Ryan Braun Wins Appeal

[StillAWarrior]

First, let me say that I agree with a lot of what you said.

According to JDPTP language... absent unusual circumstances, the sample was to be taken immediately to FedEx.  Whether FedEx was still delivering that day or not is irrelevant according to MLB's rules.

Not exactly.  The JDPTP language is:  "Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected."  I'd argue that this is ambiguous -- what does "sent...on the same day..." mean?  I believe that MLB and the Collector are contending that it was impossible for the sample to be "sent...on the same day."  Based upon what we've read (which, I'll say again, may or may not be accurate), it appears possible that the arbitrator interpreted "sent" to mean "dropped off at FedEx" and rejected the argument that "sent" means actually shipped.

In the eyes of the legal and bioethics communities, the chain of custody would have been compromised in this scenario and therefore the results could only be deemed inconclusive at best...

...But in this case, Braun's drug test - positive or not - does not even exist because chain of custody cannot be demonstrated.  Neither Laurenzi, WADA, or MLB has reasonably proven that the sample was untainted and belonged to Braun... at this point, it's unlikely that they ever could.

I'm not disputing what you've said, but I haven't seen anything that states this as strongly as you have.  I'm not aware that there is a universally accepted definition of "chain of custody."  The JDPTP language very clearly contemplates that it is possible for chain of custody to be preserved even if the Collector "temporarily" stores the sample himself, but it doesn't define what is required.  (Actual language:  "If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage. 1. The Collector must keep the chain of custody intact.  2. The Collector must store the samples in a cool and secure location." -- anybody want to count the number of significant undefined terms in that section?)

As a general matter, the Collector's sworn testimony and/or affidavit indicating that he placed the sample in his basement and that no one disturbed it or had access to it could establish chain of custody for legal purposes.  Perhaps that's not enough under the JDPTP, but there's nothing inherent in the Collector's actions that would necessarily destroy chain of custody.

[StillAWarrior]

Secure to me for urine would be a locked fridge with one key which the collector keeps on his person at all times.

Well, that's all well and good.  But I'm not aware of anyone that has suggested that this was required (although who knows...maybe the arbitrator did).

In light of the fact that this well-respected testing laboratory apparently did not require that, your standard might be a little higher than what is common in the industry.  However, based on all that's transpired in this case, perhaps your proposed standard will become the norm.

[Hards Alumni]

Well, that's all well and good.  But I'm not aware of anyone that has suggested that this was required (although who knows...maybe the arbitrator did).

In light of the fact that this well-respected testing laboratory apparently did not require that, your standard might be a little higher than what is common in the industry.  However, based on all that's transpired in this case, perhaps your proposed standard will become the norm.

The answer to most of this is, 'maybe'.  This is why it is left up to the arbitrator to determine what the wording meant.

I can tell you from experience that samples provided to my former employer are locked up in our building with only a few keys which are controlled by a few people.

I completely agree that the document was too ambiguous.  Especially since we are talking about someone's career.

[StillAWarrior]

The answer to most of this is, 'maybe'.  This is why it is left up to the arbitrator to determine what the wording meant.

I can tell you from experience that samples provided to my former employer are locked up in our building with only a few keys which are controlled by a few people.

Just out of curiosity, how many keys were there to the Collector's house?  How many people had them?

Aside from the issues relating to anonymity, there is nothing at all inherently problematic about the Collector keeping the sample in his basement.  It might be a violation of the agreed-upon procedures and justifies overturning the suspension, but that doesn't mean that the sample wasn't secure.

[chapman]

Just out of curiosity, how many keys were there to the Collector's house?  How many people had them?

Aside from the issues relating to anonymity, there is nothing at all inherently problematic about the Collector keeping the sample in his basement.  It might be a violation of the agreed-upon procedures and justifies overturning the suspension, but that doesn't mean that the sample wasn't secure.

It doesn't mean it was either, hence the whole reason the agreed-upon procedures that may have been what overturned the suspension are in place.  You're taking the guy's word that it was in his house, that his house was locked (stereotypical Wisconsinites are known to leave their house unlocked when they go on vacation), that the sample was refrigerated or kept in appropriate conditions.   The procedures are in place because the collector's word is the only evidence you have that the sample even remained in the state during the 44 hour timeframe.

