Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

NL MVP Ryan Braun has tested positive for performance enhancing drugs?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
367 replies to this topic

#301 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 11:35 AM

Those quotes from WADA basically say that natural testosterone won't turn into synthetic testosterone and that the delay would not change the results. He tested positive for synthetic testosterone. The only 2 ways it got there were he pissed hot or it was tampered with.

Also, these samples are documented and numbered with the player present. In order for it to be a mix up, they would have to be unsealed and the actual samples be switched to correspond to the correct numbering.

I guess it is possible that the collector did some kind of mission impossible task to tamper with and/or switch the samples and have not one but two tampered samples go undetected through the rest of the process, I think the more likely story is that Braun pissed a sample full of synthetic testosterone.

#302 walkoffblast

  • 779 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 11:37 AM

I am not sure what to make of the Will Carroll claims. Based on a lot of stuff I have been reading I'd buy that it is at least possible to replicate an elevated testerone level from the chain of custody but I don't see how that could possibly produce the synthetic stuff. It seems like there are still a lot of details yet to come out.

This interview with Conte from December is interesting under the circumstances.

Edited by walkoffblast, 25 February 2012 - 11:38 AM.


#303 TwoDownInTheNinth

  • 82 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 11:59 AM

Who are you guys arguing against? I don't think anyone is arguing that he should still be suspended. There are rules for testing, the rules weren't followed, so he can't be punished. But given the circumstances, I think its perfectly reasonable for someone to think that while he shouldn't be suspended, he hasn't exactly been exonerated.


I absolutely agree with this. The suspension is overturned, fine. Only logical when you've proved somebody screwed the pooch on the sample. But I think it's crap that Braun and whatever supporters he has are acting as if he's some kind of martyr. He talked about players being "100% guilty until proven innocent" the other day. That isn't exactly what's going on here. He was proven guilty. The sample was positive, and if he says he's innocent, then yes, he does have to prove it. He didn't do that. He proved procedure wasn't followed. He didn't prove that he didn't piss a positive sample, or that it wasn't his, or that it was tampered with.

I wish I could believe he was innocent, but I honestly can't blame people who lump him in with every other asshat who will insist they were wrongfully accused until the day they die.

Edited by TwoDownInTheNinth, 25 February 2012 - 12:03 PM.


#304 Seabass177


  • has an efficient neck


  • 4,235 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 12:26 PM

I absolutely agree with this. The suspension is overturned, fine. Only logical when you've proved somebody screwed the pooch on the sample. But I think it's crap that Braun and whatever supporters he has are acting as if he's some kind of martyr. He talked about players being "100% guilty until proven innocent" the other day. That isn't exactly what's going on here. He was proven guilty. The sample was positive, and if he says he's innocent, then yes, he does have to prove it. He didn't do that. He proved procedure wasn't followed. He didn't prove that he didn't piss a positive sample, or that it wasn't his, or that it was tampered with.

I think players are viewed as 100% guilty until proven innocent in MLB. PEDs carry a stigma in baseball that they don't have anywhere else. Rodney Harrison tested positive for PEDs and he co-hosts NBC's premiere football show. If Palmeiro, Clemens or Sosa asked to be in the booth on a Tuesday afternoon game to promote a charity they'd be turned away.

Also, you're completely wrong by saying he was proven guilty. He wasn't. You may think he was, every BBWAA member may think he was, but the onus of proving his own innocence should not be on him. You think he beat the system, but the test he failed should never have even been tested because MLB didn't follow their collectively bargained rules. And the torrent of leaks coming out of MLB are shameful. They shouldn't be out to get their own players, they should be conducting fair, air-tight steroid tests so they don't forever taint one of the players if they fuck something up.

I have no idea if Braun juiced. But the question never should have posed, as his sample should never have been tested in the first place. When the penalties are this high and the stigma never goes away, MLB has to hold their testing to the highest standards. It's plain they didn't do that.

#305 TwoDownInTheNinth

  • 82 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:06 PM

I think players are viewed as 100% guilty until proven innocent in MLB. PEDs carry a stigma in baseball that they don't have anywhere else. Rodney Harrison tested positive for PEDs and he co-hosts NBC's premiere football show. If Palmeiro, Clemens or Sosa asked to be in the booth on a Tuesday afternoon game to promote a charity they'd be turned away.

Also, you're completely wrong by saying he was proven guilty. He wasn't. You may think he was, every BBWAA member may think he was, but the onus of proving his own innocence should not be on him. You think he beat the system, but the test he failed should never have even been tested because MLB didn't follow their collectively bargained rules. And the torrent of leaks coming out of MLB are shameful. They shouldn't be out to get their own players, they should be conducting fair, air-tight steroid tests so they don't forever taint one of the players if they fuck something up.


That's just what I'm saying. I don't disagree that the test never should have happened, and the result shouldn't have gotten out. I guess saying he was flat out proven guilty was the wrong wording, but unfortunately, it's there. It's evidence against Braun. I can see where you would disagree, but I think at that point, Braun needs to prove he didn't test positive if that's what he's going to claim. Nothing coming from the ruling achieves that. Shame on MLB for the way this happened. There are people who should pay a price for it, but we know what we know, and it seems unlikely that he didn't actually piss a positive test.

Edited by TwoDownInTheNinth, 25 February 2012 - 01:09 PM.


#306 walkoffblast

  • 779 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:20 PM

Braun would have been guilty under the more stringent WADA code?

Pretty ironic given the successful defense.

The WADA “Guidelines for Urine Sample Collection” give the the drug testing officer more leeway in the shipment of the specimen:

  • “Samples shall be shipped to the WADA accredited laboratory as soon as practical, and wherever possible on the day of collection.”
  • “Samples must not be left unattended, unless they are locked away in a refrigerator or cupboard, for example. Access shall be restricted to authorized personnel.”
  • “Where possible, samples shall be stored in a cool environment. Warm conditions should be avoided.”
Fortunately for Braun, Major League Baseball does not follow the WADA rules. It has its own rules outlined in the “Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program”. The proper procedure for shipping and storing specimens is described under the section entitled “Procedures After Collection, Security and Shipment of Specimens”.
  • Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected
  • “If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage.”
  • “The Collector must keep the chain of custody intact.”
  • “The Collector must store the samples in a cool and secure location.”
As far as Braun is concerned, Shyam Das, an independent arbitrator, determined that the specimen chain of custody was compromised according to his interpretation of MLB drug policy. The phrase “absent unusual circumstances” provides the type of ambiguity that lawyers love.


