Braun tests positive for PED | Presser update pg. 42

[Turk Nowitzki]

I can't wait for this to fade into the background, I'm already sick of reading the details, statements, and speculation.

[MickeyDavis]

Once ST games start this weekend it will help. But Braun will be asked about it by the local media in every city we go to and obviously he'll hear it from their fans.

[-Jragon-]

Here is the main discrepancy between the 2 sides: I tend to believe Braun's argument; it sounds like FedEx, who would not know the names that go with the samples and would store the samples in a cooler, would be the better "safeguard" than a guy's basement Rubbermaid.

"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 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."

vs.

"When FedEx received the samples, it then creates a chain of custody at the FedEx location where he eventually brought my sample to. It would have been stored in a temperature-controlled environment, and FedEx is used to handling clinical packaging. But most importantly, you then would become a number and no longer a name. So when we provide our samples, there is a number and no longer a name associated with the sample. That way there can’t be any bias – whether it’s with FedEx, while it’s traveling, at the lab in Montreal, in any way – based on somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, what team they play for, whatever the case may be. As players, the confidentiality of this process is extremely important. It’s always been extremely important, because the only way for the process to succeed is for the confidentiality and the chain of custody to work.

What if someone offered Dino a large sum of money to add something to the samples? He would have had 44 hours to add a substance, re-bottle, re-label, and re-seal the specimen. Would that have been possible?

"We spoke to biochemists and scientists and we asked them, ‘How difficult would it be to tamper with somebody’s sample?’ And their response was that, ‘If they were motivated, it would be extremely easy.’ Again, that’s why it’s so important to get it out of the hands of the only person in the world who knows whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to FedEx, they don’t know whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to the lab, they don’t know whose sample it is. That’s why it’s extremely important.

This is also interesting:

"When our samples get to the lab in Montreal, they literally handle them like it’s a nuclear weapon. Everything is documented, everything is recorded. Anybody who enters the room where the samples are stored, their names are recorded, they sign for it, they write the time that they’re there. The model of the refrigerator they’re stored in is recorded, the temperature it’s stored at is recorded. Every time they move it, it’s all documented. Contemporaneously documented, and that’s important, again, with what’s at stake – our livelihoods, our integrity, everything we’ve ever worked for in our lives, it’s extremely important that there isn’t room for human error or systematic error.

What would be the point of handling the samples like a nuclear weapon and documenting everything that happens to them if they just sat in a rubbermaid in some dude's basement for 2 days?

One thing is for sure; MLB better quickly revise the unprofessional manner that these things are handled. Some former Olympic players that are on the Angels now said this:

Angels relievers Rich Thompson and Kevin Jepsen have each participated in the Olympics.

Olympic athletes are subject to more stringent drug-testing with procedures both Thompson and Jepsen described as less likely to break down than those used by MLB.

"Olympic testing is darn near unbreakable," Thompson said. "They use glass vials with tamper-proof lids that can only be opened with a special tool and I think that tool is kept under lock and key. That's the way it needs to be implemented. The way we do it (in baseball), it's a plastic bottle and a little piece of sticky tape – just a piece of paper, really."

With the amount of money at stake in Major League Baseball, drug testing should be handled in a similar manner to the Olympics and not ragtag policies like plastic bottles, sticky tape, and allowing samples in basement rubbermaids! Even my job doesn't allow drug test samples to go to people's basements; what a joke - I can't believe there are still people even supporting this.

[turbo2k]

So he does admit that it wasn't kept in a controlled environment. That's good to know. Now as to what environment is needed to alter the sample, that we still don't know. I would like to see how Braun's team was able to 'recreate' the positive test result (i.e. what temperature/humidity/time etc.)

Good to finally hear something straight from the horse's mouth.

[MickeyDavis]

My gut feeling is Dino didn't purposely do anything malicious.

[MickeyDavis]

My gut feeling is Dino didn't purposely do anything malicious.

[Ruben Douglas]

Everyone brings up good points. But let me ask you this then. If you feel you're about to fail a drug test, why not take some substance that makes it look like you have suspiciously high testosterone in your system which will then suggest that the test was at fault? It doesn't seem outlandish to me that that could happen. If you can't pass a test then why not make it a test that can't be passed?

I think that this is a case that will never be solved. Because of that there will always be differing opinions no matter what evidence is out there. I think Braun took something but got lucky. Palmeiro never looked any different than Braun (they even both had terrible hair) but was juicing. There really is no point in discussing this because people will either assume innocence or guilt and believe what they want to believe. As Brewer fans you have to accept that and realize that many fans will call Braun a cheater.

So when Braun's numbers go down do people blame the test or the lack of Fielder in the lineup?

[-Jragon-]

My gut feeling is Dino didn't purposely do anything malicious.

Your gut, my gut, and probably his, but a briefcase full of money can change people's feelings. We all want to believe the best about professionals, but when you are the lowest paid on the totem pole you are also the easiest to manipulate. Ask Donaghy and his pals.

[ACGB]

If Braun hits .300 with 30 homeruns this year does that clear him of suspicion? Or do people say he's been cheating his whole career and messed it up once?

[ReasonablySober]

My gut feeling is Dino didn't purposely do anything malicious.

I never have. I just think that he was careless with the sample, and then MLB never should have used it.

[trwi7]

Sour grapes? The tone of the piece is kind of whiny, but you can't help but think twice about that part...

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamond ... -saga.html

I would say so.

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

Remember Game 2 of the National League Division Series?

I do. More than ever.

I sat in the press auditorium at Miller Park after that game, marveling at Ryan Braun. He had just gone 3-for-4 with a home run and three RBI. His breathtaking performance at the plate had staked the Brewers to a 2-0 series lead.

