BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Source says Braun’s test not for PED

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Source says Braun’s test not for PED

A source close to Braun, however, said Sunday that although the player tested positive for a prohibited substance, that substance was not a performance-enhancing drug.

The source described the test result as highly unusual, “never seen in the history of (baseball’s) drug-prevention program.”

“When it happened,” the source said, “everyone was just scratching their head.”

Another source, however, said the substance in question triggered a violation of baseball’s steroid-testing policy, even if it is not technically listed as a PED.

ESPN quoted sources who said Braun’s positive result was triggered by elevated levels of testosterone in his system. The testosterone was synthetic, not produced by Braun’s body, according to a later test. If a player exceeds a certain testosterone ratio during testing, he is deemed to have tested positive.

Thanks to Ed.

Repoz Posted: December 11, 2011 at 09:35 PM | 47 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: brewers, rumors, steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Esoteric Posted: December 11, 2011 at 09:49 PM (#4013512)

That's what Ryan gets for taking after the Babe and eating sheep's testicles as a natural performance-enhancer. Never again.

2. Gold Star for Robothal Posted: December 11, 2011 at 09:58 PM (#4013518)

He tested positive for heavy intake of goy pussay.

3. Dale Sams Posted: December 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM (#4013520)

"Let me tell you what really happened... Every night before I go to bed, I have milk and cookies. One night I mixed some low-fat milk and some pasteurized, then I dipped my cookie in and the #### blew up."

4. McCoy Posted: December 11, 2011 at 11:07 PM (#4013543)

The source described the test result as highly unusual, “never seen in the history of (baseball’s) drug-prevention program.”

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

5. Brian C Posted: December 11, 2011 at 11:44 PM (#4013564)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

That's not all that hard to believe, is it? We're constantly told that the dopers are a step ahead of the detection schemes, and it's certainly not impossible that Braun is on some sort of new regimen. That would also explain why he would be "dumb enough" to dope, if he was led to believe that whatever he was going was new and undetectable.

I mean, I'm not saying that's what happened, because obviously I don't know. But it doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

6. Tripon Posted: December 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM (#4013573)

Ryan Braun is pregnant. You heard it here first!

7. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2011 at 12:13 AM (#4013580)

Ryan Braun's testosterone levels during his failed drug test were "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken," a source told Teri Thompson of the New York Daily News.

Braun told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Saturday that he's "completely innocent" of the PED charge, claiming the test results were a false positive. Yahoo! Sports' Jeff Passan spoke to an expert that said false positives results are almost impossible using MLB's carbon-isotope-ratio test. Thompson's source, however, said Braun's case involves "highly unusual circumstances." Braun will probably enlist doctors and health experts in appealing his 50-game suspension, but players are 0-for-13 against Major League Baseball in PED test appeals. While his test results are highly unusual, enough so to potentially call into question the test results, Braun has very little chance of winning the appeal. Source: New York Daily News Dec. 11 - 5:32 pm et

8. Gotham Dave Posted: December 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM (#4013601)

Ryan Braun's testosterone levels during his failed drug test were "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken," a source told Teri Thompson of the New York Daily News.

If that's the case, and, as I had heard in the other thread, he shortly passed a requested second test, wouldn't that just suggest that somebody totally messed up the test?

9. Dale Sams Posted: December 12, 2011 at 12:41 AM (#4013604)

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Shouldn't that have been 'once you eliminate the possible'?

10. cardsfanboy

Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:02 AM (#4013621)

but players are 0-for-13 against Major League Baseball in PED test appeals.

Is this known to be true?

11. Morty Causa Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:12 AM (#4013634)

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)

12. Bob Tufts Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:19 AM (#4013642)

Only a physician would know if a number was "insanely high" with some degree of veracity.

Assuming that the source for Ms. Thompson's piece is a doctor and leaking results or information, are they in violation of federal HIPAA laws (or state laws which can be different)? Should they be allowed to keep their license and/or work with MLB? if the tests were done by the WADA labs in Montreal. does that change the legal background?

Or is this matter all high-test BS?

13. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:19 AM (#4013643)

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Shouldn't that have been 'once you eliminate the possible'?

No. The truth is obviously possible. So if you've eliminated the possible, you've eliminated the truth (amongst other things). Whatever remains is impossible.

A more accurate version of the famous quote would be "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains contains somewhere among it the truth."

14. bookbook Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:21 AM (#4013647)

As alluded to above, it's gotta be estrogen.

15. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:28 AM (#4013652)

So what "prohibited substance(s)" are not "performance-enhancing drug(s)"? Is the source suggesting that Braun popped positive for heroin?

16. Guapo Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:28 AM (#4013653)

Matt Wieters took a drug test and the testosterone levels were so high, the vial that he pissed into sprouted chest hair.

17. CFBF Hates Hyphens Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:32 AM (#4013657)

I can only assume Braun tested positive for matzo.

