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

[pebadger]

The key point about the whole "delay" issue:

 

As we all know, certain things in life are time-sensitve. Others are not. You literally can keep certain foods on a shelf for years with no changes to thier usefulness as food, other things go bad in hours. This isn't news to anyone.

 

Braun's people never claimed that delay alone was an issue. Delay isn't necessarily an issue in an of itself. The issue is all the other things that might possibly happen during the delay. If you leave something non-perishable on a shelf it CAN remain fine for years. But, if during those years the non-perishable item is in a room that floods to the ceiling or in which a fire breaks out, that food item may no longer be good. Nobody would say that time alone made the thing go bad, but storage time clearly was a factor in determining the final outcome for that item. The longer something sits, the more time there is or something to happen to it. That isn't rocket science.

 

People opposed to Braun's side are making it seem as if Braun's people are just being stupid. They're not.

 

Edit: more thoughts on this point.

 

They underlying assumption of the whole "technicality" argument is that Braun and his sneaky lawyers somehow put one over on poor old gullible Das. That just doesn't fly when you look at Das' credentials. The easiest way to lose a case of this nature is to just go in and throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see if it sticks. You don't go in and blame it on the burritos or aliens or whatever. You build a coherent case that supports your position, using the facts at hand. The science on the other side is just too powerful to overcome unless you make a really strong argument. The idea that this all came down to a few unsupported hopeful arguments on Braun's part, and that smart people who understand how things really work would beleive that Das just said "Yeah sure, that's a good one I hadn't heard before", seems to me to be a more ludicrous stance than is skepticism about MLB's case.

[xisxisxis]

For what it's worth, Passan tweets that he's tried to confirm Will Carroll's report on Braun's defense team being able to replicate the results, but hasn't been able to yet. Also, the replication is apparently only for the T/E ratio. Doesn't explain the synthetic testosterone.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they only test for synthetic T if the T/E ratio is high. The question that comes immediately to my mind is why don't they always test for both. If the synthetic testosterone is accurate and indicates only something that is artificial then that clearly indicates a player is doping. Maybe it isn't that accurate and is only used as a followup if the T/E ratio is high - a high false positive rate for the synthetic T wouldn't matter if you already have other evidence of a positive test, but would be a problem if you didn't have a high T/E ratio. I would think that if the synthetic testosterone test is clean (accurate with few false positives/negatives) then it should be used every time. Can MLB really argue cost is too prohibitive? Is it really that expensive to test every sample for synthetic T? I have the feeling the synthetic T assay is far less reliable an assay than the T/E ratio and therefore can't be used by itself as an indicator of steroid (ab)use.

[pebadger]

xisxisxis:

 

Something on just that point here:

 

http://willcarroll.tumblr.com/post/18370038790/why-victor-contes-idea-doesnt-work

[Raw Biz]

xisxisxis:

 

Something on just that point here:

 

http://willcarroll.tumblr.com/post/18370038790/why-victor-contes-idea-doesnt-work

 

I was just going to post that article. Basically it would be too expensive and take way too much time, as well as destroy the sample.

[Raw Biz]

I think people are focusing too much on the fact that it wasn't sent to Fedex immediately instead of focusing on why and how that matters. If the sample was stored in a cooler in his basement with no ice and then left in that cooler in his car for Monday morning, then that would definitely seem like it could cause some problems. If it was kept in a cool place and at a stable temp for those 44 hours, I don't think there would be a problem. But it seems like that isn't the case.

[Madtown343]

I think the Monday morning is the most troubling, what took until 1:30 for something this pertinent...

[xisxisxis]

Basically it would be too expensive and take way too much time, as well as destroy the sample.

 

Well I have some relatively expensive machinery in my research laboratory. I have weekend staff and split shifts to maximize the available time that we can run tests. I also would love to have a project with a guaranteed high level of samples to serve as a base for other business that is intermittent and unreliable. A testing lab could build in the cost of the machinery over a multiyear contract. The guys running the labs always want to make things sound like they are harder and costlier to do so that they can justify charging a higher price. If the test came out to $200 each and there are roughly 3000 samples tested in a year. That's $6,000,000. Spread across all the teams that's about $200,000 per team. I have a hard time believing that cost would be too much to have a much tighter testing system. Even if $6,000,000 is to high, only test half of the samples in any year. That should still be much better than now.

 

As far as destroying the sample, that is true of what is put in the machine, but you don't have to run all of the urine or you can collect more from the players and use the extra to test for synthetic T.

