pebadger

How to Do Drug Testing Incorrectly Diana Taurasi is one of the more famous women's basketball players in the world. During the WNBA offseason last yeat, she played for a pro team in Turkey. During her time in Turkey, it was announced that that Taurasi had failed a drug test. It was alleged that her urine sample tested positive for modafinil, which is listed on the banned substances list due to stimulant qualities. Her Turkish team voided her contract based on the reported positive test. Taurasi denied that she had ever used modafinil and contested the finding. The lab in Turkey that declared the positive did so on the strength of a gas chromatography (GC) anlaysis. GC is a powerful analytical technique that allows us to take a sample that contains multiple chemical compounds (urine, for example) and then separate and analyze those compounds individually. A GC analysis produces a chromatograph, a visual representation of the the various compounds present in the sample. Each substance in the sample appears on the graph as a peak, and these peaks are generally separated by valleys or flat lines between the peaks. A good GC analysis will generally yield a chromatograph with well-defined peaks that do not interfere with each other. In other words, you usually don't want peaks that look like a double-humped camel, or which might secretly stack on one another. This is especially true if you're going to do further analysis (such as getting a CIR result) based upon the GC results . The way you determine if a GC test is a positive is to run a GC analysis of a "pure" sample of a given substance. This will provide you of a graph of that substance. You then do a run with the test sample and compare it to the first graph. If something comes out of the test sample that closely matches (in size, shape and its position on the x-axis) the graph of the "pure" control sample, the test sample most likely contains whatever it is you're looking for. Here is a copy of the Taurasi GC result which was a delcared a positive. http://www.euathletes.org...Diana_Taurasi_sample.pdf Other than the fact that the alleged "positive" peak is tall, I have no idea how the lab thought this test supported reporting a positive modafinil test result given the standards for declaring a positive. In any event, they did, and Taurasi had to go through some public embarrasment before clearing her name. How does this relate to Ryan Braun? It's pretty well established that Braun's sample was analyzed using GC at the Montreal lab as part of the CIR testing. This is the test that would identify exactly what substance is at issue in the test. It's still unclear from the public reporting as to what that substance is, the relationship between that substance and the reported presence of synthetic T, and whether the declaration of a positive is based upon the GC-identified substance, the presence of synthetic T, or both. I have no doubt the Montreal lab did a better job than the Turkish lab (which has its WADA accreditation suspended in the wake of the Taurasi case). The Braun case would likely be gone already if it didn't. That said, I post this stuff for a couple of reasons: 1) There is room for interpretation in the GC results (apparently a LOT of room in Turkey), but that room shrinks in a well-performed test. 2) Even if you don't completely screw it up, even small problems with the GC test could have significant effects on the subusequent CIR results if you don't get good separation of peaks in your GC analysis. Here's a big question: If the peak in Taurasi's test isn't indicative of modafinil, what is it? It's got to be something. That might be a question at issue in Braun's case, depending on exaclty what's going on with his specific data/results. If Braun is alleged to have tested positive for a specific substance on the strength of the GC, and Braun is certain he didn't take that substance, then something else is creating a "signature" close enough to that of the prohibited substance that it looks like he took the prohibited substance. If the prohibited substance is not one that is associated with synthetic T, and yet the CIR result shows synthetic T, then you have a very weird and very real conundrum. It remains to be seen whether Braun's peoples assertion that there are very unusual circumstances surrounding the test pans out or whether that's just PR spin. If it isn't spin, this is one scenario that might be in play. I don't know that it necessarily helps him all that much, since he's the one in the position of having to explain what might be inexplicable, but it could be something they are working on. Again, the dearth of solid facts available to us in this regard leaves us with nothing to further the discussion.

Every day brings a new angle to the question: What if I was born 20 years later?

