

In order to have a chemical test admissible in court, there are very strict compliance requirements regarding procedure and handling of evidence that must be followed. A flaw at any part in the process -- from the type of cup/needles used to the temperature of the refrigerator used to store the evidence -- will toss the entire test result.

I'm guessing the arbitrator is requiring the same compliance level here.

757690
02-23-2012, 08:09 PM
So it was overturned (not even unanimously mind you) because of a chain of custody, technicality.

He may deserve a not-guilty verdict, but he doesn't deserve to say he's not guilty.

Very well put.

I do think the ruling is correct, if the facts in the article are accurate. You can't have a collector put a sample in his own fridge overnight. That was an inexcusable error.

However, the facts only make Braun look more guilty in my mind.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2012, 08:12 PM
Ryan Braun has very good lawyers.

Honestly, it sounds like he just got a favorable draw on the arbitrator. The Union rep wasn't going to vote against a player, the MLB rep wasn't going to back down on the "we're tough on steroids" guilty vote, and it came down to the guy sitting in the middle.

Replace the arbitrator with someone who leans more to the "a clean game is important" side, and Braun's sitting 50.

Sometimes it's not the facts that matter but, rather, the biases of who's sitting on the bench.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2012, 08:17 PM
I do think the ruling is correct, if the facts in the article are accurate. You can't have a collector put a sample in his own fridge overnight. That was an inexcusable error.

I disagree entirely.

Braun is challenging the suspension. The burden, in this case, should be on him to show that his test was prejudiced by the handling of the sample. I'd have to hear some compelling evidence as to how storing a urine sample in a home refrigerator could result in a false-positive.

Absent that argument, or a showing of tampering or motive to tamper, I don't see why the test result should be pitched.

hebroncougar
02-23-2012, 08:35 PM
Very well put.

I do think the ruling is correct, if the facts in the article are accurate. You can't have a collector put a sample in his own fridge overnight. That was an inexcusable error.

However, the facts only make Braun look more guilty in my mind.

The article I read states that exactly that is done in other cases when the shipping facilities are closed. The only reason he "got off" was because Fedex was open, and the collector didn't know it. So he didn't ship it "as soon as possible". That's ridiculous. Braun's a fraud.

AtomicDumpling
02-23-2012, 08:44 PM
Shouldn't we wait until all the facts are released before jumping to conclusions as to why the suspension was tossed out? There must be some compelling reason why a neutral arbitrator would deem the test invalid. I doubt it was a conspiracy or merely a technicality. It is within the realm of possibility that Ryan Braun was actually truly innocent. We simply do not have the full story yet, and unfortunately we might never get it.

The fact the test sample reportedly had the highest concentration of PEDs ever found in a sample from any sport raises eyebrows and seems fishy, combine that with a questionable chain of custody and you can definitely see at least the remote possibility of a tampered sample. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can see that this is not a slam dunk case where Braun's guilt is beyond doubt. Before becoming outraged over the injustice we should wait for events to unfold and more information to come to light.

FlightRick
02-23-2012, 08:58 PM
I really have to hope additional information is forthcoming... because if "chain of custody" is the only argument Braun's side had, this really is another case of some cranially-rectally-inverted bureautard mistaking "a reason to doubt" with "reasonable doubt."

Because reasonable people don't -- to the best of my knowledge -- believe that 48 hours in a refrigerator magically transforms the chemical structure of pee. There's gotta be at least one other element to this story yet-to-be-revealed for anyone to honestly believe Ryan Braun is an innocent man, rather than a "not-guilty" one.

Or, to paraphrase Zaphod Beeblebrox, "10 out of 10 for adhering to the letter of the law, but minus several million for common sense."

I don't know if I say that because I really always have detested cases where the letter of the law undermines the spirit of the law, or because I was selfishly hoping for the Reds to get a 50 game head start on the Brewers... either way, I see no reason (at this time, and with the available information) to conflate Braun's successful appeal with Braun's innocence. Unless you're a member of his PR team...


Rick

REDblooded
02-23-2012, 09:21 PM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.

jojo
02-23-2012, 09:29 PM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.

Exactly. It turned out that a positive result wasn't all we needed to know. More was necessary.

mattfeet
02-23-2012, 09:32 PM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.I agree wholeheartedly.

-matt

TheNext44
02-23-2012, 09:38 PM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.

There was a positive test they was properly handled. it was the second confirming test that wasn't technically handled correctly, although I bet half possible arbitors would rilke they out was beveled correctly.

The only thing that would change my mind would bee if these facts are incorrect.

And the damage to MLB is far more massive then the damage to Braun. he is but a player they will be replaced in a few years.

westofyou
02-23-2012, 09:57 PM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.

Agreed
Data is king, corrupt the data (urine in this case) and void the test, if a process is applied to ensure continuity and certainty then the process must be followed and if not followed it has one result in the end, it spoils the validation system.

The process failed here, thus validation is corrupted and everything is void.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2012, 10:01 PM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.

The "holier than thou" act isn't helpful to the discussion. If this was such a clear cut issue, as you seem motivated to paint it, it would have been a unanimous decision by the panel. It wasn't.

There IS proof he tested positive. Unless there's more coming out about this, the only reason that proof is being ignored is because it went out on the morning flight instead of the red eye the night before.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2012, 10:06 PM
Agreed
Data is king, corrupt the data (urine in this case) and void the test, if a process is applied to ensure continuity and certainty then the process must be followed and if not followed it has one result in the end, it spoils the validation system.

The process failed here, thus validation is corrupted and everything is void.

Did the process fail, though?

Is there any evidence at all that Braun's test was compromised by the delay in processing? Is there evidence that a false positive could occur under the conditions that the sample was subjected to when it was kept overnight before shipping? Did the sample -- which was presumably sealed after being taken -- show any signs whatsoever of tampering when it arrived on scene?

Braun has alleged breech or protocol, but I've seen nothing alleged that shows prejudice to his case. This is the very definition of "harmless error" unless he can demonstrate otherwise.

Treating these investigations like criminal proceedings is a dangerous path for baseball to go down unless they are fully prepared to overhaul their operations to behave more like the police. Is that good for the game?

REDblooded
02-23-2012, 10:12 PM
The "holier than thou" act isn't helpful to the discussion. If this was such a clear cut issue, as you seem motivated to paint it, it would have been a unanimous decision by the panel. It wasn't.

There IS proof he tested positive. Unless there's more coming out about this, the only reason that proof is being ignored is because it went out on the morning flight instead of the red eye the night before.


Getting 1 vote in his favor in an appeal would almost be considered a victory. There's a reason these things don't get overturned very often. Or ever, until now.

We're talking chain of custody... This actually makes MLB look pretty horrible to anybody that didn't already make their judgement before the facts were released... It's about as irresponsible as submitting a resume without your name on it.

jojo
02-23-2012, 10:16 PM
Did the process fail, though?

Is there any evidence at all that Braun's test was compromised by the delay in processing? Is there evidence that a false positive could occur under the conditions that the sample was subjected to when it was kept overnight before shipping? Did the sample -- which was presumably sealed after being taken -- show any signs whatsoever of tampering when it arrived on scene?

Braun has alleged breech or protocol, but I've seen nothing alleged that shows prejudice to his case. This is the very definition of "harmless error" unless he can demonstrate otherwise.

Treating these investigations like criminal proceedings is a dangerous path for baseball to go down unless they are fully prepared to overhaul their operations to behave more like the police. Is that good for the game?

MLB etablished a process to ensure integrity. They failed to follow that process. We have no idea if the positive test was accurate or abborition. The fair standard is to assume nothing.

westofyou
02-23-2012, 10:16 PM
If there was language in the agreement that cited one for delivery and the time exceeded the terms then yes the process failed, you're a lawyer failure to fullfill obligations voids agreements all the time.

Homer Bailey
02-23-2012, 10:18 PM
He will be referred to as Braun* from here on out by me.

The Operator
02-23-2012, 10:21 PM
He will be referred to as Braun* from here on out by me.Don't forget his 2011 MVP*

REDblooded
02-23-2012, 10:22 PM
We're talking about a MAJOR issue for MLB. So major that the federal government had to get involved.

Pretty much the only way that a player can exonerate himself in the case of a positive sample is by showing a breakdown in the chain of custody. You're siding with the people that know that and still can't get it right...

This isn't a case of a legal team exhausting every possible creative loophole to free their client. It's the case of them exhausting the ONLY POSSIBLE option to free their client. If you can't protect yourself from that, then you're in the wrong business.

Phhhl
02-23-2012, 10:24 PM
The backlash Braun is going to have from this is going to last a lot longer than 50 games. And, probably longer than it would have if he would have just gone ahead and taken his medicine, so to speak. When he appealed, I assumed he might come across with an actual explanation for why he tested positive. This doesn't even remotely address that. His name is right there with Palmiero, McGwire and Bonds as far as I am concerned. Disgusting.

AtomicDumpling
02-23-2012, 10:25 PM
Did the process fail, though?

Is there any evidence at all that Braun's test was compromised by the delay in processing? Is there evidence that a false positive could occur under the conditions that the sample was subjected to when it was kept overnight before shipping? Did the sample -- which was presumably sealed after being taken -- show any signs whatsoever of tampering when it arrived on scene?

Braun has alleged breech or protocol, but I've seen nothing alleged that shows prejudice to his case. This is the very definition of "harmless error" unless he can demonstrate otherwise.

Treating these investigations like criminal proceedings is a dangerous path for baseball to go down unless they are fully prepared to overhaul their operations to behave more like the police. Is that good for the game?

Unless you were present at the appeal hearing you don't know the real story. You are basing your opinion and your argument on a very small subset of the facts. The only "facts" we have available came from unauthorized leaks of dubious authenticity. From the test results to the reason for overturning the suspension there has never been an official release of the facts. Everything we "know" has come from hearsay and rumors.

AtomicDumpling
02-23-2012, 10:35 PM
I find it odd that Braun's sample contained double the amount of PEDs than any previous sample ever tested. Doesn't that raise questions about the validity of the result?

I find it odd that despite Braun's alleged extreme usage of PEDs that there were no outward physical or emotional changes, nor was there a performance spike in his stats.

I find it odd that a professional courier hired by MLB would not be aware that FedEx shipping centers are open 24/7. Perhaps there was another reason he chose to hang on to the sample for an extra day?

I find it odd that a panel of arbitrators would overturn a high-profile suspension based merely on a brief delay in shipping of a sample. Perhaps there are more compelling reasons that have not been divulged to the public yet?

Blitz Dorsey
02-23-2012, 10:39 PM
I find it odd that Braun's sample contained double the amount of PEDs than any previous sample ever tested. Doesn't that raise questions about the validity of the result?

I find it odd that despite Braun's alleged extreme usage of PEDs that there were no outward physical or emotional changes, nor was there a performance spike in his stats.

I find it odd that a professional courier hired by MLB would not be aware that FedEx shipping centers are open 24/7. Perhaps there was another reason he chose to hang on to the sample for an extra day?

I find it odd that a panel of arbitrators would overturn a high-profile suspension based merely on a brief delay in shipping of a sample. Perhaps there are more compelling reasons that have not been divulged to the public yet?

I find it odd that people are making excuses for Ryan Braun when it's clear he's guilty and is getting off on a technicality. Yeah, the guy storing the urine in his fridge overnight rigged the sample. That sounds plausible. (Except it doesn't.)

REDblooded
02-23-2012, 10:41 PM
Will Carroll ‏ @injuryexpert
Following

The Braun decision was based on HOW the sample was corrupted. Panel was shown exactly what happened, why result was invalid.

https://twitter.com/#!/injuryexpert/status/172872758785622016

AtomicDumpling
02-23-2012, 10:47 PM
I find it odd that people are making excuses for Ryan Braun when it's clear he's guilty and is getting off on a technicality. Yeah, the guy storing the urine in his fridge overnight rigged the sample. That sounds plausible. (Except it doesn't.)

I suspect when the facts are actually released it will become apparent that he was not so clearly guilty. A lot of people have gone way out on a limb this winter by emphatically stating they were 100% convinced of Braun's guilt and now they are looking a little red in the face.

Maybe he was guilty and maybe he was innocent. I don't know. I don't have all the facts. The only people that do have all the facts are the arbitrators -- and they overturned the suspension.

REDblooded
02-23-2012, 10:47 PM
2-1 explained:

Will Carroll ‏ @injuryexpert
Following

Almost All decisions in drug disputes are 2-1. 1 is MLB rep, 1 is MLBPA rep. Arbitrator is deciding vote. Most cases never make this far.

https://twitter.com/#!/injuryexpert/status/172809441274638336

FlightRick
02-23-2012, 10:51 PM
Unless you were present at the appeal hearing you don't know the real story. You are basing your opinion and your argument on a very small subset of the facts. The only "facts" we have available came from unauthorized leaks of dubious authenticity. From the test results to the reason for overturning the suspension there has never been an official release of the facts. Everything we "know" has come from hearsay and rumors.

I generally agree. That's why I qualified my previous post with "I hope there's more to this story, but for now, based on what we know, here's how I feel"...

I will dispute that "everything" we "know" is hearsay. I would claim as fact that Ryan Braun's pee was tested and found to be in violation of MLB policy. Fact. End of story. The appeal itself doesn't take place without that being the objective reality.

Most of the rest of what we think about that fact is tainted by hearsay and personal opinions on burdens of proof and letter of the law vs. spirit of the law and so forth, and that's where we're getting some wildly variable views on today's news.

I won't try to change anyone's minds, but I still feel like Braun's successful appeal earns him the absolute right to not-be-suspended-for-50 games. But it simply does not earn him the right to be instantly viewed as utterly innocent of any wrong-doing. At least, not until we get that additional information, and we get to the WHY of the pee (its elevated testosterone) instead of the WHEN of the pee (its arrival time).

And speaking of the pee, now that I've had a few hours to roll it around in my brain, there's somebody who is just as culpable as this as Braun: the pee collector.

Think about it: the story as we know it requires that somebody whose job it is to collect pee and FedEx it either (1) collected said pee at a time when he knew it could not be FedEx'd or (2) didn't know the hours of the FedEx place despite his job being to collect pee and FedEx it. That's a very very stupid pee collector and/or a very very convenient happenstance for Braun.

Either way, I demand a full investigation into this aspect of the story! Are the standards for hiring pee collectors this lax? Was the pee collector given orders to collect pee at a non-standard time, leading to honest confusion? If so, why? Was the pee collector intentionally sent out at an unusual time and then intentionally misled about Kinko's hours in order to purposely break the chain of custody and give Mr. MVP an out? Imagine the possibilities for malfeasance! Oh, the conspiracy!

I'm kidding. Mostly...


Rick

REDblooded
02-23-2012, 10:52 PM
I'll be interested to see if there are criminal charges filed against whoever leaked the results in the first place... Clear HIPAA violation.

AtomicDumpling
02-23-2012, 10:56 PM
I generally agree. That's why I qualified my previous post with "I hope there's more to this story, but for now, based on what we know, here's how I feel"...

I will dispute that "everything" we "know" is hearsay. I would claim as fact that Ryan Braun's pee was tested and found to be in violation of MLB policy. Fact. End of story. The appeal itself doesn't take place without that being the objective reality.

