2012 MLB Thread (Cabrera Gets Triple Crown, first since Yaz 1967)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

Guilty as crap. Reporters will eventually uncover a lot more to this story. ... He will always be guilty in my mind and I hope people uncover the truth so this posturing will look worse over time.

+1

[stevew]

I love how he's flaunting his not guilty-ness and thinking we're stupid enough to equate that with innocence.

[sterlingice]

I figured the easy way to play this was to be boring and just let it go away

SI

[lungs]

This made me chuckle:

[ISiddiqui]

LOL!

[MizzouRah]

lol Lungs!

[lungs]

Honestly I can't understand how Illinois isn't blue

[MrBug708]

That image reminds me of the elector college with those percentages

[Logan]

I'm convinced those votes are never actually tabulated; just charted by an editor with a sense of humor.

[mckerney]

Every bidder for the Dodgers should withdraw right now - latimes.com

What a mess. What a complete mess. It’s orchestrated by Frank McCourt, so the shock factor is nil, but still.

You wonder how any human being can be so completely clueless, but then we’ve been watching this sorry excuse for an owner for way too long now.

His latest fantasy has him selling the team but keeping the parking lots completely surrounding Dodger Stadium. Hey, now there’s a sweet deal. Thursday marked the first day the siege of the Alamo began in 1836. Getting surrounded by the enemy is never a very good idea.

So every single one of the nine remaining bidders on the team need to get out of the Dodgers pool right now.

Follow the lead of Joe Torre and Rick Caruso. No parking lots, no bid. No auction. McCourt is not only still left in bankruptcy but with another lesson to learn.

He thinks the fans boycotted the team last year? Try mudding up the sales process so badly he’s still holding the team after April 1. Outrage will be so rampant that he’ll be lucky to average 20,000.

You may not have been the biggest fan of Bob Daly when he ran the Dodgers for Fox, but he was dead on when he told The Times’ T.J. Simers last month:

"Here's the test to see if we get a smart or stupid owner. If you make a deal and allow McCourt to keep the land and parking lots, you are out of your mind.”

So listen up, you nine remaining bidders. I don’t care if you’re Magic Johnson or Stan Kroneke or gazillionaire Steve Cohen. You buy the team and are willing to let McCourt keep the parking lots, you are not wanted. You don’t deserve the Dodgers.

No one can require McCourt to include the parking lots. That’s the lousy deal Major League Baseball, in its eagerness to rid itself of McCourt, made. In another McCourt specialty, the lots are held in a separate entity and aren't in bankruptcy court.

It may be wishful thinking to entertain the idea that an MLB team in a major market, with the history of the Dodgers, with a huge TV deal coming, won’t find one idiot willing to make a deal with the devil. McCourt is already claiming he has one such bid.

If so, that person needs to withdraw the offer immediately.

Bankruptcy never should have been allowed in the first place. It was a desperate dodge to avoid MLB taking over the team, selling it and pushing McCourt out. MLB was never going to allow team creditors to go unpaid. They weren’t in real danger.

Now McCourt wants to sell the team and keep the lots to develop them? Really? What local developer would go into business with the most despised man in Los Angeles? It’s almost delusional. It is a complete mess. It is all McCourt. And L.A.’s ongoing nightmare.

[rowech]

Has there been any info about the other two guys that were tested the same time as Braun was? Did their tests come back positive?

[lungs]

If anybody is interested in some counter arguments to the anti-Braun sentinment, this blog post does a good job summarizing it.

I know I'm just a Braun fan/Brewer apologist so most around here would and should take what I say with a grain of salt so I'm not really here to argue much (plus I don't care whether anybody uses PEDs, whether it's a Brewer or even a St. Louis Cardinal). But if Braun's defense team was able to replicate how the mishandling of the sample created a false positive, I'd tend to think some people ought to reconsider their position.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by lungs

If anybody is interested in some counter arguments to the anti-Braun sentinment, this blog post does a good job summarizing it.

