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

[pretendastronaut]

Not saying that he's guilty, but let's be real, Braun is a smooth character to begin with- I'd bet he's been tweaking that news conference for weeks with lawyers/PR people. With that kind of preparation, the guy could sell ice to Eskimos.

 

So you think because Braun handles himself well that he's obviously capable of lying and probably did. Okay....

 

Oddly enough, that's the exact reason I've argued with people off the board that I thought he could be innocent. To me, how a guy who is so polished, whether constructed or not, suddenly deciding to risk it all by taking steroids after having 5 highly successful years in the majors, made zero sense to me and seemed completely out of character.

 

Here's the problem with Braun making any technical arguments yesterday:

 

Intelligent as he is, he's simply not the guy you want out there making those arguments. They're too technical, too subtle and probably not entirely dispositive of the case in the way that would satisfy the "we demand a full accounting" crowd.

 

I understand that, but I don't think he needs to get technical about it, he could simply point out that he's not versed in that well and nobody would expect him to be. To me it's the difference between people believing he's innocent and people believing he found a loophole. Picture this;

 

What was said:

 

How do you explain such a high reading in your test?

 

“The most honest answer I can give you is that I’m 100 percent certain it’s never entered my system. I can only speak for what happened up until the time that the sample went missing. I have no idea what happened to it for that 44-hour period. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. I don’t have any idea.”

 

Verses something like this:

 

How do you explain such a high reading in your test?

 

“The most honest answer I can give you is that I’m 100 percent certain it’s never entered my system. I can only speak for what happened up until the time that the sample went missing. However, we were able to provide possibilities and were able to replicate the results of the test with a clean sample and improper handing that may have occurred, the details of which I can't provide publicly.”

[brwrsfan]

If I'm Braun or on his team and I know for a fact that the guy holding it caused the problem because I was able to duplicate the exact same scenario with the exact same result...I'm pretty sure I'd let the world know that. Doesn't make much sense to me why you would sit on a huge piece of info like that.

[pebadger]

That's a certainly a good alternative, pretendastronaut, and it's hard to argue with making such a statement. I think I may have gone that way as well were I in those shoes. I have no doubt that Braun's team went over all their options exahustively. The certainly seem to have been much better prepared for all of this than has MLB.

 

As for the duplication arguments, I's certainly like to know more about the entire factual basis. My educated guess at what they argued tells me that there is a very strong danger of overselling that angle in Braun's defense. The bottom line is that, once you get into science arguments, the testers are always working from the actual data of the actual test and those attempting to beat the test are almost always working from a position of speculation. It may be very well-supported speculation, but in terms of the typical arbitration hearing the testers have a result that was generated by a full documented procedures which were executed in compliance with the applicable standards. That's pretty hard to beat with a hypothesis of what might have gone wrong, even when you are able to show that the hypothesis is plausible.

 

In this case you have a breakdown in the process, so that will almost always be the better point of attack. The other stuff is ancillary and acts more as another hurdle for MLB to surmount that it does an as affirmative alternative explanation for the particular result.

[bylo tesi me]

If I'm Braun or on his team and I know for a fact that the guy holding it caused the problem because I was able to duplicate the exact same scenario with the exact same result...I'm pretty sure I'd let the world know that. Doesn't make much sense to me why you would sit on a huge piece of info like that.

 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

Perhaps this is a bit far-fetched, But I'm starting to wonder if Braun has a deal made with MLB not to release all the info on his case. He stated in his press conference he couldn't release all the details and he would put the best interests of Baseball before his own best interests. I'm thinking an agreement for Braun to take it on the chin for awhile and details will slowly "leak" out after the storm has blown over. MLB is desperate to protect the testing program and releasing details is something MLB probably doesn't want. Would explain why the long delay in releasing a decision.

 

That would be incredibly BIG of Braun, I admit, considering the amount of damage his credibility is taking in the short term, but if he knows the whole truth will be out eventually, I can maybe see it.

 

As some have said here, the Real motive of MLB is PR and convincing everyone the testing system is credible.

