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

[jazzytrav]

1) Why does Braun have to explain the test result is wrong? Why shoudn't MLB have to prove that it's right?

This should really be the end of the discussion right here. MLB has to be the one to prove that nothing happened in those 44 hours that could produce the result. They apparently failed to do that. Handing out a suspension to Braun when they can't prove the whereabouts of the sample other than the testimony of the guy that had it (who would like to keep his job) for two days presents plenty of doubt to lead to the exoneration.

 

If my company required a drug test, and my test comes back positive, you better believe I'm going to call into question the process that led to the positive test. I know that I'm innocent, so SOMETHING had to go wrong with the test. I may not be able to show a scientific basis, but the accuser should absolutely be able to show a scientific basis that the test is accurate.

[dhoffman19]

I don't know what to think with the article in today's paper quoting the 'experts' as saying that degradation could not have led to this result. 'Kill the messenger', but I also feel that this Dino guy likely did not violate MLB testing protocol. Was there a written policy at the time (I bet there is now) that disallowed keeping the sample on ice/in the fridge at home for a night or two? My guess is there was not, as the guy is still working for MLB.

 

The JDA is perhaps a little inconsistent on this point. It says that absent extreme circumstances the sample must be sent to Montreal via Fedex the same day it is collected. Then a few paragraphs later, it says that "if the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment," the collector must ensure it is safely guarded and stored "in a cool and secure location." So I suppose this is the language CDT and the collector were relying on to give them permission to store it for a couple days - although it seems to me Fedex being done shipping for the day does not constitute "extreme circumstances."

 

It's also interesting that the JDA says that the collector should not leave specimens in a car because this that will affect the lab's ability to analyze the specimen. (It also says that leaving testing kits, dipsticks, etc. in a car can damage them). This would seem to confirm that if the specimen is not stored appropriately it can affect the test. We've heard several different versions of where the sample was stored (fridge, on a desk in tupperware, in a cooler).

[tstads20]

Yet all these experts insist that the sample sitting around won't affect it. Then why the language? Why even bother with that extra information in the procedure?

 

I just don't see how anyone can say "this or that is absolutely true because science says so" when they don't even have all the details available at their disposal.

 

This is an example of how the media makes a story out of assumptions and rumors.

[pebadger]

The following is an excerpt from a blog post pertaining to various information and issues which became public as a result of the open arbitration hearing with respect to the Floyd Landis Tour de France controversy.

 

I post it in support of the following contention: This is a system that is set up to "catch cheats". It is not a system especially interested in what the average person on the street in the United States would understand as due process or an exercise interested in deeply delving into concepts of "truth".

 

"WADA funded labs and scientists prohibited from helping athletes

 

Of the most interest to the behind the scenes politics and procedures of WADA and their iron fist rule of no dissent came out during the cross examination of USADA witness Dr. Don Catlin, who until very recently was the head of the WADA accredited lab at UCLA and is a world-renowned doping expert. No longer being responsible for a WADA certified, he seemed to be very egger to speak his mind freely and apparently laced some of his testimony with sarcasm aimed at WADA. The following is part of an exchange about what it takes to maintain a WADA accreditation:

 

Q: anything else to keep accred.

A: goes on and on; file reports, do research, not doing certain things, and get a "good citizen" to WADA world of labs.

 

Q: what is a good citizen?

A: participate, and not testify against your neighbor.

 

Q: in order to maintain your accreditation, you may not testify against other labs?

A: it's very clear it is not permitted to testify against other labs.

 

Q: are you familiar with the laboratory code of ethics?

A: yes, I wrote it.

 

Q: how opportune.

A: the first version.

 

Q: Annex B, ISL, Code of ethics, 3.4 page 55.

A: yes

 

Q: i'm going to highlight sections. "the lab should not provide testing services in defense of an athlete", did you write that?

A: no, it seemed to have changed.

 

Q: [Conduct detrimental] that would cast doubt.

A: i do.

 

Q: is this a description of being a good citizen.

A: yes.

