Cyanogen5

Why is St. Louis starting out at home? They were the second Wild Card team...and the Nationals were a division winner. What is the rule I am missing?

Something like that is definitely possible...potentially as simple as leaving the sample in unrefrigerated conditions 44 hours!! Seriously though, there are lots of ways that a sample could be tampered with without breaking the seal. Who knows what happened. As far as I am concerend, given the odd circumstances of this test, if Braun never tests positive again then I will consider him innocent. Obviously if he tests positive again then, obviously, we will all think differently.

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.

News today is all about sensationalism...especially sports news. The issue to me isn't integrity, although that is lacking, but accountability. What happens to the guys who spouts off using uncorroborated "facts" as his basis for dragging a guy through the mud, only later to find out that the guy was innocent? Nothing. He is not forced to retract his statements. He doesn't lose his job. He just moves on to the next story. Many of these guys are celebrities themselves. They are paid for their ability to attract viewers/readers/hits rather than their insights or their ability to report meaningful stories and news. The blame really lies with us (Americans in general). We latch on to every word that these guys say, and discuss it ad nauseum on message boards, talk shows, etc. never really pausing to wonder if it is true. We are gossip hounds...using the "news" as entertainment. Until that culture changes...this is what the "news" will be.

I disagree that the process is deeply flawed (except that they stubbornly pursued a conviction even with chain of custody issues, among others). Chain of custody issues happen...they can happen in any lab at any time. The proper thing to do when it happens is to simply re-test. Period. End of story. I think the flaw is that MLB saw the test results and were happy that they had finally caught a star in the prime of his career, and wanted to use it as the shining example of the unpartiality of their system. Unfortunately by proceeding with the prosecution and then reacting to the verdict as they did, they showed how biased they really are.

I imagine it not being Braun's actual pee could pose a problem. No idea how that could happen though depends on how the samples are identified - I'm sure the procedure is to label the samples in a way that doesn't allow the lab to know who's it is. If the sample ID for Braun's sample was incorrectly identified by the sample key, it would be very easy to have a mislabeled sample. There are also occasions where quality control samples are included with batches of samples (duplicates, trip blanks, matrix spikes, etc) to check the accuracy/integrity of the lab. If there was a spike sample included in a batch of samples that was potentially mislabeled, it isn't inconceivable that a previously prepared sample containing synthetic T was misidentified as Braun's urine sample. Braun's camp could have argued looking at the lab report to see if a spike sample that was supposed to have a high result ended up testing clean, and Braun's ended up testing ridiculously high. sounds like a huge reach, but everything else that's happened in this situation has been, too... I don't think that is a huge reach at all. I am a chemist who works in a lab...not that kind of lab, but the principles are the same. When we run tests, I keep a notebook designating which cells have what chemicals in them. we also run a blank. Every once in a while (but at least once a year) results come back weird...as in a blank shows results similar to what would have been expected with chemical, and vise versa. When that happens, everything is thrown into question as you can no longer trust your labeling. The only thing you can do is re-run the entire test. The huge reach in this scenario is that results like that would have been reported as accurate in the first place. The lab should catch instances like this and re-run...unless of course there wasn't enough sample.

The point is that nobody knows. It could have been purpously tampered with. The original sample could have been accidentally used in a child science project so a new sample was generated by the guy, it could have been sitting too close to left over Taco Bell. I agree with the guy who said that those rules exist for a reason. When you couple the chain of custody issues (which in my mind is enough to rule out the test) with the insanely high reading, and reasonable person has to suspect that something is wrong. When the Roger Clemens "evidence" came out (guilty or not, this is still true)...you know that an ex cop had needles sitting in a can for years and suddenly brought them forth as evidence...I was shocked that people weren't dismissing it due to chain of custody issues.

Eric Byrnes seriously just threw out there...with no proof whatsoever except saying that...a little birdy said that probably... the failed test and suspension was leaked by Ryan Brauns camp. MLB Network is absolutely no better than ESPN...I can't watch either of these garbage stations. I am so tired of these talking heads throwing out anything they want to say.

I was at BWW yesterday and saw this same thing...except when I looked up and saw it I saw "Breaking News", and the text scrolling by just said "will have to serve a 50 game suspension"...I assumed that the Braun verdict had come down and he was guilty. I hung my head and didn't look at the rest until about 10 min. later when I saw the entire message this time and realized it was about Ramirez! Then it was mixed relief that Braun hadn't been founf guilty yet, and annoyance that the verdict still hadn't been announced.

Can we get Lawrie back?

I am sure more than a few of us can relate to this. I might very well be dead by the end of October.

We just can't catch a break

http://www.freewebs.com/falzisttmautos/paul%20molitor%20index.jpg http://factoidz.com/images/user/paulmolitor2004dickperezwatercolor.jpg My all time favorite player.

http://www.workmommywork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/9to5clock.jpg http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/954/364/1402315_display_image.jpg?1305988889 http://www.posters.ws/images/390993/geoff_jenkins_photofile.jpg

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/08/0804_franchise_failures/image/7eleven.jpg More 7...less 11

http://wildpitchsports.com/wp-content/uploads/Ryan-Braun-Trips.gif http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ryan-braun-wipeout-brewers.jpg?w=320 http://www.ctpost.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1567402&width=628&height=471 http://www.sportsgrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/brauntripprank.jpg Yeah, OK, it sucked that he fell down...but still one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews48/9_blu-ray/title_9_blu-ray.jpg

http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/bo-derek-10.jpg

http://twistynoodle.com/media/img/r/number-eleven/eleven-5/coloring_book_page.jpg

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Casey+McGehee+Houston+Astros+v+Milwaukee+Brewers+dxeUl6k6IiAl.jpg Thank you Houston

Nice, DLK...I was hoping someone would get the reference!

I like money. I can't believe Prince likes money too.

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Shaun+Marcum+Milwaukee+Brewers+v+Colorado+cphK8DYS2Swl.jpg

http://sportschump.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/robin-yount.jpg The magic number is under 20 and we are still in August!! Is it OK for me to get excited now?

So apparently 20 is our golden #...magic # 20 on page 20!!