[topper09er]

Things still do not add up and this is my summary as of now:

 

There are 4 possible ways the positive test result occurred

1) Braun was juicing

2) The sample was left out or not stored properly and degraded before it was tested

3) The collector intentionally spiked it

4) The lab screwed up/misinterpreted the sample and got a false positive

 

I find 3 very hard to believe, the risk reward does not seem to be there, what could his motivation be? Either money or to hurt a rival team? I assume this would land you some jail time so doing it just to stick it to a rival team is not worth risking jail time, and I don't see how he could make any money off of it, unless he contacted ESPN and was the leak himself. All seems way too crazy.

 

I find 4 to be unlikely just because this has never happened before. If Braun was suspended I think he would have had a press conference anyways saying how this was the wrong decision, he was 100% innocent and he disagrees with the ruling. None of the other suspended players did this, or even said anything to the media from what I can remember...because they knew they were guilty. MLB has to have administered at least 20,000 of these tests and now the first ever false positive happens to the NL MVP, I can't see it.

 

I find 1 hard to believe because of the obvious reasons, he had been tested many times before, including during the 2011 season, and he knew he would be tested for the playoffs. Also all of the documented things he listed about not getting and faster or lifting any more weights. I find it pretty hard to believe that if MLB had a lock tight case that could prove at every step along the way Braun's sample was untainted and he juiced, but the only thing going for Braun was that the sample spent 2 days in the professional collector's fridge instead of FedEx's fridge, that the arbiter would rule in with Braun. Also his press conference seemed pretty convincing, however, playing devil's advocate, how many people though this guy was full of it when he "vehemently" denied juicing to congress.

http://a.espncdn.com/media/mlb/2005/0801/photo/a_palmeiro_275.jpg

I do think that 1 is more likely than 3 or 4 though.

 

This leaves 2, a handling error that caused the sample to degrade somehow. We know it is possible for this to occur, based on the appeal in the Diane Modahl case which was able to reproduce the high T:E ratio by leaving a sample out.

 

"A theory began to emerge. Perhaps...delayed refrigeration kickstarted a bacterial growth in the urine, a byproduct of which was an increased level of testosterone in the sample. Professor Gaskell was asked to perform experiments to test this hypothesis. He showed that indeed in these conditions testosterone would be created." (http://tinyurl.com/85tgltm)

 

Problem with this are: That Yahoo report specifically said this did not occur...according to "sources" so I'm not very convinced unless these "sources" come out and say who they are have documentation showing they checked for bacterial degradation and did not find any. In the Diane Modahl case her test sample had degraded but the bacteria was missed by the original testers (which may be reasonable if they assume that the sample was not left out or stored improperly)

 

"When the lab ran the tests on Braun’s urine specimen, it did not find microbial degradation – bacteria growth – that would have tainted the sample, according to two sources. The seals on the samples remained intact, sources said."

(http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_ryan_braun_drug_test_appeal_manfred_022412)

 

The other problem is: Why did this not happen to the other 2 mystery Brewers' samples??? I assume the guy stored all 3 samples in the same manner (unless he was intentionally trying to mess with Braun's sample) so if Braun's degraded into a high T:E ratio why didn't the other 2 samples? OR did they but those players also appealed and won using the same defense as Braun and those cases remained confidential??

 

Another missing piece of info, how would someone show a T:E ratio 3 times higher than ever tested before? Could this be achieved easily if you were simply injecting testosterone? Or would this require such a vast amount of testosterone that it would be very unlikely anyone would do it? Are we talking about something on the scale of eating an extra bag of chips or an extra 50 pounds of meat in one day?

 

 

In summary if Braun's sample degraded, which I think is the most likely scenario, why didn't the other 2?

[topper09er]

In an unrelated note to uncovering what actually went on in this case, say what you want about ESPN or MLB in this case but they have a propaganda machine that would make Joseph Goebbels envious. I can't believe that the majority of public opinion is still siding with them and the whole technicality excuse even though Braun was exonerated by an independent arbiter. I understand the guilty until proven innocent angle that most people had since the December leak, but after he was exonerated it seems like more people think he did it than before.

[xisxisxis]

"When the lab ran the tests on Braun’s urine specimen, it did not find microbial degradation – bacteria growth – that would have tainted the sample, according to two sources. The seals on the samples remained intact, sources said."