OK, here is a second long post on the science/technology end of this stuff. Where I left off I posed the rhetorical question: What could possibly go wrong in such a simple process? I'm going to skip over all that stuff right now and avoid that question. Maybe I'll come back to it later. Anyhow, what was described in the first post is what is known as the CIR (carbon isotope ratio) test, which has been referenced in a lot of posts upthread. If you read long post #1, you see that the test is aptly, if not especially creatively, named. OK, let's assume we did all the stuff we need to do to get a CIR result. The results of the CIR test are expressed in terms of the difference between the the amount of 13C found in a given metabolite and the amount that you would expect to find in nature on average, measured in parts per thousand (per mil). This difference is called a delta value. Since we usually find less 13C in testosterone than we would in nature, the delta13C is usually a negative value. And since we find even less 13C in synthetic T than we do in natural T, the delta13C for the synthetic is lower than for natural T. Synthetic T is produced in a controlled, defined process from particular ingredients. As such, the delta13C for synthetic T usually falls into a tightly controlled range. Our bodies produce T from whatever ingredients it has on hand (in the form of cholesterol, most coming from the liver), so the natural production process is not as tightly controlled as you'd see in a factory. As a result, the delta13C for natural T has a wider range of variability. Delta13C for synthetic T usually ranges from about -28 to -30, while that for natural T ranges from about -20 to -26. So how do you determine if a result is a "positive"? You compare the delta13C numbers from your test against the delta13C numbers from a standard reference sample. If the test 13C number is lower than the standard sample 13C number by a given amount, that test result is deemed to be a "positive" because it is presumed that the lower 13C is indicative of a synthetic origin. The "given amount" in the last sentence is called the "positivity criteria". It should be apparent that the positivity criteria is a critical number in the whole procedure. How much of a difference between the test result and the standard is enough to confidently say that the test subject "used synthetic T"? The answer to that question depends on just how confident you want to be, which is not just a question of pure science, but a question of "law" as well. Since T has multiple metabolites that pass out of the body through the urine, the CIR test usually examines the delta13C values of multiple metabolites. This usually helps to increase the confidence in the test result, as all the metabolites should have fairly similar delta13C values, since they were all produced by the same process from the same starting point. So you get four metabolites all showing similar delta values and all of them meet the positivity criteria. That's seen as the gold standard of proof that whoever provided the sample ingested synthetic T. What happens though if the delta13C values of the various metabolites are NOT similar? What happens if you examine 4 metabolites and only one of them meets the positivity criteria? Did the guy take synthetic T or didn't he? Are you comfortable accusing him or not? Are you comfortable convicting him? From strictly a scientific standpoint, how do you arrive at a positivity criteria that is at least a better than 50/50 shot of correctly predicting that the metabolites came from synthetic T in the first place? Another thing should also be apparent in all this. There is a lot of math involved, spcifically statistics. We obviously can't count every 13C and 12C atom to establish these ratios and arrive at "actual" delta values. All of these numbers are random variables derived from samples of the things we are looking at. So you have to seriously take into account concepts and sources of variance and variation in all these undertakings, not the least of which is measurement error. I'm not posting this stuff to say "See. This stuff is so complicated there is no way they can get it right." That's not where I'm coming fron at all. Rather, I just want to highlight to a degree the complexities of the case. I think it should be clear from these two posts that it's impossible to say with complete certainty that a person has taken synthetic T relying only on the results of a CIR test. We can have anything from a weak inkling to an exceptionally solid suspicion, depending on the results, but what we don't have is foolproof certainty. Without knowing all the specifics of the data, it's impossible for any of us to know just where we should be on that contiuum with respect to Braun. Given the way these cases are decided, it's a good bet we won't have much better idea even after the appeal is adjudicated and the folks who know the least (on either side) are the ones yelling the loudest.