Sure sounds like an irrelevant technicality to me. Poor choice of words by MLB though.

Edited by walkoffblast, 25 February 2012 - 01:24 PM.


#307 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:23 PM

I still don't understand how the collector didn't follow procedures. We have no way of knowing if he knew that samples dropped off at Fedex after 5pm would not be shipped until Monday or not. He has been doing this for a while and if he did know that the samples wouldn't be sent out, he followed the exact procedures. Even if he didn't know, he accidentally did exactly what the MLB-MLBPA agreement says to do.

The reason they say he didn't follow procedures is because he didn't ship it out that day. There was no way that sample was going out that Saturday. It was either sitting in Fedex until Monday or it was sitting in his fridge and based on the agreement, his fridge is where it should have been.

#308 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,814 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:56 PM

I still don't understand how the collector didn't follow procedures. We have no way of knowing if he knew that samples dropped off at Fedex after 5pm would not be shipped until Monday or not. He has been doing this for a while and if he did know that the samples wouldn't be sent out, he followed the exact procedures. Even if he didn't know, he accidentally did exactly what the MLB-MLBPA agreement says to do.

The reason they say he didn't follow procedures is because he didn't ship it out that day. There was no way that sample was going out that Saturday. It was either sitting in Fedex until Monday or it was sitting in his fridge and based on the agreement, his fridge is where it should have been.


You are now being willfully obtuse.

As I pointed out to you about 10 posts ago, the very article you quoted and provided a link for indicates that he did not document the storage procedures, which means he didn't follow protocol for either MLB or WADA.

#309 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,773 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 02:00 PM

Or maybe he's just confused. There's a lot of information about this case, MLB policy, WADA flying around -- not to mention a million opinions.

#310 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 02:02 PM

The collector left Miller Park in Milwaukee around 5 p.m. that day and, according to Braun, could have stopped at one of at least five FedEx locations within five miles of the stadium that were open until 9 p.m. The collector could have also dropped off the sample at one of the nearly 20 FedEx locations between the ballpark and his house.

But although there are several FedEx locations near Miller Park and they were indeed open late that Saturday, the samples would have had to have been dropped off at one of two locations by 5 p.m. to make it onto the last FedEx flight from Milwaukee. Even then, the sample would not have arrived in Montreal until noon on Monday, according to Scott Fiedler, a spokesman for FedEx.

In cases like Braun’s where the sample would have sat in a store or drop-off box over the weekend, collectors have been told by the test administrator to keep possession of the sample until it can be shipped. The collector told the three-person arbitration panel that he kept the sample in his possession the entire weekend, according to a person in baseball familiar with his testimony.

Braun noted that there was no documentation of where the sample was in the 44 hours after it left the ballpark. The collector, however, testified that he kept the sample in his basement, where the temperature was around 60 degrees, said one person involved in the case.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

#311 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,032 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 08:32 PM

You are now being willfully obtuse.

As I pointed out to you about 10 posts ago, the very article you quoted and provided a link for indicates that he did not document the storage procedures, which means he didn't follow protocol for either MLB or WADA.

I don't believe there is anything in the MLB policy that required the collector to document the storage procedure.

While we may never know, I think the Das found that the collector should have dropped the sample off at a FedEx location that was open because there were no "unusual circumstances."

Certainly, it's hard to say that Das was completely wrong, although I am not sure he was right either given that FedEx is saying there was no way the sample would have been sent out if delivered to FedEx after 5 - I presume this fact was never presented to Das.

#312 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,032 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 08:40 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/sports/baseball/braun-criticizes-handling-of-his-drug-case.html?pagewanted=all

From this article:

Braun refused to offer specifics, saying his legal team was exploring its options and that litigation might follow.

Anyone want to take a JimmyFund bet whether Braun files litigation :wooper: ?

#313 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 08:50 PM

Those quotes from WADA basically say that natural testosterone won't turn into synthetic testosterone and that the delay would not change the results. He tested positive for synthetic testosterone. The only 2 ways it got there were he pissed hot or it was tampered with.

Also, these samples are documented and numbered with the player present. In order for it to be a mix up, they would have to be unsealed and the actual samples be switched to correspond to the correct numbering.

I guess it is possible that the collector did some kind of mission impossible task to tamper with and/or switch the samples and have not one but two tampered samples go undetected through the rest of the process, I think the more likely story is that Braun pissed a sample full of synthetic testosterone.



The only difference between synthetic and natural testosterone is that synthetic testosterone is made from soy which is essentially free of C13, while natural testosterone contains a mix of C13 and C12. They measure the delta C13 which is the difference in the C13/C12 ratio in the sample compared to the amount of C13/C12 ratio found in nature. Natural testosterone tests at about -24 to -26 dC13 (negative because there is less C13 than in nature due to man eats food that comes from C3 plants which prefer C12 in photosynthesis and have little C13. Synthetic testosterone is about -30 d C13, but since the body also has natural testosterone, any number in the sample less than -28 dC13 suggests the use of synthetic testosterone.

So they can't actually detect synthetic testosterone directly , they assume you to have used synthetic testosterone if you have a low dC13 (below -28). Some athletes argue a diet high in C3 foods and beer (produced from C3plants) could affect the results since testosterone has a very short 1/2 life and half the testosterone produced from the body is from cholesterol derived from diet.

Tampering is a relatively simple process if you know someone who uses steroids. You just get them to piss in a cup and replace it with Brauns sample. The collector would be able to seal it and make sure the paperwork is in order. The JDA seems a bit weak in measures to prevent tampering by the collector. The player is not required to sign or even initial the seal, and does not seem to get a copy of the COC form he signs that includes the specimen number which is on the seal. Maybe I missed something tough.

