This story was initially published around 8:30 PM ET on Saturday night and has since been revised several times as new information has emerged. Please scroll down to see updates.
The baseball world was rocked on Saturday with an ESPN "Outside the Lines" report that Ryan Braun tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug during the playoffs. Braun was initially found to have an elevated testosterone level, and a subsequent test (presumably via the "B" sample" taken from the same specimen) revealed that the testosterone was synthetic. The actual identity of the substance hasn't been revealed.
Braun is disputing the result, which was not announced by Major League Baseball because the appeal process had not been completed; instead, information on what is designed to be a confidential process was leaked to veteran steroid beat reporters T.J. Quinn and Mark Fainaru-Wada, either by someone involved in the testing process or inside the commissioner's office. According to the report, immediately upon being informed of the positive, Braun requested a retest. That second test, says a source close to the case, was not positive. But what ESPN's story doesn't say is whether that second test was a test of the "B" sample — another portion of the original sample taken at the same time, a common drug testing protocol — that turned up negative, or whether it was a new sample, collected at a later date, that was tested.* This is such a critical piece of information that I'm surprised at the lack of clarity on the parts of these well-versed reporters and their editors; via the Twitter accounts of Quinn and Fainaru-Wada I have requested a clarification.
Braun's camp has expressed some optimism that their appeal may carry the day. A spokesman from Creative Artists Agency, which represents Braun, has issued a statement:
"There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case which will support Ryan's complete innocence and demonstrate there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program. While Ryan has impeccable character and no previous history, unfortunately, because of the process we have to maintain confidentiality and are not able to discuss it any further, but we are confident he will ultimately be exonerated."
While it is believed that no positive test finding has been overturned in the short history of MLB's drug testing program, it is more accurate to say that no positive test finding that has been made public has been overturned. The possibility exists that there have been situations where players were exonerated via the appeals process — due to false positives or other anomalies — without news of the original positive becoming public. If the finding is upheld, Braun will face a 50-game suspension, severely denting the chances of a Brewers squad already scrambling to replace the likely loss of Prince Fielder to free agency. The appeals process could take several weeks.
It's bad enough that a well-liked star is getting hit with a PED suspension, but what makes this one particularly awkward is that just weeks ago, Braun was named the winner of the National League Most Valuable Player award. He enjoyed a fabulous season, hitting .332/.397/.597 with 33 homers for the Brewers while helping them to their second playoff appearance in the past four seasons and their first division title since 1982. His .340 True Average ranked second in the league behind Matt Kemp's .350, his 6.4 WARP fourth behind Kemp (8.9), Joey Votto (7.0), and Clayton Kershaw (6.5). There's no precedent in baseball for an awards vote being overturned, and nothing in the language of the league's policy on the matter; note that the award is given by the Baseball Writers Association of America, not MLB. Given the soapbox derby that the subject often generates in the mainstream media, it's not a surprise to see at least some faction move to do so, but remember that nobody asked Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez, or Roger Clemens to give back awards won when they were allegedly using PEDs. BBWAA secretary/treasurer Jack O'Connell, who administrates the awards confirms that there are no plans to move for a re-vote. ""The voters used the infomation they had at the time of the election. I don't see how we can change that," he told the L.A. Times.
Braun's positive test is just the third among major leaguers in 2011, following Manny Ramirez's positive test back in April and Eliezer Alfonso's in September; ironically, both were second offenses resulting in 100-game suspensions, suggesting that the gap between those who get it and those who don't is widening. Ramirez's positive test forced the slugger into retirement; he has just successfully applied for reinstatement, along with an agreement to reduce the ban to 50 games once he signs, given that he sat out all of last season. His previous positive, in May 2009, ranks as a better parallel to Braun's in that it was the first time MLB's testing program caught a star at the top of his game, and also one in which an initial test of elevated testosterone levels empowered MLB to to take a closer look.
Aside from a hideous clothing line, the 28-year-old Braun is a likeable player who symbolizes the Brewers' renaissance; back in April, with Fielder poised to make his last lap around the league in Milwaukee colors, Braun signed a contract extension that will keep him in town through the 2020 season. He has been cited by Bud Selig as an example of what's right with the game. One hopes that there's some reasonable explanation that will explain the positive result away so that we can forget this ever happened. The odds on that may appear longer than those of Fielder reupping, and the damage to the public perception of Braun won't easily be undone even if the result is rolled back.
Still, as the news cycle has continued to roll, it's shed light on a situation about which the public should have some doubts, because word of Braun's positive broke before the appeals process could be completed. If the tests were indeed contradictory, one would have hoped that a process that is supposed to be confidential remains confidential until the league and the labs get to the bottom of this. That's not the case, however, and while it's important not to rush to judgment about whether Braun is guilty, either way this appears to be a very dark day for baseball.