Most of the rest of what we think about that fact is tainted by hearsay and personal opinions on burdens of proof and letter of the law vs. spirit of the law and so forth, and that's where we're getting some wildly variable views on today's news.

I won't try to change anyone's minds, but I still feel like Braun's successful appeal earns him the absolute right to not-be-suspended-for-50 games. But it simply does not earn him the right to be instantly viewed as utterly innocent of any wrong-doing. At least, not until we get that additional information, and we get to the WHY of the pee (its elevated testosterone) instead of the WHEN of the pee (its arrival time).

And speaking of the pee, now that I've had a few hours to roll it around in my brain, there's somebody who is just as culpable as this as Braun: the pee collector.

Think about it: the story as we know it requires that somebody whose job it is to collect pee and FedEx it either (1) collected said pee at a time when he knew it could not be FedEx'd or (2) didn't know the hours of the FedEx place despite his job being to collect pee and FedEx it. That's a very very stupid pee collector and/or a very very convenient happenstance for Braun.

Either way, I demand a full investigation into this aspect of the story! Are the standards for hiring pee collectors this lax? Was the pee collector given orders to collect pee at a non-standard time, leading to honest confusion? If so, why? Was the pee collector intentionally sent out at an unusual time and then intentionally misled about Kinko's hours in order to purposely break the chain of custody and give Mr. MVP an out? Imagine the possibilities for malfeasance! Oh, the conspiracy!

I'm kidding. Mostly...


Rick


Excellent post. You made good points in a humorous fashion.

We all want more information. Hopefully it will be forthcoming.

IslandRed
02-23-2012, 10:59 PM
This whole situation reminds me of how DUI / OVI cases are handled in criminal court.

In order to have a chemical test admissible in court, there are very strict compliance requirements regarding procedure and handling of evidence that must be followed. A flaw at any part in the process -- from the type of cup/needles used to the temperature of the refrigerator used to store the evidence -- will toss the entire test result.

I'm guessing the arbitrator is requiring the same compliance level here.

I think you had it right in that post, and it's probably the standard in most drug-testing scenarios. In the "prove your innocence" world of drug-testing, positive tests need to be unassailable.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if Braun used something, and if he did, it stinks that he won't be held accountable. But accountability is a two-way street. The only way MLB can be held accountable for not following the agreed-upon procedures to the letter is to throw out the tests when they don't.

Red Heeler
02-23-2012, 11:02 PM
I'm not familiar with the particulars of a human T:E urine test, but as a medical professional who regularly sends diagnostic tests to outside labs, there most certainly is a time / handling component to the validity of the tests. For instance, we do our own complete blood counts in house. Every once in a while, we get a result that indicates that the patient should be dead or at least sitting on the doorstep. Meanwhile, I have a Golden Retriever in my exam room trying his best to lick me to death. I go back and look at the sample tube, and the blood is clotted. The results are invalid.

I have overseen the drug testing for several high level horse shows. At some points in time, bodybuilders have thought that the horse show world needed to clean up their act, but most organizations are now serious about anti-doping. There is a specific protocol in place for the handling of the samples and chain of custody. If these rules are not followed, you can bet that the results are thrown out.

The real world lab testing is not CSI. You cannot run a test for "something out of the ordinary." You have to test for something specific. Depending on the test, sample handling can be relatively lax, or it can be vitally important to the validity of the results. One test that I have run regularly on horses requires that the blood sample be immediately place on ice as soon as it is taken, then centrifuged, then the serum drawn off and frozen before being sent on ice to the lab. If any of these steps are not followed, then the results are not reliable.

Braun may have taken more steroids than a 1970's racehorse or he may be as clean as Tim Tebow. The fact is that without a reliable test on a properly handled sample, we cannot know.

AtomicDumpling
02-23-2012, 11:08 PM
I find it odd that people are making excuses for Ryan Braun when it's clear he's guilty and is getting off on a technicality. Yeah, the guy storing the urine in his fridge overnight rigged the sample. That sounds plausible. (Except it doesn't.)

It is plausible (or at least possible) that a rabid fan of another team or perhaps a gambler or gangster that wanted to sabotage the Brewers' chances in the playoffs might bribe the courier to give them access to Braun's urine sample. If such a person were to spike his sample would they know precisely the correct amount of steroid to add? Perhaps they might add too much and cause the sample to test at an insanely high level which had never been seen before in hundreds of thousands of tests?

It is unlikely, but stranger things have happened. It would not be the first time that gamblers have influenced the outcome of sporting events. There have been dozens of fixes and point-shaving scandals in sports history. Major League Baseball is a multi-billion dollar industry. Many millions of dollars are wagered on baseball every year. When there is that much money riding on something you can bet (no pun intended) that someone might be willing to break the law to gain an edge.

If someone did alter Braun's sample I imagine they were disappointed his suspension did not put him out of action for the playoffs.

Blitz Dorsey
02-23-2012, 11:18 PM
According to several reports, the reason Braun was "caught" in the first place was he was being treated for herpes. I'm serious, herpes. My goodness does this story have some serious twists and turns. You could almost make a movie out of it.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2012, 11:22 PM
If there was language in the agreement that cited one for delivery and the time exceeded the terms then yes the process failed, you're a lawyer failure to fullfill obligations voids agreements all the time.

Not necessarily -- the breach must rise to a certain level before it impacts the overall agreement.

If Braun proved or demonstrated that the handling of the sample caused him prejudice -- which is a fact-specific inquiry -- then I'd agree that Braun has shown that there was a failure to fulfill an obligation. If Braun is merely citing a delivery regulation that wasn't followed, I don't think that rises to the level of a material breach of the agreement.

The Operator
02-23-2012, 11:44 PM
According to several reports, the reason Braun was "caught" in the first place was he was being treated for herpes. I'm serious, herpes. My goodness does this story have some serious twists and turns. You could almost make a movie out of it.Oh, the jeering he will receive this summer. He might wanna invest in some ear plugs.

AtomicDumpling
02-24-2012, 12:18 AM
Oh, the jeering he will receive this summer. He might wanna invest in some ear plugs.

*gets out his posterboard and magic markers* :evil:

Brutus
02-24-2012, 12:23 AM
I'll be interested to see if there are criminal charges filed against whoever leaked the results in the first place... Clear HIPAA violation.

HIPAA has nothing to do with this. Employee-Employer drug testing is bound to private employee agreements separate from the health care and group coverage.

Homer Bailey
02-24-2012, 12:45 AM
According to several reports, the reason Braun was "caught" in the first place was he was being treated for herpes. I'm serious, herpes. My goodness does this story have some serious twists and turns. You could almost make a movie out of it.

Several reports or rumors? Not poking a hole in your story, but there is a difference. As much as I want this to be true, I gotta ask for a link.

REDblooded
02-24-2012, 12:45 AM
HIPAA has nothing to do with this. Employee-Employer drug testing is bound to private employee agreements separate from the health care and group coverage.


I've read that HIPAA supersedes the CBA...

Leaking that information without due process would then be criminal no?

savafan
02-24-2012, 01:43 AM
Several reports or rumors? Not poking a hole in your story, but there is a difference. As much as I want this to be true, I gotta ask for a link.

Google "Ryan Braun Herpes". These rumors have been out for months. There are thousands of links.

cincinnati chili
02-24-2012, 02:54 AM
2-1 explained:

Will Carroll ‏ @injuryexpert
Following

Almost All decisions in drug disputes are 2-1. 1 is MLB rep, 1 is MLBPA rep. Arbitrator is deciding vote. Most cases never make this far.

https://twitter.com/#!/injuryexpert/status/172809441274638336

Thank you. Some of the assumptions in this thread are laughable. My favorite is how Bud rigged the results when Bud's guy voted in favor of upholding the suspension.

Here's a quote from Rob Manfred who cast MLB's vote:

"As a part of our drug testing program, the Commissioner's Office and the Players Association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute. While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das."

Brutus
02-24-2012, 03:15 AM
I've read that HIPAA supersedes the CBA...

Leaking that information without due process would then be criminal no?

Employer records are excluded from personally-identifying information as it applies in HIPAA's 'privacy rule.' As the patient consents for covered entities to release the results of testing back to the employer, my understanding of the law is that it becomes an employer record and that is exempt from HIPAA coverage because it is a matter of company policy -- covered by collective bargaining. Medical information through the group health plan or other medical records would be covered, but because it pertains to drug testing on behalf of the employer rather than medical treatment through a covered entity, it's considered an employer record. The main function of HIPAA's privacy rule is to safeguard electronically stored information of health management organizations from selling or sharing personally identifying information.

Once it becomes an employer record, as is done when an employee consents to company drug testing, it is no longer covered by the privacy rule, ergo HIPAA no longer applies.

powersackers
02-24-2012, 04:24 AM
The day the story broke and I posted on this site that I thought he'd be cleared, I had faith that it was a testing error. Not a bologna technicality about 8 hours of pee sitting in a guys basement vs on a Fed Ex plane. That is not a chain of custody issue. The tester new where it was the entire time. I assume that's his job. Ship it ASAP. What if his wife went into labor or his mother died, should he stop and drop it off at FedEx first before going to the hospital? No, I'm sure the fridge would have been fine for overnight storage, especially if the test was negative!


He's guilty in my eyes.

757690
02-24-2012, 04:57 AM
The backlash Braun is going to have from this is going to last a lot longer than 50 games. And, probably longer than it would have if he would have just gone ahead and taken his medicine, so to speak. When he appealed, I assumed he might come across with an actual explanation for why he tested positive. This doesn't even remotely address that. His name is right there with Palmiero, McGwire and Bonds as far as I am concerned. Disgusting.

I completely agree. He won the battle, but lost the war.

Nothing can change the fact that there was a bottle of his urine tha tested for PEDS. It was only after that original test that the corruption occurred.

GAC
02-24-2012, 05:37 AM
If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

Yeah. Braun could be guilty as all get out; but it sounds to me like they (MLB) bungled it by not strictly following their own procedures and protocol. It's just like police, at a crime scene, not properly gathering and handling evidence found. You then give the accused (his lawyers) a procedural out (technicality).

mth123
02-24-2012, 05:38 AM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.

:thumbup:

icehole3
02-24-2012, 06:28 AM
keep testing him and lets see what happens to his numbers, that'll tell you something

RedLegsToday
02-24-2012, 07:53 AM
Braun may have taken more steroids than a 1970's racehorse.

Are you saying that Secretariat was juicing?! I knew it! :D

Eric_the_Red
02-24-2012, 07:59 AM
Where was all of this indignation towards Volquez when he was caught cheating?

I think Braun's lawyer played the technicality card because he knew it was the best chance of overturning the suspension. That does not mean the sample/test was was accurate otherwise. That line of defense was most likely the clearest cut path towards exoneration in their minds, hence that was the angle they pushed.

Braun doesn't look like he is big on lifting weights. In fact, he is kind of scrawny looking. I'm of the opinion that he is innocent, especially considering he passed 25 tests before this one.

It will be interesting to hear Braun's comments today as he arrives at Spring Training.

The Operator
02-24-2012, 08:26 AM
Where was all of this indignation towards Volquez when he was caught cheating? There was a pretty decent amount of criticism for him on this board. But he also hadn't just won the Cy Young Award during the season when he tested positive.


Braun doesn't look like he is big on lifting weights. In fact, he is kind of scrawny looking. I'm of the opinion that he is innocent, especially considering he passed 25 tests before this one. I may be wrong, but I don't think steroid use necessarily has to show up in the form of super ripped out bulky muscles. Plenty of guys have been busted over the past few years who looked like they wouldn't have been able to find the weight room with a map.

REDblooded
02-24-2012, 08:40 AM
Employer records are excluded from personally-identifying information as it applies in HIPAA's 'privacy rule.' As the patient consents for covered entities to release the results of testing back to the employer, my understanding of the law is that it becomes an employer record and that is exempt from HIPAA coverage because it is a matter of company policy -- covered by collective bargaining. Medical information through the group health plan or other medical records would be covered, but because it pertains to drug testing on behalf of the employer rather than medical treatment through a covered entity, it's considered an employer record. The main function of HIPAA's privacy rule is to safeguard electronically stored information of health management organizations from selling or sharing personally identifying information.

Once it becomes an employer record, as is done when an employee consents to company drug testing, it is no longer covered by the privacy rule, ergo HIPAA no longer applies.

I continue to see it stated that there has been a "severe violation of HIPAA"...

jojo
02-24-2012, 08:56 AM
mlb's headline for the story: "Braun exonerated, wont be suspended"

traderumor
02-24-2012, 08:59 AM
Can't say that I'm surprised by the responses here...


Plain and simple. The only "proof" that he's dirty is in the urine. There are procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there can never be a question in regards to tampering. In this case, they weren't followed to the letter of the law.

I find it odd that every time the testing was administered and handled properly that he passed, and the one time it wasn't, he failed...

Put your torches down and end the witch hunt. If baseball can't properly administer the testing (and a chain of custody ruling is really about as basic as it gets), then they don't need to test.

The potential damage to a player's image/career are MASSIVE. Look no further than the majority of the previous posts for proof of that. MLB screwed up, there's no proof that he tested positive, and STILL the majority of the previous posters have considered this guy's entire life's work tarnished and cheated.

Congrats on being socially irresponsible.What am I missing here? That the guy handling the pee didn't get it shipped fast enough? And for that it is exoneration and "end the witch hunt?" Maybe in a world of OJ justice. What is the exonerating evidence? That MLB tampered by not getting the pee shipped from point A to B in accordance with the rules? I'm all for due process, but this is smelly. Sure, ding MLB for messing up one of the protocols, but I see no reason for them to set up Braun, which seems to be the implication. Or is it just that MLB can't handle pee well?

Nothing here indicates innocence. All that I see is that apparently MLB is like most evidence gatherers--there is always an attorney lurking.

_Sir_Charles_
02-24-2012, 09:01 AM
Well, I'm going to presume innocence...and trust the ruling. I think Braun is a good kid with a bright future, I'm glad he's back. I want the Reds to pound the FULL Brewers squad.

jojo
02-24-2012, 09:01 AM
What am I missing here? That the guy handling the pee didn't get it shipped fast enough? And for that it is exoneration and "end the witch hunt?" Maybe in a world of OJ justice.

Well, one thing you're missing is that procedures established to ensure trustworthy results weren't followed.

Sea Ray
02-24-2012, 09:03 AM
Where was all of this indignation towards Volquez when he was caught cheating?

I think Braun's lawyer played the technicality card because he knew it was the best chance of overturning the suspension. That does not mean the sample/test was was accurate otherwise. That line of defense was most likely the clearest cut path towards exoneration in their minds, hence that was the angle they pushed.

Braun doesn't look like he is big on lifting weights. In fact, he is kind of scrawny looking. I'm of the opinion that he is innocent, especially considering he passed 25 tests before this one.

It will be interesting to hear Braun's comments today as he arrives at Spring Training.

How did the testosterone get so high in that sample, then?

Sea Ray
02-24-2012, 09:06 AM
Well, one thing you're missing is that procedures established to ensure trustworthy results weren't followed.