One of the interesting parts of this case is Braun requested a DNA test to compare the samples with his. MLB refused, but now is saying Braun backed off his initial request. A DNA test would have put any tampering questions to rest.

#314 judyb

  • 3,389 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 11:13 PM

I was wondering if it's possible for the collector to misidentify or mislabel whose sample is whose when collecting samples from several players at the same time. How can they make it impossible for, say, Hart's sample to end up with what's believed to be Braun's number on it?

#315 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:06 AM

I was wondering if it's possible for the collector to misidentify or mislabel whose sample is whose when collecting samples from several players at the same time. How can they make it impossible for, say, Hart's sample to end up with what's believed to be Braun's number on it?


The collector is only allowed to do 1 player at a time. Also, the player is supposed to selection the collection kit his sample is put in, and witness the sealing as well as verify the sample id on the seal is the same as that on the collection form.

http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf

H. To promote security of specimens, to avoid distraction of the Collector, and to ensure against any confusion in the identification of specimens, the Collector shall have only one player under supervision at any time.

F. The Collector shall ask the player to select a collection cup (cups must have lids and be individually wrapped in plastic). The collection cup must be kept in the Collector’s sight at all times. There must be a minimum of three (3) specimen collection cups from which the player can choose. The player must not open the bag containing the collection cup until he reaches the toilet area and must open the lid to the cup only when he is ready to provide a sample.

M. After the player voids, the player (not the Collector) must carry the specimen to the processing table. The Collector must walk beside the player as the player carries his collection cup to the processing table.

P. The player shall select the collection kit from a choice of at least three (3) collection kits.

Q. The Collector shall open the two (2) specimen bottles. The Collector, in the presence of the player, shall pour the urine from the collection cup into the two (2) specimen bottles. At least twenty-five (25) ml shall be poured into the shorter bottle, to be used as the split specimen (Bottle B). Fifty (50) ml shall be poured into the taller bottle, to be used as the primary specimen (Bottle A). The player must watch the Collector pour the specimen.

R. The Collector must ask the player to verify that the Specimen I.D. numbers on the top of the chain-of-custody form match those on the security seals. The Collector will then peel the back of the security seals and place them over the bottle caps and down the sides of the bottles that contain the urine. The Collector shall make sure that the security seal for the primary (or “A) specimen is placed on the specimen bottle containing at least 50 ml of urine; and the security seal for the split (or “B”) specimen is placed on the specimen bottle containing at least 25 ml of urine. Only the Collector shall initial and date the security seals.
U

V. The Collector shall complete the chain-of-custody form (Exhibit 1) as follows:

4. The Collector shall turn to Page 2 (the pink copy) of the chain-of-custody form. The player shall be asked to read the Donor Certification statement in Section 5, certifying that the specimen collected from the player, is in fact, the specimen he provided. The player shall print and sign his name and provide the date of the collection in Section 5 of the chain-of-custody form.

8. The Collector shall insert the “A” and the “B” labeled specimen bottles into the front pocket of the individual plastic bag.

10. The plastic bag containing the specimens and chain-of-custody form shall be placed in the Specimen Box.

11. The Collector shall place the Box Seal on the Specimen Box.


My only problem with the above procedure is the player does not initial or sign the seals and it does not appear he gets a copy of the COC form he signs, which would be a record of the specimen number on the seal he verified. .

#316 Hyde Park Factor


  • token lebanese


  • 1,351 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:53 AM

I haven't seen it addressed yet, but what about the possibility that the lab made a mistake somewhere? The test could have been done incorrectly, the lab tech could have mixed up 2 different samples and their results...there's room for human error every step of the way, it could just be a matter of convenience that the collector and the collection process were so easily called into question.

#317 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5,256 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:32 AM

The collector left Miller Park in Milwaukee around 5 p.m. that day and, according to Braun, could have stopped at one of at least five FedEx locations within five miles of the stadium that were open until 9 p.m. The collector could have also dropped off the sample at one of the nearly 20 FedEx locations between the ballpark and his house.

But although there are several FedEx locations near Miller Park and they were indeed open late that Saturday, the samples would have had to have been dropped off at one of two locations by 5 p.m. to make it onto the last FedEx flight from Milwaukee. Even then, the sample would not have arrived in Montreal until noon on Monday, according to Scott Fiedler, a spokesman for FedEx.

In cases like Braun’s where the sample would have sat in a store or drop-off box over the weekend, collectors have been told by the test administrator to keep possession of the sample until it can be shipped. The collector told the three-person arbitration panel that he kept the sample in his possession the entire weekend, according to a person in baseball familiar with his testimony.

Braun noted that there was no documentation of where the sample was in the 44 hours after it left the ballpark. The collector, however,testified that he kept the sample in his basement, where the temperature was around 60 degrees, said one person involved in the case.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all


FYI from a legal chain of custody point of view, the second bolded statement is inconsistent with the first and is the flaw in the process. Leaving the sample in the basement is not in any way keeping it in your possession from a legal point of view. (While I no longer practice, I was a criminal defense lawyer for 10 years or so).

Chain of custody is broken when the item is no longer in your possession and you do not control access to the piece of evidence. Unless he sat in his basement, did not fall asleep, and watched the box for 44 hours, chain of custody was broken. Evidence for a criminal prosecution is documented from person to person to evidence room, etc. There is never a step that is not secure, which is why if a cop leaves drugs or evidence in his desk drawer overnight and doesn't take them to the evidence room, the evidence is thrown out.

So while it is extremely, extremely unlikely that anyone would tamper with or even know the location of the sample during those 44 hours, the fact that it was unattended is all that mattered. The collector could not say with 100% certainty that no one was in his basement with a laptop, printer, some adhesive paper, a box knife, and dirty urine playing "lets frame Ryan Braun" within those 44 hours.

My guess is that the collector didn't really understand chain of custody as well as he does now. And for those questioning why the Fedex closet over the weekend is a different situation, its because that is an accepted part of the written policy and procedure and some guys basement is not, thats it.

