TMZ: Medication, not PEDs, to blame for Braun's positive test
They're quoting sources directly connected with MLB as saying "The medication contained banned substances resulting in the positive test."
5 months ago
Kyle Lobner
54 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Let's assume this is true...
According to the story, the postitive test was because the medication he took contained banned substances. While this may help in the court of public opinion, my understanding of the drug policy is that he would still be subject to suspension since one or more of the indgredients was on the banned list. Am I missing something here?
by Infield Fly Rule on Dec 19, 2011 8:00 AM CST reply actions
No, I think you're probably right.
I’m guessing he would’ve needed a pre-approved exemption to be allowed to take the medication and not face penalties.
The only possible exception might (and this is a long shot) be if he attempted to talk to someone with MLB or a trainer to ask if the medication would cause him to test positive, and was given bad information.
Now that's great tasting chicken!
What if this drug wasn't on the do not use list?
by Michael McNamara on Dec 19, 2011 8:35 AM CST up reply actions
Are you talking about the "Drug" or an "Indgredient"?
I would assume that do not use list contains more “indgredients” rather than drugs themselves so that the list is more easily updated if needed.
by Infield Fly Rule on Dec 19, 2011 8:41 AM CST up reply actions
Might also depend on if it was prescribed by a doctor and he had prior approval to take the medicine.
The weird thing to me is this…
If his first test was SUPER HIGH in testosterone and he took that test in October, how could his second test that he requested possibly have been dirty? I’ve read that it takes well over a month for that stuff to clear your system. There shouldn’t have been time for that to happen between the 2 tests.
I have no concept.
Youre assuming that the first "dirty" test took place on the same day he took the meds
If he had prior approval this whole issue of guilt/innocence wouldnt even be raise, he would be absolved already.
If it takes a month to leave the system he could have taken this medication some time i September, gets tested in early October prompting the failed test, and then his 2nd “clean” test was some time late October….so that month would have already passed for it to leave the system.
I'm assuming the resukt wiuldn't have been so high if whatever it was had been in his system for awhile.
Also, if it does take that long to leave the system he would have to have stopped taking whatever it was immediately after being tested. Not sure why he would do that.
As far as the prior approval thing, I was wondering if it’s possible that there was an ingredient in whatever he was taking that skewed the test results but was not on the banned substances list.
I have no concept.
by menchkins on Dec 19, 2011 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
If he can prove that there was no way he could possibly have known that banned substances were in his medication
then he’s fine.
MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Policy calls for strict liability among players, meaning if a player tests positive, the league is “not required to otherwise establish intent, fault, negligence or knowing use of a Prohibited Substance on the Player’s part to establish such a violation.”
Even if a player can establish he did not knowingly take a banned substance, he must show he was not in any way negligent to appeal successfully. For example, taking a dietary supplement that contains an unlabeled performance-enhancing drug would not be sufficient grounds for appeal, but if he were to show that he ingested something that was either tampered with or no player reasonably could have assumed to have been contaminated, the appeal might succeed.
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
"Something always good seems to happen when he's in there. Numbers matched up good."
~RRR
by Charlie Marlow on Dec 19, 2011 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
Great news if true
At this point I don’t really care about a suspension. I would gladly take it for a clean(ish) reputation.
by E Tyme on Dec 19, 2011 8:47 AM CST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I still care about the suspension
but given that he’s extremely likely to get suspended regardless of the reason, it’s good to know it wasn’t premeditated.
Rumor
I don’t come around these parts very often anymore, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I heard this rumor last week and think there might be something to it.
I won’t comment on the exact nature of the issue, but the meds are apparently related o suppressed estrogen levels, not high testosterone. Same effect on the ratio though, which triggered the investigation.
"You guys know me. I take a long time to analyze things."
- Ned Yost
by SunglassesAtNight on Dec 19, 2011 9:15 AM CST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I wonder if there if there can be an exception for legit medical treatment
I hope this is true first step to Braun getting his name back. Notice that ESPN is not racing breathlessly to report this like they did when the story first broke
"It's a joke. It's all a joke.