According to ESPN it said that in the event that FED Ex can't pick it up right away, the specimen is to be kept in a cool, secure place. What wasn't followed here?

redsmetz
02-24-2012, 09:17 AM
According to ESPN it said that in the event that FED Ex can't pick it up right away, the specimen is to be kept in a cool, secure place. What wasn't followed here?

Not to suggest it was tampered with, but MLB's rep only met one of those criteria - it was in a cool place, it wasn't in a secure place.

jojo
02-24-2012, 09:21 AM
According to ESPN it said that in the event that FED Ex can't pick it up right away, the specimen is to be kept in a cool, secure place. What wasn't followed here?

Apparently the arbitors didn't think standards were sufficiently followed.

The T/E test is time sensitive as Red Heeler was suggesting because urine also contains bacteria and bacterial hydrolysis of sulfate conjugates can artificially alter the T/E ratio (potentially causing false high values). The handling/shipping/storage of the sample is absolutely a critical factor. Time and temperature aren't technicalities in this case.

Eric_the_Red
02-24-2012, 09:25 AM
There was a pretty decent amount of criticism for him on this board. But he also hadn't just won the Cy Young Award during the season when he tested positive.

I may be wrong, but I don't think steroid use necessarily has to show up in the form of super ripped out bulky muscles. Plenty of guys have been busted over the past few years who looked like they wouldn't have been able to find the weight room with a map.

So fans should only be upset when really good players use PEDs I suppose. Let the average players and utility infielders drug it up.

You may be right about the effects of PEDS and bulk, but can you name one above average player who has been busted for PEDs who wasn't muscular? I'm having a hard time thinking of one. Maybe Pettitte, but he admitted to using them only when recovering from injury.

Roy Tucker
02-24-2012, 09:25 AM
I'm as upset as anyone about Braun getting off on a "technicality", but the risk of tampering is a very real one. You get a sample out of the chain of custody and who knows what happens to it. The aforementioned gamblers is one, what if the pee collector had a son playing HS football and is juicing and he decides to play a trick, a beef roast drips juice on the sample, a popsicle melts on it, etc etc. There are all kinds of goofy things that can happen.

I'll say one thing. If I were Braun, I'd be hopping mad. All of this (and I mean *all* of it) is supposed to be under confidentiality. *None* of this process was supposed to be public. Someone leaked information they are strictly forbidden to keep secret. I know in my work, I handle confidential data and we have very strict rules and fairly severe punishments for divulging it.

I'd be cranking up my lawyers to sue everyone and everyone.

cumberlandreds
02-24-2012, 09:30 AM
Here's a good piece by Jeff Passan. He basically says Braun got off like a criminal would have been if he wasn't read his Miranda Rights. I agree with that. Just a legal BS technicality.
The way it was handled has been acceptable in many other avenues. The only reason he got off is that this way of handling specimens wasn't in the CBA. Another black eye for baseball for no reason than a legal technicality.
I know if I was a pitcher and had played by the rules the first pitch he would see from me would be straight at his noggin.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AscBzERers5rUSF33c4_M0MRvLYF?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_appeal_drug_program_selig_022312

Sea Ray
02-24-2012, 09:36 AM
Apparently the arbitors didn't think standards were sufficiently followed.

The T/E test is time sensitive as Red Heeler was suggesting because urine also contains bacteria and bacterial hydrolysis of sulfate conjugates can artificially alter the T/E ratio (potentially causing false high values). The handling/shipping/storage of the sample is absolutely a critical factor. Time and temperature aren't technicalities in this case.

Details are just now leaking out but from what I've heard they were kept in a cool place-a refrig- and it was secure as the seal was not broken. I'm puzzled as to what specifically was the issue.

As a Reds fan I hope MLB appeals and it sounds like they will, and Braun is suspended later on in the season when the games are more critical. :evil:

RANDY IN INDY
02-24-2012, 09:56 AM
If he is truly innocent, great. If he got off on a technicality, I hope Karma bites him in BIG way.

Chip R
02-24-2012, 10:09 AM
Details are just now leaking out but from what I've heard they were kept in a cool place-a refrig- and it was secure as the seal was not broken. I'm puzzled as to what specifically was the issue.

As a Reds fan I hope MLB appeals and it sounds like they will, and Braun is suspended later on in the season when the games are more critical. :evil:

I've heard different. I've heard the sample was in a container on the guy's table for 2 days.

I've got kind of a different question. From my understanding, the sample must remain cool to preserve the integrity of it. So if the guy takes it to FedEx, does FedEx keep it cool from the time they receive it until it reaches it's destination? If it's just thrown in the back of a truck with all the other packages, won't that cause a problem as well? Even if procedures are followed to the letter, does the sample get damaged anyway?

jojo
02-24-2012, 10:18 AM
I've heard different. I've heard the sample was in a container on the guy's table for 2 days.

I've got kind of a different question. From my understanding, the sample must remain cool to preserve the integrity of it. So if the guy takes it to FedEx, does FedEx keep it cool from the time they receive it until it reaches it's destination? If it's just thrown in the back of a truck with all the other packages, won't that cause a problem as well? Even if procedures are followed to the letter, does the sample get damaged anyway?

Samples are probably shipped on "ice".

Sea Ray
02-24-2012, 10:22 AM
Samples are probably shipped on "ice".

Lots of conflicting info out there. In fact these two are in conflict with one another:


There was improper protocol followed in the collection of Braun's urine, the people said, in that the sample was stored and refrigerated at the home of one of the drug administrators, but not sent immediately to the drug testing lab.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/brewers/story/2012-02-23/ryan-braun-drug-appeal-suspension/53229326/1



UPDATE: According to the sources of Yahoo! Sports' Jeff Passan, Braun's urine sample sat in a FedEx shop over the weekend, challenging the integrity of the sample. Passan's sources also report that the chain-of-custody loophole will be closed in an amendment to the league's drug-testing program.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/ryan-braun-wins-appeal-50-game-ped-suspension-224204149.html

traderumor
02-24-2012, 10:40 AM
Well, one thing you're missing is that procedures established to ensure trustworthy results weren't followed.No, I got that, stated as much. I'm missing the reason for the reaction to "end the witch hunt," as if that proves innocence. All I'm seeing so far is that this was "thrown out of court" on a technicality.

In essence, the "end the witch hunt" is based on limited information. All I can conclude at this point is "the process didn't work this time," but the due process built into the testing procedures did work. That's a good thing.

It is also humorous to see the internet scientists opine on the integrity of the sample, as if they have a clue about what really happened here.

I wonder if we'll ever hear the real story?

blumj
02-24-2012, 10:54 AM
I just heard an interview with Will Carroll, he said something to the effect that Braun's defense was able to replicate the results, the highly elevated testosterone, by storing a previously tested clean sample from Braun for 48 hours the same way the disputed sample was stored.

jojo
02-24-2012, 10:56 AM
No, I got that, stated as much. I'm missing the reason for the reaction to "end the witch hunt," as if that proves innocence. All I'm seeing so far is that this was "thrown out of court" on a technicality.

In essence, the "end the witch hunt" is based on limited information. All I can conclude at this point is "the process didn't work this time," but the due process built into the testing procedures did work. That's a good thing.

It is also humorous to see the internet scientists opine on the integrity of the sample, as if they have a clue about what really happened here.

I wonder if we'll ever hear the real story?

How the sample is handled can effect the results. We don't know how the sample was handled but given the arbitration ruling, we know it wasn't according to procedure.

We can't know one way or the other regarding whether Braun tested positive. We can't conclude anything about his innocence or his guilt.

I'm not sure how that position could be characterized as a with hunt.

757690
02-24-2012, 10:58 AM
Apparently the arbitors didn't think standards were sufficiently followed.

The T/E test is time sensitive as Red Heeler was suggesting because urine also contains bacteria and bacterial hydrolysis of sulfate conjugates can artificially alter the T/E ratio (potentially causing false high values). The handling/shipping/storage of the sample is absolutely a critical factor. Time and temperature aren't technicalities in this case.

Only that wasnt the issue according to reports. The issue wasn't the timing. The timing was fine, and had been dene many other times the same way when there was no ability to ship the specimen.

However, in this one instance, there was time to ship it, but it was stored (properly) instead. And the CBA clearly stated that if there is time to ship it, you must ship it. Therefore, no suspension.

As I said earlier, I can understand the ruling, but it I also think it's clear that the result was accurate and that Braun cheated in some way, since the specimen had aleady come back positive before any of the possible corruption took place.

traderumor
02-24-2012, 10:59 AM
How the sample is handled can effect the results. We don't know how the sample was handled but given the arbitration ruling, we know it wasn't according to procedure.

We can't know one way or the other regarding whether Braun tested positive. We can't conclude anything about his innocence or his guilt.

I'm not sure how that position could be characterized as a with hunt.No, redblooded asked us to "end the witch hunt," and you assented to the post. I'm saying that nothing was established to provide such definitive "see, he's innocent, leave Britney alone."

757690
02-24-2012, 11:05 AM
How the sample is handled can effect the results. We don't know how the sample was handled but given the arbitration ruling, we know it wasn't according to procedure.

We can't know one way or the other regarding whether Braun tested positive. We can't conclude anything about his innocence or his guilt.

I'm not sure how that position could be characterized as a with hunt.

We can't conclude anything, except cogito ergo sum.

But we can be rational human beings and form opinions based on what information we have. We do it hundreds of times a day everyday. And for me, believing that Braun used some banned substance is an easy opinion to draw from the information at hand.

757690
02-24-2012, 11:14 AM
I just heard an interview with Will Carroll, he said something to the effect that Braun's defense was able to replicate the results, the highly elevated testosterone, by storing a previously tested clean sample from Braun for 48 hours the same way the disputed sample was stored.

Thanks for that tidbit.very interesting if true, However, that seems meaningless to me, for two reasons.

1) The defense did that experiment. If they did it in their own, and the presented the results, that is far more tainted than the original test.

2) More importantly, Braun's sample that was "corrupted" was not clean originally. It had already failed one test and was going to be tested again.

jojo
02-24-2012, 11:45 AM
Only that wasnt the issue according to reports. The issue wasn't the timing. The timing was fine, and had been dene many other times the same way when there was no ability to ship the specimen.

However, in this one instance, there was time to ship it, but it was stored (properly) instead. And the CBA clearly stated that if there is time to ship it, you must ship it. Therefore, no suspension.

As I said earlier, I can understand the ruling, but it I also think it's clear that the result was accurate and that Braun cheated in some way, since the specimen had aleady come back positive before any of the possible corruption took place.

Could you provide links that specifically detail which samples were handled properly and which ones were disputed?

Time AND temperature are important. Even if a sample was stored properly, it may be compromised. Also, sticking something in a fridge is not the same thing as storing something properly---who knows if the fridge is at a proper temperature. I'm sure Red Heeler can speak to why sticking something in a fridge doesn't guarantee anything.... This is a huge problem with vaccination protocols in large animal medicine.

Brutus
02-24-2012, 12:12 PM
I continue to see it stated that there has been a "severe violation of HIPAA"...

Could you cite some links? Sources to where you're seeing this? I think people have some misinformation because my previous point stands: employer records are exempt from HIPAA privacy.

Here is a link from the University of Miami with an explanation to what I was saying:


If the individual gives his or her authorization, or provides the medical information directly to the covered entity as the employer (e.g., submission of a drug test result required for employees) that medical information becomes part of the employment record and is no longer PHI. (It is not the nature of the information, but the capacity in which it was generated or received, that determines whether it is subject to HIPAA.)

http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_employment_records.htm

REDblooded
02-24-2012, 12:29 PM
Could you cite some links? Sources to where you're seeing this? I think people have some misinformation because my previous point stands: employer records are exempt from HIPAA privacy.

Here is a link from the University of Miami with an explanation to what I was saying:



http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_employment_records.htm (http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_employment_records.htm)


I'll dig into it... I was getting my info from a lawyer on another forum...

REDblooded
02-24-2012, 12:41 PM
Could you cite some links? Sources to where you're seeing this? I think people have some misinformation because my previous point stands: employer records are exempt from HIPAA privacy.

Here is a link from the University of Miami with an explanation to what I was saying:



http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_employment_records.htm (http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_employment_records.htm)


Still need to find something more legally valid...



Commissioner Bud Selig has done so much for Major League Baseball that he ultimately may end up in Cooperstown.
Still, I would be shocked if he is not conducting a major review of his office’s operating procedures from top to bottom in the aftermath of the Ryan Braun debacle.
And a debacle it is.
The first outrage, of course, was that the results of Braun’s first test for performance-enhancing drugs were leaked. The public should never have even known that he had tested positive in that first test. Period. If the leak came from MLB or one its vendors, it was was an outright violation of the HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).


http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2012/2/23/mlb-throws-braun-under-the-busagain (http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2012/2/23/mlb-throws-braun-under-the-busagain)


Fangraphs article also talks about how MLB messed this up and the potential HIPPA issue

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/redeeming-ryan-braun-positive-test-overturned/ (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/redeeming-ryan-braun-positive-test-overturned/)

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=304&f=2062&t=8612614

Brutus
02-24-2012, 12:49 PM
Still need to find something more legally valid...



http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2012/2/23/mlb-throws-braun-under-the-busagain (http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2012/2/23/mlb-throws-braun-under-the-busagain)


Fangraphs article also talks about how MLB messed this up and the potential HIPPA issue

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/redeeming-ryan-braun-positive-test-overturned/ (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/redeeming-ryan-braun-positive-test-overturned/)

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=304&f=2062&t=8612614

Well no offense to these people, but I think they've got it wrong. There's a lot of misunderstanding out there about HIPAA. Employer records are not covered and drug testing as part of a CBA is considered employer records because it constitutes consent on the part of the employee. Once it becomes employer records, it's no longer protected. I urge you to read the link I provided. It gives a pretty good explanation.

jojo
02-24-2012, 01:07 PM
I don't care if it's HIPPA or a hippo...we had no business knowing any of the this...someone needs to be fired.

Larkin Fan
02-24-2012, 01:10 PM
I've heard different. I've heard the sample was in a container on the guy's table for 2 days.

I've got kind of a different question. From my understanding, the sample must remain cool to preserve the integrity of it. So if the guy takes it to FedEx, does FedEx keep it cool from the time they receive it until it reaches it's destination? If it's just thrown in the back of a truck with all the other packages, won't that cause a problem as well? Even if procedures are followed to the letter, does the sample get damaged anyway?

If a sample needs to be kept cool, it's shipped on dry ice, so that's not an issue.

Johnny Footstool
02-24-2012, 01:12 PM
...someone needs to be fired.

I nominate Ryan Braun.

Blitz Dorsey
02-24-2012, 01:13 PM
Braun doesn't look like he is big on lifting weights. In fact, he is kind of scrawny looking.

Well, not all PED users look like Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens or Sammy Sosa. Edinson Volquez sure didn't look all that muscular. Fat in the face? Yes. But not muscle-bound.

There is a cyclist named Lance Armstrong you might have heard of. I'd consider him "kind of scrawny looking."

Braun is guilty. The cops just forgot to read him his Miranda rights. This is the definition of getting off on a technicality. And MLB continues to make itself look like a joke.

PS: Was this arbitrator on the Casey Anthony jury by any chance?

Johnny Footstool
02-24-2012, 01:15 PM
I'm confused by the sudden outcry of "HIPPA violation." How is this any different from MLB releasing drug testing results of any of the other players who have been suspended for PEDs?