#318 judyb

  • 3,389 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:14 AM

The collector is only allowed to do 1 player at a time. Also, the player is supposed to selection the collection kit his sample is put in, and witness the sealing as well as verify the sample id on the seal is the same as that on the collection form.

http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf



My only problem with the above procedure is the player does not initial or sign the seals and it does not appear he gets a copy of the COC form he signs, which would be a record of the specimen number on the seal he verified. .

Thank you. They don't want any identifiers going to the lab, so the portion of the form that links the player to the number is sent directly. I would guess that they don't give the player a copy to make sure that he doesn't leave it somewhere where anyone else could get it. Unless I missed it, that doesn't really explain how the number gets onto the form, I just wonder if it's possible for everyone to get lax enough about the routine of the procedure that the numbers don't match and the player signs it without really looking and it goes unnoticed.

#319 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,032 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:56 AM

So while it is extremely, extremely unlikely that anyone would tamper with or even know the location of the sample during those 44 hours, the fact that it was unattended is all that mattered. The collector could not say with 100% certainty that no one was in his basement with a laptop, printer, some adhesive paper, a box knife, and dirty urine playing "lets frame Ryan Braun" within those 44 hours.

Umm, this isn't a court of law; no one has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (which is why chain of custody is so much more important in criminal trials), and besides, from my reading of the protocol (and from what I understand is past practice), if the game had ended at 10:00 p.m. the sample would have been valid (I don't believe the collector would have to drive across the city to find the one 24-hour FedEx open.)

And let's all get something straight - while the protocol doesn't explicitly states some of the chain of command issues, it does state that a collector cannot leave it in a FedEx drop box. One certainly could argue that leaving it at a FedEx at 6:00 p.m. knowing that it wouldn't be shipped to Monday morning is analogous to that.

Finally, as for the suggestion that someone could have switched out the cup, I believe there was still a possibility that the sample could have been confirmed to be Braun's by DNA testing. While Braun suggests MLB declined, there are also rumours on the internet that Braun declined when MLB accepted. Plus the fact that tampering was never raised as a defense in arbitration.

This is certainly not as cut and dried as some people think.

#320 walkoffblast

  • 779 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:14 AM

One of the interesting parts of this case is Braun requested a DNA test to compare the samples with his. MLB refused, but now is saying Braun backed off his initial request. A DNA test would have put any tampering questions to rest.


Which is why Braun backed off once his legal team had decided that their entire case was going to be about casting doubt on the chain custody. It was probably requested in the first place hoping it would be hard to get a positive ID and thus a different loophole would exist. That is why MLB turned it down initially. Braun isn't going to sue anyone because he absolutely tested positive and just wants to move on. He is just keeping up the charade. I'll look forward to his press release about his magnanimous gesture to not sue. His A and B sample were both positive. The only reason it appears that he got off is that MLB policy is worded poorly and he doesn't have to prove that the "improper" protoccol caused synthetic to show in his test. The fact that he is spinning this conspiracy theory to the public after it wasn't even part of his defense is suspicious at best. Why are people pretending it isn't ridiculous that collection process met the standards of the organization that would be testing it but somehow supposedly didn't meet what MLB had wrote down. That is obviously a technicality, not a fundamental flaw.

Edited by walkoffblast, 26 February 2012 - 11:36 AM.


#321 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5,256 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 02:55 PM

Umm, this isn't a court of law; no one has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (which is why chain of custody is so much more important in criminal trials), and besides, from my reading of the protocol (and from what I understand is past practice), if the game had ended at 10:00 p.m. the sample would have been valid (I don't believe the collector would have to drive across the city to find the one 24-hour FedEx open.)

And let's all get something straight - while the protocol doesn't explicitly states some of the chain of command issues, it does state that a collector cannot leave it in a FedEx drop box. One certainly could argue that leaving it at a FedEx at 6:00 p.m. knowing that it wouldn't be shipped to Monday morning is analogous to that.

Finally, as for the suggestion that someone could have switched out the cup, I believe there was still a possibility that the sample could have been confirmed to be Braun's by DNA testing. While Braun suggests MLB declined, there are also rumours on the internet that Braun declined when MLB accepted. Plus the fact that tampering was never raised as a defense in arbitration.

This is certainly not as cut and dried as some people think.


Two points, as I don't think you understand chain of custody. Leaving this alone for 44 hours does not satisfy any burden of proof, criminal, civil, or administrative. And while I agree that there is a next to nothing chance this sample was tampered with, or that its composition changed in that 44 hours, the simple fact is they failed on chain of custody. My opinion of the chain of custody would change if the collector could state that he left it in a locked compartment in which he had the only key, such as a fridge, or a safe in his basement, etc. But just leaving it unattended doesn't satisfy the chain of custody in my opinion. Had the collector been in a position to ID the sample once it got to the lab, he could have stated it was in the same condition it was when he sealed it, and the result may have been different, but since its a sender and a break in the chain and a different receiver, the chain had a fatal flaw. In court usually the collecting officer eventually resumes possession of the evidence he originally collected before he turned it over to someone in c.o.c, so there is a chance to save a break in the chain if the officer can state some things about the condition of the evidence (is it unique, same condition as before, etc.) that ties it back to when he collected it. Urine would be difficult, but the packaging would be unique I would think.

Second, the fedex drop box is disallowed for one specific reason. The possibility that a multi-millionaire PED using player would have a entourage of followers who would follow the collector out of the stadium, bolt cut the fedex drop box off the sidewalk, and drive it away in a van is not beyond crazy. Dropping it off at a Fedex location offers security, a 4x2x2 box of metal does not.

Edited by PaulinMyrBch, 26 February 2012 - 04:06 PM.


#322 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,058 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:59 PM

Here's a question: seeing as there are only 30 MLB ballparks, why doesn't MLB and the MLBPA set up its own labs, or else contract someone to do that? If they had facilities within, say, ten miles of all 30 parks, it would greatly simplify the custody issues.

#323 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:56 PM

I haven't seen it addressed yet, but what about the possibility that the lab made a mistake somewhere? The test could have been done incorrectly, the lab tech could have mixed up 2 different samples and their results...there's room for human error every step of the way, it could just be a matter of convenience that the collector and the collection process were so easily called into question.