Manny Ramirez supposedly had a legit medical issue in his first case
I doubt it, because Braun still should have known what he was putting into his body, and even if it was unkowingly, he still had an elevated level of testosterone, which gave him an unfair edge.
That unfair edge is pretty negligible IMO
Sure he might have had an unfair advantage in the playoffs, and that is pretty damn notable, but he hadn’t had that same advantage throughout the regular season, as he had been tested negative. And considering that he still played very well throughout the negative season, and that he didn’t play extraordinarily better in the playoffs, that edge is negligible.
Go ahead, make my day.
by ilikeburritos on Dec 19, 2011 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
Well
We dont know when his tests during the regular season were. We know he was tested twice, but for all we know a situation could have taken place where the 2nd test was some time in July perhaps, he gets this “medical condition” in August, and is taking meds through the end of the season.
And he did test higher than anyone ever tested, twice the amount, so I would say there was probably a considerable advantage there. Could very well be why he has such an insane post season.
The twice as high as anyone ever thing screams testing error to me.
I have no concept.
by menchkins on Dec 19, 2011 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
It was tested by two seperate sources
And came up dirty on both, so its highly unlikely.
And that test doesnt have errors, many many people have stated so that are intricately involved with testing.
Trollin' hard today, eh?
We pull our pants up and do our jobs here.
by Rubie Q on Dec 19, 2011 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
So if/when Braun is found to be in violation of the drug policy
Does this comment get taken back?
You’re a lawyer, right? I would say that my point of view on this is the way an legal expert would state things as well, with what we know.
I am a lawyer.
And with the little evidence we have, I don’t know that a legal expert would say things like:
he still had an elevated level of testosterone, which gave him an unfair edge
And he did test higher than anyone ever tested, twice the amount, so I would say there was probably a considerable advantage there. Could very well be why he has such an insane post season.
And that test doesnt have errors
We pull our pants up and do our jobs here.
I'm not a lawyer
but I wouldn’t make any absolute statements about a bunch of hearsay shit that we read via unnamed sources.
Maybe that’s just me, though.
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
"Something always good seems to happen when he's in there. Numbers matched up good."
~RRR
by Charlie Marlow on Dec 19, 2011 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Wow.
Your ability to latch onto “evidence” (really just facts you’re assuming to be true) that bolster your prejudices and ignore every other possibility or even relevant facts that suggest otherwise is pretty mind boggling.
Maybe you should have been the lawyer and not Rubie. Your view of what constitutes facts and truth are subjective enough that you’d fit right in with every stereotype others have in their heads about those in the profession. (Including yourself, based on comments you’ve made and assumptions you’ve made about me in the past.)
Once again I have to ask, why is it this guy hasn’t been banned? What is it that he brings to the table that’s so indispensable? Certainly not his objectivity. Just because he’s not showing up saying “Brewers suck!” doesn’t mean he isn’t a troll. It’s too bad the definition of that word is interpreted so narrowly around these parts, all apparently in the name of continuing to expose folks here to his peculiar brand of impotent demagoguery.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 19, 2011 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
Because it's a free pass to make jokes at his expense if he continues to stay here
Like a neverending BUCKS
Testing error could mean a lot of things too, including a contaminated specimen.
I have no concept.
by menchkins on Dec 19, 2011 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
We don't know if he had "an elevated level of testosterone."
Or at least I haven’t seen anything concluding that. What we do have is that his testosterone/epi ratio triggered the positive test. As others have noted, the medication or substance in question could have supressed the epi levels which obviously positively affect the ratio.
Let’s wait until we have all the facts before we pass judgment and engage in revisionist history.
Yes, this.
Based on what’s been reported, it’s a ratio that was thrown off, so either the numerator was increased or the denominator was decreased or both. We don’t know which.
Which is actually pretty interesting to think about...
Maybe his testosterone levels were super low, giving him a disadvantage = )
I have no concept.
At least someone reported it, and not some commenter
But considering the source, I’ll hold off on any optimism.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
BCB Fantasy Football League 1 Champ
I'm still not convinced the "source" isn't us.
