Per ESPN: Braun Tests Positive, May Face 50 Game Suspension (Part 2)

[jeffy]

For all we know, Braun has been doing testosterone all along and just messed up and got caught this time. Sounds like it is easy enough to beat the MLB testing, based on statements from a guy who should know:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/m...tosterone_testing_121211

 

http://articles.nydailyne...e-blood-for-human-growth

 

The talk of patches, gels, creams is interesting considering the statement “Any report that Ryan ingested a performance-enhancing drug is wrong.”.

[The Truth]

Not that I would wish this on anyone, but I'm wondering if there is any sort of underlying Medical condition with Braun that would explain this. Some type of hormonal imbalance or testicular cancer or other problem? (I realize I'm reaching here)

[Warning Track Power]

Not that I would wish this on anyone, but I'm wondering if there is any sort of underlying Medical condition with Braun that would explain this. Some type of hormonal imbalance or testicular cancer or other problem? (I realize I'm reaching here)

And how terrible would this be if it were proven to be true? Let's say Braun had testicular cancer and he was put through the ringer like this for a month without being able to tell his side of the story. Man oh man would ESPN have a gigantic lawsuit on their hands.

 

I doubt this to be true given the fact there has been a report about Braun's people compiling a list of all foods, supplements, etc...that Braun consumed leading up to the positive test. But it is interesting to speculate about the potential ramifications against the "worldwide leader in sports" if true.

 

 

[tyguy20204]

As has been mentioned, if a player has a condition that requires a banned substance, they can apply for an exemption through MLB. And if Braun had testicular cancer, you better believe he would have mentioned it the second this report came out. No, unfortunately, his excuse is going to be a lot weaker than that.

[brettac1]

For all we know, Braun has been doing testosterone all along and just messed up and got caught this time. Sounds like it is easy enough to beat the MLB testing, based on statements from a guy who should know:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/m...tosterone_testing_121211

 

http://articles.nydailyne...e-blood-for-human-growth

 

The talk of patches, gels, creams is interesting considering the statement “Any report that Ryan ingested a performance-enhancing drug is wrong.”.

Exactly. Baseball has been in the "steroid era" since as soon as players started experimenting with the stuff, and it's going to be for a long, long time.

[KCBrewerfan34]

what is the chance he took a banned stimulant which would only be a 25 game suspension?

[pebadger]

what is the chance he took a banned stimulant which would only be a 25 game suspension?

Very doubtful. The protocols for these suspensions are different. I think we'd know already if this was proceeding under the stimulant part of the drug agreement. It would also mean that this was Braun's second offense if it were a stimulant suspension.

[pebadger]

Food for thought:

 

We've all heard about how nobody has ever prevailed in one of these appeals to MLB. The successful appeal rate to WADA is also extraordinarily low. So is EVERYONE that says they are falsely accused just terribly in denial in taking their case to these tribunals? Or is it possible that are the tribunals themselves extraordinarily slanted in favor of the accusers?

 

Nobody in the media is providing the public any information as to how the appeal process is set up, and are acting on blind faith that these things are equitable for both parties. When is the last time the almost always cynical media just took something like this one faith? There is a story here to be written. I just tend to think that the science/law combination here is just too dense for most journalists to penetrate, so they end up depending on experts who are exceptionally biased for their information.

[dlk9s]

For all we know, Braun has been doing testosterone all along and just messed up and got caught this time.

Unfortunately, I think this is probably what happened. Occam's Razor and all.

 

I hope not.

[Nottso]

Occam's Razor would suggest to me that the test is flawed. That seems to me far simpler than Braun beating the system for all these years. But admittedly, that could just be me.

[Ennder]

For all we know, Braun has been doing testosterone all along and just messed up and got caught this time.

Unfortunately, I think this is probably what happened. Occam's Razor and all.

 

I hope not.

To me if he is guilty the most likely explanation is his body was acting up and he used them so he could play through the playoffs and just hope he didn't get tested.

[Raw Biz]

For all we know, Braun has been doing testosterone all along and just messed up and got caught this time.

Unfortunately, I think this is probably what happened. Occam's Razor and all.

