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

[jeffy]

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.

 

That would be important one way or the other, that the storage conditions were or were not a problem.

 

Braun seeming to aim at tampering as the cause did not give me a lot of confidence that there will be anything like that coming from his side.

[Brewer Fever]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, I've read this whole thread and didn't see it, but the apparent leak came from someone Braun's team spoke to who betrayed their trust. I apologize if I missed this.

 

From Tom H. twitter...

 

"Let's make this clear for people who want to blame MLB for Braun leak. Somebody his side talked to during process betrayed them."

 

"The Commissioner's office knows who did it; the players union knows who did; and Braun's people know who did it. That was the leak."

 

"I didn't say I know the guy's name. I'm saying I've been told that MLB, the union and Braun's people know. It'll probably get out somehow."

[brettac1]

I figured that was the case. There was certainly no reason MLB would leak it, and I would imagine only a couple people even knew in the league office.

[brwrsfan]

I would imagine that makes it a lawyer or a close personal friend. Pretty terrible either way as it's ruined his reputation probably forever. If it's a lawyer, I'd imagine thats completely agains the confidentiality agreement. If it's a friend, that's pretty sad. Basically ruined one of your "friends" careers to make a few bucks. Maybe they assumed he'd be suspended and it wouldn't matter, but that really should make no difference. Not at least when I think of a friend.

[pebadger]

If it is a friend (or former friend) that would be pretty awful. If it's a lawyer, sanctions would certainly be on the table from various professional organizations. If it's some sort of consultant (PR, science, etc.), I'd make it my personal mission in life to make sure that that information came out and that the person's business was destroyed. That person's business liability carrier would settle their end of the case before you even filed it. I'd be stunned if it was a principal in any of the law firms or other consultantcy businesses who actually spilled the beans, but it's not out of the realm of possibility and maybe even likely in this particular case if I'm reading between the lines correctly. Most leaks are the result of some sort of information security breakdown which takes sensitive information and somehow lands it in the hands of someone with little to lose by leaking.

[burnzy24]

I would be absolutely shocked if Braun's lawyers did not have a confidentiality agreement in place with every single person, firm, etc. they spoke to about this. There was way too much on the line for Ryan for there not to be one in place, and if there was, whomever leaked this is in for a world of trouble. This is more than likely what Braun meant when he stated he was exploring all legal options.

[JJHardy7]

I'm happy with Braun's presser from the other day. When the story first ran that he tested positive for something, I thought he was guilty based on what we've seen in the past. Now I believe him, but I don't know if I will ever be able to say that with 100% conviction. I'm sure more tidbits will come out eventually so I'll just wait and see what comes out.

 

One of the main problems with how this is/was covered, is that the media wants to jump the gun. It happens at almost every major network/publisher at times. Braun being guilty is a better story than being innocent. I think the media is in bed with MLB, etc. A good story if you want to make the news would be the fact that Braun's test was positive was a sham and MLB still wanted to suspend it. I don't think too many of the networks would run with that in fear of making MLB upset.

[pebadger]

I would be absolutely shocked if Braun's lawyers did not have a confidentiality agreement in place with every single person, firm, etc. they spoke to about this. There was way too much on the line for Ryan for there not to be one in place, and if there was, whomever leaked this is in for a world of trouble. This is more than likely what Braun meant when he stated he was exploring all legal options.

 

Yup. I'd be shocked as well, but even if they didn't, or if it's faulty/badly drafted, there should still be a number of causes of action they could pursue other than violation of an explicit agreement. The biggest problem now is likely just nailing down the specific proof of the case. As should be clear to most, everyone in the MLB/MLBPA/Braun camps "knowing" who the leak is isn't exactly the same as being able to prove it.

[homer]

I haven't seen this written anywhere and don't think it's in this thread (although there's a bajilion posts so maybe I missed it) but how does the existence of synthetic testosterone get explained? Is the only answer that the sample was tampered with and synthetic testosterone was added after Braun handed it over?

[trwi7]

I haven't seen this written anywhere and don't think it's in this thread (although there's a bajilion posts so maybe I missed it) but how does the existence of synthetic testosterone get explained? Is the only answer that the sample was tampered with and synthetic testosterone was added after Braun handed it over?

 

You missed it. xisxisxis and pebadger covered this. I think pebadger has a post on it on page 37.

