Fixing MLB's Drug Policy

[clancyphile]

Obviously, Ryan Braun's exoneration has shown there are problems in MLB's drug policy.

 

What sort of changes need to be made, in your opinion? I think that there are some changes needed.

 

1. Collectors should be required to take the samples to the nearest 24-hour FedEx location for overnight shipping IMMEDIATELY after collecting the sample.

 

2. MLB needs to differentiate between intentional use and unintentional ingestion. If the latter, the suspensions should be shorter.

 

3. MLB probably ought to also shorten the list of banned substances. If the stuff is available at the local GNC, then why penalize a player for using something that is used legitimately by a bunch of folks at a local gym?

[fondybrewfan]

They need to figure out a way to completely take the courier out of the equation. FedEx just needs to show up at the park at the designated time every day. The samples need to be stored in a temperature controled vault within the stadium that has security cameras watching it 24/7. Only a very limited # of individuals would have access to the vault although I don't know who should all have access other than the sample collector.

[pebadger]

Obviously, Ryan Braun's exoneration has shown there are problems in MLB's drug policy.

 

What sort of changes need to be made, in your opinion? I think that there are some changes needed.

 

1. Collectors should be required to take the samples to the nearest 24-hour FedEx location for overnight shipping IMMEDIATELY after collecting the sample.

 

2. MLB needs to differentiate between intentional use and unintentional ingestion. If the latter, the suspensions should be shorter.

 

3. MLB probably ought to also shorten the list of banned substances. If the stuff is available at the local GNC, then why penalize a player for using something that is used legitimately by a bunch of folks at a local gym?

 

1) Agree that procedures can always be made better. Usually it costs more to make it so, but cost probably shouldn't be anything that baseball owners and players should be whining about at this particular moment.

 

2) Sure, but how are you going to do it? Who bears the burden of proof that it was "unintentional"? How do you make these determinations based on anything other than a subjective appraisal of the defendant's story, in the absence of some facts like those of the JC Romero case? Not saying it can't be done, but people have looked at trying to construct workable legal standards for differentiating "cheats" from less-culpable unfortunate victims of circumstance and they just haven't worked out for a lot of reasons. A chief reason being that the testers are philosophically opposed to the very idea that there is much, if any of a distinction between the two positions.

 

3) This is a technical issue as much as anything. Very many substances on the list are there because they interfere with the ability of tests to find the really bad stuff. If you take them off, you open the door to cheating, or so the argument goes. If you look at the MS results xisxisxis posted in the other thread, you can start to get an idea of what a mess some of this work really is for people who are committed to finding scientific truth. It's not easy and changing the list without the technical requirements of the job in mind is a non-starter.

 

As for other angles on the whole OTC "supplement" industry, don't get me started . . .

[clancyphile]

1) Agree that procedures can always be made better. Usually it costs more to make it so, but cost probably shouldn't be anything that baseball owners and players should be whining about at this particular moment.

 

2) Sure, but how are you going to do it? Who bears the burden of proof that it was "unintentional"? How do you make these determinations based on anything other than a subjective appraisal of the defendant's story, in the absence of some facts like those of the JC Romero case? Not saying it can't be done, but people have looked at trying to construct workable legal standards for differentiating "cheats" from less-culpable unfortunate victims of circumstance and they just haven't worked out for a lot of reasons. A chief reason being that the testers are philosophically opposed to the very idea that there is much, if any of a distinction between the two positions.

 

3) This is a technical issue as much as anything. Very many substances on the list are there because they interfere with the ability of tests to find the really bad stuff. If you take them off, you open the door to cheating, or so the argument goes. If you look at the MS results xisxisxis posted in the other thread, you can start to get an idea of what a mess some of this work really is for people who are committed to finding scientific truth. It's not easy and changing the list without the technical requirements of the job in mind is a non-starter.

 

As for other angles on the whole OTC "supplement" industry, don't get me started . . .

 

2. Not sure, but there's a difference between deliberately ingesting roids as opposed to taking a tainted supplement.

 

3. In this case, there needs to be full disclosure by the athlete as to what supplements/medications they take, and make sure that is taken into account.

[pebadger]

The problem with #3 is that they simply don't know how to take them into account in many cases, even if taking the substances is disclosed. It would be almost impossible for the testers to figure out everything that is going on with a test if you take one of these supplements. It would simply take too much original research, which takes a lot of time and a lot of money. It would be impossible for them to catch cheats who properly take masking agents. That's why they put the onus on the player. If they run into something they can't deal with analytically, they just put it on the banned list and it becomes the player's problem. No exceptions.

 

I agree that there is a difference between out-and-out cheating and getting caught up in a mess you didn't intend to make, but there is absolutely no desire to add any intent element to any case in the drug testing realm. To do so would undermine the 'strict liability' standard that generally applies in this area.