Update (1): It's worth noting a pair of tweets from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Tom Haudricourt. First, "Braun cannot give his side of the story because he is not allowed to talk during appeal process," and second, "Just spoke to someone familiar with the details of Braun's test and was assured he will be found innocent. If so, horrible this leaked out." As bad as this looks right now, there does appear to be a glimmer of hope that this is all going to go away.
*Update (2): The ESPN article has been revised, but the wording is still frustratingly vague:
Since being informed of the results, Braun has been disputing his case. A source close to Braun said that when he was told about the positive test, he immediately requested to be tested again. That second test, using a different sample that was tested by Braun's camp, the source said, was not positive. Those close to Braun believe that the difference between the two tests will show that the first test was invalid. Although Braun's representatives acknowledge that a non-positive test would not negate a positive one, they believe the second test shows certain anomalies that will suggest problems with the first. They declined to specify.
Huh? If the test was indeed taken from a new sample, then the interval at which it was collected would be an issue; different drugs stay in the system for different lengths of time, and even if it was collected just "a couple of weeks later," as Haudricourt's blog entry suggests, that could compromise the appeal. Also troubling is the use of the phrase "tested by Braun's camp," which suggests the introduction of bias into the proceedings, since all testing is supposed to be done by an independent third party, not someone with a vested interest in sides or camps. You'd think reporters who have been covering this stuff for the better part of the decade would be able to produce more precision, but they have not, and it only raises more questions about what's already a very curious case.
Update (3): This story won't sit still. Haudricort reports that a source from the Braun camp says that it's not a PED for which Braun tested positive:
But my source — and again, this is from Braun's end and not MLB — familiar with the test's findings says the "prohibited substance" was not a performance-enhancing drug or steroid of any kind. And the source says there has "never" been a result like this in the history of the MLB testing program.
Fox's Ken Rosenthal tweets that has a story pending with words to the same effect, that the positive test was for a prohibited substance, not a PED. In a follow-up, Rosenthal tweets, "What he did triggered violation of #MLB steroid-testing policy. Source says substance was prohibited, but not PED." I'm not an expert enough to speculate as to what substance that might be, but it's worth remembering that in 2009, Ramirez's positive test was for human chorionic gonadotropin, a female fertility drug that steroid users often take in order to kick-start testosterone production following a cycle. Furthermore, it's important to note that the Joint Drug Agreement (PDF here) defines "Prohibited Substances" in three classes: "Drugs of Abuse," "Performance Enhancing Substances," and "Stimulants."
Update (4): Rosenthal's story corroborates Haudricourt's:
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 that the substance in question triggered a violation of baseball’s steroid-testing policy, even if it is not technically listed as a PED.
Update (5): As I said above, the assertion that no positive test finding has been overturned is inaccurate; there have apparently been cases overturned before the result of the initial positive was publicly reported. Various reporters hinted as such on Saturday night; as Haudricourt pointed out, "No player is known to have had positive drug test overturned on appeal but details would not be released in that event." A source with knowledge of MLB's testing program corroborates the existence of overturned cases, Kevin Goldstein has talked to people in front offices who corroborate that, and at least one player does as well. On Saturday night, Jimmy Rollins tweeted, "[N]ever been overturned is "technically" correct. I know of a case that no one will hear about."
This story just gets weirder and weirder.
Update (6): The weirdness continues. The New York Daily News's Teri Thomson reports that the level of Braun's testosterone in the first test was "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken," according to a source familiar with the case. That ratio is one of the "highly unusual circumstances" to which Braun's handlers have referred. The same source also says that there were chain of custody issues involving the test, which was sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency laboratory in Montreal to undergo carbon isotope ratio (CIR) or isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) testing. Those tests revealed that the levels were caused by exogenous or synthetic testosterone. The report includes this rather cryptic statement from the source:
"The argument before the appeals board won't be that the original ratio was so high and doesn't make sense," said the source, "but there will be a defense. It's not something he knew or should have known about."
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
"A source close to Braun said that when he was told about the positive test, he immediately requested to be tested again. That second test, the source said, was not positive. Those close to Braun believe that the difference between the two tests will show that the first test was invalid."
This said, I'm waiting with bated breath for the next shoe to drop on this one.
"Being tested by Braun's camp" in reference to a second sample being taken need not indicate bias. There are lots of clean reference labs out there that will report accurately; if Braun's agent found a dirty one, WADA probably recognizes it from previous battles.
The specific compound being mentioned in reports, methenolone, apparently remains detectable in the body for 4-6 months. My guess is that the timetable between the two samples makes it reasonably unlikely that the substance would have time to naturally dissipate between tests.