18. The DA Baracus Hypothesis Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:36 AM (#4013659)

Ryan Braun's testosterone levels during his failed drug test were "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken," a source told Teri Thompson of the New York Daily News.

Ryan Braun's new intro song.

19. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: December 12, 2011 at 01:46 AM (#4013661)

Ryan Braun's new intro song.

I don't know why, but now I have Billy Gunn's theme song stuck in my head.

20. Eugene Freedman

Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:04 AM (#4013667)

but players are 0-for-13 against Major League Baseball in PED test appeals.

Is this known to be true?

It's a strict liability standard. If MLB proves that the test was positive for a prohibited drug that's the whole case. There's no intent requirement. So, if a player can prove he took an adulterated sample of an over-the-counter GNC product and he can provide the bottle which can be cross checked, it doesn't matter. There are no affirmative defenses available. Positive test=penalty. There is no mitigation of penalty. It is a mandatory minimum and mandatory maximum.

There are very few criminal offenses that are strict liability. Almost all require a mental state (mens rea) in addition to the conduct (actus reus). The most common across all jurisdictions is statutory rape. If you have sexual intercourse with someone younger than the age of consent it doesn't matter if you made a mistake of fact and thought she was older or that she consented. There is no requirement for you to have desired to break the law or known about the law. Just breaking it is enough.

21. Dale Sams Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:11 AM (#4013671)

What if she lied or provided fake identification?

22. AJM Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:12 AM (#4013673)

If that's the case, and, as I had heard in the other thread, he shortly passed a requested second test, wouldn't that just suggest that somebody totally messed up the test?

That's what I thought when I read that.

23. Morty Causa Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:15 AM (#4013677)

Well, there's the insanity defense (I'm just crazy about that suff), but I don't know of a case where that was pleaded, much less it walked, in an actual case of s. rape.

However, I find it hard to believe that the Player's Union agreed to that with not provision for justification. After all, as has been mentioned before, here and elsewhere, steroids play, and will continue to play increasingly, a greater role in medicine. I could see where the burden would shift to player to show that he has a defense--but no defense or justification exception at all? Wow.

24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:16 AM (#4013678)

After all, as has been mentioned before, here and elsewhere, steroids play, and will continue to play increasingly, a greater role in medicine. I could see where the burden would shift to player to show that he has a defense--but no defense or justification exception at all? Wow.

If they are using banned substances for medical reasons, they are to notify the league at the time.

25. Morty Causa Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:19 AM (#4013679)

I guess it's like DUI--you can attack the breathalyzer or the administration of the test, but "my best friend just got married and this divine dude Jesus turned some water into some really nice squirt and I just had to try it" doesn't cut it.

26. Ron J Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:22 AM (#4013681)

Won't matter if it's not performance enhancing. I can think of a couple of people who have failed tests for what are logically performance inhibiting substances (usually cold medicines)

They're banned because they are potentially masking agents.

There's also one hockey player who tested positive for enhancing his hair growth. Propecia -- also banned as a masking agent.

27. Morty Causa Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:25 AM (#4013684)

If they are using banned substances for medical reasons, they are to notify the league at the time.

Yeah, true, but you know doctors do a lot of things and are often not specific about what it is they do or what's in the stuff you are to take--and that's not even considering that he often delegates all that to his assistants, staff, and technicians. Generally, when it comes to medicine, #### happens. A lot of what patients take are cocktails. Too, it's hard enough getting providers to even check to see if your insurance covers something--but, yeah, I guess you're right..

28. Morty Causa Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:26 AM (#4013685)

They're banned because they are potentially masking agents.

Yeah, I can see things can get really hairy.

29. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:40 AM (#4013691)

#20 - I think his point is that if someone successfully appealed a positive test, would we ever hear about it?

30. Ron J Posted: December 12, 2011 at 02:46 AM (#4013694)

#24 And I predict therapeutic use exemptions will get harder to get. Already happened in cycling (which is always the leading edge). In the Tour that Floyd Landis had his positive test, fully 40% of the field had some form of TUE. These days the field has mysteriously gotten healthier. Next to no exemptions.

Pressure from the sponsors drove this.

31. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: December 12, 2011 at 03:47 AM (#4013713)

Propecia -- also banned as a masking agent.

I guess this explains Dustin Pedroia's hair.

32. Eugene Freedman

Posted: December 12, 2011 at 03:50 AM (#4013715)

I represent safety employees subject to random testing with a lengthy list of disqualifying prescription and OTC meds. For the prescribed and OTC disqualifying meds the requirement is to notify the employer in advance of reporting to work about the meds and advising that the employee will be unable to perform duties. If it is a long-term medical condition leave is provided in advance. If it's a new prescription or an OTC cold medicine or a long-term prescription it still has to be disclosed both before the shift where leave is requested and on the annual medical disclosure form. It's the employee's responsibility to report the use of the potentially disqualifying meds. If they are told it is not disqualifying by the employer's medical office they may report to work. They all know if they take NyQuil or anything else report the use.