[MoreTrife]

pebadger or xisxisxis, if you have time, any thoughts on the assertions in this article: http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/24/ryan-braun-why-he-didnt-fight-the-drug-test-itself/#ixzz1ne6QFMNy

 

thanks for any insights.

[pebadger]

pebadger or xisxisxis, if you have time, any thoughts on the assertions in this article: http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/24/ryan-braun-why-he-didnt-fight-the-drug-test-itself/#ixzz1ne6QFMNy

 

thanks for any insights.

 

It's a very nice article written from the perspective of someone who heeds the line "Trust us, we're experts" without further inquiry. Again, I'm not down on the science/technology. I'm just willing to question it when someone disputes it and there is a basis for that dispute.

[Eye Black]

It may mean nothing, but a columnist from AZ has published these comments:

 

I followed him (Braun) out of the room. I heard him mutter to friends about having to take a drug test in the playoffs.

 

He seemed agitated, almost offended. I scribbled the scene in my notebook, where it held no context and remained dormant for months.

 

Digging up his earlier comments on this scene, they sound like perhaps Braun could have just been annoyed at having to pee in cup (certainly understandable).

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/DanBickley/150636

 

We heard earlier that he said something jokingly like this is what happens when you go 3-5 or whatever he did. It sounded like he was in a good mood after the game, but was a little annoyed at having to go take the test. I didn't read too much into it.

 

Dan Bickley is one of the for lack of a better word "crappier" reporters the AZ Republic has.

 

AZ, to prove your point of his "crappier" than normal reporting ability look no further than the fact that Dan Bickley is referring to this interaction having taken place following Game 2 of the NLDS which was on SUNDAY, OCTOBER 2nd, and certainly not the day the infamous samples were actually collected.

[JCREW]

It's a very nice article written from the perspective of someone who heeds the line "Trust us, we're experts" without further inquiry.

 

Too many people are blindly trusting the statement (still seemingly poorly sourced): "There was synthetic T in the urine."

 

Unless all my schooling and my Chemistry Ph.D. brother have me vastly misled, that statement is impossible to make. The accurately worded statement would read, "There is a strong statistical likelihood that Syn-T was present in Braun's urine."

 

Again, I don't want to undermine brilliant science and statistics, BUT, the exact same molecules make up Syn-T and Natural-T. You CAN NOT definitively say that there was Synthetic T in his system.

 

In the Landis case, there are still people who believe that beers he had to drink (Barley is very picky about choosing as much C-12 as possible) caused a positive result.

[brewers19]

There are a number of people who feel that current drug testing really isn't good science.

[dhoffman19]

Passan had a back and forth on Twitter with a guy named Mark M who tried to call him on the cooler/container thing.

 

Passan's response: "I suppose we can ask Laurenzi the exact type of Rubbermaid container, but I think he's got more important things on his mind."

 

And actually, i just looked again and Passan responded to a tweet I sent thusly: "Look, if you want to find something to ding me on, I get it. But we're really splitting hairs at this point, are we not?"

 

He also says he's going to call the guy's attorney to see what type of rubbermaid container. I'm sure if its a cooler, he'll rub our face in it. If not, we'll never hear anything. But I can't imagine that Laurenzi would have used the word "container" in a prepared statement surely edited by his attorney, if it was really a cooler - esp. where temperature control is such a big part of the equation.

 

So I guess we can see who we're dealing with. He won't even admit that one of his sources may have been wrong about a minor point, even when it's indisputable. He has his agenda and whatever facts don't fit get ignored.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Ask Passan if it's still considered a cooler if there's nothing cool inside of it...It could be the best insulated cooler Rubbermaid makes - means nothing if there's no ice inside it.

 

Maybe when he goes tailgating he doesn't need to put ice in his cooler to make the beer cold - must be one of them magic coolers they give sample collectors or something.

[FullMetalCardigan]

[...]

He also says he's going to call the guy's attorney to see what type of rubbermaid container. I'm sure if its a cooler, he'll rub our face in it. If not, we'll never hear anything.

 

 

Doesn't matter if it's the type of cooler you throw beer in or if it's a generic clear, plastic bin with snap lid. (Well, it does but to a small extent). If it's not being actively temperature controlled, you can't guarantee what range of temperatures the sample is subjected to. But then I don't expect Passan to understand basic heat transfer theory.

[dhoffman19]

Oh, and one more thing. His response to another guy asking him about the cooler thing:

 

"You're entitled to believe what you want. My sources have rock solid and I think you're the last one who doesn't believe that."

 

He also says he believed that cooler and container could be used interchangeably.

