Ryan Braun tests positive

[TransMonk]

Gwreck wrote: I think he already answered it when he claimed innocence immediately upon hearing the results.

I think the definition of "innocence" is blury at best in this situation. I think many people, including Braun are conflating it with "not guilty".

I want him to say the words "I have never used performance enhanding drugs". To my knowledge, he hasn't done this yet.

[Edgy MD]

Tracksuit wrote: Attitude about Braun in Mets clubhouse can be best described as deep skepticism.

Tracksuit wrote: �Ryan Braun is out there saying this shows he is innocent,� one Met said. �Does that mean O.J. Simpson is innocent, too?"

Zero to OJ in ten seconds. Ouch.

[TransMonk]

Yeah...any comparison to O.J. is a big leap. I do question the use of the word "innocent" as it applies to Braun, though.

[metirish]

According to Heyman Braun only needed to prove the test was faulty to prove he is innocent since actually proving yourself innocent is near to impossible.


http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/33714192/34977466

[metsmarathon]

there are a few possibilites in this case:

1. the sample is braun's, and that it has not deteriorated, and he's on some innovative drug schedule that nobody's ever tested before

2. the sample is braun's, and it has deteriorated...
a. ...because the mishandling by the tester (perhaps in concert with something that braun had recently ingested) caused it's makeup to change from a clean sample to a remarkably dirty sample
b. ...because the mishandling by the tester (perhaps in concert with something that braun had recently ingested) caused it's makeup to change from a dirty sample to a remarkably dirty sample

3. the sample is braun's, and it has been accidentally contaminated due to the conduct of the tester

4. the sample is braun's, but has been intentionally contaminated due to the conduct of the tester

5. the sample did not come from a human.

i think the meat of the argument lies between 2a and 2b. it seems very likely, given the oddness of the sample, that it deteriorated between the time that braun gave the sample and the time the sample was tested.

maybe he is on some cool drug regiment that jacks his testosterone through the fucking roof, but you'd have to be pretty ballsy to give it a try. i guess you could always rely on the fact that your test result would then be so wacky that it would call into question the velidity of the test. in which case, well played, braun!

since it sounds like the samples arrived at the testing facility in the same sealed containers as they were put in at the time of the pissing, then 3 and 4 are fairly unlikely. i suppose the possibility exists that the sample containers were contaminated before braun ever let loose his golden stream, but that would call into question any test ever anywhere. plus wouldn't braun cry foul immediately if hte sample container were not removed from its sterile and hermetically sealed container right in front of his eyes?

and so i return to my prior-stated desire to have hte chemistries better explained so as to offer up a rational explanation for the process by which a clean sample could turn into something so dirty, or wby which such a dirty sample could only come from a sample which was dirty to begin with, just less extremely so.

[TransMonk]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/10853550-419/ryan-braun-says-the-substance-never-entered-my-body.html

The Sun Times quoting Ryan Braun wrote: I would bet my life the substance never entered my body at any point.

There's still a lot of murk to this story...but like I said, Braun's statement above goes a long way towards me being able to swallow the appeal decision.

[Edgy MD]

I'd like a "not guilty" ruling to be based not so much on "The samples were mishandled and therefore could theoretically trigger a false positive" as "The samples were mishandled and therefore could must've triggered a false positive, as demonstrated by my 30 negative tests in the next seven days."

He did submit 30 more tests, right?

[metsmarathon]

how long does it take, from receipt of sample, until hte time that the results of the test are known? is it at all weird that braun wasn't informed of his failing the test until two weeks later?

i'm a little surprised in all the news articles, that tehre's no in-depth discussion of the actual process / procedure.

the more i read, the more i tend to lean towards "he's probably cleaan" but i'm maybe 60/40 on the issue. the wackiness of the sample is difficult to reconcile, and the apparent mishandling of the sample surely lends itself to that end. but i'd still like to understand how simple mishandling could result in such a marked difference. i'm actually a little surprised nobody's called on a pee-expert to expound on the matter.

[TransMonk]

metsmarathon wrote: i'm actually a little surprised nobody's called on a pee-expert to expound on the matter.

Yeah, where the hell is Moises?

[metirish]

Sounds like Monk is taking the piss!

[Vic Sage]

In listening to Mike & Mike on ESPN this morning, an attorney explained that not only was the urine sample not stored as per the protocol (sitting on a desk in the collector's home for 2 days), but Braun also offered to take a DNA test to show it wasn't his urine sample and MLB refused. Based on that, it seems to me his claim isn't about deterioration of the sample, but that chain-of-custody was in doubt.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Guest

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Even more unbelievable than the reason for the test being thrown out? The fact that it was broken by a 16-year-old a week ago, apparently.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: I'd like a "not guilty" ruling to be based not so much on "The samples were mishandled and therefore could theoretically trigger a false positive" as "The samples were mishandled and therefore could must've triggered a false positive, as demonstrated by my 30 negative tests in the next seven days." He did submit 30 more tests, right?

This seems to be like when an attorney or witness misspeaks and mentions something they're not allowed to in court and the judge tells the court recorder to strike it from the record and the jury is just supposed to forget it happened.

[Gwreck]

It's more analogous to a police officer taking critical evidence...say, an alleged murder weapon...and taking it to his house for safekeeping rather than the evidence locker at the police station.

