I am not clear on whether the second test was on the B-sample, which is an extra amount of urine collected at the same time as the A-sample, or if it was a whole second sample collected at a later date after Braun was aware that he had a positive test. If there are differences between results of tests on samples collected at the same time, then there's problem with the test. Differences between results on samples collected at different times could still point to an anomaly in the testing process, but are far less meaningful since the athlete then had time to take steps to change the result.
Yeah, I think Hee Seop"s post is a little confusing.
My understanding is that the "B" sample that WADA tested is part of the original sample provided by Braun. (This is farily standard. You take a sample, split it in two parts, and both need to come back positive for the test to be declared positive.) Braun then immediately asked for a second sample to be taken as part of his appeal.
This second sample - if clear - might back up his contention that his original positive result was related to supplements and not intentionally taking steroids, but it would not (and should not) nullify the result of his original positive.
Edit: And to make sure I'm making myself clear, the only way a second test could back up a claim about supplements versus steroids is that steroids are not likely to clear the system days after the first test, but supplements are. So if the second test is clear, it would be consistent
with a contention that Braun did not intentionally take steroids, but it would prove nothing.
Edited by Average Reds, 11 December 2011 - 12:23 PM.