 

I believe the results of the bacterial growth finding. The problem I have is that the "seals on the samples remained intact". The lab receives the samples and runs the test after a few days. A sample that's marked with a number code. It appears to have an elevated T:E and is tested again. At least 14 days passed from when the lab received the sample and Ryan was notified of the result. Any questions by the Braun group about chain of custody and tampering with the sample that would require the lab to check the records would have been at least a few weeks after the positive result. What is laughable to me is that other than a record of the state of the sample when it was received there is no way to verify that the seals remained intact. I have had to go back to my technicians often and ask "do you remember sample 4225242 from several weeks ago". We both smile because we've run maybe 100's of samples since then with completely non-descript numbers and both of us know that it is near impossible to remember any details of any specific sample. What he does is go back to his notes and verify that nothing was marked down to indicate that it was out of the ordinary. If I push, "do you recall checking the seal specifically on that sample?". "well I'm supposed to, but I can't say for sure I remembered to check for that sample". Granted, I don't run a diagnostic lab that requires precise documenting of samples as they come in, but my point is that no technician will remember the exact condition of a sample. The only record is what's written down and there is always human error that they really didn't make a careful study of the seal. It's probably extremely rare that a sample would come in where the seal is clearly broken. It's only human nature to not be vigilant about observing the seal when it is almost never broken, especially if the lab is processing ten's to hundreds of samples a day. To assert that the seal was definitely not broken is an extremely weak argument, in my opinion, as there is no way to check the accuracy of that statement. The lab has to break the seal to test the sample. How can you possibly say with absolute certainty that it was sealed before the lab broke the seal. You can't.

[pebadger]

Another excellent point, xis, which futher illustrates the fact that MLB's case IS the procedure. It IS the documentation. No human being could be expected to recall all those details weeks later. What we can expect is that they document what they do, even if means simply checking a box on a form after doing only a cursory exam of the seals. Attention to detail is crucial. If you can't be counted on to perform every step of the procedure, including the documentation, how can we rely on your testimony that you were rigorous in every other detail of the procedure which is vital to producing a reliable result. As Braun noted yesterday, if a player has to be 100% certain about everything he eats, every vitamin he takes, every shake that he drinks, every prescription medication his doctor gives him, the least we can expect is for the people who are going to sit in judgment of his perfection to at least do those particular jobs with equal perfection.

[pebadger]

Drug testing in a world where procedures don't matter:

[dlk9s]

http://i.imgur.com/oI3Fc.gif

[JCREW]

The whole synthetic T thing had me hung up for a while until I did a little fact finding about it. (some of this was said by pebadger and xisxisxis, but it seems worth it if its a repeat)

 

The CIR test looks for the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13.

 

In nature, carbon-13 makes up about 1.100% of all carbon atoms.

In natural T, carbon-13 makes up about 1.075% of all its carbon atoms.

In synthetic T, carbon-13 makes up about 1.070% of all its carbon atoms.

 

5/1000 of a percent is small. To put it in batting average perspective, if the Brewers' collective batting average went up by 0.005 (in standard BA reckoning, that would be .00006), that would equate to one hit... for the team... EVERY THREE YEARS!!!

 

While the science behind this testing is pretty solid, the minute differences that would result in a positive test versus a negative test are mind boggling (especially since scientists don't actually go around counting neutrons). Any sample change that could result in co-elution should be thought of as a major player in the story.

 

When push comes to shove, ANY step outside the prescribed rules for handling a test is a HUGE deal.

 

Caveat: I'm certain that pebadger and xisxisxis are far better at scientific interpretation and analysis than I am, so read their posts about CIR testing and how synthetic T is made.

[jeffy]

I can't believe that the majority of public opinion is still siding with them and the whole technicality excuse even though Braun was exonerated by an independent arbiter.

 

That's because their view is that he was not "exonerated", they feel he got off because of procedural errors not because he was innocent. Even some players share that view.

 

Similarly if the police illegally search my home and find illegal drugs, the fact that the evidence found can not be used to convict me and I end up being found not guilty as a result does not "exonerate" me.

[gregmag]

I can't believe that the majority of public opinion is still siding with them and the whole technicality excuse even though Braun was exonerated by an independent arbiter.