Thats why you use an accredited lab which is experienced in doing these tests routinely. There were actually 2 seperate tests, the CIR test which is the gold standard and the T/E test. Mpst labs will redo any test that results in a failure to verify the results. It would be usually be done by different techs. As for using the wrong sample, that can not happen if proper procedures are followed. I guess you can argue anything, and no positive result will ever end up with a suspension.

I never saw anyone question Manny's positive results.

Here's a question: seeing as there are only 30 MLB ballparks, why doesn't MLB and the MLBPA set up its own labs, or else contract someone to do that? If they had facilities within, say, ten miles of all 30 parks, it would greatly simplify the custody issues.


And your creating a whole other problem which is in the most important area, the quality of testing. The more labs you require the more likely you compromise the testing quality. You are much better off using one big lab that handles a large volume of samples than smaller labs that don't. A larger lab would be able to hire better staff due to it's higher sales volume and efficiencies of scale. and maintain more consistent test procedures than 30 separate labs.

FYI from a legal chain of custody point of view, the second bolded statement is inconsistent with the first and is the flaw in the process. Leaving the sample in the basement is not in any way keeping it in your possession from a legal point of view. (While I no longer practice, I was a criminal defense lawyer for 10 years or so).

Chain of custody is broken when the item is no longer in your possession and you do not control access to the piece of evidence. Unless he sat in his basement, did not fall asleep, and watched the box for 44 hours, chain of custody was broken. Evidence for a criminal prosecution is documented from person to person to evidence room, etc. There is never a step that is not secure, which is why if a cop leaves drugs or evidence in his desk drawer overnight and doesn't take them to the evidence room, the evidence is thrown out.

So while it is extremely, extremely unlikely that anyone would tamper with or even know the location of the sample during those 44 hours, the fact that it was unattended is all that mattered. The collector could not say with 100% certainty that no one was in his basement with a laptop, printer, some adhesive paper, a box knife, and dirty urine playing "lets frame Ryan Braun" within those 44 hours.

My guess is that the collector didn't really understand chain of custody as well as he does now. And for those questioning why the Fedex closet over the weekend is a different situation, its because that is an accepted part of the written policy and procedure and some guys basement is not, thats it.


I would think there is a difference in a public area and a household, especially if the collector lives alone and would keep his house locked if he was not there, and maybe even when he was. If he does not live alone, or has visitors, that's a different case (and my concern with the chaperone being his son).

How is Fed Ex treated as secure anyways. Who knows how many people handle the sample at Fed Ex, yet we talk about Fed Ex as if it is an individual. Now MLB is considering to allow collectors to use drop off boxes. Linsanity.

Thank you. They don't want any identifiers going to the lab, so the portion of the form that links the player to the number is sent directly. I would guess that they don't give the player a copy to make sure that he doesn't leave it somewhere where anyone else could get it. Unless I missed it, that doesn't really explain how the number gets onto the form, I just wonder if it's possible for everyone to get lax enough about the routine of the procedure that the numbers don't match and the player signs it without really looking and it goes unnoticed.



The collector is likely given a bunch of COC forms and seals with the numbers pre-printed on both. That's what makes tampering more plausible, he simply needs to use a new form and security seals (assuming he has extra) and replace Brauns sample (eg with a steroid users sample), and then seal it and pack with new materials

The evening prior to a scheduled collection, the CDT MLB Program Manager will e-mail to the Collector a list of the names of the players to be tested, and the time the Collector should arrive at the ballpark


So seems he would already have a stock of seals, kits and forms since no mention of him getting it at the same time the tests are scheduled.

Tampering would require him forging Brauins signature on the page of the COC form that is sent to Fed Ex separately, but Braun does not seem to get a copy of what he signed to compare.

#324 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,032 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:07 PM

Two points, as I don't think you understand chain of custody. Leaving this alone for 44 hours does not satisfy any burden of proof, criminal, civil, or administrative. And while I agree that there is a next to nothing chance this sample was tampered with, or that its composition changed in that 44 hours, the simple fact is they failed on chain of custody.

First, you are simply wrong as from the language of the WADA protocol - as someone mentioned above - the collector's actions would have been sufficient.

And second, yes I understand chain of custody. In reality - Braun's case isn't really about chain of custody. It's about whether the collector followed what could be described as an ambiguous protocol. Das ruled that he did not. You do realize, of course, that if it was another arbitrator who found for MLB, that ruling likely have stood, right?

Edited by wade boggs chicken dinner, 26 February 2012 - 08:15 PM.


#325 loshjott

  • 3,857 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:08 PM

MLB should only take samples Monday through Thursday from now on.

#326 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5,256 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:15 PM

First, you are simply wrong as from the language of the WADA protocol - as someone mentioned above - the collector's actions would have been sufficient.

And second, yes I understand chain of custody. In reality - Braun's case isn't really about chain of custody. It's about whether the collector followed what could be described as an ambiguous protocol. Das ruled that he did not. You do realize, of course, that if it was another arbitrator who found for MLB, that ruling likely have stood, right?


So I properly understand your point, do you feel the collectors actions in this case, which appear to be leaving the sample unattented for 44 hours, would have been sufficient under the WADA policy? (Relevant portion copied below.)

Samples must not be left unattended, unless they are locked away in a refrigerator or cupboard, for example. Access shall be restricted to authorized personnel.”


Because I actually mentioned in my earlier post that I felt if he had locked it securely during those 44 hours the outcome, IMO, could have been different. I don't mine being called out when I'm wrong, but I fail to see how this would have passed the WADA policy if the sample was not "locked away" during those 44 hours. As a condition, I have not read every printed word regarding the 44 hours of the sample. My belief is it was not locked away, if my belief regarding that is wrong, my opinion would change somewhat. If you are aware that testimony says it was locked away, please let me know.

I also do not agree with the writer that states the WADA policy is softer in regards to the shipping. "As soon as practical and wherever possible on the day of collection" would require the collector to drive the sample to any of the numerous open Fedex centers in Milwaukee on that given Saturday. The "absent unusual circumstance" language in the MLB policy in my opinion takes into account unforseen events like a car breaking down, an accident, a storm, etc. Not just being too lazy to drop it off in a timely fashion. I do understand that is subject to interpretation, however that is mine, fwiw.