Larkin Fan
02-24-2012, 01:22 PM
Apparently the arbitors didn't think standards were sufficiently followed.

The T/E test is time sensitive as Red Heeler was suggesting because urine also contains bacteria and bacterial hydrolysis of sulfate conjugates can artificially alter the T/E ratio (potentially causing false high values). The handling/shipping/storage of the sample is absolutely a critical factor. Time and temperature aren't technicalities in this case.

Actually, due to refrigeration, microbial activity would be negligible at best. This would be a more plausible explanation if the sample was kept at room temperature.

jojo
02-24-2012, 01:22 PM
I nominate Ryan Braun.

Braun has been exonerated.

jojo
02-24-2012, 01:25 PM
Actually, due to refrigeration, microbial activity would be negligible at best. This would be a more plausible explanation if the sample was kept at room temperature.

Assuming a refrigerator was kept at a proper temperature, maybe. If refrigeration was foolproof, food-borne illness wouldn't exist and milk would never spoil. We know the urine sample contained bacteria. We don't know if the urine was stored in a way to prevent the bacteria from being a problem.

757690
02-24-2012, 01:26 PM
Braun has been exonerated.

False.

Even the arbiter said he was not exonerated. He even said that he doesn't dispute the final positive test result, only the procedure.

jojo
02-24-2012, 01:31 PM
False.

Even the arbiter said he was not exonerated. He even said that he doesn't dispute the final positive test result, only the procedure.

Just going by the offcial headline at mlb.com this morning... Also, he is disputing the procedure because the final test result may have been the result of inapproapriate procedure. Braun didn't refute that the positive value was measured. He disputed the notion that the positive value wasn't influenced be sample handling. It doesn't mean what you're implying it means...

RANDY IN INDY
02-24-2012, 01:35 PM
Just going by the offcial headline at mlb.com this morning... Also, he is disputing the procedure because the final test result may have been the result of inapproapriate procedure. Braun didn't refute that the positive value was measured. He disputed the notion that the positive value wasn't influenced be sample handling. It doesn't mean what you're implying it means...

How do you know?

Larkin Fan
02-24-2012, 01:36 PM
Assuming a refrigerator was kept at a proper temperature, maybe. If refrigeration was foolproof, food-borne illness wouldn't exist and milk would never spoil. We know the urine sample contained bacteria. We don't know if the urine was stored in a way to prevent the bacteria from being a problem.

We're not talking about food-borne pathogens though. We're talking about bacteria that lives in the human body and requires an environment with temperatures close to human body temperature to be active.

Blitz Dorsey
02-24-2012, 01:37 PM
I don't care if it's HIPPA or a hippo...we had no business knowing any of the this...someone needs to be fired.

Wait, this is what you're upset about? That the public found out? I'm sure you were also outraged when the Barry Bonds grand jury testimony was leaked.

757690
02-24-2012, 01:39 PM
Could you provide links that specifically detail which samples were handled properly and which ones were disputed?

Time AND temperature are important. Even if a sample was stored properly, it may be compromised. Also, sticking something in a fridge is not the same thing as storing something properly---who knows if the fridge is at a proper temperature. I'm sure Red Heeler can speak to why sticking something in a fridge doesn't guarantee anything.... This is a huge problem with vaccination protocols in large animal medicine.

I got it from this hebroncouger post:


The article I read states that exactly that is done in other cases when the shipping facilities are closed. The only reason he "got off" was because Fedex was open, and the collector didn't know it. So he didn't ship it "as soon as possible". That's ridiculous. Braun's a fraud.

And I have to refrigerator a shot a take regularly that is shipped to me via courier. If it's not kept at the right tempature, it coild kill me, and yet my doctors have no problem allowing me and the millions of people who use it to keep it our refrigerators. I doubt the proper precedure is any different for a drug test specimen.

Also, we have no idea that the other 25 negative tests were handled properly. Maybe they were corrupted somehow by someone in the Braun camp so that they incorrectly came up negative. That's just as likely as the one positive coming up positive simply because of a lack of proper procedure.

757690
02-24-2012, 01:42 PM
Just going by the offcial headline at mlb.com this morning... Also, he is disputing the procedure because the final test result may have been the result of inapproapriate procedure. Braun didn't refute that the positive value was measured. He disputed the notion that the positive value wasn't influenced be sample handling. It doesn't mean what you're implying it means...

At best tne arbiter is saying we don't know if Braun's test result was 100% accurate, which is a far cry from he was exonerated.

kaldaniels
02-24-2012, 02:12 PM
Rightly or wrongly, "PED" guys are currently blackballed from the HOF. Ryan Braun has a HOF career going.

Does he (not should he) get lumped in with the Bonds/McGwire crowd if he goes on to a HOF career with no further PED issues, i.e. what do you think the voters will do?

Oxilon
02-24-2012, 02:15 PM
Did Braun get a law degree while he was at Miami? I don't think I've ever heard an athlete give a press conference like this.

redsmetz
02-24-2012, 02:37 PM
Still need to find something more legally valid...



http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2012/2/23/mlb-throws-braun-under-the-busagain (http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2012/2/23/mlb-throws-braun-under-the-busagain)


Fangraphs article also talks about how MLB messed this up and the potential HIPPA issue

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/redeeming-ryan-braun-positive-test-overturned/ (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/redeeming-ryan-braun-positive-test-overturned/)

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=304&f=2062&t=8612614

The Fangraphs piece addresses one of the issues I have with this result and it's a way the MLB continues to give themselves a black eye. The writer is correct to wonder why the harshness of Manfredi's statement. As is correctly noted, had this gone according to Hoyle, there wouldn't have been any news because this would have all been confidential. Given the circumstances, Manfredi's comments should have been more tempered because now it feeds the further speculation. No question they can be players on notice that they will continue to pursue and weed out PED's in the game without "vehemently disagreeing".

jojo
02-24-2012, 02:53 PM
At best tne arbiter is saying we don't know if Braun's test result was 100% accurate, which is a far cry from he was exonerated.

The arbitration process concluded he should not be suspended on the basis of the mlb test results. That's not an iffy conclusion. It's an admission that based upon the process, it is not possible to tell if Braun was guilty or innocent.

There isn't really room there for those claiming he was obviously guilty to maneuver....

Bumstead
02-24-2012, 03:02 PM
The arbitration process concluded he should not be suspended on the basis of the mlb test results. That's not an iffy conclusion. It's an admission that based upon the process, it is not possible to tell if Braun was guilty or innocent.

There isn't really room there for those claiming he was obviously guilty to maneuver....

Braun never argued that he wasn't guilty, he argued that the handling of the test was faulty...both sides look bad in this instance. Baseball for how the test was handled and Braun for thinking his reputation isn't tarnished because he got off on a technicality and never denied that the test was correct.

Are you his sibling? You are taking others contradictory opinions awful hard. We have all read the same articles and we are certainly entitled to draw our own conclusions. Do you also believe Roger Clemons 1) didn't use performance enhancing drugs (after all, he says he didn't)? and 2) that Roger Clemons is not a "Prima Dona?" I believe Roger Clemons is a Prima Dona steroid abuser based on my intake of the evidence at hand.

Bum

KoryMac5
02-24-2012, 03:53 PM
Braun's lawyers never argued his client was innocent they argued that the chain was broken. The tester took the sample home because Fed Ex was closed, therefore the chain was broken. I don't think that changes the part where Braun came up hot on a 30 to 1 ratio.

TheNext44
02-24-2012, 04:03 PM
The process concluded OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony should not be found guilty on the basis of the evidence. That's not an iffy conclusion. It's an admission that based upon the process, it is not possible to tell if Simpson and Anthony were guilty or innocent.
There isn't really room there for those claiming they were obviously guilty to maneuver....

MikeThierry
02-24-2012, 04:07 PM
I haven't read over the hundreds of comments on this topic so forgive me if I'm repeating a point that someone already made on this issue. What is alarming to me on this issue isn't whether or not Braun is guilty. I couldn't care less if he did PED's or not. My issue is how MLB handled this. There seems to be major flaws in the testing process from the standpoint of how tests are handled. The way I'm reading it, it's as if Loyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber or Zach Galifianakis from the Hangover was handling the testing sample. What kind of crazy opperation does MLB have going here? I know Bud Selig is incompetent but does it really have to translate into testing for steroids in baseball? MLB might have an updated testing policy but getting those tests from point A to point B seems like something from a Marx Brothers movie.

I also have a huge problem with the panel consisting of a rep from MLB, a rep from MLBPA, and an independent guy. Are we really kidding ourselves that the MLB or MLBPA is ever going to rule against themselves. This is a joke of a process.

After reading this comical approach that MLB has implemented, I don't blame players for questioning steroid policy and I don't have a problem with players being against HGH testing until the testing structure does get ironed out a bit more.

GAC
02-24-2012, 04:21 PM
Well, I'm going to presume innocence...and trust the ruling. I think Braun is a good kid with a bright future, I'm glad he's back. I want the Reds to pound the FULL Brewers squad.

There ya go! Bring'em on! Lets see how he does without Fielder following him.

TheNext44
02-24-2012, 04:27 PM
Dr. Gary Adler, a leader in Olympic testing world, just said that it would be impossible for synthetic testosterone to develop in my a specimen regardless of the chain of custody.

He also said that it was common for specimens to sit for trip or three days in a fridge anywhere before being shipped.

He said the decision made no sense and was inconsistent with previous decisions on similar situations omb the past.

_Sir_Charles_
02-24-2012, 04:36 PM
For me, the biggest thing that shows me that he did NOT actually test positive is the fact that Braun offered to take a DNA test to prove if it was his urine or not. MLB said no to his offer.

_Sir_Charles_
02-24-2012, 04:39 PM
Braun's lawyers never argued his client was innocent they argued that the chain was broken. The tester took the sample home because Fed Ex was closed, therefore the chain was broken. I don't think that changes the part where Braun came up hot on a 30 to 1 ratio.

Several things. First, the FedEx wasn't closed. There were multiple ones open as Braun pointed out. Even a 24 hour one.

But here's the big thing in my book. We don't know that it was Braun's urine. Period. It was in this "guy's" possession for 2 days. Ryan offered to take a DNA test so they could prove whether it was even his urine sample or not. In my book, that goes a long way in showing me that Braun is VERY confident in the fact that he never took ANYTHING.

Bumstead
02-24-2012, 04:56 PM
For me, the biggest thing that shows me that he did NOT actually test positive is the fact that Braun offered to take a DNA test to prove if it was his urine or not. MLB said no to his offer.

That was puffing and he quickly changed his mind and rescinded that offer. A lot of people puff up and then go out like a pricked balloon when they are taken up on their offer or they think someone might actually take them up on their offer.

Bum

Bumstead
02-24-2012, 05:01 PM
I haven't read over the hundreds of comments on this topic so forgive me if I'm repeating a point that someone already made on this issue. What is alarming to me on this issue isn't whether or not Braun is guilty. I couldn't care less if he did PED's or not. My issue is how MLB handled this. There seems to be major flaws in the testing process from the standpoint of how tests are handled. The way I'm reading it, it's as if Loyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber or Zach Galifianakis from the Hangover was handling the testing sample. What kind of crazy opperation does MLB have going here? I know Bud Selig is incompetent but does it really have to translate into testing for steroids in baseball? MLB might have an updated testing policy but getting those tests from point A to point B seems like something from a Marx Brothers movie.

I also have a huge problem with the panel consisting of a rep from MLB, a rep from MLBPA, and an independent guy. Are we really kidding ourselves that the MLB or MLBPA is ever going to rule against themselves. This is a joke of a process.

After reading this comical approach that MLB has implemented, I don't blame players for questioning steroid policy and I don't have a problem with players being against HGH testing until the testing structure does get ironed out a bit more.

I'm sorry, but I do care if players are cheating in the game I love. I'm tired of them whining about the testing. I think it should be a blood test. Urine tests are too easy to beat. I agree MLB screwed this up but I don't think that proves anything in regards to Braun's "innocence."

Bum

MikeThierry
02-24-2012, 05:23 PM
I'm sorry, but I do care if players are cheating in the game I love. I'm tired of them whining about the testing. I think it should be a blood test. Urine tests are too easy to beat. I agree MLB screwed this up but I don't think that proves anything in regards to Braun's "innocence."

Bum

I think it proves that MLB's testing meathods are faulty.

_Sir_Charles_
02-24-2012, 05:54 PM
That was puffing and he quickly changed his mind and rescinded that offer. A lot of people puff up and then go out like a pricked balloon when they are taken up on their offer or they think someone might actually take them up on their offer.

Bum

That's not what I heard. I heard that it was MLB who said "no thanks" to the offer. As far as I know, he's still willing to take a DNA test.

_Sir_Charles_
02-24-2012, 05:57 PM
I'm sorry, but I do care if players are cheating in the game I love. I'm tired of them whining about the testing. I think it should be a blood test. Urine tests are too easy to beat. I agree MLB screwed this up but I don't think that proves anything in regards to Braun's "innocence."

Bum

Seems to me that Braun has been guilty all along in the court of "Bum"-opinion. I'll take the other route and assume he's innocent until proven guilty and now that he's won the appeal I'll consider it a closed case as if it never happened.

dougdirt
02-24-2012, 06:09 PM
Seems to me that Braun has been guilty all along in the court of "Bum"-opinion. I'll take the other route and assume he's innocent until proven guilty and now that he's won the appeal I'll consider it a closed case as if it never happened.

While I agree that it should be innocent until proven guilty and I think it is incredibly strange that his levels were so much higher than anyone they have ever tested, I think it is also a stretch to pretend he is innocent because arbitrators threw his case out based on the specimen not being mailed on time instead of something wrong with the actual test.

jojo
02-24-2012, 06:30 PM
We're not talking about food-borne pathogens though. We're talking about bacteria that lives in the human body and requires an environment with temperatures close to human body temperature to be active.

You're talking about any bacteria that may have been in the same environment as the specimen cup.

jojo
02-24-2012, 06:32 PM
Wait, this is what you're upset about? That the public found out? I'm sure you were also outraged when the Barry Bonds grand jury testimony was leaked.

The public had zero business knowing about either issue.

But clearly my position on this issue (i.e. we can't say with certainty whether Braun tested positively or not) has been clearly articulated as the issue.

Brutus
02-24-2012, 06:38 PM
No one was exonerated here. To exonerate means to clear from guilt or blame. Not a single person has asserted that Braun absolutely did not do what he's been accused of. When the premise of Braun's defense is that the chain of procedure wasn't followed, that's not doing anything to deny he was legitimately tested positive for synthetic testosterone. If he wants exonerated, he's going to have to do more to prove he didn't do what has been alleged rather than getting off on a technicality.

Again, I will reiterate, I think he's able to say he was was given a not-guilty verdict and I can understand being given one. But he's not able to say (and hasn't said) he's not guilty. The so-called "mishandling" of the sample doesn't even invalidate the results. All it does is open up a slight possibility of tampering which casts just enough doubt on the process to render such a verdict. It doesn't mean he's not guilty, though. Chances are still strong that he is in fact a 'cheater' in the literal sense of the word.

jojo
02-24-2012, 06:39 PM
I got it from this hebroncouger post:



And I have to refrigerator a shot a take regularly that is shipped to me via courier. If it's not kept at the right tempature, it coild kill me, and yet my doctors have no problem allowing me and the millions of people who use it to keep it our refrigerators. I doubt the proper precedure is any different for a drug test specimen.

