Stupid tag?

Thanks Ryan Braun. Next time I see you at a Dodger game I'll toss a syringe on the field for you for your vast contributions to baseball's integrity.

bhcompy: Thanks Ryan Braun. Next time I see you at a Dodger game I'll toss a syringe on the field for you for your vast contributions to baseball's integrity.

Let's say someone gets murdered. The only physical evidence is a few skin cells under the victim's fingernails. They arrest you and take a cheek swab. The sample gets misplaced for a few days, then shows up at the lab, gets tested, and it perfectly matches what they had in evidence.

Are you saying that when you go to court, you're not going to try & challenge that the sample was corrupted?

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Thanks Ryan Braun. Next time I see you at a Dodger game I'll toss a syringe on the field for you for your vast contributions to baseball's integrity.

Let's say someone gets murdered. The only physical evidence is a few skin cells under the victim's fingernails. They arrest you and take a cheek swab. The sample gets misplaced for a few days, then shows up at the lab, gets tested, and it perfectly matches what they had in evidence.

Are you saying that when you go to court, you're not going to try & challenge that the sample was corrupted?

The sample was never misplaced. They followed the procedure WADA does. The only reason Braun got his shiat overturned was because the CBA legalese was written ambiguously and interpreted a different way than accepted procedure.

bhcompy: The sample was never misplaced. They followed the procedure WADA does. The only reason Braun got his shiat overturned was because the CBA legalese was written ambiguously and interpreted a different way than accepted procedure.

Not even close. Do a little reading on the subject.

I'd start here, and reading every article linked.

It is extremely similar to the scenario I just suggested. In fact, it might be WORSE than the scenario I just suggested. Again, the sample was mishandled (something everyone agrees on) and yet when it was tested, it set a record high in testosterone levels...and it wasn't even close to the previous high.

How does that not set off giant alarm bells?

Score another one for Kinkos!

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: The sample was never misplaced. They followed the procedure WADA does. The only reason Braun got his shiat overturned was because the CBA legalese was written ambiguously and interpreted a different way than accepted procedure.

Not even close. Do a little reading on the subject.

I'd start here, and reading every article linked.

It is extremely similar to the scenario I just suggested. In fact, it might be WORSE than the scenario I just suggested. Again, the sample was mishandled (something everyone agrees on) and yet when it was tested, it set a record high in testosterone levels...and it wasn't even close to the previous high.

How does that not set off giant alarm bells?

The record is only for test data that has been released. Since test data isn't supposed to be released, all we know is that it is the highest level released(how many results have been released out of the thousands and thousands of tests?). That means nothing. You have a lack of information and you are extrapolating that what exists is meaningful in some way.

And that does nothing to dispel what I said, that the policy that was followed is the accepted policy from WADA. The difference is the legal interpretation of the CBA rule on the timeliness of submission, not anything to do with science or drug policy. Braun never challenged the results.

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: The sample was never misplaced. They followed the procedure WADA does. The only reason Braun got his shiat overturned was because the CBA legalese was written ambiguously and interpreted a different way than accepted procedure.

Not even close. Do a little reading on the subject.

I'd start here, and reading every article linked.

It is extremely similar to the scenario I just suggested. In fact, it might be WORSE than the scenario I just suggested. Again, the sample was mishandled (something everyone agrees on) and yet when it was tested, it set a record high in testosterone levels...and it wasn't even close to the previous high.

How does that not set off giant alarm bells?

This is Fark. We're gonna need you to go ahead and take your facts and evidence and shove them up your ass because this is NOT a courtroom, sir! This is where people come to offer opinions on subjects they know NOTHING about and present their uneducated conjecture as fact. Good day to you!

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: The sample was never misplaced. They followed the procedure WADA does. The only reason Braun got his shiat overturned was because the CBA legalese was written ambiguously and interpreted a different way than accepted procedure.

Not even close. Do a little reading on the subject.

I'd start here, and reading every article linked.

It is extremely similar to the scenario I just suggested. In fact, it might be WORSE than the scenario I just suggested. Again, the sample was mishandled (something everyone agrees on) and yet when it was tested, it set a record high in testosterone levels...and it wasn't even close to the previous high.

How does that not set off giant alarm bells?