Edited by PaulinMyrBch, 26 February 2012 - 11:15 PM.


#327 Freddy Linn


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,421 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:53 PM

I also do not agree with the writer that states the WADA policy is softer in regards to the shipping. "As soon as practical and wherever possible on the day of collection" would require the collector to drive the sample to any of the numerous open Fedex centers in Milwaukee on that given Saturday. The "absent unusual circumstance" language in the MLB policy in my opinion takes into account unforseen events like a car breaking down, an accident, a storm, etc. Not just being too lazy to drop it off in a timely fashion. I do understand that is subject to interpretation, however that is mine, fwiw.


Wasn't the sample collected after the game, making delivering the sample in time for a Saturday shipment impossible?

#328 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,806 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:11 AM

Here's a question: seeing as there are only 30 MLB ballparks, why doesn't MLB and the MLBPA set up its own labs, or else contract someone to do that? If they had facilities within, say, ten miles of all 30 parks, it would greatly simplify the custody issues.


We're talking about a group that couldn't drop off the mail without screwing it up, and you want them to run laboratories?

In all seriousness, there are a few things that stand out to me. One is that MLB policy specifies a courier by brand name. What if FedEx suddenly changed their policies, and was less secure, or just decided not to do overnight anymore. The policy should list some parameters that define the types of acceptable overnight couriers, not name one brand. I can imagine this is also a little awkward for MLB's sponsorship and ad sales people when they call on the people at Purolator and UPS.

Another thing is this - the MLB policy is being compared to the WADA policy. The MLB policy seems so very similar, yet somewhat different - almost like if you bought a term paper, but changed a few lines so it wouldn't be plagiarism. In a world where there is an organization that has been doing this sort of thing for a while now, why does MLB insist on reinventing the wheel?

Basically, if MLB has any hope of showing that they're taking doping control seriously, they have to actually take it seriously. You can't screw up the protocols like this, and even more importantly they have to have a much greater respect for the confidentiality in the process as required. Now we have two major breaches of confidentiality (Braun, and the 2003 tests) which show a pretty poor record on the issue so far. MLB Needs to get their shit together and do this right.

Edited by Fred not Lynn, 27 February 2012 - 12:17 AM.


#329 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,773 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:34 AM

Another thing is this - the MLB policy is being compared to the WADA policy. The MLB policy seems so very similar, yet somewhat different - almost like if you bought a term paper, but changed a few lines so it wouldn't be plagiarism. In a world where there is an organization that has been doing this sort of thing for a while now, why does MLB insist on reinventing the wheel?


If I had to guess, I'd bet that they started w the WADA policy and the ones who changed the lines were the MLBPA.

(null)

#330 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:52 AM

So I properly understand your point, do you feel the collectors actions in this case, which appear to be leaving the sample unattented for 44 hours, would have been sufficient under the WADA policy? (Relevant portion copied below.)

Because I actually mentioned in my earlier post that I felt if he had locked it securely during those 44 hours the outcome, IMO, could have been different. I don't mine being called out when I'm wrong, but I fail to see how this would have passed the WADA policy if the sample was not "locked away" during those 44 hours. As a condition, I have not read every printed word regarding the 44 hours of the sample. My belief is it was not locked away, if my belief regarding that is wrong, my opinion would change somewhat. If you are aware that testimony says it was locked away, please let me know.


WADA's collectors frequently are on the road and stay at hotels or other housing arrangements where there are other people. It's not clear how they would consider storage in a locked home of the collector if the collector lived alone for example. Obvioulsy, we don't know if the collector locked his doors when he left or if he lived alone, but if he did, I would consider the chain of custody intact.

We're talking about a group that couldn't drop off the mail without screwing it up, and you want them to run laboratories?


Agree about the labs, but MLB does not handle the collection and mailing, thats done by an agreed upon 3rd party, CDT.

Wasn't the sample collected after the game, making delivering the sample in time for a Saturday shipment impossible?


No, the collector left the park at 5 pm with the samples (which inluded other players samples).

#331 Freddy Linn


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,421 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:25 AM

No, the collector left the park at 5 pm with the samples (which inluded other players samples).


Right, and FedEx doesn't ship after 5 on Saturdays, and doesn't ship on Sundays. Am I missing something?

#332 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 03:07 AM

Right, and FedEx doesn't ship after 5 on Saturdays, and doesn't ship on Sundays. Am I missing something?


Well, yeah, since they had offices open until 9 pm, so you can drop packages off in accordance with the protocol. I know it probably doesn't get to the lab much faster, although for some reason he did not deliver the samples to Fed Ex until 1:30 pm on Monday, so it may or may not have shipped as early as it would have if he had dropped it off on Saturday.

Obviously, if the samples were not tampered with at the collectors home, it does not really impact the test results, particularly the results on the CIR test which confirmed exogenuous testosterone.

Edited by Sampo Gida, 27 February 2012 - 03:08 AM.


#333 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:40 AM

The test administrators need to be instructed to not tell the collectors to hold the sample if it can't be shipped out that day.The no drop box vs not being shipped that day is different. It seems to me, the collector had some understanding or believed that the sample would not be shipped out that day due to the time and kept it in his house as instructed.

This collector is now down in Spring Training and I would assume he is staying in some sort of hotel. I hope he is not taking any samples on weekends. Players could hire people to pose as cleaning people and break in and tamper with the sample. Also, Braun's lawyers description of this guy made it seem like he was some sort of untrained part time collector. Why would a part time collector be travelling to Spring Training? Wouldn't baseball just use some part time collector in that area?

#334 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5,256 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:50 AM

I'm guessing they are all sort of part time collectors during the season. Those tests are random and less testing goes on. But in spring training, every player is tested once they arrive, so I assume if you take that job you have to be available for a few weeks in February to collect samples. February is the busy season.

#335 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,806 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:25 PM

This collector is now down in Spring Training and I would assume he is staying in some sort of hotel....Why would a part time collector be travelling to Spring Training? Wouldn't baseball just use some part time collector in that area?

