THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Didn’t you mentioned that the false positive rate was something like 10%? With 1200 players, that’s about 3600 tests a year. Assume everyone is clean. That means about 360 false positives, and if you take 2 samples, that 36 guys per year who are falsely accused. Let’s get that down 3 samples and you are still down to 3.6 players. To make it work, you need like a 1% false positive rate and split everything into 2 samples.

It looks like Braun’s statement was that he had passed at least 25 tests in his career, which sounds like it could include his time in the minors.  If Braun is including tests he took during his two years in the minors, 25 doesn’t seem out of the ordinary.

And if a player is trying to make a point about how many rests he has passed, isn’t he likely to exaggerate the number?

As per the Toronto Star, Bautista claimed he was tested 16 times in a two year period.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/bluejays/article/1121716--random-testing-blue-jays-slugger-jose-bautista-given-16-drug-tests-over-two-seasons

pm: I have never talked about the rate of false positives.

I think I wrote this before, but, we should believe a player when he says that he was tested X times, why?

If a player said that he was tested “a million times” are we to take that literally as well?

Anyway, back to the Braun successful appeal…

In case you have not read the news so far, he apparently won his appeal because the arbitrator decided that the chain of custody rules were not followed properly.

Here are my comments:

I think that MLB’s statement was disgusting.  First, aren’t Braun and MLB “on the same team?”

Second, what are they 10 year-old sore losers? Braun won his appeal fair and square and probably for good reason. It had (almost) nothing to do with his actual guilt or not, but so what?

Chain of custody rules are in place NOT because when they are typically broken it significantly affects the chances that a player is guilty or that the results will get tainted.  They are in place so that an egregious or intentional breach that WOULD affect a result does not occur.

It is like when the police illegally break into a person’s house without a warrant and find all kinds of contraband.  Just because they broke into the house unlawfully. that does not mean that they guy isn’t guilty.  But the judge throws out the arrest because if he didn’t police would ignore the Constitution and break into people’s houses all the time.

It is the exact same thing with this. If the arbitrator let’s the ban stand regardless of the chain of custody issue, because he doesn’t think that it affected Braun’s innocence or guilt (which it likely didn’t), then that would open the door to the chain of custody rules being broken all the time and more egregiously and it would open the door to someone tampering with someone’s sample.

Now, maybe it was not real clear whether the chain of custody rules were actually broken in this case.  Ok.  Well, unless this arbitrator is a complete idiot, which I doubt is the case, there must have been some legitimate reason to think that they were.

MLB simply should have said either that while they were sorry about the outcome, they were glad that the rules THAT THEY SET UP OR AGREED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE were adhered to, or they should have said that they disagreed with the arbitrator’s interpretation of the “chain of custody” rules but they respect his decision. As I said, their reaction was mind-boggling to me. Then again, more than half the things that come out of people’s mouths and brains are mind-boggling to me as well.

As far as Braun’s statement, it is equally ridiculous and I think he should be called out on it. Of course he is going on about how he was vindicated, etc. What exactly is his definition of vindicated? While I think the decision may have been proper, at the same time, it had NOTHING to do with whether he was guilty or not!

This would be exactly the same thing as if the guy in the house were to say, when the judge threw out his arrest because the police unlawfully entered and searched his house and found loads of drugs and illegal weapons, “I am glad that I was vindicated. I said all along that I was innocent of these charges!”

Bautista has said since, that he threw out the number 16 when asked by someone and did not realize it would be reported.  The number was an off-the-top-of-the-head guess.  He has since said that he’s been tested more than the 3/season. 

With respect to the number of test administered, summarizing from the MLB Joint Drug Prevention And Treatment Program (http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf):

- players are tested within 5 days of reporting to spring training
- every player is tested once during the season.
- 1200 additional tests will be conducted on randomly chosen players
- Reasonable Cause testing:  Additional tests can be conducted under this clause, but it seems to be related to some form of evidence of substance abuse - my reading doesn’t suggest that “Bautista’s HR rate has gone up five-fold.  We better test him” would be allowed under this clause.

Based on MLB’s testing programme, it seems doubtful that Bautista has been tested that many times.

Here’s a good article on the Braun decision and case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/sports/baseball/braun-wins-appeal-on-positive-drug-test-and-will-avoid-suspension.html

Two thumbs up for MGL’s comment.

1200 tests distributed randomly among 1200 players?

If player A is the first person tested, then there are 1199 tests left to distribute among 1200 players.

The probability that A is chosen again (4 tests per season)? 
1-(1199/1200)^1199
or 63%.

The probability that A is chosen twice more(5 tests per season)?
1-((1199/1200)^1198*1/1200*1200+(1199/1200)^1199)
or 26%.

It’s very likely that many ballplayers have 5 or more tests in a single season.

Yes, in a single season, not each season for 5 seasons. 

I also doubt that they are completely random as 1200 independent trials.  Presumably, they will administer a set of 50 or 100 tests at a time.  So, every two weeks say, 100 players are tested. 

Otherwise, if it was 1200 independent tests spread over 365 days, a guy could potentially get tested multiple times on the same day.

Logistically, I’ll bet there are 12 chances for a player to get chosen, and he has a 100/1200 chance of getting chosen each time.  So, the chance of not being chosen would be 1100/1200 to the power of 12, or 65% chance that he won’t be selected at all (beyond the mandatory 2).

More B.S. from people in the Times article:

In a 2-1 vote, the panel that heard Braun’s appeal agreed that valid questions had been raised about the manner in which the test sample was handled.

No. One member of the panel is Manfred from MLB.  Another member is Weiner from the Players Association. Their “votes” are obvious no matter what the circumstances. This is the NY freakin’ Times. How about you explain that the ONLY vote that is actually a “vote” is the 3rd guy, the arbitrator (and who came up with the idea of this “3” person panel?).