My wife, an MT in a medical lab, suggested that the response from Braun's camp was plausible in two ways. First, the results from the later sample might call into question whether the machines testing the first sample were properly calibrated. There are a reasonable number of measurements taken that should remain homogenous across both samples, and variances in those metrics would indicate improper QC on one or both machines performing the test. Second, my wife explained that there is more than one way that samples can be tested to reveal their composition. It is plausible that the lab Braun's camp asked to test the second sample used a different method of inquiry to arrive at their conclusions and believe that, for example, a gas chromatography test might uncover a different profile than would, say, a qualitative test.
Ultimately, that "B" sample will get tested. What Braun's camp may have been able to do with the results of the second sample is determine whether they are going to appeal the type of test or the venue of test to control for that eement when the "B" sample is tested.
The methenolone that's being mentioned in reports is actually in connection with Alfonzo - the substance for which Braun tested positive has not been publicly identified.
However, there are apparently more specialized tests that can detect very low levels long term (over the four-six month period). My wife suggested that if Braun's camp used this specialized test, he should have come up positive under it long after the first test was done, and a negative test on that sample would indicate that the first test should have come up similarly negative. Apologies for my confusion, and of course, we won't know what Braun's angle is until later.
MLB isn't going to fry the reigning MVP on a borderline case. Everything these guys say after they're caught is sound and fury.
Yeah, except that MLB isn't frying anybody right now - the information was leaked before the entire process was completed. If the entire process had finished and MLB then announced that Braun had tested positive, that would be one thing, but that isn't what's happened. We can't consider MLB's conclusion and stance on this definite until the appeals process has ended.
I'm guessing that he does have some sort of inside information, and the reason we haven't heard of any other positive tests that ended up being overturned is because writing about Micheal Brantley isn't going to pay the rent, but Ryan Braun will.
But one way or another, all of the anabolic steriods are synthetic derivatives of testosterone that can mimic its function in the body. They interact with the androgen receptors found in muscle cells, stimulating those cells to increase protein synthesis (anabolism), which results in the building of muscles and bones as well as the maintenance of secondary sexual characteristics. The binding of the steroid to the receptor also inhibits the breakdown (catabolism) of old proteins. The various drugs — Dianabol, Deca-Durabolin, Winstrol, etc. — differ in terms of the level of androgenic effects (the "side effects").
Testosterone is a PED.
Are we supposed to ignore this part of the report?
I am so confused right now.
Sounds guilty.
http://twitter.com/#!/JeffPassan/status/145977826351394816
"Source also confirmed that MLB has not lost an arbitration case with PEDs."
I do not know what "losing" an arbitration case entails to make much sense out of this. But I think it is worded to purposefully discredit the previous Jimmy Rollins tweet(maybe I am reading too much into it).
Weird is right.
"Anonymous" testing puts the players at MLB's mercy - MLB uses it as a PR and legal stunt to protect itself; and periodically leaks results to the media to get a negotiating edge by making the players look bad.
When testing was first proposed years ago, the union should've told MLB, Congress, and the media to go F themselves.
Is there any imaginable set of circumstances under which both of these statements can possibly be correct?
It's possible that Braun's body naturally creates elevated levels of artificial testosterone...
I'm curious, if he's twice as high as the highest ever test in MLB how much of a testerone substance would one have to take? I mean, does this make much sense, at all? You would have to be some kind of absolute moron to think you could take that high an amount and get away with it. To some extent that makes me think that either the test is wrong or there is some other explanation to vindicate him.
Maybe this can be chalked up to a tremendous amount of spin by the Braun camp, but anyone who thinks that they're the only ones with an interest to protect is giving MLB far too much credit. Casting doubt on the accuracy and efficacy of the testing procedure and the appeals process would be a huge PR blow for MLB.
" there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program"
Soooooo, there was no _intentional_ violation, but a violation nonetheless? That's an admission. Are we going to hear the "never knowingly took them" line next?
"Testosterone Rises with Treatment for ED
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Men who use Viagra or Cialis for erectile dysfunction (ED) have increases in levels of testosterone, Italian researchers report.
"We are now demonstrating the sexual and hormonal effect of two popular oral treatments for ED," Dr. Emmanuele A. Jannini from University of L'Aquila told Reuters Health. "Both were efficacious and able to increase testosterone levels after 3 months of treatment."
Jannini team studied 74 men with erectile dysfunction and found that free and total testosterone levels rose, overall, by about 50% after treatment.
The testosterone increases were more marked in the group that took Cialis than in the Viagra group, although the drugs were equally effective in restoring sexual potency, the investigators report in the medical journal."
full text at http://www.steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/56359-viagra-cialis-increase-testosterone-levels.html
The IAAF allowed his appeal!