[Hards Alumni]

Just out of curiosity, how many keys were there to the Collector's house?  How many people had them?

Aside from the issues relating to anonymity, there is nothing at all inherently problematic about the Collector keeping the sample in his basement.  It might be a violation of the agreed-upon procedures and justifies overturning the suspension, but that doesn't mean that the sample wasn't secure.

I don't think the problem is how many people had keys, or how many there were.  In the basement of a house where people are in and out all weekend, there is a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with it.

Kids are interesting creatures and for all we do or do not know the son of the collector (who was present at the collection) could have had friends over for the night... or the day... who knows what went on.  There is reasonable doubt that the container was securely stored for those 44 hours while at his house... and that is all the arbitrator would need.

[StillAWarrior]

It doesn't mean it was either, hence the whole reason the agreed-upon procedures that may have been what overturned the suspension are in place.  You're taking the guy's word that it was in his house, that his house was locked (stereotypical Wisconsinites are known to leave their house unlocked when they go on vacation), that the sample was refrigerated or kept in appropriate conditions.   The procedures are in place because the collector's word is the only evidence you have that the sample even remained in the state during the 44 hour timeframe.

I've said repeatedly that based upon what I've read, I think it was correct for the suspension to be overturned.  I agree that the procedures are there for a reason, and that if they weren't followed then MLB loses.  I don't have a problem with that.

I'm simply making the point that the procedures are not well-defined and that they are somewhat arbitrary.  We've had one person say that to be secure a sample should be kept in a locked refrigerator.  We've also heard that one company keeps samples locked up in a building with only a few keys which are controlled by a few people. It would appear that the MLB agreement required the sample to be immediately dropped with FedEx.

But there are a couple common themes I detect here.  First in any scenario, you're taking someone's word.  Did you really keep it in the locked refrigerator?  Did you really keep the key on you at all times?  Is there really only one key?  Are there really limited keys to the building?  Are they really all controlled by a few people?  Did FedEx control access?  Was it kept in a cool area?  We rely on people's word in all of these cases.  No matter which standard is used, the person responsible for the sample could lie.

Second, some of these procedures are somewhat arbitrary.  How many keys?  How many people?  Etc.

Third, it's not that difficult to argue that the way Braun's sample was handled was actually more secure leaving it with FedEx.  But, as you correctly mention, we have to take the Collector at his word to conclude that the sample was not tampered with.

All that said, I think the best argument for immediately turning the sample over to FedEx is to preserve Braun's anonymity.  That argument makes a lot of sense to me.  Arguments that the Collector's actions were somehow inherently inappropriate or inherently inconsistent with a valid chain of custody (as opposed to inconsistent with the Agreement) don't make sense to me.

[StillAWarrior]

I don't think the problem is how many people had keys, or how many there were.  In the basement of a house where people are in and out all weekend, there is a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with it.

Kids are interesting creatures and for all we do or do not know the son of the collector (who was present at the collection) could have had friends over for the night... or the day... who knows what went on.  There is reasonable doubt that the container was securely stored for those 44 hours while at his house... and that is all the arbitrator would need.

I've apparently not made my point very clear.  The Collector said that only two people were in the house that weekend:  him and his wife.  He's either telling the truth, or he's lying (or mistaken).  If the rule had been that it needed to be in a locked refrigerator with a single key, and he said he complied with that standard, he'd either be telling the truth or lying (or mistaken).  If the rule said the sample needed to be in a building with few keys controlled by a few people, and he said he complied with that standard, he'd either be telling the truth or lying (or mistaken). 

I don't think that any one of those standards is inherently more secure than the others, and all rely upon the honesty and integrity of the person safeguarding the sample.    And with respect to my comment about the number of keys, my point was only that access to his house may well have been more limited than to a building with a "few keys" controlled by a "few people."

[StillAWarrior]

I really need to let this go...

In the basement of a house where people are in and out all weekend...

I can't help but wonder what the heck is going on at your house...but it sounds like a good time.

...there is a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with it.