I know I'm just a Braun fan/Brewer apologist so most around here would and should take what I say with a grain of salt so I'm not really here to argue much (plus I don't care whether anybody uses PEDs, whether it's a Brewer or even a St. Louis Cardinal). But if Braun's defense team was able to replicate how the mishandling of the sample created a false positive, I'd tend to think some people ought to reconsider their position.

Like I just posted...why did the other two players not test positive then? If they were all handled in the same way?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by rowech

Like I just posted...why did the other two players not test positive then? If they were all handled in the same way?

Can't explain that or do we know for sure they didn't test positive? Only Braun was leaked.

[mckerney]

Braun's camp was able to cause synthetic testosterone to develop in a urine sample through mishandling?

[lungs]

dola

Another interesting thing that has come out is that Zack Greinke is doing college scouting for the Brewers. Guy is quirky as heck and I think the Brewers are doing this to accommodate his quirkiness in hopes he signs an extension. I think it's looking like a possibility as Zack wouldn't be the type to chase the money. I think a lot hinges on the Brewers doing well this year though as he's not going to sign with a team that isn't winning.

[cartman]

Tom Hicks did something similar when he was forced to sell the Rangers. He kept the parking lots surrounding the Ballpark in Arlington.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Braun's camp was able to cause synthetic testosterone to develop in a urine sample through mishandling?

Yeah, they had him pee in it some more.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by lungs

Can't explain that or do we know for sure they didn't test positive? Only Braun was leaked.

The other two should come out and say we were the other tests, we tested positive, we won our appeal like Braun but we weren't in the public eye. Problem is they aren't doing that so it makes it look worse.

Hopefully, questions will be answered over time but the whole thing is just unbelievably fishy. I just feel MLB came up with this to avoid a lawsuit from Braun for the leaked test and all these gaps in the stories are the stuff they just couldn't figure out how to deal with.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Braun's camp was able to cause synthetic testosterone to develop in a urine sample through mishandling?

There is no synthetic testosterone itself in the urine. The way they test it (if I understand correctly) is by finding metabolites that show the use of synthetic testosterone.

http://audio.weei.com/a/52238582/wil...overturned.htm

And what Will Carroll is saying in that audio piece is that Braun's team was able to replicate the result with Braun's urine by handling a sample in the manner the collector handled it while having another sample taken from Braun that was immediately tested and tested negative.

Anyway, I'm tending to listen to Will Carroll on this the most. Mostly because I like what he is saying (it's pro-Braun) but he at least has a plausible scientific information. And Will Carroll tends to be a little more medically inclined than most of the blowhards on TV.

[molson]

If someone other than Braun's "team" says that a clean urine test can turn into one showing synthetic testosterone use, simply from being tested in 72 hours instead of 48 hours (that's the extent of the "mishandling" that I've heard about, give or take a few hours), I'll certainly consider that. But otherwise, Braun still seems disingenuous. He's desperately trying to make this look like a total exoneration and I don't buy it based on anything he's said. And I'm still curious about what "extremely unusual circumstances" he knew back when the results first came back - did he already know day one that the result was delayed a day or two?

Edit: Another interesting thing is from Braun's own statement, he admits that the procedure is that the samples have to be delivered to "FedEx on the day they’re collected absent unusual circumstances". And then he points out were no unusual circumstances in this case. But if there had been unusual circumstance impacting only the timing of the delivery, then the sample would have followed procedure and he would have had no defense. So apparently, the synthetic testosterone use only manifests itself in a situation where the delivery is NOT delayed by unusual circumstances?

The stuff about arguing that there were 5 Fedex locations in close distance - that, is, on its face, just an argument that the technicality existed. It's a good argument that the tester was lazy and should be fired. But if there weren't those locations so close by, if it wasn't possible to get that test in right away, then he'd have no defense, and the test would have still "counted". Again, unless the test results are different based on how many fedex facilities there are.

There's so many holes in the feeble exoneration claim it'd be silly to pursue that if people weren't buying it.

[sterlingice]

The Nationals and third baseman Ryan Zimmerman have agreed to terms on a contract extension. | MLB.com: News

Good to see a homegrown player like Zim stay.