I and other posters have often stated in this thread that the declaration that Braun had synthtic testosterone ("T") in his system is the part of this case that is most troublesome for him in his effort to avoid suspension. This post is going to be somewhat long, but hopefully it will provide a bit more background for those of you interested in a bit more of the science involved. Testosterone is a substance that all of us produce in our bodies. We've also learned how to make "artificial" T. Chemically speaking, there is no difference between the two: T is T. How then can we tell them apart? As with many problems in biochemistry, the answer has something to do with carbon ("C"). If you look at youc handy-dandy periodic table, you see that C has an atomic mass of just a hair over 12. An atomic mass of 12 indicates that a carbon atom is made up of 6 protons and 6 neutrons. That's exactly how the vast majority of carbon is constructed. The atomic mass of carbon listed on the table is a bit higher than 12 because a small percentage of carbon atoms found in nature actually have 7 (or, more rarely, 8) neutrons. These different types of the same general atom are called "isotopes". The "normal" carbon isotope is called carbon-12 (12C). The next heaviest isotope is called carbon-13 (13C). Why is that important? It turns out that 13C, being just a tad heavier, doesn't react quite as well chemically as does 12C. It reacts in the same way, just not as well. It also turns out that certain chemical reactions just work more efficiently with 12C than they do with 13C, so given a "choice" the reaction will use 12C. Photosynthesis in plants is one of these processes that prefers 12C. The human body, while still preferring 12C, isn't quite as picky. As a result, plants will usually have more 12C present in them than 13C, as compared to the ratio of 12C/13C present in the environment. Since we make synthetic T from plants (soy being quite common), synthetic T tends to have less 13C than does T produced by the human body, though both of them will have less than is generally found in nature. Here's an analogy. A dollar bill and a dollar coin represent the exact same amount of value. You can buy a 20oz Coke with either. It just so happens that if your're looking to buy a Coke from a vending machine you're usually going to have more luck with a dollar bill than a dollar coin (because there more machines that have bill feeders than machines that accept the new dollar coins). If you order a Coke at the concession stand, the person taking the dollar probably doesn't care what kind of dollar it is. As a result, if you went and looked at the money present in all the Coke machines in the world, you're quite probably going to find a higher ratio of dollar bills/dollar coins in the machine than you would if you went an looked in the cash boxes of all the concession stands. Finally, since very few people use dollar coins to buy Cokes anyway, you're going to find more dollar coins out in the world at large (as a ratio of bills/coins) than in either of those two places. Whew! So how does any of THAT help us out? Well, if you can find a way to measure the ratio of those carbon isotopes in a sample of T, you should have a good idea if it is more *likely* (not certain, likely) than not that the T is plant-based. The problem is, you can't just take a T sample from sombody. When T is introduced into your body (either after being produced internally or introduced from outside), your body puts that T to work and uses it up. The T is "metabolized"; i.e., your body uses it up in a bunch of biochemical reactions. So if it used up, aren't you screwed if you're looking for the stuff? Well, not quite. Smart people have figured out how T is metabolized in the body, and they know what chemical products those reactions produce, and in what quantities. These products are called "metabolites". Some metabolites are waste, and are eliminated from the body in the passing of urine. Some of the metabolites are also made of carbon atoms which came from the T that metabolized. Great. So all we have to do is find these particular metabolites swimming around with a bunch of other waste products in a urine sample, isolate them, figure out a way to count the 12C and 13C atoms which make up those particular metabolites, compare that to a standard and then make a judgment the likely origin of those atoms. Easy, right? What could possibly go wrong in such a simple process? I'll try to work up another post (probably a few posts) later as to how that final paragraph works out. The science itself is quite impressive. As always, it's how we use the science for our own ends that causes all the problems.

Hard to say for sure. First, it obviously depends on: a) what is in the drug in question, and b) how the body and the drug interact. Second, you have to ask which test it affects, or if it may affect both tests. If the drug contains some sort of synthetic testosterone, and that were present in the sample, it could affect both tests. Regardless of whether the drug contains synthetic T, if it has properties that increase testosterone production, it could affect the T/E test. Even if it doesn't contain synthetic T, it might, under just the right circumstances, still affect the CIR test in that the machinery and software might be fooled into seeing something that isn't there, or incorrectly describing what it sees. The machine and software aren't omniscient. They are programmed to look for certain things and that's what they report seeing. The are very good at what they do, to be sure, and the probablility of a glitch is small. That said, if the machine is looking at something it's never seen before, it might not be programmed to account for it. Here's an analogy. A shepherd boy is trained to spot wild dogs that prey on his herd. He gets very good at spotting them. One day a wolf, a species which the boy has never seen before, moves in to threaten the flock. What is the boy going to say when he calls for help? He's going to say that a big grey dog is attacking the sheep. Let's say Braun is using a "new" drug for a legitimate medical purpose. If that drug is not listed as a prohibited substance, and if Braun didn't want anyone to know he was taking it, there would be no reason for him to disclose that he was taking the drug on the paperwork accompanying the test. Since it's not on the list, there would be no reason for him to have applied for a therapeutic use exemption ("TUE") either, since that would also expose his use of the medication. Given that, the testers wouldn't known to look out for the drug and would be apt to consider anything that looked like a positive to be a no-excuses positive. So, let's assume Braun is indeed taking some sort of medication. Since a positive has been declared it will still be up to him to prove that he didn't violate the drug agreement. In fact, he may well have to prove that not only is this drug capable of causing the positive, he might still be required that there was no other way he could have tested positive. We already know he has presented a subsequent "negative" sample. If I'm representing MLB, I'd ask why that second test came up negative when he's presumably still taking the medication. So then Braun would have to prove why one test was positive and one was negative, in addition to proving that the first one was positive only because he was taking the medication. As I noted upthread, Landis was "convicted" for having a positive synthetic T result, even in the absence of the lab alleging what exactly it was that caused that result. In theory the same thing could happen to Braun if he can't convince the panel with his arguments. In other words, even if Braun has a good explanation for the result, it still may not be good enough for him to win.