Major League Baseball argued that there was no evidence that the sealed test had been tampered with, and it said that the collector had followed established protocol in storing the sample until a drop-off center was open.

The first part of that sentence is irrelevant. Why would they even be allowed to argue that? Unless the rule states that, “The protocol must be followed unless you can prove that not following the protocol would not have likely changed the results.” I highly doubt that the rules state that.

The second part may or may not be true.  First of all, I have read that the collector THOUGHT that FedEx was closed, but it was open (on a Saturday night). If that is the case, then MLB is being dishonest in arguing that “protocol was followed.” No, actually they are lying. Unless “unusual circumstances” includes the collector being a f*** up.

If no Fedex was open until Monday, does that constitute “unusual circumstances?” I have no idea. Perhaps MLB could have put more detail into the rules. Sort of like when a team trades a GM for a player and they both agree that they will agree to that player AFTER the trade is done. The lawyers who drafted that contract should be fired (and disbarred).

The ruling was a blow to Major League Baseball and Commissioner Bud Selig, who has repeatedly said that his sport now has a comprehensive testing system second to none and that it has fully addressed a drug problem that has plagued it for more than a decade.

Are you freaking kidding me?  This is a “blow” to MLB? Because one guy (the collector) may have screwed up and not followed protocol? Because they were too vague in their chain of custody rules? Like that is never going to happen? Fire the guy and change the rules!  Big effing deal!

Braun’s victory raises fresh questions about whether other positive drug tests might have been the result of inefficient shipping methods or outright tampering, and it could provide a road map for other players in the future as they seek to overturn positive test results.

Jesus! The issue is not that the sample was likely tainted. It likely was not. The issue in this case was that someone broke the chain of custody rules. It will probably happen again. Positive drug tests the result of inefficient shipping methods? Did someone actually write that sentence and does someone actually think that?

And as a result of Thursday’s ruling, Major League Baseball will now instruct sample collectors to be sure that there are 24-hour FedEx centers available for drop-offs when a test is taken.

They mean MLB will now instruct sample collectors to follow the rules?

Seriously, what does that even mean? Call FedEx and tell them that they must have centers open 24 hours near them? Are there 24-hour drop off centers in every city? If yes, why didn’t this collector drop off the sample in one of them? How far are they supposed to travel to drop off the samples? I assume these are questions that were addressed in the appeal hearing.

“This certainly casts doubt on the integrity of the process,” said William B. Gould IV, the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

Oy. I give up…

I love Will Carroll. It’s nice to have a guy who knows what he’s talking about actually reporting on this, instead of the talking heads guessing and making crap up:

https://twitter.com/#!/injuryexpert/status/172872758785622016

“The Braun decision was based on HOW the sample was corrupted. Panel was shown exactly what happened, why result was invalid.”

https://twitter.com/#!/injuryexpert/status/172873030148694018

“Repeatable result showed exactly how Braun’s single test showed positive. Arbitrator agreed. Simple, isn’t it?”

#1. the false positive is the T/E test which is about 6%.  This triggers the CIR test which is said to be the gold standard and presumably a much lower false positive rate.

Bautista was tested so many times because he suddenly became Babe Ruth.  MLB was suspicious.
Braun may be tested more often because hist T/E results may be on the high side naturally, but borderline pass, thus triggering some suspicion.

Braun got acquitted much like OJ.  There are some who insist OJ is innocent because of a non-guilty verdict and folks will do the same with Braun.

I am not sure the science behind the testosterone gold standard test is what folks claim it to be, and suspect diet can have an impact on the results. If so, testosterone testing is inconclusive in any event.

I am pretty sure steroids are still prevalent.  Designer drugs, short acting testosterone, holes in the testing program how do you test a player in the offseason in the DR, etc).  Also, for all we know MLB may just ignore most positive results on impact players (hurts revenues and reputation of MLB).

Players look no smaller to me.  HR are down, but that may be the ball, since MLB has control of the specs they are made to (the official specs are very wide, the mfr specs are much tighter and MLB has some say where they want them to be.)

I read the parts of the JDA that govern COC.  There are 2 relevant sections: One, absent unusual circumstances, the sample must be sent to the lab via Fedex on the same day it is collected. It mentions Friday collections must be marked for Saturday delivery. Two, samples cannot be dropped off at a drop box location. They must be left at a customer service center (presumably manned).

Whatever geniuses wrote this agreement did not address Saturday or Sunday collections.

Some locations (not all) have Saturday pickups (or drop offs), usually until 5:00 at the latest (some at 1:00 and some at 3:00). Of course Saturday drop offs won’t arrive until Monday. I’m not sure if that would be a problem (would they be sitting in a Fedex office, truck or werehouse?

So was this test collected on Saturday? If yes, was there a Saturday drop off or pick up available in the area? How far is the collector supposed to go to drop off a specimen on Saturday? Did he have time? What about Sunday collections?  Do they have them? And what are “unusual circumstances?”

The agreement does say that if the collector must keep the specimen, he is to store it in a cool, dry place.

I assume these are the questions that the arbitrator asked, unless he is an idiot. Judging from the responses by all parties involved or not, I would not put it past anyone to be an idiot.

If I were the arbitrator, if it did not seem to me that there was clear evidence that the collector broke the rules, I would rule in MLB’s favor. The reason is simple. Him taking the sample home and storing it in his fridge, if that is what he did, had almost no chance of tainting the sample (of course I would want to check with an expert on that) and the chances that someone tampered with it and resealed it is almost zero.

IOW, if the collector said that he collected the sample on Saturday and he was allowed to or supposed to do that, and there were not drop off locations available at that time (within a reasonable distance from him), then I would not rule that the JDA was broken.