The record is only for test data that has been released. Since test data isn't supposed to be released, all we know is that it is the highest level released(how many results have been released out of the thousands and thousands of tests?). That means nothing. You have a lack of information and you are extrapolating that what exists is meaningful in some way.

And that does nothing to dispel what I said, that the policy that was followed is the accepted policy from WADA. The difference is the legal interpretation of the CBA rule on the timeliness of submission, not anything to do with science or drug policy. Braun never challenged the results.

Braun never challenged the results because he didn't need to. If he could challenge the procedure, the results are null and void. Since it's much easier to prove that the process was flawed, he would have been a fool to try and challenge the results instead.

Not knowing anything about this or Ryan Braun's case, but on the surface alone it's fishy when someone has repeatedly tested clean, then has one test spike to unprecedented high levels, then returns to normal the very next test. I am not a PED user, but if I were, I surely would expect my test levels to be consistently abnormal. On that fact alone I have to side with Braun...although only two or three people for sure know the whole truth. And for his part, Braun's not talking, which is probably smart.

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: The sample was never misplaced. They followed the procedure WADA does. The only reason Braun got his shiat overturned was because the CBA legalese was written ambiguously and interpreted a different way than accepted procedure.

Not even close. Do a little reading on the subject.

I'd start here, and reading every article linked.

It is extremely similar to the scenario I just suggested. In fact, it might be WORSE than the scenario I just suggested. Again, the sample was mishandled (something everyone agrees on) and yet when it was tested, it set a record high in testosterone levels...and it wasn't even close to the previous high.

How does that not set off giant alarm bells?

The record is only for test data that has been released. Since test data isn't supposed to be released, all we know is that it is the highest level released(how many results have been released out of the thousands and thousands of tests?). That means nothing. You have a lack of information and you are extrapolating that what exists is meaningful in some way.

And that does nothing to dispel what I said, that the policy that was followed is the accepted policy from WADA. The difference is the legal interpretation of the CBA rule on the timeliness of submission, not anything to do with science or drug policy. Braun never challenged the results.

Somehow, I doubt you read every linked article in 15 minutes. Since, you know, they refute everything you just said.

careless lisper: This is Fark. We're gonna need you to go ahead and take your facts and evidence and shove them up your ass because this is NOT a courtroom, sir! This is where people come to offer opinions on subjects they know NOTHING about and present their uneducated conjecture as fact. Good day to you!

My bad.

careless lisper: Braun never challenged the results because he didn't need to. If he could challenge the procedure, the results are null and void. Since it's much easier to prove that the process was flawed, he would have been a fool to try and challenge the results instead.

Which is exactly the point of my murder analogy.

DeWayne Mann: Somehow, I doubt you read every linked article in 15 minutes. Since, you know, they refute everything you just said.

Except for the part where it's accepted procedure by WADA(per one of the Game of Shadows authors during a radio interview on FSR)

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Somehow, I doubt you read every linked article in 15 minutes. Since, you know, they refute everything you just said.

Except for the part where it's accepted procedure by WADA(per one of the Game of Shadows authors during a radio interview on FSR)

First, you'd know that there's some disagreement on that point. Second, you'd know that, even if that's true, that does not mean WADA procedure is scientifically sound.

All things considered, the Braun result is GOOD for the integrity of the game, no matter what you believe on PEDs. If there are errors in the testing process, as Will Carroll says, that's a good thing to know.

I say let all the players take as many steroids as possible. I want to see a baseball reach the moon in my lifetime.

baseball players have been doing drugs since the 1800s and picking someone on a team you hate or who is a jerk to get all high and mighty about is stupid

It's bullshiat that players are getting away with taking banned substances because of some stupid procedural violation. Once the sample is collected, tamper proof seals are placed on it while the person watches. If the sample arrives at the lab with those seals intact, everything else is irrelevant. A tube full of urine doesn't magically start generating testosterone if it's left laying around for an extra day.

bhcompy: Thanks Ryan Braun. Next time I see you at a Dodger game I'll toss a syringe on the field for you for your vast contributions to baseball's integrity.

I bet you didn't mind when Eric Gagne, Mota and Manny were doing it for the Dodgers, though, right?

someonelse: antidisestablishmentarianism: Being a Brewer fan, I can't comment on this story objectively. I will say you can go to hell Subby.