 

In another part of the cross examination Dr. Catlin disclosed how WADA had expressed displeasure with some of his testimony:

 

Q: you testified you received grief for testifying on the zack lund case?

A: yes.

 

Q: what was the source?

A: I don't think WADA was very happy.

 

Q: Olivier Rabin.

A: I don't think he was very happy.

 

Q: did he contact you before the hearing.

A: no, he was there, and they spoke to me.

 

Q: what did they say.

A: before the case started, it was made clear to me it was not a good idea for me to do this.

 

Q: who is Olivier Rabin?

A: Scientific director of WADA.

 

Q: review the facts of the case, you were called by USADA, it involved finestra, before Torino games.

A: yes.

 

Q: there was a debate whether finestra was a masking agent.

A: yes.

 

Q: you testimony is that is was not.

A: yeah.

 

Q: which was against WADA's placement of it on the banned list.

A: yes.

 

In another exchange under direct questioning by a USADA lawyer, Dr. Catlin gave some answers that bring into question just what constitutes a positive result:

 

Q: in your opinion, do you need more than one metabolite with that kind of delta to call it positive?

A: no.

 

Q: if the sample had been analyzed at UCLA, and gotten these results, would you report a positive.

A: positive with side letter to client (USADA) that the sample is positive to the WADA criteria, but that we have written a letter that our published criteria would call it a negative.

 

Keep in mind that this piece of testimony came under direct questioning by USADA, not cross examination by Landis's lawyers. What truly constitutes a positive result? What does the science say? Why does a WADA accredited lab feel it necessary to state that under their published criteria what WADA would declare as a positive they would classify as a negative. Could it really be that WADA's standards are so strict that truly innocent athletes are testing positive and being convicted as drug cheats?"

 

The entire post is worth reading here: http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/when-science-peer-review-independent.html. Of special interest is the part on the nature of "peer reviewed" science in this little corner of the world.

 

Note that this isn't some sports-obsessed blog or a cycling fansite. It's a science blog, wondering just how the drug-testing railroad is being run.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The collector released his statement today - I think you can view it at WTMJ's website...here's a few interesting paragraphs:

 

"I placed the two bottles containing Mr. Braun's samples in a plastic bag and sealed the bag. I then placed the sealed bag in a standard cardboard Specimen Box which I also sealed with a tamper-resistant, correspondingly-numbered seal placed over the box opening. I then placed Mr. Braun's Specimen Box, and the Specimen Boxes containing the samples of the two other players, in a Federal Express Clinic Pack. None of the sealed Specimen Boxes identified the players. I completed my collections at Miller Park at approximately 5:00 p.m. Given the lateness of the hour that I completed my collections, there was no FedEx office located within 50 miles of Miller Park that would ship packages that day or Sunday.

 

"Therefore, the earliest that the specimens could be shipped was Monday, October 3. In that circumstance, CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office. The protocol has been in place since 2005 when I started with CDT and there have been other occasions when I have had to store samples in my home for at least one day, all without incident.

 

"The FedEx Clinic Pack containing Mr. Braun's samples never left my custody. Consistent with CDT's instructions, I brought the FedEx Clinic Pack containing the samples to my home. Immediately upon arriving home, I placed the FedEx Clinic Pack in a Rubbermaid container in my office which is located in my basement. My basement office is sufficiently cool to store urine samples. No one other than my wife was in my home during the period in which the samples were stored. The sealed Specimen Boxes were not removed from the FedEx Clinic Pack during the entire period in which they were in my home. On Monday, October 3, I delivered the FedEx Clinic Pack containing Mr. Braun's Specimen Box to a FedEx office for delivery to the laboratory on Tuesday, October 4. At no point did I tamper in any way with the samples. It is my understanding that the samples were received at the laboratory with all tamper-resistant seals intact. "

 

It should be easy enough to discern whether any Fedex locations within that 50-mile radius he cites actually would have been able to ship the samples that night or Sunday. His statement conflicts completely with Braun's assertion of 18-19 potential locations. It's one thing if the locations are merely open, but finding out which ones actually ship at those times would be very relevant.

