Ryan Braun exonerated, no suspension… Latest: MLB drops Eliezer Alfonzo suspension; case similar to Braun's (part 2)

[jjfanec]

Yeah I think there are really three realistic options

 

1. He is actually innocent and has never taken a steroid type substance

2. He unknowingly took a substance which would make him guilty but he got off

3. He was taking an illegal substance to fully heal from an injury but got off

 

I dont see any reason to believe he has been taking them his whole career.

[Patrick425]

I would say it is likely there is plenty of usage still going on, no system is going to catch every violation. That does not make it "fatally flawed".

 

I would say with the vitoral that MLB uses to defend it's drug testing policy and with player's livelyhoods and reputations at stake that yes, it is fatally flawed, or at the very least seriously flawed. If the policy is designed in such a way that it makes it incredibily hard for a player to prove his innocence then basically it's saying that there is no way we could ever produce a false positive. If it's that perfect then the system should also never produce a false negative either. It should catch every player that is using. If not then there has to be more burden put on the tester to prove that that there is no way a positive result was done in error.

 

A system, one that claims to be perfect (based on the burden of proof placed on the player), that only catches one out of 50, 100, 200, or whatever the number may be, is seriously, or perhaps even fataly flawed imho.

[1992casey]

I believe that Braun said that the system was "fatally flawed" as it applied to his case rather than saying it was "fatally flawed" under all circumstances.

[prophet]

Has anyone else gotten a reply from Passan. I asked him about the lie detector test and the replication of the results. This is what he wrote back.

 

As for the lie-detector test ... haven't heard a single credible source of mine say that, and anyway, polygraphs are on the whole too inaccurate to judge them as a science.

 

The replication of results is again something I haven't confirmed -- and it regarded only the T:E ratio, not the synthetic testosterone in Braun's urine.

 

It's not my responsibility to quash others' reports. If they're material, I will write about them. The poly isn't. And unless I'm given the exact scenario in which it was "replicated," along with access to the scientist who did it and his/her methods, I don't think it's responsible for me to write that

 

Any responses from any of our smarter posters? I was under the impression that lie detectors were used all the time in court. But it could be that I watch to much TV. I don't have a scientific bone in my body, so the T:E stuff isn't in my wheelhouse. This is just an excerpt from his response. The rest is him basically saying he loves watching Braun, but it's his job to be objective and report only the facts. I almost spit my cheerios on my computer when I read that.

[endaround]

Lie detectors are used and they are basic woo

[Patrick425]

I believe that Braun said that the system was "fatally flawed" as it applied to his case rather than saying it was "fatally flawed" under all circumstances.

 

Yes, however, MLB in it's response stated something along the line of "Our system is not fatally flawed" in response to Braun's comments. I just have a problem with this position by MLB that with the exception of some small clarifications that they have to make to handlers regarding where and when to drop off samples, that their system is not only not "fatally flawed, but that it's basically air-tight and perfect. If you believe Braun has been using for years, then that's clearly not the case.

[zzzmanwitz]

He makes fair points, he can only go off of the sources he trusts (even though some of those have shown to be slightly untrustworthy).

 

My only point is that it still hasn't been confirmed that it was in fact synthetic testosterone in Braun's urine, only that they tested the sample for signs of synthetic testosterone. It has not been reported (by anyone to my knowledge) of there actually being a test that shows there was Synth-T, just that there were factors in the urine that are common with the presence of Synth-T, and I still doubt this has been confirmed as neither Braun nor MLB has stated this.

[jjfanec]

He makes fair points, he can only go off of the sources he trusts (even though some of those have shown to be slightly untrustworthy).

 

My only point is that it still hasn't been confirmed that it was in fact synthetic testosterone in Braun's urine, only that they tested the sample for signs of synthetic testosterone. It has not been reported (by anyone to my knowledge) of there actually being a test that shows there was Synth-T, just that there were factors in the urine that are common with the presence of Synth-T, and I still doubt this has been confirmed as neither Braun nor MLB has stated this.