Again, the issue is NOT whether the sample might have been tainted. The chance of that is almost zero (again, unless some expert told me that that is not true). The issue is whether the rules of the JDA were followed. The argument that the sample COULD have been altered or tampered with, and therefore the test should be invalidated even though NO rules were broken, is ridiculous. How do I know that that is an unworthy argument?

Because that same argument could be used whether he took the sample home or not. He or someone else could have tampered with it in his car or in his possession before he drops it off at Fedex. It COULD be tampered with or tainted at Fedex.  It could be tampered with or tainted at the lab, etc.

That is why the COC rules are in the JDA. They are somewhat arbitrary as are ALL COC rules. The only point of having certain COC rules (other than REDUCING the risk of taint or tampering) is so that everyone involved knows that if the rules are not followed, the test is invalidated and if the rules are followed, then the test stands on its own merits!

Is MLB/14 actually MGL?  It has all the earmarks of it… the parenthetical comments, the exclamations, the precise use of language, and the posting at 4AM.  Obviously, MGL was a bit drowsy, as he had MLB on the brain instead of MGL.

Anyway, I’m shocked that this is how the evidence is handled, considering the impact on people.  You’ve got a multi-million dollar decision that relies on couriers, personal refrigerators, and 48-hour gap between extraction and final receipt.

Not to mention that I bet the courier is handling multiple samples, probably dozens.  I wouldn’t be surprised of more messups, especially if we then involve FedEx, and who knows what the heck they do with the packages.

Seems to me that this should be handled like the NHL handles the Stanley Cup, with a personal guard assigned to it from end to end.

As for Shyman Das, he is a looooong time arbitrator, who has handled tons of baseball grievances. I’m guessing he’s a top-of-the-line arbitrator, but, that’s just some opinion that has crystallized in my head over two decades.  I’m sure someone who has followed his career and decisions can enlighten us.

slightly off topic from original post, but as long as we’re talking about Braun’s appeal…

I don’t get the importance of some people citing that Braun’s lawyers never challenged the test itself or presented other arguments to explain why their client did not violate the PED policy. It’s as if we are to assume that Braun’s lawyers’ jobs are to prove to the world that he did not take steroids—which is pretty much impossible. If they found a problem in chain of custody, then they had to pursue that opportunity to win the appeal. Their goal is to get their client off, not to prove his innocence. Whatever works. If there was no COC problem, they would likely have pursued a different angle.

"I don’t get the importance of some people citing that Braun’s lawyers never challenged the test itself or presented other arguments to explain why their client did not violate the PED policy.”

The relevancy is that the decision by the arbitrator likely had nothing to do with whether Braun tested dirty. If he had won the case on a substantive issue, then he indeed could have proclaimed that “he was vindicated” and not been lying which is the case now.

I have no problem with the decision. I have a problem with Braun claiming that he was “vindicated”. That is a lie. As I said, that is like the guy in the house who was found with drugs and weapons claiming that he was vindicated because the judge threw out the arrest on the grounds of an illegal search.

Braun should shut up and count his lucky stars…

bowie: I think the big problem in the discussions of this that I’ve seen is people talking past each other and not clarifying their terms. There’s nothing wrong with what Braun’s lawyers did if their only goal was to get him deemed innocent by the arbitrator. In that case they certainly did the right thing. If their goal was to get him judged innocent (to whatever extent possible) by the public, they failed on that account.

For example if you had asked me prior to his positive test what the chances that Braun has ever used PED before his positive test I would have said ~1%. After the failed test that jumped to >90%. Yesterday’s decision lowered that, but only slightly, maybe 85%. He absolutely deserves to have been found innocent because our legal standard is higher than that, but lots of people seem to be saying “Innocent is innocent is innocent”. That’s just wrong. Anything less than 99% guilty is innocent in our system, but viewing all those the same way is just foolish.

when and where exactly did he say he was “vindicated”?

He didn’t say “vindicated”, but it sure reads like it:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7608709/statement-milwaukee-brewers-ryan-braun-doping-ban-appeal-decision

That statement doesn’t sound to me like a claim of vindication. However, in today’s statement in front of the cameras, he did say he was “able to prove my innocence.” (about the 12:30 mark, near the end). He should not have said that, as such a thing is virtually impossible and unnecessary. But assuming he genuinely believes that he is innocent, it seems unfair to call him a liar.
I’m sure he genuinely believes the appeal ruling revealed the truth, which is that there is no valid evidence to support the claim that he violated PED policy.

I thought this article, in Slate, provided a good summary of how the Braun case relates American law and why American procedures are in place as is.

Interestingly, the off-on-a-technicality rules differ in other countries, including Canada (home of MGL, yes?), where

“Canadian judges don’t automatically throw out evidence because it’s tainted by an unlawful search. [...] Apply that rule to Braun and he’d surely lose.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/02/ryan_braun_suspension_overturned_is_it_right_for_the_baseball_star_to_get_off_on_a_technicality_.html

I’m Canehdian… MGL is Amerikaner.

Tango is Canadian. I am not. We did not always have the “throw out the fruits from the poisonous tree” rule.

“I’m sure he genuinely believes the appeal ruling revealed the truth, which is that there is no valid evidence to support the claim that he violated PED policy.”

He seems like a smart guy but he is deluding himself if that’s what he thinks. Nothing has changed as far as the chances that he is innocent or guilty with the ruling

Plus his definition of innocence is probably different from theirs.  If he took something that was legal and not performance enhancing, but nonetheless triggered a positive result he probably thinks he is innocent when un fact he is in violation if the rules

So if your definition of lying is that you have to know that you are not telling the truth then yes he may not be lying. If not lying he is still dead wrong.

We live in the “CSI” age of criminal justice.

I would think more people would understand the nature of a positive test vs. decision over-rule due to variance in procedure.

I have read lots of comments in the last half hour by a whole bunch of people that I don’t think we have any idea what affect the variance in procedure has on a urine sample. What affect does non-refrigeration have on the sealed sample?