[pretendastronaut]

Well, to play devil's advocate, hasn't Passan also said his sources tell him the sample wasn't degraded in the least? So at that point, exactly what it's stored in doesn't really matter from his perspective, because Passan is trusting his source that the sample was properly handled and showed no degradation. Arguing about if it was a cooler or container, and if the basement was good enough, doesn't really matter if you believe the sample was in stable condition when it arrived.

[dhoffman19]

Well, to play devil's advocate, hasn't Passan also said his sources tell him the sample wasn't degraded in the least? So at that point, exactly what it's stored in doesn't really matter from his perspective, because Passan is trusting his source that the sample was properly handled and showed no degradation. Arguing about if it was a cooler or container, and if the basement was good enough, doesn't really matter if you believe the sample was in stable condition when it arrived.

 

Fair point, but it seems to me that if one of his supposedly airtight sources was wrong about this, it's at least possible they were wrong about other things too.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Spent some time going through the JDA - for specimens, the policy dictates that they are to be shipped "Fedex Express OVERNIGHT*", and the asterisk details that "If Shipping on Friday, check SATURDAY delivery" on the airbill - that indicates that MLB wants the samples at the lab by the next day.

 

There is no part that I could find in the JDA that covered what to do for samples collected on a Saturday specifically, just the general language stating that the collector must keep the chain of custody in tact and store the samples in a cool and secure location (what's the acceptable temperature for "cool"?). I find it shocking that for a sport who plays games 7 days/week that they don't have specific instructions for how to properly store samples collected on Saturdays/Sundays, when overnight shipment of them to the lab is most likely not possible.

 

There's also specific language stating that the collector should not leave specimens in a car, since it affects the lab's ability to analyze the specimen. And, the collector shouldn't leave kits, refractometer or dipsticks in his car. The heat/cold can adversely affect the equipment.

[Cyanogen5]

I really think that most people are glossing over the biggist piece of evidence that we know about...a piece of evidence that, if it was my testing lab would have thrown the test result's accuracy into doubt and prompted me to ask for a second sample...seperate from any sample that had already been collected.

 

I am a chemist who routinely runs tests on chemical samples. Not urine analysis...corrosion inhibitors actually...but the science...or should I say statistics are the same. I also used to run chemical analysis on over the counter drugs (tylenol etc.) using HPLCs, so I understand the kind of testing that they don in the urine analysis labs. These type of instruments often have autosamplers that allow the technician to prepare a large number of samples at once, and set them to run over a relatively long period of time. Testing usually begins with a blank of some sort, and then samples with a known concentration of chemical. By looking at the results generated by these samples, the technician will known if they have acceptable system suitability. Basically, if everything is working properly the instrument should tell you that there is no chemical in the blank samples, and give the appropriate reading for the known concentration samples. This tells you that the instrument is working properly, and barring anything unforseen you should be able to trust the data from the other samples. It is even routine to add additional samples of known concentration regularly spaced throughout the samples to prove that the instrument is still reliable. OK, so this having been done, the technician believes his system is reliable...and I have no doubt that it was.

 

After all of the samples have been run, the technician analyzes the data...using computer software to do exactly what pebadger said...look for a peak at a specific time point on a graph. This method is fairly reliable as long as chemicals do not co-elute at the same time point. This produces either peak overlap, making it difficult to determine the area of the peak of interest, or worst of all the combining of peaks...this is the situation where two different chemicals are considered the same, and the concentrations of each are considered the concentration of the peak of interest, resulting in a falsley high value. Usually these co-eluting peaks can be dealt with by pre-treatment of the sample, adjusting the type of column used (a part of the instrument), and/or changing the system flow rate. Since this testing is routine, I have very little doubt that the method is fully validated and that co-eluting peaks are typically an issue.

 

Once the data analysis has been completed, you can finally look at the data and see what your levels of "chemical" were in each sample. In may case of testing tylenol samples, we know what the typical range of acetaminophen would probably be. The same is true with looking at T/E ratios...the long history of this testing has told us what values we can expect for a clean player, and what values to expect for a dirty player. However, the value for a dirty player is a lower limit...meaning any value over "X"...with no upper limit. This, I believe, is the issue with this case.