Just like there's a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with the sample at FedEx...or a building with a few keys controlled by a few people...etc.

Kids are interesting creatures and for all we do or do not know the son of the collector (who was present at the collection) could have had friends over for the night... or the day... who knows what went on.

I've assumed that the Collector's son was an adult, but might be wrong about that.  The Collector is 51 and has stated that he and his wife were the only ones in the house while the sample was there.

There is reasonable doubt that the container was securely stored for those 44 hours while at his house... and that is all the arbitrator would need.

I have no idea if this is true or not.  There apparently was proof that the agreed-upon procedures were not followed.  I'm not sure whether this necessarily means that there was doubt that the collection was securely stored.  That might be what the arbitrator says, and it might not.

Unless Braun presented evidence that cast doubt on the Collector's integrity (and I have absolutely no idea if he did that), it would not surprise me if the Arbitrator's decision focuses exclusively on the failure to follow the agreed-upon procedure (i.e., deliver immediately to FedEx) but specifically mentions that the collector followed procedures established by his employer that happened to be inconsistent with the MLB procedure.

I think that this Collector has gotten a really raw deal.  For the record, I also think Braun has gotten a raw deal because the original result never should have been leaked.  Braun just rubbed me the wrong way last week when he threw the Collector under the bus and suggested that the arbitrator's decision proved his innocence.

[Lennys Tap]

Is it possible that someone tampered with Ryan Braun's sample? Of course. Anything's possible. But highly, highly (I can't say highly enough) unlikely. Brewers fans twisting themselves into pretzels in order to believe in Braun's innocence are reminiscent of the jury nullification in the OJ case or Jim Carey really thinking he had a chance in Dumb and Dumber. I guess if you want to believe in something badly enough...

By the way, I am not a Cubs fan - they're my least favorite team. And I rather like both Braun and the Brew Crew. I just don't usually go for whatever conspiracy theory people are pushing.

[wadesworld]

I really need to let this go...

I can't help but wonder what the heck is going on at your house...but it sounds like a good time.

Just like there's a reasonable chance that a lot of people could come into some sort of contact with the sample at FedEx...or a building with a few keys controlled by a few people...etc.

I've assumed that the Collector's son was an adult, but might be wrong about that.  The Collector is 51 and has stated that he and his wife were the only ones in the house while the sample was there.


I have no idea if this is true or not.  There apparently was proof that the agreed-upon procedures were not followed.  I'm not sure whether this necessarily means that there was doubt that the collection was securely stored.  That might be what the arbitrator says, and it might not.

Unless Braun presented evidence that cast doubt on the Collector's integrity (and I have absolutely no idea if he did that), it would not surprise me if the Arbitrator's decision focuses exclusively on the failure to follow the agreed-upon procedure (i.e., deliver immediately to FedEx) but specifically mentions that the collector followed procedures established by his employer that happened to be inconsistent with the MLB procedure.

I think that this Collector has gotten a really raw deal.  For the record, I also think Braun has gotten a raw deal because the original result never should have been leaked.  Braun just rubbed me the wrong way last week when he threw the Collector under the bus and suggested that the arbitrator's decision proved his innocence.

Am I wrong in assuming that the samples would have been packaged before they were brought to the FedEx store for shipment?  Would counter workers have any reason to assume that there are pee samples in a package that would give him/her some reason to open the package?  Unless a collector fears that the workers at FedEx would rummage through every package that goes through the store, I don't understand how FedEx workers would know what they were handling contained specimen for a drug test, unless the collector whispered in his ear "This is a pee test of Ryan Braun's" or something, or unless he just walked in carrying an unpackaged pee sample and asked for a box to ship it in, which I find highly unlikely.

I guess I just really struggle to understand how FedEx workers would have any clue as to what was inside the package and doubt that they rummage through every package in case there is something interesting.  I would think the risk of tampering there would be less than the risk of sitting out on a desk in someone's basement over the course of a 44 hour period, even if it is a trained collector.