No one seems to have addressed the point in #12.  Will Carroll continues to report that Braun’s attorneys actually did contest the ruling on substantive grounds.  Basically, the story is that the sample degraded in the two days that it sat around before being tested, and that Braun’s legal team was able to reproduce the effect.  I am no chemist, so I can’t say whether something like that is possible or not.  However, Will has pointed us to the case of Diane Modahl, a sprinter who was cleared (pre-WADA).  From her Wikipedia entry:

“Modahl engaged lawyers to show that the laboratory in Lisbon had stored her urine sample on a table in a room heated at 35 degrees for three days, which caused bacterial degradation. She has always professed her innocence and was later cleared.”

The obvious question is: how come only Will Carroll is reporting the story this way?  I have never been a fan of his, but this would be an impressive coup if he has the story right and everyone else missed the boat.

That’s 35 degrees… Celsius… right?

In any case, COC, COC.  If there’s no clear protocol for weekends, because, well, weekends was impossible to anticipate (?!?), why did they not get another sample?

#26, I can’t be sure what was meant, but I would think that 35 degrees in Lisbon would be Celsius, or 95 degrees Fahrenheit, not the temperature in a refrigerator. 

Last April I tried to send a package FedEx on a Saturday afternoon/evening.  I stopped in their office on the way to dinner, (about 5:30) and was told that I was too late for them to send something out for Monday delivery.  After dinner, (about 7:30) I called the 800 number.  They told me that it was too late to send anything out, even if I took it to the airport.  (I work near Washington DC, so National or Dulles airports.) Based on my experience, I find it very unlikely that they could get a package out after a (night?) game on a Saturday.  And whoever wrote the rules should have anticipated this sort of problem.

If Braun’s legal team were able to show that there was a reasonable chance of getting a false positive based on the way it was stored over the weekend, then that is as different story.  I highly doubt that is true. First of all, as far as we know, the guy stored it in a fridge, the way samples are always stored.

My guess (and I am very confident of it) is simply that the arb ruled that the rules about weekend samples were not adequately addressed in the JDA (which they weren’t because people are apparently idiots) and thus, as Tango said, MLB should have retested Braun or simply not tested anyone on weekends. MLB’s argument is quite reasonable givne the wording in the JDA. They likely argued that FedEx being closed was the “unusual circumstance” mentioned in the JDA, and that the collector otherwise followed the rules in terms of COC procedure, which was to keep the sample in a “cool, dry place” until it could be sent out. Perfectly reasonable argument.

The argument that the sample could have become a false positive because it was not sent out right away is NOT a reasonable argument…

The fact that the collectors son was the chaperone lends more credence to the idea the sample may have been tampered with, since he would have known which sample was Brauns, and I am not sure he was vetted in the same way the collector would have been by MLB and MLBPA.

I would like to know more about the collectors son though.

But yeah, according to my quick research, studies have been done on urine samples stored at 37 deg C for 7 days with no increase in T/E results, so unless there was tampering, Braun tested positive in both the T/E test and CIR test.

Here is the stabilty study

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51373353_Stability_studies_of_testosterone_and_epitestosterone_glucuronides_in_urine

While bacterial degradation could occur, that’s one of the things the lab checks before proceeding with testing, and from I read elsewhere, they found no evidence of bacterial degradation.

Ideally, a urine sample is tested within 2 hrs of collection, but that’s almost never possible in random drug testing in any sport.

Matthew/26 notes a precedent of how an improperly stored sample might increase the chances of a false positive, even if there was no tampering. The T/E ratio of a sample can indeed change if it is not stored correctly for a moderate period of time, and it was failure of the T/E test that first raised a flag in Braun’s case.

But apparently further testing on Braun’s sample also found “exogenous” testosterone (i.e. not from his own body):
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/OTL-Ryan-Braun/ryan-braun-defense-raises-more-questions-doping-experts

This result is, according to the article, not in dispute. So unless improper storage might also increase the likelihood of a false positive for exogenous testosterone, this seems rather compelling evidence that Braun had indeed taken some PED.

But I concur entirely with MGL’s point that not following the correct procedure for the sample and its custody is sufficient grounds to sustain an appeal, irrespective of whether evidence suggests Braun was using still remains. So the synthetic testosterone in the system may convict Braun in the court of public opinion, but should have no bearing on his MLB appeal.

Tango/27 - It is likely that waiting 24+ hours and taking another sample may give enough time for certain drugs to flush out of the system, so a “guilty” player might still pass a urine test. I know for track the protocol for random, unannounced testing is that the failure to submit a sample within 24 hours after being requested to do so is considered a violation, and that may also be true for MLB.

This point is also why I find it amusing that accused athletes repeatedly proclaim how many drug tests they’ve passed. Ben Johnson passed dozens, if not hundreds, of tests, as have pretty much all athletes who were eventually caught. The whole point about random, unannounced testing is that when athletes know when the tests are, simply stopping usage far enough from the tests will suffice to pass. And also, at least for track (and perhaps baseball as well), the bigger value of anabolic agents is their help in off-season training, not as a short-term stimulus for a peak competition.

"This point is also why I find it amusing that accused athletes repeatedly proclaim how many drug tests they’ve passed.”

Also, don’t you always have to have passed dozens of drug tests before you get caught for the first time?

That would be like every criminal who gets caught for the first time proclaiming that they went “X number of years with a clean record, therefore I must be innocent, irrespective of the evidence.”

And it is much more unlikely that a player who tests positive once will use again, so for almost all players who test positive and are guilty, it will be their first time.

And BTW, according to MLB at least, there was no evidence, nor was there any claim by Braun’s team, that the sample was stored improperly - only that he had to wait 48 hours to send it in.

Put it more plain terms: the last time I got caught for speeding was 15 years ago.