You know, I don't really know much about the Nats ownership group but are we a couple of years away from them becoming the Phillies south? They are trying to lock up as much pitching as possible (Gonzalez and Jackson to augment Strasburg and the rest of their youngsters) and have now just handed out their second $100M contract to a hitter. That's a big market and I know Angelos has his tentacles all through it but it's a city with a ton of money and they could tap some of those revenue streams

SI

[lungs]

Another case to look at for similar circumstances is that of Diane Modahl who had similar circumstances to Braun and was ultimately cleared.

Diane Modahl was cleared of drug taking a year later after an independent appeals panel accepted evidence bacterial activity could have increased testosterone levels while the sample was not refrigerated.

[lungs]

Dola

MLB was not responsible for the leak, nor was the player's union. Somebody involved with Braun indeed leaked it, but not because Braun wanted it leaked.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by rowech

The other two should come out and say we were the other tests, we tested positive, we won our appeal like Braun but we weren't in the public eye. Problem is they aren't doing that so it makes it look worse.

Why would any player want to do this? You would go from being anonymous to having steroid suspicions attached to you for the rest of your career.

If it were me, I would not say a word.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Why would any player want to do this? You would go from being anonymous to having steroid suspicions attached to you for the rest of your career.

If it were me, I would not say a word.

Why? If all three tested positive, people would be willing to accept Braun's story a lot more I think. The fact that all three samples were handled in the same way and all three tested positive makes it much more likely in my opinion.

Them not coming out and saying anything about it makes me believe their samples were handled in the same way but somehow came back negative. Hence their silence to protect Braun.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by rowech

Why? If all three tested positive, people would be willing to accept Braun's story a lot more I think. The fact that all three samples were handled in the same way and all three tested positive makes it much more likely in my opinion.

It might help Braun's case, but if there is currently no suspicion around you, why would you voluntarily invite the suspicion?

If there is even the slightest chance that it will damage your future earning potential it is probably not a good idea to go public, especially if you are not a household name player.

[mckerney]

And The Onion nails it.

Joel Zumaya Agrees To Throw One Last Amazing Pitch | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Twins reliever Joel Zumaya to miss another season with torn ligament in right elbow - The Washington Post

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by mckerney

And The Onion nails it.

Joel Zumaya Agrees To Throw One Last Amazing Pitch | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Twins reliever Joel Zumaya to miss another season with torn ligament in right elbow - The Washington Post

Noooo! How am I ever going to get my Joel Zumaya autographed Guitar Hero guitar if he retires?

SI

[Shkspr]

FWIW, my wife, who has paid no attention whatsoever to baseball in general and wouldn't know Ryan Braun from Eva Braun, is a chemist in a hospital lab. I asked her about urinalysis (we are so romantic) and without even mentioning the specifics of the case she was pretty adamant that an extra day would fuck up more or less any test she could think of. I asked her how long an unrefrigerated sample could go without being tested, how a sample would maintain integrity overnight, how much different refrigeration schemes retard the bacterial formation process, etc.

After hearing her responses, I'm 100% certain that if the Drug Testing policy mandates that a sample be there within a certain time, then that time frame was chosen because it's the outside edge of sample reliability. If a sample is delayed beyond that time, there's NO chance it's valid at any confidence level. As my wife put it, "After three days of sitting on a counter, there's a decent chance you'd show up pregnant using certain tests." There are tests my wife does that have to be performed no more than two hours after collection. She said she doesn't know of any tests that would produce proper results if the sample took more than 24 hours to get to the lab before being frozen. She also indicated that if the sample were frozen at the point of collection, that it would need to be kept in a non-frost-free environment, so even if the courier took it home and put it in his freezer for the weekend to retard bacteria growth, the sample would be considered tainted anyway.