 

I hope not.

To me if he is guilty the most likely explanation is his body was acting up and he used them so he could play through the playoffs and just hope he didn't get tested.

But all teams who make the playoffs get tested. Shouldn't he have known that? That's why I don't understand why he'd knowingly take anything and something else must have happened.

[benji]

Unfortunately, the most plausible explanation to me is that he has probably been using a substance for a long time and somehow now got caught. A few things don't add up to me like the ESPN report stating that the WADA confirmed an exogenous source of testosterone. Braun's camp is vehemently denying a PED or steroid. I don't see the benefit for Braun to flat out lie now because if he were to lose the appeal and the substance came out his reputation and ability to market himself is shot. I am hoping the ESPN report about an exogenous source is wrong or that the lab somehow screwed up a sample. To me that would be the only way he can get out of this.

[Schlitz001]

Unfortunately, the most plausible explanation to me is that he has probably been using a substance for a long time and somehow now got caught. A few things don't add up to me like the ESPN report stating that the WADA confirmed an exogenous source of testosterone. Braun's camp is vehemently denying a PED or steroid. I don't see the benefit for Braun to flat out lie now because if he were to lose the appeal and the substance came out his reputation and ability to market himself is shot. I am hoping the ESPN report about an exogenous source is wrong or that the lab somehow screwed up a sample. To me that would be the only way he can get out of this.

I agree with your most plausible explanation, but a lot of information still has yet to come out. Braun's people might be saying that Braun inadvertently used a product that was a banned substance, which caused these "insanely high" testosterone measurements. (They have hinted that he used something) Then upon shipment to WADA the "chain of custody" defense could be used to argue that someone may have spiked the sample with an exogenous testosterone. It all sounds far fetched, because it is, but it does fit together with almost all of these random statements that have come out.

[BREWCREW5]

I dont know how others are feeling, but this is really starting to sink in for me....

 

 

and its terrible.

[pebadger]

The following is an exceprt from an Editorial in the August 2008 issue of Nature, a widely respected scientific journal:

 

On page 692, biostatistician Donald Berry of the University of Texas in Houston outlines what he sees as problems with the way doping tests are conducted. He argues that anti-doping authorities have not adequately defined and publicized how they arrived at the criteria used to determine whether or not a test result is positive. The ability of an anti-doping test to detect a banned substance in an athlete is calibrated in part by testing a small number of volunteers taking the substance in question. But Berry says that individual labs need to verify these detection limits in larger groups that include known dopers and non-dopers under blinded conditions that mimic what happens during competition.

 

Nature believes that accepting 'legal limits' of specific metabolites without such rigorous verification goes against the foundational standards of modern science, and results in an arbitrary test for which the rate of false positives and false negatives can never be known. By leaving these rates unknown, and by not publishing and opening to broader scientific scrutiny the methods by which testing labs engage in study, it is Nature's view that the anti-doping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear.

 

http://www.nature.com/nat.../n7205/full/454667a.html

 

Dr. Donald Berry, who wrote the article prompting the editorial, is not a fringe scientist. He is the head of the Division of Quantitative Sciences, chair of the Department of Biostatistics and Frank T. McGraw Memorial Chair of Cancer Research, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas.

 

Soon after the article was published, many of the usual cast of characters in the very incestuous anti-doping community jumped in with replies to defend their fiefdom. A fair amount of the basis of anti-doping science is developed, tested and then reviewed by a relatively self-contained circle that is dedicated to anti-doping efforts. They are very resistant to criticism and scrutiny, insisting quite arrogantly that, in effect, what they do is so specialized that only they really understand it.

 

The article itself, and the responses, are behind a pay wall. I have copies, but will not post them here out of respect for the copyrighted material.

 

The bottom line is that the testing itself is quite complex and the ultimate decision as to what constitutes a "positive" test is sometimes open to interpretation. Yet, in adjudicating disputes as to such a result, the testers are required only to assert that they followed their own procedures in making a finding and the entire burden of proof in the case swings to the athlete to prove a logical negative. Often the defense must be mounted without much information with which to contest the tester's assertions since there is usually NO formal discovery process preceding the arbitration hearing.