Also, we have no idea that the other 25 negative tests were handled properly. Maybe they were corrupted somehow by someone in the Braun camp so that they incorrectly came up negative. That's just as likely as the one positive coming up positive simply because of a lack of proper procedure.

So you don't know which test was in dispute?

Time and temperature can effect the T/E values. We know nothing about how the sample was handled but those deciding the arbitration case did.

I would think it's much less likely that someone in the Braun camp corrupted 25 tests that were negative than a known procedural violation which could have presented inappropriate time and temperature conditions corrupted the one positive test.

Hopefully more facts will be released so these issues can be better judged.

jojo
02-24-2012, 06:43 PM
While I agree that it should be innocent until proven guilty and I think it is incredibly strange that his levels were so much higher than anyone they have ever tested, I think it is also a stretch to pretend he is innocent because arbitrators threw his case out based on the specimen not being mailed on time instead of something wrong with the actual test.

The point is that given how the sample was handled, mlb can't say the test was actually right. It's a problem. We only have a positive test. We don't know if the test results accurately reflect Braun at the time he gave the sample.

dougdirt
02-24-2012, 06:47 PM
The point is that given how the sample was handled, mlb can't say the test was actually right. It's a problem. We only have a positive test. We don't know if the test results accurately reflect Braun at the time he gave the sample.

I agree 100%. I was just saying that based on the case, we can't say he is not guilty. We also can't say he is because he tested positive given the circumstances.

Johnny Footstool
02-24-2012, 07:14 PM
The point is that given how the sample was handled, mlb can't say the test was actually right. It's a problem. We only have a positive test. We don't know if the test results accurately reflect Braun at the time he gave the sample.

How was the sample actually handled? The assumption seems to be that Braun peed into dixie cup, and the courier was some doofus who tossed it into a beer fridge in the basement.

Usually, samples are taken under pretty close monitoring, and then placed in sealed containers until they can be picked up by trained couriers who know the risks of contamination, and who know what to do if they can't immediately ship the sample.

The only breakdown of the system, in my opinion, was that the courier didn't realize that there was a Fed-Ex open somewhere.

IslandRed
02-24-2012, 07:19 PM
Just for my sake, I want the sport cleaned up but I also want it done fairly and correctly. The two parties agreed on a testing procedure that, if followed to the letter, would be considered valid and unassailable in the event of a positive test. Then they do it again just to be sure. It stands to reason, then, that if the procedure is not followed to the letter, it is *not* agreed the result is valid and unassailable. And in my opinion, it's the responsibility of the people who made the mistake to justify why the mistake doesn't matter, not the responsibility of the other party to prove why the mistake does matter.

That won't necessarily satisfy the "hang 'em" crowd, but if MLB has the authority to suspend players and brand them as cheaters for the rest of their lives based on a lab test, I don't think it's too much to ask that it be done right.

757690
02-24-2012, 07:21 PM
So you don't know which test was in dispute?

Time and temperature can effect the T/E values. We know nothing about how the sample was handled but those deciding the arbitration case did.

I would think it's much less likely that someone in the Braun camp corrupted 25 tests that were negative than a known procedural violation which could have presented inappropriate time and temperature conditions corrupted the one positive test.

Hopefully more facts will be released so these issues can be better judged.

The time and the temperature can not cause a positive result for synthetic testosterone. Impossible. So I would say that it is more lilkely that one or all of the 25 negative tests were incorrect than the one positive one.

jojo
02-24-2012, 07:26 PM
I agree 100%. I was just saying that based on the case, we can't say he is not guilty. We also can't say he is because he tested positive given the circumstances.

Ya. Based upon what we know so far, I think this is the position that has to be adopted.

If more details emerge, especially concerning why the arbitrators decided as they did (i.e. the facts they considered to reach their conclusions) and it seems like they took leaps, I think it would then be more appropriate for the "court of public opinion" crowd to make proclamations.

757690
02-24-2012, 07:27 PM
The point is that given how the sample was handled, mlb can't say the test was actually right. It's a problem. We only have a positive test. We don't know if the test results accurately reflect Braun at the time he gave the sample.

That's not completely accurate.

The procedure used by the collector was the correct procedure according to Olympic testing, and nearly every other testing agency world wide. However, the MLB CBA was written in a such a way as to consider that procedure as a breach of the chain of custody, and MLB, in agreement with the union is currently re-writing it so that it will in the future match the rest of tne testing world.

So if Braun was anything other than an MLB player, there would have been no dispute over the validity of the test.

jojo
02-24-2012, 07:28 PM
The time and the temperature can not cause a positive result for synthetic testosterone. Impossible. So I would say that it is more lilkely that one or all of the 25 negative tests were incorrect than the one positive one.

First, is it indisputable that synthetic testosterone was measured because there are also reports that the banned substance was not a PED?

Second, it is not more likely that 25 tests were incorrect than one was incorrect. I find the bar on that assertion to be impossibly high.

jojo
02-24-2012, 07:30 PM
How was the sample actually handled? The assumption seems to be that Braun peed into dixie cup, and the courier was some doofus who tossed it into a beer fridge in the basement.

Usually, samples are taken under pretty close monitoring, and then placed in sealed containers until they can be picked up by trained couriers who know the risks of contamination, and who know what to do if they can't immediately ship the sample.

The only breakdown of the system, in my opinion, was that the courier didn't realize that there was a Fed-Ex open somewhere.

We don't know how the courier handled the sample. All we know as of this morning is that the arbitrators ruled in favor of Braun based upon how the courier handled the sample (I haven't seen any updates from today if there are any).

Dan
02-24-2012, 07:32 PM
Maybe he was guilty and maybe he was innocent. I don't know. I don't have all the facts. The only people that do have all the facts are the arbitrators -- and they overturned the suspension.

This is how I've viewed this from the beginning. (It's how I view almost everything in which I don't have all the facts, actually.) There are intelligent, learned people who arbitrate these things. They aren't dumb, they aren't ignorant, and in most cases they're judges who have seen it all. I doubt they'd come to a wrong decision in the long run.

jojo
02-24-2012, 07:34 PM
That's not completely accurate.

The procedure used by the collector was the correct procedure according to Olympic testing, and nearly every other testing agency world wide. However, the MLB CBA was written in a such a way as to consider that procedure as a breach of the chain of custody, and MLB, in agreement with the union is currently re-writing it so that it will in the future match the rest of tne testing world.

So if Braun was anything other than an MLB player, there would have been no dispute over the validity of the test.

Again, we do not know the specifics. You're assuming the sample was handled and stored according to Olympic testing standards. We have a quote from the Olympic doping guru saying that if the sample was handled like the Olympics, then it seems unlikely that process could've given rise to a false positive. However, we don't know that it was handled that way (I doubt he knows any specifics about this particular case). I'd be very interested in knowing the facts about this issue because they are important for a conclusion. The arbitrators had to have considered something about this particular issue to be very compelling.

jojo
02-24-2012, 07:56 PM
Here is a Passan article from about an hour ago that pokes at the specifics of the courier:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_manfred_022412

If this case has shown anything, it's that details in the confidential final report to mlb and the union on Das' ruling are likely to be leaked.

Sea Ray
02-24-2012, 08:35 PM
I haven't read over the hundreds of comments on this topic so forgive me if I'm repeating a point that someone already made on this issue. What is alarming to me on this issue isn't whether or not Braun is guilty. I couldn't care less if he did PED's or not. My issue is how MLB handled this. There seems to be major flaws in the testing process from the standpoint of how tests are handled. The way I'm reading it, it's as if Loyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber or Zach Galifianakis from the Hangover was handling the testing sample. What kind of crazy opperation does MLB have going here? I know Bud Selig is incompetent but does it really have to translate into testing for steroids in baseball? MLB might have an updated testing policy but getting those tests from point A to point B seems like something from a Marx Brothers movie.

I also have a huge problem with the panel consisting of a rep from MLB, a rep from MLBPA, and an independent guy. Are we really kidding ourselves that the MLB or MLBPA is ever going to rule against themselves. This is a joke of a process.

After reading this comical approach that MLB has implemented, I don't blame players for questioning steroid policy and I don't have a problem with players being against HGH testing until the testing structure does get ironed out a bit more.

It wasn't MLB that conducted the test. They contracted the actual execution of the test to a private co that was mutually agreed to by the players assoc. It was that company's employee who didn't get the sample to Fed Ex in a timely manner. It's the company that the owners and players jointly agreed to use that supposedly screwed up protocol here

Sea Ray
02-24-2012, 08:37 PM
When did MLB announce this failed test and why was it too early? Isn't MLB allowed to look at the results of the test and then announce their decision or is there something in the CBA that says they can't announce anything until the player has time to file an appeal?

jojo
02-24-2012, 09:08 PM
Here's an attempt t a timeline:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/OTL-Ryan-Braun/ryan-braun-defense-raises-more-questions-doping-experts

757690
02-24-2012, 09:52 PM
Here's an attempt t a timeline:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/OTL-Ryan-Braun/ryan-braun-defense-raises-more-questions-doping-experts

Thanks for the updates. I'm sure more will come and we will get a clearer picture about this whole mess.

REDblooded
02-24-2012, 10:00 PM
I'm sorry, but I do care if players are cheating in the game I love. I'm tired of them whining about the testing. I think it should be a blood test. Urine tests are too easy to beat. I agree MLB screwed this up but I don't think that proves anything in regards to Braun's "innocence."

Bum


Nor his "guilt"... so everybody should really just move along.

To be frank, this story shouldn't exist. Period.

REDblooded
02-24-2012, 10:13 PM
I would suggest taking the time to read Will Carroll's article on the subject that he posted on Amazon. Proceeds from the purchases are going to the JimmyFund.

http://www.amazon.com/Braun-Wins-Appeal-ebook/dp/B007D2IJ3I/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330135901&sr=1-5

RedsManRick
02-25-2012, 03:39 AM
Nor his "guilt"... so everybody should really just move along.

To be frank, this story shouldn't exist. Period.

Amen. We shouldn't even know about this story. And if the story did come out after the facts were known, I'm sure some of the "he's guilty" crown would feel quite differently. Confirmation bias is a very powerful thing.

camisadelgolf
02-25-2012, 05:22 AM
Amen. We shouldn't even know about this story. And if the story did come out after the facts were known, I'm sure some of the "he's guilty" crowd would feel quite differently. Confirmation bias is a very powerful thing.
fyp

WMR
02-25-2012, 05:45 AM
He's about as "innocent" as OJ was.

GAC
02-25-2012, 06:15 AM
There was improper protocol followed in the collection of Braun's urine

This is just wrong in so many ways. :D

Roy Tucker
02-25-2012, 10:55 AM
Just for my sake, I want the sport cleaned up but I also want it done fairly and correctly. The two parties agreed on a testing procedure that, if followed to the letter, would be considered valid and unassailable in the event of a positive test. Then they do it again just to be sure. It stands to reason, then, that if the procedure is not followed to the letter, it is *not* agreed the result is valid and unassailable. And in my opinion, it's the responsibility of the people who made the mistake to justify why the mistake doesn't matter, not the responsibility of the other party to prove why the mistake does matter.

That won't necessarily satisfy the "hang 'em" crowd, but if MLB has the authority to suspend players and brand them as cheaters for the rest of their lives based on a lab test, I don't think it's too much to ask that it be done right.

There you go, being all reasonable and everything ;)

I agree with this viewpoint.

RBA
02-25-2012, 11:50 AM
These are some huge salaries in MLB. Why don't they test hair or blood in addition to the urine test. A blood test is the most reliable, so why wouldn't they want the most reliable method used? Cost wouldn't be a factor at the MLB level.

LegallyMinded
02-25-2012, 12:00 PM
These are some huge salaries in MLB. Why don't they test hair or blood in addition to the urine test. A blood test is the most reliable, so why wouldn't they want the most reliable method used? Cost wouldn't be a factor at the MLB level.

MLB actually is rolling out blood testing beginning with spring training this year, as described here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/sports/baseball/baseball-is-to-begin-blood-testing-for-hgh.html).

In fact, it looks like they've already taken some tests (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/story/2012-02-22/baseball-HGH/53224890/1), and players aren't necessarily happy about the side effects.

Of course, the type of test doesn't really matter if people don't follow the procedures mandated by the testing regulations. Whether it's blood or urine being handled improperly, the player can still get off on a technicality.

RBA
02-25-2012, 12:08 PM
MLB actually is rolling out blood testing beginning with spring training this year, as described here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/sports/baseball/baseball-is-to-begin-blood-testing-for-hgh.html).

In fact, it looks like they've already taken some tests (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/story/2012-02-22/baseball-HGH/53224890/1), and players aren't necessarily happy about the side effects.

Of course, the type of test doesn't really matter if people don't follow the procedures mandated by the testing regulations. Whether it's blood or urine being handled improperly, the player can still get off on a technicality.

That's why people charged with handling samples should be held accountable.

_Sir_Charles_
02-25-2012, 12:26 PM
While I agree that it should be innocent until proven guilty and I think it is incredibly strange that his levels were so much higher than anyone they have ever tested, I think it is also a stretch to pretend he is innocent because arbitrators threw his case out based on the specimen not being mailed on time instead of something wrong with the actual test.

Well, firstly, I'm not "pretending" he is innocent. I assumed it in the first place and it was up to them to prove it otherwise. They didn't, so in my view he REMAINS innocent. As for the case being thrown out for a technicality, all that does is prevent both sides from arguing the facts. The fact that Braun was willing to take a DNA test and MLB refused it states loud and clear to me that Braun wasn't afraid of arguing the facts. So for the doubters of his innocence, I thought that was a VERY vocal act on his part to state that he FIRMLY believes he did nothing wrong. Could I be wrong? Sure.

Sea Ray
02-25-2012, 12:31 PM
Well, firstly, I'm not "pretending" he is innocent. I assumed it in the first place and it was up to them to prove it otherwise. They didn't, so in my view he REMAINS innocent. As for the case being thrown out for a technicality, all that does is prevent both sides from arguing the facts. The fact that Braun was willing to take a DNA test and MLB refused it states loud and clear to me that Braun wasn't afraid of arguing the facts. So for the doubters of his innocence, I thought that was a VERY vocal act on his part to state that he FIRMLY believes he did nothing wrong. Could I be wrong? Sure.

How would submitting a DNA sample prove anything?

_Sir_Charles_
02-25-2012, 12:34 PM
He's about as "innocent" as OJ was.

I'm not even sure what to say to a post like this.

So you have undisputed facts at hand that prove without a doubt that Braun tested positive? You know for certain that it was HIS urine that they actually tested? You know for certain that the courier didn't tamper with his sample or replace it entirely? You know for certain that there wasn't an error in the test itself?

And for those who said that there's not one single person who's come out and said that Braun didn't actually take a substance, there is....Braun.

_Sir_Charles_
02-25-2012, 12:41 PM
How would submitting a DNA sample prove anything?