[Benny B]

Am I wrong in assuming that the samples would have been packaged before they were brought to the FedEx store for shipment?  Would counter workers have any reason to assume that there are pee samples in a package that would give him/her some reason to open the package?  Unless a collector fears that the workers at FedEx would rummage through every package that goes through the store, I don't understand how FedEx workers would know what they were handling contained specimen for a drug test, unless the collector whispered in his ear "This is a pee test of Ryan Braun's" or something, or unless he just walked in carrying an unpackaged pee sample and asked for a box to ship it in, which I find highly unlikely.

I guess I just really struggle to understand how FedEx workers would have any clue as to what was inside the package and doubt that they rummage through every package in case there is something interesting.  I would think the risk of tampering there would be less than the risk of sitting out on a desk in someone's basement over the course of a 44 hour period, even if it is a trained collector.

Bingo!  The "give it to FedEx right away" rule is in place not for purposes of expedited shipping, but for the simple purpose of getting it out of the hands of the only people who can identify the sample.  It floors me that an "experienced collector" didn't grasp this fundamental concept that should have been shoved down his throat on the first day of Pee In A Cup 101.

[StillAWarrior]

Bingo!  The "give it to FedEx right away" rule is in place not for purposes of expedited shipping, but for the simple purpose of getting it out of the hands of the only people who can identify the sample.  It floors me that an "experienced collector" didn't grasp this fundamental concept that should have been shoved down his throat on the first day of Pee In A Cup 101.

Except that his employer, an extremely respected testing lab, thought that it was preferable for the "experienced collector" to keep the sample at his house as compared to dropping it off at FedEx.

[StillAWarrior]

Am I wrong in assuming that the samples would have been packaged before they were brought to the FedEx store for shipment?  Would counter workers have any reason to assume that there are pee samples in a package that would give him/her some reason to open the package?  Unless a collector fears that the workers at FedEx would rummage through every package that goes through the store, I don't understand how FedEx workers would know what they were handling contained specimen for a drug test, unless the collector whispered in his ear "This is a pee test of Ryan Braun's" or something, or unless he just walked in carrying an unpackaged pee sample and asked for a box to ship it in, which I find highly unlikely.

I guess I just really struggle to understand how FedEx workers would have any clue as to what was inside the package and doubt that they rummage through every package in case there is something interesting.  I would think the risk of tampering there would be less than the risk of sitting out on a desk in someone's basement over the course of a 44 hour period, even if it is a trained collector.

I don't think there is any real risk of tampering at FedEx (although the paperwork did indicate that it was a urine sample).  I also don't think that there was any real risk of tampering at the Collector's house.  But, as I've said several times, the anonymity that would have come when the sample was dropped off was a good reason for that procedure.

[Benny B]

What would motivate someone to tamper with a drug test?  A Cubs' fan's hate for the Brewers?  Heck no.  An undetected tamper job could only be pulled off by a "professional" and those people are motivated by one thing -- cash.  So all this time, I've been asking myself, "who would stand to benefit financially from a tainted Ryan Braun drug test?"  And just now, it finally hit me:

Except that his employer, an extremely respected testing lab, thought that it was preferable for the "experienced collector" to keep the sample at his house as compared to dropping it off at FedEx.

His employer is CDT, but CDT only does the collecting; WADA does the testing.  While CDT does provide drug testing services, it's not a service they perform for MLB.

I'm not sure what CDT makes on the "collecting" contract for the JDPTP, but it's a pretty safe assumption that CDT would make a heck of a lot more if, say WADA screwed up the test on a high-profile sample and in the wake of the aftermath, MLB awarded both the "testing" and "collecting" contracts to CDT.

My question now is did CDT provide or have access to the sample containers before Braun's drug test.  CDT would have known in advance that Braun was being tested that day, and if they provided the vials to Laurenzi and if there's any truth to the speculation that the other two urine samples that day also had abnormalities, then I may have just established suspect and motive to "frame" Braun.  The sample may not have been tampered with... the sample container may have been tainted to begin with.

Of course, the twist in this story is that CDT wasn't expecting the chain of custody issues.  They wanted Braun to challenge the test results and expose WADA's process.  Instead, CDT's own employee's actions opened the door for Braun's team to challenge the test validity without ever having to argue the results.  So CDT may eventually be the one who gets their contract pulled.  Oh, the sweet irony.