 

In the last paragraph I included the collector spcifically mentions that he did not tamper with the samples in any way. He states that he put the samples into a rubbermaid container in his basement, citing that it's cool enough to store urine samples - he makes no mention of a cooler, refrigerator, or ice.

 

The other critical thing is the mention of the 2 other samples - if the Dan Patrick show source was correct in stating that those samples were thrown out for particular reasons, why wasn't Braun's?

 

I tend to feel bad for this guy, but any sample procedure that says it's ok to store a biological sample in an unrefrigerated tupperware container for 2 days before shipment is indeed fatally flawed, because it leads to this situation.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Link to Laurenzi's statement on WTMJ:

 

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/140745823.html

[brwrsfan]

This "something really convincing" was reported by Carroll -- it was Braun's legal team being able to replicate the extreme results through improper care of a test sample. That was what Carroll (in a radio interview w/WEEI Boston) specifically cited as being a/the main influencing factor in this decision.

That would make so much more sense to me. Demonstrating how the handling of the sample could cause a false test would give me reason to give Braun the benefit of the doubt. I would guess they had to test part of the sample immediately to show it was clean first, then test the rest of the sample after replicating the conditions it sat in between the time Braun submitted it to the time it was tested in Montreal.

 

Also if that is in fact the case, I could understand why MLB would want to repress that information from ever getting out.

 

This to me seems weird. I'll buy everything here, other than Braun agreeing to not release that data. If this is in fact completely true, it would go a long, long way to dispell the notion that he is guilty. Why wouldn't Braun want that public?

 

I still hope at some point the written part of the ruling gets released somehow and we can really see what the deal is.

[clancyphile]

I don't know what to think with the article in today's paper quoting the 'experts' as saying that degradation could not have led to this result. 'Kill the messenger', but I also feel that this Dino guy likely did not violate MLB testing protocol. Was there a written policy at the time (I bet there is now) that disallowed keeping the sample on ice/in the fridge at home for a night or two? My guess is there was not, as the guy is still working for MLB.

 

The JDA is perhaps a little inconsistent on this point. It says that absent extreme circumstances the sample must be sent to Montreal via Fedex the same day it is collected. Then a few paragraphs later, it says that "if the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment," the collector must ensure it is safely guarded and stored "in a cool and secure location." So I suppose this is the language CDT and the collector were relying on to give them permission to store it for a couple days - although it seems to me Fedex being done shipping for the day does not constitute "extreme circumstances."

 

It's also interesting that the JDA says that the collector should not leave specimens in a car because this that will affect the lab's ability to analyze the specimen. (It also says that leaving testing kits, dipsticks, etc. in a car can damage them). This would seem to confirm that if the specimen is not stored appropriately it can affect the test. We've heard several different versions of where the sample was stored (fridge, on a desk in tupperware, in a cooler).

 

When there is a 24-hour location, there should be NO EXCUSE for not getting the sample in FedEx hands that very day.

 

EDIT: They would KNOW how to store the sample to keep things on the level. I hate to say it, but the guy appears to have seriously messed up - if he kept it in his basement - no refrigeration, and just sitting in a Rubbermaid container. Sorry, but that is not how you treat what amounts to something that is evidence in a proceeding where someone's livelihood is at stake.

[fondybrewfan]

Sure Braun can't 100% prove that it altered his test but at the very least inquiring minds would like to know how it is possible that the 44 hour window changed the outcome of the test. To this point only Will Carrol has attempted to go down that road and I don't buy that other media organizations aren't pursuing that angle purely for sketchy reasons.

 

So you believe the yellow journalism approach in this case seems more credible than someone providing very specific details about the case, and who hasn't been clamoring for months & weeks about Braun's 'obvious' guilt? Not to mention that this specific "someone" is a guy who's done a lot of reporting on the medical side of things in MLB.