Bottom line is, things grow in your piss, and they grow exponentially, and no matter what the intention was, if they say they're going to test within X hours, it's because at X+1 hours, there's too much stuff growing in that piss that wasn't there when they took the sample. If the sample was tested a day late, then there is no way to calibrate what the sample shows and that's all there is to it.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

FWIW, my wife, who has paid no attention whatsoever to baseball in general and wouldn't know Ryan Braun from Eva Braun, is a chemist in a hospital lab. I asked her about urinalysis (we are so romantic) and without even mentioning the specifics of the case she was pretty adamant that an extra day would fuck up more or less any test she could think of. I asked her how long an unrefrigerated sample could go without being tested, how a sample would maintain integrity overnight, how much different refrigeration schemes retard the bacterial formation process, etc.

After hearing her responses, I'm 100% certain that if the Drug Testing policy mandates that a sample be there within a certain time, then that time frame was chosen because it's the outside edge of sample reliability. If a sample is delayed beyond that time, there's NO chance it's valid at any confidence level. As my wife put it, "After three days of sitting on a counter, there's a decent chance you'd show up pregnant using certain tests." There are tests my wife does that have to be performed no more than two hours after collection. She said she doesn't know of any tests that would produce proper results if the sample took more than 24 hours to get to the lab before being frozen. She also indicated that if the sample were frozen at the point of collection, that it would need to be kept in a non-frost-free environment, so even if the courier took it home and put it in his freezer for the weekend to retard bacteria growth, the sample would be considered tainted anyway.

Bottom line is, things grow in your piss, and they grow exponentially, and no matter what the intention was, if they say they're going to test within X hours, it's because at X+1 hours, there's too much stuff growing in that piss that wasn't there when they took the sample. If the sample was tested a day late, then there is no way to calibrate what the sample shows and that's all there is to it.

Can it start growing synthetic things?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

If a sample is delayed beyond that time, there's NO chance it's valid at any confidence level.

I wonder then, why it's perfectly OK under for a drug test to be delayed as long as there's "unusual circumstances" causing a delay. Not saying your wife is wrong, I just don't understand that part (of many parts). I'm reading online that vacuum-sealed urine can be stored for 6 months, though that's for standard drug tests, not necessarily the MLB's more comprehensive ones. That's how you get it when you buy urine online to cheat drug tests. I'm assuming the tester would vacuum-seal it on the spot and mail it that way, rather than just keep it in a coffee cup at his house or something.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

FWIW, my wife, who has paid no attention whatsoever to baseball in general and wouldn't know Ryan Braun from Eva Braun, is a chemist in a hospital lab. I asked her about urinalysis (we are so romantic) and without even mentioning the specifics of the case she was pretty adamant that an extra day would fuck up more or less any test she could think of. I asked her how long an unrefrigerated sample could go without being tested, how a sample would maintain integrity overnight, how much different refrigeration schemes retard the bacterial formation process, etc.

After hearing her responses, I'm 100% certain that if the Drug Testing policy mandates that a sample be there within a certain time, then that time frame was chosen because it's the outside edge of sample reliability. If a sample is delayed beyond that time, there's NO chance it's valid at any confidence level. As my wife put it, "After three days of sitting on a counter, there's a decent chance you'd show up pregnant using certain tests." There are tests my wife does that have to be performed no more than two hours after collection. She said she doesn't know of any tests that would produce proper results if the sample took more than 24 hours to get to the lab before being frozen. She also indicated that if the sample were frozen at the point of collection, that it would need to be kept in a non-frost-free environment, so even if the courier took it home and put it in his freezer for the weekend to retard bacteria growth, the sample would be considered tainted anyway.

Bottom line is, things grow in your piss, and they grow exponentially, and no matter what the intention was, if they say they're going to test within X hours, it's because at X+1 hours, there's too much stuff growing in that piss that wasn't there when they took the sample. If the sample was tested a day late, then there is no way to calibrate what the sample shows and that's all there is to it.

I thought I read the guy in charge of the IOC Dope Testing say it didn't matter. I've read so much on it in the past week, I have no idea where I read that. Maybe Passan's article?