Comment on BCB → forums → twitter → terez owens → tmz
fka "warwick5s"
by DEUCE SLUICE on Dec 19, 2011 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I know what you're saying
but TMZ reported Michael Jackson’s death first, the Tiger Woods ‘accident’ first (IIRC) among other things.
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
"Something always good seems to happen when he's in there. Numbers matched up good."
~RRR
by Charlie Marlow on Dec 19, 2011 3:59 PM CST up reply actions
And the Manny Ramirez domestic violence case, I think?
FanGraphs should consider a venue for a Gallery Night... they could even serve a cake with a Win Expectancy Chart of the 7/7/11 Brewers' game etched in the frosting, and 7-up. Oh, yeah - and t-shirts that say "SABR-Friday." I'm totally there.
by Jess'HittheBall on Dec 19, 2011 4:15 PM CST up reply actions
I'm getting pretty sick of these "sources" leaking things
out before the whole story is available to the public.
All is vanity.
It shouldn't be how baseball works though.
by Archibaldcrane on Dec 19, 2011 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
At the same time, it's making this story kind of fun. I kind of hope we continue to get tidbit after tidbit until everything is explained in mid-Jan.
Still hope for a 'clean' braun?
Delusional.
Guy is going for 50 games. Accept it and get on with your life.
You're a clown.
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
"Something always good seems to happen when he's in there. Numbers matched up good."
~RRR
by Charlie Marlow on Dec 20, 2011 10:26 AM CST up reply actions
When did I ever say anything about whether or not I hope he's clean? Obviously, I hope he's clean, because I'm a Brewer fan.
I was just commenting on how the story is playing out. You, on the other hand, clearly had something to say, but nobody to say it to, so you just plopped your shit down whereever you saw fit. Thanks for the well-placed, on-topic reply!
I have an autographed Frank Thomas card that I got as a gift when I was younger...
If it weren’t a gift, and didn’t have the autograph, I’d rip it up : (
*Actually, think ink on the card probably decreased its value. Screw that guy.
FanGraphs should consider a venue for a Gallery Night... they could even serve a cake with a Win Expectancy Chart of the 7/7/11 Brewers' game etched in the frosting, and 7-up. Oh, yeah - and t-shirts that say "SABR-Friday." I'm totally there.
by Jess'HittheBall on Dec 19, 2011 8:29 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
You've got to give Frank a break though.
If he was clean, and from all appearances and information that I’ve heard he was, he lost a lot because he played in the steroid era. He’s got pretty good reason to be bitter about their use.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 19, 2011 8:42 PM CST up reply actions
Alternatively, he wasn't clean (like most everybody else) and has to yell a little harder about it now to protect his legacy
If Plush had to pick Wearwolf or Vampire, I'm a Wearwolf!
Maybe.
But I’ve always gotten the impression that Thomas and Griffey Jr. were the only stars of their generation most people thought were clean. He’s probably aware that that’s his reputation too.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 19, 2011 9:25 PM CST up reply actions
In which case
in my opinion, he should be more wary of nailing someone up on a crucifix due to a ‘leak’ which was a breach of the JDA. Not to mention going farther and saying it should have been ‘leaked’ earlier.
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
"Something always good seems to happen when he's in there. Numbers matched up good."
~RRR
by Charlie Marlow on Dec 19, 2011 9:34 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Probably.
But I think the opposite reaction is pretty human too. If people think he was clean, he probably thinks that the people who are thought of as dirty generally are. I’m not saying I agree with him on Braun specifically given what’s increasingly sounding like a huge, unfortunate fuckup, just that I can understand why he feels the way he apparently does.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 19, 2011 9:47 PM CST up reply actions
TMZ, can you please shut the fuck up?
When I want to know how many grams of fat are in Kim Kardahian’s ass, I’ll find you. But stay the fuck out of sports, thanks.
Packers: Working on a dynasty.
Blackhawks: Taking care of business as usual.
Badgers:Back-to-back B1G Champions!
Brewers: Move along, nothin' to see here.






