It would prove that it was HIS urine. With the sample being in this guys hands for 48 hours, we don't know that it is even HIS. That's what it does.

edabbs44
02-25-2012, 12:41 PM
I'm not even sure what to say to a post like this.

So you have undisputed facts at hand that prove without a doubt that Braun tested positive? You know for certain that it was HIS urine that they actually tested? You know for certain that the courier didn't tamper with his sample or replace it entirely? You know for certain that there wasn't an error in the test itself?

And for those who said that there's not one single person who's come out and said that Braun didn't actually take a substance, there is....Braun.

Whatever Braun says is pretty irrelevant.

_Sir_Charles_
02-25-2012, 12:43 PM
Whatever Braun says is pretty irrelevant.

Really? If I'm accused of a crime, I would hope to heck that my thoughts on the matter would have some bearing and be taken as relevant.

Would what Braun said be relevant if he came out and said "I'm guilty"? Either his opinion on the issue has some merit, or it doesn't at all. I can't see how it doesn't.

Sea Ray
02-25-2012, 12:47 PM
It would prove that it was HIS urine. With the sample being in this guys hands for 48 hours, we don't know that it is even HIS. That's what it does.

OK, so if it does prove to be his urine then does he accept the result or does he still get off on the 44 hour technicality?

RBA
02-25-2012, 12:56 PM
It would prove that it was HIS urine. With the sample being in this guys hands for 48 hours, we don't know that it is even HIS. That's what it does.

These samples are sealed and initialed. So the courier lost the sample and chose to replace it with someone's urine containing HGH, manufactured the seal, and forged initials? Or did he open the sealed box, then the sealed bottle, threw some hgh in it, and neatly reapplied the seals and boxed it up. I guess anything is possible.

edabbs44
02-25-2012, 01:24 PM
Really? If I'm accused of a crime, I would hope to heck that my thoughts on the matter would have some bearing and be taken as relevant.

Would what Braun said be relevant if he came out and said "I'm guilty"? Either his opinion on the issue has some merit, or it doesn't at all. I can't see how it doesn't.

Not sure how to respond to this.

Chip R
02-25-2012, 01:55 PM
The way I look at it is that I don't want to hear any excuses if the Reds beat the Brewers without Braun. Now, if he is juicing and he got off on a technicality, he's still going to be tested again. Perhaps he'll test positive again and then proper procedures will be followed and he'll be suspended for real. Or he could decide that it isn't worth getting busted and he'll stop. That could lead to a reduction in his power stats which would be good news for the Reds.

Caveat Emperor
02-25-2012, 02:41 PM
Really? If I'm accused of a crime, I would hope to heck that my thoughts on the matter would have some bearing and be taken as relevant.

Would what Braun said be relevant if he came out and said "I'm guilty"? Either his opinion on the issue has some merit, or it doesn't at all. I can't see how it doesn't.

Self-serving statements of innocence are worthless in a contested proceeding.

RBA
02-25-2012, 03:08 PM
Carrot Top has stopped juicing too.

http://now.msn.com/entertainment/0222-carrot-top-buff.aspx

traderumor
02-25-2012, 03:16 PM
Really? If I'm accused of a crime, I would hope to heck that my thoughts on the matter would have some bearing and be taken as relevant.

Would what Braun said be relevant if he came out and said "I'm guilty"? Either his opinion on the issue has some merit, or it doesn't at all. I can't see how it doesn't.They need to clear out the prisons then, because nearly everyone in there maintains they didn't do it. Surely you're not that naive, Charles.

757690
02-25-2012, 03:42 PM
Amen. We shouldn't even know about this story. And if the story did come out after the facts were known, I'm sure some of the "he's guilty" crown would feel quite differently. Confirmation bias is a very powerful thing.

The more facts that come out, the more my bias is confirmed.

This is what has already been established as fact, and not denied by Braun,

1) The first test of his urine showed a 20-1 ratio of testosterone to epitestoterone, which immediately flags the test and requires a second, more sophisticated test to determine exactly what is in the urine.

2) The collector, according to proper procedure used by the Olympics, and every other testing service, realized that because it was Saturday night, if he took the specimen to any Fed/Ex, it would sit there until Monday morning, because they don't ship on Sunday, so he took the specimen home so it could be kept in a secure, cool location.

3) That also is the proper procedure according to the MLB CBA. However, there also is sentence in the CBA that says, "Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected."

4) So the only dispute is whether or not the fact that specimen was collected late on a Saturday night, which meant that it could not be shipped via Fed/Ex until the next Monday, was "unusual circumstances." The collector and MLB baseball thought it was, while the arbitrator thought it wasn't.

5) The specimen was tested for bacteria after it was stored at the collector's house, and was found to be clean.

6) The seals on the specimen were never broken.

7) In the second test, synthetic testosterone was found in Braun's urine. It is impossible for synthetic testosterone to "develop" in the urine. It can only be added, either by being taken by the person who gave the sample, or added after the sample was taken (tampered with). Braun's only defense is that the sample was tampered with.

Now clearly what is at fault is that one very poorly written sentence, that should read, "Unless the specimen can not be shipped out the same day, or absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected." And MLB and the union are currently fixing that problem.

But I think it is clear that the test results are valid, and had the CBA been properly written, Braun would have received a 50 game suspension.

Captain Hook
02-25-2012, 03:43 PM
Well, firstly, I'm not "pretending" he is innocent. I assumed it in the first place and it was up to them to prove it otherwise. They didn't, so in my view he REMAINS innocent. As for the case being thrown out for a technicality, all that does is prevent both sides from arguing the facts. The fact that Braun was willing to take a DNA test and MLB refused it states loud and clear to me that Braun wasn't afraid of arguing the facts. So for the doubters of his innocence, I thought that was a VERY vocal act on his part to state that he FIRMLY believes he did nothing wrong. Could I be wrong? Sure.



"Sources also told Munson that there was doubt over whose urine was actually being tested. Braun offered to take a DNA test to confirm whose urine was in the sample, but Major League Baseball declined. However, an MLB source told ESPN's Mike Golic that Braun's side backed off of the offer to take a DNA test."

http://espn.go.com/mlb/spring2012/story/_/id/7611600/2012-spring-training-ryan-braun-milwaukee-brewers-says-test-system-failed

757690
02-25-2012, 03:47 PM
"Sources also told Munson that there was doubt over whose urine was actually being tested. Braun offered to take a DNA test to confirm whose urine was in the sample, but Major League Baseball declined. However, an MLB source told ESPN's Mike Golic that Braun's side backed off of the offer to take a DNA test."

http://espn.go.com/mlb/spring2012/story/_/id/7611600/2012-spring-training-ryan-braun-milwaukee-brewers-says-test-system-failed

More on this...


Braun's team suggested Friday that after learning of the positive test result, it requested the player's sample undergo DNA testing to determine whether it was truly his urine.

MLB declined this request, according to Braun's camp. While MLB agreed Braun's camp requested the DNA request initially, a source with knowledge of the case said MLB told Braun and his lawyers it didn't believe such a test was necessary but that they were welcome take up the issue with the arbitrator if they wanted the test conducted.

Ultimately, the source said, the DNA issue was not raised during the hearing by Braun's team.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/OTL-Ryan-Braun/ryan-braun-defense-raises-more-questions-doping-experts

Captain Hook
02-25-2012, 03:57 PM
He's innocent but I think he cheated.

It wasn't until he got off, claimed that because he was cleared, it 100% proves he's he didn't juice when he actually got off on a technicality, that I decided in my mind that he did something he shouldn't of.Once he was proven innocent he should've kept his mouth shut or at least acknowledged that he understands why the final verdict leaves a lot of questions because of how they got to it.It 100% doesn't prove that he didn't juice.

jojo
02-25-2012, 04:06 PM
The more facts that come out, the more my bias is confirmed.

This is what has already been established as fact, and not denied by Braun,

1) The first test of his urine showed a 20-1 ratio of testosterone to epitestoterone, which immediately flags the test and requires a second, more sophisticated test to determine exactly what is in the urine.

2) The collector, according to proper procedure used by the Olympics, and every other testing service, realized that because it was Saturday night, if he took the specimen to any Fed/Ex, it would sit there until Monday morning, because they don't ship on Sunday, so he took the specimen home so it could be kept in a secure, cool location.

3) That also is the proper procedure according to the MLB CBA. However, there also is sentence in the CBA that says, "Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected."

4) So the only dispute is whether or not the fact that specimen was collected late on a Saturday night, which meant that it could not be shipped via Fed/Ex until the next Monday, was "unusual circumstances." The collector and MLB baseball thought it was, while the arbitrator thought it wasn't.

5) The specimen was tested for bacteria after it was stored at the collector's house, and was found to be clean.

6) The seals on the specimen were never broken.

7) In the second test, synthetic testosterone was found in Braun's urine. It is impossible for synthetic testosterone to "develop" in the urine. It can only be added, either by being taken by the person who gave the sample, or added after the sample was taken (tampered with). Braun's only defense is that the sample was tampered with.

Now clearly what is at fault is that one very poorly written sentence, that should read, "Unless the specimen can not be shipped out the same day, or absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected." And MLB and the union are currently fixing that problem.

But I think it is clear that the test results are valid, and had the CBA been properly written, Braun would have received a 50 game suspension.

The samples were not tested for bacteria and found to be clean. We have to be very careful summarizing things. Basically Passan's article suggested the technicians didnt find bacterial growth when processing the samples. Also we know nothing about the actual storage conditions in the courier's basement.

The isotope test to me is the hardest detail to explain.

757690
02-25-2012, 04:20 PM
The samples were not tested for bacteria and found to be clean. We have to be very careful summarizing things. Basically Passan's article suggested the technicians didnt find bacterial growth when processing the samples. Also we know nothing about the actual storage conditions in the courier's basement.

The isotope test to me is the hardest detail to explain.

Thanks for the correction. You are correct.

I will add one important issue to think about. Just because synthetic testosterone was find in Braun's specimen, it doesn't mean that he cheated or tried to cheat. Maybe someone who knows more about PED's can give more information, but I have to think that there are other innocent explanations for how that synthetic testosterone entered his system.

Johnny Footstool
02-25-2012, 04:42 PM
It would prove that it was HIS urine. With the sample being in this guys hands for 48 hours, we don't know that it is even HIS. That's what it does.

Except for the fact that is was collected and labeled correctly, and that the labels were intact when they arrived at the testing lab.

So we do know that it was his urine.

REDblooded
02-25-2012, 06:22 PM
Except for the fact that is was collected and labeled correctly, and that the labels were intact when they arrived at the testing lab.

So we do know that it was his urine.

Except for the opinion that if somebody REALLY wanted to, they could alter a sample and make it appear to be not tampered with...

Would a pee collector want to do that? Probably not, but who knows... What if the collectors son (who chaperoned Braun that day) had some insane gambling debts and dropped information to a gambling ring about who's urine was chilling in Pop's basement? What if somebody had a vendetta against Braun for some unknown reason?

The fact is, you DON'T know for sure that it was his urine. Nobody could prove that, because of the way it was handled...

But feel free to call the guy guilty when plenty of signs point to the possibility of him not being guilty...

Brutus
02-25-2012, 06:25 PM
Except for the opinion that if somebody REALLY wanted to, they could alter a sample and make it appear to be not tampered with...

Would a pee collector want to do that? Probably not, but who knows... What if the collectors son (who chaperoned Braun that day) had some insane gambling debts and dropped information to a gambling ring about who's urine was chilling in Pop's basement? What if somebody had a vendetta against Braun for some unknown reason?

The fact is, you DON'T know for sure that it was his urine. Nobody could prove that, because of the way it was handled...

But feel free to call the guy guilty when plenty of signs point to the possibility of him not being guilty...

Where are all these signs pointing to him not being guilty? There are no signs that point to those test results being invalidated. Everything you're saying is nothing more than hypothetical. You have absolutely no evidence of tampering, no evidence of invalidated results. So where are all these signs pointing to such a possibility?

Hypotheticals of something that could happen are not evidence of anything. Those aren't "signs."

PuffyPig
02-25-2012, 06:37 PM
Where are all these signs pointing to him not being guilty? There are no signs that point to those test results being invalidated. Everything you're saying is nothing more than hypothetical. You have absolutely no evidence of tampering, no evidence of invalidated results. So where are all these signs pointing to such a possibility?

Hypotheticals of something that could happen are not evidence of anything. Those aren't "signs."

There doesn't have tp be signs of "tampering". There doesn't have to be signs of "invalidated results". The fact is, the proper protocol was not followed. Therefore, the appeal was decided correctly.

Brutus
02-25-2012, 06:48 PM
There doesn't have tp be signs of "tampering". There doesn't have to be signs of "invalidated results". The fact is, the proper protocol was not followed. Therefore, the appeal was decided correctly.

You're confusing legal technicalities with exonerating evidence. I have not argued they made the wrong decision on the basis of protocol, nor has anyone else argued that to my knowledge. But overturning an appeal on technical grounds, justified though it may be, is not the same as having evidence any funny business actually occurred.

_Sir_Charles_
02-25-2012, 08:55 PM
They need to clear out the prisons then, because nearly everyone in there maintains they didn't do it. Surely you're not that naive, Charles.

No, I'm not. But I'm looking at the fact that he has vehemently denied this from the get-go, he's cooperated fully, he's volunteered to submit additional evidence. My point is this...if you're wrongly accused...OF ANYTHING...in the court of public opinion, what exactly CAN he do to prove his innocence. Exactly what he's been trying to do. I'm not saying he IS innocent, I'm saying that somebody who knows he did the deed isn't going to go to those lengths to attempt to prove something he knows isn't true.

I know that in this day and age, most people tend to look at somebody accused of something and immediately think to themselves "anytime I see somebody accused of something, odds are that they did it". But there are times when the accused is completely and totally innocent of it. IMO it's harder to prove your innocence than it is to prove somebody as guilty. And that's one of the biggest tragedies around IMO.

Johnny Footstool
02-25-2012, 10:15 PM
Except for the opinion that if somebody REALLY wanted to, they could alter a sample and make it appear to be not tampered with...

Would a pee collector want to do that? Probably not, but who knows... What if the collectors son (who chaperoned Braun that day) had some insane gambling debts and dropped information to a gambling ring about who's urine was chilling in Pop's basement? What if somebody had a vendetta against Braun for some unknown reason?

The fact is, you DON'T know for sure that it was his urine. Nobody could prove that, because of the way it was handled...

But feel free to call the guy guilty when plenty of signs point to the possibility of him not being guilty...

The burden of proof falls on anyone making the accusation that the sample was tampered with.

It seems like a lot of people are bending over backwards to find ways of declaring Braun innocent, when the facts point to one logical conclusion: guilty.

traderumor
02-25-2012, 10:16 PM
Except for the opinion that if somebody REALLY wanted to, they could alter a sample and make it appear to be not tampered with...

Would a pee collector want to do that? Probably not, but who knows... What if the collectors son (who chaperoned Braun that day) had some insane gambling debts and dropped information to a gambling ring about who's urine was chilling in Pop's basement? What if somebody had a vendetta against Braun for some unknown reason?

The fact is, you DON'T know for sure that it was his urine. Nobody could prove that, because of the way it was handled...

