Supplements are considered 'food' and are not regulated by the FDA.

I know this statement to be factual and true.

I also find it quite funny that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate 'food'.

No tread-jack intended; no further comment needed. Just wanted to say that the above brought a smile to my face.

DB

Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter whether the prescribing doctor can answer if medication will cause a positive test or not. MLB has a separate hotline that players can call and ask whether or not a medication requires a TUE or not in 2 mins. The team has an entire medical staff whom he can run this question by. If you can't be assed to find out you are negligent.

And why people are arguing with SBB is beyond me. You can't reason somebody out of a position, he didn't reason himself in to. Might as well try and convince a Birther.

And since (a) almost any ballpark is near a major airport, and (b) FedEx has 24-hour locations at most major airports, it would be unusual indeed if the collector couldn't ship it via FedEx that day. If there's a hurricane that shuts down the roads or airport, I guess the best he can do is keep chain of custody intact and store it in his basement.

It's not just a matter of shipping. Somebody has to be on the receiving end to sign for it and store it properly until testing can occur. I've done my fair share of shipping biological materials that have a quality agreement concerning conditions and chain of custody and I never ship on a Friday afternoon, because I've had the sorry experience of the courier arriving at the destination and having nobody there to receive it, so they leave it on the doorstep and it sits there until Monday morning. In that context, I suppose the courier did the next best thing, which was to hang onto it until such time it was reasonable to ship.

What I'm having trouble with is the decision of the arbiter. It appears the courier did not violate any chain of custody rules. It's also hard to imagine the courier himself tainting the samples. He received them sealed and blinded, and he would have had to go through a lot of trouble to spike them. And what motive would he have? If he got caught doing that, he would have gotten fired immediately, possibly sued as well. And unless he had a personal vendetta against Braun, why would he risk that? And how could he have known which of the samples were Braun's, since the samples had been blinded?

Finally, the point of why MLB didn't take Braun up on his offer to have the samples DNA-typed was raised. If I had to guess, MLB didn't consent to that because in doing so, it would have suggested that MLB might have had their own doubts to the integrity of the samples. Their position all along is they have no doubt as to the origin of the samples, and so DNA testing isn't necessary. And anyway, Braun never objected to the test result on the grounds his samples were mixed up with someone else's. In doing that, he would be, in effect, making the claim that one of his colleagues was positive instead of him.

Braun is badly overplaying his hand here. This guy could end up suing him, and in doing so might bring a wider investigation upon Braun.

I also find it quite funny that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate 'food'.

You know what they do regulate? Blood. Because during a blood transfusion, blood enters the body, so it's a drug. So the Food and Drug Administration regulates the blood donation process. Makes perfect sense.

I also find it quite funny that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate 'food'.

Yes they do:


The New FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)

The FDA does regulate food. It doesn't regulate "meats" mostly, except for game. The USDA does meats, for the most part. And, of course, state agencies.

EDIT: Oops, too late.

What FDA does regulate?

See link at bottom of page for what it doesn't regulate.

#195 The thing is that even a reasonable professional athlete or doctor might not have known about the issues relating to Andro in supplements. Yeah, I see the other side of the argument. You knew about. I knew about it and both of us have a lot less reason to care than a professional athlete (or his doctor)

We're not talking about a high school student. We're talking about a professional athlete who has (a) an agent, (b) a union, (c) a team with coaches, managers, trainers, and doctors, and (d) personal doctors (*). That problem has been well-publicized among them, if not to the general public.



EDIT: (*) Which is why Sugarbear's claim is so silly. These aren't people strolling into a free clinic somewhere and getting whatever person happens to be on duty. They have regular doctors who know their issues.

We're not talking about a high school student. We're talking about a professional athlete who has (a) an agent, (b) a union, (c) a team with coaches, managers, trainers, and doctors, and (d) personal doctors (*). That problem has been well-publicized among them, if not to the general public.



EDIT: (*) Which is why Sugarbear's claim is so silly. These aren't people strolling into a free clinic somewhere and getting whatever person happens to be on duty. They have regular doctors who know their issues.