 

I didn't mean to imply that I actually prefer yahoo's and ESPN's method of reporting on this case. I still find it extremely odd that this information is out there and no other outlets has even mentioned it. Even if ESPN has pulled crap in the past I have to believe it would be of some interest to them and they would report on it. Thats all I meant.

 

Carroll seem like a legitimate source and he knows what he is talking about; but I am just a little hesitant in accepting his article as fact. I am sure someone has passed his article on to Passon or F-Wade and even though those two are against Braun I still think they would address it or at least say there sources dispute that claim.

[jazzytrav]

It should be easy enough to discern whether any Fedex locations within that 50-mile radius he cites actually would have been able to ship the samples that night or Sunday. His statement conflicts completely with Braun's assertion of 18-19 potential locations. It's one thing if the locations are merely open, but finding out which ones actually ship at those times would be very relevant.

 

I don't think there's a conflict in this statement. Braun said that there were 18-19 locations in that radius, not that they would ship that day or Sunday. I find that completely relevant, since it would have been completely anonymous if stored at FedEx. I'm not implying tampering, but having it in the hands of someone that could fairly easily identify which sample belongs to which player (he can say they were just a number, but he had all of three samples) for 44 hours has to cast doubt on the reliability of the sample.

 

I think it would also be very telling if we learned more about what happened with the other two samples, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

[Fear The Chorizo]

From Fedex's website, there don't appear to be any locations within that 50-mile radius that have express or ground pickups after 5:00 PM on Saturdays or Sundays. There are by my count 29 staffed Fedex locations that are open until at least 7pm on Saturdays within that same radius.

 

Both Braun's and the collector's statements are accurate now that I look closer at them, so it's not like either party was lying (just looking at different things to justify their position).

[clancyphile]

From Fedex's website, there don't appear to be any locations within that 50-mile radius that have express or ground pickups after 5:00 PM on Saturdays or Sundays. There are by my count 29 staffed Fedex locations that are open until at least 7pm on Saturdays with that same radius.

 

The thing is... get it in FedEx hands as soon as possible - if for no other reason than to ensure that they may be able to handle this.

[zzzmanwitz]

This statement makes me believe even more that something else has exonerated Braun, not this "Technicality" as it has been dubbed. I find it extremely hard to believe that an arbitrator that has sided with MLB 12 times out of 12 would have gone against MLB because of something that has been done before on other tests and the "CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office."

[NievesNoNO]

My questions for people who have trouble believeing Braun. I ask these questions not to invalidate the opinion that Bruan may have done something, but to perhaps provide a different perspective in terms of how people think about the entire issue.

 

1) Why does Braun have to explain the test result is wrong? Why shoudn't MLB have to prove that it's right?

 

2) What evidence, other than a single disputed test result, leads you to believe that Bruan took a banned substance for the purpose of improving his performance on the baseball field?

 

3) Why should MLB's standard of viewing these cases through the narrow window of strict liability constrain people from taking a broader view of the case from their own perspective? Shouldn't people be allowed to make their own determinations on the case based on factors that are logically relevant to the issue, regardless of whether the are relevant only for the narrow purposes of the drug-testing system?

 

4) If you knew that the people who work for WADA labs are disallowed by WADA rules from assisting an athlete who has been accused of doping, through testimony or otherwise, would you be more or less willing to trust the experts from WADA? In other words, does the fact WADA will allow people with intimate knowledge of drug-testing only to use that knowledge when it is used to "convict", and that you will never hear a WADA-affiliated person publicly admit error with respect to any drug-testing case, bother you at all?

 

We will never know for certain what did or didn't happen with this particular case. What we do know for certain is that this case presents the public with yet another opportunity to learn more about how a lot of things work in the world, and maybe even make improvements The only question is whether we will embrace the opportunity.

 

I appreciate your insights on this throughout the topic pebadger. I agree that the lab should have to prove that the procedure followed was to the highest standard and that they infact didn't make a mistake. I think this is where everything breaks down for them.