As a result, the evidence is inadmissable in the trial.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: It's more analogous to a police officer taking critical evidence...say, an alleged murder weapon...and taking it to his house for safekeeping rather than the evidence locker at the police station. As a result, the evidence is inadmissable in the trial.

sure, the knife _might_ have been tampered with. But how would the officer get access to the victims blood after the fact and get the murderers fingerprints on it?

[ashie62]

I don't even believe the sample came from Braun.

[metirish]

The butler did it.

[ashie62]

It might be Billy Butler lol

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Granted, it's entirely conjecture, but this makes so much sense, I'd be shocked if this wasn't part of Shyam Das' decision.

But Das serves at the will of the parties and can be fired at any moment by either side. That makes him a neutral third party, but not exactly independent. Why is that significant? In recent big cases, Das has come down against the players... We don't know Das's reasoning. But we do know that Braun's camp never disputed the results of the test, the 30-to-1 testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio. And we know that many weekend drug tests have been handled under the same slightly screwball protocol that Braun's was�i.e., the tester stashing the piss cup somewhere between the milk and the legumes until a FedEx/Kinkos opens up�and that no one had previously contested their legitimacy. By all appearances, this was an easy decision. The sample was sealed, and there was no evidence of any tampering. Nobody�not even Braun's camp�has offered any theory of how the testosterone got into it. But put yourself in Das's position last week. If he rules against the players, the union will almost certainly fire him. But a ruling against the league? Maybe, with his history, MLB will give him a pass. And if it doesn't�and I'm guessing now that it won't�Das will at least leave the job having balanced out the scales a little. Nobody wants to hire an arbitrator who looks like a management stooge. If ever there were a case for Das to throw to the players, it was this one.

[metirish]

Will be interesting to see how fans react to Braun, despite what Heyman says it's just not that cut and dry , for me anyway.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Honestly, I'm less concerned with how he "got off," and more concerned about the fact that he's now loudly decrying his false accusation and poor treatment at MLB's hands when his people never actually questioned the result, and had no apparent reason to do so.

[Gwreck]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Honestly, I'm less concerned with how he "got off," and more concerned about the fact that he's now loudly decrying his false accusation and poor treatment at MLB's hands when his people never actually questioned the result, and had no apparent reason to do so.

The drug testing program is confidential. Both the players and MLB agreed to that provision.

There is supposed to be no announcement regarding a positive test until a player's appeal is exhausted. Somebody leaked it to ESPN and if it wasn't Braun -- which, by all accounts, it wasn't -- he's got great reason to be aggrieved.

If this had been handled properly, nobody should have even known about the alleged positive test.

[metirish]

Gwreck wrote: If this had been handled properly, nobody should have even known about the alleged positive test.

if it had happened this way who's sample would that have belonged too?, Braun claims that that sample wasn't his right? The sample that was sent in was positive?, not even sure if I am making sense......to me the technicality has proved very opportune for Braun.

[Ceetar]

metirish wrote: Gwreck wrote: If this had been handled properly, nobody should have even known about the alleged positive test. if it had happened this way who's sample would that have belonged too?, Braun claims that that sample wasn't his right? The sample that was sent in was positive?, not even sure if I am making sense......to me the technicality has proved very opportune for Braun.

It's sorta win-win for everyone. Braun's got years to work on his reputation, and you don't exactly hear A-Rod getting flak every day for steroids. He doesn't get suspended, MLB gets to look like they're taking a real hard line but don't actually have to suspend the MVP..

This stuff gets out. I mean, how many people have been named in that 2003 pre-testing report? A-Rod has the exact same gripe. Isn't Bonds public guilt largely due to leaked Grand Jury testimony? We would've known he was involved with Balco, but not how clearly. All that Cream/Clear stuff..

[Gwreck]

metirish wrote: if it had happened this way who's sample would that have belonged too?, Braun claims that that sample wasn't his right?

To clarify:

If the confidentiality rules had been handled properly, nobody would have known that Braun had "tested" positive and if he had won the appeal, it would have remained confidential.

If the urine in question had been handled properly, well, who knows what would have happened.

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: Isn't Bonds public guilt largely due to leaked Grand Jury testimony?

He did stand trial for perjury. Even if the Grand Jury testimony hadn't been illegally disseminated, we can presume that the details would have become public when he was indicted and then tried.

This stuff gets out.

That doesn't mean it should.

[metirish]

Gwreck wrote: if it had happened this way who's sample would that have belonged too?, Braun claims that that sample wasn't his right? To clarify: If the confidentiality rules had been handled properly, nobody would have known that Braun had "tested" positive and if he had won the appeal, it would have remained confidential. If the urine in question had been handled properly, well, who knows what would have happened.

of course, but , if he was positive we would know for sure. As it is he got off.

[Ceetar]

Maybe the appeal isn't successful without it being leaked and the public perception.

The bottom line is he took something, and he should probably just shut up at this point, let it go, and switch to something they don't test for like everyone else.

[Ceetar]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=7037

Statement from the collector.

[metirish]

Ceetar wrote: http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=7037 Statement from the collector.

Good for him, I really see no reason for me to doubt the person.