So, I’ve taken thousands of “speeding tests” in the last 15 years.  And, I’ve never been caught.  I’ve passed those tests.

(The tests simply being that I see a cop, and I slow down, and hope that he didn’t have the gun pointed directly at me, or I was not going too fast.)

Therefore, if I get caught for speeding tomorrow, that would be quite shocking… but not because I’m not guilty, but rather, how little police actually are able to catch speeders.

So, it’s not clear what it means to pass 25 PED tests over a period of 365x5 or 365x7 days.

If the substance is undetectable within 3 days (or whatever it is), and if you take a substance say six times a year, then there’s 18 days out of 365 where you might get nailed.

Two of the tests are not random, so you’d have to be an idiot not to pass those.  It’s like speed traps.

Then, you have a random test. So, the above suggests you should pass it 95% of the time.  If you have 25 tests, then you should still pass it 28% of the time.

Considering how few failed tests there are, chances are that failing a test, even though you are a habitual user, should be even more unlikely.

I severely doubt that anyone is taking PED’s on a regular basis hoping that they don’t get caught even though it is indeed unlikely that they will. Players do not know how unlikely it is and even if they did almost none would be willing to take that chance.

The only players that get caught these days are those that think that what they are taking will not give them a positive test result, for whatever reasons they think that, or they were negligent in taking something that accidentally gave them a dirty result.

BTW, I was listening to an interview with Casey McGee today.  He said that he was probably tested “between 15 and 25 times” in the last 3 years. So, clearly, if you ask a major leaguer how many times he has been tested, he is likely to grossly exaggerate that number for whatever reasons.  Reason number 8,248 why you cannot trust or believe almost anything that almost anyone says…

Will Carroll in this interview:

http://audio.weei.com/a/52238582/will-carroll-si-com-on-ryan-braun-s-50-game-suspension-being-overturned.htm

claims that “his sources” tell him that the Braun team was able to “duplicate the results” that the testing lab got, using a normal sample from Braun.

He said that the suspension was overturned by the arb, not based on a “technicality” (that the COC procedure rules in the JDA were not adhered to), but because of this “duplication of results.”

I have no idea what that means and neither apparently does Will (if you listen to the interview).

Now, we are expected to believe that Will Caroll has sources that no other journalist in the world has, and…

According to the hundreds of articles and comments I have read, many from chemists and biologists and people in the testing industry, it is impossible to take a sample, leave it out for a while (or whatever), and then find artificial testosterone in it (the so-called CIR test).

While listening to this interview, my B.S meter was going off so loudly that it almost woke up the whole neighborhood…

I don’t think the players understand the probability that they get caught, but they do understand how unlikely it is. It’s the same reason people speed as Tango mentioned. People break all kinds of minor laws because they’re not likely to get caught. People fail random employment drug tests because they figured the drug would be out of their system on Tuesday and that they wouldn’t be tested on Monday.

I find what Will Carroll said very difficult to believe. In my opinion, Ryan Braun’s only claim to innocence is that someone tampered with his sample and that’s highly unlikely.

It also appears the early reports of the sample being unrefrigerated are inaccurate. The sample was kept in the fridge so if Braun was able to duplicate those results then why haven’t we seen other scientists do the same? Why haven’t we seen other people caught taking steroids do the same?

Well, it has been a couple days, and Will Carroll’s version of events do not seem to have gained any traction anywhere.  It certainly appears that Will swallowed a story from someone on Braun’s side and ran with it.  Everybody’s got an angle…

It would certainly be fascinating to read a transcript of the arbitration hearing, partially to hear Braun’s side and partially because I would like to see if anything happened to prompt MLB’s sore loser hissy fit to the press afterwards.

but I also recall when Braun’s story first broke a couple months ago, I believe it was Colin who posted some links, I read a couple articles on testosterone. From what I remember, ‘synthetic’ testosterone means that it was produced in a lab, but it is still made from food stuffs, just the ones that are in highest concentrations. If the test returns such a high concentration, it is assumed that it came from a lab, but technically it’s possible if someone ate nothing but bread and beer for three or four days their ‘natural’ level might be as high. The point is there is no bright line where they can definitively say it’s synthetic or natural, just that such a high concentration has a probability that it did not come from what a person ate.

Brian, I believe that is false.  CIR testing is able to distinguish between natural and man-made T (not to a 100% certainty). One is made up of 99% carbon 12 atoms and the other 99% carbon 13.

#42. This is not exactly correct.  Natural testosterone is a mix of C13/C12.  Because man consumes some food derived from C3 plants (which prefer C12 in photosynthesis) as well as C4 plants, natural testosterone has a lower C13/C12 ratio than found in nature.  Synthetic testosterone is produced from soy which is a C3 plant and a lower ratio of C13/C12 than natural testosterone.

The CIR test determines the C13/C12 ratio and compare it with the baseline (natural levels of C13/C12 on the planet).  This is called the delta C13, or dC13.

Natural testosterone is about -24 to -26.  Synthetic testosterone is lower than -30.  The test is incapable of determining where the C12 or C13 comes from, natural or synthetic.  All it can do is tell you the mean dC13 of the sample.  If it’s below -28, it is assumed you have taken synthetic testosterone to account for the low ratio of C13/C12.  If it is more than -28 (eg -26), you are presumed clean.

Some argue that since testosterone has a short half life, a diet heavy in C3 plants, including beer can influence the results.  The CIR attempts to make a diet adjustment by looking at other natural steroids, but the argument is these steroids have longer 1/2 lives and are not as sensitive to diet.

I think I finally figured out the FedEx thing.

The issue:

The collector who took Braun’s urine says there was no FedEx open that would ship that day (Saturday) or the next day (Sunday).

Braun says there’s tons of FedEx open until 9pm.

How can they both be right?  As best I can tell, FedEx is open on Saturdays, but they do NOT do Saturday deliveries.  It’s just as possible they don’t transfer packages between FedEx locations on Saturday or Sunday.