 

Edit:

 

No, you can't spontaneously sprout synthetic T in urine sample, but the test that "determines" that synthetic T is present does not actually find synthetic T in urine. What it does is identify the metabolites produced when T is used up by your body processes. It identifies them only by very precisely detemining when the remnants of those metabolites pass in front of a sensor after the urine sample has been literally turned into a gas. The gas rises up a tube and the different remnant rise at microscopically different rates. A sensor records data about these remnants as they pass by. This data is turned into a printout (though it can also be evaluated just as numbers). Then you look on your printout for a peak at a given "time" on the graph, you measure that peak and make a determination as to what that means.

 

Here's the catch. What if two different things are passing by the sensor at a give time? If you are predisposed to think that everything passing by that sensor at that specific time is indicative of synthetic T, you're going to get a big peak that looks like a lot of synthetic T that is actually only a mcuh smaller amounts of two different things. (And that small amount, for reasons alluded to in posts long ago, would not mean that there was a small amount of synthetic T, either. A determination of synthetic T being present can only be made by comparing ratios of different carbon ions, both of which are present in nature, and then making a statistical hypothesis that a certain ratio is "out of whack" with what would normally be expected in a given sample. It's diagnostic art and statistics as much as anything.

 

This is a vast oversimplification, but the point is that you don't "find' synthetic T waving back at you from under a microscope. These tests are extraordinarily complex in nature. Just reading this simplified version should provide further insight into why I say it's virtually impossible for the athlete to challenge the conclusion of the testers when they say they're right.

[homer]

thanks, buddy

[jazzytrav]

This may have been mentioned, but I have to wonder if the original leak wasn't a blessing in disguise. I know nothing of Das other than what's on paper, but is there a possibility that perhaps he would be more inclined to side with MLB if he wasn't under such a microscope?

 

IF this is the first time a player won an appeal in a case like this (and that's a big IF since we wouldn't know if they had won), it seems a bit strange that this is also the only case that got leaked far before the process was completed.

[RayKingsForemanGrill]

Pebadger - thank you for your posts and insight - it has been very enlightening...

 

My question is: why is no one reporting this? Is the national sports media just more interested in crucifying a guy and they're taking part in lazy journalism, or is there more to it? The majority of national sports media I read still leans heavily towards "he got away with it" versus "maybe he IS innocent..."

[Dragonbait]

When you pander to public opinion, you tend to get more supporters, ie more readers.

[Invader3K]

Yeah...many people are so eager to crucify anyone, especially when they can do it semi-anonymously on the internet. Those are the sorts that these "writers" appeal to.

[1992casey]

I suppose these networks figure that nobody wants to listen to a scientist. Or I suppose that it's possible that the thought never occurred to them.

[Patrick425]

I haven't seen this written anywhere and don't think it's in this thread (although there's a bajilion posts so maybe I missed it) but how does the existence of synthetic testosterone get explained? Is the only answer that the sample was tampered with and synthetic testosterone was added after Braun handed it over?

 

You missed it. xisxisxis and pebadger covered this. I think pebadger has a post on it on page 37.

 

Edit:

 

No, you can't spontaneously sprout synthetic T in urine sample, but the test that "determines" that synthetic T is present does not actually find synthetic T in urine. What it does is identify the metabolites produced when T is used up by your body processes. It identifies them only by very precisely detemining when the remnants of those metabolites pass in front of a sensor after the urine sample has been literally turned into a gas. The gas rises up a tube and the different remnant rise at microscopically different rates. A sensor records data about these remnants as they pass by. This data is turned into a printout (though it can also be evaluated just as numbers). Then you look on your printout for a peak at a given "time" on the graph, you measure that peak and make a determination as to what that means.

 

Here's the catch. What if two different things are passing by the sensor at a give time? If you are predisposed to think that everything passing by that sensor at that specific time is indicative of synthetic T, you're going to get a big peak that looks like a lot of synthetic T that is actually only a mcuh smaller amounts of two different things. (And that small amount, for reasons alluded to in posts long ago, would not mean that there was a small amount of synthetic T, either. A determination of synthetic T being present can only be made by comparing ratios of different carbon ions, both of which are present in nature, and then making a statistical hypothesis that a certain ratio is "out of whack" with what would normally be expected in a given sample. It's diagnostic art and statistics as much as anything.