 

That's because their view is that he was not "exonerated", they feel he got off because of procedural errors not because he was innocent. Even some players share that view.

 

Similarly if the police illegally search my home and find illegal drugs, the fact that the evidence found can not be used to convict me and I end up being found not guilty as a result does not "exonerate" me.

 

There's a fatal flaw in your analogy, a flaw that demonstrates the fundamental unfairness of ascribing Braun's exoneration to a "technicality."

 

In the drug search scenario you describe, the drugs are found at your house. That's a simple fact. The illegality of the search -- lack of a warrant, failure to knock and announce, whatever -- is unrelated to the fact of the drugs' presence. (Some illegal searches may involve faults in the search that support allegations of planting evidence, which would be more like at least one possible sequence of events -- the tampering hypothesis -- that could explain Braun's initial test result, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting.)

 

That is a "technicality," in the vernacular of cop movies; I would call it a constitutional violation. Either way, our criminal law includes safeguards that require courts and juries, in some circumstances, to disregard facts -- actual facts -- that would establish guilt. We do that for a variety of reasons: keeping the police honest, making sure the people have confidence in the fairness of the system, preventing the state from deriving benefit from violations of principles we consider important. What that sort of safeguard is NOT about, in a situation like I'm describing, is the cognitive reliability of proof. We know the drugs were there, but we disregard that fact because we've decided that other considerations outweigh our interest putting that culpable defendant away.

 

A Ryan Braun parallel to that situation would be if we knew, for a fact, that Ryan Braun had ingested a PED, but there was something wrong with how we knew it, like if someone had violated Braun's privacy by planting a camera in his house that produced video of Braun taking the PED. If MLB had that evidence, but decided not to use it out of an abundance of scrupulous fairness (hold on a minute, I'm trying to stop laughing), that would be letting Braun off on a technicality.

 

The real case, of course, differs decisively from that scenario. In the real case, we don't know whether or not Braun ingested a PED. That fact, necessary for establishing guilt, is unknown. The only way we could know the fact is if Braun had failed a reliable drug test. An arbitrator examined the circumstances of the case and found that doubt serious enough to throw out the test -- something that, by most accounts, had never happened before in a MLB case.

 

That's not a "technicality." That's absence of the fact needed for conviction. The fact is, Ryan Braun did not fail a drug test. You only fail a drug test if the test satisfies the standards of reliability that the system has put in place. In this case, the test did not satisfy that standard. There is no more evidence that Ryan Braun used a banned substance than there is evidence that you or I used a banned substance.

 

The biggest thing that I think people keep forgetting is that a test result is not direct evidence of drug use. The test is a medium; it's an indirect source of proof. We need to use tests in many areas to help us make important decisions, but whenever we do that, we look carefully at how the test indicates the underlying fact for which we're searching, what could go wrong between fact and result, how to minimize the possibility that something will go wrong, and how much risk of error -- in terms of both process and substantive results -- we're willing to tolerate and still act on the result.

 

In this case, the result of the test was apparently unprecedented -- unprecedented through the roof -- and the procedures broke down worse than they've ever broken down before (given the unprecedented outcome of the arbitration). How any fair-minded person could act on the test result in those circumstances completely eludes me.

[dhoffman19]

Here's a pretty good blog entry summarizing the Will Carroll article and some of the other things that aren't getting a lot of press.

 

http://www.chadmoriyama.com/2012/02/ryan-braun-what-you-dont-know-about-his-case-is-important/

[FullMetalCardigan]

[...]

 

In this case, the result of the test was apparently unprecedented -- unprecedented through the roof -- and the procedures broke down worse than they've ever broken down before (given the unprecedented outcome of the arbitration). How any fair-minded person could act on the test result in those circumstances completely eludes me.

 

Outstanding narrative on how this is not analogous to an illegal search scenario. What hasn't gotten much mention, and I'm curious as to why, are Shyman Das's credentials. This is not his first doping case. By all reports, he's a very experienced arbitrator who has been working with the league for over a decade. Many in the mainstream media (Jeff Passan from MLB Yahoo, for instance) insinuate he was "snowed" by a brilliant bit of lawyering from Braun's defense team. I find that extremely hard to believe. I don't think he lets Braun off on a pure technicality if he believes the sample is not somehow tainted. Braun's defense had to have demonstrated some tangible alteration in the composition of his urine due to the manner in which it was stored. CSI Kenosha!!!