 

This seems like one of the biggest misconceptions out there. Every time Carroll or someone else who even has a slightly pro-Braun's side argument people keep saying, "Well how to explain the synthetic testosterone in his system?". But according to numerous people here and in other places there is no guarantee synthetic testosterone was in his system. This is a major issue but because the initial leak said they found synthetic testosterone the story has stuck. I am glad to have guys on this board with a science background and other guys out there explaining this better

[Fear The Chorizo]

The JDA specifies that samples need to be shipped express overnight to the lab so they are received the next day. It details that if a sample is collected on a Friday that the box on the airbill needs to be checked for Saturday delivery to maintain the overnight shipment.

 

There is nothing specific in the JDA detailing the proper way to handle a sample if it was collected on a Saturday or Sunday - just store samples in cool, secure location and maintain chain of custody. I'd even argue that this language has more to do with the circumstance that the sealed specimen boxes weren't immediately packaged in the shipping packaging. Laurenzi cites in his statement that he did all of that while still at Miller Park that Saturday. It's a technicality, but Laurenzi's statement indicates he did immediately prepare the samples for shipment...he then waited 44 hours to actually drop the samples off at a Fedex (from 5 pm Saturday to 1:30 pm Monday)

 

If a 2-3 day delay wasn't an issue with urinalysis, the JDA wouldn't detail the need for overnight shipment and many of these samples could be shipped via ground at a lower cost to MLB. The "fatal flaw" of the current testing policy to me appears to be the lack of a solid protocol for what to do with samples collected on weekend days and late Friday nights. To have this gap in the policy in a sport that always has games on both weekend days just doesn't add up, and it's a huge oversight no matter what side of the aisle you're on in Braun's case.

[jeffy]

If the policy is designed in such a way that it makes it incredibily hard for a player to prove his innocence

 

Is it difficult for those who are not using anything to not have a T:E ratio of greater that 4:1?

 

How can you expect a screen that uses that ratio to achieve perfection in catching users?

[dhoffman19]

I believe that Braun said that the system was "fatally flawed" as it applied to his case rather than saying it was "fatally flawed" under all circumstances.

 

Absolutely correct. Certain media members and Rob Manfred are twisting his words.

[dhoffman19]

I was under the impression that lie detectors were used all the time in court. But it could be that I watch to much TV.

 

Polygraphs are admissible in court in some states but not in others. So to refuse to report about it based on his own belief of the reliability of polygraphs or his view that it is not "material" is grossly irresponsible in my opinion.

 

That said, reporting it without being able to confirm it through his sources is probably even more irresponsible.

[1992casey]

It probably depends on the type of case, too. When doing a quick search I found stuff like polygraphs being admissible in civil cases if both parties agree but never in criminal cases.

 

The main value of a polygraph is its use as an investigative tool rather than as evidence.

[yoyo49]

He makes fair points, he can only go off of the sources he trusts (even though some of those have shown to be slightly untrustworthy).

 

My only point is that it still hasn't been confirmed that it was in fact synthetic testosterone in Braun's urine, only that they tested the sample for signs of synthetic testosterone. It has not been reported (by anyone to my knowledge) of there actually being a test that shows there was Synth-T, just that there were factors in the urine that are common with the presence of Synth-T, and I still doubt this has been confirmed as neither Braun nor MLB has stated this.

 

This seems like one of the biggest misconceptions out there. Every time Carroll or someone else who even has a slightly pro-Braun's side argument people keep saying, "Well how to explain the synthetic testosterone in his system?". But according to numerous people here and in other places there is no guarantee synthetic testosterone was in his system. This is a major issue but because the initial leak said they found synthetic testosterone the story has stuck. I am glad to have guys on this board with a science background and other guys out there explaining this better

 

Passan said (on twitter) that he has confirmed--with three sources--the synthetic T reading on the test

[zzzmanwitz]

My understanding of some of the posters here is that the test that is done on the urine sample does not directly test for synthetic-T, just that they test for signs of synthetic-T. Pebadger and xisxisxis know much more than I do about this.

[yoyo49]

Yeah, that seems to be the case based on what I have read here--I am not a science guy. Passan didn't really provide much detail--just that he had confirmed the synthetic T with three sources.