Right. And because they have that support system, they're expected to use it. And if they don't, and accidentally ingest some bad stuff, they're negligent.

It's not just a matter of shipping. Somebody has to be on the receiving end to sign for it and store it properly until testing can occur. I've done my fair share of shipping biological materials that have a quality agreement concerning conditions and chain of custody and I never ship on a Friday afternoon, because I've had the sorry experience of the courier arriving at the destination and having nobody there to receive it, so they leave it on the doorstep and it sits there until Monday morning. In that context, I suppose the courier did the next best thing, which was to hang onto it until such time it was reasonable to ship.

Eh? FedEx does not deliver at 3:00 a.m.; it delivers during business hours. Why would someone not be there to receive it?

(Given that the protocol expressly instructs the collector to ship for Saturday delivery, one assumes that CDT has someone there on Saturday, too. In any case, that wouldn't apply here, since the specimen was collected on Saturday, not Friday.)

Why would someone not be there to receive it?

If it was being shipped on Friday afternoon, the receiving facility might not be open on the weekend.

The game started at 1:07 local time and lasted until 3:51... I don't think there was ever much of a chance of collecting three players' samples and getting them to a Fed Ex by 5.

How about before the game? That seems like a pretty reasonable way to avoid this problem.

#197 But supplements aren't medications, or at least I've never thought of them that way (and I don't think I'm unusual in that respect). And the notion that they could be unlabeled and still have something in them that could cause a positive test is surprising to most people. I know that when ~20% of supplements that were tested turned out to have Andro in them everybody was really surprised.

The high number might ave been surprising, butnot the fact that it happens. Doesn't the MLBPA/individual team have annual meetings and lectures with players explaining this kind of stuff? I seem to remember the NFL and NBA doing so (including other topics like "how not to get defrauded by crooked accountants").

If Braun goes to a herpes doctor for diabetes, the herpes doctor says "Go to someone who knows about diabetes." Maybe in 1897, he didn't but in 2012, he does. Doctors in 2012 are specialists. Herpes doctors treat herpes; they don't spend their time in the stacks looking at a bunch of legal hoo-hoo on piss test procedure and they don't "research" ailments outside their specialty.

There are specialists, but not to this degree. There's no such thing as a "herpes doctor." I don't even think there's anything herpes-related that is more specialized than internal medicine; it's not an especially complex or fatal disease to manage like cancer or emphysema.

I suppose you could go to an endocrinologist for diabetes, but it's not like the internist is ignorant of any systemic condition.

How about before the game? That seems like a pretty reasonable way to avoid this problem.

Not if Braun, knowing he had just gassed up, told him he couldn't get anything out, so he'll take care of it after the game. (A situation spelled out in the agreement)

I don't even think there's anything herpes-related that is more specialized than internal medicine; it's not an especially complex or fatal disease to manage like cancer or emphysema.

Most internists can handle herpes, but infectious disease doctors can probably count as herpes specialists. Then again they're specialists for all infections.

There are specialists, but not to this degree.

Of course, but even if there were, SBB's argument wouldn't make sense. The hypothetical patient's question wasn't about diabetes. It was about the intersection of herpes and diabetes. If SBB were correct and the herpes doctor (*) said, "I don't know anything about diabetes; go ask your diabetes doctor," then the diabetes doctor would turn around and say, "I don't know anything about herpes; go ask your herpes doctor."

In real life, of course, the answer is that the doctor would have to research the question -- whether by consulting with a different specialist or doing some reading. He couldn't simply throw up his hands and say, "I don't know."


(*) Which would be a job title that would totally belong on a business card.

The high number might ave been surprising, butnot the fact that it happens. Doesn't the MLBPA/individual team have annual meetings and lectures with players explaining this kind of stuff? I seem to remember the NFL and NBA doing so (including other topics like "how not to get defrauded by crooked accountants").