Detecting illegal testosterone is tricky (although not impossible) because of course we all make testosterone. So testers measure the ratio of testosterone to a related hormone, epitestosterone. A normal ratio is one to one. To trigger further investigation, A PLAYER'S RATIO HAS TO BE 4 [SIC] TO 1. Braun's was above 4 to 1 and further tests showed synthetic testosterone.
A clever player and doctor could keep the player's testosterone at triple a normal level and never fail a test. It would be awfully naive to think that is not happening.
Oh wait, sorry...wrong trial.
I originally tried "If a cup of urine wasn't properly filled, an anonymous source will somehow spill"
Tested after Stage 17. Abnormally high T/E ration (11:1). Subsequent tests showed synthetic testosterone.
Tested after Stage 19. Tests were negative.
He denied allegations for years and, eventually, admitted he had doped.
I am not saying Braun is guilty. But, to date, Braun's story is eerily similar.
It's not so much that I feel compelled to defend Braun, or particularly believe that he's innocent, as that I want to know more about this process. This leak has created an unprecedented event in the annals of MLB's testing program, a peek into the sausage factory of the testing and appeals process, which hasn't been completed, which is why this case differs from all other cases. The fact that it's a star, an MVP (though FWIW, I supported Kemp), or a Jewish ballplayer (given that I'm Jewish myself) actually doesn't interest me all that much - and I say that as somebody who's long had a soft spot for the Brewers and Braun. I'm mostly curious as to why this case is so curious.
And yes, I want to see due process upheld, though that phrase is actually a misnomer, since it applies to the actions of the state, which isn't in play here. My law degree from Wikipedia University tells me that the term is "fair procedure." Regardless, I am willing to withhold my opinion of Braun's innocence or guilt until the process is played out, while taking advantage of the chance to learn more about the process and its loopholes.
The solution to that problem, which in the real world is essential to the scientific method, is to try to DISprove the weird result and the ensuing "theory," not by name calling but by experimental tests. If the weird results withstand the tests, then people begin to take them seriously. Unfortunately, while scientists routinely share data (or at least experimental details) with each other so that those tests can be conducted, the drug testers certainly don't share comparable things with the media or fans. There is consequently a credibility problem when a "gee, this is weird" result crops up, as may or may not have happened here, depending on these leaked news reports.
Jay, I love your "I'm mostly curious as to why this case is so curious" line. In my opinion MLB owes it to us to clarify some of those curious things. To continue the science analogy, we fans are the "funding agency" that, by way of buying tickets and other MLB commodities, pays for the "experiments" of players using or avoiding PEDs, and of testing labs that try to catch them cheating. A real-world funding agency would be very unhappy about one of its researchers asserting or refuting a weird finding based only on little bits of information that dribble out via leaks. We the public, IMO, are entitled to have our "curiosity" -- which really means "suspicion" -- resolved on this one, as long as we're buying tickets to games.
Even then, it's not that the comments can't be viewed, it's just that they take an extra step to view. It's not that hard to implement and it's not censorship - the comments haven't been erased. We've made no law abridging anyone's free speech.
I don't think the system should be used to pile on in the case of legitimate disagreements of substance. To me, that's an abuse of the system.
Oh yeah...I did minus you on this comment.
If you find that a high percentage of your comments have been voted below the threshold, it might be a good idea to step back, reflect on what you've written, and consider the possibility that maybe it's not WHAT you've been saying, but HOW you've been saying it. To me, that sounds like a better way to rectify the situation than whining about it. The other option is to just not care if four or more people didn't like your comment, this being just an internet message board about baseball. No need to be so thin-skinned about it, you know?
If it means what I think it means, I would have to believe that the results from the sample would have to be thrown out, right? If it was misplaced, or given to the wrong person, or anything along those lines, the results from the test couldn't be trusted.
Approaching this from a legal aspect (not sure if the same standard applies to the drug testing program), but chain of custody means that the sample is properly accounted for at every stop between collecting the urine from Braun through the testing process.
If at any point from the collection through testing, the location of the sample cannot be verified or an unauthorized person had access to it, then chain of custody has been broken and the sample may no longer be pure/valid.
Thank you, Jay and the rest of the fine crew at Baseball Prospectus.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/braun-faces-strict-mlb-drug-rules-mp3dpt4-135483898.html
makes clear that players cannot claim innocence based on the idea that they unwittingly ingested the substance. It also indicates that Braun's team may argue that the testosterone level found was so high that the test must have been wrong. However, if in fact molecules of synthetic testosterone were detected, that would seem to close the case.
What I do enjoy is the discussion and the hard work that goes into such endeavors. BP provides me with an alternative to the numbness of the ESPN ticker etc.. FWIW, thank you for the insight and opinions I have come to expect from BP and the community who follows these talented individuals.
Jay Jaffe stole my heart with "Aside from a hideous clothing line..."
I know, somewhat nitpicky, but you said it twice and that particular error always bothers me.