[brettac1]

pebadger - you are doing great work here.

[dlk9s]

Everybody, let's be careful here.

 

 

 

 

 

We're already more than halfway to Yuni thread size.

[JimH5]

I dont know how others are feeling, but this is really starting to sink in for me....

 

and its terrible.

 

It feels terrible for what this means to 2012. But it feels worse to think that we've been had. What exactly were we cheering for last year?

 

I feel bad for Mark Attanasio for getting all carried away and doing the public celebration, etc. For being contractually locked to a guy who is far from a sure thing.

 

I feel bad for families who have to explain this to young kids. I feel bad for Braun, if this is actually an honest mistake, or if he has been the victim of someone else's wrongdoing or mistake.

 

I feel bad for the Diamondbacks and Matt Kemp, if they didn't get something they deserved.

 

It's pretty bad.

[benji]

pebadger great work. The only problem for me is exogenous steroid. My interpretation of that means they found a synthetic hormone. If his test was slightly positive or insanely positive should not matter. Hopefully the ESPN report is wrong or my interpretation is wrong, but if correct he has to explain how synthetic hormone got into his body.

[YoungGeezy]

Innocent until proven guilty. Overall Braun has been the exact same player he has been since high school. Nothing about his game has ever change. Whatever he may have taken or is taking I highly doubt is something serious as a steroid or HGH because a guy with his ability and work ethic would see results and spikes. Also whats is the point of risking everything to take something that doesn't make you any better. If I'm going to cheat I better be jacking 50+ HRs and not be lucky to just get over 30

[splitterpfj]

Does anyone know whether MLB classifies synthetic testosterone as a PED, or if it's considered a "banned substance?"

 

To me, it is clearly a PED, I just don't know if MLB calls it one.

 

One of the things that really has me puzzled on this thing is, there's a report saying Braun had synthetic testosterone in his system, which was discovered after the initial, sky-high testosterone reading. Well, we also have a report saying Braun did not test positive for a PED, that he tested positive for a banned substance.

 

If synthetic T is a PED, and if he did not test positive for a PED...the report saying he had synthetic T in his body is a false report.

 

I've thought a lot about this, as I'm sure most of you have, and the truth is, at least at this point...I believe Braun.

 

You just don't get a sky-high testosterone level without some outward signs that things have changed. We've all seen it many times with players from 10-15 years ago...very obvious physical change following massive hormone ingestion. If not this, there would be mood and emotional changes...you just can't blast testosterone into your body and not have major impact...there's a reason you can't buy the stuff in discount stores.

 

If he did it, we don't know what he did...we haven't been told what substance he tested positive for.

 

There's a ton I don't know about PEDs, but I do have some knowledge of hormone therapy, which I outlined a couple of pages back - IF Braun "did it", I believe he would have had to have started taking something within days of being caught, otherwise there would have been noticeable changes either in his body or his game performance. This is always possible, he may have done it within days of being tested, but if he did actually have sky-high readings of something, it actually makes me skeptical that he could have just started something. To get a huge reading would either take time to build the substance up in your body, or you'd have to absolutely blast your body full of the stuff in a few days...which I just don't think you could do without showing outward signs of change - for instance - cardiac arrest.

 

It doesn't add up to me, but of course, there's a lot we don't know yet.

[pebadger]

benji,

 

You are correct. The assertion that Braun had an exogenous substance in his system is the crux of the case, and that's why he's in the trouble he's in. It's a very "sciency" assertion, and it's why MLB is going to fight against him hard on this one.