Yes, absolutely. And "stay away from gamblers," etc. Teams don't want their players getting suspended for gambling or drug use or other.

It's plausible that, before MLB had a PED policy, players were unaware that they needed to watch what they put into their bodies because of the risk it would trigger a positive result. It's not plausible that players are unaware of the risk now, given that I've known about the issue since at least the steroid controversy began. Players aren't in a bubble. They have advisors from teams and the MLBPA and their own agents, and they talk to each other. Now, if you tell me that some high school baseball prospect still doesn't realize this, I can accept that. But not someone who has already reached the majors.

I suppose you could go to an endocrinologist for diabetes, but it's not like the internist is ignorant of any systemic condition.

Not really a "suppose" about it in this case, you damn well should. Diabetes ain't no herpes. (That being said, I mean Type I. I don't know much about Type II and who treats it, but as it's so common these days, I can see it being handled more by a general internist.)

@220: that's what she said.

Lassus, I've been slow on the uptake but I'm realizing that Santorum doesn't have the political chops to take the nomination. Michigan was his for the taking, which would have put him in excellent shape to win much of Super Tuesday, and instead he had to go on and on about contraception. It's one thing to have convictions (no matter how antiquated). It's another to lack the self-control to speak to the constituency in front of you in a way that addresses their concerns and needs. Santorum can't stay focused.

Something Other, please don't hijack this thread.

What I'm having trouble with is the decision of the arbiter. It appears the courier did not violate any chain of custody rules.

We'll have to await Das's written opinion for this, but the issue is whether the sample was collected and analyzed in accordance with the process specified in the Basic Agreement. That process is what MLB and the MLBPA agreed to follow, to protect the player's legitimate rights to a fairly conducted test - and if what CDT actually does is materially different from what the Basic Agreement requires, in a way that opens the possibility (as remote as that possibility might be) that the player's legitimate rights under the Basic Agreement are violated, then the arbitrator has to find for the player - regardless of whether or not the courier followed CDT's process to the letter.

-- MWE

Das's opinion will likely be well-reasoned and persuasive. The CDT process the handler went with wound up not giving the player the rights he possesses under the CBA regarding test handling. I don't think Das absolutely, positively *had* to rule that way, but it's the right ruling.

We'll have to await Das's written opinion for this, but the issue is whether the sample was collected and analyzed in accordance with the process specified in the Basic Agreement.

I haven't seen the Basic Agreement. Is there anything in there that states the sample must be shipped immediately, or otherwise indicates the courier stepped outside its requirements?

Is there anything in there that states the sample must be shipped immediately

The CBA provision on shipment uses "should" where you'd expect a "must" or a "shall."

If it says that, there was no violation of the BA then. The courier acted properly.

How many positive tests have been handled in the same manner? I'd bet a lot of money it's more than zero.

Cubs trust Larenzi

Hilarious.

Cubs trust Larenzi

Hilarious.

The official Garcon de Piss of your 2012 Chicago Cubs!

The official Garcon de Piss of your 2012 Chicago Cubs!

"It's good to be the king"

#227 Are you talking MLB or drug testing as a whole? The state of affairs in the NCAA or the Olympics almost certainly wouldn't matter to the arbitrator. Nor would he care about how minor league tests have been handled. But yeah, it's moderately likely that there have been some positive tests by other sanctioning organizations that have been handled this way.

For major leaguers -- well there haven't been all that many positive tests and you need some pretty specific timing (both as to day of week and time of day) to trigger this particular problem. I'd bet against it ever having happened before in MLB.

Quoting:

NEW YORK -- Ryan Braun's lawyer criticized the lengthy statement from the person who collected the slugger's drug sample, saying Thursday the NL MVP "was properly vindicated."

"Ryan Braun presented a winning defense in the forum that counted," attorney David Cornwell said in a statement. "The landmark decision in Ryan's favor was based on the evidence and the plain meaning of the words in baseball's joint drug program. The collector's attempt to re-litigate his conduct is inappropriate, and his efforts will only be persuasive to those who do not understand the evidence or the rules.