 

If I was running routine samples, analyzed the data, and got a result 3x higher than the typical "dirty" player the first thing I would do is re-do the analysis. I would assume that I did something incorrectly because the number simply doesn't make sense. After I had verified that I did everything correctly, I would still doubt the results and would want to retest the sample. I forgot to mention that most likely each sample is tested in duplicate or triplicate...so I would look at the replicate samples to see if they showed the same result. In this case I am sure that they did (or would have). I still wouldn't believe the results (being so abnormal) so I would run the samples again if at all possible in order to see if the apparant error eas a sample preparation error. I would prepare fresh sample for the original urine samples (each test sample should only use a portion of the actual collected sample), and re-run the analysis of those samples with fresh system suitability etc. Again, I am confident that this test would have produced the same results. By now, as a scientist, I am feeling pretty confident that the value of "chemical" that I have obtained through my analysis of the data is correct. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the player is dirty.

 

An abnormal reading like this raises doubt. Any good scientist wants to know what caused the high reading? Did the player really have a T/E reading 3x the normal dirty player, or was there some error somewhere in the process that could have caused it? The system should have immediately asked for an additional sample from Braun...maybe even kicked him into a higher frequency of testing to see if that result could be repeated. Additionally I would investigate everything about the original sample to see if anything abnormal happened...in this case there was an abnormally long period in which the sample was treated in a less than optimal fashion. At the very least there was something about the sample that COULD explain the abnormal reading. Once that was discovered, I would tentatively ascribe the abnormal reading to the abnormal handling of the sample. If Braun never tests positive again, then case solved. If he does, then you proceed with new result. Either way, the issue is that an abnormal reading was recorded, and there is a possible reason for the abnormal reading. The only possible next step is a re-test...not prosecution.

 

This is a very long winded post, but I believe that having a general understanding of the testing process is important for understanding (with the evidence that we have) why the test result was thrown out. It doesn't have to have involved tampering or gross negligence. It can also be thrown out and not be a technicality...the results are simply questionable, not conclusive.

 

No real scientist would take abnormal test results as gospel without reverification. The fact that he was prosecuted by MLB due to this questionable test result is inexcusable in my opinion. MLB hung Braun out to dry.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The quick lab check for degredation, I believe, is to look for flora (bacteria) in the sample. They're not looking to see if metabolites in the urine have been altered or destroyed. The pH of a sample affects how rapidly it could promote flora generation if improperly stored. It is possible for the metabolite ratios tested in the sample to change due to chemical processes without flora being present. Cooling or freezing a sample significantly slows or stops those processes, which allow a longer timeframe to analyze a sample and get a reliable result. In this instance, it appears as if the lab received Braun's sample almost 3 full days after it was collected, and the only thing keeping the sample cool for 2 of those days was it being in a basement that probably wasn't below 60 degrees. Plus, the sample likely sat in the collector's car for 4 hours before he could finally take it to Fedex early Monday afternoon.

 

So the lab can say they tested for degredation and didn't see evidence of it, but the sample still could have been altered by how it was stored in a way that produced the failed T:E result. This, I believe, is what Mr. Carroll has been alluding to over the past few days. Anyone in the know, please correct me if I stated anything poorly.

[FullMetalCardigan]

The quick lab check for degredation, I believe, is to look for flora (bacteria) in the sample. They're not looking to see if metabolites in the urine have been altered or destroyed. The pH of a sample affects how rapidly it could promote flora generation if improperly stored. It is possible for the metabolite ratios tested in the sample to change due to chemical processes without flora being present. Cooling or freezing a sample significantly slows or stops those processes, which allow a longer timeframe to analyze a sample and get a reliable result. In this instance, it appears as if the lab received Braun's sample almost 3 full days after it was collected, and the only thing keeping the sample cool for 2 of those days was it being in a basement that probably wasn't below 60 degrees. Plus, the sample likely sat in the collector's car for 4 hours before he could finally take it to Fedex early Monday afternoon.

 

So the lab can say they tested for degredation and didn't see evidence of it, but the sample still could have been altered by how it was stored in a way that produced the failed T:E result. This, I believe, is what Mr. Carroll has been alluding to over the past few days. Anyone in the know, please correct me if I stated anything poorly.

 

Bravo! I think you summed it up very nicely. This would also explain why the lab chief in Montreal reported no degradation.

[pebadger]

Exactly. There is no degredation of the sample. The unsaid qualifier being "to the extent we looked for it".

[Funketown]

Cyanogen - I'm sleepy so I could only gloss over your post, but the 3x level caught my eye in a big way as well. I do think it's important to note that apparently bodybuilders have tested at 70-1 vs. Braun's 20-1, so perhaps Braun's result wasn't that absurd. Still though, to think that none of the juice-heads of the past five years even came close to Braun's level is a bit odd. I think Landis tested at 11:1 when he lost his TDF title.

[dlk9s]

Also, I would imagine the pee smelled terrible after a couple days of just sitting around. This is an important detail that has yet to be explored.