So, as far as keeping the samples legit, you want them stored properly.  Even if FedEx were to accept the package Saturday at 5pm, what are they going to do with it?  Well, who the f-ck knows what they are going to do with it.  It’s only going to be en route to Montreal early Monday morning.

Therefore, since there is an unknown variable as to where the packages will be stored while in FedEx possession, the collector keeps it in accordance with protocol.

When Monday rolls around, and FedEx is able to accept AND deliver the package the same day, that’s what you really want.

Does this make sense?

That makes sense but how does that logic make Braun win his case.  That should make him lose it since the collector keeping it is better than following protocol (dropping it off on Saturday).

I think he win for one of two reasons:

One, the collector could have dropped it off on Saturday night and he didn’t which is a clear violation of the protocol.

Two, there was no FedEx open that late so he kept the sample (what else was he to do, other than re-test?) and the arb thought that the JDA did not address properly the procedure for Sat night and Sunday collections, which is true…

First off, here are the FedEx offices for 53214:

http://www.fedex.com/Dropoff/start?cc=us

Select FedEx staffed, and Kinko’s (which is FedEx).

And Saturday services.

There’s a TON of them that close at 9pm, including one that is 24 hours (10 miles away).  So, the collector was talking about FIFTY miles.

However, EXPRESS drop-off is no later than 4pm, and since the game ended at 4:45pm…

So, perhaps it was an issue of Express delivery?  It would make sense that he needs Express delivery.  Otherwise, who knows when it gets delivered.

Therefore, without a guaranteed flight out that night, then he should store it himself.

Right. Per the collector’s statement (click my name for the full thing),

CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office.

Weird, though, that sticking it in a Rubbermaid container in his basement was considered standard protocol. Regardless, he’s convinced he followed protocol, so it will be interesting to see what the arbiter actually ruled, as it’s really hard for me to understand where there’s any risk of contamination.

Lengthy statement:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/28/wisconsin-man-who-collected-ryan-brauns-urine-sample-issues-statement-to-set-the-record-straight/

“I then placed Mr. Braun’s Specimen Box, and the Specimen Boxes containing the samples of the two other players, in a Federal Express Clinic Pack. “

So, confirmation that it would go Express.

“there was no FedEx office located within 50 miles of Miller Park that would ship packages that day or Sunday.”

Also true, that they don’t ship EXPRESS that day.  They TAKE them on Saturday.  But they don’t SHIP them (express) on Saturday (after 4pm).

Cue Seinfeld reserving a car.

***

I do think it’s horrible of Braun to have impugned his character. What was he thinking?  That he would remain silent?

What did Braun say that impugned his character? If he did, is that surprising?  Everything that Braun has said from the start was complete B.S. carefully designed and crafted to rehabilitate his image and reputation with the fans regardless of truth or the facts.  There is one web site that I go to that for some reason keeps playing a video of his press conference. He keeps talking about, “In the end the truth won out,” or some nonsense like that. I can’t even listen to it, it makes my blood boil so much…

The collector’s explanation (are we supposed to be surprised that he followed protocol? I’m not) really puts in perspective all the, “Anything could have happened,” or, “He kept it in the basement,” and all those other nonsensical “explanations” why Braun is innocent.

I cannot stand arguments that are predicated on, “Such and such COULD have happened.” Yeah, anything COULD have happened. As I said several times, the sample COULD have been tampered with or degraded in the Fedex office, in the Fedex truck, in the collector’s care, by the lab, etc.

All conclusions and opinions are based on probabilities or at least they should be. They don’t turn from black to white because of a “could have.” Most “could have’s” barely change the probabilities, and therefore the conclusions.

What was the probability (formulated by a group of reasonable, objective persons - I don’t care about any one person’s opinion - I really don’t) that Braun’s sample was degraded or tampered with before we heard from the collector? 1%? .1%? Personally, I would put it at something like .1%, but I won’t scream too loudly if someone wants to say 2%.

So now that we know the collector’s story, what is that probability? (He could be lying, right?) Rather than 2%, it is .2%? Or rather than .1%, it is .01%.

Does that significantly change the chances that Braun had a legitimately dirty sample?

Here, apparently, is at least part of the disparaging comments by Braun:

Ryan Braun stated during his press conference that “there were a lot of things that we learned about the collector, about the collection process, about the way that the entire thing worked that made us very concerned and very suspicious about what could have actually happened.”

Pure, unadulterated B.S. from the Braun and his camp, just like most of their statements regarding this episode.

Given how dirty they played this, I would guess that they leaked the news in the first place, because they thought that that was the best way to handle it.

Braun ought to go into politics when he retires from baseball. It will suit him well. Most politicians will say anything, truthful or not, hurtful or not, as long as it furthers their agenda…

What was the probability (formulated by a group of reasonable, objective persons - I don’t care about any one person’s opinion - I really don’t) that Braun’s sample was degraded or tampered with before we heard from the collector?

I think this gets at one of the key issues that’s been overlooked in the few discussions about Braun that I’ve read. The ruling comes down to one person’s interpretation of the presented evidence. It makes no sense to me that when an MLB issue goes to arbitration two of the arbitrators are people whose votes we can presume beforehand. If the goal of arbitration is resolution, why have an MLB and an MLBPA representative serve as arbitrators instead of having three independent people?

"It makes no sense to me that when an MLB issue goes to arbitration two of the arbitrators are people whose votes we can presume beforehand. If the goal of arbitration is resolution, why have an MLB and an MLBPA representative serve as arbitrators instead of having three independent people?”

I agree 100% and I have mentioned that already. (Sorry to scoop you! )

It doesn’t make sense. It is because people are idiots. There is no doubt that the MLB guy has never voted in favor of a player and never will and that the union guy has never voted against a player and never will, regardless of the evidence. They have a 1 member board, not a 3 member board.