I've accepted the fact that people are forever going to say that he got off on a technicality even though that is grossly misleading and unfair. And Cards fans will boo him while McGuire's smirks quietly to himself.

Yeah, and I laugh when the Cubs fans boo him, since they were the same people that cheered for Sosa and his chemical factory home runs. That, and their starting shortstop was accused of sexual assault this past offseason.

Harv72b: No matter how you slice it, Braun was guilty

Harv72b: That being said, the procedures in use at the time were terribly flawed

I'm not a Brewers fan at all, and really couldn't care less about Ryan Braun...but I seriously have a hard time computing those two separate thoughts. If you agree the procedures are/were "flawed", I don't understand how you can be that confident he was "guilty".

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Thanks Ryan Braun. Next time I see you at a Dodger game I'll toss a syringe on the field for you for your vast contributions to baseball's integrity.

Let's say someone gets murdered. The only physical evidence is a few skin cells under the victim's fingernails. They arrest you and take a cheek swab. The sample gets misplaced for a few days, then shows up at the lab, gets tested, and it perfectly matches what they had in evidence.

Are you saying that when you go to court, you're not going to try & challenge that the sample was corrupted?

Except Braun's sample was not "misplaced". Apples and Oranges.

Braun and Alfonzo each failed their drug tests and got off on a technicality. MLB's implementation of this process is pretty sloppy.

Killer Cars: If you agree the procedures are/were "flawed", I don't understand how you can be that confident he was "guilty".

Because the sample hadn't been tampered with and science tells us that urine doesn't magically change its composition because it sits around for an extra day or two.

Killer Cars: I'm not a Brewers fan at all, and really couldn't care less about Ryan Braun...but I seriously have a hard time computing those two separate thoughts. If you agree the procedures are/were "flawed", I don't understand how you can be that confident he was "guilty".

Well, I accept that he's technically "not guilty" because of the wording of the policy, so good job by Braun's legal team on that one. Still, his sample was not tampered with, and there's nothing to suggest the mishandling of the sample could generate a positive result.

So, his piss was dirty, but he got away with it.

9beers: Because the sample hadn't been tampered with and science tells us that urine doesn't magically change its composition because it sits around for an extra day or two.

I'm being pedantic over the term "guilty". It's perfectly fine to think, even strongly so, that he got away with it.

machoprogrammer: someonelse: antidisestablishmentarianism: Being a Brewer fan, I can't comment on this story objectively. I will say you can go to hell Subby.

I've accepted the fact that people are forever going to say that he got off on a technicality even though that is grossly misleading and unfair. And Cards fans will boo him while McGuire's smirks quietly to himself.

Yeah, and I laugh when the Cubs fans boo him, since they were the same people that cheered for Sosa and his chemical factory home runs. That, and their starting shortstop was accused of sexual assault this past offseason.

Really? Sosa isn't welcome anywhere near Wrigley field. Cubs fans have made him an outcast and hate him for his lying and cheating. Its not like they made him a hitting coach.

machoprogrammer: Yeah, and I laugh when the Cubs fans boo him, since they were the same people that cheered for Sosa and his chemical factory home runs. That, and their starting shortstop was accused of sexual assault this past offseason.

Us Cubs fans don't talk a whole lot about Sosa anymore. We know we cheered him. We just... we don't talk about that in polite company anymore. We just kinda looked at each other around the time of the Congressional hearing and went 'let us never speak of this again'.

Gosling: Us Cubs fans don't talk a whole lot about Sosa anymore. We know we cheered him. We just... we don't talk about that in polite company anymore. We just kinda looked at each other around the time of the Congressional hearing and went 'let us never speak of this again'.

LarryDan43: Really? Sosa isn't welcome anywhere near Wrigley field. Cubs fans have made him an outcast and hate him for his lying and cheating. Its not like they made him a hitting coach.

I seem to remember back, around '01-'04, when everyone realized he was on the juice, him getting a lot of cheers (and even a stupid pepsi commercial).

Harv72b: No matter how you slice it, Braun was guilty and got off on a technicality;

First off, you misunderstand: baseball DOES NOT USE WADA procedure. The tester MAY have done WADA on his own. Or he may not have. That's the disagreement.

But it's 100% certain that he did not adhere to baseball's testing procedure.