But feel free to call the guy guilty when plenty of signs point to the possibility of him not being guilty...The simplest answer is failure to follow procedures, so that's probably a pretty safe bet.

REDblooded
02-25-2012, 10:31 PM
The burden of proof falls on anyone making the accusation that the sample was tampered with.

It seems like a lot of people are bending over backwards to find ways of declaring Braun innocent, when the facts point to one logical conclusion: guilty.


Fair enough in the case of tampering.

In the case of the test? MLB didn't prove it, and Braun's defense was able to poke enough holes in their case for him to walk (for the first time in a drug appeal vs. MLB). Logical conclusion: No logical conclusion could be drawn unless you have all of the info. Which you don't. Which I don't. Not Guilty.

Johnny Footstool
02-26-2012, 12:21 AM
Based on some of the info posted earlier, everything hinged on what the arbitrator determined to be "reasonable" reasons for not shipping the sample to the lab. The arbitrator determined that it was not reasonable for the courier to hold the sample because there were Fed-Ex facilities in the area (whatever that means) open.

No tampering was implied. The case hinged on an interpretation of what was reasonable. In my mind, it was a narrow interpretation, and justice was not served.

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 12:24 AM
Based on some of the info posted earlier, everything hinged on what the arbitrator determined to be "reasonable" reasons for not shipping the sample to the lab. The arbitrator determined that it was not reasonable for the courier to hold the sample because there were Fed-Ex facilities in the area (whatever that means) open.

No tampering was implied. The case hinged on an interpretation of what was reasonable. In my mind, it was a narrow interpretation, and justice was not served.

Have their been any legit sources proving that?

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 12:31 AM
As for their being FedEx locations available:

Supposedly the tester pasted appx 18 open FedEx shipping sites on the way home from taking the sample. One was a 24 hour facility... FedEx has laboratory shipping. The sample would have been more secure there, would have remained confidential (you should really read the Will Carroll article on Amazon), and more importantly, it would have been guaranteed to have been stored/handled properly....

Captain Hook
02-26-2012, 01:40 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he guilty the second he failed the drug test?The issue wasn't about if he committed a crime or not so I don't see why the whole "innocent before proven guilty" issue has been brought up here. MLBPA and MLB agreed that the standard for guilt was the test, not some trial that can obviously be used to shift the focus from if the athlete actually used PED's to wether or not Fed Ex was open.

GAC
02-26-2012, 06:41 AM
The burden of proof falls on anyone making the accusation that the sample was tampered with.

It seems like a lot of people are bending over backwards to find ways of declaring Braun innocent, when the facts point to one logical conclusion: guilty.

I agree. I really haven't followed this story that much; but this article (if it hasn't already been posted) convinced me (as the writer says) that Braun is full of something else besides synthetic testosterone. ;)

Without mentioning the handler by name... and one doesn't have to read between the lines to what conclusion Braun is trying to lead people to make... Braun basically is accusing, wanting everyone to somehow believe, that this handler tampered with those samples. If one is going to make that accusation of tampering, then shouldn't the FBI be called in to investigate, because that is a serious accusation?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/milwaukee-brewers-star-ryan-braun-story-flunks-test-article-1.1028642?localLinksEnabled=false

mth123
02-26-2012, 07:19 AM
I agree. I really haven't followed this story that much; but this article (if it hasn't already been posted) convinced me (as the writer says) that Braun is full of something else besides synthetic testosterone. ;)

Without mentioning the handler by name... and one doesn't have to read between the lines to what conclusion Braun is trying to lead people to make... Braun basically is accusing, wanting everyone to somehow believe, that this handler tampered with those samples. If one is going to make that accusation of tampering, then shouldn't the FBI be called in to investigate, because that is a serious accusation?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/milwaukee-brewers-star-ryan-braun-story-flunks-test-article-1.1028642?localLinksEnabled=false

I would hope the FBI would have better things to do no matter how much stuff is going on. This really isn't that important an issue.

redsmetz
02-26-2012, 07:56 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he guilty the second he failed the drug test?The issue wasn't about if he committed a crime or not so I don't see why the whole "innocent before proven guilty" issue has been brought up here. MLBPA and MLB agreed that the standard for guilt was the test, not some trial that can obviously be used to shift the focus from if the athlete actually used PED's to wether or not Fed Ex was open.

I would say you're incorrect. Clearly the agreement states further that the player has a right to an appeal and, likewise, during that appeal, no results are announced. If the appeal is successful, no announcement is made whatsoever, end of the matter.

Unfortunately in today's world, one is presumed guilty and no amount of appealing matters. More so, much of the public tends to believe Braun "got off". I'm not a scientist, but I suspect in any type of scientific study, a result such as his, supposedly higher than any test ever performed (I did read that, right?), would lead the researcher to question the result, being such an extreme outlier. I could be wrong about that, but I would think it would give the researcher pause.

I concur with those who say we don't have all the facts, so we can't know all that has occurred. That leaves Braun at a distinct disadvantage in the court of public opinion - making it look as if he's getting away with something. Frankly, we really don't know that, do we?

PuffyPig
02-26-2012, 12:02 PM
But overturning an appeal on technical grounds, justified though it may be, is not the same as having evidence any funny business actually occurred.

Did I say otherwise? I didn't comment on whether or not he was involved in "funny business".

RedsManRick
02-26-2012, 12:24 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he guilty the second he failed the drug test?The issue wasn't about if he committed a crime or not so I don't see why the whole "innocent before proven guilty" issue has been brought up here. MLBPA and MLB agreed that the standard for guilt was the test, not some trial that can obviously be used to shift the focus from if the athlete actually used PED's to wether or not Fed Ex was open.

No, he wasn't. The failed test is like the cops having evidence that you committed a crime. There's still a process you go through to allow the player to make a defense before you find him guilty and, quite importantly, publicize the result. It's the "proven" part of the statement you quote. It's not just that you have evidence, but that through a legal process you use the evidence to prove the guilt.

Jpup
02-26-2012, 03:05 PM
How does synthetic testosterone get in the body? It comes from an attempt to cheat. The body can't produce it and it can't "grow" in your urine. He's certainly guilty of cheating and has stained his reputation and the game.

I also believe that if the correct procedure was not followed, he should have been let off.

Sounds like a cheater that got away with it. Hopefully hell continue to put up the same numbers and test clean from here on out.

Brutus
02-26-2012, 04:09 PM
No, he wasn't. The failed test is like the cops having evidence that you committed a crime. There's still a process you go through to allow the player to make a defense before you find him guilty and, quite importantly, publicize the result. It's the "proven" part of the statement you quote. It's not just that you have evidence, but that through a legal process you use the evidence to prove the guilt.

He's already been proven guilty. He's just not going to be punished for his guilt on account of the system in place.

Think about the language they use: his "suspension" was overturned. It's semantics, but no one is really disputing the guilt of the test. Braun himself hasn't disputed that. It's merely that because of a procedural error, the suspension will not be enforced.

jojo
02-26-2012, 04:19 PM
Braun has not been proven guilty. He is being treated like he is innocent. We don't know one wy or the other.

All we do know for certain is that it was not a certainty that he would get a 50 game suspension.

757690
02-26-2012, 04:23 PM
As for their being FedEx locations available:

Supposedly the tester pasted appx 18 open FedEx shipping sites on the way home from taking the sample. One was a 24 hour facility... FedEx has laboratory shipping. The sample would have been more secure there, would have remained confidential (you should really read the Will Carroll article on Amazon), and more importantly, it would have been guaranteed to have been stored/handled properly....

I have no doubt that if the collector did leave the specimen at Fed/Ex that Sat. Night, and it stayed there until the next Monday, that Braun's lawyers would have argued that the chain of custody was broken because it sat at a Fed/Ex office for 44 hours. They would argue that it needed to be in the possession of either MLB, the testing agency, or in the process of being shipped, in order to maintain the proper chain of custody.

The issue was not the procedure that was taken, but the vague and contradictory language of the CBA.

dougdirt
02-26-2012, 04:41 PM
He's already been proven guilty. He's just not going to be punished for his guilt on account of the system in place.

Think about the language they use: his "suspension" was overturned. It's semantics, but no one is really disputing the guilt of the test. Braun himself hasn't disputed that. It's merely that because of a procedural error, the suspension will not be enforced.

Didn't Braun say in his press conference that he didn't take anything?

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 05:14 PM
Didn't Braun say in his press conference that he didn't take anything?

I pointed that out too, but apparently nothing Braun says is worth a grain of salt. *rolls eyes* I know that if he were guilty of it he'd possibly lie to hide his guilt...but wouldn't he also state he didn't do it if he in fact DIDN'T do it? People tend to assume the first possibility and quickly dismiss the second.

edabbs44
02-26-2012, 05:18 PM
I pointed that out too, but apparently nothing Braun says is worth a grain of salt. *rolls eyes* I know that if he were guilty of it he'd possibly lie to hide his guilt...but wouldn't he also state he didn't do it if he in fact DIDN'T do it? People tend to assume the first possibility and quickly dismiss the second.

Come on man, really? I'll believe a test over the testee 100 times out of 100.

757690
02-26-2012, 05:30 PM
I Didn't Do It, Nobody Saw Me Do It, There's No Way You Can Prove Anything! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTbgsoHDc24&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 05:54 PM
I have no doubt that if the collector did leave the specimen at Fed/Ex that Sat. Night, and it stayed there until the next Monday, that Braun's lawyers would have argued that the chain of custody was broken because it sat at a Fed/Ex office for 44 hours. They would argue that it needed to be in the possession of either MLB, the testing agency, or in the process of being shipped, in order to maintain the proper chain of custody.

The issue was not the procedure that was taken, but the vague and contradictory language of the CBA.

Except it wouldn't have sat at the Fed/Ex location for 44 hours... And it wouldn't have broken chain of custody because it was being held by the correct people in the correct environment.

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 06:00 PM
Come on man, really? I'll believe a test over the testee 100 times out of 100.

When the test is done on a specimen that was under unknown control for 2 days straight? Everyone is assuming that it wasn't tampered with. Bottom line is that no test is valid if it's done on questionable samples to begin with.

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 06:00 PM
Come on man, really? I'll believe a test over the testee 100 times out of 100.


For the 1 Millionth time... You don't have all of the details. His defense was able to place enough doubt in the mind of the independent arbitrator to throw out the test. Reportedly his defense wasn't based solely on the chain of custody issue, but how mishandling the sample could have caused a false positive.

The only "proof" that he had tested positive was dismissed. It doesn't exist.

Again, I'll suggest that many of you drop the .99 cents to the JimmyV charity and purchase this article in order to see part of the reason I am so set on defending Braun...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007D2IJ3I/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

757690
02-26-2012, 06:08 PM
Except it wouldn't have sat at the Fed/Ex location for 44 hours... And it wouldn't have broken chain of custody because it was being held by the correct people in the correct environment.

Okay, it would have sat at Fed/Ex for around 36 hours.

And it was held by the correct people in the correct environment when it was held by the collector in his home. The issue is that the CBA gave vague and contradictory instructions on how to handle the specimen when it wasn't going to be shipped right away.

My point is that which ever way the collector chose to go, he was screwed by the vague language of the CBA, and Braun's lawyers would have exploited it either way.

Had the collector dropped it off at Fed/ex and let it sit there until Monday, Braun's lawyers would have said that the fact that it wouldn't ship right away was an "unusual circumstance" that required the collector to keep the specimen himself.

757690
02-26-2012, 06:13 PM
For the 1 Millionth time... You don't have all of the details. His defense was able to place enough doubt in the mind of the independent arbitrator to throw out the test. Reportedly his defense wasn't based solely on the chain of custody issue, but how mishandling the sample could have caused a false positive.

The only "proof" that he had tested positive was dismissed. It doesn't exist.

Braun's defense was that it was tampered with. It is impossible for the mishandling to cause a false positive for sytheric testosterone. His defense and the arbitrator never doubted the validity of the test.

And remember, there was a first test that showed a high ratio that came before the chain of custody issues.

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 06:15 PM
Okay, it would have sat at Fed/Ex for around 36 hours.

And it was held by the correct people in the correct environment when it was held by the collector in his home. The issue is that the CBA gave vague and contradictory instructions on how to handle the specimen when it wasn't going to be shipped right away.

My point is that which ever way the collector chose to go, he was screwed by the vague language of the CBA, and Braun's lawyers would have exploited it either way.

Had the collector dropped it off at Fed/ex and let it sit there until Monday, Braun's lawyers would have said that the fact that it wouldn't ship right away was an "unusual circumstance" that required the collector to keep the specimen himself.

I'm pretty sure FedEx wouldn't have kept the sample all weekend... They have daily pick-ups, especially from a FedEx center... It also would have been held and sealed in lab approved conditions the entire time.

PuffyPig
02-26-2012, 06:31 PM
He's already been proven guilty. He's just not going to be punished for his guilt on account of the system in place.



He wasn't proven quilty. His quilt was based on a procedure that was not properly carried out. It therfore leaves doubt as to the accuracy of the results. It's why they have set procedures, to ensure accuracy.

You can say that the speciman's tested positive. That's a fact. But since the chain of control wasn't carried out in the proper manner, the speciman was deemed unreliable. As it should be.

757690
02-26-2012, 06:37 PM
I'm pretty sure FedEx wouldn't have kept the sample all weekend... They have daily pick-ups, especially from a FedEx center... It also would have been held and sealed in lab approved conditions the entire time.

You're missing the point.

Regardless of what would have been done, the wording of the CBA is so vague that Braun's lawyers would have called foul no matter what. They would have argued that the fact that the specimen would not have been delivered until Monday was an "unusual circumstance" and according to the CBA, required that the specimen been kept by the collector until the next Monday.

jojo
02-26-2012, 07:10 PM
How does an "extremely experienced" courier in a major metropolitan area not know where a FedEx is BTW? Doesn't some chick live in your cell phone just so she can tell you these kinds of things?

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 07:22 PM
You're missing the point.

Regardless of what would have been done, the wording of the CBA is so vague that Braun's lawyers would have called foul no matter what. They would have argued that the fact that the specimen would not have been delivered until Monday was an "unusual circumstance" and according to the CBA, required that the specimen been kept by the collector until the next Monday.


I'm missing it because it doesn't exist... You continue to debate that there would have been another loophole based on your own speculation.

Johnny Footstool
02-26-2012, 07:42 PM
And Pete didn't bet on baseball.

Larkin Fan
02-26-2012, 07:50 PM
Come on man, really? I'll believe a test over the testee 100 times out of 100.

As would I. Science doesn't lie. People do.

kaldaniels
02-26-2012, 08:55 PM
I get that he is not "guilty". But he is being tried in the court of public opinion. And in that case his best defense is in a pay article? I would think his team would be out in front of this a bit more.

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 08:57 PM
Dave Cameron has been reading this thread...