Isn't that exactly what was done? From what I understood, the first sample from Braun was taken and a portion was taken from that and turned up positive, a 2nd lab performed a test on the same initial sample drawn from Braun and that's the one that showed it was synthetic. How could 2 different labs screw up? There are two tests involved here. The first test is a T/E ratio test. This test is comparatively simple. That said, a T/E test result is not all that useful if you want to use it as evidence that someone has violated the drug policy. First, simple as it is, it can still be screwed up. In the famous Flyod Landis case, Landis' original failed test was a failed T/E test. It was subsequently shown that the lab seriously butchered the test. The panel that "convicted" him said so in their report and simply ignored that test result in their findings. Second, T/E ratios can be all over the place for all sorts of reasons. The T/E ratio test gives you no insight into WHY you got the result you did. What a T/E test is very good for is serving as a sort of tripwire or filter. If you fail the T/E test, you get looked at using the more expensive/detailed/useful GC-C-IRMS (gas chromatography - combustion - isotope ratio mass spectrometry) testing process. This is also called CIR (carbon isotope ratio) testing. My read on the situation is that one lab performed the T/E test, got a result and then sent the whole works to the WADA lab in Montreal where the more extensive CIR testing was done. (This transfer from one lab to another is one point at which chain-of-custody issues can arise). The protocol for doing the CIR testing is to do a first run with the subject's "A" sample, which is basically half of the total sample that was submitted by the subject for testing. If the test is declared "postive", a second run of the test can be run using the other half of the original sample. That half is called the "B" sample. In most cases, the athlete is notified that he has tested positive after the "A" sample testing. Testing of the "B" sample is usually delayed until requested by the subject. Often the subject may elect to have a representative present to observe the "B" sample test. The GC portion of the test is used to identify the substance which it is believed caused the high T/E reading. The IRMS portion of the testing is used to determine whether that substance is produced by the subject's body or is "artificial". If the "A" and "B" results disagree, the whole case usually goes away. If the results are both "positive" the case against the subject will proceed. The place where a lab can get it wrong is this: Good labs are usually very good at performing exactly the prescribed procedure for a given test, and at documenting their adherence to that procedure along the way. In this way, anyone checking their work after the fact can verify that the work was done in accordance with the proper procedures. If you do the same test the same way to the same sample on seperate occasions, you should get the same results. This notion of reproducability is one of the foundations of modern science. The problem is, simple reproducability of data does not correlate perfectly with a foolproof conclusion as to what that data means. If I run the same test twice and a black box tells me that the result is positive, that positive is only as good as the assmptions behind it. If the criteria for declaring a result positive are not rigorous, what does the positive really mean? If the software that crunches the numbers in the black box has an intermittent "bug" in it that is not apparent, what does the result really mean? If the detectors feeding information to the software are calibrated on poor assumptions, or are not working at peak condition, what does the positive mean? The bottom line is that even when all the people involved are working in good faith to produce a fair and accurate result, there is a whole lot that can go wrong, and it can go wrong without anyone knowing that it went wrong. This is why, sometimes, accused athletes want to try to have things re-tested a a different lab. It's not that they think the first lab is in on some frame-up. They want to see if a second lab, which is presumably doing a given test the same way as the first lab, will yield the same result. If the results do match, then the athlete has a bigger problem, as the idea that the test data itself is wrong is pretty much out the window. At that point, if the athlete wants to continue fighting the test result itself, he has to somehow show that the sample itself is somehow different than a "normal" positive sample, and that the difference is causing a false positive. He might argue it is different because the athlete's body works differently (due to a medical condition, for example) than the "standard" body to the extent that the test is "fooled" into misidentifying what it is looking at. He might argue that the testers missed something crucial in the sample itself that caused the test to be "fooled". Obviously these are extraordinarily difficult arguments to make, and almost never successful. From people who think in a legal frame of reference there is another interesting point to be made: sometimes, as in the Landis case, there ends up being no relationship at all between the T/E result and the result of the CIR testing which ultimately causes the violation. As noted above, the T/E test in the Landis case was so poorly processed that it was indefensible by even the minimal standards the lab has to meet in order to shift the burden of proof to the athlete. Nonetheless, the lab used the result of the badly botched T/E test to justify further investigation using CIR. The CIR test indicated that there was "artificial" T present, but at no point did they ever establish what it was that contributing artificial T to the tested sample. Indeed, they don't have to. All they have to do is say, "Our machine spit our numbers that say you're a doper and we say we followed the procedures in doing the test. We don't have to prove what you took. We don't have the prove the numbers are right. You have to prove they are wrong. And oh, by the way, we are under no obligation to provide you with anything more in the way of information about your test result than the bare minimum required under the anti-doping code. And we write the rules. Good Luck." Braun may be "guilty". He may be "innocent". In the bigger picture, the answer to that question is somewhat irrelevant. Given how complicated all this can be from a factual standpoint, ask yourself how fair the procedures to contest one of these accusations seem to you.