 

This is a vast oversimplification, but the point is that you don't "find' synthetic T waving back at you from under a microscope. These tests are extraordinarily complex in nature. Just reading this simplified version should provide further insight into why I say it's virtually impossible for the athlete to challenge the conclusion of the testers when they say they're right.

 

Being a Brewer fan and a baseball fan, I want to find every reason to believe Braun is telling the truth. Right now, what I'm pinning my beliefs on is the fact that the T levels were 3 times any previous result, or the 20:1 ratio.

 

Having said that, Pebadger, if I'm understanding your explaination about about how synthetic T could be detected in the Urine sample it seems to me that it would be very easy to poke holes in that argument. My understanding is that as a standard procedure after a positive test for PEDs, they tested the sample again and came up with the same results. So, MLB does thousands of tests a year, as far as we know they have never had a false positive before for sythetic T, yet now, what you are describing above happened twice on the same player? Please let me know if I'm not understanding something completely, but if I'm being completely objective, this seems a bit far fetched.

[Ennder]

This may have been mentioned, but I have to wonder if the original leak wasn't a blessing in disguise. I know nothing of Das other than what's on paper, but is there a possibility that perhaps he would be more inclined to side with MLB if he wasn't under such a microscope?

 

I think the exact opposite. I was worried he was going to get suspended even if he presented a strong case because it had gone public and all the pressure was on Das to side with baseball and burn the witch. I'm actually pretty shocked given the situation that he ruled in Braun's favor.

[dhoffman19]

I haven't seen this written anywhere and don't think it's in this thread (although there's a bajilion posts so maybe I missed it) but how does the existence of synthetic testosterone get explained? Is the only answer that the sample was tampered with and synthetic testosterone was added after Braun handed it over?

 

Another point on this which came up in the comments section of the blog I posted earlier. Do we really have confimration that synthetic T showed up in the second test? The only source I am aware of for that statement is the original anonymous leak.

[Patrick425]

I haven't seen this written anywhere and don't think it's in this thread (although there's a bajilion posts so maybe I missed it) but how does the existence of synthetic testosterone get explained? Is the only answer that the sample was tampered with and synthetic testosterone was added after Braun handed it over?

 

Another point on this which came up in the comments section of the blog I posted earlier. Do we really have confimration that synthetic T showed up in the second test? The only source I am aware of for that statement is the original anonymous leak.

 

If it didn't, wouldn't they throw the whole thing out? Isn't the 2nd test (of the same urine sample) to confirm that there was not a false positive in the first test?

[jjfanec]

 

Another point on this which came up in the comments section of the blog I posted earlier. Do we really have confimration that synthetic T showed up in the second test? The only source I am aware of for that statement is the original anonymous leak.

 

This is one of the arguments Will Carroll has been making on twitter. Do we really know synthetic T showed up from anyone outside of the original leak and do we know what tests showed this leak? I am so confused by the science stuff that I just wait for people hear to explain stuff

[jazzytrav]

This may have been mentioned, but I have to wonder if the original leak wasn't a blessing in disguise. I know nothing of Das other than what's on paper, but is there a possibility that perhaps he would be more inclined to side with MLB if he wasn't under such a microscope?

 

I think the exact opposite. I was worried he was going to get suspended even if he presented a strong case because it had gone public and all the pressure was on Das to side with baseball and burn the witch. I'm actually pretty shocked given the situation that he ruled in Braun's favor.

 

Yes, but if all of the information gets out in the way that we're hearing it, and everyone is exposed to the same logic patterns that we're seeing, it would be extremely risky for him to come across as an MLB pawn. If, in the past, the independent arbitrator ever felt the need to side with MLB for the sole purpose of not pissing of MLB, that variable was removed the moment this got into the public. In a way, the after-leak process worked as perfectly as it could for MLB. They still can defend their testing process, but they can also say that the panel system worked (though they aren't, but they could).

 

Perhaps to MLB, in a confidential situation, the testing process worked fine. But to an independent arbitrator, I think he also has to take into account how the public will see this when given all of the information. If anything, he helped MLB by deciding the way he did, so they don't have to face any more scrutiny over the fairness of the appeal process.

[pebadger]

Being a Brewer fan and a baseball fan, I want to find every reason to believe Braun is telling the truth. Right now, what I'm pinning my beliefs on is the fact that the T levels were 3 times any previous result, or the 20:1 ratio.