...

Amid reports that some players are upset that Braun's suspension was overturned because of an alleged procedural error, Players Association officials continued their tour of spring training camps in Arizona on Thursday.

"Ryan Braun was properly vindicated. Both Major League Baseball and Major League Baseball Players Association should be applauded because their joint program worked."

Cornwell can't have thought the public verdict would be "innocent," rather than "exonerated." I'd counsel him to just leave it alone and let it pass.

I'd counsel him to just leave it alone and let it pass.

No BS. Talk about overplaying your hand.

the only way braun could ever have been declared "innocent" by the public is if the DNA test had proved it wasn't his

there isn't really much he COULD have said which would have meant much of anything to anyone and agree that he should have said something about the system working and then STFU

- interesting about that deodorant like roll on testosterone - these days it would be easy to spike someone's stuff...

by the way, does anyone know if braun's testosterone LEVEL was high or just the TE ratio?

221. RayDiPerna<="" a=""> Posted: March 02, 2012 at 07:48 AM (#4072582)
Something Other, please don't hijack this thread.

Go fish, my friend. :)

My opinion on "hijacking" is that if there's a call for it, then it's not really hijacking, it's meeting a need. The market, if you will, is changing to satisfy pent-up demand.

If the bulk of people want to stay on topic, then the thread will stay on topic. No one other than myself seems interested, in this already necessarily politically-charged thread--in talking about the Republican nomination process. That's fine. Note, please, that I was and am content to leave it alone when neither Lassus nor anyone else responded; nor did I pick a thread given over to more purely on field matters. (I've also noticed I've gotten a hell of a lot of good work done since the demise of the Castro thread.)

I have noticed that their being multiple subjects in a thread usually isn't the problem, any more than you and I talking politics at one end of the rail in our neighborhood bar keeps other folks at the other end from talking about baseball. More often it's the virulent and unpleasant objections to the introduction of a new subject and the counters to those objections that generates yet more off-topic commentary that sends a thread off the rails.

Unless you were being facetious, of course.

- interesting about that deodorant like roll on testosterone - these days it would be easy to spike someone's stuff...

bbc, this kind of thing is precisely why very, very strict precautions wrt testing need to be taken, including transparent, verifiable chain of custody rules.

Even when there's no sabotage involved, a test that gives a false positive can cost a player tens of millions of dollars. Testing whenever possible should be conducted in such a way that yields red flags for oddball test results such as results that suggest monkey business might have occurred.

No one other than myself seems interested, in this already necessarily politically-charged thread--in talking about the Republican nomination process. That's fine. ... (I've also noticed I've gotten a hell of a lot of good work done since the demise of the Castro thread.)

I'm sure there are plenty of people interested, but there's no current place for such discussion, and highjacking existing threads is bad form. (As I recall, the Luke Scott and Starlin Castro threads morphed into political threads over time.)

It seems like a single "OT: Politics" or "OT: 2012 Election" thread would solve this problem, but perhaps the Castro thread was the demise of political discussion here.

Not sure how that Castro thread was not supposed to turn into politics. It's not like we were discussing his OPS+.

I'm sure there are plenty of people interested, but there's no current place for such discussion, and highjacking existing threads is bad form.

Existing threads get "hijacked" every day into a gazillion different directions. They only stay hijacked if there's enough interest, and otherwise they don't. It's not all that complicated, and political hijackings constitute a tiny percentage of the diverted threads. Not everyone is thrilled with some of those other hijackings, either, but WRT the non-political heists there's much more of a live and let live attitude.

It seems like a single "OT: Politics" or "OT: 2012 Election" thread would solve this problem, but perhaps the Castro thread was the demise of political discussion here.

I doubt that. There've been plenty of other lulls in the topic, but it won't last forever in an election year, and not as long as Repoz is doing his thing.

I doubt that. There've been plenty of other lulls in the topic, but it won't last forever in an election year, and not as long as Repoz is doing his thing.