[nullbyte]

There needs to be more redundancy to diminish the effect of a wild outlier test like Braun's. Switch cups midstream, and from then on the two samples are handled by two different couriers and go to different labs. A suspension can only take place if both results are similar and test positive.

[brettac1]

As far as actually fixing the system, there needs to be out of competition random testing, and more frequent in-competition testing. The stuff with couriers and whatnot is really just window dressing for the fact that the whole system is flawed. In a perfect world, there would be out of competition and in-season blood testing for HGH, etc. Also, I would love to see the numbers regarding players who receive a TUE in order to get around the system (obviously some of it is necessary for a few, probably). I know the number of players who get a TUE in order to take amphetamines is quite high.

 

Anyhow, I think the entire system is basically a PR sham (also fueled by USADA fear, as pebadger said in another thread), and that the Braun situation is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the problems.

[TooLiveBrew]

Once again, Adam McCalvy with some excellent blog content. "Opponents react to Braun news", including comments from McGehee, Braun's best friend (I didn't know that) Gaby Sanchez, and a Cards trifecta: Matheny, Berkman, & (former UMiami teammate) Jon Jay.

 

Angels reliever LaTroy Hawkins: “My reaction? Cool. Good for them. He just changed the landscape of that division. Him being out 50 games, that wouldn’t have been good for them. But he’s back, so, hey, I don’t know what happened.

 

“It had to be tough, but you know what, to me personally, you have to find the leak, because it shouldn’t have come out. It’s not part of the agreement. Find the leak. Find the leak. There’s nothing you can do about it now. The perception is already there, and in our society, you’re already guilty before being proven innocent. That’s just the way it is, in all walks of life.”

Amen, LaTroy. (2nd bolded part is my emphasis)

[clancyphile]

The problem with #3 is that they simply don't know how to take them into account in many cases, even if taking the substances is disclosed. It would be almost impossible for the testers to figure out everything that is going on with a test if you take one of these supplements. It would simply take too much original research, which takes a lot of time and a lot of money. It would be impossible for them to catch cheats who properly take masking agents. That's why they put the onus on the player. If they run into something they can't deal with analytically, they just put it on the banned list and it becomes the player's problem. No exceptions.

 

I agree that there is a difference between out-and-out cheating and getting caught up in a mess you didn't intend to make, but there is absolutely no desire to add any intent element to any case in the drug testing realm. To do so would undermine the 'strict liability' standard that generally applies in this area.

 

Strict liability - or to use a more common parlance, Zero tolerance - is problematic in my mind. Zero tolerance all too often means zero common sense. We need to get more common sense in the process.

 

With people's reputations and livelihoods on the line, they need to figure out HOW to deal with that stuff analytically. If they cannot, then maybe we ought to accept that technology and medical science will change the game.

[pebadger]

Here's an idea. It would at least double the costs of the program, but if people on both sides are really serious about this stuff, and given the funds available to both sides, that shouldn't matter.

 

1) On the day samples are collected, the player's sample is divided into two parts. Separate couriers each take one sample and deliver it for transport with separate shippers. The courier will hold sealed instructions from MLB, to be opened by the shipping company, detailing where the package is to be delivered (one of two or more labs).

 

2) Each lab upon receiving the sample will run the required test. They will, in turn, send out two sets of the results packet to a clearinghouse run by an party independant of MLB and MLBPA. These results will be sealed, but identifiable by number. The clearinghouse will hold one of each of the result packets. One of the packets, chosen at random, will be sent from the clearinghouse to MLB, the other to MLBPA.

 

3) If MLB contacts MLBPA and says they have a postive, MLBPA can either confirm that their corresponding packet also indicates a positive, or they can dispute the positive by revealing a differing result on the same sample from a different lab. The existence of the dispute can be verified by the copies of the packet still in the possession of the clearinghouse. MLBPA will never open their packet unless a positive is alleged by MLB, and then it will open it only in the presence of he player and/or his representatives. You could probably set up the coding system so that the player actually being accused would be known only to MLBPA (and verifiable by the clearinghouse as necessary) and only released to MLB upon confirmation that the results of the tests match. In this way, leaks of names would not be possible, except from MLBPA, unless BOTH results are positives.

 

4) A player will still have the right to appeal a suspension under this program, but it probably gets a whole lot tougher to do practically. The parties would have to negotiate what happens when you get conflicting results. I'd say the whole episode just goes away, but they're free to negotiate how that works.

 

5) If the testing program is truly rigourous and reliable, this system should prove it and increase confidence in the system. In instances where there are problems, you might actually be able to learn from the problems because you'll have two sets of independant test data to work with. In cases like the Bruan case, even if you have an irregularity on one test with something like transportation delays, you might be able to rule out the possibility that the delay caused any problem if the results come back the same despite the delay with one sample.

 

Not that hard to do, other than cost.

[cwolf2012]

I really don't think there's much to fix. The MLB needs to maybe be more stringent with the process of getting the sample to the lab, but I think one screwed up test based on the actions of a courier is not the basis for a complete overhaul.