By its nature, the testing is destructive of the sample. Second, depending on the error, it is possible to get the same incorrect result twice. In other words if you do something wrong consistently, you'll get the same incorrect result consistently. Whether you can consistently repeat the error is dependant on a lot of things, but it's a lot more likely to occur if you don't even know you're committing an error. Imagine you're in an innocent athlete's position trying to make that case. You suspect they are doing something wrong but you have no idea what it might be, because the people that do this everyday don't even know it. It's hard to be more specific about something so complicated without having more raw facts to work with. Frankly, if we did have that info you'd need somebody who knows a heck of a lot more about this than me to really dig into the data. All I know is that it's possible to make mistakes. When Diana Taurasi was accused of doping by a WADA-accredited lab, they didn't even identify properly the substance of which she was accused of taking. It cost her a lot of time, money and public embarrassment to get it cleared up. What people don't widely know is that another lower-profile athlete who couldn't afford to fight like Taurasi did had already been suspended, and her contract terminated, after being accused by the same lab of abusing the same substance. I don't think the Montreal lab screwed it up in the Braun case (or that they necessarily screwed anything up at all) to the extent the Turkish lab did, but that's not the point. The point is, barring a stupendous screw up in both the test and the resulting declaration, there really isn't a good way for an athlete to attack the test itself, even if the test is bad. The real irony is that as drug testing gets better at finding smaller and smaller trace amounts of substances, the more likely you are to punish people for inadvertantly exposing themselves to something that is on the banned substance list, without appreciably increasing the likelihood that you're catching the real cheats. Again, unless you are really, really lucky, you simply have no way to prove that the exposure was inadvertant or unavoidable. When they're suspending amateur kids for two years for taking two of the wrong pill from their mom's medicine cabinets, you can see how inflexible the system is. Not saying there aren't a lot of good reasons for the way things are, but there will come a time when I think some might look back on decisions that were made and wonder if those decisions truly were as good as they could have been.