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-braun-and-confirmation-bias/


Ryan Braun and Confirmation Bias (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-braun-and-confirmation-bias/)

by Dave Cameron - February 24, 2012
Confirmation Bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias):


Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is probably more prevalent among baseball fans than any other logical fallacy. We’ve all gone to a game and sat near the guy who booed when the manager brought in a mediocre reliever to try and preserve a lead, then watched the reliever implode and the loud angry fan tell everyone that “he knew” that guy was going to give up those runs. In reality, he didn’t actually know what was going to happen – since he’s really just a loud angry fan and not a fortune telling wizard – but the fact that events aligned to match his preconceived expectations led to a reinforced belief in his own prior opinion.
Since the news came out about Ryan Braun (http://www.fangraphs.com/players.aspx?lastname=Ryan%20Braun)‘s overturned suspension, the internet seems to be full of loud angry fans. People who “know” that Ryan Braun used steroids and got off on a technicality. People who “know” that he’s a dirty cheat. They “know” a lot of things, because Ryan Braun hits home runs, and Ryan Braun failed one drug test, and people who hit home runs and fail drug tests are cheating muscle-head juicers.
This is the unfortunate power of confirmation bias. As humans, we often take incomplete bits of information and force them into a predetermined world view because they reinforce our current belief system, and we’re wired to want to be right about things. So, despite the fact that we’re often handed pieces of information that should fall far short of being the basis for a strong opinion, we take that information as evidence that the thing we already believed to be true is indeed true, and we fortify our opinions to the point where our conclusions far outstrip what actual evidence we have.
I’m not here to exonerate Ryan Braun or declare that he’s definitely clean. I have no idea if he used steroids or not, just like I have no idea if Roy Halladay (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P) has used steroids or whether Dee Gordon (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=8203&position=SS) has used steroids. I’m just not in any position to have any kind of opinion on what they have or haven’t done. The limited information that has gotten out to the public doesn’t give us any kind of real basis for drawing conclusions. In reality, the only thing we can ascertain from the information we have is that Bruan may or may not have used, and there’s no real way for us to actually know.
There’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know”, and given the actual evidence that the public possesses, it’s the only fair thing we can say. We don’t know that Braun used or didn’t use. We don’t know much about the situation, honestly. Instead of letting the small amount of information we do have reinforce our currently held opinions about home run hitters and steroid use, let’s acknowledge that confirmation bias is a powerful force and avoid the temptation to make sweeping conclusions when the information we actually have doesn’t support that kind of strong position.

Brutus
02-26-2012, 08:58 PM
He wasn't proven quilty. His quilt was based on a procedure that was not properly carried out. It therfore leaves doubt as to the accuracy of the results. It's why they have set procedures, to ensure accuracy.

You can say that the speciman's tested positive. That's a fact. But since the chain of control wasn't carried out in the proper manner, the speciman was deemed unreliable. As it should be.

No one has been able, or tried for that matter, to assert the results of the sample were invalidated. They have only asserted that they won't punish a player because of the breach of protocol.

Until/unless someone shows that 24 hours in a fridge otherwise makes synthetic testosterone magically appear in a test, he's guilty. I don't see how anyone could actually argue against that unless they're suggesting someone framed him.

Brutus
02-26-2012, 09:00 PM
Dave Cameron has been reading this thread...

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-braun-and-confirmation-bias/

What an outrageous strawman by Cameron.

People aren't reacting to his hitting home runs. They're reacting to the fact he tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone and then a SECOND test confirmed synthetic testosterone.

That's why people are sure of themselves. Not because of confirmation bias but because two separate tests deemed him a cheater. Twenty four hours in a fridge doesn't invalidate that...

oneupper
02-26-2012, 09:24 PM
The probability of a person believing a conspiracy theory will always be higher than the probability of that theory actually being true.

People just love that stuff.

757690
02-26-2012, 09:29 PM
What an outrageous strawman by Cameron.

People aren't reacting to his hitting home runs. They're reacting to the fact he tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone and then a SECOND test confirmed synthetic testosterone.

That's why people are sure of themselves. Not because of confirmation bias but because two separate tests deemed him a cheater. Twenty four hours in a fridge doesn't invalidate that...

Exactly.


The limited information that has gotten out to the public doesn’t give us any kind of real basis for drawing conclusions.

That quote is just flat out incorrect. There is more information about Braun's use of PED's than Clemens, Bonds, Sosa or McGwire. It is beyond ridiculous to claim that there's not enough information to make an informed decision.

Is there 100% undeniable proof that he cheated? No, but there never is. However, there's enough to be confident in one's opinion that he did.

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 09:34 PM
What an outrageous strawman by Cameron.

People aren't reacting to his hitting home runs. They're reacting to the fact he tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone and then a SECOND test confirmed synthetic testosterone.

That's why people are sure of themselves. Not because of confirmation bias but because two separate tests deemed him a cheater. Twenty four hours in a fridge doesn't invalidate that...

Sorry, I don't think it was a strawman at ALL.

Let me fix that last paragraph you posted....
That's why people are sure of themselves. Not because of confirmation bias but because two separate tests deemed the sample they tested as one of a cheater. Fourty Eight hours sitting on a counter-top doesn't invalidate that but not knowing what happened during that 48 hours does...

757690
02-26-2012, 09:40 PM
Sorry, I don't think it was a strawman at ALL.

Let me fix that last paragraph you posted....
That's why people are sure of themselves. Not because of confirmation bias but because two separate tests deemed the sample they tested as one of a cheater. Fourty Eight hours sitting on a counter-top doesn't invalidate that but not knowing what happened during that 48 hours does...

Even if you buy into the conspiracy theory that the sample was tampered with during those 44 hours, it doesn't explain the results of the first test, whose validity has not been questioned.

And relying on a conspiracy theory based on the notion that someone tampered with the specimen and somehow was able to replace the seals to justify your belief, is the ultimate example of confirmation bias, imo.

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 09:50 PM
Even if you buy into the conspiracy theory that the sample was tampered with during those 44 hours, it doesn't explain the results of the first test, whose validity has not been questioned.

And relying on a conspiracy theory based on the notion that someone tampered with the specimen and somehow was able to replace the seals to justify your belief, is the ultimate example of confirmation bias, imo.

Wait, BOTH tests were run on the same sample. Because the first one was so high, they retested it for more details and that showed that it was synthetic testosterone in the sample.

There's no difference in the two tests if the sample is invalid to begin with.

And I'm not stating my belief on anything other than the fact that at this point we don't know. And since we don't know, I'm going to make my assumption on the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. So no, I'm not using conformational bias at all because I'm not drawing a conclusion. I'm stating that I don't know. And neither does anybody else.

jojo
02-26-2012, 09:54 PM
Even if you buy into the conspiracy theory that the sample was tampered with during those 44 hours, it doesn't explain the results of the first test, whose validity has not been questioned.

And relying on a conspiracy theory based on the notion that someone tampered with the specimen and somehow was able to replace the seals to justify your belief, is the ultimate example of confirmation bias, imo.

The first test is easy to explain. If the courier can't even find a fedex in a large city it's not unreasonable to doubt he can store a sample correctly. And improper storage can certainly alter the T/E results.

The isotope test, if true, would be harder to explain away. It will be interesting to find out if we really know what we think we know once details of the final report inevitably leak out. We really haven't known what we thought we knew up to this point as his suspension was not as inevitable as was argued.

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 10:54 PM
Thanks for the last 2 responses... I wasted about 30 minutes tonight trying to find out whether there were two tests or just one... I was under the impression that there had only been 1 sample.

That's something that people are confusing big time... There weren't two separate instances where he pee'd in a cup and then had both samples come back dirty. There was just the one sample and then two tests showing a positive result off of that one sample... If that one sample had been tainted (and there have been suggestions that Braun's camp was able to duplicate a false positive for testosterone with a clean sample that had been mishandled intentionally) then it could conceivably show he had used when he hadn't... It's not a conspiracy theory...

Instead we've gotten to the point that people are passing judgement while knowing only a small portion of the facts, and understanding even less. That's the issue that I have (and I initially thought there was no way he'd come out of this clean, since nobody else had previously).

REDblooded
02-26-2012, 10:59 PM
To explain the two tests aspect for everybody under the impression that he provided multiple dirty samples.

The first test is pretty basic. If it shows an illegal substance they will test that sample further.

It's not like he provided a sample, failed, was asked to present another sample, and failed again. This is all off of one jar of urine.

When finding out that he had failed, he immediately asked if he could provide another sample because he didn't believe he had done anything wrong.
The second test (from what I understand) has the original sample turned into a gaseous state. They then test the isotopes to determine exactly what the substance is.

757690
02-26-2012, 11:18 PM
Nm

Captain Hook
02-27-2012, 01:14 AM
Dave Cameron has been reading this thread...

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-braun-and-confirmation-bias/

I've seen that there's a lot of people opinions and question and others helping answer those question in this thread but I've seen nothing suggesting that there is any bias toward what's being discussed. This article suggest that there is nothing to question here and that people that are questioning the details of this case are somewhat delusional.:laugh:

AtomicDumpling
02-27-2012, 06:01 AM
Has there ever been an official account of the facts published by MLB or is everybody still basing their rock-solid opinions on rumors and leaks?

RedFanAlways1966
02-27-2012, 10:47 AM
Instead we've gotten to the point that people are passing judgement while knowing only a small portion of the facts, and understanding even less. That's the issue that I have (and I initially thought there was no way he'd come out of this clean, since nobody else had previously).

And you can blame MLB (Bud and his cronies/player's union) for this. You know, the same outfit/people who let this crap happen and raked in big $$$ for years. And then ACTED like they all of a sudden cared about doing the right thing. This is what hapens when you let this happen. Blame MLB.

Johnny Footstool
02-27-2012, 12:01 PM
Instead we've gotten to the point that people are passing judgement while knowing only a small portion of the facts, and understanding even less. That's the issue that I have (and I initially thought there was no way he'd come out of this clean, since nobody else had previously).

Yes, well, welcome to the Internet.

All of us (including you and I) are in that group of people "passing judgment" (more accurately, "giving opinions") while knowing only a small portion of the facts.

Sea Ray
02-27-2012, 12:04 PM
Since there's no way his sample could have degraded into synthetic testosterone, he either is guilty or his sample was purposely tampered with. Is there any other possibility?

Bumstead
02-27-2012, 01:08 PM
Seems to me that Braun has been guilty all along in the court of "Bum"-opinion. I'll take the other route and assume he's innocent until proven guilty and now that he's won the appeal I'll consider it a closed case as if it never happened.

See, in court, you are innocent until "proven" guilty, while in reality you are either guilty of the act or not. People can lie and get away with stuff and they do it all the time, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. Ryan Braun peed in a cup and tested positive; mlb mishandled it, but their mishandling didn't have a scientific effect on the sample. So, the only conclusion YOU can draw is that the guy who took the sample home injected steroids into the sample before finally sending the sample in. So, this guy just had it in for Braun only? This is the only guy he has "setup" in this manner? You are reaching for Braun's innocence in my opinion. So, the guy that took the sample home is "guilty" of tampering in your opinion? Why hasn't he been brought forward and punished then? Maybe, just a thought, but he didn't actually tamper with it, not that Braun's "team" ever argued that he did anyway...Why is it OK for you to consider the guy who had the sample in his possession guilty of tampering but others aren't allowed to be of the opinion that Braun is 'roider and a liar?

Bum

Sea Ray
02-27-2012, 03:38 PM
See, in court, you are innocent until "proven" guilty, while in reality you are either guilty of the act or not. People can lie and get away with stuff and they do it all the time, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. Ryan Braun peed in a cup and tested positive; mlb mishandled it, but their mishandling didn't have a scientific effect on the sample. So, the only conclusion YOU can draw is that the guy who took the sample home injected steroids into the sample before finally sending the sample in. So, this guy just had it in for Braun only? This is the only guy he has "setup" in this manner? You are reaching for Braun's innocence in my opinion. So, the guy that took the sample home is "guilty" of tampering in your opinion? Why hasn't he been brought forward and punished then? Maybe, just a thought, but he didn't actually tamper with it, not that Braun's "team" ever argued that he did anyway...Why is it OK for you to consider the guy who had the sample in his possession guilty of tampering but others aren't allowed to be of the opinion that Braun is 'roider and a liar?

Bum

I agree with everything your wrote here Bum except your characterization that MLB mishandled it. MLB had no more to do with it than the Plays Assoc did. In setting up the program both sides agreed to use this company to administer the tests.

Brutus
02-27-2012, 03:56 PM
Since there's no way his sample could have degraded into synthetic testosterone, he either is guilty or his sample was purposely tampered with. Is there any other possibility?

No one else has presented any other viable theory of the case, but yet people are chastised for believing the test results speak to his guilt, short of the belief the samples were tampered with. And the thing is, no one has actually asserted they believe there was any foul play.

kaldaniels
02-27-2012, 04:10 PM
If Braun said the sample was mishandled AND tampered with, I couldn't argue anything about that. But it seems that he is being careful to simply only say it was mishandled. Which leaves open the question, assuming reported leaks are true, where did the synthetic testosterone come from? Are we to just assume (per his story) it was tampered with?

From a legal/PR standpoint why is he seeming to choose his words so carefully?

jojo
02-27-2012, 04:27 PM
If Braun said the sample was mishandled AND tampered with, I couldn't argue anything about that. But it seems that he is being careful to simply only say it was mishandled. Which leaves open the question, assuming reported leaks are true, where did the synthetic testosterone come from? Are we to just assume (per his story) it was tampered with?

From a legal/PR standpoint why is he seeming to choose his words so carefully?

He didn't have to argue the samples were tampered with.... It will be interesting to hear what facts the arbitors considered to reach their conclusion. Maybe there was a reason to ignore the results of both tests. Are we sure that synthetic testosterone truly was identified? There were reports that the positive was not for a performance enhancer. But clearly, if the isotope test was positive for synthetic testosterone as Passan wrote and there is no valid reason to invalidate it save tampering, Braun would have to be very careful about making that accusation because it would surely open him up to a lawsuit. Truthfully even if he was innocent he would risk a lawsuit absent proof of tampering (and this isn't an argument that the sample was tampered with). That's why this should never have been public knowledge in the first place.

Anyway, there's no imperative to make up one's mind at this point. Clearly the suspension wasn't a given and the story wasn't over once Braun tested positive. Quite a bit of backstory still remains. I think this was the point of Cameron's article about confirmation bias.

We probably ought to just grab some popcorn and wait for the denouement.

RedsManRick
02-27-2012, 04:47 PM
He's already been proven guilty. He's just not going to be punished for his guilt on account of the system in place.

Think about the language they use: his "suspension" was overturned. It's semantics, but no one is really disputing the guilt of the test. Braun himself hasn't disputed that. It's merely that because of a procedural error, the suspension will not be enforced.

A person gets found guilty of murder in a court because they found the gun in his house. There was no DNA on the gun. He later appeals when they find out that a cop showed up ahead of any of the detectives, opening the possibility that the gun was planted. They appeal on the basis that evidence could not be trusted. The judge throws out the evidence. There's no longer a case. Is the guy guilty?

You keep asserting that he was "proven" guilty. But the "proof" is unreliable. The system is designed the way it is for exactly this reason. To ensure that the evidence is rock solid and can be treated as proof. When you screw that part up, you can't just ignore it.

It's not that he was "proven" guilty and got let off because there was a procedural error. It's because the procedural error casts fundamental doubt on the validity of the sole piece of evidence used to establish guilt.

If your independent assessment is that the mishandling could not have accounted fro the test results, feel free to believe that he is guilty. But we cannot credibly say there is "proof" based on the standards MLB itself has agreed to.