I followed Braun out of the interview room that day. And as he walked out the door, I heard him complain about having to take a drug test.

Problem with that little snippet of course is the first sentence. Braun took the test after game 1.

[trwi7]

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.

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.

[paulpressey25]

Well, here are some new facts. Fed-Ex says they couldn't have made the delivery, so Dino arguably knew what he was talking about.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/here-i ... 50013.html

"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," he said.

Scott Fiedler, a FedEx spokesman, said there are two FedEx stations that provided a drop-off time of 5 p.m. to guarantee Monday delivery to Montreal, where the samples were to be tested. The two are located at 5375 S. 3rd St., and 2001 Airport Road.

Those two locations had the latest drop-off time on Saturday for Monday delivery in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. If it is true, as Laurenzi has claimed, that he completed the collections at Miller Park as late as 5 p.m., it would have been too late to get them to a FedEx location for Monday delivery.

Fiedler said Sunday is not a normal business day.

The only other option, according to Fiedler, is if Laurenzi had used a premium service called FedEx SameDay in which a customer calls an 800 number and gets a rush delivery. But FedEx, as a matter of policy, won't deliver drug specimens to an international location such as Montreal with that service because of customs issues.

[MetroDrugUnit]

Essentially Braun's legal team found a step in the system and were able to raise reasonable doubt in which to Braun's benefit could be called a flaw. This is no differnt then a Legal Defense team questioning evidence handling in a criminal case.

Due to logistical restrictions MLB had instructions of what to do in this exact circumstance. From what is being reported Dino followed procedure and did his job correctly. It's up to the Conspiracy Theorists to decide what all happened in dudes basement.

Bottom Line, Braun got lucky, The Brewers and We the Fan's got lucky. Now Braun needs to shut the **** up and get ready to play baseball.

[paulpressey25]

Essentially Braun's legal team found a step in the system and were able to raise reasonable doubt in which to Braun's benefit could be called a flaw. This is no differnt then a Legal Defense team questioning evidence handling in a criminal case.

Agreed.

There are some interesting parallels in the strategy along what was used in the OJ trial (obviously not trying to equate the Braun situation with gravity of the OJ situation, just talking legal defense techniques). At the OJ trial they brought in DNA expert Barry Scheck who spent weeks in front of that jury tossing all sorts of scientific mumbo jumbo at them about how the DNA testing of the blood stains done at the lab was unreliable. He purposely made it so confusing talking about markers, centrifuges, contamination, etc, that the jury assumed some of the lab work could have been flawed. Thus if a little bit of it was potentially unreliable, all of it must be deemed unreliable.

Then you had the issue of LAPD detective Mark Furhman and the chain of custody of the evidence. Focusing on those few minutes he was "alone" with the "evidence" implying that he could have tampered with it and framed OJ. Basically the defense put the ineptness of the LAPD procedures on trial. Sort of like what Braun's team did here with the MLB procedures and people involved.

[kid idioteque]

This piece seems to confirm that Laurenzi is a Cubs fan:

http://brewcrewcentral.wordpress.com/20 ... -cubs-fan/

It's interesting that friends and acquaintances of his have come out and supported him, but not one has said "Dino loves the Brewers/Milwaukee."

I've also started wondering why the sample wouldn't be taken before the game in order to ship it out right away. Why would the collector and/or his superiors go out of their way to take the sample at the absolute worst time as far as getting the package to its destination in a timely manner?

[jimmybones]

Everyone brings up good points. But let me ask you this then. If you feel you're about to fail a drug test, why not take some substance that makes it look like you have suspiciously high testosterone in your system which will then suggest that the test was at fault? It doesn't seem outlandish to me that that could happen. If you can't pass a test then why not make it a test that can't be passed?

No. First they don't know exactly when they are being tested. Second there is no way of knowing you are for sure raising your test levels that high to make it look like a fake test.

Your gut, my gut, and probably his, but a briefcase full of money can change people's feelings.

Yeah. I was wondering why an educated guy who seems to have a good career would be delivering piss as a part time job. It's not fair to imply he was paid off to do it, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. There is no doubt in my mind that if he was motivated to tamper he could pull it off after doing those deliveries for over 6 years.

[Oscar71]

This whole thing is just stupid IMHO. Why in the world does MLB not just have their own mobile lab setups?? Outfit a few rigs with full-time dedicated staff and the latest gear and go around doing randoms.
Year 'round. Quick results. And a totally controlled procedure. Makes too much sense.
If MLB wants to do it right, than do it right or just don't do it.
No more looking up personal trainers in the yellow pages and shipping out of the country crap, WTF?

[trwi7]

Essentially Braun's legal team found a step in the system and were able to raise reasonable doubt in which to Braun's benefit could be called a flaw. This is no differnt then a Legal Defense team questioning evidence handling in a criminal case.

I might agree with this if all Braun had to do was raise reasonable doubt to overturn the suspension, but that's not how it works in this case. Braun was guilty and had to prove himself innocent. That's not exactly easy to do.

[paulpressey25]

If MLB wants to do it right, than do it right or just don't do it.
No more looking up personal trainers in the yellow pages and shipping out of the country crap, WTF?

The MLB process is a problem. But then again they've never really been serious about banning PED's in the past, so why start now. That's why even if Braun did use them (and I think he probably did) I don't feel any outrage over it. I'm not sure how you compete as a totally clean player against a league where a lot of guys are using them.

Roger Clemens mowed down a lot of batters and gave his teams some big advantages for a lot of years where we knew something was likely up. Yet MLB did nothing. There hasn't really been a level playing field here for 25-years now. And MLB and the players union have been just fine with the status quo. Hit some massive homers and make some great plays. Let's just pretend though like we're serious in trying to eliminate the stuff so we don't get bad PR with the parents and kids.