[pebadger]

Good post JCrew. Sums it up well in that amount of space. I should note, and I think this comes across in your post as well, that the science/technology underpinning all of this is brilliant, fascinating and well-done. That doesn't mean it's perfect and it certainly doesn't mean that things will always work perfectly in application. I just wish so many of the people in charge of this machinery didn't take every instance of fair-minded inquiry into one of their findings in a given case as a seeming personal attack.

 

On the subject of the whole search warrant analogy, I was thinking about something similar earlier today. Almost everyone has seen a movie/TV show where cops enter a place of interest without a warrant, they find something that supports a prior suspicion, and then they leave, using prior information they have to justify getting a warrant to go get what they already know is there.

 

Consider the Braun case from sort of the inverse angle. Suppose you needed a warrant of some before you could drug test a player. Suppose also that getting a warrant is really easy. Baseball is the most gossippy of all major US sports. Guys spend so much time together and there is just an immense amount of time for guys to stand around shooting the breeze. Beat writers, broadcasters and others are around all the time; around the cage, in the clubhouse, on the plane. If a cop wanted to get a warrant on Braun, even if it was really easy to do, would even the friendliest of judges have granted that warrant? If the accusation of a failed test had never been made, would Braun's name even be among the top 50 of guys that anyone suspected of using a banned substance? He exhibits no physical signs. He exhibits no performance signs. He exhibits no emotional signs. There is no apparent motive. There was no apparent need. There hasn't been a single whisper in of anything like this in a sport where hardly anything, from personal quirks to philandering to allegations of PED use, doesn't become at least a whispered rumor within the circles of those closest to the game. People tend to think the media doesn't keep these secrets anymore, but that's not entirely true. They will protect guys, but once a story breaks a lot of the behind-the scenes rumors see the light of day. Not once in the wake of this stuff has anything surfaced about Braun from sources who would know. Not once. Not a single instance of "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who . . " The allegation simply doesn't square with what we think we know. I fully recognize that there is a LOT that nobody knows about anybody and I'm not saying it's impossible that Braun is just putting a huge, ballsy lie out there to protect himself. It just doesn't seem to be the most likely scenario in this situation.

 

I can only wonder how this all would have gone down with just two different facts. Assume there is no leak. Then assume that the case played out along the exact same timeline except that the decision came down 2-1 against Braun. How incredulously stunned would everyone have been on Thursday? It's entirely possible that MORE people nationwide would be on Braun's side than there are right now in the wake of his victory, simply because a larger segment simply wouldn't believe it coming out of the blue like that.

[1992casey]

Now that I think of it, I don't recall seeing a single medical person during MLB Network's coverage.

[berniebrewer4life]

pebadger, i really appreciate your insight in this matter. I've used the information you have given us here a couple of times, and even converted some skeptics.

[jeffy]

There's a fatal flaw in your analogy, a flaw that demonstrates the fundamental unfairness of ascribing Braun's exoneration to a "technicality."

 

Not meant so much an analogy, just another example where not guilty does not really mean "exonerated".

 

I would guess that to most people failure of a drug test is, rightly or wrongly, seen direct evidence of drug use and that's why they don't see this as exoneration.

 

Ryan said, "I was able to prove my innocence."

 

I don't think most non-Brewer fans see it that way at all. I think instead they think he was able to get the test results thrown out because of procedural errors...and that's all he proved, that the procedures that had been agreed to were not followed.

[pebadger]

pebadger, i really appreciate your insight in this matter. I've used the information you have given us here a couple of times, and even converted some skeptics.

 

You're welcome. Spent too much time learning about different things not to share it. Go out and evangelize my brother!