For a guy like Braun who knows he is tested randomly and that knows there is a lengthy list of banned substances why would you take anything without first clearing it with the league office, whether prescribed or from GNC. And, if it's prescribed why not have your doctor coordinate with the league's medical office.

33. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: December 12, 2011 at 04:12 AM (#4013725)

Ryan Braun is pregnant. You heard it here first!

Wouldn't be the first male athlete.

34. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2011 at 05:09 AM (#4013753)

I represent safety employees subject to random testing with a lengthy list of disqualifying prescription and OTC meds. For the prescribed and OTC disqualifying meds the requirement is to notify the employer in advance of reporting to work about the meds and advising that the employee will be unable to perform duties. If it is a long-term medical condition leave is provided in advance. If it's a new prescription or an OTC cold medicine or a long-term prescription it still has to be disclosed both before the shift where leave is requested and on the annual medical disclosure form. It's the employee's responsibility to report the use of the potentially disqualifying meds. If they are told it is not disqualifying by the employer's medical office they may report to work. They all know if they take NyQuil or anything else report the use.

I'm not any kind of libertarian and I understand safety issues, and this still sounds like life in hell.

35. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: December 12, 2011 at 05:26 AM (#4013762)

Wouldn't be the first male athlete.

Well, with steroids you lose a little juice and you gain a few eggs. Looks like a wash to me.

36. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 12, 2011 at 07:51 AM (#4013811)

The most common across all jurisdictions is statutory rape. If you have sexual intercourse with someone younger than the age of consent it doesn't matter if you made a mistake of fact and thought she was older or that she consented. There is no requirement for you to have desired to break the law or known about the law. Just breaking it is enough.

That's written a little ambiguously, but to be clear: while statutory rape is the canonical example of strict liability offense, it is not the case in all jurisdictions that it's strict liability. Only about half the states impose strict liability. Many allow for a defense of reasonable mistake. (Wisconsin, unfortunately for Luis Polonia, is not one of those.) Better example is traffic laws, virtually all of which are strict liability.

37. Zach Posted: December 12, 2011 at 04:48 PM (#4013909)

I'm not any kind of libertarian and I understand safety issues, and this still sounds like life in hell.

In practice, it sounds like telling your supervisor if you're taking any drugs.

Honestly, if I were working in a machine shop, say, I'd prefer the bright line standard. Lack of ambiguity reduces the number of ways you can be pressured to work impaired.

38. Bob Tufts Posted: December 12, 2011 at 04:59 PM (#4013924)

What does public disclosure of positive drug tests (especially if they lead to seeking treatment in an EAP program), do to the ability/desire of a person to get the care they need?

39. Charles S., consistent since he changed his mind Posted: December 12, 2011 at 05:03 PM (#4013929)

players are 0-for-13 against Major League Baseball in PED test appeals

Good news for Braun, the players are due.

40. Fred Garvin still has outstanding warrants Posted: December 12, 2011 at 05:59 PM (#4014009)

If MLB proves that the test was positive for a prohibited drug that's the whole case. There's no intent requirement

While that's mainly true, it is my understanding that it isn't entirely accurate. If the player can show that the test was the result of taking something he had no rational reason to believe could've caused the positive, he's not liable.

Thus, taking a supplement that contains an unlisted ingredient that results in a positive test is *not* an excuse (because it isn't completely irrational to think that a supplement could contain something). OTOH, if it comes from something like an apple that was tainted, that could be a defense.

41. Don't want the truth; just wanna see some dingers Posted: December 12, 2011 at 06:31 PM (#4014046)

Ryan Braun's testosterone levels during his failed drug test were "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken,"

Quien es mas macho?

42. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: December 12, 2011 at 06:39 PM (#4014056)

Quien es mas macho?

Fernando Lamas finally topped.

43. 'Spos Posted: December 12, 2011 at 06:55 PM (#4014068)

Quien es mas macho?

Braun or schoolbus?

44. chris h. is a member of Team Keefe! Posted: December 12, 2011 at 06:59 PM (#4014073)

Ricardo Montalbán.

45. The District Attorney Posted: December 12, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#4014078)

Braun tested positive for rich Corinthian leather.

46. chris h. is a member of Team Keefe! Posted: December 12, 2011 at 07:07 PM (#4014086)

Smiles, everyone, smiles!

47. MM1f Posted: December 12, 2011 at 07:33 PM (#4014122)

Assuming that the source for Ms. Thompson's piece is a doctor and leaking results or information, are they in violation of federal HIPAA laws (or state laws which can be different)? Should they be allowed to keep their license and/or work with MLB? if the tests were done by the WADA labs in Montreal. does that change the legal background?

Are the people running the tests necessarily medical doctors? Plenty of people with various non-MD science degrees do testing lab work.

Further, the samples are tested at the WADA lab in Montreal. So, if the leak did come from the lab, US law doesn't apply. The leak could have come from a MLB doctor here in the US though.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Source says Braun’s test not for PED

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics