Ryan Braun exonerated, no suspension… Latest: MLB drops Eliezer Alfonzo suspension; case similar to Braun's (part 1)

[trwi7]

This was a key part of Braun's statement to me.

 

"We spoke to biochemists and scientists and we asked them, ‘How difficult would it be to tamper with somebody’s sample?’ And their response was that, ‘If they were motivated, it would be extremely easy.’ Again, that’s why it’s so important to get it out of the hands of the only person in the world who knows whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to FedEx, they don’t know whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to the lab, they don’t know whose sample it is. That’s why it’s extremely important.

 

I'm sure someone here (pebadger/xisxisxis) could chime in if this is accurate.

[pebadger]

On what might have happened:

 

In a nutshell, we just don't know what MIGHT have happened, and that's the point. Nobody knows what might have happened. Why should it be up to Braun to prove what MIGHT have happened when the necessary procedure underlying the test wasn't followed?

 

When you set up a test to give you a certain yes/no result, you're mostly interested in constructing a procedure that will give you confidence in the result of the test. In essence, you write a set of directions that, if followed, will give you a result that is as good as it can be. ot perfect (nothing is), but as good as we can make it. In this case, the handling procedures exist as part of that set of directions.

 

In constructing the procedure in this fashion you aren't really concerned about every possible thing that can go wrong. You just know that if you follow the procedure, you don't have to worry about what might go wrong. The fact of the matter is, tons of things can go wrong in tests like this. The more complex the test, the more that can go wrong. It's impractical, if not impossible, to pinpoint everything that could possibly go wrong with a given test procedure. There are just way too many variables to consider. From a pure "applied science" standpoint (as opposed to matters of theoretical interest), what might go wrong is irrelevant once you construct a procedure that works. All you have to do is follow the validated procedure and you get a good result the vast, vast majority of the time. There are still errors possible, but they are unlikely and even harder (i.e., impossible) to pinpoint in a one-off situation that doesn't have multiple designed runs of controlled experimental data from which to make educated guesses about the process that produced the strange result. In other words, you can't, for the most part tell when or why a bad result happens, because the nature of the procedure isn't even telling you it's bad.

The only indication you get that a result is bad is the subject telling you it's bad, and the drug test systems then requires that subject to be the one to prove it's bad.

 

The only thing MLB had to do was demonstrate that they followed the procedure and they likely would have won the case, assuming that IF they had followed procedure they would have gotten the same result. That's simply not an assumption that it's fair to make. In fact, in spite of that and even not following procedure drug testers have won in the past anyway.

 

What MIGHT have happened? Who knows? It's not Braun's responsibility to answer that question and it's frankly unfair to ask. It's fine to be curious about it. I know I am. It doesn't give anyone the right to DEMAND an explanation from a person who, if truly innocent, is about as well positioned to answer that question as any of the rest of us.

[fondybrewfan]

I think Braun referred to the collector as "him" during his presser

[reillymcshane]

Heyman says Braun is the victim. Stories are swaying toward Ryan's side of things. No one is saying Braun is 100% clean - just that there were serious flaws in the process and, therefore, Braun needs to be seen as innocent in this instance.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/17426972/system-works-as-it-should-but-braun-is-still-a-victim

[sdcheezhd]

This is a tweet from Arron Rodgers, i let my buddy take it from here, all u idiots talking about technicality open up for some crow too. See if espn pressured not to . . .

...let the people hear the truth. Should get interesting. #exonerated

#shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

2 part tweet, just finishing it up.

[reillymcshane]

Chris Dickerson Tweet today:

 

"Physicals this morning. Is is bad that i Took my urine test and then asked for the #FedEx tracking number? #exonerated"

[clancyphile]

ilovebeer said:

I have never wanted something so much as for Braun to be cleared, if he is cleared i will quit dipping.

 

clancyphile said:

If Braun is cleared, I will START dipping!

 

 

OK guys, time to pay up!