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder then, why it's perfectly OK under for a drug test to be delayed as long as there's "unusual circumstances" causing a delay. Not saying your wife is wrong, I just don't understand that part (of many parts). I'm reading online that vacuum-sealed urine can be stored for 6 months, though that's for standard drug tests, not necessarily the MLB's more comprehensive ones. That's how you get it when you buy urine online to cheat drug tests. I'm assuming the tester would vacuum-seal it on the spot and mail it that way, rather than just keep it in a coffee cup at his house or something.

After I spoke with my wife, I went back and read the Joint Agreement. There's nothing in the JDA about vacuum sealing. There's nothing, incidentally, about freezing. The only guidelines are to keep it in a cool and secure place. Basically, you tape the cap on the bottles, mark them for chain of custody, stick it in a FedEx box and overnight it to the facility. The phrase "unusual circumstances" appears only once in the agreement; there is no indication of proper procedure in the event of "unusual circumstances". I would hazard a guess that the phrase was expected to be invoked on a frequency commensurate with "9/11" or "Katrina" than "Store's Closed".

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I thought I read the guy in charge of the IOC Dope Testing say it didn't matter. I've read so much on it in the past week, I have no idea where I read that. Maybe Passan's article?

I'm sure the IOC rep said whatever makes the testing process appear more authoritative; that's his job. Given that a historically aberrant custody chain coincided with a historically aberrant result even among positive results, and that the first burden of proof is on the league to demonstrate why the sample should be considered valid despite the irregularities, that's a fairly high bar to cross unless you're stumping for the league.

[korme]

Can we all just stop arguing and agree that the Brewers 2012 season is equivalent to the Patriots' SpyGate (acquisitionally)?

/cincinnatiredsfan

[lungs]

Originally Posted by rowech

Can it start growing synthetic things?

I'll post something somebody smarter than me on this subject wrote on another board:

No, you can't spontaneously sprout synthetic T in urine sample, but the test that "determines" that synthetic T is present does not actually find synthetic T in urine. What it does is identify the metabolites produced when T is used up by your body processes. It identifies them only by very precisely detemining when the remnants of those metabolites pass in front of a sensor after the urine sample has been literally turned into a gas. The gas rises up a tube and the different remnant rise at microscopically different rates. A sensor records data about these remnants as they pass by. This data is turned into a printout (though it can also be evaluated just as numbers). Then you look on your printout for a peak at a given "time" on the graph, you measure that peak and make a determination as to what that means.

Here's the catch. What if two different things are passing by the sensor at a give time? If you are predisposed to think that everything passing by that sensor at that specific time is indicative of synthetic T, you're going to get a big peak that looks like a lot of synthetic T that is actually only a mcuh smaller amounts of two different things. (And that small amount, for reasons alluded to in posts long ago, would not mean that there was a small amount of synthetic T, either. A determination of synthetic T being present can only be made by comparing ratios of different carbon ions, both of which are present in nature, and then making a statistical hypothesis that a certain ratio is "out of whack" with what would normally be expected in a given sample. It's diagnostic art and statistics as much as anything.

This is a vast oversimplification, but the point is that you don't "find' synthetic T waving back at you from under a microscope. These tests are extraordinarily complex in nature. Just reading this simplified version should provide further insight into why I say it's virtually impossible for the athlete to challenge the conclusion of the testers when they say they're right.

[molson]

If there's no vacuum sealing, and a sample is pretty much automatically no good after a day, it's interesting that Braun was using the "someone tampered with it" defense instead:

"We spoke to biochemists and scientists and we asked them, ‘How difficult would it be to tamper with somebody’s sample?’ And their response was that, ‘If they were motivated, it would be extremely easy.’ Again, that’s why it’s so important to get it out of the hands of the only person in the world who knows whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to FedEx, they don’t know whose sample it is. As soon as it gets to the lab, they don’t know whose sample it is. That’s why it’s extremely important."

[Ksyrup]

He's only using that defense to obscure the fact that he won on a technicality. Apparently it's not enough to say they broke protocol which invalidates the test, and I have no idea how or why the sample tested like it did. He has to insinuate, with no proof or suggestion of motive, that an otherwise professional healthcare worker tampered with his sample.