Second, the sentence I quoted is incorrect. Again, read the article I linked to before, and the articles it links to in turn.

srhp29: Except Braun's sample was not "misplaced"

He also didn't murder anyone. It's amazing how you people keep pointing out technicalities in my analogy.

In my scenario, the accused may have murdered the person. He may not have. But if he tries to challenge the RESULT of the test, he will most likely be found guilty. If, instead, he challenges the procedure, he will be acquitted.

Now, explain to me how the above paragraph does not apply to Braun.

9beers: It's bullshiat that players are getting away with taking banned substances because of some stupid procedural violation. Once the sample is collected, tamper proof seals are placed on it while the person watches. If the sample arrives at the lab with those seals intact, everything else is irrelevant. A tube full of urine doesn't magically start generating testosterone if it's left laying around for an extra day.

9beers: Killer Cars: If you agree the procedures are/were "flawed", I don't understand how you can be that confident he was "guilty".

Because the sample hadn't been tampered with and science tells us that urine doesn't magically change its composition because it sits around for an extra day or two.

Yanks_RSJ: there's nothing to suggest the mishandling of the sample could generate a positive result.

For the love of god, people. This is getting stupid. Here, I'll even start copying & pasting some things for you to read:

[Will] Carroll's sources explain quite explicitly that [the] failure to keep up with the chain of custody caused a failure in the integrity of the sample. Then, not only was the sample's validity questionable, but they were able to replicate the results and show how it happened....

Joe Sheehan: So the delay in processing the urine was repeated, and shown to be the cause of the high levels of T?

Will Carroll: More or less. It deserves an answer longer than 140.

JGERRITWULTERKENS: confused; so the sheer act of leaving out a sample in the wrong environment by itself raises the testosterone ratio by >3x?

Will Carroll: To vastly oversimplify, yes.

Maybe Carroll's sources are wrong. I don't know, neither do you. But ALL I AM ASKING is that you click on the link I posted in the 5th comment to this thread, read it, and read its sources. Why is this so hard?

Harv72b: No matter how you slice it, Braun was guilty and got off on a technicality

I virtually always agree with dewayne mann - that streak ends today. If this had been olympic baseball, braun would be a pariah. without being trained and examining the evidence myself I'm as sure as I could be that braun juiced and got off on a procedural error.

JohnBigBootay: without being trained and examining the evidence myself I'm as sure as I could be that braun juiced and got off on a procedural error.

Take 10 minutes of your time and listen to this:

http://audio.weei.com/a/52238582/will-carroll-si-com-on-ryan-braun-s -5 0-game-suspension-being-overturned.htm

DeWayne Mann: Will Carroll: To vastly oversimplify, yes.

Naw. In the earlier threads I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper on unrefrigerated (or even frozen) urine samples. Testosterone level was unaffected and it certainly couldn't create synthetic testosterone. Tell me this - rules and procedures aside - in your heart of hearts you honestly think he wasn't dirty? I'm ok that he got off because I'm a better that ten guilty men go free kind of guy and rules are rules blah blah blah, but my gut says he's dirty.

DeWayne Mann: JohnBigBootay: without being trained and examining the evidence myself I'm as sure as I could be that braun juiced and got off on a procedural error.

Take 10 minutes of your time and listen to this:

http://audio.weei.com/a/52238582/will-carroll-si-com-on-ryan-braun-s -5 0-game-suspension-being-overturned.htm

From Game of Shadows writer Mark Fainaru-Wada:

So what does it mean that Braun's level was 20-to-1? Only that the sample needed further testing.

Braun and his attorneys have said that his ratio was three times higher than had ever been recorded, noting that in was in itself a sign that there was something wrong with the test.

It's possible that no one has ever tested that high in baseball, but Don Catlin, the former director for the Olympic lab at UCLA who is considered the father of performance-enhancing drug testing, said that he has seen cases that exceeded 100-to-1. A 20-to-1 ratio, he and others said that is not unusual in a positive test.

A sample left unrefrigerated for two days could begin to break down, Catlin said that which could alter the ratio one way or the other. That's why, whether a player's sample shows a 4-to-1 or 100-to-1 ratio, it's more important to determine whether the testosterone in his system was his own.

The IRMS test determined that the testosterone in Braun's sample was synthetic. Catlin and other experts said that they do not believe it is possible that a sample could somehow develop exogenous testosterone, unless it were tampered with.