And why does THIS particular collector still have this job at all? Given the consequence of his sloppy work, even if he has good rationale for his error, I think a new part-time gig would be a good idea.

#336 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,273 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:38 PM

The test administrators need to be instructed to not tell the collectors to hold the sample if it can't be shipped out that day.The no drop box vs not being shipped that day is different. It seems to me, the collector had some understanding or believed that the sample would not be shipped out that day due to the time and kept it in his house as instructed.

This collector is now down in Spring Training and I would assume he is staying in some sort of hotel. I hope he is not taking any samples on weekends. Players could hire people to pose as cleaning people and break in and tamper with the sample. Also, Braun's lawyers description of this guy made it seem like he was some sort of untrained part time collector. Why would a part time collector be travelling to Spring Training? Wouldn't baseball just use some part time collector in that area?


he is not at ST . He doesn't have a job I think, he left his house 2 days before the braun decision was announced

Edited by soxhop411, 27 February 2012 - 12:38 PM.


#337 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:51 PM

Braun's only claim is that the sample was tampered with but wouldn't that be a crime? Shouldn't there be an investigation? The only way Braun didn't do it is if Dino Laurenzi altered the sample or someone broke into his house and altered it. I would think that this would be a serious offense.

This has all the makings for a huge story, book and/or movie. Golden boy MVP framed by sample collector that works in part with the US Olympic Committee.

Edited by Bob420, 27 February 2012 - 12:58 PM.


#338 HangingW/ScottCooper

  • 1,137 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:36 PM

MLB should only take samples Monday through Thursday from now on.


I believe that's what's done in the NFL, but doesn't that lend itself to abuse of some water based steroids that can be flushed from the system in 24-48 hours?

Additionally, I thought that I had heard that part of Braun's defense was reproducing the results of the test with Braun's own clean urine and the storage specifications provided by the collector. Admittedly I was half asleep Friday morning when I thougt I heard this as a WEEI interview, but I've been puzzled that this hasn't been brought up.

Edit: Here is the interview on D & C with Will Carrol. I believe a few others may have referenced this earlier:

http://audio.weei.co...-overturned.htm

In it, he explains that the defense was able to replicate the results.

Edited by HangingW/ScottCooper, 27 February 2012 - 05:06 PM.


#339 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:13 PM

Additionally, I thought that I had heard that part of Braun's defense was reproducing the results of the test with Braun's own clean urine and the storage specifications provided by the collector. Admittedly I was half asleep Friday morning when I thougt I heard this as a WEEI interview, but I've been puzzled that this hasn't been brought up.

Edit: Here is the interview on D & C with Will Carrol. I believe a few others may have referenced this earlier:

http://audio.weei.co...-overturned.htm

In it, he explains that the defense was able to replicate the results.


It's not clear how Braun performed the test in a fashion that would make it believable (not biased). But assuming he did, what Will is telling us is Brauns own urine sample tested positive again, and according to Braun it was due to storage (presumably he had a negative test on the before storage sample, but can we be sure it was the same sample). We are also asked to believe that the other samples the collector tested did not test positive under the same conditions because there was something unique in Brains urine.

Now, I will concede that the T/E results could be affected despite the study I linked to showing no effect at conditions over 100 deg F for 7 days. But it would have no effect on the CIR test which measures the ratio of C13/C12. The T/E test is just a screeining test due to the high rate of false positives (up to 8%), but the CIR test is supposed to be the gold standard with a neglible false positive rate if the science behind the dC13 standard (less than -28 dC13 means exogenuous testosterone) is valid.

The other argument we keep hearing over and over again is Braun was retested immediately after finding out the results and it was negtaive. Will brought this up too. But his sample was taken Oct 1, he found out the results on Oct 19, so it would have been at least 3 weeks before samples, long enough to clear anyones system of exogenuous testosterone. Fortunately Callahan later asked him if it was possible to test negative after testing positive and Will admitted it was.

#340 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,032 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:49 PM

So I properly understand your point, do you feel the collectors actions in this case, which appear to be leaving the sample unattented for 44 hours, would have been sufficient under the WADA policy? (Relevant portion copied below.)

I don't think I knew that about the WADA policy so point yours, but I would submit that from a logic POV, how much difference is there between a sample in a refrigerator locked in the collector's house and a sample locked in a refrigerator where the collector had a key? And let's not forget that his son - the chaperone - was employed by the same company.

But at any rate, I think the most important point is that we don't have the facts that Das had. Like it would be really great to know whether Braun turned down the DNA test on his sample or if MLB did it (and if MLB did it, why they did it?).

#341 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:04 PM

I don't think I knew that about the WADA policy so point yours, but I would submit that from a logic POV, how much difference is there between a sample in a refrigerator locked in the collector's house and a sample locked in a refrigerator where the collector had a key? And let's not forget that his son - the chaperone - was employed by the same company.

But at any rate, I think the most important point is that we don't have the facts that Das had. Like it would be really great to know whether Braun turned down the DNA test on his sample or if MLB did it (and if MLB did it, why they did it?).


Braun could of cleared up a lot of this, but said he did not want to talk about it in the best interests of MLB. This was before going on about how unfair the leak was (and thats true), talking of evidence he presented which shows he did not use (weight and strength charts he could have altered or fabricated, or maybe he has been using for years somehow), talking about his previous and subsequent negative tests (which prove nothing) and subtly hinting that the collectors son could have tampered with the sample.

Later he said he has not ruled out legal action and if he pursues that, we may not even get to see the arbitrators report for a long while.

#342 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5,256 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:15 AM

I don't think I knew that about the WADA policy so point yours, but I would submit that from a logic POV, how much difference is there between a sample in a refrigerator locked in the collector's house and a sample locked in a refrigerator where the collector had a key? And let's not forget that his son - the chaperone - was employed by the same company.

But at any rate, I think the most important point is that we don't have the facts that Das had. Like it would be really great to know whether Braun turned down the DNA test on his sample or if MLB did it (and if MLB did it, why they did it?).


Not much really, but a collector saying, "I placed it in a fridge outfitted with a lock, I have the only key, I locked the door, left the sample for 2 days, and returned to take it to a fedex facility, when I opened the lock, it did not appear to have been tampered with and the sample was in the same position it was when I left it." is a bit more complete from a chain of custody standpoint than the following.

