Ryan Braun going down?

[kaldaniels]

I have never heard that.

So what you are saying is that the sample would have counted had there been no debate whether or not FedEx had to be used that day? Cause there is all this talk that the sample could have been affected by the storage of it.

I get that Braun got off due to it being decided that the collectively bargained procedure was not followed. I'm not bothered by that all that much.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I have never heard that.

So what you are saying is that the sample would have counted had there been no debate whether or not FedEx had to be used that day? Cause there is all this talk that the sample could have been affected by the storage of it.

I get that Braun got off due to it being decided that the collectively bargained procedure was not followed. I'm not bothered by that all that much.

There are respected people who have said that the sample could have sat out for years and the chemical makeup of the sample would not have been affected. I guess it's just a matter of who you believe.

[paulrichjr]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

There are respected people who have said that the sample could have sat out for years and the chemical makeup of the sample would not have been affected. I guess it's just a matter of who you believe.

Well honestly I would have a hard time believing that a sample could EVER be proven to be accurate if just setting it out would cause it to show positive for steroid use....and why steroid use anyway? Why not positive for pregnancy? How about positive for Cocaine? It's funny how not following proper procedure of mailing it via Fed-Ex caused this strange chemical reaction that turned normal blood into one of the highest ever tested for steroids. If leaving it out could miraculously cause this to happen then the whole testing is flawed. Ryan Braun used steroids. Everyone but lawyers and Brewers fans knows it if they just look at the facts. Sure he couldn't be punished due to the "mishandling" of the specimen but that doesn't change the fact that the vials were sealed with his signature on them (proving they weren't tampered with) when they got to the lab and the result was a positive test.

[JayStubbs]

The fact that is being overlooked here is that the problem wasn't with how the sample was handled, but with how the CBA was written. It did not take into count what to do in the case of a FedEx office being closed, and used very vague language.

The currier did exactly what he was trained to do, exactly what every other sport, including the Olympics, requires him to do in such case. He followed proper protocol; however, the CBA was poorly written and did not include such protocol.

If I am not mistaken, MLB has already made changes, in agreement withthe players union, to the CBA, so this doesn't happen again. The problem was not with how the sample was handled, but with how the CBA was written.

To put it another way, if Braun had been an Olympic athlete, or in pretty much any other sport, and everything went down exactly the same way, he would have been found guilty of failing a drug test, and suspended.

[scott91575]

jojo, I take it you didn't read my earlier post. Probably too long, so I don't blame you. Anyway, Braun tested positive for synthetic testosterone. No environmental conditions allow for the sudden production of synthetic testosterone. The only way that could have happened is if someone tampered with the samples. Since protocol was not followed, that could have happened. Up to you if you believe there was tampering. Yet it was not due to the fact it was not properly environmentally cared for.

[LeDoux]

Originally Posted by jojo

Who argued that the use of HGH for non-medical reasons shouldn't be banned?

I guess I thought you were. Just to be clear here... by "medical" we mean children or adults diagnosed with a hGH deficiency right?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by LeDoux

I guess I thought you were. Just to be clear here... by "medical" we mean children or adults diagnosed with a hGH deficiency right?

Clearly using a drug off label to increase athletic performance would not be considered a "medical" use.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by scott91575

jojo, I take it you didn't read my earlier post. Probably too long, so I don't blame you. Anyway, Braun tested positive for synthetic testosterone. No environmental conditions allow for the sudden production of synthetic testosterone. The only way that could have happened is if someone tampered with the samples. Since protocol was not followed, that could have happened. Up to you if you believe there was tampering. Yet it was not due to the fact it was not properly environmentally cared for.

Do you know what the test actually detects and how it works? It's important relative to sample handling.

And no, the sample couldn't have literally just sat around for years without affecting the integrity of the test as someone earlier suggested.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

There are respected people who have said that the sample could have sat out for years and the chemical makeup of the sample would not have been affected. I guess it's just a matter of who you believe.

You'll need to provide linked quotes for this assertion.

[Brisco]

Originally Posted by jojo

Nowhere has it been argued that the samples were tampered with. But they did sit for several days in an environment where the temperature wasn't controlled or monitored. The courier can not prove whether they were stored at 50 or 100 degrees. It's a problem and none of us would consider that a trivial detail if it were OUR sample especially since we know that the way a sample is handled can artificially alter the level of metabolites that the test detects.

The lack of temperature control is an intuitive argument, rather than a deductive one. The basic argument is that because we don't know the temperature, all sorts of things COULD have happened to the sample. Braun's team never linked themselves to a single option or even a specific list of options because, individually, they were all rebutted by the science.