benji, You are correct. The assertion that Braun had an exogenous substance in his system is the crux of the case, and that's why he's in the trouble he's in. It's a very "sciency" assertion, and it's why MLB is going to fight against him hard on this one. While I have some understanding of the science involved, I don't work in that field. I used to understand it better than I do now, but I have forgotten much and I don't keep up with changes in the field. With those qualifications out of the way, I'll just say that the test itself does not identify exogenous substances themselves. It instead looks at the ratio of two different types of carbon atoms present in carbon dioxide which is created by oxidizing a substance of interest present in the urine sample, usually something that is a metabolite of testosterone. Suffice it to say that there is a lot of work that goes into identifying the substance of interest in the urine sample in the first place, and then there is a lot of fiddly work that goes into detecting and identifying the carbon atoms after oxidation. This takes skilled people operating very touchy technological devices. If the detectors aren't working correctly, or if the software that interprets the data coming from the detectors isn't working correctly, or if there was a problem leading up to any of it, or the operator messes up, you can get bad results. The detectors themelves are set up to look for exactly what they are told to look for, based upon standards that may or may not be as rigorous as they should be (that's what Dr Berry article was about, sort of). What I'm saying is, there is a lot that can go wrong here, from the perspective of the athlete. It's why I wrote well upthread that this wasn't a determination on the order of peeing on a stick and looking for a plus sign. I'm not saying the science itself is bad. It's great, actually, and is instrumental in catching those who need to be caught. It's not perfect though, and if you're a person who is being accused on the basis of the test, you have to want to know exactly how it all worked out in your case. A CIR (carbon isotope ratio) positive is the "gold standard" positive in the fight against dopers. That's why all drug testing agencies will fight tooth and nail to uphold every single one of these that they declare to be a positive. If an athlete is allowed to beat something that is declared to be a CIR positive, the testers have a real problem going forward. As such they'll spare no expense to ensure that when they decide to stand behind a declared positive, they win. If it appears there is a real problem with their test, they'll just let the case go before arbitration and find a different way to nail a guy that they know is dirty. The good thing for the testers is that the tests that are sort of hinky, but within the criteria to be declared "positive", are just as hard (or harder) to prove "wrong" than they are to prove right. The testers don't have to prove the test is right. The athlete has to prove that it's wrong. Frankly, it's almost impossible to do. That's why you see guys who are accused coming up with all these other arguments; even though they are mostly illusory arguments they're the only real chance they have.

The following is an exceprt from an Editorial in the August 2008 issue of Nature, a widely respected scientific journal: On page 692, biostatistician Donald Berry of the University of Texas in Houston outlines what he sees as problems with the way doping tests are conducted. He argues that anti-doping authorities have not adequately defined and publicized how they arrived at the criteria used to determine whether or not a test result is positive. The ability of an anti-doping test to detect a banned substance in an athlete is calibrated in part by testing a small number of volunteers taking the substance in question. But Berry says that individual labs need to verify these detection limits in larger groups that include known dopers and non-dopers under blinded conditions that mimic what happens during competition. Nature believes that accepting 'legal limits' of specific metabolites without such rigorous verification goes against the foundational standards of modern science, and results in an arbitrary test for which the rate of false positives and false negatives can never be known. By leaving these rates unknown, and by not publishing and opening to broader scientific scrutiny the methods by which testing labs engage in study, it is Nature's view that the anti-doping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear. http://www.nature.com/nat.../n7205/full/454667a.html Dr. Donald Berry, who wrote the article prompting the editorial, is not a fringe scientist. He is the head of the Division of Quantitative Sciences, chair of the Department of Biostatistics and Frank T. McGraw Memorial Chair of Cancer Research, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas. Soon after the article was published, many of the usual cast of characters in the very incestuous anti-doping community jumped in with replies to defend their fiefdom. A fair amount of the basis of anti-doping science is developed, tested and then reviewed by a relatively self-contained circle that is dedicated to anti-doping efforts. They are very resistant to criticism and scrutiny, insisting quite arrogantly that, in effect, what they do is so specialized that only they really understand it. The article itself, and the responses, are behind a pay wall. I have copies, but will not post them here out of respect for the copyrighted material. The bottom line is that the testing itself is quite complex and the ultimate decision as to what constitutes a "positive" test is sometimes open to interpretation. Yet, in adjudicating disputes as to such a result, the testers are required only to assert that they followed their own procedures in making a finding and the entire burden of proof in the case swings to the athlete to prove a logical negative. Often the defense must be mounted without much information with which to contest the tester's assertions since there is usually NO formal discovery process preceding the arbitration hearing.

Food for thought: We've all heard about how nobody has ever prevailed in one of these appeals to MLB. The successful appeal rate to WADA is also extraordinarily low. So is EVERYONE that says they are falsely accused just terribly in denial in taking their case to these tribunals? Or is it possible that are the tribunals themselves extraordinarily slanted in favor of the accusers? Nobody in the media is providing the public any information as to how the appeal process is set up, and are acting on blind faith that these things are equitable for both parties. When is the last time the almost always cynical media just took something like this one faith? There is a story here to be written. I just tend to think that the science/law combination here is just too dense for most journalists to penetrate, so they end up depending on experts who are exceptionally biased for their information.