 

In all seriousness, I hope I'm not coming across as a know-it-all, because I certainly don't. I'm certainly open to being challenged, clarified or proven wrong. I have some strong opinions about this case and about certain drug-testing issues in general, but probably not as strong in a pro-athlete vein as they might appear sometimes in these posts. I'm trying hard to separate my opinions from stuff that is fact. I'm pro-Braun in this thing obvioiusly, but I could just as easily be anti-Braun if my own internal detector pointed in that direction. It might still shift in that direction if enough evidence were to come out that supported MLB's case.

 

My initial involvement in the thread was motivated by a desire to show that these cases, when honestly disputed, are never as simple as they seem, and then to show why that is the case. I've just been happy to be a part of the bf.net community which has taken a very inflammatory topic on which many of us have very different opinions and steered the discussion in directions beneficial for us all. The fact that the great moderators of this site have rarely had to step in on these threads is something bf.net should be proud of.

 

Now where the heck is the Roenicke complaint thread?

[topper09er]

I can't believe that the majority of public opinion is still siding with them and the whole technicality excuse even though Braun was exonerated by an independent arbiter.

 

That's because their view is that he was not "exonerated", they feel he got off because of procedural errors not because he was innocent. Even some players share that view.

 

Similarly if the police illegally search my home and find illegal drugs, the fact that the evidence found can not be used to convict me and I end up being found not guilty as a result does not "exonerate" me.

 

 

I said this because I assumed that this case is not like a criminal investigation. I could be wrong and it would be great if a lawyer around here could chime in.

 

In a criminal case, if the police illegally obtain a video of someone committing the crime they are being tried for the judge has to throw it out, even if he doesn't want to and even if he knows it will allow the criminal to go free. He HAS to follow a set of rules dictated by the law.

 

None of these apply to Braun's case. There are no illegal search and seizure rules here, no judge is deciding whether or not to admit certain evidence. The arbiter does not have a list that says if these things occur then you HAVE to vote for one side or the other no matter what you think. So if MLB could demonstrate that nothing happened to the sample, even if it went missing (which the Yahoo report is claiming by saying there was no sign of biological degradation) then I cant see the arbiter letting Braun off on only the technicality that the sample was stored properly in the collector's house instead of fedex. There must be more to convince the arbiter, and whatever it is did convince him so I am surprised so many people assume that the ONLY reason he sided with Braun was because of the technicality.

[splitterpfj]

Loose interpretation of the impact on a man's body, with the ingestion of three times more testosterone than any other man has ever shown...

 

[jjfanec]

Here's a pretty good blog entry summarizing the Will Carroll article and some of the other things that aren't getting a lot of press.

 

http://www.chadmoriyama.com/2012/02/ryan-braun-what-you-dont-know-about-his-case-is-important/

 

Good article. This guy is a blogger and writer for the Dodgers and seems legit. The comments section was really solid

[brwrsfan]

Here's a pretty good blog entry summarizing the Will Carroll article and some of the other things that aren't getting a lot of press.

 

http://www.chadmoriyama.com/2012/02/ryan-braun-what-you-dont-know-about-his-case-is-important/

 

Good article. This guy is a blogger and writer for the Dodgers and seems legit. The comments section was really solid

 

It is a good article, the problem is, as the blogger says....nobody is reading those articles and nobody is talking about it in any way shape or form, which is making Braun out to be guilty. Makes no sense to me at all.

[pebadger]

The "no bacterial growth" line is legitimate in that it HAS to be legitimate. If they find that there is bacterial contaminaton, they don't run the test. MLB can spout a whole bunch of lines about doing all sorts of things that support the idea that the sample was fine. IF they couldn't rattle off those things, the test never would have been done. What they can't say for certain is that simply because they ruled out a bunch of things that might be wrong, they simply can't rule out every possible thing that might be wrong. And they hate being in that position, for the same reason that athletes being in that position as a matter of course when it comes to these things; when you have to prove a logical negative, you're in a pretty impossible place.

 

MLB is basically saying that they followed the recipe to get a good result and so their result is good and that we should just take their word for it. They just want us to ignore the part of procedure that they didn't follow, because even though it's a rule, it's a rule that doesn't matter according to them. I wonder what would happen if an athlete broke one of the rules dealing with pre-testing procedures, like not showin up at an appointed hour, which is the treated as a "failed" test. Would anyone buy the argument that he should win the case anyway because the rule he broke didn't really matter?