I've said I don't really care about any of this, and I don't from the bigger "let's just play ball" perspective (I don't care if he did or did not test positive), but what I've read of Braun's statement is really pretty sickening. Throwing someone under the bus with no proof or no reason other than to make yourself look good is bad form, IMO. This is one of those lawyer/PR-inspired moves that should backfire big-time on him. At least, I hope it does. He got some bad advice on how to handle this.

[miked]

Look folks, I'm a scientist and run a large lab. While it's highly likely Braun is a no-good cheating bastard, you cannot leave a sample around for a few days and hope that the testing retains its accuracy...unless you are testing for radioisotopes or something and even those decay slightly differently. I would think the fact that somebody just left it laying around unsecured would be enough to invalidate a test, it is certainly likely in the court of law. But leaving a biological sample around over any period time increases any probability that something you didn't control for happens. It's stupid that the MLB thinks this is ok and even that they want to appeal the ruling.

Any yes, they are not testing for the actual component, just metabolites and converted things. They are not testing for synthetic testosterone.

[sterlingice]

I don't want one of those seasonal threads where the title never changes but I think "Spring Training" for the next 4 weeks is good. I know there's a lot of Ryan Braun news and Zimmerman's contract is a big deal. But are we all good with just leaving it as "Spring Training" so we can all bask in the most wonderful time of the baseball year?

SI

[Grover]

Spring training 2012 -- Fred Wilpon intends to be New York Mets' owner for 'very long time' - ESPN New York

The Wilpons ensure that I will not be watching baseball for a long time. This is depressing news.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

Look folks, I'm a scientist and run a large lab. While it's highly likely Braun is a no-good cheating bastard, you cannot leave a sample around for a few days and hope that the testing retains its accuracy...unless you are testing for radioisotopes or something and even those decay slightly differently. I would think the fact that somebody just left it laying around unsecured would be enough to invalidate a test, it is certainly likely in the court of law. But leaving a biological sample around over any period time increases any probability that something you didn't control for happens. It's stupid that the MLB thinks this is ok and even that they want to appeal the ruling.

Any yes, they are not testing for the actual component, just metabolites and converted things. They are not testing for synthetic testosterone.

Would it be typical to vacuum seal urine at the point of collection or just drop it in the mail/send it to the lab in a regular Tupperware container or something? And if it is vacuum sealed, doesn't that preserve the urine for longer than a day? If it can break down so quickly, it seems strange if no easy preservation methods were taken before you ship something off to Montreal.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Every bidder for the Dodgers should withdraw right now - latimes.com

For sure. McCourt as a bitter old fool could charge unreasonable rates for parking, eliminate any pregrame fun, and basically have a huge influence on attendence. It would be crazy to not get the parking lots in that deal.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

For sure. McCourt as a bitter old fool could charge unreasonable rates for parking, eliminate any pregrame fun, and basically have a huge influence on attendence. It would be crazy to not get the parking lots in that deal.

The funny thing is? TJ Simers referred to him, last I read, as "The Parking Lot Attendant" because it was his ownership of parking lots in Boston that allowed him to leverage his way into a purchase of the team in the first place.

Funny in a make-you-cry way how the wheel turns, huh?

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, he's not a car salesman, he's a parking lot collector.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by korme

Can we all just stop arguing and agree that the Brewers 2012 season is equivalent to the Patriots' SpyGate (acquisitionally)?

/cincinnatiredsfan

Agreed

/stlouiscardinalsfan

[Comey]

Danys Baez retired. My day has gotten better.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Royals making a long term contract announcement at 5:30 PM CST. Most expect it to be Alex Gordon.

[cougarfreak]

Reds sign newly acquired Sean Marshall to a 3 year $16.5 million dollar extension. So what they gave up this offseason in the two trades they get two pretty damn good arms under control for the next 4 years at a reasonable cost. Makes the Marshall trade seem a lot better IMO.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Royals making a long term contract announcement at 5:30 PM CST. Most expect it to be Alex Gordon.

Nope, Sal Perez.