Very doubtful. The protocols for these suspensions are different. I think we'd know already if this was proceeding under the stimulant part of the drug agreement. It would also mean that this was Braun's second offense if it were a stimulant suspension.

In regards to the first half - I think people will ultimately look at it and ask why it took so long to catch him. If he's guilty, it's obvious this didn't start this past summer.Not necessarily. If he is guilty he may well have started taking something in an effort to deal with nagging oblique and leg injuries.

Will never happen. Zach Lund, the US winter olympian I posted about upthread who was suspended before the Turin games despite everyone knowing he wasn't a cheater and did not intend to violate the rules, asked that his record be cleared after serving his 1-year suspension. He thought WADA might acceed to his request since they themselves took the non-PED substance for which he was suspended off the list of banned substances subsequent to his suspension. They refused. Such is the mindset of crusaders.

Discipline is dependant on the offense: For PEDs: First offense: 50 games. Second offense: 100 games Third: Lifetime ban (with procedures for reinstatement) For Stimulants: 1st: Follow up testing 2nd: 25 games 3rd: 80 games 4th: per Commisioner, up to and including lifetime ban Criminal Conviction for Possession/Use of Prohibited Substance: 1st: 60-80 game for PED, 15-30 Drug of Abuse 2nd: 120 game - 1yr for PED, 30-90 DoA 3rd: Ban, 1 year, respectively There are separate provisions for DEALING drugs and for violating the terms of a treatment program. Note that marijuana is dealt with differently: "A Player on the Administrative Track for the use or possession of marijuana shall not be subject to suspension. The Player will be subject to fines, which shall be progressive and which shall not exceed $25,000 for any particular violation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Player who participates in the sale or distribution (as those terms are used in the criminal code) of marijuana will be subject to the discipline set forth in Section 8.E above." All this stuff is sourced from the PDF link I posted upthread.

The ADHD drug abuse thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When taken as a valid treatment, those things are supposed to act to help the patient maintain calm and focus. When they are abused by people without the condition, they are supposed to act as a stimulant that gets a person 'high' and giddy to the point where they are not calm and focused. I get that some might need/desire the stimulant effect over a long season, but at what cost if it is affecting your game otherwise? There must be some inside knowledge among users that there is a net positive to abuse it. Whether that "knowledge" is grounded in scientific fact is another question. When it comes to the issues of taking stuff to get an edge, whether that stuff is legal of illegal, there is simply a whole lot of unsubstantiated belief and faith in anecdotal evidence that is traded on amongst the players and other people involved in training, nutrition and the like.

As little benefit as Braun might have, MLB would have far less benefit. LAST thing in the world they want right now is one of their young stars turning up a positive test - it brings into question the entire drug testing system that has been in place in the minors. I find it far more likely that it came from Braun's camp, especially considering his camp is still the one doing all the chattering right now - MLB has been silent this whole time. MLB has been officially silent because they need to be. They can't officially speak to this matter in violation of their own confidentiality agreement. Whoever leaked this spoke out of school. It makes no sense for Braun to leak this if they are putting up a good faith defense that, if successful, would mean that nothing was ever revealed in the first place. The more likely explanation is that Braun's people are only speaking now because they feel they have to respond. The alternative is to let the simple narrative "Braun failed a test, therefore he's a doper" to stand unchallenged and be repeated, ad nauseum.