 

While I have some understanding of the science involved, I don't work in that field. I used to understand it better than I do now, but I have forgotten much and I don't keep up with changes in the field. With those qualifications out of the way, I'll just say that the test itself does not identify exogenous substances themselves. It instead looks at the ratio of two different types of carbon atoms present in carbon dioxide which is created by oxidizing a substance of interest present in the urine sample, usually something that is a metabolite of testosterone. Suffice it to say that there is a lot of work that goes into identifying the substance of interest in the urine sample in the first place, and then there is a lot of fiddly work that goes into detecting and identifying the carbon atoms after oxidation. This takes skilled people operating very touchy technological devices. If the detectors aren't working correctly, or if the software that interprets the data coming from the detectors isn't working correctly, or if there was a problem leading up to any of it, or the operator messes up, you can get bad results. The detectors themelves are set up to look for exactly what they are told to look for, based upon standards that may or may not be as rigorous as they should be (that's what Dr Berry article was about, sort of). What I'm saying is, there is a lot that can go wrong here, from the perspective of the athlete. It's why I wrote well upthread that this wasn't a determination on the order of peeing on a stick and looking for a plus sign.

 

I'm not saying the science itself is bad. It's great, actually, and is instrumental in catching those who need to be caught. It's not perfect though, and if you're a person who is being accused on the basis of the test, you have to want to know exactly how it all worked out in your case.

 

A CIR (carbon isotope ratio) positive is the "gold standard" positive in the fight against dopers. That's why all drug testing agencies will fight tooth and nail to uphold every single one of these that they declare to be a positive. If an athlete is allowed to beat something that is declared to be a CIR positive, the testers have a real problem going forward. As such they'll spare no expense to ensure that when they decide to stand behind a declared positive, they win. If it appears there is a real problem with their test, they'll just let the case go before arbitration and find a different way to nail a guy that they know is dirty.

 

The good thing for the testers is that the tests that are sort of hinky, but within the criteria to be declared "positive", are just as hard (or harder) to prove "wrong" than they are to prove right. The testers don't have to prove the test is right. The athlete has to prove that it's wrong. Frankly, it's almost impossible to do. That's why you see guys who are accused coming up with all these other arguments; even though they are mostly illusory arguments they're the only real chance they have.

[ilikewisco]

pebadger

 

I agree with everything you are saying, but why couldn't they test a second run of the first sample. If there was an error in the first test, wouldn't they retest. If they do so many of these, it should be almost impossible to have two errors in a row on the same sample. What I'm trying to say is, though its a tricky process, can't they make it reliable enough to rule out error by re-testing the same sample?

[pebadger]

By its nature, the testing is destructive of the sample. Second, depending on the error, it is possible to get the same incorrect result twice. In other words if you do something wrong consistently, you'll get the same incorrect result consistently. Whether you can consistently repeat the error is dependant on a lot of things, but it's a lot more likely to occur if you don't even know you're committing an error. Imagine you're in an innocent athlete's position trying to make that case. You suspect they are doing something wrong but you have no idea what it might be, because the people that do this everyday don't even know it.

 

It's hard to be more specific about something so complicated without having more raw facts to work with. Frankly, if we did have that info you'd need somebody who knows a heck of a lot more about this than me to really dig into the data. All I know is that it's possible to make mistakes. When Diana Taurasi was accused of doping by a WADA-accredited lab, they didn't even identify properly the substance of which she was accused of taking. It cost her a lot of time, money and public embarrassment to get it cleared up. What people don't widely know is that another lower-profile athlete who couldn't afford to fight like Taurasi did had already been suspended, and her contract terminated, after being accused by the same lab of abusing the same substance.

 

I don't think the Montreal lab screwed it up in the Braun case (or that they necessarily screwed anything up at all) to the extent the Turkish lab did, but that's not the point. The point is, barring a stupendous screw up in both the test and the resulting declaration, there really isn't a good way for an athlete to attack the test itself, even if the test is bad.

 

The real irony is that as drug testing gets better at finding smaller and smaller trace amounts of substances, the more likely you are to punish people for inadvertantly exposing themselves to something that is on the banned substance list, without appreciably increasing the likelihood that you're catching the real cheats. Again, unless you are really, really lucky, you simply have no way to prove that the exposure was inadvertant or unavoidable. When they're suspending amateur kids for two years for taking two of the wrong pill from their mom's medicine cabinets, you can see how inflexible the system is.

 

Not saying there aren't a lot of good reasons for the way things are, but there will come a time when I think some might look back on decisions that were made and wonder if those decisions truly were as good as they could have been.