Collector - "I locked the house when I left."

Defense attorney - How long was it in your house. Was anyone in your home over the course of the weekend. If so, who. Does anyone else live there. If so, did they know samples were present in the basement. Who else has a key to the house. Do you have a security system. How many doors and windows. Are they all lockable. Do all the locks work. When was the last time you had the locks replaced. Does anyone you know familiar with your work for MLB. Did any of them know you collected samples on Saturday. Do any of them know you did not deliver them to fedex until Monday. Have you ever boasted or bragged that you had "so and so's urine in your basement". If someone was in your home without your permission, how would you know. Do you rent or own. Does a landlord, realtor, former tenant or owner have a key to your house. Does any relative have an emergency key. Do you have a key hidden in a location outside your house. Have you ever locked yourself out, if so, how did you get in.

For the record, I think Braun's pee is dirty, but I don't think the results ever should have seen the light of day in this situation.

I am interested to see if the report when released has detailed findings.

Edited by PaulinMyrBch, 28 February 2012 - 08:29 AM.


#343 Freddy Linn


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,421 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:23 PM

On October 1, 2011, I collected samples from Mr. Braun and two other players. The CDT collection team for that day, in addition to me, included three chaperones and a CDT coordinator. One of the chaperones was my son, Anthony. Chaperones do not have any role in the actual collection process, but rather escort the player to the collection area.
I followed the same procedure in collecting Mr. Braun’s sample as I did in the hundreds of other samples I collected under the Program. I sealed the bottles containing Mr. Braun’s A and B samples with specially-numbered, tamper-resistant seals, and Mr. Braun signed a form certifying, among other things, that the specimens were capped and sealed in his presence and that the specimen identification numbers on the top of the form matched those on the seals.

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.



Link

I find the statements/non-statements of Braun and his team regarding tampering to be pretty distasteful.

#344 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:48 PM

Link

I find the statements/non-statements of Braun and his team regarding tampering to be pretty distasteful.


What statements/non-statements? I just saw the bit from the collector.

#345 Bob420

  • 808 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:57 PM

Lawsuit. Watch how fast Braun settles to put this whole thing behind him and focus on the game.

#346 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,814 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:19 PM

Lawsuit. Watch how fast Braun settles to put this whole thing behind him and focus on the game.


What are you talking about?

#347 Freddy Linn


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,421 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:56 PM

What statements/non-statements? I just saw the bit from the collector.


I should have been more clear, I meant all along.

Seems to me that tampering with the sample was impossible. Insinuating that the collector did something is pretty distasteful, and acting like he isn't is insulting ("But as I've dealt with the situation, I know what it's like to be wrongly accused of something, so for me to wrongly accuse somebody wouldn't help."). He is taking the high road and the low road at the same time.


This should never have been leaked, and there are certainly issues with the protocol as outlined. But Braun has no problem impugning this guy's character, and in general some of his comments strain credulity.


I get that Braun feels the need to passionately defend himself, but more than a little of what he has said feels like a smokescreen to obfuscate some pretty pertinent facts.

Edited by Freddy Linn, 28 February 2012 - 06:02 PM.


#348 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:54 PM

Seems to me that tampering with the sample was impossible. Insinuating that the collector did something is pretty distasteful, and acting like he isn't is insulting ("But as I've dealt with the situation, I know what it's like to be wrongly accused of something, so for me to wrongly accuse somebody wouldn't help."). He is taking the high road and the low road at the same time.


By others, yes. The only person who could have tampered would be the collector (or his son) . Since he was the one to seal and pack the samples, whats to prevent him from using new seals and packaging to do the same (but with someone elses urine sample, one who uses steroids), and rewriting the COC form to make sure all the numbers match up (and forging Brauns signature, but Braun seems not to get a copy of what he had signed).

Now maybe CDT has strict inventory control on all unused packaging/seals/kits to make sure all are accounted for, if so, then maybe even the collector could not tamper with a sample w/o having to explain why he needed new seals and packaging for a sample, or how he lost a set of seals/packaging/kit
.
This is all hypothetical of course, but in theory, if it is possible, thats Brauns only plausible defense.

Now if CDT or MLB can show that the collector could not tamper with the sample, and I am not ruling that out, then Braun has to explain his positive test (and Will Carrols explanation does not explain the positive CIR test).

#349 EvilEmpire

  • 4,914 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:04 PM

By others, yes. The only person who could have tampered would be the collector (or his son) . Since he was the one to seal and pack the samples, whats to prevent him from using new seals and packaging to do the same (but with someone elses urine sample, one who uses steroids), and rewriting the COC form to make sure all the numbers match up (and forging Brauns signature, but Braun seems not to get a copy of what he had signed).


Assuming this is even possible, that scenario could happen with most tests taken. With materials ready to go it wouldn't take more than 20 minutes to make changes and ship on the same day. Seems like a red herring.

#350 jk333

  • 1,788 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:26 PM

For the record, I think the collector credentials are pretty important too. He outlines them in the beginning of his statement;

On February 24th, Ryan Braun stated during his press conference that “there were a lot of things that we learned about the collector, about the collection process, about the way that the entire thing worked that made us very concerned and very suspicious about what could have actually happened.” Shortly thereafter, someone who had intimate knowledge of the facts of this case released my name to the media. I am issuing this statement to set the record straight.
I am a 1983 graduate of the University of Wisconsin and have received Master Degrees from the University of North Carolina and Loyola University of Chicago. My full-time job is the director of rehabilitation services at a health care facility. In the past, I have worked as a teacher and an athletic trainer, including performing volunteer work with Olympic athletes. I am a member of both the National Athletic Trainers’ Association and the Wisconsin Athletic Trainers’ Association.
I have been a drug collector for Comprehensive Drug Testing since 2005 and have been performing collections for Major League Baseball’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program since that time. I have performed over 600 collections for MLB and also have performed collections for other professional sports leagues. I have performed post-season collections for MLB in four separate seasons involving five different clubs.
On October 1, 2011 I collected samples...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users