 

Having said that, Pebadger, if I'm understanding your explaination about about how synthetic T could be detected in the Urine sample it seems to me that it would be very easy to poke holes in that argument. My understanding is that as a standard procedure after a positive test for PEDs, they tested the sample again and came up with the same results. So, MLB does thousands of tests a year, as far as we know they have never had a false positive before for sythetic T, yet now, what you are describing above happened twice on the same player? Please let me know if I'm not understanding something completely, but if I'm being completely objective, this seems a bit far fetched.

 

If there is some substance in Braun's urine that, when subjected to the test, is going to "look like synthetic T" the first time they test the sample, it will look like synthetic T every time they test that sample if they don't take steps to differentiate between the things they are looking for. As nobody has any idea what that other substance might be, or even that they should be looking for something else in the first place, how would they ever do that?

 

Another note on false positives that can't be reiterated enough: we don't know that there have never been false positives. By their very nature, you don't know when you have a false positive unless information you gain from other sources invalidates a positive that you have no other reason to suspect is invalid. When somebody goes in and gets tested for a certain disease, and the test result indicates the presence of that disease, we follow up on that case and will subsequently learn, by future tests or in the course of treatment, whether or not that person really has the disease. Nothing like that happens in drug testing. They run a test on one sample, taken on a given day. The testers don't look for explanations for their results, they just look for results. They aren't looking to hurt people, but they aren't looking to help people either. If their recipe says "Guilty", to them that's the indisputable end of the case. If the subject of the test says "That can't be right" the immediate assumption and 100% legal presumption to the testing system) is that the subject is a filthy liar as well as a cheat.

 

I don't want to say garbage-in, garbage-out, but that's kind of the case. You can only differentiate between substances if your're looking for them specifically. MLB is looking only for ONE thing specifically, and when they think they've found it, that's the end of the case on their end. Since they run the test the same way every time, they should get the same result every time. If so, that means they did a great job running the test. It doesn't mean that the result is correct.

[dhoffman19]

If it is a friend (or former friend) that would be pretty awful. If it's a lawyer, sanctions would certainly be on the table from various professional organizations. If it's some sort of consultant (PR, science, etc.), I'd make it my personal mission in life to make sure that that information came out and that the person's business was destroyed. That person's business liability carrier would settle their end of the case before you even filed it. I'd be stunned if it was a principal in any of the law firms or other consultantcy businesses who actually spilled the beans, but it's not out of the realm of possibility and maybe even likely in this particular case if I'm reading between the lines correctly. Most leaks are the result of some sort of information security breakdown which takes sensitive information and somehow lands it in the hands of someone with little to lose by leaking.

 

Agreed. I read TH's tweets to mean that the leak came from the office of one of the scientific consultants that Braun's team spoke to. I would also be floored if if came from an attorney representing Braun. Revealing client confidences is THE cardinal sin and he or she would be disbarred if caught.

 

I'm an attorney and my firm sometimes consults with experts and when we do there is a confidentiality agreement - so I would be shocked if the principal at one of the consulting firms was the one to leak the info. Plus, if it got out that they were the leak, no one would ever hire them again. That said, maybe a secretary or other support staff member overheard something or saw a document they weren't supposed to see. Or maybe someone got fired by the consultant and decided they wanted revenge. Impossible to say.

[pebadger]

My first thought was science consultant, too, dhoff. That's exactly the place I'd cultivate a source if I were a writer working drug stories like Fainaru-Wada does. Further agree that no attorney with enough of a reputation of excellence to even be consulted in a case like this would likely jeopardize their entire practice by getting involved in playing games like this. (I'm no longer practicing, but I have a law degree as well).

 

One thing that bothers me is that it's pretty well-established by multiple sources who used to work at ESPN that that network has a policy of not running stuff unless they have two, independant sources for a story. Did ESPN just simply disregard that principle for this case? Or were there two leaks? Given the journalistic mess that ESPN has become, I'm guessing they just went with the story based on the source and F-W's reputation (ESPN spent a lot of money to hire him on exactly to break stories like this). The other possibility is that there wasn't another leak per se, but that they somehow maneuvered somebody into unwittingly providing enough corroboration of the initial leak to provide them with justification for running with the story.