“The ruling comes down to one person’s interpretation of the presented evidence.”

Keep in mind that he likely did not rule on the chances that the sample was tampered with or degraded, only whether the stated protocol in the JDA was broken or it was vague enough to presume it was broken. If, in his report (which is expected to come out in a few weeks) he says that he thought there was too little “chain of command” for the sample to be reliable, then he is either an idiot or a liar.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but it is EXACTLY like a 4th (or other) Amendment violation by the police. The judge throws out the case not because he thinks there is a chance that the suspect is more innocent (than he would be had the violation not occurred), despite the evidence found. He throws out the case to “punish” the state so that they know if they disregard the Constitution, they cannot prosecute a suspect.

Same here. MLB has to be put on notice that if their own rules are not followed, they cannot “convict” a player, regardless of the evidence. That is to prevent them from transgressing those rules in the future such that eventually an innocent person WILL be “convicted” because the violation was a relevant one (such that a sample could have been tampered with or tainted).

In the legal system, the reason a judge has to throw out even credible evidence when the police illegally search someone’s house is that if the police know that they can do that and NOT have the case dismissed, they will sometimes illegally go into people’s homes and plant evidence. The reason a judge throws out a confession that was illegally gotten (e.g. no Miranda warnings), even if the judge things that the confession is credible and the police made an honest mistake, is that if they didn’t, then the police would sometimes beat a confession out of an innocent man, or otherwise coerce him into falsely confessing against his will, or fabricate a confession and make a suspect sign it…

I haven’t read the JDA.  Do they make a distinction between FedEx/shipper being open to accept packages, and FedEx guaranteeing same-day delivery of package?

"Given how dirty they played this, I would guess that they leaked the news in the first place, because they thought that that was the best way to handle it.”

that is an interesting point, and the more i think about it the more it makes some sense. from what i have seen out of braun’s camp, i have the impression that they knew he was guilty.  if the information was going to come out anyway (assuming the appeal was denied), controlling the time and method seems like a huge advantage. braun’s camp knew that their defense centered around MLB’s process, so casting some suspicion on MLB by implying a leak could help their case.

mcsnide/47: marked for moderation and is now open.

***

You know, MLBPA is really asleep at the switch here.  There’s millions of dollars at stake here.  Doesn’t it behoove them a little extra safeguard?

In my line of work, we have backups, offsite backups, offsite recovery centers.  It’s incredible how many failsafes we have, just to guarantee uptime and quality control.

We NEVER have a single point of failure.  That’s the key thing in our line of work.  Never ever ever have a single point of failure.

In this case, you have several single points of failure.  I understand that in the police business, when you only have ONE sample of evidence, you have the controls they have, and so, that’s the best they can do.

In this case?  Well, why not have TWO collectors.  Braun p-sses for both of them.  They each go out their own way.  To think that splitting one sample into A and B, and then giving it to the same collector is a good thing?  Yeah, it’s ok, but not nearly enough, not when the stakes are millions of dollars in lost wages.

You continue with the A and B samples, and then you have a C sample to a second collector.

The team doesn’t want to lose the player, the player doesn’t want to lose playing time.  So, you really need to double-check and triple-check everything.

some good points tango. but i want to point out that there is more than just lost wages for the player at stake.

losing braun for 50 games is a loss of ~2 WAR that the brewers need to replace.  at their point in the win curve (projections i have seen have them at 86-88 wins) that could be quite a bit of money. nevermind how losing an MVP winner could potentially affect ticket and merch sales. though of course the team is likely saving on salary if braun is not playing.

I haven’t read the JDA.  Do they make a distinction between FedEx/shipper being open to accept packages, and FedEx guaranteeing same-day delivery of package?

First off, they only talk about next-day delivery, never same-day. And the only wording about FedEx being open is that “the Collector shall take the specimens in the appropriate packaging to a FedEx Customer Service Center for shipment. The specimens cannot be placed in a FedEx Drop Box location.”

Thanks, NaOH.  Hard to believe that’s all there is, and the collector instead has to follow guidelines, instead of having those guidelines as part of the JDA.

***

Ensberg agrees about the character issue:

http://morganensberg.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/bruan-ruh-roo-and-keyser-soze/

The part preceding what I quoted in #58 is this:

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.

From what’s been reported, it sounds like the collector followed these procedures. But I presume there’s key information we don’t know. That makes it difficult to assess why Shyam Das ruled in favor of Braun, and I doubt we’ll ever get clarification since his written rulings are never made public.

Craig Calcaterra reported that the arb’s findings WILL be made public.  I sort of doubt that though.

From the JDA:

3. If shipping on Friday, the Collector must check Saturday delivery under “Special Handling”.
4. The Collector must write the chain of custody account number under “Your internal Billing Reference”. DO NOT write the name of the sport. (example; for MLB collections you would write “10001”)
5. The “Commodity Description” should say; “Human Urine Samples for Doping Control (Non-Infectious)” and valued at $1.00.
38
E. 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.

And here is probably where they f***ed up, big time:

The Collector shall check the “FedEx” box in the section entitled “Specimen Bottles(s) Released to:” Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected.

Is collecting a specimen on Saturday night or even Saturday day, or on Sunday, an “unusual circumstance?”

Again, what idiot wrote this part of the JDA and did not specifically address Saturday and Sunday collections?

Send by the shipper to the lab, the same day as collected… except for unusual circumstances?

Truly mind-boggling.  Can it be unusual, if it’s predictable and recurring?

By that standard, no urine sample can be collected between 3:30pm Sat and 8AM Mon.

Tango, exactly. Yes, mind-boggling. Maybe Das (the arbitrator) recognized the idiocy in the JDA and wanted to send a message to MLB. That would not be unreasonable (although he is employed, apparently, by MLB and the MLBPA)…

I seem to remember that MLB and MLBPA would fire arbitrator after arbitrator each time a big ruling went against them.  I THINK they made a deal that they would stop doing that.