[zzzmanwitz]

Yeah, I don't think Passan is much of a "science guy" either...

[yoyo49]

Ha, agree completely, which is why I come here to try to make sense of what really happened

[pebadger]

If the policy is designed in such a way that it makes it incredibily hard for a player to prove his innocence

 

Is it difficult for those who are not using anything to not have a T:E ratio of greater that 4:1?

 

How can you expect a screen that uses that ratio to achieve perfection in catching users?

 

T/E ratios are not especially indicative of anything. Until recently a 4:1 ratio wasn't a positive. You needed a 6:1 to be considered positive until a few years ago. That's why there is a movement to use IRMS: the test has the capacity to provide much more useful information.

 

Of course, the question of "what is a positive" remains and is not an inconsequential matter. As noted in the blog excerpt I posted yesterday, Don Caitlin (the guy who pretty much invented IRMS testing and is still the most renowned guy working this field today) testified that what his lab considered a positive and what WADA considers a positive (WADA being more willing to pronounce a positive) are not always the same thing. Unless you have really good data on not just users, but on the "normal" population in general as well, it's hard to build reliable statistical models to answer some of these questions. To my knowledge none of that research has really been done. When certain WADA labs have significantly higher "catch" rates than other labs, presumably all testing the same general populations of athletes, it does prompt certain questions on the part of impartial observers.

[Fear The Chorizo]

apologies for a long post, but I spent too much time reviewing the JDA from the grassy knoll. A couple of other items from the JDA collection procedures protocol:

 

F...."There must be a minium of 3 specimen collection cups from which the player can choose"

 

P. "The player shall select the collection kit from a choice of at least 3 collection kits" (this kit includes the A&B vials and security seals)

 

R. "The Collector must ask the player to verify that the Specimen I.D. numbers on the top of the chain of custody form match those on the security seals.....Only the collector shall initial and date the security seals."

 

From the Chain of Custody procedures in the JDA:

 

V-4. The Collector shall turn to Page 2 (the pink copy) of the chain of custody form...the Player shall print and sign his name and provide the date of the collection in Section 5 of the chain of custody form.

 

V-9. The Collector shall place Page 1 of the chain of custody form in the back pocket of the plastic bag and shall seal the plastic bag.

 

V-10. Plastic bag containing specimens and chain of custody shall be placed in the specimen box.

 

So here's the conspiracy theory of sample tampering at play:

 

1. The collector took 3 samples that day. The JDA would require him to have at least 2 extra sample containers and kits to take with him to the ballpark so the players tested always had at least 3 options to complete their test with. That means he also has extra vials and security seals. Players don't initial/date the security seals after they've been placed on the vials.

 

2. The Player does sign and date the pink copy of the chain of custody indicating he agrees that his sample matches the specimen ID # listed on the chain. He doesn't, however, sign the copy of the chain that gets shipped to the lab with the sample so the lab can't identify whose it is.

 

In summary, the collector would have in his possession: at least 2 extra sample containers, kits, and chains of custody with preprinted security id numbers. The only markings made by a player are on a copy of the chain that doesn't go to the lab. If motivated, the collector could take a sample home, break the seals and place in a "spiked" container or grab a different sample that's tainted. He could then use one of the extra kits to collect, seal, and initial the tampered sample. Fill out the chain with the matching specimen ID#, and then transpose a player's signature/date writing from the original to the tampered chain's pink copy by retracing it.

 

I'm not saying this is how it happened - just an exercise to show that Braun was correct in his statement that it would be "extremely easy" for someone in the collector's position to tamper with a sample if motivated given these circumstances without the lab finding any issues of tampering with containers.

[jeffy]

I believe that Braun said that the system was "fatally flawed" as it applied to his case rather than saying it was "fatally flawed" under all circumstances.

 

He also said: "Ultimately, as I sit here today, the system worked because I am innocent, and I was able to prove my innocence."

 

So, it's a fatally flawed system that works, I guess.