 

I do think that it is important to realize that the WADA and the testing lab are highly profitable businesses and they are going to make sure that nobody on the inside speaks out against them. Let's be honest, it would only take one person to say, "you know, I've seen a few times where our procedure wasn't followed or where we've had inaccurate readings" and suddenly the Montreal Lab isn't the 'best in the world'. Just because these organization have procedures and protocols in place doesn't mean they're there necessarily to keep the organization in check or to keep the integrity of the sample, they're there because they must have something in place and they're convenient for business (I'm thinking allowing samples to be kept in one's home).

 

I also agree with you about the opportunity to make some changes to the system. I think MLB has no other choice after this.

 

That said, I'd really like Braun to come out more forcefully. If he's taken a lie detector, offered DNA, reproduced degrading of samples that would be great to hear! No, the burden shouldn't all rest on him to prove his innocence but unfortunately that is what it's going to take to ultimately clear his name.

 

My gut feeling is that there will be more coming maybe just not in the time frame that myself and a alot of people would like. Somebody betrayed Brauns circle of trust likely for money and money will keep people leaking more details.

[PrinceEatMeat]

This statement makes me believe even more that something else has exonerated Braun, not this "Technicality" as it has been dubbed. I find it extremely hard to believe that an arbitrator that has sided with MLB 12 times out of 12 would have gone against MLB because of something that has been done before on other tests and the "CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office."

 

Completely agree. Something else had to have happened that caused Das to rule in favor of Braun. It's probably just being covered up for some reason. I'd love to see his written report when it comes out, but unfortunately it won't be released.

[dhoffman19]

This statement makes me believe even more that something else has exonerated Braun, not this "Technicality" as it has been dubbed. I find it extremely hard to believe that an arbitrator that has sided with MLB 12 times out of 12 would have gone against MLB because of something that has been done before on other tests and the "CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office."

 

Okay, but even if this has been done before, we don't know that anyone has ever challenged a test on this basis, or even if MLB or anyone else was aware that CDT was telling its collectors to do this. Plus, the fact that CDT told him to do it does not make it any less of a problem (although if true, hopefully people will at least lay off this guy). The arbitrator was deciding whether the JDA was followed. It's not up to CDT to alter the procedure.

[jjfanec]

I have no idea if this is true but if as Will Carroll claims Braun's team was able to replicate the results I can see why MLB would be so worried about Braun being exonerated. This would have the potential to open up a whole can of worms. If the issue is that their standard operating procedure of bringing the sample back home was able to skew test results then it is a huge issue that MLB does not want to be let out. Now maybe Carroll is wrong and it was just that the chain of custody was messed up, but if he followed MLB policy but Braun's team showed how that policy could lead to results like Braun's MLB is not sitting pretty.

[GoudaBrew]

This "something really convincing" was reported by Carroll -- it was Braun's legal team being able to replicate the extreme results through improper care of a test sample. That was what Carroll (in a radio interview w/WEEI Boston) specifically cited as being a/the main influencing factor in this decision.

 

Is this confirmed? It's hard to dig through this thread and find where this was said. Did Carroll bring this up in his Amazon.com article. I haven't really heard from anyone else that his legal team replicated the extreme results.

[jjfanec]

This "something really convincing" was reported by Carroll -- it was Braun's legal team being able to replicate the extreme results through improper care of a test sample. That was what Carroll (in a radio interview w/WEEI Boston) specifically cited as being a/the main influencing factor in this decision.

 

Is this confirmed? It's hard to dig through this thread and find where this was said. Did Carroll bring this up in his Amazon.com article. I haven't really heard from anyone else that his legal team replicated the extreme results.

 

Carroll stated it on twitter. Not sure if it is in his article

[Fear The Chorizo]

I also agree with you about the opportunity to make some changes to the system. I think MLB has no other choice after this.

 

Two quick changes off the top of my head would be:

 

1 - MLB should designate specific FedEx locations near ballparks where all samples HAVE to be dropped off by the collectors on the same day the samples were taken, or by a designated time the next day (if it's collected after a night game, for example).