Braun did not dispute the positive IRMS test in his defense in front of the arbitration panel, according to two sources with knowledge of the hearing.

....

Addendum A, Section V, Subsection 7 of the collective bargaining agreement states that Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected. As well, language in the CBA states, If the specimen is not immediately prepared for shipment, the Collector shall ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded during temporary storage. It also directs the collector to keep the chain of custody intact and to store the samples in a cool and secure location.

According to sources with knowledge of Braun's case, the collector believed the FedEx/Kinko's pickup time for shipments had passed and the samples would sit at FedEx until Monday, the next business day. Because of that he took the samples, already secured and sealed for shipping, and placed them in the basement of his home. MLB believed that decision fit with the language in the contract and should not have been grounds to toss the result.

The extremely experienced collector in Mr. Braun's case acted in a professional and appropriate manner, Manfred said in a statement Friday. He handled Mr. Braun's sample consistent with instructions issued by our jointly retained collection agency. The arbitrator found that those instructions were not consistent with certain language in our program, even though the instructions were identical to those used by many other drug programs -- including the other professional sports and the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Say it with me: technicality

DeWayne Mann: Maybe Carroll's sources are wrong. I don't know, neither do you.

Then why should I take it seriously? So Will Carroll had a source that TOLD HIM that Braun's defense team was able to replicate the results? He has no idea how that happened, only that it did happen - according to a source connected to the accused.

Maybe Braun should have mentioned that in his press conference instead of trashing the collector's integrity.

DeWayne Mann: Take 10 minutes of your time and listen to this:

http://audio.weei.com/a/52238582/will-carroll-si-com-on-ryan-braun-s -5 0-game-suspension-being-overturned.htm


I will do so after work. But fair warning, I have already read one paper that refutes his earlier claims (which simply raised the possibility of affecting the results - nothing more) on unrefrigerated testosterone rather pointedly. I like Carroll and I always have a seat for science at the table but on this I think he's been somewhat scattershot on this one. I will listen.

Yanks_RSJ: So Will Carroll had a source that TOLD HIM that Braun's defense team was able to replicate the results?

See, I'm right there with you on that. Because I read that other paper where some douchebags at harvard or johns hopkins or somewhere tried as hard as they could to manipulate testosterone results with temp and it remained unaffected. I think it was new england journal of medicine. I'll see if I can dig it up.

JohnBigBootay: DeWayne Mann: Take 10 minutes of your time and listen to this:

http://audio.weei.com/a/52238582/will-carroll-si-com-on-ryan-braun-s -5 0-game-suspension-being-overturned.htm


I will do so after work. But fair warning, I have already read one paper that refutes his earlier claims (which simply raised the possibility of affecting the results - nothing more) on unrefrigerated testosterone rather pointedly. I like Carroll and I always have a seat for science at the table but on this I think he's been somewhat scattershot on this one. I will listen.

Realistically, the unrefrigerated testosterone means nothing by itself, since the ratio itself isn't the determination as to whether the person is doping, as described in my previous post. There was synthetic testosterone in the urine, which is all that matters, ratio be damned.

JohnBigBootay: Naw. In the earlier threads I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper on unrefrigerated (or even frozen) urine samples. Testosterone level was unaffected and it certainly couldn't create synthetic testosterone.

And yet, according to Will Carroll & his source, Braun's defense was able to show precisely how a specimen handled in the way described produces false results.

JohnBigBootay: in your heart of hearts you honestly think he wasn't dirty?

I don't care.

I've said before that I assume most players have used some sort of PED.

But I don't care.

bhcompy: From Game of Shadows writer Mark Fainaru-Wada:

Is there maybe a small chance that MFW is a bit biased here? He's solely known or writing a book on players using PEDs...it's in his best interest if more players do too. Either way...

bhcompy: Say it with me: technicality

Yes, you have found ONE article that says it was a technicality. There are other articles that say it isn't. Unless you happen to be Shyam Das, I'm not sure how you can truly trust one above the others.

Yanks_RSJ: Then why should I take it seriously?

Why should you take any of it seriously? But I'll point out that if I had to pick ONE sportswriter to get their stance on this, Carroll would be it.