Possible, but if Braun's people were to leak it, they sure as heck wouldn't take it to Fainaru-Wada. And they would have leaked something much more favorable to their side than the simple story that came out which basically stated "Braun is a doper". This came from MLB or the office of one of the other parties now invovled in the resolution of this case (lab, arbitrators, etc). If we're speculating, it's much more likely this came out because somebody really thinks Braun is guilty and is worried he "might get away with it". Or they want to protect the testing process - and are trying to cover up the fact that they botched it. Leak the positive result... Right. Or they have a result they really can't explain but can declare a positive under their own loose criteria and by getting it out there first they frame the debate to their liking. Regardless, almost all signs point to the leak coming from a party not in Braun's camp. Still looking for more info on this regarding process and procedures. Wondering if there is any potential for Braun's camp to request an open hearing on his appeal. I tend to doubt it as intense examination of how this all really works is the last thing many of the interested parties want in cases like these. The Floyd Landis public hearing showed how much of a kangaroo court these things tend to be, and I know there was considerable agitation with WADA to close down the "loophole" that opened that window into how the system works. I don't know what the rules state with respect to the MLB procedures, but I'd bet they're heavily patterned on what WADA does.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. If you take a step back, that seems a lot more likely considering MLB has never leaked one before.Possible, but if Braun's people were to leak it, they sure as heck wouldn't take it to Fainaru-Wada. And they would have leaked something much more favorable to their side than the simple story that came out which basically stated "Braun is a doper". This came from MLB or the office of one of the other parties now invovled in the resolution of this case (lab, arbitrators, etc). If we're speculating, it's much more likely this came out because somebody really thinks Braun is guilty and is worried he "might get away with it".

FYI: Here is some of the documention from MLB relating to the operation of the MLB drug policy (776kB PDF). For those inclined to reading legal documents. http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf It's interesting to note all the confidentiality lnguage in the document. It's more interesting to note that there is nothing within the four corners of the policy that imposes any penalties for running afoul of the confidentiality prohibitions.

Ken Rosenthal's piece, while even-handed with respect to Braun himself, may be one of the dumbest things I've ever read when taken as a whole. One the one hand he says that Braun may well be cleared. He parlays this observation into the conclusion that this incident proves that baseball will never be clean. What? http://msn.foxsports.com/...e-baseball-is-not-121011

Thanks, greg. I agree that the issue of the leak has not been getting enough attention, especially in terms of where to leak came from on the source end. In a vacuum, it's hard to fault ESPN for running with what they had. That said, from an ethical standpoint, I have a real problem with this being the same outfit that sat on information for YEARS involving potential criminal liability in the Bernie Fine matter, but yet could not wait a few weeks to publish the one-sided, clearly agenda-driven leaks by multiple sources regarding a matter that had yet to be fully adjudicated.

This is the key thing to remember. The testers really don't care about guilt or innocence. They care about defending the test result. They have to do this; because to concede even once that they have messed up puts the entire system at risk in their mind. If one athlete is allowed to beat them, all the dirty cheats will latch on to that result and then we won't be able to catch any of them, or so the slipperly slope argument goes. They disingenuously argue that this means they are completely impartial; they are only protecting the science for the good of us all. That is, to put it politely, [expletive deleted]. They know the ramifications of their accusations. There is an attitude at play here that they are the white hats, protecting us all from the depredations of liars and cheats. And while there are a lot of people doing a lot of good to help combat PED use, too many have become overzealous. No matter how this thing turns out, ther will be room to beleive that Braun is indeed innocent. Everyone who espouses that position will be called naive idiots by the cynical know-it-alls who don't really know much at all. (edit: language --1992)

The super high T level isn't Braun's big problem His big problem is the CIR/IRMS test which indicates exogenous testosterone in his system. Braun taking a second test, which turned up "clean", could actually work against him. It allows the testers to say "See. This is a normal guy. The only thing that could have triggered the first result is the ingestion of a PED." There is a LOT more that needs to be known about this case. Braun's people need to get the best biochemists they can find on his side if they're going to attack this result, barring them already having a good argument on thier side for where something may have come from. The fact that they're already talking about "chain of custody" leads me to beleive they don't know where it came from and are looking to attck this thing any way they can. This will open them up to public perception by people unfamiliar with how hese things are adjudicated that he is just a doper trying to "get off on a technicality".

For the Xth time: a T/E ratio can be "elevated" without the T portion being elevated. For example, if your T is 2 and you E is 0.5, you ratio will be 4:1. There have been numerous doping cases in which the T/E tripwire was activates by a ratio that was the result of an abnormally low E portion of the ratio. In any event, the T/E ratio really isn't going to be the heart of the dispute. The heart of the dispute is the CIR or GC result which purports to be a "positive". These results are not as simple to read as when a woman pees on a stick and a plus sign shows up. They just aren't.

Judge Landis loved a rush to judgment, too. Showed how much passion true-blue Americans had for their homeland and the fight against the Red Menace.