Ryan Braun tests positive for PED

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by alnorth

There are only two ways Braun can get out of this. He either needs to scientifically prove that the test was a false positive (which might be hard since a follow-up test showed synthetic testosterone), he was re-tested a few weeks later which came back negative. That second test is not necessarily relevant, but he's arguing that the difference between the extremely high first result and the extremely low second result was so big, that it proves a false positive. I don't know the science behind this, I assume the folks at the lab will explain what happened and why Braun's argument is or is not valid.

If that doesn't work, Braun would have to prove that food or supplements he was taken was tampered with by someone else without his knowledge. Baseball has a strict liability policy, meaning that not knowing something you were taking had a bad substance is no excuse, you have to show you were not carelessly consuming stuff without knowing what is in it. The only way to successfully appeal, aside from attacking the test result, is to basically prove that someone spiked your food. Good luck with that argument.

He's basically going to have to resort to the same arguments that every other athlete who's ever gotten caught with high testosterone uses. It usually doesn't work out.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

He's basically going to have to resort to the same arguments that every other athlete who's ever gotten caught with high testosterone uses. It usually doesn't work out.

no, not really. Its different now, baseball has a stricter policy. The standard barry bonds argument was that his trainer was injecting stuff into him that he assumed was legal, and he foolishly trusted his trainer to not give him something illegal. Maybe you could show you did not intentionally take something.

Now, baseball is saying "ok, you know what, we don't care if you didn't intend to take something, it is your job to know exactly what you are consuming. Unless something crazy or nefarious happens like someone secretly spiking your food, we don't want to hear any excuses"

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by alnorth

no, not really. Its different now, baseball has a stricter policy. The standard barry bonds argument was that his trainer was injecting stuff into him that he assumed was legal, and he foolishly trusted his trainer to not give him something illegal. Maybe you could show you did not intentionally take something.

Now, baseball is saying "ok, you know what, we don't care if you didn't intend to take something, it is your job to know exactly what you are consuming. Unless something crazy or nefarious happens like someone secretly spiking your food, we don't want to hear any excuses"

I said athletes, not baseball players. Those arguments you cited are the ones that guys who get caught in any sport ALWAYS use.

And Barry Bonds was never caught on a drug test. The argument he made was in court.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

I said athletes, not baseball players. Those arguments you cited are the ones that guys who get caught in any sport ALWAYS use.

Ahh, fair enough, I was only thinking about baseball. I wonder how often athletes around the world beat back a positive test. I think I read about some soccer player or maybe its some other sport beating a test by showing that he ate tainted meat and they decided it would be unfair to punish him for that. Other than that? probably never.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Ahh, fair enough, I was only thinking about baseball. I wonder how often athletes around the world beat back a positive test. I think I read about some soccer player or maybe its some other sport beating a test by showing that he ate tainted meat and they decided it would be unfair to punish him for that. Other than that? probably never.

Yeah. And occasionally there's a mistake made by the testers (which almost everybody tries to argue), but it's rare.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Yeah. And occasionally there's a mistake made by the testers (which almost everybody tries to argue), but it's rare.

If I read the article correctly, his urine was tested twice. It's highly unlikely 2 different labs made the same mistake.

[Simply Red]

a shame really.