Doesn't mean he's right or wrong. But since all of us are completely blind, I have no problem picking a guy whose job is writing about sports medicine over, say, a guy who typically writes about fantasy baseball.

Still don't like Carroll? How about Lester Munson, who claims Braun wasn't even allowed to challenge whether or not the sample was his.

bhcompy: There was synthetic testosterone in the urine, which is all that matters

If that's all that matters, the suspension would have stayed in place.

DeWayne Mann: But I'll point out that if I had to pick ONE sportswriter to get their stance on this, Carroll would be it.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, that opinion doesn't mean that his source is reliable or unbiased, and it certainly isn't grounds for you to get indignant that people DARED not read the links you provided.

As for Munson's claim, who says baseball is even ALLOWED to accept the DNA test challenge? Isn't it at least possible that Braun made such an offer knowing it can't be accepted in an attempt to cast a shadow of doubt over it? He was certainly willing to smear the integrity of the collector, who was guilty of nothing. And other sources said that the DNA issue was never raised by Braun's camp during the appeal hearing.

DeWayne Mann: And yet, according to Will Carroll & his source, Braun's defense was able to show precisely how


Mr carroll is gonna have to be a bit more forthcoming on specifics if he expects a statement like that to get any traction whatsoever with me. For a guy supposedly pimping science he ought to know better than that. Even if he doesn't want to name names he should be able to out the procedure for verification, i.e., 'take a sample, measure the testosterone, now do X to it and you will get y.' He can do that without breaking confidentiality. I think the fact he has not done that speaks volumes. And to my mind those volumes say ' spin control, if they could have shown that they would have shown that because it's exculpatory'. But they haven't - it's just empty talk.

Yanks_RSJ: As for Munson's claim, who says baseball is even ALLOWED to accept the DNA test challenge? Isn't it at least possible that Braun made such an offer knowing it can't be accepted i

My understanding is that 'offer' was not actually made when the hearing was actually in session. Besides, who really doubts it was his sample? Anyone?

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: From Game of Shadows writer Mark Fainaru-Wada:

Is there maybe a small chance that MFW is a bit biased here? He's solely known or writing a book on players using PEDs...it's in his best interest if more players do too. Either way...

bhcompy: Say it with me: technicality

Yes, you have found ONE article that says it was a technicality. There are other articles that say it isn't. Unless you happen to be Shyam Das, I'm not sure how you can truly trust one above the others.

Except that it clearly explains the reasoning with factual data, reasoning that isn't "well, 20-1 is unusual" and "chain of custody". Instead:
-the MLB believed in the process as it occurred per MLB VP Rob Manfred, as does WADA and other unmentioned sports
-Director of the Olympic lab at UCLA explains that the ratio doesn't matter, the ratio is a flag used to test to see if the testosterone is synthetic, which it was

This case was not decided on science, or lack there of. It was decided on an interpretation of the contract that was different than how the MLB lawyers interpreted it, which is the definition of getting off on a technicality. The accuracy of the test didn't factor in to decision at all.

DeWayne Mann: There are other articles that say it isn't. Unless you happen to be Shyam Das, I'm not sure how you can truly trust one above the others.

Yet you seem to have exactly that position yourself.

bhcompy: -Director of the Olympic lab at UCLA explains that the ratio doesn't matter, the ratio is a flag used to test to see if the testosterone is synthetic, which it was

Right. All this talk about off the charts levels is just nonsense. An out of the norm level simply triggers the more thorough test - that's it.

JohnBigBootay: Yanks_RSJ: As for Munson's claim, who says baseball is even ALLOWED to accept the DNA test challenge? Isn't it at least possible that Braun made such an offer knowing it can't be accepted i

My understanding is that 'offer' was not actually made when the hearing was actually in session. Besides, who really doubts it was his sample? Anyone?

Indeed:

Braun's team suggested Friday that after learning of the positive test result, it requested the player's sample undergo DNA testing to determine whether it was truly his urine.

MLB declined this request, according to Braun's camp. While MLB agreed Braun's camp requested the DNA request initially, a source with knowledge of the case said MLB told Braun and his lawyers it didn't believe such a test was necessary but that they were welcome take up the issue with the arbitrator if they wanted the test conducted.

Ultimately, the source said that the DNA issue was not raised during the hearing by Braun's team.