Das I think is part of the National Arbitrator something-or-other, and is a “permanent” arbitrator for MLB/MLBPA.

I’m sure someone who follows this can explain it.

A relatively recent resume for Das can be seen here:

http://www.nmb.gov/arbitrator-resumes/das-shyam_res.pdf

As for his standing, looking at the just-expired CBA indicates the league could take action to have him removed.

At any time during the term of this Agreement either the [Players] Association or the LRD [the MLB Labor Relations Department] may terminate the appointment of the impartial arbitrator by serving written notice upon him and the other Party; provided that no such termination shall in any way impair the authority of the impartial arbitrator to render awards with respect to matters fully submitted to him. Within 30 days of any such termi- nation, the Association and LRD shall either agree upon a successor impartial arbitrator or select a successor from an American Arbitra- tion Association list, as set forth above.

Mind you, Das has been in this position since 1999. He was the arbitrator who reduced John Rocker’s suspension and did the same with Kenny Rogers’s. Just like with Braun, the league publicly criticized him when the ruling benefitted the player.

Rocker: His suspension was reduced from all of spring training, the month of April, and $20,000 to the first two weeks of April and $500. Selig said the ruling “completely ignores the sensibilities of those groups of people maligned by Mr. Rocker and disregards the player’s position as a role model for children.”

Rogers: He was suspended 20 games and fined $50,000 for an altercation with two cameramen. Das cut the suspension to time served (effectively 13 games) and turned the fine into a charitable donation. Selig responded by saying, “I strongly disagree with arbitrator Das’ decision today. It sends the wrong message to every one of our constituents: the fans, the media, and our players. There is a standard of behavior that is expected of our players, which was breached in this case. The arbitrator’s decision diminishes that standard and is contrary to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In my opinion, the decision is seriously ill-conceived.”

Braun: MLB’s comment came from Manfred, “While we have always respected that [arbitration] process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das.”

Since 1999 when Das began in this role, the majority of decisions that went to arbitration have gone against the players. I haven’t been able to find one instance of anyone from the PA (despite a change in leadership) publicly criticizing a ruling. And they obviously haven’t sought to have Das replaced. But MLB sure comes across like a sore loser every time Das rules in favor of the player, rare as that may be.

I thought that the standard setup of an Arbitration Tribunal in almost any type of arbitration was one arbitrator appointed by each side and one arbitrator for a list of “neutrals” that are agreed to in advance by both parties.

I used to have students compete in mock arbitrations.  After the competitions, the judges, who are all experienced arbitrators, would debrief all the teams that competed and the in camera debate/discussion among the arbitrators - the opposing viewpoints - was important to them. 

Using three neutrals would change significantly the dynamic of the in camera discussion.

As I said before, Selig, and MLB (whoever the spokesperson is or writes the statement) simply need to shut up. I can’t tell you how unbecoming I think it is to issue those criticisms of your own (arbitration) procedure. And I don’t seem to be the only one who finds it distasteful. That appears to be the universal opinion. It can’t be in the best interests of MLB to issues these kinds of statements, can it? If it is, I am missing something. If it is not, then why are they doing it? Human error/weakness?

I agree.  There’s not much coming out of the Braun camp that making me any more sympathetic to his side either!

I wonder of the MLB squawking is a preamble to dumping Das?

MGL/51:

Given how dirty [Braun’s camp] played this, I would guess that they leaked the news in the first place, because they thought that that was the best way to handle it.

Unless I’m missing some other possibility, Michael Weiner (MLBPA head) essentially confirmed this today.

“Everybody associated with the case is extremely disappointed that it leaked out,” union head Michael Weiner said Sunday at the Milwaukee Brewers’ training camp. “The leak was specific to this case. [...] If we felt that there was any systemwide problem with respect to confidentiality, we really would have a problem. And, that’s not the case.”

A day after Das issued his decision on Feb. 23, Major League Baseball executive vice president Rob Manfred said “we are convinced that the leak did not come from the commissioner’s office” and Weiner said “we are confident that it was not caused by the commissioner’s office, the MLBPA or anyone associated in any way with the program.”

Sounds to me like that only leaves the Braun camp.

And another item MGL appears to have properly addressed (comment 61) is that the ruling likely won’t be released.

Das has 30 days from his decision to give the sides his written opinion. Weiner said the parties have not addressed whether to make the decision public, adding “I think the interests of the program are served by keeping the confidentiality in place.”

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/03/04/sports/baseball/AP-BBN-Brewers-Braun-Weiner.html

"Unless I’m missing some other possibility...”

You are.

First of all, just because MLB and the MLBPA don’t think, or SAID that they don’t think, that the leak came from their end doesn’t make it so. They could easily be lying. And, there are many people (I assume) in both organizations that may have had access to the information. Some of them could be 10 or 20 dollar an hour workers.

More importantly, though, Braun’s camp apparently was furiously employing all kinds of experts to review the evidence. Any person from any one of those companies could have leaked the news for any reason, unbeknownst to, and without the consent of, the “Braun camp.”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen something by Weiner that I would say was him lying, nor do I recall anything from when I’ve spoken to him.

More importantly, though, Braun’s camp apparently was furiously employing all kinds of experts to review the evidence. Any person from any one of those companies could have leaked the news for any reason, unbeknownst to, and without the consent of, the “Braun camp.”

Absolutely. When I said “Braun’s camp,” I meant someone in some way connected to his defense efforts. I didn’t mean to suggest it must have been one of his representatives rather than someone further down the line. Bad writing on my part. Sorry.

Apparently, MLB has fired Shyam Das.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/05/14/sports/baseball/ap-bbo-arbitrator-fired.html