 

2 - As a backup, MLB should buy all sample collectors icemakers.

 

One thing bothers me - what's the acceptable method for these urine samples to be shipped to the lab? I probably haven't found the right resource, but I'm reading alot of methods that they should be frozen via dry ice or at a minimum shipped with ice. I don't think Mr. Laurenzi's basement is kept at a controlled temperature of 37-degrees F, so it's tough to view his assertion that it's cool enough to store samples based on his word that he's done it before without incident.

[FullMetalCardigan]

[...]

 

I've done research. I've spoken with a number of people involved in the arbitration hearing. I wouldn't write as confidently as I do if I didn't have information from sources I trust.

 

I cannot name these sources because they ask for anonymity in exchange for the truth. It's something my editors and I are willing to grant. Some ask for it because revealing the information could cost them their jobs. Others ask for it because Braun is a friend and they don't want to look like rats. As long as I tell the story like it really happened -- not as MLB or Braun wants to spin it -- I'm willing to sacrifice on-the-record quotes. I think it's a fair trade.

 

Plenty of people in the media and fans don't like my conclusions. They do respect my willingness to seek out facts, however, and I'd like to think you'd do the same even if you disagree with what I write.

 

I appreciate you reading and hope you continue to do so.

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff

 

As far as the accuracy of Passan's sources go, he reported as a fact that the collector stored the samples in a temperature controlled container in his basement. Incorrect. Refuted by the collector's own statement today. Samples were stored in a tupperware container on a desk. This is an important detail.

 

So if he got this wrong, I wonder how reliable his other sources are.

[pebadger]

Yes, it's pretty much the central premise of the piece he Carroll has at Amazon.

 

Again, don't want to run afoul of copyright, but I think one quote isn't going to hurt. The article costs 99 cents and Carroll's share goes to the Jimmy V Fund for cancer research. Go out and buy it.

 

"While the problem in the chain of custody is bad enough in and of itself, it is the result of that problem that led to the positive. According to sources with knowledge of Braun's defense, the team was able to recreate the results."

 

Nobody is picking this up because they don't have the sources that Carroll does. Nobody wanted to buy the piece and they aren't going to use it now and have to attribute it to him, especially when they are pursuing an different editorial slant on the story. When the written decision is inevitably leaked, we'll maybe be able to find out more.

[FullMetalCardigan]

I also agree with you about the opportunity to make some changes to the system. I think MLB has no other choice after this.

 

Two quick changes off the top of my head would be:

 

1 - MLB should designate specific FedEx locations near ballparks where all samples HAVE to be dropped off by the collectors on the same day the samples were taken, or by a designated time the next day (if it's collected after a night game, for example).

 

2 - As a backup, MLB should buy all sample collectors icemakers.

 

One thing bothers me - what's the acceptable method for these urine samples to be shipped to the lab? I probably haven't found the right resource, but I'm reading alot of methods that they should be frozen via dry ice or at a minimum shipped with ice. I don't think Mr. Laurenzi's basement is kept at a controlled temperature of 37-degrees F, so it's tough to view his assertion that it's cool enough to store samples based on his word that he's done it before without incident.

 

FedEx has temperature controlled trucks that will pick up any day of the week.

 

http://customcritical.fedex.com/us/services/tempcontrol/ground.shtml

 

Why even have a courier or delivery person at all? Just have someone with the proper training collect and package the sample. Then hold onto it in a security camera monitored location at the stadium until the FedEx truck comes.

[Madtown343]

Agreed and why can't they come up with a system that removes all bias. In the same respect that any credible experiment has a double blind, why can't mlb have the drug testing double blind.

[GoudaBrew]

Yes, it's pretty much the central premise of the piece he Carroll has at Amazon.

 

Again, don't want to run afoul of copyright, but I think one quote isn't going to hurt. The article costs 99 cents and Carroll's share goes to the Jimmy V Fund for cancer research. Go out and buy it.

 

Thanks, downloaded the app and read it. Nothing too Earth shattering, but good stuff.