 

Does anyone have recommendations for brands for a new dipper?

[fondybrewfan]

And if it was, is it possible the sample was somehow contaminated? Baseball would argue that the jar was triple-sealed, but doubt wasn't sealed out. Someone close to Braun said there was evidence of deterioration in Braun's sample but not the other five samples taken that playoff weekend. MLB people deny that is the case, though even if it's not, there is still plenty of room for doubt.

 

There is a nice little nugget from Braun's side

[topper09er]

As far as the "collector" goes in Braun's case, a caller on MLB.com pointed out that it may be a woman since the son was brought along. The woman can't observe/verify the collection process, but the son can.

 

This makes sense because the whole son thing seems a little odd/unusual, however around the 9:30 mark in Braun's talk he said:

 

"There were upward of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and HIS house..."

[pebadger]

This was a key part of Braun's statement to me.

 

"We spoke to biochemists and scientists and we asked them, ‘How difficult would it be to tamper with somebody’s sample?’ And their response was that, ‘If they were motivated, it would be extremely easy.’ Again, that’s why it’s so important to get it out of the hands of the only person in the world who knows whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to FedEx, they don’t know whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to the lab, they don’t know whose sample it is. That’s why it’s extremely important.

 

I'm sure someone here (pebadger/xisxisxis) could chime in if this is accurate.

 

Pretty much accurate, though there have been numerous hearing at which a number of labs (the French lab for one) where confidentiality has proven no to be a big concern. The people who tested Floyd Landis' samples admitted at the hearing that not only did they know whose sample they were testing, it was quite simple for them to figure out the identity of any sample that came through their lab due to the way things were coded.

 

I have little doubt that things work much better at the Montreal lab, which is considered one of the top 2 or 3 in the world, but you never know. People are people and there is obviously a way to connect the number back to the name. You just need access to the key that connects the two. I'm not saying that I think anybody in Montreal was crooked in this regard. Just pointing out that rigorous procedures are fine, but in the end every rigorous procedure depends on the diligence and goodwill of the people charged with executing the procedure.

[whizkid]

Question for the lawyers out there. Is testifying in an abitration setting done under oath? Does lying in an arbitration setting have the same consequences as committing perjury in a courtroom?

[clancyphile]

As far as the "collector" goes in Braun's case, a caller on MLB.com pointed out that it may be a woman since the son was brought along. The woman can't observe/verify the collection process, but the son can.

 

This makes sense because the whole son thing seems a little odd/unusual, however around the 9:30 mark in Braun's talk he said:

 

"There were upward of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and HIS house..."

 

Including a 24-hour location.

 

I think the SOP needs to be to get it to FedEx ASAP, the closest 24-hour location. If they handle that stuff, I'm sure none of the results will go wacky.

 

MLB needs to make changes to the policy.

[TooLiveBrew]

This is just killing me...please, someone answer this for me.

 

I keep hearing over and over that Braun is the first person to overturn a suspension. But as I've understood it all along, no one would know if a suspension had been overturned because in EVERY OTHER CASE, the confidentiality wasn't breached. We never should have known about any of this, especially now that he's been exonerated...am I wrong on that?

No, I think you're right. But it's an image thing for MLB, so the more people talking about how 'this is the first time the program has ever been proven wrong!', the better MLB looks.

[topper09er]

Someone needs to write a national article on the parallels between Braun and the Diane Modahl case. It seriously looks like the exact same thing happened to Braun. Here is more:

 

http://www.thelawyer.com/sports/mergers-guidelines-beyond-reproach/96293.article

 

"Diane Modahl was banned following a drug test which apparently revealed a record ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in a urine sample provided by her.

 

On appeal her lawyers queried whether the Lisbon testing laboratory had correctly followed the scientific procedures and guidelines laid down by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF).

 

It was also alleged that Modahl's sample had become degraded by being left unrefrigerated for about 40 hours before being transferred to the laboratory. The medical evidence produced by her lawyers (albeit at a late stage) supported the view that this could have led to an inaccurate test result.