Sure, but the site doesn't wait for a Bo Jackson thread to morph into the de facto 2012 NFL thread, or a Michael Jordan/White Sox thread to morph into the 2012 NBA thread. The sidebar is chock full of "OT: ____" threads; seems simpler to just have one more for politics and be done with it. (And as much as the Castro thread was great, "Starlin Castro accused of sexual assault" probably wasn't anyone's preferred home for a 7,000-comment political discussion.)

(And as much as the Castro thread was great, "Starlin Castor accused of sexual assault" probably wasn't anyone's preferred home for a 7,000-comment political discussion.)

Imagine how poor Starlin's PR agent felt.


I think hijacking threads is poor form, although hijacking a thread where SBB is senselessly repeating the same thing over and over can be regarded as a public service.

What I'm having trouble with is the decision of the arbiter. It appears the courier did not violate any chain of custody rules. It's also hard to imagine the courier himself tainting the samples. He received them sealed and blinded, and he would have had to go through a lot of trouble to spike them. And what motive would he have? If he got caught doing that, he would have gotten fired immediately, possibly sued as well.

Isn't it Braun's right to argue the letter of law? That the collector did not drop off the samples as soon as possible?

The sidebar is chock full of "OT: ____" threads; seems simpler to just have one more for politics and be done with it.

Perhaps so, but then you'd have to pull the leash on Repoz. Many or most of those threads that become political begin with articles or commentaries posted by Repoz that are inherently political to begin with. When did he last post anything about Luke Scott or John Rocker or Curt Schilling or Pete Rose that had anything to do with their baseball prowess?**

Of course if by "political" you just mean Obama vs. Whoever in an election year, then yes, it's a little easier to confine it to one designated thread. But what happens when a thread starts with a ballplayer's desire to play for team X because of the city and then spins off from there into comments about the city's best eateries or a hundred other things? The point is that unless a topic is both narrowly focused and / or attracts a lot of interest by itself, it's either going to die on its own or get spun off in a different direction. I honestly don't see how that sort of natural evolution can be prevented by some arbitrary administrative rule.

**Schilling's or Rose's names will come up in HoF or HoM discussions, but those are usually begun by others.

I honestly don't see how that sort of natural evolution can be prevented by some arbitrary administrative rule.

It probably can't, but a dedicated "OT: ___" thread at least would act as a catch-all and reduce the temptation to hijack other threads. Either way, for all the red meat Repoz posts, I can only recall two threads turning into long political threads here in the past year (Luke Scott and then Starlin Castro).

What does "tainted" mean there -- that's the key. If Romero's case was:

(1) I bought the product;
(2) I compared the ingredients with the prohibited substance list and none of them were on there;
(3) I had it tested at the lab and there's a prohibited substance in it; and
(4) The prohibited substance isn't on the ingredient list

... then he obviously should have won.

To play devil's advocate, the problem with that decision would be that it opens a huge, Barry Bonds's head-sized loophole in the rules. Because so many of those products are tainted, all a player has to do is find one that's tainted with the particular PED he wants to use and keep an open jar of it around the house to magically produce when he tests positive. Even though Romero was probably completely innocent, ruling in his favor on that basis would potentially break the entire testing system.

Instead, baseball just makes sure to inform all its players that a non-negligible proportion of supplements are tainted with PEDs not named on the label, creating a situation in which any player unknowingly using a tainted supplement is by default negligent for not having it checked out.

by the way, does anyone know if braun's testosterone LEVEL was high or just the TE ratio?

The t/e test is just a screening process, so that they don't have to perform the far more expensive CRI test on each and every sample. The CRI test identified the presence of synthetic testosterone in both the A and B samples.

Isn't it Braun's right to argue the letter of law?

Sure it is. But it isn't his right to have the arbiter decide in his favor.

I guess we'll have to wait for the written explanation to get clarity.

246. Fancy Pants Too Hot To Handle Posted: March 03, 2012 at 05:02 AM (#4073220)
by the way, does anyone know if braun's testosterone LEVEL was high or just the TE ratio?