I really need to stop watching Law and Order reruns.  But seriously, where did those sample containers come from, and is there enough here to fill a 60 minute timeslot?

[MUMac]

I have been reading this thread, without really commenting, but I want to say it has been fascinating to read.  A few comments, though.

• At this point, you cannot say Braun cheated.  You can believe he had, but definitively, no you cannot say so.
  
• I do not know if the collector was a Cubs fan, Brewers fan, Twins fan, White Sox fan, Yankees fan, fan of any team or not a fan at all.  That is irrelevant to the discussion.  The guy is a professional.  I do not agree with tearing someone's integrity apart based on their fandom.  Cheap shot, IMHO.
• I do not know if Braun got off on a technicality or not.  Some things that I need to know more before deciding.  This is the first time someone "beat the rap".  There has to be some facts to support that.  I would like to see MLB release the report - I doubt they will.
• Dan Patrick was pretty emphatic that Braun would win the case.  I am wondering if he knows more of the story.  I suspect their is more to the story.
• This has been a bizarre case from the beginning.  Results leaked, which dramatically changed the process.  MLB should be ashamed of much of this - it is their process they are the ones who need to accept the responsibility when it is leaked.
• Braun was adamant all along of his innocence.  Very emphatic denials.  Most in his position have not been as adamant of their innocence.  That may, though, be a result of the fact that most instances it is not known until after the arbitration.
• I hope Braun is innocent.  I don't know if he is or is not.  I would like to hear more of the reasons - factual, not message board fodder.  Sadly, I am guessing this will not happen.

[wadesworld]

The huge dip in Braun's production this year is far beyond the natural dip that would occur based solely on Prince Fielder no longer being behind him. It is clear now that Braun truly had been juicing. His career might as well be over now, he's been exposed without Prince and without 'roids...

[MerrittsMustache]

The huge dip in Braun's production this year is far beyond the natural dip that would occur based solely on Prince Fielder no longer being behind him. It is clear now that Braun truly had been juicing. His career might as well be over now, he's been exposed without Prince and without 'roids...

FACT: Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs. He's a cheater.

[forgetful]

FACT: Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs. He's a cheater.

Fact:  A sample reported to be Brauns that was mishandled be a courier tested positive for PEDs.

[wadesworld]

FACT: Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs. He's a cheater.

Haha. That's what you consider a fact? I hope you're not a lawyer.

[MerrittsMustache]

Fact:  A sample reported to be Brauns that was mishandled be a courier tested positive for PEDs.

Haha. That's what you consider a fact? I hope you're not a lawyer.

If I rob a bank and get arrested, but the case is thrown out in court because the cops didn't read me my Miranda rights, does that mean I didn't rob a bank? Believe whatever you want but getting off on a technicality doesn't make someone innocent.

[wadesworld]

If I rob a bank and get arrested, but the case is thrown out in court because the cops didn't read me my Miranda rights, does that mean I didn't rob a bank and should not be considered a criminal? Believe whatever you want but getting off on a technicality doesn't make someone innocent.

Were you in the hearings? Sitting in on the decision? I'd love to hear exactly what cases were made. Please enlighten me. The public knows roughly 1% of what was presented in the case. Don't pretend you know. You know as little as I know, and I know nothing other than I would LOVE to see the numbers Ryan Braun would put up on steroids. Aramis Ramirez and Corey Hart are the only 2 other healthy MLB worthy players in the lineup, and yet Braun continues to RAKE! He'd hit 95 home runs on steroids.

Gotta love Cubs fans who, thinking his numbers will drop big time without the protection of Prince Fielder behind him, play the "How he plays next year will determine whether or not people view him as a cheater" card, and then when the inevitable drop never happens, it's back to "I know all the FACTS (which Merritts clearly doesn't know the definition of that word...) in this case and Ryan Braun got off solely on a technicality. I watched the entire process. My eyes never left the cup that Braun peed into from the second it was made until it was found to be a positive drug test and no tampering occurred."

[Benny B]

If I rob a bank and get arrested, but the case is thrown out in court because the cops didn't read me my Miranda rights, does that mean I didn't rob a bank? Believe whatever you want but getting off on a technicality doesn't make someone innocent.

Bad example.  Miranda rights implies due process. In drug testing, there is no due process.

IOW, if you robbed the bank, it's not considered a "technicality" if the prosecutor can't identify who to charge.

[The Process]

The huge dip in Braun's production this year is far beyond the natural dip that would occur based solely on Prince Fielder no longer being behind him. It is clear now that Braun truly had been juicing. His career might as well be over now, he's been exposed without Prince and without 'roids...

Even Jayson Stark, from the people who hate Ryan Braun the most (ESPN), has observed that Braun's numbers haven't dropped off from last year, even without Fat Boy hitting behind him.

Interesting points in that article:

"I haven't seen anything about this guy change," one NL scout said. "I don't see any difference in his swing. I don't see any difference in the effort in his swing. I don't see any difference in his speed. I don't see any difference in his gait. I don't see any difference in his size. I saw him as a 20-year-old, as a 22-year-old and now. And I don't see anything different."

This isn't Barry Bonds, where his head became so big that they needed to borrow a helmet from the top of those work trucks and paint it in Giants colors.  This isn't Alex Sanchez, where taking PEDs was needed just to be a fringe MLB player.  Braun hasn't had the dropoff that was expected from people  who thought he either 1. was living off of Fat Boy hitting behind him and/or 2. got caught taking something.

Yes, Braun has a perception issue, courtesy of the d-bags at ESPN.  It's going to likely take years of Braun performing at the same high level he's been at thus far for his big league career and passing every drug test thrown his way in order to even come close to overcoming that.  Some people will think that he cheated regardless and that he's always a cheater.  To borrow from Bobby Brown, that's their prerogative:



But if Braun is able to continue to perform at this high of a level and test cleanly for the next, say, 8-10 years... I'd say he'd be able to overcome a lot of the naysayers.  Not all, mind you, but a lot of them.  Part of me - if for no other purpose than sheer entertainment - wishes Braun would grant ESPN one final interview with the OTL staff and Buster "Bitter that Kemp Didn't Win MVP" Olney with the following rules:  He gets to punch one of them in the head once, they're not allowed to protect themselves in any fashion, and they cannot retaliate against Braun in any way, shape, or form.  I hope he'd knock the chosen person clear into 2015.  Doc Brown doesn't need a DeLorean:  Ryan Braun's fists are just as effective.

[MerrittsMustache]

Were you in the hearings? Sitting in on the decision? I'd love to hear exactly what cases were made. Please enlighten me. The public knows roughly 1% of what was presented in the case. Don't pretend you know. You know as little as I know, and I know nothing other than I would LOVE to see the numbers Ryan Braun would put up on steroids. Aramis Ramirez and Corey Hart are the only 2 other healthy MLB worthy players in the lineup, and yet Braun continues to RAKE! He'd hit 95 home runs on steroids.

Gotta love Cubs fans who, thinking his numbers will drop big time without the protection of Prince Fielder behind him, play the "How he plays next year will determine whether or not people view him as a cheater" card, and then when the inevitable drop never happens, it's back to "I know all the FACTS (which Merritts clearly doesn't know the definition of that word...) in this case and Ryan Braun got off solely on a technicality. I watched the entire process. My eyes never left the cup that Braun peed into from the second it was made until it was found to be a positive drug test and no tampering occurred."

Braun peed in a cup. According to experts, that cup was not tampered with, was sent to the lab and tested positive for high levels of testosterone. However, the exact protocol wasn't followed so the test was thrown out. His urine still tested positive. Pull your head under your Ryan Braun blanket and pretend that's not how it happened if you'd like, but those are all facts.

You want my honest opinion? Braun is a punk but he's also one of the top 10 players in MLB, possibly top 5. I don't think he's a long-time PED-user nor do I think that his numbers are "steroid enhanced." What I do think is that, late last season, he wanted to come back sooner and as close to full-strength as possible for the playoffs when he had his ribcage issues so he took a banned substance to help aid in that process. Unfortunately for him, he got caught and because of that one lapse in judgment, he will forever be considered a cheater in my book and in the eyes of the commissioner's office.