 

Contrast this with Al Guy, a senior IAAF official and one of the members of the original tribunal which heard the case, who was quoted in The Sunday Telegraph as saying: "If I conduct testing at Gateshead on a Friday night, I'll hand the samples over and they might be in someone's car boot until they are delivered to the lab at Chelsea on the Wednesday morning."

 

The legal procedures followed at the two hearings into Diane Modahl's case are worthy of scrutiny. By its own guidelines the IAAF provides for the production of contemporaneous documents evidencing the chain of custody relating to the samples given.

 

At the first hearing, none of the directors of the testing laboratory were available for cross-examination by Modahl's lawyers on their procedural methods.

 

This, together with the fact that no chain of custody could be evidenced, makes the tribunal's initial decision difficult to reconcile with the burden of proof required.

 

At the appeal hearing new scientific evidence produced by Modahl's lawyers was admitted and proved crucial to the appeal tribunal's decision to overrule the initial decision. The appeal tribunal clearly felt that it could not be said beyond reasonable doubt that Modahl had taken testosterone enhancing drugs."

[JackNicholson1974]

Question for the lawyers out there. Is testifying in an abitration setting done under oath? Does lying in an arbitration setting have the same consequences as committing perjury in a courtroom?

 

They'd have to be sworn in under the penalty of perjury.

[sdcheezhd]

Question for the lawyers out there. Is testifying in an abitration setting done under oath? Does lying in an arbitration setting have the same consequences as committing perjury in a courtroom?

 

My sense is yes on the first question (if for no other reason than to impress on the parties and witnesses that it's serious business) and no on the second, unless the particular statute involved extends to arbitration proceedings and the arbitrator has been given the authority to issue oaths within the meaning of the statute.

[pretendastronaut]

Will Carroll is going to be on 620 at 3:45.

[Baldkin]

I bought Will Carroll's article, it explains things very, very well. I could put it into .jpg format and post it here, but don't want to violate any posting guidelines.

[pretendastronaut]

Plus it only costs a dollar and he's giving the 39¢ Amazon gives him, to charity.

[prophet]

I've taken urine tests for multiple jobs before, and every time it was sealed with a simple piece of medical adhesive. My mother is also the health and business administrative coordinator at one of the hospitals in the fox valley. They have administered thousands of tests and they do the same thing. Someone wouldn't even have to be "very motivated" to tamper. You can simply remove the tape and put a new one on. That's only before it gets to the lab, according to her. Once it gets to the lab, it's assigned a number, and then locked down like fort knox.

[pebadger]

Plus it only costs a dollar and he's giving the 39¢ Amazon gives him, to charity.

 

Anybody else think it's hilarious that it's going to ESPN's hometown charity, The Jimmy V Fund?

[GoudaBrew]

Someone needs to write a national article on the parallels between Braun and the Diane Modahl case. It seriously looks like the exact same thing happened to Braun

 

Hey, someone brought it up to him on twitter (maybe it was you) and he brought it up on WTMJ just now.

[Dragonbait]

I turned the radio on right after they finished.. (d'oh)

 

Missed it all

[pretendastronaut]

I've taken urine tests for multiple jobs before, and every time it was sealed with a simple piece of medical adhesive. My mother is also the health and business administrative coordinator at one of the hospitals in the fox valley. They have administered thousands of tests and they do the same thing. Someone wouldn't even have to be "very motivated" to tamper. You can simply remove the tape and put a new one on. That's only before it gets to the lab, according to her. Once it gets to the lab, it's assigned a number, and then locked down like fort knox.

 

But it's not just a piece of tape on there. The sample is sealed three times in front of the player. The sample is sealed, put into a plastic bag and sealed, and then into a container box and sealed.

[homer]

Plus it only costs a dollar and he's giving the 39¢ Amazon gives him, to charity.

 

 

Don't you need a Kindle?