[brwrsfan]

So here's the conspiracy theory of sample tampering at play:

 

1. The collector took 3 samples that day. The JDA would require him to have at least 2 extra sample containers and kits to take with him to the ballpark so the players tested always had at least 3 options to complete their test with. That means he also has extra vials and security seals. Players don't initial/date the security seals after they've been placed on the vials.

 

2. The Player does sign and date the pink copy of the chain of custody indicating he agrees that his sample matches the specimen ID # listed on the chain. He doesn't, however, sign the copy of the chain that gets shipped to the lab with the sample so the lab can't identify whose it is.

 

In summary, the collector would have in his possession: at least 2 extra sample containers, kits, and chains of custody with preprinted security id numbers. The only markings made by a player are on a copy of the chain that doesn't go to the lab. If motivated, the collector could take a sample home, break the seals and place in a "spiked" container or grab a different sample that's tainted. He could then use one of the extra kits to collect, seal, and initial the tampered sample. Fill out the chain with the matching specimen ID#, and then transpose a player's signature/date writing from the original to the tampered chain's pink copy by retracing it.

 

I'm not saying this is how it happened - just an exercise to show that Braun was correct in his statement that it would be "extremely easy" for someone in the collector's position to tamper with a sample if motivated given these circumstances without the lab finding any issues of tampering with containers.

 

Well that answers a question for me. It's not a matter of trying to "reseal" the cup after it was tampered with. The guy has access to other cups, lids, seals, etc. So if he did this as stated above (not saying he did) but if it was the case, the seals the lab gets would be absolutely perfect. Because he sealed the contaiminated portion with a brand new cup/seal. At that point it's just a matter of the signature, a signature that won't be perfect as it's likely a carbon copy and it's a pro baseball player so it's really just a scribble. Again, he might not have, but this would be VERY easy for him if he was motivated to do so. He has the urine, he knows who it's from, he has extra seals and everything needed to make it look legit. Again, not saying he did, but the fact that he had it for 44 hours, him and his son knew who the sample belonged to...it's certainly not entirely impossible to think that something could have happened during that timeframe.

[DatHoser]

This is probably a really dumb question, but I'm good for those. So here goes: what if the sample was tampered with but done without out opening it? Microwaving it for a few seconds to kill off the flora wanna-bees that would signal a bad/contaminated sample, for example. Could that also throw off a test?

[xisxisxis]

Polygraphs are admissible in court in some states but not in others. So to refuse to report about it based on his own belief of the reliability of polygraphs or his view that it is not "material" is grossly irresponsible in my opinion.

 

Polygraphs are just as good as many other forms of evidence. DNA is touted as being the answer to a lot of cases and the fact is that if there isn't enough DNA then you can get a highly inaccurate reading. Unfortunately, "not enough" DNA changes from lab to lab and test to test. The issue is that any evidence has drawbacks, but for anyone to dismiss polygraphs out of hand then state that the T/E and synthetic T testing is beyond question on a sample that sat in undesirable conditions for ~44 hours reveals they have an agenda and are not seeking the "truth".

 

 

Passan said (on twitter) that he has confirmed--with three sources--the synthetic T reading on the test

 

The issue is pretty plain to me. The testing laboratory only has a clear idea what to expect from a sample that is handled in the prescribed way. Nobody has the data to support that a sample handled in the way it was collected for Braun is no different than a sample that is collected one day and arrives at the testing lab the next day.

 

The fact that Friday collections must be marked for Saturday delivery, yet a weekend collection can sit anywhere seems to indicate to me they have inconsistencies in what they require of the collectors. How is a sample collected on Friday and delivered Monday morning any different than a sample collected on Saturday and delivered on Tuesday morning? I find it extremely hypocritical that MLB says that there is nothing wrong with the way that Braun's sample was handled yet they require all Friday samples to be delivered Saturday morning. Yet Passan doesn't seem to have picked up on any of the inconsistencies in the MLB stance. Hmmmm, yep it sounds like he's doing impartial research.

[DannoMac21]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is there any possibility they mixed up the urine samples?

 

They've both came out and said they sign paper but do not sign the labels. With Braun offering MLB to take a DNA test, and saying it's flawed but it worked, IDK.