For example, they presented evidence that temperature could cause the sample to break down. However, stage one of the testing process at montreal where it was sent, as testified to by the lab director at the hearing, is to test if the sample had broken down. They operate on a 5% standard... if the sample had shown even a 5% level of degradation it would have not been tested. So, in theory, an extreme temperature COULD have caused degradation, but the evidence shows that in THIS case, it did not.

They make they argument that the sample COULD have been tampered with... but the testing facilty said that in THIS case all the processes and seals used to prevent or show evidence of tampering were intact.

I get what you are saying that we would want to challenge things if we were in Braun's shoes... I have had my pee tested at least 40 times after 26 years in the military, and even though I have never used an illegal substance, I was nervous every time... nervous that I would be that one case in a million where the lab tech made a mistake that no one caught.

That is the cost of using circumstantial evidence, such as urine tests, to prove drug use. Until someone can come up with a better system, however, it is the only option we have.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

I can quote various times within this diatribe where you claim superiority. It's a sad way to argue your opinion. I disagree with you. Sorry, that doesn't make you superior or right in any way. There have been plenty of respected people that have said that regardless of whether the sample was in a refrigerator or not, that chemical makeup of the sample would not be altered. 2 samples, 2 positive tests; left in a basement (100 degrees? really? exaggeration helps your argument or basically accusing someone of tampering with nothing to back it up helps?).

I agree we don't agree. You have an opinion that you think is factual. It's not. The "holier than thou" attitude makes discussion of the issue a waste of time.

Over-reaction...comical. They have done virtually the minimum to stop the use of illegal drugs in MLB.

Carry-on.

Bum

Edit: I'm not a baseball player, I don't have a sample; this isn't an issue that my fellow co-workers created now is it?

You're going to actually have to read my posts for content and accurately characterize my arguments for this to move forward.

You're not making the argument that you think you are.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Brisco

The lack of temperature control is an intuitive argument, rather than a deductive one. The basic argument is that because we don't know the temperature, all sorts of things COULD have happened to the sample. Braun's team never linked themselves to a single option or even a specific list of options because, individually, they were all rebutted by the science.

For example, they presented evidence that temperature could cause the sample to break down. However, stage one of the testing process at montreal where it was sent, as testified to by the lab director at the hearing, is to test if the sample had broken down. They operate on a 5% standard... if the sample had shown even a 5% level of degradation it would have not been tested. So, in theory, an extreme temperature COULD have caused degradation, but the evidence shows that in THIS case, it did not.

They make they argument that the sample COULD have been tampered with... but the testing facilty said that in THIS case all the processes and seals used to prevent or show evidence of tampering were intact.

I get what you are saying that we would want to challenge things if we were in Braun's shoes... I have had my pee tested at least 40 times after 26 years in the military, and even though I have never used an illegal substance, I was nervous every time... nervous that I would be that one case in a million where the lab tech made a mistake that no one caught.

That is the cost of using circumstantial evidence, such as urine tests, to prove drug use. Until someone can come up with a better system, however, it is the only option we have.

The argument is simple. The reliability of the test can be affected by how the sample is stored and handled. MLB did not guarantee that wasn't the case with Braun because they did not comply with collectively bargained guidelines to ensure this wouldn't be an issue.

[kaldaniels]

I would think it is relevant if the manner in which the sample was stored and handled was collectively bargained to be allowed in certain locations at certain times.

Again I'm not arguing that he should be suspended, just trying to figure the odds that this sample was contaminated.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I would think it is relevant if the manner in which the sample was stored and handled was collectively bargained to be allowed in certain locations at certain times.

Again I'm not arguing that he should be suspended, just trying to figure the odds that this sample was contaminated.

It's my understanding that Braun's team was able to duplicate his positive test result on a confirmed clean sample that was then handled as the courier had handled Braun's original sample.

MLB lost on process and I think they didn't appeal because of the can of worms that this situation would apparently open.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by jojo

You're going to actually have to read my posts for content and accurately characterize my arguments for this to move forward.

You're not making the argument that you think you are.

First, I am not really concerned if this moves forward. I have no interest in discussing a topic with someone who feels they are superior to the person they are discussing the topic with. Not really worth my time, but that should go without saying.

Second, I do not have to provide the links as the stories ran long ago and I didn't bookmark or save any of them for me to reference back and "enjoy" them again. As a touche, if you will, please provide the links that suggest that leaving an enclosed sample out in a basement would result in a higher testosterone reading due to being left out of a refrigerator or a fed ex package...especially one that shows that a fed ex package would keep the sample more stable than having the sample sit enclosed in a basement. What environmental element could cause testosterone levels to increase in this sample? Link?

There's nothing to even suggest that Braun has even a remote chance of being innocent. I really don't understand the failure to even think it through...

Bum