The t/e test is just a screening process, so that they don't have to perform the far more expensive CRI test on each and every sample. The CRI test identified the presence of synthetic testosterone in both the A and B samples.

- i'm not understanding this, sorry

do you mean they don't even check to see if the testosterone level is in the normal range at all? looking at lab values on line normal for adult male is 270 to 800 (to 1050 depending on a couple of different sources)

so what if his actual level is like 300?

how do they know that he just doesn't have the same amount of carbon 13 in all his other steroid hormones or even the cholesterol that the testosterone gets made out of? what if he used progesterone cream which is not banned which you make testosterone out of?

why can they assume that he can only have a certain amount of carbon 12?

could he defend himself by showing that all his other sex hormones have the same carbon ratios?

how do they know that he just doesn't have the same amount of carbon 13 in all his other steroid hormones or even the cholesterol that the testosterone gets made out of? what if he used progesterone cream which is not banned which you make testosterone out of?

They actually do a comparison to an endogenous substance, and it's usually cholesterol for exactly the reason you state -- testosterone is synthesized from cholesterol in the body. So if someone somehow had an unusual carbon isotope ratio in all of their steroid hormones, they would not flunk the test.

It probably can't, but a dedicated "OT: ___" thread at least would act as a catch-all and reduce the temptation to hijack other threads. Either way, for all the red meat Repoz posts, I can only recall two threads turning into long political threads here in the past year (Luke Scott and then Starlin Castro).

Joe, please stop hijacking the hijack. This thread has averaged two posts an hour since it was started, and given the civil liberties context of the linked article it's about as far from a "straight" baseball thread as you'll find here. Thi

And, Andy's right.

And, unless people ##### about it and derail the "hijack" (which was simply an attempt to see if there was any interest in some pleasant political discussion, given the wealth of fascinating issues presently out there), all it would have resulted in was some people talking about the Braun issue, some people talking politics, and some overlap wrt things like the Virginia legislature's attempt to force women to submit to a certain kind of testing and the Republican contenders attitudes towards that. By far the most distracting thing is the people who get all self-righteous about an attempt to introduce other, related subjects. It's no different than Joe getting on his high horse at his end of the bar in order to shout, 'hey, we're talking about Ryan Braun over here.'

I'm particularly enjoying the fact that Joe had not posted at all in this thread until he showed up to complain.

(which was simply an attempt to see if there was any interest in some pleasant political discussion,

Tee. Hee.

#245 Basically ruling in Romero's favor would have licensed the use of Nandrolone. It's easy enough to find supplements that contain Andro (without being labeled as containing Andro). Andro yields false positives for Nandrolone.

Joe, please stop hijacking the hijack. ...

I guess there's no winning with you. I commented in #238 specifically to offer my support for the idea that people would like a place to talk about politics without needing to hijack an existing thread.

I'm particularly enjoying the fact that Joe had not posted at all in this thread until he showed up to complain.

LOL. Since when is every reader of a thread obligated to comment therein?

I've never used the "Ignore" feature on this site or any other, but I'm starting to understand its appeal.

It's kind of funny- Ray's admonishment of SO to not hijack the thread accomplished that very thing.

[252] Doesn't MLB have a list of approved supplements now? I assume that a player who showed that one of those was tainted would win an appeal, and while it certainly would create a lot of FUD about the testing program, it would not have the effect of permanently legalizing the contaminant or its derivatives.

#255 The last time I heard anything about this, MLB wouldn't do anything of the sort. The experience tennis had with the supplements they provided (quite a few positive tests for Nandrolone -- all traced back to supplements distributed by the sanctioning body) has almost certainly made any sanctioning body leery of getting involved with the whole supplement racket.

The PA has compiled a list of supplements to avoid, and they do work with MLB on this. Probably the best that can be done.

Thanks, Ron.

Jeez, Joe. Is it ever possible to kid you at all?

No.



Joke aside, I'm usually good at reading sarcasm. Perhaps I missed it in #250.